Fluid Mechanics : Ice cube melting and Surface Energy Que.

Thread starter harshil.lodhi
Start date May 11, 2010
Tags

Cube Energy Fluid Fluid mechanics Ice Mechanics Melting Surface Surface energy

AI Thread Summary

When an ice cube floats in a liquid, its melting does not necessarily cause the water level to rise, as the displaced volume remains the same. The discussion also touches on the heat evolution associated with water rising in a capillary, questioning the amount of heat generated when the liquid height increases by a certain height. The relationship between surface energy and the melting process is explored, emphasizing the complexities involved in these fluid mechanics phenomena. Overall, the thread seeks clarification on these concepts, indicating a lack of consensus on the effects of melting ice and capillary action. Understanding these principles is essential for grasping fluid behavior in various contexts.

May 11, 2010

harshil.lodhi

I have a que.
if a ice cube is placed in a container containing liq on which it is floating.
then is it possible that after ice melts, water level rises in vessel in any particular case.

Does heat evolves when water rises in a capillary. and how much heat is evolved in height of liq in capillary is h.

Hoping for a explanation.

Physics news on Phys.org

May 26, 2010

harshil.lodhi

no one knows strange.

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...

View full post »