Efflux problem is my work valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Torricelli's theorem to derive a formula for the time required to drain a cylindrical tank through a hole. The user correctly identifies the relationship between the volume flow rate and the change in water height, leading to an integral that calculates the draining time. Concerns are raised about the relevance of the area ratio between the tank and the hole, with clarification that it supports the assumption of treating the hole as a point. The validity of using Torricelli's theorem for a hole at the bottom of the tank is confirmed, emphasizing the importance of understanding the physical context. Overall, the work appears to be on the right track with appropriate considerations.
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
I have completed this problem, and would like to know if my work is correct:

According to Torricelli's theorem, the velocity of a fluid draining from a hole in a tank is v ~= (2gh)1/2, where h is the depth of water above the hole. Let the hole have an area A0, and the cylindrical tank have cross-sectional area Ab >> A0. Derive a formula for the time to drain the tank completely from an initial depth h0.

My work:

The volume flow rate out of the hole is equal to the rate of change of the volume in the tank:

A_0 v = \frac{dV}{dt} = A_b \frac{dh}{dt}

v = \sqrt{2gh} = \frac{A_b}{A_0} \frac{dh}{dt}

Assuming that we start from t0 = 0, and that the tank is drained after a time T, we can separate variables and integrate:

\int_0^T {dt} = T = \frac{A_b}{A_0} \int_{h_0}^0 {\frac{dh}{\sqrt{2gh}}}

One thing that bothered me was that I never made use of the information that Ab >> A0. I thought at first maybe I was supposed to make some approximation somewhere based on that. But then I dug out my first year physics text and saw that Torricelli's theorem was derived from Bernoulli's eqn, and that this information regarding the two areas was used in the derivation. So maybe that's the only reason they gave it to us. Still, is everything else ok?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course, you did use the fact that A[sub[0[/sub]<<Ab when you assumed that you could stop the integral at the top of the hole. You are treating that hole the water is coming out of as a point.
 
Yeah, makes sense to me if the hole is in the side of the container. But Torricelli's thm is valid for the hole in the bottom of the container, which is what it shows in the diagram. How should it be interpreted then?
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top