Column Pressure and conservation of energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the energy requirements for inserting an object into a water column of varying pressure. When an object is submerged in a 100-meter tall column (10 atm), the energy needed is based on the pressure at that depth. However, if a barrier is placed at 10 meters (1 atm), the energy requirement to insert the object would only consider the pressure at that level, raising questions about the conservation of energy. The conversation highlights that while inserting an object requires displacing water, the mechanics of pressure and buoyancy do not violate conservation laws, as the system cannot create a perpetual motion scenario. Ultimately, the principles of fluid dynamics and pressure dictate the energy dynamics without contravening fundamental physical laws.
genergy
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Mwater g(H+h)

If you have a column of water 100 meters tall (10 atm) and you insert an object in at the bottom of the column you have to use enough energy to displace the volume of the object.
The pressure times the volume is your energy requirement: correct?

But suppose you were able to put a solid barrier between the top of the water at a height of only 10 meters (1 atm). None of the pressure of the upper 9 atm is allowed to transfer into the bottom 1 atm environment.
Would the energy requirement to insert the object be the volume times 10 atm or 1 atm?

Are you violating the Law of Conservation of Energy if you say 1 atm?
Why or why not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There have been perpetual motion machines based on the idea you just showed.
The idea is, usually, that you close off the column with a valve, insert a buoyant object at the bottom, open the valve, the object shoots to the top with such force it pops out of the surface and falls back to the ground... where it uses it's momentum from falling to reinsert into the bottom.

Lynchpin: When you insert the object you also have to displace the water you are pushing it into.

When you insert into the unbroken column you have to get the displaced volume of water to the top. When you put the barrier in, you only have to get the displaced water to the top of the lower part ... as described, and if your seals were perfect, then you would not be able to insert it ... otherwise the displaced water will have to exit around the seals.

It's more fun if you are using a heavy, but compressible, gas.

To answer your question: you have not described anything that violate conservation of momentum - but it cannot be turned into a loop.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
... scroll down to "Buoyancy motor #4".
The page on buoyancy misconceptions is also useful.
 
Would you be violating conservation of momentum if you displaced the water into an empty tank? Obviously, at some point the tank will fill up!
But, until the tank fills would there be any problem with conservation of momentum?
 
Nope. No problem. Having to do this is what makes the ppm's fail.
What is this in aid of?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top