- #1
Ravi Singh choudhary
- 125
- 7
if the person sitting in the boat throws a pebble to the swimming pool. Pebble was initially contained inside the boat and of course it has higher density than water.
So what's the conclusionrcgldr said:The boat displaces water based on the boats total weight and density of water. The pebble is denser than water.
That means initially boat and pebble was drowned, displaced volume is (volume of boat + volume of pebble). When pebble is thrown, boat will rise to the top and boat's bottom surface will just kiss the water surface and pebble is drowned only; so this time only displaced volume is volume of the pebble. Am I correct in the interpretation of weightless boat and pebble of infinite density?billy_joule said:Cosider the extreme case and the problem is much easier to understand;
The boat is weightless and the pebble has close to infinite density.
The second part is correct. For the first part (pebble in boat), the displaced volume is the volume of water equal to the weight of the boat and the pebble.Ravi Singh choudhary said:displaced volume is (volume of boat + volume of pebble). When pebble is thrown ... only displaced volume is volume of the pebble. Am I correct in the interpretation of weightless boat and pebble of infinite density?
How did you get from "some" to "same"?Ravi Singh choudhary said:...time stone is inside swimming pool again displacing some volume that means water level will be the same.
When in the boat, the entire rock surface is dry, but the rock can still be completely below the water level.hsdrop said:All the boat does in this case is add bounce to the rock. Allowing it to float which means that some of the total surface of the rock is out of the water
you know i could wipe the rock in cellophane. keeping the rock dry at the bottom of the water Then call the cellophane the boat the question does not ask if the rock gets wet or not it asks what the level of the water when the rock is at the bottom of the water compared to floating on topA.T. said:When in the boat, the entire rock surface is dry, but the rock can still be completely below the water level.
That would be a submarine though.hsdrop said:i could wipe the rock in cellophane. keeping the rock dry at the bottom of the water Then call the cellophane the boat
Ravi Singh choudhary said:That means initially boat and pebble was drowned, displaced volume is (volume of boat + volume of pebble). When pebble is thrown, boat will rise to the top and boat's bottom surface will just kiss the water surface and pebble is drowned only; so this time only displaced volume is volume of the pebble. Am I correct in the interpretation of weightless boat and pebble of infinite density?
It doesn't have to be. The volume of the pebble has to be very, very small to sustain the wieght of a "normal" pebble.billy_joule said:A boat can support near infinite weight without sinking, it just has to be very large.
The boat will only sink if we constrain its size in some way, if we let the boat sink the question is very different, and IMO losses the interesting aspect.
The weightless boat and very dense pebble has the same result as the question in your OP, it's just that the extreme case makes the outcome much more dramatic/easier to understand.
If that's your conclusion, then something is wrong with your reasoning.hsdrop said:the water would have to rise ?
To float on or in the water the parts must have density less than or equal to the water.hsdrop said:lol very true
by definition: to float on or in water the sum of the parts have to be less dense than the water.
hsdrop said:i could wipe the rock in cellophane. keeping the rock dry at the bottom of the water Then call the cellophane the boat
Sinking to the bottom is not usually the desirable mode of operation for a submarine!A.T. said:That would be a submarine though.
did you read my reasoning?? Please do not just point at something and say it wrong. It would be much more helpful to everyone that are trying to learn if you explained why it was wrongA.T. said:If that's your conclusion, then something is wrong with your reasoning.
Try applying some actual physics:hsdrop said:It would be much more helpful to everyone that are trying to learn if you explained why it was wrong
that still lives it up to the reader to try to figure out what was wrong with my thinkingA.T. said:Try applying some actual physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle
hsdrop said:It would be much more helpful to everyone that are trying to learn if you explained why it was wrong
It doesn't use physics, just vague associations.hsdrop said:that still lives it up to the reader to try to figure out what was wrong with my thinking
Apply Archimedes' principle to the scenario. Then you can revisit your previous arguments yourself to see where they went wrong.hsdrop said:but if me or anyone else is going to learn from this it would be much more effective if you gave a specific reason (with the example given) why it is wrong
So what did you get for:hsdrop said:i did try to do that
a weightless boat would not displace any water till something is put on itbilly_joule said:The weightless boat and very dense pebble has the same result as the question in your OP, it's just that the extreme case makes the outcome much more dramatic/easier to understand.
hsdrop said:...but you're saying that if the mass was submerged the water level would stay the same no matter what the volume of the mass is(provided it would sink and not float on it own)??
and you're right i looked and no he did not say thatCWatters said:Check again. Did he really say that?
The water level of a swimming pool can be affected by a variety of factors, including evaporation, splashing, leaks, and the addition or removal of water.
A simple way to determine if your pool is losing water due to evaporation or a leak is to perform a "bucket test." Fill a bucket with pool water and place it on the pool steps or ladder. Mark the water level inside the bucket and the pool water level. Check back in 24 hours - if both water levels have decreased by the same amount, it is likely due to evaporation. If the pool water level has decreased significantly more than the bucket, there may be a leak.
To prevent excessive evaporation in your pool, you can use a pool cover when the pool is not in use. This will help to reduce the amount of water lost to evaporation.
Yes, you can add more water to your pool to maintain the water level. However, it is important to regularly check for leaks and address any issues that may be causing the water level to decrease.
If you suspect a leak in your pool, it is important to address it as soon as possible. Contact a professional pool technician to locate and repair the leak to prevent further water loss and potential damage to your pool.