What is the underlying principle behind buoyancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasc15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Buoyancy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the principle of buoyancy, specifically why the buoyant force on a submerged object equals the weight of the displaced fluid. Participants explore the concept that pressure increases with depth, creating a net upward force on submerged bodies due to greater pressure on the lower surfaces compared to the upper ones. It is clarified that the shape of the object does not affect the buoyant force, which solely depends on the volume of the displaced fluid. The conversation also touches on the mathematical derivation of buoyancy, suggesting that while calculus can provide a rigorous proof, intuitive explanations are often sufficient. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that buoyancy is fundamentally linked to fluid displacement, independent of the object's geometry.
jasc15
Messages
162
Reaction score
5
I guess it makes sense that the buoyant force of an object is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, but why should this be the case? Why should that displaced liquid provide an upward force on the object?

It seems apparent that as long as there is some part of the object above the surface, the result of the pressure on the submerged portion would net an upward force. But what about a completely submerged body? The pressure is now applied to every surface of the body (including the previously un-submerged surfaces), so why the net upward force? Is there some application of a conservation law that I am missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jasc15 said:
But what about a completely submerged body? The pressure is now applied to every surface of the body (including the previously un-submerged surfaces), so why the net upward force?
The pressure is not the same everywhere. The pressure is greater on the lower part of the body--since fluid pressure increases with depth--leading to a net upward force
 
OK, i thought that may be the case, but then geometry of the body would affect its buoyancy, not just its weight.
 
jasc15 said:
But what about a completely submerged body? The pressure is now applied to every surface of the body (including the previously un-submerged surfaces), so why the net upward force?

The pressure applied to the low side is larger than the high side pressure. Remember the hydrostatic pressure, for the case of fluids exposed to a gravitational force:

70d6a72229f1c9e7b9be66465519621c.png

On the low side, the value of h is larger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasc15 said:
OK, i thought that may be the case, but then geometry of the body would affect its buoyancy, not just its weight.
No. It turns out that the shape is irrelevant. Any object totally submerged will have a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, regardless of shape.
 
Suppose i reconstruct the object so that it protrudes deeper than before, therefore having a larger pressure at the bottom. Now to keep the same density, those lower regions would have less surface area, so the increase in pressure would result in a lower force. How can i show that this trade off is exactly 1-to-1?

Basically, how can i show that all these factors disappear, and leave me with only volume?
 
Doc Al said:
No. It turns out that the shape is irrelevant. Any object totally submerged will have a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, regardless of shape.
I know it doesnt, and shouldn't matter what the shape of the object is, but i am really digging deep for a rigorous explanation.
 
jasc15 said:
I know it doesnt, and shouldn't matter what the shape of the object is, but i am really digging deep for a rigorous explanation.
Read this explanation: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pbuoy.html" . Note that the argument does not depend on the shape of the object.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you know multivariable calculus? If you do it is a piece of cake, if you don't you will need a heuristic explanation which might not be satisfying.
 
  • #10
Klockan3 said:
Do you know multivariable calculus? If you do it is a piece of cake, if you don't you will need a heuristic explanation which might not be satisfying.

I did a bit of thinking about 2 cylinders. Each the same volume and weight, but one twice as long as the other. The long one would have a pressure on its lower surface twice that of the shorter one, but half the surface area, therefore the same upward force. I suppose i would need some multivariable calculus to show that this applies to any general shape. I'd have to brush up on it. It's been a while, and I am not sure if i know it well enough to solve this problem.
 
  • #11
jasc15 said:
Basically, how can i show that all these factors disappear, and leave me with only volume?

If you mean the fact that the buoyant force is the weight of the displaced fluid, you're looking for the derivation of an (mg) term, not a volume. There is an article at this site that shows the derivation, on the following page:

https://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=123

The derivation on that page makes the volume a cube, which isn't necessary. To be more general I would prefer to select a cylinder whose base has any shape, base area A, height h.

Pressure difference between top base and bottom base is rho gh.

Buoyant force is = (pressure difference between the two bases)(base area) = rho ghA

volume of displaced fluid = hA
mass of displaced fluid = (density) (volume) = rho hA
weight of displaced fluid = (mass)(g) = rho gha

Therefore the buoyant force equals the weight of the displaced fluid.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
jasc15 said:
I did a bit of thinking about 2 cylinders. Each the same volume and weight, but one twice as long as the other. The long one would have a pressure on its lower surface twice that of the shorter one, but half the surface area, therefore the same upward force. I suppose i would need some multivariable calculus to show that this applies to any general shape. I'd have to brush up on it. It's been a while, and I am not sure if i know it well enough to solve this problem.
While you could use calculus to show that Archimedes' Principle holds for any shape, that's definitely the hard way to go. The argument given in the link I provided (and which is given in most textbooks) should convince you with no calculation--or calculus--whatsoever.
 
Back
Top