Need Help finding radius of ball using bouyancy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves an iron ball suspended from a cylinder floating in water, with specific dimensions and densities provided. The goal is to find the radius of the ball using principles of buoyancy and forces acting on the system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Newton's Second Law and Archimedes' Principle but encounters issues with negative volume expressions. They question the necessity of assuming the cylinder is hollow and seek clarification on the volume calculations.
  • Participants suggest that the buoyant force should be calculated using the density of water rather than the density of the cylinder, and they discuss the need to consider the buoyant force acting on the ball itself.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the buoyant forces involved and questioning the assumptions made about the cylinder's structure. Some guidance has been provided regarding the correct density to use for buoyancy calculations.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about the volume calculations and the implications of considering the buoyant force on the ball. There is a lack of consensus on the assumptions regarding the cylinder's structure and the necessary calculations for the buoyant forces.

Roger Wilco
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An iron ball is suspended by a thread of negligible mass from an upright cylinder that floats partially submerged in water. The cylinder has a height of 6.00cm, a face area A=12.0 cm^2 on the top and bottom, and a density [tex]\rho_c=.300\frac{g}{cm^3}[/tex], and 2.00 cm of its height is above the water. What is the radius of the ball?

Homework Equations

[tex]\sum F=0[/tex] [tex]F_b=\rho*V*g[/tex]
Using Newton's Second and Archimedes' Principle I have used the following method. My concern comes at the point that I get the expression (V'-V)<-- this will yeild a NEGATIVE quantity and r cannot = negative. My problem is that the V'=volume of water displaced and V= volume of the cylinder. I think I need to assume that the CYLINDER IS HOLLOW in order to get a positive quantity. But whay is the volume of a hollow cylinder if I am not given an inner and outer radius??

The Attempt at a Solution



Subscript c is cylinder, b is the ball, and V' is the portion of the cylinder under water.

[tex]\sum F=0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow W_c+W_b-F_{buoyant}=0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow m_cg+m_bg-\rho_cV_c'g=0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \rho_cV_c+\rho_bV_b=\rho_cV_c'[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow V_b=\frac{\rho_c(V_c'-V_c)}{\rho_b}[/tex]

I don't find it necessary to move any further than this last step as finding the r is easy enough from there. However it is in this last step that you can see that if I use
V=height*cross-sectional area...I will get a negative number for V'-V.

What should I be using for V? Shoud it be zero? I think that is a bold assumption, or is it?

Thank you,
RW

Edit: After looking at my diagram, I have encountered another problem: Do I need to consider the buoyant force on the ball, too?

I do not not see why I wouldn't.

Okay. I also noticed that for F_bouyant I should have used rho_water NOT of the cylinder.

Guess I need to re-work this. :( So I guess in re-working this my question is still: do I need to consider the buoyant force on the ball, too?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the problem is that you're multiplying V'c by the density of the cylinder and not the density of water which is what you need to do for the buoyant force.
 
Kurdt said:
I think the problem is that you're multiplying V'c by the density of the cylinder and not the density of water which is what you need to do for the buoyant force.

Yeah Kurdt, I just caught that. But tell me, should I be taking into account the buoyant Force of the ball?

See "Edits" in post #1.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Yeah Kurdt, I just caught that. But tell me, should I be taking into account the buoyant Force of the ball?

See "Edits" in post #1.

Thats a good thought, and yes I would do that. Its not that much harder.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K