How is Density Related to Depth in the Ocean?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between water density at a certain depth in the ocean and surface density, expressed by the equation ρ(z) ≈ ρ_s [1 + (ρ_s g/B)z]. Participants explore how pressure increases with depth, leading to a differential equation that relates density to depth. A participant struggles with the solution, initially deriving an incorrect formula that suggests infinite density at a certain depth, prompting a discussion on the limitations of the model. It is noted that the approximation remains valid for depths up to 1000 meters, but becomes less reliable at greater depths, such as the 11,000 meters of the Mariana Trench. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the model's constraints when applying it to deep ocean conditions.
bigplanet401
Messages
101
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that the density of water at a depth z in the ocean is related to the surface density rho_s by
<br /> \rho(z) \approx \rho_s [1 + (\rho_s g/B)z]<br />
where B is the bulk modulus of water.

Homework Equations



B = -V (dP/dV)
B = rho (dP/d rho)

3. The Attempt at a Solution


I've been trying to get this problem for 4 hours...aaargh.

I started by relating the change in pressure to the change in depth: pressure increases with depth.
<br /> \frac{dP}{dz} = \rho(z) g<br />


so

<br /> dP = \rho(z) g \, dz<br />

Then, substituting this expression for dP into the second formula above, I got

<br /> B = \rho^2 g \frac{dz}{d\rho}<br />

Then I got
<br /> \frac{d\rho}{dz} = \frac{\rho^2 g}{B}<br />


This is a separable differential equation, but I don't think it's the right one. I tried solving it with the initial condition rho(0) = rho_s and got
<br /> \rho(z) = \frac{\rho_s}{1 - \frac{\rho_s g}{B}z}<br />


which doesn't make sense because density should not become infinite at a certain depth. What did I do wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the answer you got, take a Taylor expansion about ## z = 0 ##. As for the infinite density at a certain depth, maybe it would be good to think about the limitations of the model. Also, you might want to calculate what that depth is for water.
 
Geofleur said:
For the answer you got, take a Taylor expansion about ## z = 0 ##. As for the infinite density at a certain depth, maybe it would be good to think about the limitations of the model. Also, you might want to calculate what that depth is for water.

Hmm...yes, it does look like the second term in the denominator stays small for depths up to 1000 m. At 11000 m (the Marianas trench is about as deep), the denominator is 1 - 0.049, which to me means the model ought not to be used here. Thanks! That was not obvious to me at all.
 
bigplanet401 said:
Hmm...yes, it does look like the second term in the denominator stays small for depths up to 1000 m. At 11000 m (the Marianas trench is about as deep), the denominator is 1 - 0.049, which to me means the model ought not to be used here. Thanks! That was not obvious to me at all.
Even at that depth, it's not a bad approximation.

Chet
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
682
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K