How to Solve a Liquid-Floor Collision?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coldblood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Collision Liquid
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving the collision of liquid with a floor, specifically focusing on the dynamics of water flow through a hose and the forces involved. Participants are exploring concepts related to momentum, force, and the physical setup of the scenario presented in an accompanying diagram.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of water flow and momentum, questioning how the gardener's actions affect the system. Some suggest that the hose's diameter influences the momentum transfer, while others explore the forces acting on the gardener and the tank.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations of the problem being explored. Some participants have offered insights into the mechanics of the situation, while others express confusion over the phrasing of the question and its implications. There is no explicit consensus on the correct interpretation or solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in the problem's wording and the assumptions that may need to be made regarding the physical setup. There are references to the quality of the problem's construction and its impact on understanding, as well as the cultural context of the assignment's origin.

coldblood
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hi friends,
I have an issue in solving a Collision of liquid with floor.
Please Help me in solving this.
Thank you all in advance.

The problem is as:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/s720x720/1379505_1432382913655481_500299018_n.jpg


Attempt:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q77/s720x720/1383432_1432380890322350_1121703847_n.jpg

Friends according to question Option (A) is correct. Please try to help me in this.
I will appreciate the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When the tap is first turned on, there would be some reaction but while the water is gushing, there is no change in momentum.
 
To answer the question, you have to presume that the hose reduces in diameter greatly in the section of pipe the gardener controls. Thus, it effectively has no momentum before reaching that point. All the momentum the water leaving the pipe has therefore comes from a force supplied by the gardener.
(A dropped firehose thrashes around in a dangerous manner.)
 
$$F=\frac{d(mv)}{dt}$$
$$F=v.\frac{d(m)}{dt}$$
$$F=v.\frac{d(A.v.ρ)}{dt}$$
$$F=v.A.ρ.\frac{d(v)}{dt}$$
But once the water is constantly flowing ##\frac{d(v)}{dt}=0##.

Like Simon Bridge said,

When the tap is first turned on, there would be some reaction but while the water is gushing, there is no change in momentum.
 
Looking at the diagram, there may be another interpretation. If we take that right-angled turn in the hose as accurate, the gardener must supply the force to turn the flow of water through that angle.
 
haruspex said:
Looking at the diagram, there may be another interpretation. If we take that right-angled turn in the hose as accurate, the gardener must supply the force to turn the flow of water through that angle.
But looking at the scale of diagram, no living man could support the tank!:-p
The tank must be supported by some other structure. So the force you are talking about must be balance by the rigid tank itself, not the man.
The diagram shows, I think, that the tank is rigid till the (white-black) pipe junction and black portion which could be assumed as flexible is straight, so no force should be acting on the man.
 
Ha! Just realized I misread the OP as saying zero was the wrong answer, so I've been scratching around for other interpretations unnecessarily. Sorry for the noise.
 
haruspex said:
Ha! Just realized I misread the OP as saying zero was the wrong answer, so I've been scratching around for other interpretations unnecessarily. Sorry for the noise.

:-p
 
The temptation is probably to think of the hose as being like a rocket... it's throwing mass out one way so the hose must move back the other way.
 
  • #10
Simon Bridge said:
The temptation is probably to think of the hose as being like a rocket... it's throwing mass out one way so the hose must move back the other way.

Yes, but its just a temptation!
 
  • #11
Simon Bridge said:
The temptation is probably to think of the hose as being like a rocket... it's throwing mass out one way so the hose must move back the other way.

Anyone who has handled a fire hose knows that this is in fact the case.

Or just think about it - if you mount the whole system in the diagram on wheels would you not expect it to accelerate to the left? Where do you think the force that causes this acceleration acts?
 
  • #12
Oh I've just noticed the answer is supposed to be zero too - in that case the question is wrong. I notice that the English is not correct (waters the plants by a pipe), perhaps there is something else that has been lost in translation. Or perhaps the hose is in fact rigid so absorbs all the nozzle reaction itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #13
MrAnchovy said:
Anyone who has handled a fire hose knows that this is in fact the case.

Or just think about it - if you mount the whole system in the diagram on wheels would you not expect it to accelerate to the left? Where do you think the force that causes this acceleration acts?

MrAnchovy said:
Oh I've just noticed the answer is supposed to be zero too - in that case the question is wrong. I notice that the English is not correct (waters the plants by a pipe), perhaps there is something else that has been lost in translation. Or perhaps the hose is in fact rigid so absorbs all the nozzle reaction itself.

the tank should be connected to a rigid support other than the man, and seeing the scale of the diagram it clearly is the case. In reality, many other complications arise that's why force is non-zero. only the black portion is the hose, which is straight so there is no momentum change and hence no force is exerted.

P.S. : The assignment carries a logo of MIET, located in India. English isn't their primary language. Nor is mine.:-p
 
  • #14
... and they tend to be a little glib in their descriptions.
See the other threads from this member off the same test/assignment :)
 
  • #15
Simon Bridge said:
... and they tend to be a little glib in their descriptions.
See the other threads from this member off the same test/assignment :)

yeah, they haven't cared to mentioned crucial information. Its up to the reader, to make assumptions!
 
  • #16
OTOH: we don't know the preparation - sometimes the school does "example questions" in class and the whole thing becomes a memory exercise... or the missing info is effectively provided in class.
 
  • #17
Simon Bridge said:
... and they tend to be a little glib in their descriptions.
See the other threads from this member off the same test/assignment :)

Well yes, the only way the force at the nozzle can be zero is if there is no change in velocity at the nozzle so the whole pipe must be 1mm internal diameter (to be fair this is what it says, but against that is (i) the loose grammar means that you can't rely on any statement; (ii) whoever heard of watering a garden with a 1 mm bore pipe; (iii) I can't be bothered to calculate the pressure drop in 1 m of 1 mm pipe at 12+ m/s flow, but I bet the header tank would have to be a LOT taller than shown in the picture to sustain this).

Trick questions like this are not IME a good way to reinforce learning, but if you are going to set a trick question you'd better make damn sure it is right, otherwise the joke is on the person setting the question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #18
Simon Bridge said:
OTOH: we don't know the preparation - sometimes the school does "example questions" in class and the whole thing becomes a memory exercise... or the missing info is effectively provided in class.

It could be but nonetheless question is loosely constructed as MrAnchovy already pointed out!

MrAnchovy said:
Trick questions like this are not IME a good way to reinforce learning, but if you are going to set a trick question you'd better make damn sure it is right, otherwise the joke is on the person setting the question.

This is regular here, even most of the regular course books include these kind of questions!
 
  • #19
It could be but nonetheless question is loosely constructed as MrAnchovy already pointed out!
Of course. I have said nothing to contradict that - I'm just not arrogant enough to armchair quarterback what happens in a classroom on the other side of the World.

It is quite something to wrestle with when you get course material like this - however it was constructed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #20
Simon Bridge said:
It is quite something to wrestle with when you get course material like this - however it was constructed.

Yes, it is. But it is so common with Physics that "most of us" associate it with difficulty of Physics. Its just that the variety of questions that can be create related to a particular topic is so vast, that the one with even a little doubt in basic concepts will face huge problem solving these kind of questions.
 
  • #21
In a way that is part of the value of the training - learning how to handle badly phrased problems.
IRL: those are mostly what you get.
 
  • #22
Simon Bridge said:
In a way that is part of the value of the training - learning how to handle badly phrased problems.
IRL: those are mostly what you get.

Yeah, I guess!
 
  • #23
NihalSh said:
the tank should be connected to a rigid support other than the man, and seeing the scale of the diagram it clearly is the case. In reality, many other complications arise that's why force is non-zero. only the black portion is the hose, which is straight so there is no momentum change and hence no force is exerted.

P.S. : The assignment carries a logo of MIET, located in India. English isn't their primary language. Nor is mine.:-p

There is no relation of of the logo with the assignment. On the logo paper the assignment is done by me. But the assignment is from a foreign writer.

But apart from this Thanks for a good discussion. Many doubts clear.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Simon Bridge said:
... and they tend to be a little glib in their descriptions.
See the other threads from this member off the same test/assignment :)

Sorry for the inconvenience Simon Bridge. please don't mind. You are the guys are like the candles who enlighten me in the light of physics.

Thanks for the help guys.
 
  • #25
coldblood said:
There is no relation for of the logo with the assignment. On the logo paper the assignment is done by me. But the assignment is from a foreign writer.

But apart from this Thanks for a good discussion. Many doubts clear.

okay...glad I could help!
 

Similar threads

How Can Vector Analysis Improve Understanding of Mechanics Problems?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
What is the Solution to this Rotational Motion Problem?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Analysis of collision of particles from graph
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Conservation of linear momentum problem
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
How Do I Solve This Rotational Motion Problem?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
What is the solution to this Rotational Motion problem?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
How Do You Solve This Rotational Motion Problem?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Collision of multiple particles
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Acceleration of centre of mass problem
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Collision of ball with inclined plane problem
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K