B Pressure of air inside a glass

AI Thread Summary
In an uncovered glass, the pressure inside equals atmospheric pressure, but covering it with a plastic card alters this dynamic. The pressure exerted by air particles, denoted as P1, can vary due to interactions with the card, potentially resulting in P1 being lower than atmospheric pressure. However, when considering the forces acting on the card, including its weight and the normal force from the glass, the pressure inside the glass may actually increase. The card's weight and its buoyancy effect contribute to a hydrostatic pressure difference, leading to a higher pressure than atmospheric when the card is in place. Ultimately, the conclusion is that placing a cover on the glass does not reduce the internal air pressure.
Pushoam
Messages
961
Reaction score
53
TL;DR Summary
How does putting a cover affect the pressure inside a glass filled with air?
Let's consider an uncovered glass. Air particles are present in the glass.
1679724724893.png

$$ P_1 = P_a$$ $$P_2 =P_1 +\rho gh = P_a +\rho g h$$where ##P_A## is atmospheric pressuere and ##\rho ## is air density.
1679725186723.png

Now, if I cover the glass with a plastic card, then what is ## P_1##?
$$P_2 =P_1 +\rho gh $$
1) ## P_1 ## is pressure due to motion of air particles and the air particles near the cover interact with the cover and its speed may change and hence ##P_1## may be less or more than ##P_a##.

2) Following three forces are acting on the cover:
1679725733426.png

a) force due to pressure ##P_1## of air particles
b) normal force N due to glass walls
c) cover's weight W

Applying Newton's first law gives,
$$ P_1 A+ N = W$$ $$P_1 A = W - N$$
Now, since normal force is self-adjustable, let's take a light plastic card such that N = 0. Hence, in this case ##P_1 A = W ##.
For a plastic card with mass 20g and area 20cm2, ## P_1 = 10 Pa## which is lower than the atmospheric pressure.
So, the conclusion is: putting a cover reduces the pressure of air inside the glass. Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pushoam said:
So, the conclusion is: putting a cover reduces the pressure of air inside the glass. Is this correct?
No.
There will be a hydrostatic difference in pressure due to the thickness of the card, but that difference will be overcome by the density of the card, which is resting on the glass.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Baluncore said:
No.
There will be a hydrostatic difference in pressure due to the thickness of the card, but that difference will be overcome by the density of the card, which is resting on the glass.
And/or the card will bend down/inward due to its own weight and the resulting pressure in the glass will be higher than atmospheric.
 
Define Pa as the atmospheric pressure at the top edge, inside the glass.
The following four forces are acting on a cover of thickness; t
a) force due to pressure of air from below; A·Pa
b) force due to pressure of air from above; A·(Pa - ρ·g·t)
c) cover's weight; W
d) normal force upwards due to glass wall; N
N + A·Pa = W + A·(Pa - ρ·g·t)
N = W - ρ·g·t
ρ·g·t
is the buoyancy of the card
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top