Weightless Vacuum Container maximum height

AI Thread Summary
A weightless vacuum container, when floated in the atmosphere, theoretically has no maximum height due to the continuous displacement of atmospheric weight. The principle of buoyancy, as described by Archimedes, suggests that the container would experience an outward force from pressure differences on its sides. In reality, high-altitude balloon flights demonstrate a practical limit of around 50 kilometers, although this does not apply to a truly weightless scenario. The discussion highlights the contrast between theoretical physics and practical limitations in atmospheric conditions. Ultimately, the concept remains a thought experiment with intriguing implications for buoyancy and pressure.
cantRemember
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Assume you have a weightless constant volume container "filled with" vacuum. If you let it float in the atmosphere, how "high" would it go? I guess at some point Archimedes' principle should fail. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi
If this thing is completely 'weightless' (a thought experiment) then there is no limit to where it would end up. It would always be displacing some weight of atmosphere. The atmosphere of a totally isolated Earth 'goes on' for ever and there would always be a pressure difference between nearer and more distant sides of the box which would produce an outward force .
As real high altitude balloon flights show, the practical limit is around 50km; not very far at all but of course that's not a 'weightless' box of vacuum.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top