Your clinically relevant info in your series is very interesting and helpful. One thing I would suggest for your first buoyancy problem in this video is being a little more explicit in the coordinate directions. I personally would have stuck to a more conventional + up / - down, but that's your prerogative. However, w/out stating it some viewers may not easily understand how you are summing your force vectors and the final direction of acceleration.
For the question, the density of the object is defined as 3 times that of the fluid. If the fluid was three times denser than the object, the object would float on top.
how come around 3:17 you convert (mass of object x g) to (density of fluid x volume of object x g)? should the density not be density of object? thank you
This is a late reply but whatever, yes the density should be and IS in fact that of the object but he stated beforehand that density of object = 3*density of fluid, so instead of writing ρ(object) he switched it with 3ρ(fluid)
we flllow the direction of accelrration, since its talking about its acceleration when sinking(goingdown) then it become like the possitive, do u get it ? sory bad english
Oh Thank You Eric , Archimedes Keep My Brain Safe.Good Presentation For equation.
Your clinically relevant info in your series is very interesting and helpful. One thing I would suggest for your first buoyancy problem in this video is being a little more explicit in the coordinate directions. I personally would have stuck to a more conventional + up / - down, but that's your prerogative. However, w/out stating it some viewers may not easily understand how you are summing your force vectors and the final direction of acceleration.
Too late to change for this video, but I see your point.
For the question, the density of the object is defined as 3 times that of the fluid. If the fluid was three times denser than the object, the object would float on top.
Zthese videos are brilliant. Thanks for posting them
Helpful thanks.
Dude i like it 👌 because we have a exam in science
how come around 3:17 you convert (mass of object x g) to (density of fluid x volume of object x g)? should the density not be density of object? thank you
This is a late reply but whatever, yes the density should be and IS in fact that of the object but he stated beforehand that density of object = 3*density of fluid, so instead of writing ρ(object) he switched it with 3ρ(fluid)
Nice video, thanks sir :)
Thank u bro this is awesome , u related theory with prTical
Good work
wait why did you cancel the density. I think there should be 1 density left.
If you are refering to the second working example, density = mass/volume thus, mass=density*volume = 30 litre.
Is not the density of the fluid three times that of the object, i think im understanding the question wrong
a block of mass 100g is floating on water . what will be its apparent weight.j ustify
Aditya Shinde i can
Nice!
Buoyancy seems to be easy but i just dont get ..I am studying for my mcat and i have problems with it
shouldnt it had been F buoyancy - F weight tho??? bc weight is the force acting downwards
we flllow the direction of accelrration, since its talking about its acceleration when sinking(goingdown) then it become like the possitive, do u get it ? sory bad english
Bach invention no. 8 in F.
Spanish or English pls lol so if you're less in matter than the amount of the density of lets say water, then you're screwed lol