How Does a Submerged Stone Affect Balance Scale Readings?

AI Thread Summary
When a submerged stone is suspended in water without touching the bottom, the balance scale reading increases due to the forces at play. The stone experiences buoyancy, which is less than its weight, resulting in a downward net force that is countered by the tension in the cord. According to Archimedes' principle, the stone exerts an equal downward force on the water, which in turn affects the balance reading. The scale must account for the weight of the water plus the additional downward force from the stone. Consequently, the total weight measured by the balance includes both the water and the force exerted by 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.)
 
Back
Top