Height of Water in Straw vs. Time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a physics problem involving the height of water in a straw extending from the ocean to space, considering atmospheric pressure and gravitational forces. The initial conditions state that the height of water is zero at time zero, leading to complications in calculating acceleration since there is no mass of water to exert force. Participants highlight the need to account for factors like air mass in the straw, Earth's rotation, and gravitational variations with altitude. A differential equation is proposed to model the system, but challenges arise due to the undefined nature of acceleration at the starting point. The conversation suggests exploring numerical methods or starting with a small initial volume of water to avoid singularities in calculations.
mruss
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Problem Statement:
Imagine you had a very long straw, one end is in the ocean (sea
level) and the other end is in space. Air pressure at sea level
is a standard atmospheric pressure and space is a perfect vacuum.

Plot "height of water in straw" vs. time.

Variables:
h(t): height of water in straw (above sea level) at time t (in meters)
A: cross-sectional area of straw (in meters^2)

Starting conditions:
At time 0, height of water is 0: h(0) = 0
At time 0, water has no velocity or acceleration

Homework Equations


[/B]
F = ma
position(t) = position(0) + integral_0_t (velocity(0) + integral_0_t acceleration(t) dt) dt
Standard atmospheric pressure is ~101,000 kg / (m * s^2) per unit area
Density of water = 1,000.00 kg/m³
g = 9.8 m/s^2

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Here is what I've tried and maybe someone can point out where I'm
going wrong.

net force = atmospheric pressure - force of gravity on mass of water in straw

Atmospheric Pressure
Standard atmospheric pressure is ~101,000 kg / (m * s^2) per unit area
Let's call A the cross-sectional area of the straw (in meters^2).
force of atmospheric pressure = 101,000 * A kg m/s^2

Force of gravity on mass of water in straw
Force of gravity on water depends on how much water is in the
straw (above sea level). Let's call h(t) the height of the
water in the straw at time t.

mass-of-water-in-straw(h(t)) = volume * density = h(t) * A * 1000 kg
force_of_gravity(h(t)) = mass-of-water-in-straw(h(t)) * g = 1000 * h(t) * A * g kg m /s^2

F(t) = 101,000 * A - 1000 * h(t) * A * g
m(t) = 1000 * A * h(t) (from mass of water equation above)
So acceleration (F / m) = (101 - g * h(t)) / h(t)
Written another way: a(t) = (101 - g * h(t)) / h(t)

Ok, great, so I think h as a function of time should be the solution to this equation:
h(t) = integral_0_t (integral_0_t a(t) dt) dt
Substitution my equation for a(t), I get:
h(t) = integral_0_t (integral_0_t (101 - g * h(t)) / h(t) dt) dt

Unfortunately, I don't know how to solve that... so I tried to
numerically approximate it. Let's just assume constant
acceleration over short periods of time dt, then we can use much
simpler equations and step through time in small dt steps.

Simpler equations:
a(t) = (101 - g * h(t-dt)) / h(t-dt)
v(t) = v(t-dt) + a(t) * dt
h(t) = h(t-dt) + v(t) * dt
with starting conditions h(0) = 0 and v(0) = 0 and a(0) = 0

When I try to calculate my initial acceleration
a(1), it's infinity (or rather, undefined) since the force of air
pressure is pushing on no mass (no water is above sea level
at the start of the problem)! There is obviously some flaw
in that logic, but I'm not sure what it is.

Any help is apprecated, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You appear to have neglected:
1. the mass of air initially filling the straw;
2. the rotation of the Earth
3. the falloff in the acceleration of gravity with altitude
4. distance the bottom of the straw is below the water surface - i.e. initially no water in the straw.
5. viscosity in the water ...

You may want to start with a related question - what height of water will be supported by a pressure difference of 1atmos?

Written another way: a(t) = (101 - g * h(t)) / h(t)
... it is not really useful to mix numbers and variables in an equation.

Setting up the DE - the acceleration of the com from Newtons laws - cancelling the area - you get something like:

##P-\rho gh = \rho gh \ddot{h}: h(0)=0, \dot h(0)=0##

##P## is 1atmos, ##\rho## is density of water, ##g## accel of gravity at sea level, ##h(t)## is the distance of the top of the column above sea level ... center of mass is at h/2.

put it another way: $$\frac{d^2h}{dt^2} = \frac{P}{\rho gh}-1$$
 
Re your points:
1) I did neglect #1-5 as you mentioned. Do you think assuming those effects are negligible is an OK approximation?
2) I have already worked out the related question, height of water supported by 1atmos. I agree it's an interesting problem.
3) Fair point about mixing constants with variables.

I think you have a small typo in your DE. I think the correct statement is as follows:
P-ρgh = ρh\ddot{h}: h(0) = 0, \dot{h} = 0

Are you able to solve this (numerically or otherwise)? The problem that I am having is that if h(0) = 0, then \ddot{h}=∞.
 
I'm pretty sure it's a standard DE ... y(ay''+by+c)=d, here b=0.

What happens to you calculation if you start with a small initial volume of water in the straw?
Well spotted on the typo.

Anyway - the DE is 2nd order and non-linear for form y''=f(y,y')
... substitute ##v=\dot h## gives you a 1st order separable equation you can solve for v(h)
... which, in turn, gives you 1st order equation(s) for h(t).
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top