U Tube: Find Height Shift Due to Rotation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ritwik06
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tube
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the height difference in a U-tube containing liquid when rotated at a constant angular velocity. The force exerted by rotation on the liquid is derived, leading to an expression for the potential energy change due to the rise of liquid in one limb. Participants debate the validity of integrating to find the height shift and consider using Bernoulli's principle instead. One contributor emphasizes the importance of equating forces due to rotation and hydrostatic pressure, ultimately arriving at a formula for height difference. The conversation highlights the complexities of applying energy conservation principles in this context.
ritwik06
Messages
577
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A U tube of uniform cross sectional area A and base length 'L' contains a liquid of density "p". It is rotated about one of its vertical limbs with constant angular velocity \omega. If the diameter of the tube is small compared to the base length, find the difference in levels of liquids in the to limbs.


The Attempt at a Solution


the shift will be because of the force exerted by the rotation on the liquid contained in the base.
I integrate to find this force [I am not posting the integration, because I think its right, if your answer dos not match with mine, tell me I will post my working on this integration.]
The force on the liquid in th base=\frac{Ap\omega^{2}L^{2}}{2}

Now the work done by this force = change in potential energy due to rise of liquid in one limb
\frac{Ap\omega^{2}L^{2}}{2} * h = \frac{AP h^{2}g}{2}

Is this step right to find "h"?
I was also thinking what is the net work done on water. Is it zero, because the rise in one limb=fall in the other?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure about the work, but you could most easily equate the force due to rotation with the force due to difference in liquid heights (Newton's 3rd law). Further, there's no need to integrate, because Bernoulli's law gives in this situation
P = \frac{\rho v^2}{2} = \frac{\rho (\omega L)^2}{2}
 
Irid said:
I'm not sure about the work, but you could most easily equate the force due to rotation with the force due to difference in liquid heights (Newton's 3rd law). Further, there's no need to integrate, because Bernoulli's law gives in this situation
P = \frac{\rho v^2}{2} = \frac{\rho (\omega L)^2}{2}

Sorry friend, but I can't make out what you said. I haven't studied Bernoulli yet. Please help m with my own method, thanks
 
What I said is

F_{\text{rotation}} = F_{\text{\hidrostatic}}

or,

\frac{\rho \omega^2 L^2}{2} = \rho g \Delta h

\Delta h = \frac{\omega^2 L^2}{2g}

Your method is a little fishy, because the force you're talking about is actually horizontal, and you apply it for calculating work, which was done in vertical motion. If you want to do energy conservation, fine, I think it's possible, but I'm not sure how.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top