Is the Formula P = Depth * 0.1 Accurate for Determining Water Pressure

AI Thread Summary
The formula P = depth * 0.1 is deemed inaccurate for calculating water pressure, as it oversimplifies the relationship between pressure, depth, and fluid mass. The discussion highlights that pressure is defined as force per unit area, and the original formula fails to account for the mass of the fluid and the area it affects. A more accurate formula presented is P = p0 + rho * g * h, where p0 is the initial pressure, rho is the water density, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the depth. This formula provides a better approximation of pressure at various depths, emphasizing the need for precise values of density and gravity. Overall, the conversation underscores the importance of using scientifically validated equations for accurate measurements in underwater research.
the_android
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
hi, I'm doing a small research project on underwater habitats. Nothing serious just in my spare time, and simply wondered if the formula P = depth * 0.1 is accurate enough to determine the water pressure at different levels or if it's to crude to be used at all. if i may have missed some points or posted in the wrong section please let me know. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can honestly say I've never heard of that formula. I can't even see how it works.

Pressure is force per unit area (or in some cases given as mass per unit area). Your equation ignores the mass of fluid and the area over which it is applied.

All your equation does is reduce the depth by an order of magnitude.

If anyone else knows how your equation works (or yourself) please do explain, otherwise I'd have to say it's useless.

1kg of water applied to 1m2 isn't the same as 10kg of water applied to 1m2. Your equation would make them out to be the same (according to your equation you would get a pressure of 1 for both).
 
afaik, at zero depth (shoreline) the pressure is 1 atmosphere and at the depth of ten meters the pressure have doubled roughly to 2 so with this formula I've calculated that the pressure at 5 meters the pressure would be roughly 1,5 and at 53 meters the pressure would be 6,3. if i need another formula don't hesitate to correct me. i even missed +1 at the end of it.

P=depth*0,1+1
now i get it to work
 
Last edited:
i now noticed that the formula is very crude and not working properly. i think this thread clearly shows my lack of education in the matter. but i still need a working formula. any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
You can use the following formula to get pressure at certain depth:

(hmm for some reason I can't get tex working)

p = p0 + rho * g * h

where p0 = initial pressure, in this case 1 bar
rho = density of water = 1000 kg/m3
g = gravity acceleration = 9.81 m/s^2
h = depth which you want the pressure at.
So we plug those in and get
p = 1bar + 9810Pa * h and then we convert 9810Pa into bars
p = 1 bar + 0,0981*h
As you can see the approximation varies depending on which values you use for the g and rho.
 
ok, thanks. now i have a better understanding on matter :)
 

Thread 'Average velocity as a weighted mean'

Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
View full post »

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »

Similar threads

What is the formula for calculating water jet reaction force?
Replies
3
Views
17K
Doubts about the formula for hydrostatic water pressure on a vertical surface
Replies
7
Views
5K
Force of pressurized water exiting a hose or pipe?
Replies
20
Views
10K
Crazy water pressure formula implication?
Replies
45
Views
13K
Plumbing Compressed air powered water pressure
Replies
39
Views
14K
Calculating Pressure on Tank Walls
Replies
5
Views
8K
Measuring surface waves using the a pressure sensor?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Moving small quanities of water in a pressurized loop
Replies
6
Views
2K
MATLAB MATLAB API For Wave Flume Data Analysis
Replies
3
Views
3K
What is the solution for a venturi tube with water flow and pressure changes?
Replies
1
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top