How Do You Calculate Pool Depth Using Refraction Principles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicsstudent14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Refraction Swimming
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the depth of a swimming pool using refraction principles, Snell's law is applied with the indices of refraction for air and water. The problem involves determining the angle of refraction when sunlight hits the water at a 20-degree angle above the horizon, leading to a calculated angle of 45 degrees in water. The depth is then derived from the pool's width using the tangent of this angle, resulting in a depth of 4 meters. The discussion highlights the importance of unit consistency, noting a common mistake in converting measurements. Overall, the solution is confirmed as correct, emphasizing the need for careful attention to detail in calculations.
physicsstudent14
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A 4.0-m-wide swimming pool is filled to the top. The bottom of the pool becomes completely shaded in the afternoon when the sun is 20 degrees above the horizon. How deep is the pool?

Homework Equations


Snell's law
(n1)sin(x1) = (n2)sin(x2)
Index of Refraction of Air = 1
Index of Refraction of Water = 1.33

The Attempt at a Solution



I drew a picture with the sun 20 degrees above the horizontal, which meant that x1 is 70 degrees relative to the normal. I know n1 is the index of refraction of Air, 1. I solved for x2, using n2 = index of refraction of water = 1.33.

(n1)sin(x1) = (n2)sin(x2)
(1)sin(70) = (1.33)sin(x2)

I solved for x2 and got 45 degrees for the light angle in water relative to the normal.

Now that I know x2, I tried to solve for the depth of the pool d by using the width w = 4.0 m.

I got tan(x2) = (4 m)/d
d = (4 m)/tan(45) = 4 m.

I don't think my result makes sense. It seems too simple. How am I supposed to figure out the depth of the pool? I've never experienced a problem where the bottom was completely shaded. Can someone please explain to me what I'm doing incorrectly? Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have solved the problem correctly--whether you know it or not. (Correct your units--it's meters, not centimeters.)

Imagine the sun is coming from the right, hitting the water. The light refracts in accordance with Snell's law. Now consider the light that just hits the right-most section of the pool water. If that light bends enough so that it hits the wall of the pool, not the bottom, then surely none of the other light will shine on the pool bottom. (Draw yourself a picture and you'll understand it better.) Make sense?
 
edit: Doc Al beat me to it.
-------------
Everything is fine, all the way to (4m)/tan(45 degrees)
How'd you get 4 centimeters?? tan(45 degrees) = 1

Otherwise, everything is good.
 
Thanks I think I understand it now. I just messed up on the units.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top