How Does a Submerged Stone Affect Balance Scale Readings?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a beaker of water in equilibrium on a balance scale, with a stone submerged but not touching the bottom. Participants are exploring how the presence of the stone affects the balance reading, particularly through the lens of Archimedes' principle and forces acting on the stone and water.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the forces acting on the stone, including tension, buoyancy, and weight, and how these relate to the balance reading. Questions arise about the application of Archimedes' principle and the interpretation of forces in equilibrium.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the forces involved and questioning how these forces affect the balance. There is a focus on understanding the implications of buoyancy and the net forces acting on the system.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the weight of the entire column of water versus only the water above the stone, indicating a need for clarity on what the scale measures in relation to the submerged stone.

vinirn
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A beaker with water is in equilibrium with a certain weight in a balance. Then we tie a cord to a stone, and soak the stone in water, without touching the bottom. What will the balance read and why?

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/698994/ilustra%20forums/experiencia%20empuxo.png

The Attempt at a Solution


The experience shows that the balance reads a increase of beaker's weight. I can't see how to employ the Arquimedes principle to solve the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
vinirn said:
The experience shows that the balance reads a increase of beaker's weight. I can't see how to employ the Arquimedes principle to solve the problem.
Use Archimedes's principle to determine the force that the water exerts on the stone. Then consider Newton's 3rd law.
 
Doc Al said:
Use Archimedes's principle to determine the force that the water exerts on the stone. Then consider Newton's 3rd law.

I can see three forces: the tension exerted by the cord, the buoyancy and the weight of the stone. The buoyancy is smaler than the weight of the stone, resulting in a downward net force. But this net force has the same intensity of the cord's tension, right? I know that the net force resulting from the three forces is zero, since the stone doesn't move.
 
vinirn said:
I can see three forces: the tension exerted by the cord, the buoyancy and the weight of the stone. The buoyancy is smaler than the weight of the stone, resulting in a downward net force. But this net force has the same intensity of the cord's tension, right? I know that the net force resulting from the three forces is zero, since the stone doesn't move.
OK. The bottom line is that the water exerts an upward buoyant force on the stone, and thus the stone must exert an equal downward force on the water.
 
Doc Al said:
OK. The bottom line is that the water exerts an upward buoyant force on the stone, and thus the stone must exert an equal downward force on the water.
Yah, I understood :smile:. But how this downward force on the water is reflected in the measure of the balance?
 
vinirn said:
But how this downward force on the water is reflected in the measure of the balance?
The scale must now support the weight of the water plus the downward force on it.

Think of the water as something that must be in equilibrium. The forces on it are its weight, the upward force from the scale (which is what you're trying to determine), and the downward force from the stone.
 
Doc Al said:
The scale must now support the weight of the water plus the downward force on it.

We consider the weight of the entire column of water from the bottom to the surface, or only the water beneath the stone? (considering only the column occupied by the stone)
The stone is now supporting the weight of the water above itself.
 
vinirn said:
We consider the weight of the entire column of water from the bottom to the surface, or only the water above the stone? (considering only the column occupied by the stone)
The scale supports all the water in the beaker, right? (I don't know why you would consider just that column of water.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
36K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
18K