How much does the McLane sampler weigh in water?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the buoyancy and weight specifications of the McLane sampler, specifically its core and pressure housing. The user is confused by the reported weights, noting that the core and housing weigh 102.1 kg in air and 150 kg in seawater, questioning why the weight appears higher in water. Clarification is sought regarding whether the ballast tanks must be filled with water for these measurements. Participants request links to the specifications, but some links lead to errors due to website reorganization. The conversation emphasizes the need for accurate understanding of buoyancy in relation to the design of the housing for the electrical core.
j7888
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am trying to design the housing for an electrical core so that it remains buoyant on the surface but can be neutrally buoyant at desired depths through ballast tanks.

I am trying to figure out what the core and housing may typically weigh through specifications online of ones already made.

However, the weight in air for core and pressure housing is 102.1kg buoyant while the weight in seawater for core and pressure housing is 150kg buoyant.

I've never seen buoyant after a weight like that and I'm a little confused if it just means it weighs 150 kg. Shouldn't the weight be less in the water? The only thing I can think of is that the ballast tanks of the housing must be open and filled with water for this measurement?

Can anyone help me understand this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
j7888 said:
I am trying to design the housing for an electrical core so that it remains buoyant on the surface but can be neutrally buoyant at desired depths through ballast tanks.

I am trying to figure out what the core and housing may typically weigh through specifications online of ones already made.

However, the weight in air for core and pressure housing is 102.1kg buoyant while the weight in seawater for core and pressure housing is 150kg buoyant.

I've never seen buoyant after a weight like that and I'm a little confused if it just means it weighs 150 kg. Shouldn't the weight be less in the water? The only thing I can think of is that the ballast tanks of the housing must be open and filled with water for this measurement?

Can anyone help me understand this?
It's not clear to me, either.

Can you provide the links for this equipment which quotes these weights?
 
SteamKing said:
It's not clear to me, either.

Can you provide the links for this equipment which quotes these weights?

http://www.mclanelabs.com/master_page/product-type/samplers/environmental-sample-processorenvironmental-sample-processor

The specs are in the data sheet on the left menu
 
j7888 said:
http://www.mclanelabs.com/master_page/product-type/samplers/environmental-sample-processorenvironmental-sample-processor

The specs are in the data sheet on the left menu
Thanks for the link.

However, the manufacturer has re-organized his web page somewhat. When I click on this link, it tells me that the page couldn't be found, and then directs me to a product library.

Could you specify exactly the type and model of the equipment you're trying to use?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top