Pressure in Fluids: Derivation & Explanation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cheman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluids Pressure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the pressure equation in fluids, P = height of fluid column × density × gravitational field strength, starting from the basic principle of pressure as force per area. It highlights that pressure results from molecular collisions in the fluid, acting in all directions, rather than solely from the weight of the fluid above. The equilibrium of forces is emphasized, where the pressure at a lower point must counteract the weight of the fluid column above and the pressure from above. The conversation also clarifies that while pressure is a property of the fluid at a specific height, forces due to pressure act perpendicularly on surfaces. Ultimately, the relationship between pressure and fluid dynamics remains valid, regardless of the direction of pressure application.
Cheman
Messages
235
Reaction score
1
Pressure in fluids...

I have been looking at derivation of the equation Pressure in fluids= height of fluid column*density*gravitational field strength, from the intitial starting point of P = F/A and taking F to be weight of column. But I have since read that the pressure is not in fact due to the weight of the fluid but due to collisions between its molecules and some object, and that in fact the pressure acts from all directions, not just down. So if this is the case, then why does the equation I have previously mentioned hold, even for an upward or sideways pressure?

Thanks in advance. :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At a certain height in water, the weight of the "column" of fluid above has to be supported by the fluid beneath it, because if the fluid is incompressible, it has nowhere to go. If everything is in equilibrium, it should be static. So indeed the net effect of that force due to pressure (all those collisions of molecules against each other) has to be to keep the fluid stationary. So consider that fluid element you were probably looking at in the derivation. The force on it has to be equal from the left side and from the ride side, otherwise it would have some net lateral motion. So we know pressure does not vary along a line of constant height. What about from above and from below? The force of the entire fluid column pressing down on top is indeed manifested as all those molecules colliding on the upper surface of that element, trying to push it down. It's weight is also trying to push it down. So the pressure from the bottom must be enough to counteract the pressure from the top PLUS the additional force per unit area arising from the weight of the fluid element itself. Hence, the pressure on the bottom is higher than at the top, so that the force on the bottom equals the downward force, keeping the element in equilibrium. Notice that only the forces can have direction, and are perpendicular to whatever surface we are considering them acting on. Pressure on the other hand, is just a property of the fluid at that particular height. It doesn't "act" from any direction. Force to due pressure on an immersed body does indeed act on the body from all sides. I hope this is somewhat comprehensible.
 
Last edited:
Cheman said:
I have been looking at derivation of the equation Pressure in fluids= height of fluid column*density*gravitational field strength, from the intitial starting point of P = F/A and taking F to be weight of column. But I have since read that the pressure is not in fact due to the weight of the fluid but due to collisions between its molecules and some object, and that in fact the pressure acts from all directions, not just down. So if this is the case, then why does the equation I have previously mentioned hold, even for an upward or sideways pressure?

Thanks in advance. :wink:

Let's say we were to stand under a 6 inch pipe running vertically to simulate a water column, and hold a piece of wood over our head to close off the bottom. Now as someone fills the pipe with a fluid from the top we notice that at first we can keep it from escaping by putting pressure against the pipe with the board...The more water we add to the column the more pressure we have to apply to the board to keep the water from escaping. The water pushes down on us and we push up. That same pressure pushes out (sideways) on the pipe too, with the bottom of the pipe feeling the most outward pressure.

Cheman said:
due to collisions between its molecules and some object,


I think this little bit is badly worded. You don't need to add some object; the pressure exists between the molecules themselves. I'm guessing it says object to refer to some kind of container or boundaries.
 
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...
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
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?
Back
Top