Error in measuring rock porosity by Archimedes method

AI Thread Summary
The standard method for measuring rock porosity involves saturating the pores with water, weighing the rock in both water and air using modified balances, and applying Archimedes' principle to determine volume. After drying the rock and weighing it again in air, the weight difference indicates pore space, which is then divided by total volume to calculate porosity. A significant source of error arises during the weighing process after water immersion, as improper drying can lead to inaccurate measurements—either by retaining excess water on the surface or by removing water from the pores. There is a request for a textbook or publication that outlines the expected error from this drying process. Additionally, there is curiosity about the relevance of mercury porosimeters in current practices.
Peter Persoff
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
The standard way to measure porosity of a rock is to get the pores completely saturated with water, then weigh the rock immersed in water and again in air (there are modified balances for this). Using Archimedes' principle, you then can determine the volume of the rock. Then you dry the rock completely and weigh it again (only in air). The water weight lost gives you the pore space in the rock. Divide this into the total volume and you get the porosity.

A major source of error is that when you weigh the rock after taking it out iof the water you have to blot the outside surface dry. Not dry enough and you are weighing some exterior water. Too dry and you will suck some of the water out of the pores and the rock is no longer saturated.

What I am looking for is a textbook or other publication that tells the amount of error to be expected from this source. Anyone with information or experience with this method is welcome to reply.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
The standard way? What ever happened to mercury porosimeters?
 

Thread 'Landslide, tsunami, seiche in Tracy Arm fjord, Alaska - 10 August 2025'

On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...
View full post »

Thread 'Could an external cosmic body have influenced Earth’s geology?'

Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is the Archimedes Experiment a groundbreaking test of the Casimir Effect?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Verification of ideal gas law experiment
Replies
5
Views
1K
Finding a rock porosity change after an acid mix treatment
Replies
1
Views
2K
Sources of Error in a Speed of Sound Experiment
Replies
3
Views
22K
Decompression of dry air in relation to temperature
Replies
3
Views
2K
Possible error sources in thermal conductivity experiment?
Replies
16
Views
14K
How Does Fuel Composition Affect Combustion Efficiency and Steam Generation?
Replies
9
Views
8K
Methods used to measure the density of solid materials and liquids.
Replies
1
Views
51K
Solving Two Physics Problems: Weighing Rocks and Steel Barbells
Replies
3
Views
4K
Model CO2 as Greenhouse Gas: Tips & Results
4
Replies
186
Views
88K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top