Two Questions: viscosity and sound

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Trevormbarker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sound Viscosity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around two main questions: the relationship between density and viscosity in fluids, and the perception of sound in space, particularly regarding internal body sounds. Participants explore these concepts through examples and related queries, touching on both theoretical and practical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether density affects viscosity, suggesting that it is possible to have a highly dense but low viscosity fluid, citing examples like mercury and honey.
  • Others argue that density and viscosity are independent properties, providing examples of fluids that contradict the initial assumption.
  • There is a discussion about the ability to hear internal sounds in space, with some asserting that these sounds can be heard through the body's medium.
  • Participants raise questions about mercury thermometers, specifically the forces that keep mercury in place within a capillary tube, challenging the role of viscosity and suggesting surface tension as a possible factor.
  • Some participants provide calculations regarding the effects of surface tension and the geometry of the thermometer, while others question the assumptions made in these calculations.
  • There is a debate about the dimensions of thermometer capillaries and how these dimensions affect the behavior of mercury within them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between density and viscosity, with no consensus reached. The discussion about sound perception in space also remains unresolved, as participants share varying opinions. The inquiry into the forces acting on mercury in thermometers leads to multiple hypotheses without a clear agreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific examples and calculations that depend on various assumptions, such as the dimensions of thermometer capillaries and the properties of mercury. Some discussions involve unresolved mathematical steps and the implications of surface tension on mercury behavior.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, or acoustics, as well as individuals curious about the practical applications and historical context of mercury thermometers.

Trevormbarker
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
ive got two basic questions.
1: Does density effect viscosity, as in is it possible to have a highly dense but low viscosity fluid and vice versa.
2: I know in space there's no sound but can you hear your own heartbeat and other internal vibrations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Trevormbarker said:
2: I know in space there's no sound but can you hear your own heartbeat and other internal vibrations?
Yes.
 
1: What about quicksilver and honey?
 
xts said:
1: What about quicksilver
Good one. Mercury is very dense yet not viscous.
 
A bit off-topic, but something I don't understand...
Do you remember mercury thermometers (banned nowadays)?
As you finally pull such one out of the obscure place you got it inserted, and the bulb cooled, the mercury in a capilare used to split into several parts, highest of them showing your body temperature. In order to reset the thermometer you had to knock it against the table, causing strong accelleration.

Question: what is the force keeping the mercury in a fixed place in capilare, strong enough to resist both surface tension and gravity? It couldn't be viscosity, but what else?
 
xts said:
A bit off-topic, but something I don't understand...
Do you remember mercury thermometers (banned nowadays)?
As you finally pull such one out of the obscure place you got it inserted, and the bulb cooled, the mercury in a capilare used to split into several parts, highest of them showing your body temperature. In order to reset the thermometer you had to knock it against the table, causing strong accelleration.

Question: what is the force keeping the mercury in a fixed place in capilare, strong enough to resist both surface tension and gravity? It couldn't be viscosity, but what else?

I've never seen one where the mercury stayed in place. The only ones I've seen had a little plug that would ride on top of the mercury and get pushed up by it, then stick in place. You had to shake it to get the little plug to go down again.
 
I still have one of those (shhhh... don't tell EU authorities!) It is mercury which stays in place. There is no any plug. Yes, you have to shake it or knock it against a table to reset - to drive all mercury to the bulb.

Usually, as it cools, a bubble of vacuum appears in bottom of the bulb, but sometimes the mercury in a capilare splits to several parts - most often at the place where the capilare is bended - just above the bulb.
 
xts said:
I still have one of those (shhhh... don't tell EU authorities!) It is mercury which stays in place. There is no any plug. Yes, you have to shake it or knock it against a table to reset - to drive all mercury to the bulb.

Usually, as it cools, a bubble of vacuum appears in bottom of the bulb, but sometimes the mercury in a capilare splits to several parts - most often at the place where the capilare is bended - just above the bulb.
Oh, I think I remember seeing one of these things.

It had a constriction right above the bottom bulb, where it split into two very narrow capillaries for a moment.
 
The question stays open: what is the force keeping mercury to stay in place, rather than being retracted to the bulb? The geometry itself cannot cause it - it may help to split, but there must be some resisting force, and viscosity is definitely not sufficient.
 
  • #10
Trevormbarker said:
ive got two basic questions.
1: Does density effect viscosity, as in is it possible to have a highly dense but low viscosity fluid and vice versa.

No. The two quantities are independent. You can have a highly viscous, low density fluid (oil) or low viscosity, very dense fluid (mercury).



Trevormbarker said:
2: I know in space there's no sound but can you hear your own heartbeat and other internal vibrations?

While I have never been in space, I would say yes. As long as it has a medium to move through (your body in this case), sound can be heard.
 
  • #11
boneh3ad said:
a highly viscous, low density fluid (oil)
Ooh! Even better than honey! Oil floats on water.




boneh3ad said:
While I have never been in space, I would say yes. As long as it has a medium to move through (your body in this case), sound can be heard.
It is certain. You an definitely hear your own body's sounds through the conduction of your body.

It is why
a] you often hear rushing in your ears (blood flow)
b] your voice sounds very different to you than to others
 
  • #12
xts said:
A bit off-topic, but something I don't understand...
Do you remember mercury thermometers (banned nowadays)?
As you finally pull such one out of the obscure place you got it inserted, and the bulb cooled, the mercury in a capilare used to split into several parts, highest of them showing your body temperature. In order to reset the thermometer you had to knock it against the table, causing strong accelleration.

Question: what is the force keeping the mercury in a fixed place in capilare, strong enough to resist both surface tension and gravity? It couldn't be viscosity, but what else?

my suspicion is that it *is* surface tension- mercury does not wet glass. The tensile strength of mercury is about 20 kbar:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5102024

but I would have to sit down and convert the pressure jump across the interface before knowing if tensile strength is an important factor or not.
 
  • #13
Andy Resnick said:
my suspicion is that it *is* surface tension- mercury does not wet glass. The tensile strength of mercury is about 20 kbar:
How would surface tension prevent the mercury from descending once it's reached a max and temp drops? Seems to me the fact that it doesn't wet the glass means it would come down easier.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
How would surface tension prevent the mercury from descending once it's reached a max and temp drops? Seems to me the fact that it doesn't wet the glass means it would come down easier.

When the mercury rises, the top isn't a flat line, but a curve called a meniscus. The curvature means that there is a net force generated by surface tension towards the dry side of the tube. When it recedes, it is entirely plausible that the upward force could hold some of it up, and if it pinches off into a bead, it could suspend itself via friction even without wetting the glass.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
How would surface tension prevent the mercury from descending once it's reached a max and temp drops? Seems to me the fact that it doesn't wet the glass means it would come down easier.

That's why I needed to sit down and calculate:

The contact angle of mercury on glass is about 140 degrees, and assuming the radius of a thermometer is 0.3 mm, that means the radius of curvature of the meniscus is 0.46mm. Using 485 mN/m as the interfacial energy of mercury in air, the meniscus has a pressure jump of 2*10^-2 bar. This is much smaller than the tensile strength, so nucleation of a surface does not proceed from cavitation.

The vapor pressure of mercury is 3.6*10^-4 bar, so I suppose severe contamination on the wall (or a surface defect) could be sufficient to nucleate a surface (that is, initiate a dewetting transition). If we assume a thermometer radius of 0.1mm, the pressure jump across the meniscus is now larger (3.2*10^-2 bar), and so the column should be more resistant to 'breaks'.
 
  • #16
Thanks for explanation!
Andy Resnick said:
assuming the radius of a thermometer is 0.3 mm [...] 0.1mm
I think you overestimated the diameter of the thermometer capilar.
Typical thermometer contains no more than 0.1cm^3 of mercury (bulb is 1cm long, about 3-4mm in diameter). As mercury thermal expansion coeff is about 6e-5/K, and the scale is about 1cm per K, the diameter must be in order of 0.03 mm.
That is why external shape of the capilar is triangle with barely rounded corner, acting as a magnifying glass. If you look at the wrong angle, the mercury is hair-thin barely visible.

For 0.03mm the effects you described are even stronger.
 
  • #17
xts said:
Thanks for explanation!

I think you overestimated the diameter of the thermometer capilar.
Typical thermometer contains no more than 0.1cm^3 of mercury (bulb is 1cm long, about 3-4mm in diameter). As mercury thermal expansion coeff is about 6e-5/K, and the scale is about 1cm per K, the diameter must be in order of 0.03 mm.
That is why external shape of the capilar is triangle with barely rounded corner, acting as a magnifying glass. If you look at the wrong angle, the mercury is hair-thin barely visible.

For 0.03mm the effects you described are even stronger.

Fair enough- using a diameter of 0.03 mm gives a pressure jump of 4.1 bar across the meniscus. Creating this surface only costs 485 erg/cm^2 *2*pi*0.015 mm *8.3*10^-3 mm = 0.004 erg. To break the column, we make two surfaces for a total of 0.008 erg: not much at all.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K