Volume of Stone submerged in Water

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the volume of a submerged stone using its weight in and out of water. The submerged weight is 254N, while the weight in air is 1235N, leading to a buoyant force of 981N, which represents the weight of the water displaced. Participants clarify that to find the mass from weight, the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²) should be used, not 98.1. By applying Archimedes' principle, the volume of the stone can be determined from the displaced water, leading to a corrected volume of 0.1 cubic meters. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate conversions and understanding buoyancy in volume calculations.
scbeturner
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
A submerged stone weighs 254N, but out of the water it weighs 1235N. The density of the water is 1000 kg per cubic meter. What is the volume of the stone?



I understand that density=mass/volume but I don't know which numbers to plug in and I can't find help anywhere!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scbeturner said:
A submerged stone weighs 254N, but out of the water it weighs 1235N. The density of the water is 1000 kg per cubic meter. What is the volume of the stone?



I understand that density=mass/volume but I don't know which numbers to plug in and I can't find help anywhere!

Why does the stone weigh less when it's submerged in water? What does the weight difference represent?
 
Because of the buoyancy force??

i took the difference between the weights which is 981N, divided it by 98.1 and got 10, then divided it by 1000 and got .01 is that right?
 
scbeturner said:
Because of the buoyancy force??
Yes, that's correct.
i took the difference between the weights which is 981N, divided it by 98.1 and got 10, then divided it by 1000 and got .01 is that right?

Why 98.1? What is 98.1?
 
The force of gravity to convert it from Newtons to kilogram
 
scbeturner said:
The force of gravity to convert it from Newtons to kilogram

The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s2.
 
So should I not have used it as the conversion factor?
 
scbeturner said:
So should I not have used it as the conversion factor?

Yes, you want to use the acceleration due to gravity in the conversion. But the value you employed was 10x to large. You used 98.1 rather than 9.81.
 
Sorry that's what I meant
So I on the right track?
 
  • #10
scbeturner said:
Sorry that's what I meant
So I on the right track?

Yes, you're on the right track.

Once you realized that the weight difference represents weight of the water displaced by the stone, you were on the right track to find the volume of the stone by finding the volume of that displaced water.
 
  • #11
so how do i use the volume of the displaced water to find the volume of the stone?
 
  • #12
scbeturner said:
so how do i use the volume of the displaced water to find the volume of the stone?

Archimedes' principle of displacement -- the volume of water displaced by a submerged object is equal to the volume of the object...
 
  • #13
oh ok so .01 cubic meters is the answer?
 
  • #14
scbeturner said:
oh ok so .01 cubic meters is the answer?

No, that's still off by a factor of 10. Did you fix your value of g?
 
  • #15
with that fixed the answer comes out to .1 cubic meters correct?
 
  • #16
scbeturner said:
with that fixed the answer comes out to .1 cubic meters correct?

That looks better :wink:
 
  • #17
haha ok thanks!
 
Back
Top