- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Too good to be true?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostThis truly is the dullest
thread CUK has ever seen.
Wilmslow, please come back!

Comment
-
I was thinking more of proving it in a more fundamental way, e.g. with Newtons laws. If the story is true Archimedes found the principle experimentally (i.e. he didn't have a clueOriginally posted by Diver View PostArchimedes was asked to determine whether a crown made for King Heron II was made of pure gold.
He determined and demonstrated that the crown was not pure gold, because although the crown and a nugget of the same weight balanced on scales in air, they did not do so in water because the crown has a lower density than the nugget. <------Displacement see
), though he could equally have proved it vigorously too.
Here is a proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfLnxTQnqQ
HTH
Comment
-
I actually sat right the way through thatOriginally posted by TimberWolf View PostI was thinking more of proving it in a more fundamental way, e.g. with Newtons laws. If the story is true Archimedes found the principle experimentally (i.e. he didn't have a clue
), though he could equally have proved it vigorously too.
Here is a proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfLnxTQnqQ
HTH

The bit where he nips off camera saying "Let me just check"
Confusion is a natural state of beingComment
-
Now this is fun science"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark TwainComment
-
Cos a couple of geeks are having a pissing contest.Originally posted by zeitghostP1 * V1 / T1 = P2 * V2 / T2.
Or something.
Why is this thread turning into something out of Physicsforums?

Comment
-
Because CUK is one of the last bastions of knowledge where we can discuss this.Originally posted by zeitghostP1 * V1 / T1 = P2 * V2 / T2.
Or something.
Why is this thread turning into something out of Physicsforums?
Unlike MySpace.Thickos where everyone discusses:-
Phil moves back into the Vic
Ronnie has her first baby scan
Bianca surprises the kids with a holidayIf you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.Comment
-
I fast-forwarded through a lot of it, but found it entertaining nevertheless. The proof is actually quite simple. Here's the basics.Originally posted by Diver View PostI actually sat right the way through that
The bit where he nips off camera saying "Let me just check"
Using:Pressure = Force / Area (P=F/A), therefore F=P*A
Density = Mass / Volume
Let d stand for water density, so the pressure at depth = d * g * depth
Pressure increases (linearly) with depth (P = d * g *depth), so for an object of height h the pressure on the top surface (P1) will be slightly less than on the bottom surface (P2) and so the pressure difference on the object (P2-P1). Using the first equation, this force equals (P2-P1)*A. Horizontal pressures are equal so are ignored.
Using the third formula this force equals (d * g * h) * A, and since volume is height * area, equals d*g*V. And since Mass = density * volume (2nd formula), equals mg.
Mg equals the weight of water displaced, so that's the buoyant force.
In algebraic terms: F= (P2-P1)A = pghA = pgV = mg
I think you have to do things like this yourself before they make sense but that's the basics.Comment
-
Note also that if the bottom surface isn't subjected to the water pressure, there will be no net buoyant force. Archimedes principle is not valid. For instance if the bottom surface is glued to a flat surface on the bottom. This situation doesn't appear to get discussed much though.Comment
-
p.s. I think I've done this when messing about with flat floats in the swimming pool. Put two floats under the water with one flat on top of the other. Just hold down the bottom one, and I think I've seen the top one remain stuck to the bottom one for a while. Archimedes principle not in action. Water works its way between the floats quite quickly though (and how quickly it does so depends on its pressure and therefore the depth), and so after a few seconds Archimedes principle takes over again.Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostNote also that if the bottom surface isn't subjected to the water pressure, there will be no net buoyant force. Archimedes principle is not valid. For instance if the bottom surface is glued to a flat surface on the bottom. This situation doesn't appear to get discussed much though.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Umbrella companies, beware JSL tunnel vision now that the Employment Rights Act is law Today 06:11
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Yesterday 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57
- Contractors, don’t fall foul of HMRC’s expenses rules this Christmas party season Dec 19 09:55
- A delay to the employment status consultation isn’t why an IR35 fix looks further out of reach Dec 18 08:22
- How asking a tech jobs agency basic questions got one IT contractor withdrawn Dec 17 07:21
- Are Home Office immigration policies sacrificing IT contractors for ‘cheap labour’? Dec 16 07:48
- Will 2026 see the return of the ‘Outside IR35’ contractor? Dec 15 07:51


Comment