Why do some heats of matches go down first in a Cartesian diver experiment?

AI Thread Summary
In the Cartesian diver experiment, the order in which heats of matches sink is determined by their buoyancy, with less buoyant matches descending first. Although pressure is uniform, variations in the matches' ability to absorb water into their pores affect their buoyancy. The discussion highlights a potential language barrier, complicating the explanation of the phenomenon. Understanding the specific properties of each match is crucial to grasping why some sink before others. Ultimately, the experiment illustrates the principles of buoyancy and pressure in a tangible way.
Oomph!
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hello.
I think that you know an experiment called Cartesian diver.
I can use some heads of matches like Castesian divers like there:
I know how it works. However, I don't know why the heats of matches don't go down in some moment, but first one, then second with bigger force, then third with bigger force.
The pressure is on each places same, yes? So, every heat of match suck same number of watter to poores of wood. So, why they don't go down in some moment? What decide about order of matches?

Thank you very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh boy, it seems we have a language barrier problem here. I too know how a Cartesian diver works, but not one that involves "heats of matches". I can guess that the heats of matches go down in some order and at the sme moment because the ones that go down first need to suck less water in the pores of the wood. In other words, the less buoyant heats of matches will go down ahead of the more buoyant ones. As to why some heats of matches are initially more buoyant than others, I have no clue without an understanding of why a heat of match behaves as a Cartesian diver.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top