Weather Balloon and Scuba Diving relationships

AI Thread Summary
Weather balloons and scuba diving share a relationship through the principles of pressure and buoyancy. As altitude increases, weather balloons experience decreasing pressure, while scuba divers face increasing pressure as they descend underwater. Both scenarios involve the behavior of gases, which can be explained by the ideal gas law. Scuba divers use air pockets in their jackets to manage buoyancy, similar to how weather balloons rely on gas expansion to ascend. Understanding these principles highlights the interconnectedness of atmospheric and underwater pressure dynamics.
physicsguru97
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
"Weather Balloon" and "Scuba Diving" relationships

Hello so I am suppose to state any relationships between a "Weather Ballon" and "Scuba Diving" those could include equations, laws, both rely on a source etc. I know that for the weather balloon the higher you go up the less pressure there is and in scuba diving pressure increases when you go deeper. Thanks if anyone could help me out. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yep. that is one way that there is a similar 'behaviour'. Also, did you know that scuba divers inflate a pocket of air in their jacket. think of why they do this, using the balloon as analogy.
 
Ideal gas equation in all possible variants.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top