Radius of 2nd Sphere: Find Mass 5x Greater than 1st

  • Thread starter Thread starter afg_91320
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radius Sphere
AI Thread Summary
To find the radius of the second sphere with a mass five times greater than the first, it's essential to understand that mass is proportional to volume, not directly to radius. The volume of a sphere is calculated using the formula V = 4/3πr³, indicating that the volume—and thus mass—depends on the cube of the radius. Therefore, if the mass of the second sphere is five times greater, the relationship can be expressed as V2/V1 = 5, leading to the equation (r2/r1)³ = 5. Solving this gives r2 as approximately 7.69 cm, not 22.5 cm, as the initial assumption incorrectly suggested a linear relationship. Understanding the cubic relationship between radius and volume is crucial for solving such problems correctly.
afg_91320
Messages
39
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two spheres are cut from a certain uniform rock. One has a radius 4.50cm. The mass of the
other is 5 times greater. Find its radius


Homework Equations


r1 = 4.50cm
r2 = ? when mass is 5x greater


The Attempt at a Solution


Looking at this problem I first thought of somehow integrating the volume of a sphere
which is 4/3\pir3. But then i though i was just thinking too hard. it made more sense for the radius to be 5x the radius as i figure the mass was proportional to the radius.

so: r2 = 5(4.50cm) = 22.5cm

however i got this marked wrong as the answer was 7.69 cm. what wasn't I looking at clearly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
afg_91320 said:

Homework Statement


Two spheres are cut from a certain uniform rock. One has a radius 4.50cm. The mass of the
other is 5 times greater. Find its radius


Homework Equations


r1 = 4.50cm
r2 = ? when mass is 5x greater


The Attempt at a Solution


Looking at this problem I first thought of somehow integrating the volume of a sphere
which is 4/3\pir3. But then i though i was just thinking too hard. it made more sense for the radius to be 5x the radius as i figure the mass was proportional to the radius.

so: r2 = 5(4.50cm) = 22.5cm

however i got this marked wrong as the answer was 7.69 cm. what wasn't I looking at clearly?

You started on the right track. Mass is proportional to volume, so the ratio 5 applies to the two radii how?
 
berkeman said:
You started on the right track. Mass is proportional to volume, so the ratio 5 applies to the two radii how?

well that would be proportional to the mass right? so if r2 is 5x in mass then r1 is 1/5(mass)? set up my equation to isolate r to get the radius...
 
afg_91320 said:
well that would be proportional to the mass right? so if r2 is 5x in mass then r1 is 1/5(mass)? set up my equation to isolate r to get the radius...

Mass is proportional to volume. Write the fraction V1/V2 out fully, and that will show you a ratio involving some form of the radii. That's where the 5x comes into play...
 
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