Ship's mass/displacement, buoyancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hippoman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Buoyancy
AI Thread Summary
Displacement refers to the weight of water a ship pushes aside, which equals the mass of the ship when floating, as per Archimedes's principle. A ship's displacement can change with added weight, affecting its buoyancy and the volume of water displaced. The volume of the ship does not equal the volume of displaced water; it is typically greater due to structural design. An object resting on the sea floor experiences buoyancy only if it is not firmly embedded, as surrounding water can exert pressure. Understanding displacement is crucial for assessing a ship's capacity and stability, despite its variable nature based on load.
Hippoman
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I've a couple of assignments that require the understanding of the basic principles of buoyancy and displacement of a ship and I'm a bit confused.

Consider a ship that has a displacement of 7 000 000 kg. That's the mass of the water that the ships displacement "pushes out" from its way, right? So why is it generally stated that displacement = mass of the ship (for example Wikipedia states this)?

If the buoyancy force acting on the ship = water density * g * displacement volume.
Now if we solve for the volume, we have a displacement volume (water density 1000kg/m3)
of 7000m3. Now, if we assume that the ship and the displacement are "fully wooden", so no empty spaces, the mass is 7000m3 * wood density, say 700kg/m3, = 4 900 000kg. So what's wrong here?

Generally speaking, is the displacement of a ship always the same? I mean, it cannot always be just the same amount of water that it's displacing because the ship has to go up an down from time to time. Why are the size of the ships demonstrated by the displacement if this is the case?

The other thing about the buoyancy: if we have an object laying at the bottom of the sea, is there a buoyancy force acting on it? I can't find any clear statement about this.

I realize that these should be easy subjects but I'm quite poor with physics so don't be too rough on me :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hippoman said:
Consider a ship that has a displacement of 7 000 000 kg. That's the mass of the water that the ships displacement "pushes out" from its way, right? So why is it generally stated that displacement = mass of the ship (for example Wikipedia states this)?
This is Archimedes's principle. Assuming the ship is floating, the upward buoyant force equals the weight of displaced fluid and balances the downward weight of the ship.

If the buoyancy force acting on the ship = water density * g * displacement volume.
Now if we solve for the volume, we have a displacement volume (water density 1000kg/m3)
of 7000m3. Now, if we assume that the ship and the displacement are "fully wooden", so no empty spaces, the mass is 7000m3 * wood density, say 700kg/m3, = 4 900 000kg. So what's wrong here?
The volume of the ship does not equal the volume of displaced water--it is greater.

Generally speaking, is the displacement of a ship always the same? I mean, it cannot always be just the same amount of water that it's displacing because the ship has to go up an down from time to time. Why are the size of the ships demonstrated by the displacement if this is the case?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.

The other thing about the buoyancy: if we have an object laying at the bottom of the sea, is there a buoyancy force acting on it? I can't find any clear statement about this.
It depends on how the object is in contact with the bottom. If the object is stuck in mud (for example) so that the seal is water-tight, then the net force from the surrounding water actually presses the object into the bottom.
 
Doc Al, thanks for your answers.

Ok, so basically what I want to know is this. If there's stated that a displacement of a certain ship is 9000 tons, can I take it so that the ship's mass is 9000 tons?

Clarifying the third question: For example Titanic had a displacement of 52,310 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic). What if you add weight to the ship, the displacement has to change, right? Isn't that quite an inconvenient way of expressing the size of a ship, since you can't really know how much weight it carries from time to time?
 
Hippoman said:
Ok, so basically what I want to know is this. If there's stated that a displacement of a certain ship is 9000 tons, can I take it so that the ship's mass is 9000 tons?
Yes. (But see the link below.)

Clarifying the third question: For example Titanic had a displacement of 52,310 tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic). What if you add weight to the ship, the displacement has to change, right?
Of course: the literal displacement will increase if weight is added. But it depends on what displacement they are quoting. Is it the fully-loaded displacement? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)"
Isn't that quite an inconvenient way of expressing the size of a ship, since you can't really know how much weight it carries from time to time?
Not necessarily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

I What is the location of the center of buoyancy and how is it determined?
Replies
14
Views
9K
Finding the density of a block in two layers of liquids
Replies
6
Views
2K
Buoyancy force when a ramp is under water
Replies
15
Views
2K
Ship draft (draught) word problem buoyancy
Replies
3
Views
2K
Buoyancy and the Archimedes Principle
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Damped oscillator with changing mass
3
Replies
131
Views
7K
B Archimedes principle and the density of a rock
Replies
6
Views
6K
How far into the water a ship sits (buoyancy, draft)
Replies
18
Views
13K
Photon-Foil FTL Drive theory
Replies
8
Views
606
Solving Fluid Dynamics Problem: Granite Floating in Mercury & Water
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top