Hydrostatic Equilibrium Thought Experiments, for clarification

In summary: So, hydrostatic pressure increases linearly as water depth increases, but the pressure on the glass bottom does not exceed 150 kPa, showing that the balloon accurately measures hydrostatic pressure. The glass wall, on the other hand, does not break due to the weight of the water being distributed over a larger area. Therefore, both the balloon and the glass wall can be used to measure hydrostatic equilibrium, but the glass wall will not reach the breaking point due to the distribution of weight.
  • #1
cpb11
3
0
Hey, I'm just trying to make sure I understand the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium, so I devised two thought experiments that (depending on how they resolve) should really help clear up some confusion I have.

1. A tank of water, 1000 meters in the x and y directions but only 1 meter vertically, is full of water (a billion liters of water). There is a chimney sort of thing at a corner, connected to the main tank so water can flow freely between them, but it is only one meter to a side, but tall (how tall doesn't matter). When the water level is at just 1 meter (so no water is in the chimney), the hydrostatic pressure at all points along the wall is easy. Along the bottom, for example, the gauge pressure is [tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z, or 1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*1 m = 9800 Pa, and the total hydrostatic pressure is P[tex]_{atm}[/tex]+[tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z, or 101,325 Pa + 9,800 Pa = 111,125 Pa.

Now, say we added 1000 L of water, to raise the level of water in the chimney to the 2 meter mark. Now, we've only added 1000 L of water, so our total amount of water in the system is 1,000,001,000 L. The gauge pressure along the bottom of the whole container is twice as great: [tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z = 1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*2 m = 19,600 Pa.

So far, I'm pretty sure I'm right about all this. However, now we add a balloon with some amount of air to the inside of the tank, right along the bottom, which will shrink as the hydrostatic pressure increases. As we continue adding water in 1000 L increments (increasing the water depth by 1 m each time), the balloon will shrink linearly as hydrostatic pressure increases linearly. Let's say (at the same time) that I replace the whole bottom wall of the tank with a sheet of glass that connects to the rest of the tank (still waterproof), and that the sheet of glass can only stand so much pressure before it breaks. If the total pressure the water exerts on it exceeds 150 kPa, it will break.

So, hydrostatic pressure along the bottom will reach 150 kPa when the water level of the chimney is at 4.967 meters (simple arithmetic). We'll approximate to 5 meters. However, one could also calculate the pressure exerted on the glass as the weight of the whole container (which is weightless) and its water (total) divided by the area of the glass. With the chimney filled to 5 meters, there are now 1,000,004,000 L of water in the system. The weight is thus 1,000,004,000 kg. This divided over the surface area of the glass bottom (1000 m * 1000 m = 1,000,000 m[tex]^{2}[/tex]) is 1,000.004 Pa, or just over a kilopascal. So add that to the atmospheric pressure (101.325 kPa) and the total pressure is just 102.325 kPa, nowhere close to the breaking point of the glass!

So which is right? I'm pretty confident that the balloon will accurately measure hydrostatic pressure, but I also feel like the glass wall should feel that hydrostatic pressure and have to push back that amount to maintain equilibrium, so it should be a measure of the hydrostatic equilibrium too! Where did I go wrong?

A shorter situation, to further clarify...

2. A man has a tube 1000 m tall on the palm of his hand, but only 1 cm in diameter. The bottom wall of the water tube is, in fact, his hand. The water at the bottom of this tube feels a lot of gauge pressure (1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*1,000 m = 9800 kPa), and even more total hydrostatic pressure (9800 kPa + 101.325 kPa = 9901.325 kPa). All that pressure is pushing against his hand (and I'm sure its enough to drill a hole right through!). However, what if he tapers the bottom of the tube out quickly, to 1 m diameter. Say he's also a giant, so his palm is that big. Common sense says that the weight of the water (which admittedly is less high, but not by very much if he tapers it out quickly) is now distributed over a much larger area, so his hand stands a good chance of now NOT being crushed. However, his hand is still under (about) the same hydrostatic pressure, so why wouldn't it?

Any responses would be much appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
cpb11 said:
Hey, I'm just trying to make sure I understand the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium, so I devised two thought experiments that (depending on how they resolve) should really help clear up some confusion I have.

1. A tank of water, 1000 meters in the x and y directions but only 1 meter vertically, is full of water (a billion liters of water). There is a chimney sort of thing at a corner, connected to the main tank so water can flow freely between them, but it is only one meter to a side, but tall (how tall doesn't matter). When the water level is at just 1 meter (so no water is in the chimney), the hydrostatic pressure at all points along the wall is easy. Along the bottom, for example, the gauge pressure is [tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z, or 1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*1 m = 9800 Pa, and the total hydrostatic pressure is P[tex]_{atm}[/tex]+[tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z, or 101,325 Pa + 9,800 Pa = 111,125 Pa.

Now, say we added 1000 L of water, to raise the level of water in the chimney to the 2 meter mark. Now, we've only added 1000 L of water, so our total amount of water in the system is 1,000,001,000 L. The gauge pressure along the bottom of the whole container is twice as great: [tex]\rho[/tex]*g*z = 1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*2 m = 19,600 Pa.

So far, I'm pretty sure I'm right about all this. However, now we add a balloon with some amount of air to the inside of the tank, right along the bottom, which will shrink as the hydrostatic pressure increases. As we continue adding water in 1000 L increments (increasing the water depth by 1 m each time), the balloon will shrink linearly as hydrostatic pressure increases linearly. Let's say (at the same time) that I replace the whole bottom wall of the tank with a sheet of glass that connects to the rest of the tank (still waterproof), and that the sheet of glass can only stand so much pressure before it breaks. If the total pressure the water exerts on it exceeds 150 kPa, it will break.

So, hydrostatic pressure along the bottom will reach 150 kPa when the water level of the chimney is at 4.967 meters (simple arithmetic). We'll approximate to 5 meters. However, one could also calculate the pressure exerted on the glass as the weight of the whole container (which is weightless) and its water (total) divided by the area of the glass. With the chimney filled to 5 meters, there are now 1,000,004,000 L of water in the system. The weight is thus 1,000,004,000 kg. This divided over the surface area of the glass bottom (1000 m * 1000 m = 1,000,000 m[tex]^{2}[/tex]) is 1,000.004 Pa, or just over a kilopascal. So add that to the atmospheric pressure (101.325 kPa) and the total pressure is just 102.325 kPa, nowhere close to the breaking point of the glass!

So which is right? I'm pretty confident that the balloon will accurately measure hydrostatic pressure, but I also feel like the glass wall should feel that hydrostatic pressure and have to push back that amount to maintain equilibrium, so it should be a measure of the hydrostatic equilibrium too! Where did I go wrong?
Your mistake is thinking that the pressure exerted by the water against the glass bottom must equal the weight of the tank+water divided by the area. Not so. It is certainly true that the net force exerted by the glass bottom on the tank+water just equals the weight of the tank+water. However, that force has two components. First there is the force that the glass must exert to balance the water pressure--that just equals the water pressure (which depends on the height of the water in the chimney) times the area of the glass bottom. But there is also the force that the tank walls exert on the glass. The tank walls exert an upward force on the glass, just enough to make up the difference that you point out between water pressure X area and the weight of the tank+water. Realize that as the water is added to the chimney, the water pressure in the tank increases, which pushes up on the top surface of the tank--if it wasn't firmly attached to the glass bottom, it would just lift up and spill the water.

A shorter situation, to further clarify...

2. A man has a tube 1000 m tall on the palm of his hand, but only 1 cm in diameter. The bottom wall of the water tube is, in fact, his hand. The water at the bottom of this tube feels a lot of gauge pressure (1000 kg/m[tex]^{3}[/tex]*9.8 m/s[tex]^{2}[/tex]*1,000 m = 9800 kPa), and even more total hydrostatic pressure (9800 kPa + 101.325 kPa = 9901.325 kPa). All that pressure is pushing against his hand (and I'm sure its enough to drill a hole right through!). However, what if he tapers the bottom of the tube out quickly, to 1 m diameter. Say he's also a giant, so his palm is that big. Common sense says that the weight of the water (which admittedly is less high, but not by very much if he tapers it out quickly) is now distributed over a much larger area, so his hand stands a good chance of now NOT being crushed. However, his hand is still under (about) the same hydrostatic pressure, so why wouldn't it?
Same basic issue. The net force that the hand exerts just balances the total weight of tube+water. That's the same in both cases. In the second case, with the spread out base, the water pressure is pretty much the same so the force exerted by the water on the hand is greater. But the walls of that tube must be firmly attached to the hand in order to keep the water inside; like in your first thought experiment, those walls must pull up on the hand.
Any responses would be much appreciated!
I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Excellent questions, by the way. Good thinking!
 
  • #3


I can say that your thought experiments are a great way to understand and clarify the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium. However, there are a few things to consider when analyzing these situations.

First, it's important to remember that hydrostatic equilibrium is a state of balance between the forces of gravity and pressure within a fluid. In your first thought experiment, the addition of the balloon and the glass wall changes the distribution of pressure within the tank, but it does not change the overall hydrostatic equilibrium. The pressure at the bottom of the tank will still be the same, and the balloon and the glass wall will simply redistribute the weight and pressure within the tank.

In your second thought experiment, the tapering of the bottom of the tube does indeed distribute the weight of the water over a larger area, but this also changes the height of the water column and thus the pressure at the bottom. The pressure at the bottom of the tube will decrease as the diameter increases, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium.

Overall, it's important to understand that hydrostatic equilibrium is a delicate balance between forces and pressures within a fluid, and any changes to the system will affect this balance. Your thought experiments are a great way to explore and understand this concept, but it's also important to consider all the factors at play. I hope this helps clarify your understanding of hydrostatic equilibrium.
 

1. What is a hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiment?

A hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario used by scientists to understand the behavior and properties of fluids, such as water or air, in a state of equilibrium under the influence of gravity. It involves imagining a system where the forces of gravity, pressure, and density balance each other out, resulting in a stable and stationary state.

2. How are hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments useful?

Hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments are useful for studying the behavior of fluids in various scenarios, such as in the atmosphere, oceans, and even within the human body. They allow scientists to make predictions and gain insights into the complex interactions between different forces and variables in a fluid system.

3. Can hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments be applied to real-world situations?

Yes, hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments can be applied to real-world situations as they provide a simplified yet accurate representation of fluid behavior. By understanding the principles of hydrostatic equilibrium, scientists can make predictions and develop solutions for practical problems, such as predicting weather patterns or designing efficient hydraulic systems.

4. How do hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments relate to the concept of pressure?

Hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments are closely related to the concept of pressure as they involve understanding how the forces of gravity and density act on a fluid to create a balance of pressure within the system. This balance is crucial in maintaining the stability and equilibrium of the fluid.

5. Are there any limitations to using hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments?

Like any thought experiment, hydrostatic equilibrium thought experiments have their limitations. They are simplified models and do not account for all the complexities and variables that may exist in real-world situations. Therefore, while they can provide valuable insights, they should be used in conjunction with other experimental and observational data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of fluid behavior.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
7K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • General Engineering
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
Back
Top