A fluid mechanics problem I often assign is based on a problem from, I think, one of the older Serway editions. It shows a beaker full of oil sitting on a platform scale. A bar of iron is suspended in the oil from a rope which is attached to a spring scale. The problem asks:
A 1.0 kg beaker containing 2.0 kg of oil (density = 916 kg/m3) rests on a platform scale. A 2.0 kg block of iron is suspended from a spring scale and is completely submerged in the oil.
(a) Which scale reading should be larger (or should they be the same)? Explain conceptually.
(b) When the iron is in equilibrium, what is the reading in the spring scale?
(c) When the iron is in equilibrium, what is the reading on the platform scale?
Most everyone gets the idea that the platform scale reads a bigger force -- after all, even without considering anything tricky (like fluid mechanics), the spring scale seems to read just the 20 N weight of the iron, while the platform scale seems to read the 30 N weight of the beaker/oil. A bit more logic with buoyant forces convinces the students that the spring scale must read LESS THAN 20 N, because of the upward buoyant force on the iron. No problem.
Part (b) is similar to a demonstration from class, and numerous example and practice problems in texts. They know to draw a free body, calculate the buoyant force using Archimides' principle, and use the free body to calculate the tension in the string connected to the scale. The only halfway tricky part is finding the volume of the iron, which is easily done once the density of iron is looked up. The buoyant force is about 2 N in this case.
Part (c) is the part that causes trouble. Most of the class, at least initially, says that the reading on the platform scale is just 30 N -- the weight of the oil plus the weight of the beaker. Others get the right answer of 32 N, but for crazy reasons. Some come to the conclusion that since the oil "lost" the 2 N buoyant force, that we must return these 2 N to the oil through the reading on the platform scale by conservation of force. Others simply draw the buoyant force acting down directly on the beaker. Many make no argument whatsoever, but just add in 2 N, presumably because their friends told them to and they couldn't quite explain it.
I'm glad that so many students have the physics instincts to recognize that 30 N can't be right. A few will say they made a lucky guess, but I consider such a guess good physics intuition. However, only a very few students get the justification for why the platform scale reads 32 N. Do you know?
It's Newton's Third Law.
The buoyant force is the upward force of the oil on the iron. Therefore, there must be a downward force of the iron on the oil. When we consider the oil-beaker system, the downward forces sum to 32 N, including the weights of the oil and beaker, and the third law companion force to the buoyant force.
Do you believe me?
My students don't, at least not if they didn't get the answer right in the first place. So I set up a similar situation. The picture at the top (credit to Frederic Lamontagne, WFS class of '11, for the photography) shows a beaker containing a submerged aluminum weight, just like in the problem. When I remove the weight from the water, the reading in the spring scale increases, but the balance scale goes out of balance! I have to rebalance the scale to make up for the removal of that downward force of the aluminum on the water. Since the spring scale reading increased by 0.2 N, I had to add about 20 g to the balance scale reading. Physics works.
No comments:
Post a Comment