Calculating viscosity of a liquid with a falling object

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the viscosity of castor oil using a steel-bearing's fall time in glycerol and castor oil. The user attempts to derive the viscosity using the relationship between density, velocity, and time but encounters issues with their calculations. They express frustration over not incorporating the density of the steel-bearing, which they suspect might be affecting their results. Suggestions include considering the density difference as a driving force and referencing Stokes' law, although the user lacks a radius for the spherical particle. The conversation highlights the complexities of viscosity calculations in fluid dynamics.
Beyar
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
A small steel-bearing falls 25.0 cm in glycerol in 23.8 s and the same distance in castor oil in 15.1 s. The densities are for glycerol 1260 kg m−3 , for castor oil 961 kg m−3 , and for steel 7830 kg m−3 . The viscosity for glycerol is 1.490 Pa s. Calculate the viscosity for castor oil. All values are valid for 20 ◦C.

Homework Equations


I guess Viscosity=Density*Velocity where the velocity is equal to Distance/time.

The Attempt at a Solution


Thought I'd put the equation for the distance equal to each other and then rewrite it to get the viscosity of the castor oil, but I get the wrong value. It should be 0,988 Pas. I get the final equation to:
Viscosity of Glycerol= (Density of Castor Oil*Viscosity of Castor*Time the steel bearing fell in the Glycerol)/(Density of Glycerol * time steel bearing fell in Castor oil)

The equation has not regarded the denisty of the steel-bearing though, so that might be the problem but I don't see how I would get around to fit it in.
It is very frustrating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Beyar said:
The equation has not regarded the denisty of the steel-bearing though
Well then, could it be that the net driving force for falling is a density difference ?
 
Beyar said:
But stokes relation has accounted the radius of the spherical particle, I don't have a radius to utilize.
Call it ##R##, cross your fingers and hope it divides out in the answer :smile:
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top