Snow Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 "One part of me thinks that if I had a container the right size and shape, I could float a battleship on a gallon of water. Another part of me thinks that this is not possible. Which part is right?" (David Bessette) Marilyn Vos Savant said: "The first part, at least in theory..." I don't think so. I don't know much at all about Archimedes' principle but when an object is partially or fully submerged, the buoyant force, or apparent loss in weight, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. A gallon of water weighs 8 1/2 lbs. It would take a whole lot more than 8 lbs of displacement to lift a battleship. Maybe it would work, in theory, if the battleship, of the same weight, had sides that extended upward to some incredible height... though I don't think I can explain why. Cal? Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisRuptive1 Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 eh, I'm seeing it as something bowl-like but that would hold an entire battleship. Then assuming that it's possible I'm thinking of the entire gallon of water sort of as a barrier between said bowl-shaped battleship holder and the battleship itself. Sort of like a lubricant that doesn't really lubricate. So I'm thinking it could be possible it's just that I don't think the water would actually hold up the battleship and I don't know if a gallon of water could fill like a paper thin between the bowl-shaped battlship holder and the said battleship. But then again I don't have any fancy shmancy scientific backround to prove anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luzia Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Heh, now you made me wish I was smarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Jun 6 2004, 08:07 PM "One part of me thinks that if I had a container the right size and shape, I could float a battleship on a gallon of water. Another part of me thinks that this is not possible. Which part is right?" (David Bessette)Marilyn Vos Savant said:"The first part, at least in theory..."I don't think so. I don't know much at all about Archimedes' principle but when an object is partially or fully submerged, the buoyant force, or apparent loss in weight, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. A gallon of water weighs 8 1/2 lbs. It would take a whole lot more than 8 lbs of displacement to lift a battleship. Maybe it would work, in theory, if the battleship, of the same weight, had sides that extended upward to some incredible height... though I don't think I can explain why.Cal? Anyone? Archimedes principle is really a consequence of submerging an object in a fluid, but doesn't actually explain the cause of the bouyancy.The fact that the fluid rises is not actually very important, except that it contributes to the overall depth of the water. Any solid object would displace a fluid by its own volume, even if no bouyancy were created, which is what would be the case in a zero gravity situation. However, gravity causes fluid pressure to increase as you move in the fluid toward the center of the earth.In a gravitational field, the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight lost by the object. This is an interesting coincidence of nature, however, the reason bouyancy occurs is because there is a pressure differencial between submersion depths of various parts of the object being submerged. This differencial creates a pressure difference between points on the object, creating a net upward force, since the deeper points on the object have more pressure on them than shallower points. When that net upward force becomes greater than the weight (also a force) of the object, the object floats. The bouyant force only depends upon the depth of the fluid (it works in gases too), not the total volume of the fluid. So, as long as you can make the gallon of water deep enough, you could theoretically float anything in it. The problem is you would have to make the object pretty thin in width to compensate for the thinness of the column of water deep enough to create a pressure differential equal to the weight of a ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by Cal+Jun 14 2004, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jun 14 2004, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jun 6 2004, 08:07 PM "One part of me thinks that if I had a container the right size and shape, I could float a battleship on a gallon of water. Another part of me thinks that this is not possible. Which part is right?" (David Bessette)Marilyn Vos Savant said:"The first part, at least in theory..."I don't think so. I don't know much at all about Archimedes' principle but when an object is partially or fully submerged, the buoyant force, or apparent loss in weight, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. A gallon of water weighs 8 1/2 lbs. It would take a whole lot more than 8 lbs of displacement to lift a battleship. Maybe it would work, in theory, if the battleship, of the same weight, had sides that extended upward to some incredible height... though I don't think I can explain why.Cal? Anyone? Archimedes principle is really a consequence of submerging an object in a fluid, but doesn't actually explain the cause of the bouyancy.The fact that the fluid rises is not actually very important, except that it contributes to the overall depth of the water. Any solid object would displace a fluid by its own volume, even if no bouyancy were created, which is what would be the case in a zero gravity situation. However, gravity causes fluid pressure to increase as you move in the fluid toward the center of the earth.In a gravitational field, the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight lost by the object. This is an interesting coincidence of nature, however, the reason bouyancy occurs is because there is a pressure differencial between submersion depths of various parts of the object being submerged. This differencial creates a pressure difference between points on the object, creating a net upward force, since the deeper points on the object have more pressure on them than shallower points. When that net upward force becomes greater than the weight (also a force) of the object, the object floats. The bouyant force only depends upon the depth of the fluid (it works in gases too), not the total volume of the fluid. So, as long as you can make the gallon of water deep enough, you could theoretically float anything in it. The problem is you would have to make the object pretty thin in width to compensate for the thinness of the column of water deep enough to create a pressure differential equal to the weight of a ship. Well, yeah, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kevin+Jun 14 2004, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Jun 14 2004, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Cal@Jun 14 2004, 04:02 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jun 6 2004, 08:07 PM "One part of me thinks that if I had a container the right size and shape, I could float a battleship on a gallon of water. Another part of me thinks that this is not possible. Which part is right?" (David Bessette)Marilyn Vos Savant said:"The first part, at least in theory..."I don't think so. I don't know much at all about Archimedes' principle but when an object is partially or fully submerged, the buoyant force, or apparent loss in weight, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. A gallon of water weighs 8 1/2 lbs. It would take a whole lot more than 8 lbs of displacement to lift a battleship. Maybe it would work, in theory, if the battleship, of the same weight, had sides that extended upward to some incredible height... though I don't think I can explain why.Cal? Anyone? Archimedes principle is really a consequence of submerging an object in a fluid, but doesn't actually explain the cause of the bouyancy.The fact that the fluid rises is not actually very important, except that it contributes to the overall depth of the water. Any solid object would displace a fluid by its own volume, even if no bouyancy were created, which is what would be the case in a zero gravity situation. However, gravity causes fluid pressure to increase as you move in the fluid toward the center of the earth.In a gravitational field, the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight lost by the object. This is an interesting coincidence of nature, however, the reason bouyancy occurs is because there is a pressure differencial between submersion depths of various parts of the object being submerged. This differencial creates a pressure difference between points on the object, creating a net upward force, since the deeper points on the object have more pressure on them than shallower points. When that net upward force becomes greater than the weight (also a force) of the object, the object floats. The bouyant force only depends upon the depth of the fluid (it works in gases too), not the total volume of the fluid. So, as long as you can make the gallon of water deep enough, you could theoretically float anything in it. The problem is you would have to make the object pretty thin in width to compensate for the thinness of the column of water deep enough to create a pressure differential equal to the weight of a ship. Well, yeah, of course. Sorry for such a drawn out answer, but nothing is ever as simple as one would like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Cal, I think you just described the translation process for the Book of Mormon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Jun 6 2004, 09:07 PM Anyone? Heh, eh, umm and heh again... surely this is covered somewhere in the PofGP or D&C or BoM, isn't it. Ray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.