The important information thats missing is that Archimedes submerged a piece of gold *of the same weight as the crown* into water, and found that it displaced less water than the crown, proving the latter wasn't made of pure gold. Only by "cancelling out" weight, density can be measured this way.
MASSIVE error in this video (pun intended). This video explicitly states @4:02 a crown of pure gold would spill out a different volume than one that was not made of pure gold ... that is factually wrong. Anything that sinks, will spill out only it's volume. Please correct this. Check out the rock in the boat problem. Floating doesn't displace the volume of an object ... sinking does. Buoyant force is the weight of volume of the fluid not the weight of the object. Buoyant force is therefore a constant of the fluid, a constant of the gravity associated with Earth, and the volume of that fluid that is displaced ... none of it needs to know the density of the object.
@@highcue it's absolutely wrong. They displace the same amount. Anything heavier than water will displace the same for the same given volume. it's only constraint on weight is that it's density is > than what it sinks into.
The important information thats missing is that Archimedes submerged a piece of gold of the same weight as the crown into water, and found that it displaced less water than the crown, proving the latter wasn't made of pure gold. Only by "cancelling out" weight, density can be measured this way.
I think the missing piece here is that all of the crowns tested need to be the same weight, then once they are all submerged there will be a difference in the volume of water displaced.
@@Nodiddy-ir3lj And here it should be obvious we are talking about objects with higher density than water (that sink) objects with lower density than water will float above it like helium gas per say
@@ivan1u2be oh thank you i was screaming at this video as its nothing but wrong for the first few mins and then he switches his point to properly reference volume, all in all this video is sooooooo flawed it is a detriment to people learning correct information !! good try but total epic fail !
I'm not convinced at 3:25, that there is a actually a relationship between the weight of water and the weight of his body. Isn't the relationship between the volume of water displaced, and the volume of his body? Seeing as the human body is denser than water (without air in lungs), then the amount of water displaced would not in fact weight be as much as the part of his body that was submerged. If you had a manikin made from lead, and submerged the same volume of it, then wouldn't it displace the exact same amount of water? Am I right in saying that this video is badly explained as it doesn't explain in this inevitable question that someone is going to ask? They should also have explain - in terms of buoyant force - why some objects sink and others don't.
This video is incorrect. We have two parts to the principle. An immersed object will ... 1) displace an amount of water equal to it's immersed volume. 2) feel an upward buoyant force equal to it's weight. The narrator has conflated these two facts. Archimedes used the first fact to establish the purity of Heiron's crown.
soo dense object displace more water??.... thats foolish... the acual thing is... the volume of water displaced is equal to that of the object....it compares volume..not density or mass!!!!
Actually, heavy objects and light objects may have the same volume, their weight can be different. So same volume of water will spill if its real gold or even if it is plastic. Sorry Science ABC, wrong. The answer is that the real gold will sink faster than other materials even though they have the same volume Gold is really heavy!
you have to consider that the crown made of gold, silver or whatever have exactly the same weight. they will have different volume for a same weight; then you can understand why crown made of gold will spill less water than silver crown.
Yes, the issue is the video makes some assumptions that it does not make clear. So when it says something like "A crown made of gold will displace less water than a crown made of silver" what the author has assumed but not made clear is that the two crowns weigh the same.
@@ultimateman55 thank you, this information helped me understand. So, a crown made of gold that weights 1kg will displace less water that a silver crown of 1kg, because 1kg of silver is "bigger" than 1kg of gold, if I am right
This is actually incorrect, since the amount spilled over the edge is actually depending on the volume of the object, not density. Please refrain from sharing inaccurate info on youtube 😅
@@fhinnes The volume of an object is what affects the amount of displaced water, not density. For example, if a big block of foam was successfully submerged in water, it would displace more water than a smaller, more compacted version.
@@wadalzain5 The density only affects the amount of displaced water when the mass of two objects are the same. Otherwise, the volume would be the factor deciding the displaced water. This is because X x Y = k (k is mass, x & y is volume and density) which is an inverse relationship, meaning as one factor increases the other decreases. That's the only way that density affects the volume, which is when the mass is the same. So if block A and B had the same mass, but block A was denser, then yeah the volume would undoubtedly decrease, making the displaced water less (I wrote a lot to make sure there are no misunderstandings).
@@fhinnes the way it is presented in this video is incorrect ... it explicitly states @4:02 a crown of pure gold would spill out a different volume than one that was not made of pure gold ... that is factually wrong.
uhhh seriously , this video is soooooo flawed and it is absolsutely incorrect without even the slightest of doubt, it needs the narration corrected and rerecorded immediately as this could lead to more and more and more people continuing to be miss educated and quite frankly I don't see how anybody with even just a slight understanding of science would not be able to recognize the humongous flaw that is in this from very very quickly and the very first moments of the video and I'm not trying to be negative and discourage you for making videos but this needs to be addressed and then your efforts will be much more appreciated S the animation is great and I commend you for doing such a good job on that if you did that yourself but yes the science is wrong so so so wrong and I don't know if it's just because you accidentally used the wrong definition and got density and volume confused but it's seriously flawed as density and volume do not have the same effect on the displacement of water and again I'm assuming you quickly would catch this upon drawing attention to it and would agree that volume is the only thing that effects displacement volume volume volume is the variable in which affects displacement and the measurement of weight corresponds to the density of an object and if you use both of those measurements in conjunction you can determine the actual density of a irregular shaped object
It is confusing at four minutes in when the narrator says a crown of pure gold would displace less water than a crown that wasn't pure gold. He should have said that he was talking about two crowns of equal weight.
Cool but archimedes was 21 then , better to show to kids that being smart and genius is not only for old scientist so we encourage kids and young people to be creative .
Regardless of denisity it, the objects will spill the same ammout of water as long as their volumes are equal). The video is misleading, and should be corrected or removed!
Y eso que era explicado en palabras sencillas, me pregunto como seria lo contrario, para no hacernos bolas es más fácil decir, ¡¡ todo objeto sumergido en un líquido, desaloja el volumen del cuerpo sumergido !!, esto lo aprendí desde la secundaria
If you go down deep enough in the ocean, ae there like ships suspended, not touching the ground? The bouyant force must overcome the weight of the object at some point, ight?
Because water is "incompressible" that means that the density of the water doesn't change as you go down, and so the buoyant force doesnt change once the object is fully submerged. This of course is just an assumption in fluid mechanics though so theoretically if you were to go deep enough..
The pure gold is so soft that one can literally chew it with their tooth. Besides, how they could manage to measure the weight of water to mg accuracy to distinguish between a 99% gold from 100%?????
capillary tube. It can even measure small changes in temperature. If temperature is the same, then displacement change is the change in height of the column. The entire system must be in a standard pressure system. In-other-words a sealed environment. They failed to mention that part.
@@ejrupp9555 Capillary tube with sealed chamber containing constant pressure at 1 atmosphere (1.013 bar) and 25.0 Celsius circa 2200 years ago to determine purity of %99 or %100? I think they could determine if a material has more impurities or less but not with that accuracy that the Greeks trying to show off.
@@Shahram19702010 open the bottom of that tube and stick it in the water. Viola, the rise in height of the water level due to displaced volume increases the pressure at the bottom of the capillary tube so the level in the capillary tube rises in proportion. You only have to compare two samples that weigh the same. Use gold dust as a counter balance. So you just add gold dust to the water till it brings it up to the same level as the item you are testing ... if you have to add more gold dust to get to the same level, then the proportion of that added, is it's lack of purity. The difference in the tube level at the point all the counterbalanced weight of dust is added is the density difference. The capillary tube doesn't have to be that sophisticated to achieve accuracy to the tenths of a percent. it's just a matter of dividing a pile into a number of equally balanced piles. Say you counter balanced the item with a quantity of gold dust, then divide that into 2 of 50%, take pile one and divide in half to 25%, then to 12.5% and so on till you get the desired accuracy where you have two piles of the same weight. The smallest division represents the accuracy. It could also be done by just measuring the difference in the height of the column in the capillary tube. if you just plunk in the gold dust then lower the level back to initial condition and then plunk in the item ... the difference in height as a percentage change gets you there ... Hope that helps. Yikes, that was a lot of edits. What's simple in my mind's eye is sometimes hard to translate to words. I also imagined a u-shaped tube with each end in a separate equal volume containers and just plunk all the stuff in at once and note the water levels in each side of the tube.
Great, but this did not answer my question. If a 300Lb boat engine is on the oven floor, how much water does it displace….that would be king of hard with out knowing the mathematical breakdown
@@Scienceabc I love how you explain things & also your voice, but not your animations. Why don't you make your animations kinda like Kurzgesagt? No offense. A lot of love from India. ❤️
The important information thats missing is that Archimedes submerged a piece of gold *of the same weight as the crown* into water, and found that it displaced less water than the crown, proving the latter wasn't made of pure gold. Only by "cancelling out" weight, density can be measured this way.
🎉🎉🎉right
Absolutely necessary information yes
Thank you this was driving me nuts. Because if volume is all that matters then it makes no sense for them to be different if their the same volume
MASSIVE error in this video (pun intended). This video explicitly states @4:02 a crown of pure gold would spill out a different volume than one that was not made of pure gold ... that is factually wrong. Anything that sinks, will spill out only it's volume. Please correct this. Check out the rock in the boat problem. Floating doesn't displace the volume of an object ... sinking does. Buoyant force is the weight of volume of the fluid not the weight of the object. Buoyant force is therefore a constant of the fluid, a constant of the gravity associated with Earth, and the volume of that fluid that is displaced ... none of it needs to know the density of the object.
Agreed, yet here is the video two years later, still misinforming people. Sigh....
@@highcue it's absolutely wrong. They displace the same amount. Anything heavier than water will displace the same for the same given volume. it's only constraint on weight is that it's density is > than what it sinks into.
The important information thats missing is that
Archimedes submerged a piece of gold of the same
weight as the crown into water, and found that it
displaced less water than the crown, proving the
latter wasn't made of pure gold. Only by "cancelling
out" weight, density can be measured this way.
I think the missing piece here is that all of the crowns tested need to be the same weight, then once they are all submerged there will be a difference in the volume of water displaced.
water displacement is about volume not weight
Yes but the idea is that the volume displaced is equal to weight of water so different densities affect how much water comes out
@@Nodiddy-ir3lj lol no, different volume does
@@Nodiddy-ir3lj And here it should be obvious we are talking about objects with higher density than water (that sink) objects with lower density than water will float above it like helium gas per say
@@ivan1u2be oh thank you i was screaming at this video as its nothing but wrong for the first few mins and then he switches his point to properly reference volume, all in all this video is sooooooo flawed it is a detriment to people learning correct information !! good try but total epic fail !
I'm not convinced at 3:25, that there is a actually a relationship between the weight of water and the weight of his body. Isn't the relationship between the volume of water displaced, and the volume of his body? Seeing as the human body is denser than water (without air in lungs), then the amount of water displaced would not in fact weight be as much as the part of his body that was submerged. If you had a manikin made from lead, and submerged the same volume of it, then wouldn't it displace the exact same amount of water?
Am I right in saying that this video is badly explained as it doesn't explain in this inevitable question that someone is going to ask? They should also have explain - in terms of buoyant force - why some objects sink and others don't.
This video is incorrect. We have two parts to the principle. An immersed object will ...
1) displace an amount of water equal to it's immersed volume.
2) feel an upward buoyant force equal to it's weight.
The narrator has conflated these two facts.
Archimedes used the first fact to establish the purity of Heiron's crown.
soo dense object displace more water??.... thats foolish... the acual thing is... the volume of water displaced is equal to that of the object....it compares volume..not density or mass!!!!
bro why he frekin naked in front of the king ;-; this is not for children-
;-;
ikr
am i the only wondering whether the crown was pure gold or not...................
yes you are
No, you're not the only one. Apparently we have to assume it wasn't pure gold.
Actually, heavy objects and light objects may have the same volume, their weight can be different. So same volume of water will spill if its real gold or even if it is plastic. Sorry Science ABC, wrong. The answer is that the real gold will sink faster than other materials even though they have the same volume Gold is really heavy!
you have to consider that the crown made of gold, silver or whatever have exactly the same weight. they will have different volume for a same weight; then you can understand why crown made of gold will spill less water than silver crown.
Yes, the issue is the video makes some assumptions that it does not make clear. So when it says something like "A crown made of gold will displace less water than a crown made of silver" what the author has assumed but not made clear is that the two crowns weigh the same.
@@ultimateman55 thank you, this information helped me understand. So, a crown made of gold that weights 1kg will displace less water that a silver crown of 1kg, because 1kg of silver is "bigger" than 1kg of gold, if I am right
@@jevongraham5223 Correct.
So it's like 1kg of cotton and 1kg of nail..?
This is actually incorrect, since the amount spilled over the edge is actually depending on the volume of the object, not density. Please refrain from sharing inaccurate info on youtube 😅
No, that's incorrect. Please research about it.
@@fhinnes The volume of an object is what affects the amount of displaced water, not density. For example, if a big block of foam was successfully submerged in water, it would displace more water than a smaller, more compacted version.
@@kaito9417 incorrect, the big block of foam will displace more water because it has less density than a compact block.
@@wadalzain5 The density only affects the amount of displaced water when the mass of two objects are the same. Otherwise, the volume would be the factor deciding the displaced water. This is because X x Y = k (k is mass, x & y is volume and density) which is an inverse relationship, meaning as one factor increases the other decreases. That's the only way that density affects the volume, which is when the mass is the same. So if block A and B had the same mass, but block A was denser, then yeah the volume would undoubtedly decrease, making the displaced water less (I wrote a lot to make sure there are no misunderstandings).
@@fhinnes the way it is presented in this video is incorrect ... it explicitly states @4:02 a crown of pure gold would spill out a different volume than one that was not made of pure gold ... that is factually wrong.
3:53 that's so odd. I would have thought the pure gold crown would weigh more than a hybrid and would displace MORE water than the hybrid.
There is an old man studying about Bouyant Force in 3:00😂😅
I wonder he is Archimedes
uhhh seriously , this video is soooooo flawed and it is absolsutely incorrect without even the slightest of doubt, it needs the narration corrected and rerecorded immediately as this could lead to more and more and more people continuing to be miss educated and quite frankly I don't see how anybody with even just a slight understanding of science would not be able to recognize the humongous flaw that is in this from very very quickly and the very first moments of the video and I'm not trying to be negative and discourage you for making videos but this needs to be addressed and then your efforts will be much more appreciated S the animation is great and I commend you for doing such a good job on that if you did that yourself but yes the science is wrong so so so wrong and I don't know if it's just because you accidentally used the wrong definition and got density and volume confused but it's seriously flawed as density and volume do not have the same effect on the displacement of water and again I'm assuming you quickly would catch this upon drawing attention to it and would agree that volume is the only thing that effects displacement volume volume volume is the variable in which affects displacement and the measurement of weight corresponds to the density of an object and if you use both of those measurements in conjunction you can determine the actual density of a irregular shaped object
2:52 a bald student who failed every year
Nice observation! Lol 😅
@@scootermom1791 😂😅
This channel’s gonna be a hit in a year or so. Kudos to the admin.
man was right.
It is confusing at four minutes in when the narrator says a crown of pure gold would displace less water than a crown that wasn't pure gold. He should have said that he was talking about two crowns of equal weight.
Cool but archimedes was 21 then , better to show to kids that being smart and genius is not only for old scientist so we encourage kids and young people to be creative .
this is so cool! cant wait for this to blow up.
The buoyant force of an object is equal to the weight displaced by the object that’s the basics
Anything that floats has this place enough. Water that is less than what the water would weigh in whatever is on top of the water period I think.😮
Question is was that pure gold or not?
No, it was mixed
This man made my life tough
Did you get this topic from one of the Sheldon's interesting facts!?😂😅
Nope school lol but I do like young Sheldon
Can you make video on 3 Newtown laws
Ummmm sorry this video did not help me. If this video is for kids then I’m in trouble! Maybe is needs to be in layman’s terms
😂 I made you a boat.. and it floats🤣 killed me
Regardless of denisity it, the objects will spill the same ammout of water as long as their volumes are equal). The video is misleading, and should be corrected or removed!
The buoyant force of an object is equal to the weight displaced by the object that’s the basics
Intresting
My science teacher told us to watch this video for hw and this video is to too funny :')
What do you find funny in this
@@mustafaumair4291 cause it is u have to notice it
@@malak_yyy are you saying the part when he was running naked to the king
@@mustafaumair4291 yes!
@@malak_yyy yeah that was a little bit funny
Hiii
He go naked to kingdom🤨
Man the animation was kinda creepy tho
👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Y eso que era explicado en palabras sencillas, me pregunto como seria lo contrario, para no hacernos bolas es más fácil decir, ¡¡ todo objeto sumergido en un líquido, desaloja el volumen del cuerpo sumergido !!, esto lo aprendí desde la secundaria
People should watch you more.
Those that want to laugh, it's wrong
Eureka!!!!!!!
hi
Amazing
Thanks so much
I need this so bad for a science exam i write in a few hours 😭
All the very best for your exam 👍
Don't use this it's factualy incorrect
Well explained
Glad you think so :).
If you go down deep enough in the ocean, ae there like ships suspended, not touching the ground? The bouyant force must overcome the weight of the object at some point, ight?
Because water is "incompressible" that means that the density of the water doesn't change as you go down, and so the buoyant force doesnt change once the object is fully submerged. This of course is just an assumption in fluid mechanics though so theoretically if you were to go deep enough..
Medics Archimedes Team Fortress
amazing
does air follows archimedes principle
Amazing
Satyaban
I feel like this story is also proof of autism.
Gurl what
eureka means I found it.
Damn im sleepy
ark no eh
Wow
Nice😂😂😂😂
thanks!
Sick video yo!
fluid
Nice Video! Thanks a lot
The sience in this video is terrible. Also the archimedes death ray is an established myth....
hater
The pure gold is so soft that one can literally chew it with their tooth. Besides, how they could manage to measure the weight of water to mg accuracy to distinguish between a 99% gold from 100%?????
capillary tube. It can even measure small changes in temperature. If temperature is the same, then displacement change is the change in height of the column. The entire system must be in a standard pressure system. In-other-words a sealed environment. They failed to mention that part.
@@ejrupp9555
Capillary tube with sealed chamber containing constant pressure at 1 atmosphere (1.013 bar) and 25.0 Celsius circa 2200 years ago to determine purity of %99 or %100?
I think they could determine if a material has more impurities or less but not with that accuracy that the Greeks trying to show off.
@@Shahram19702010 open the bottom of that tube and stick it in the water. Viola, the rise in height of the water level due to displaced volume increases the pressure at the bottom of the capillary tube so the level in the capillary tube rises in proportion. You only have to compare two samples that weigh the same. Use gold dust as a counter balance. So you just add gold dust to the water till it brings it up to the same level as the item you are testing ... if you have to add more gold dust to get to the same level, then the proportion of that added, is it's lack of purity. The difference in the tube level at the point all the counterbalanced weight of dust is added is the density difference. The capillary tube doesn't have to be that sophisticated to achieve accuracy to the tenths of a percent. it's just a matter of dividing a pile into a number of equally balanced piles. Say you counter balanced the item with a quantity of gold dust, then divide that into 2 of 50%, take pile one and divide in half to 25%, then to 12.5% and so on till you get the desired accuracy where you have two piles of the same weight. The smallest division represents the accuracy.
It could also be done by just measuring the difference in the height of the column in the capillary tube. if you just plunk in the gold dust then lower the level back to initial condition and then plunk in the item ... the difference in height as a percentage change gets you there ... Hope that helps. Yikes, that was a lot of edits. What's simple in my mind's eye is sometimes hard to translate to words. I also imagined a u-shaped tube with each end in a separate equal volume containers and just plunk all the stuff in at once and note the water levels in each side of the tube.
Great, but this did not answer my question. If a 300Lb boat engine is on the oven floor, how much water does it displace….that would be king of hard with out knowing the mathematical breakdown
Nice explanation
"Oh yeah I found out how to proove whether the king's crown was pure gold or mixed lmao"
"You... Also made a death ray"
-pauses- "Yea. Normal stuff."
Given the explanation of buoyant force presented here, how is it that heavy objects suck as anchors or cannonballs sink immediately when submerged
Because these objects have more weight than the weight of the water they displace
I really love your animations ! Can you tell which app do you use?
We used Adobe Animate to make this video.
@@Scienceabc thanks for telling!
@@Scienceabc I love how you explain things & also your voice, but not your animations. Why don't you make your animations kinda like Kurzgesagt? No offense. A lot of love from India. ❤️
@@benjaminkirbytennyson386 everybody has different way of animating and their animation is already so good.
@@benjaminkirbytennyson386 because they aren't Kurzgesagt