Pressure of liquid given radius, help please

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the pressure at a radius r within a spinning test tube filled with water in an ultracentrifuge. The formula for pressure is given as p = 0.5(p)(angular velocity)^2(r^2 - r(o)^2), where p represents the water's density. Participants are encouraged to ignore gravity and atmospheric pressure while considering centripetal acceleration. To find the pressure at any depth, an integral approach is suggested, requiring the net force on an infinitesimal slice of fluid to be established. Clarification is sought on the specifics of setting up the integral for this calculation.
harlow_barton
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A test tube filled with water is being spun around in an ultracentrifuge with angular velocity. The test tube is lying along a radius and the free surface of the water is at radius r(o).

Show that the pressure at radius r within the test tube is:

p = .5(p)(angular velocity)^2(r^(2) -r(o)^2)

where p is the density of the water. Ignore gravity and atmospheric pressure.


p = p - g(density)(height)


gravity or centripetal acceleration, a= r(angular velocity)^2

height or depth of water, h = r- r(o)

this only gets me to p= p + density*r*angular velocity^2(r-r(0))

I'm not sure where the rest comes from!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At any depth 'below' the surface, the pressure has to provide enough force to accelerate all the fluid 'above' it. Hint: Set up an integral.
 
Doc Al, I'm not sure I understand what I should be taking the integral of. Could you explain further?
 
harlow_barton said:
Doc Al, I'm not sure I understand what I should be taking the integral of. Could you explain further?
Write an expression for the net force on an infinitesimal slice (thickness dr) of the fluid in the tube; then integrate from r(0) to r to find the total force, and then the pressure, at any point along the tube.
 
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/
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...
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Back
Top