Garbage can suspended in the air

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saitama
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Air
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves an inverted garbage can suspended in air by water from a geyser, with the goal of determining the maximum height the can can reach. The parameters include the weight of the can, the speed of the water, and the rate of mass flow from the geyser.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the forces acting on the garbage can and the momentum of the water. Questions arise about the type of collision between the water and the can, and whether the assumptions made about the weight and definitions in the problem statement are correct.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions required for the maximum height to be reached, with some participants suggesting that the problem statement may contain errors. Multiple interpretations of the problem and its parameters are being discussed, and guidance has been offered regarding the forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies in the problem statement regarding the weight of the garbage can and the values used for calculations, which may affect the conclusions drawn. There is also mention of different editions of the source material, leading to variations in the problem's parameters.

  • #31
D H said:
That's still wrong. 8.2 Newtons is the weight that can be suspended at 17 meters. It's about 15 meters for the 10 Newton garbage can.

That's more like it.

So the can's weight is not 10 kg, it's 10 N. An 80 kg man weighs 80*9.81 N. Really confusing!


I have one question: the assumption is that the change in momentum per unit time is 2v dm/dt. Why not v dm/dt? I would expect the water v to be zero once it impacts on the can's bottom, not reverse with equal |v|.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
rude man said:
That's more like it.

So the can's weight is not 10 kg, it's 10 N. An 80 kg man weighs 80*9.81 N. Really confusing!

When I started school, (a very long time ago) we used kg for weight. And then (in my country) we said kg-weight for the weight and kg for mass. And then we used kilopond for the force equal to the weight of 1 kg mass, which was equivalent to Newton. :-p

rude man said:
I have one question: the assumption is that the change in momentum per unit time is 2v dm/dt. Why not v dm/dt? I would expect the water v to be zero once it impacts on the can's bottom, not reverse with equal |v|.

Why should it be zero?

The maximum possible height is needed. If the change of momentum is less, the force of the geyser is equal to the weight at higher speed, at lower height.

ehild
 
Last edited:
  • #33
ehild said:
rude man said:
i have one question: The assumption is that the change in momentum per unit time is 2v dm/dt. Why not v dm/dt? I would expect the water v to be zero once it impacts on the can's bottom, not reverse with equal |v|.
why should it be zero?
I suspect rude man was looking at things from a realistic rather than theoretical perspective. I would expect that if this was tried experimentally, one would see collisions that are much closer to purely inelastic than elastic. When the water hits the can it will bounce off slightly inelastically and immediately collide with incoming water. The end result will be a close to purely inelastic collision with the water dribbling down the sides of the can.

However, the question is asking for the maximum possible height, and to get that you need elastic collisions.
 
  • #34
ehild said:
When I started school, (a very long time ago) we used kg for weight. And then (in my country) we said kg-weight for the weight and kg for mass. And then we used kilopond for the force equal to the weight of 1 kg mass, which was equivalent to Newton. :-p



Why should it be zero?

The maximum possible height is needed. If the change of momentum is less, the force of the geyser is equal to the weight at higher speed, at lower height.

ehild

That was not my question. My question is why is dp/dt = 2v dm/dt instead of v dm/dt.

In other words, why is the collision of the water with the can bottom considered an elastic vs. an inelastic collision.
 
  • #35
rude man said:
In other words, why is the collision of the water with the can bottom considered an elastic vs. an inelastic collision.
Because the problem is to find the maximum height at which the garbage can rides, not the height at which the garbage can will ride realistically. Elastic collisions will yield the largest possible height.
 
  • #36
D H said:
I suspect rude man was looking at things from a realistic rather than theoretical perspective. I would expect that if this was tried experimentally, one would see collisions that are much closer to purely inelastic than elastic. When the water hits the can it will bounce off slightly inelastically and immediately collide with incoming water. The end result will be a close to purely inelastic collision with the water dribbling down the sides of the can.

However, the question is asking for the maximum possible height, and to get that you need elastic collisions.

Thanks DH. I guess that's what the question meant by "maximum" height. Meaning a purely elastic collision.

Thanks for your post. I feel better already!
 
  • #37
rude man said:
That was not my question. My question is why is dp/dt = 2v dm/dt instead of v dm/dt.

In other words, why is the collision of the water with the can bottom considered an elastic vs. an inelastic collision.

The Physics problems in the books are not always realistic. You get higher stationary position for the garbage can if you take the collision elastic. And the problem asked the highest possible position.


ehild
 
  • #38
ehild said:
The Physics problems in the books are not always realistic. You get higher stationary position for the garbage can if you take the collision elastic. And the problem asked the highest possible position.


ehild

What if an elastic collision is not possible?
I hope you get my point. It was a stupidly worded question.
 
  • #39
Then the question would mention the coefficient of restitution or something and not just 'maximum height', it was just a way to get the student thinking about the difference between elastic and inelastic collision and quite clever at that. In real world? Yep, pretty stupid since collision would be more inelastic than elastic.
 
  • #40
Enigman said:
Then the question would mention the coefficient of restitution or something and not just 'maximum height', it was just a way to get the student thinking about the difference between elastic and inelastic collision and quite clever at that. In real world? Yep, pretty stupid since collision would be more inelastic than elastic.

The question should have read, "Assuming an elastic collision between the water and the can, ...".

Since the collision is probably inelastic the "possible height" of 17m or whatever it turned out to compute to would be, ah, impossible.

The whole problem and especially the "hint" were totally screwed up anyway.
 
  • #41
rude man said:
The question should have read, "Assuming an elastic collision between the water and the can, ...".
Too obvious, why give 'em something when you could have them figure it out themselves...

The whole problem and especially the "hint" were totally screwed up anyway.
Amen.
 
  • #42
Now and again I discover how a spoon in the kitchen sink seems pretty efficient at reflecting the incident stream.
 
  • #43
Dimension analysis idea !

I think k = [kg/s]. Now, since velocity (V) is [m/s] -------> KV = [kg/s][m/s] ... which turns out to be: [kg.m/s][1/s] momentum flux dimensions, I think.

the problem does not states if water rebounds with the same velocity that hits... so i asume, stops the momentum one´s it hits the can, so:
forces up = forces down, rigth ?

Force up = KV = K.(V^2 - 2gh)^0.5
force down = W

but i still don't get the clue relation of the book, don´t know why !
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K