1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Floating an ocean liner - Mythbusters submission

  1. Nov 16, 2011 #1

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Okay, I've composed a letter to Mythbusters regarding the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619" thread.

    (I started a separate thread here to avoid any weird recursivity issues in case the Mythbusters ever follow up on my link).


    Before I submit it, can you guys offer any improvements to my text? (Such as how I can work in a date with nerdy-yet-ultra-hottie Carrie?)

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 17, 2011 #2

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Another test - put a metal plate on the bottom of the "boat" and the bottom of the container so they form a capacitor. The capacitance depends on the separation of the plates.

    You could also use contact to set off an explosive - I know that's the same as the alarm thing but it is more likely to make it on to the show :)
     
  4. Nov 17, 2011 #3

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Looks cool Dave

    I would love to see them so some experiments along those lines. They have the financial ability to really go for broke.

    as far as your text goes.... just do some proof reading ;) "small amoniut of " LOL

    cheers
    Dave
     
  5. Nov 17, 2011 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes. Content editing first, then proofing.
     
  6. Nov 17, 2011 #5

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On the same subject, I remember when I was a kid having been taken on a School trip on to the breakwater in Plymouth Sound (UK). We were taken up in the lighthouse and told that the whole of the massive rotating lens / reflector mechanism was floating in a trough of mercury, as a bearing. Anything like that is conceivable as long as you get the tolerances tight enough between the floating object and the container.

    I did worry, subsequently, about problems with the mercury dissolving the metal (brass?) of the unit.
     
  7. Nov 18, 2011 #6
    I just went through the other thread and I find this astonishing. It took me a while to realize why the ship could float but now that I know it, its so (no other word for it) cool! I do hope mythbusters takes this up
     
  8. Nov 18, 2011 #7

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The water that Archimedes displaced was on the floor when he was floating. It need never have been in the bath in the first place.
     
  9. Nov 18, 2011 #8

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is a thread about submission of the problem to Mythbusters, not about the validity of the statement. If you want to discuss the statement, do it in the thread Dave linked to in his first post. That means HERE.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2011
  10. Nov 18, 2011 #9

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Interesting proposal! The only issue I see is to give Mythbusters something they can work with. Being this is a physics board, we should be able to hand them not just the myth but the method to test the myth also.

    Let's model the boat as a brick to make it easy. A brick shaped boat the size of a row boat might be 10 ft long by 3 ft wide and have a depth of 1 ft fully loaded. This boat displaces about 1900 pounds. If the film of water on the outside of the boat is 1 mm thick, then the water will weigh 12 pounds or about 22 cups of water. Even on this small scale, the water is still much more than a cup. And manufacturing 2 row boat sized objects that have a uniform 1 mm of water film between them would be difficult. I certainly wouldn't cut a PO to Mythbusters to manufacture a boat and a tub that had exactly 1 mm between the two. Not that they aren't resourceful, but let's face it. They don't have high precision manufacturing technology at their disposal.

    So the problem I think Mythbusters will have is just in manufacturability. We might suggest however, they use a boat and a 'mold' around the outside of the boat and inside a second, structural tub. The structural tub would have silly putty or clay or simillar material* on the inside, and the boat would be placed into this mold so the putty could conform to the shape of the boat. Under pressure like this, the putty will act like a fluid, filling in gaps and displacing the air (done properly). Once you have the mold made, you could then 'inject' water from a central location in the bottom of the mold, squeezing a film of water between the boat and mold of uniform thickness. Not much pressure is needed for this, just a few feet of head is all that's needed. So basically you just pour the water in. I think that would be something Adam and Jamie could manufacture without too much trouble.

    As a side note, adding water would be kinda interesting too. You could measure how much water was added by having a graduated water bottle and a valve held a few feet above the contraption to provide the head pressure. Just opening the valve would allow water to flow into the gap and lift the boat. Then you could measure how much water came out of the graduated bottle.

    *Cement might work well. Something that hardened to take the shape of the boat.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2011
  11. Nov 18, 2011 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hm. Does this discussion belong in this thread or the other thread?

    The other thread should contain every thing we want the Mythbusters to read. This thread is for stuff we don't want to confuse them with.


    I thought about this. What you do is a standard moulding(molding) technique. Make the boat. Apply a 1mm layer of wax or other removable material, then apply a hard coating on the outside of that to make the outer hull. You then build out a support structure for the outer hull (say, layer it out with concrete by a foot to keep it rigid).

    Now peel the two away from each other and remove the wax.

    Regardless of the precision of the manufacturing of the boat, your outer and inner hulls are perfectly form-fitting with a 1mm gap.

    I was thinking the other way around. Pour the bucket of water into the outer hull, then drop the boat into it.
     
  12. Nov 18, 2011 #11

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, the other thread is really a discussion of whether it will work or not. I have no doubt it will work. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that it will work. My concern is with building something and not just show it works but make it easy enough to build. If it can't be built, it won't be put on TV.

    How would the wax be put on so that it's uniform? Maybe spray it on?

    Still, the wax is an extra step and probably not needed. Imagine a V shaped boat hull - if you didn't have the wax, you could still easily get a 1 mm gap on each side as it rises up. The gap will be slightly larger than 1 mm along the ridge at the bottom of the V shape, but it won't be significant.

    Sounds like you would agree that a mold of some kind would be best for manufacturing, so I think a mention of it in your letter would be appropriate.
     
  13. Nov 18, 2011 #12

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    We did a similar experiment "by accident" a few years ago where I work, and it certainly "worked".

    The basic setup was a thick cylindrical steel tank about 5m diameter and 10m high, in a hole in the ground. It was nominally sealed in place by concrete filling the (small) gap between the tank and the hole, but after years of being used to contain large amounts of energy released when components being tested (intentionally) failed, the concrete had become seriously cracked. The cracking had no effect on the functionality of the system, so nothing was done about it.

    One day, there was an exceptional rainstorm which caused a flash flood. The flood water getting into the cracks and under the 100-ton tank lifted it about a foot out of the hole, and it then got stuck so it didn't sink back into place when the water drained away. There was nothing "forcing" the water underneath the tank, except the weight of the water.

    Just to be clear, the tank was empty, and it was covered by a lid that stopped any flood-water getting inside it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2011
  14. Nov 18, 2011 #13

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    An excellent example, showing how something can be very heavy, while at the same time low density - less than water.
     
  15. Nov 18, 2011 #14

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The other thread is really meant to include anything that the Mythbusters might find useful in reading up on the subject. I think our ideas will be a big help.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Floating an ocean liner - Mythbusters submission
  1. Gas and the ocean (Replies: 7)

  2. Diver in ocean (Replies: 3)

  3. Boat float (Replies: 5)

Loading...