Quiz - Physics - Displacement

If an object that weighs 85 kg/187 pounds is neutrally buoyant in salt water, what is the volume of

  • a. 8.5 liters / 3 cubic feet

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • b. 82.5 liters / 2.9 cubic feet

    Votes: 75 85.2%
  • c. 87.5 liters / 3.2 cubic feet

    Votes: 8 9.1%
  • d. 170 liters / 6 cubic feet

    Votes: 2 2.3%

  • Total voters
    88

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

LOL. PhD in Engineering here. That's not math, it's mental masturbation. :)

I tried to read his original work on RIMS. “Like you might be reading a paper from the future, or from outer space”, wrote Jordan Ellenberg, a number theorist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison." is apt. I had never heard of 75% of which he wrote. It was a mind altering experience.

Let's return to whether dividing by 10 is harder than multiplying by 14.7 Sheesh. One of the few times that I'm on the side of the French.
 
Wow, I did no math and got it right... fresh water is 1kg/liter. 85 kg in salt water. Fresh water is less dense than sea water, answer must be slightly less than 85. 82.5 works. No calculations involved.
 
Just gonna drop a couple of things right here:
- Mars Lander. Whoops.
- Why do so many "metric" countries make things that are 2.54cm and the like?
- Why did we have to "make life so much better" when it didn't actually eliminate the great problem that was "solved" by the metric system? 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours (and 12 hours x 2), 7 days, 28-29-30-31 days, 365 days, 12 months, 4.xxx years.

We still live with this so tell me again why is the metric system so awesome? So end all be all?
See my above answer. Answer this, how many ounces in a cubic ft of water?*. A liter of water is 1,000 grams.


957.51 ounces
 
See my above answer. Answer this, how many ounces in a cubic ft of water?*. A liter of water is 1,000 grams.


957.51 ounces
You are talking about fluid ounces, not ounces....the latter is a measure of weight, not volume. If 1 cuft were 957.51 ounces, that would be 957.51/16 = 59.84 pounds.....but the actual weight of a cuft of (fresh) water is 62.4 pounds, thus 998.4 ounces.
 
You are talking about fluid ounces, not ounces....the latter is a measure of weight, not volume. If 1 cuft were 957.51 ounces, that would be 957.51/16 = 59.84 pounds.....but the actual weight of a cuft of (fresh) water is 62.4 pounds, thus 998.4 ounces.

Correct answer is actually in cubic furlongs. Don’t even start with an ounce of gold weighs more than an ounce of x. Avoirdupois vs Troy vs Apothecaries vs Imperial. An ounce can be mass, weight or volume. And people argue that somehow this is better than SI?
 
See my above answer. Answer this, how many ounces in a cubic ft of water?*. A liter of water is 1,000 grams.


957.51 ounces
I don't argue that it isn't easier. it is. I argue that those who say Imperial is stupid neglect to account for those second two items that I "dropped" there.

That there are so many things made to accommodate US norms, there still exist unnecessarily complex calculations to deal with 2.54, etc. Making that thing be 2cm or 3cm makes life simpler than making it 2.54cm. SI can't solve that.

We have been able to move away from measuring with our feet; measuring land by how much my ox and I can plow in a day; etc. because we have tape measures, LASERs, tractors, and stuff like that. But, we aren't likely to get away from the time to lap the sun; the time for the Moon to lap us, the time for us to spin once. SI can't solve that either.

I believe Pres. Carter was on the right track trying to get us converted. The failure was to ignore the problem of the familiar. As mentioned above, we stick to what we intuitively understand. I know that a 1.8 meter tall man is about my height, but I couldn't tell you if he is taller or shorter than me. 80kg? Is he overweight or not? Beats me. If there had been a successful effort to let people see both measurement systems side by side on a daily basis for an extended period of time, the US would be metric now. But we're not, so I still know that if I'm at depth and I have 400 psi in my tank I messed up; couldn't tell you haw many Bar would elicit the same realization. I know what a 45' boat looks like; 13.716 m, not so much. It works FINE for me.
 
And people argue that somehow this is better than SI?
I don't think you can find anyone who isn't a dipstick who argues that Imperial is better than SI.
 
None of the previous bickering is Math. It's all petty arithmetic.
And me thinking that arithmetic was a branch of math. If it isn't, which of the sciences does it belong to?
 

Back
Top Bottom