Discuss

discuss

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iKiq5EwkzDg
youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

remain the same

...

Yes

seconded

...

It will stay the same.

...

Ice expands, so wont it fall?

now that op question has been answered lets make this an Ass thread

Since the ice cube isn't completely submerged it will raise slightly.

The ice isn't necessary fully submerged in the water, the the water level is only dependent on how much is displaced, as ice melts all of it becomes part of the water which would indicate a rise on the water level, however the ice is less sense that water so it occupies a smaller volume when as water.
Key point it depends on whether the volumes not displaced by the water is greater that the change in volume that occurs when melting

...

...

source?

/thread

Archimedes' principle indicates that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces. Archimedes' principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics.

To show this mathematically I think you'd need to do some calculus associated with how rate of change of surface area varies with volume, then look at some data for the relative densities of ice and water. Pretty sure the answer would differ depending on the size of the ice cube

...

>>The water level remains the same when the ice cube melts. A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water.

That's not calculus breh

That seems like simple resolving of forces, does that affect how the water level depends on how far submerged the body is? Surely not bc if you push the cube in further the water level rises

When the cube melts, it adds to the level of the water. That means the level goes up.

retards, all of you.

spotted the american
>3rd world schooling system

The mass of the ice is gone and then replaced by the extra water. It stays the same, retard.

It will rise you pieces of shit this is why yall should have been aborted

Pretty sure it is, doing differentials (dA/dV in this case) comes under calculus

The water level rises, the total water volume drops

Archimedes' principle explains this better than I can and I care not to so google it faggot

It will rise. When the ice caps melt at the poles the water level rises.

dubs check em

it will fall you idiots, ice is less dense than water

neither. Ice Cube is a nigger and therefore wouldn't not melt except at temperatures high enough to vaporize the water.

It's funny how you immediatly insult me :^) and this archimedes' principle doesnt prove anything you idiot

no it will fall obviously since ice expands so it will shrink when it melts leaving less volume behind

Less dense, true, but wont the part of the ice cube that sticks above the water level add to the total water level ?

I'm pretty sure the water level will fall...

Water expands a bit when frozen. That's why small cracks on bridges, etc... are so dangerous. Rainwater gets in, freezes, and damages the structure. For example, if you put a completely full water bottle in the freezer, it will most likely break.

So, the ice cube occupies more space while solid than while liquid.

But there yoiu have it... Average education level around the world. I sometimes feel ashamed...

>summer fags trying to seem smart and over "think it"

Water expands when it freezes. So when the ice melts, it condenses. So the water level will drop ever so slightly

anybody who gets this wrong is an idiot who didn't really learn anything in school. It won't change. youtube.com/watch?v=iKiq5EwkzDg

But, the part of the ice cube that sticks out of the water, doesnt this add more to the water 'level' ? not talking about the volume

stays the same

Judging by what actually happens, it would rise.

this

This faggot is right because he applied common sense and referenced an everyday, observable phenomenon. You poindexters should try going out once in a while maybe.

Since the ice, when it floats, displaces exactly its weight in water, when it melts, the water it melts into takes the same volume that the ice cube displaced in the water. So the water level should remain the same.

A small correction to this reasoning comes from the fact that the water cools down as the ice cube melts. Cool water is more dense than warm water, and the water level will go down just a bit as the water shrinks.

A small correction to the small correction comes from the fact that water expands a bit before it freezes. It has a maximum density at around 4 degrees Celsius. If the water has a temperature between 0 and 4 C, and the ice cube melts, the water level should go up because water expands as it cools down in this narrow temperature range.

Now that's a real education, fuck books.

Do you know how little an ice cube sticks out of the water?

/thread

Exactly

So it remains exactly the same, I was on the right lines in that volume is added to the water in the non submerged ice becoming part of the water and that volume is deduced by the fact that water occupies less volume than ice due to density, these volumes are the exact same so there is no overall change in water level.
Another way of thinking of it is that the water regardless of state and given that it's buoyant displaces an amount of water equal to it's weight (dependent on it's mass and g) and so as the water as a whole has maintained the same weight it will displace the same amount of other water

Except the ice cube is not fully immerged, making your point moot.

It will overflow completely and you will need a towel.

nope it evaporates.

and you will need to go back to the 5th grade.

Here

No because ice expands when it freezes. Of course mere expansion isn't sufficient. In order for no change in the water level to occur, what we need is for the change in volume of water after freezing occurs to be exactly equal to the volume of ice that protrudes from the surface of the water when the ice cube is afloat.

Assuming density is directly proportional to "floatability" we should find that, e.g. a substance half as dense as water should float in such a manner that half of its volume rests above the water and the other half below. From here its easy to mathematically prove on this basis that the water level wont change as the ice melts. I'm not expert of physics, but I always did excellent in the subject. I'm more of a pure math fag. Anyway I'm sure you could find the relevant physical equations online or even just derive them from the information in the post (it would be quite trivial to experimentally test there validity).

just watch this video people.

I need help. How do you Sup Forums

True

Ok we know that it stays the same given it is an isothermal change now, but as water melting is endothermic, does the decrease on overall temperature affect the water level or does the fact that it's a closed system negate this.
There would definitely be heat intake from the surrounds and this would lead to a rise in temperature, thus volume.

You either don't know that water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts, or you are picturing an ice cube that is floating above the water line, but even in that scenario there would be more ice below than above the water line so the net effect will never be anything but either a lowered water line, or the water line remaining the same.

See

It goes with that idea

it remains the same. Go learn about displacement somewhere.

youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI

>7:43

A perfect ice cube with an equal amount of ice above and below the water would have a water line that remains the same. But an iceberg in a pool, for example, has a disproportionate amount of ice between the water line, so it would result in something else entirely.

Wrong, wrong some of these ice protrudes from the water. There shouldn't any change because the change in volume exactly equilibrate with the amount that protrudes.

Also wrong. The reason the water level rises when ice melts is because much of the ice is supported, at least partially by land.

Not even remotely true, 'non ideal' ice cubes and icebergs all follow this providing they are not touching the floor surface

no, go back to school. Scale doesn't matter for this experiment. I would also wonder where you are finding an ice cube that floats 50/50. The ice cube and iceburg have the same profile, its ICE it has the same buoyancy regardless of scale.

Then it's no longer a buoyant force

I thinks he's on about distribution above and below the water level, not the size of the ice

i know, you can't get an ice cube that floats half above or half below. Ice never reaches that density difference.

As long as it's not supported then by definition it is a buoyant force, just that the buoyant force is reduced as
Buoyant force = weight + reaction force
Instead of
Bf= W
Check yourself before you go full retard

This is exactly correct. Anyone saying anything else is simply wrong. All you need is the equation D = M/V and Archimdes principle and you can construct a proof of this exact claim.

You probably could for some substance but it wouldn't affect the water level after it's melted

1. What makes you think the amount of ice above the water level correspons EXACTLY to the volume difference?

2. The south pole has land underneath, and is therefore considered a continent (Antarctica). On the other hand, the north pole DOES NOT have any. It's entirely ice.

>not knowing about different types of ice
the question is a trick
the ice in question is ice-9
it is super hot and super pressurized
the water level falls because when the ice is removed from a super pressurized environment and put into the glass it simultaneously boils all the water in the glass and explodes destroying the glass

It some way shape or form it is supports, probably by adjacent land masses such as Canada also the volumes are the same see

Kek.
1/2 an internet for you, firend.

But because ice floats, some of it's volume is above the waterline.

Google polymorphism

How the fuck is the north pole "supported" by Canada? Telepathy? Mapple syrup magic? Dude you went full retard...

Also, using "probably" when trying to make a point just evidences how little you have bothered to research or inform yourself about it.

Your post only states your opinion.

1. Because of experimental evidence and the laws of physics that everyone learns in their HS physics class.

2. The north pole is irrelevant. Its not a necessary condition that ALL of the ice be supported by land. If even some of the ice that is melting is supported by land, then the water level will rise. Your logical skills obviously aren't very good, and neither is your physical intuition. Actually even your reading comprehension must not be that good because in my above post I literally said that if SOME of the ice is supported by land, then the water level will rise.

Why is no one understanding this, there have been plenty of coherent explain actions as to why the water level remains the same and yet some retards are still boastful about how they're right when they're wrong and how poor the education systems are, the irony

Seconded

>Also wrong. The reason the water level rises when ice melts is because much of the ice is supported, at least partially by land.

tell that to the north pole

1. Then state the exact relation between those two, please.

2. And you speak of reading comprehension? I never said ALL ice wasn't unsupported. Also, neglecting the entire north pole when talking about ice caps melting is pretty retarded too, no offense.

It's a suggestion as to how it's supported you retard, the water level rises and so the It MUST be supported in some way which is why is does not obey Archimedes principle. There is ice sheets on Canada, which is a land mass, this supports the ice and so provides a reaction force, which is transmitted to other parts of ice floating in water. You are clearly mentally retarded and need euthanised for the sake of all humanity.

Heh, and I just realised I used "also" and "too" on the same sentence. Man do I need some sleep...

Its almost a if none of you have had a icey drink on a hot day.

>I just admitted my point was not a fact but an opinion. Also, you should be killed because you said otherwise.

lol k bye

Archimedes principle is that the weight of displaced water is equal to the weight of the buoyant objects and the same whether fully or partially submerged. It does not apply when the floating bossy is supported by a reaction force

If you think it lowers or stays th same please don't ever reproduce.

No you said my point on how it was supported by land masses was an opinion, not yours. Also it's a fact that it's support because it has to be for the water level to rise as I've already stated

Yeah, that's totally correct, but I was talking about the relation between that principle and the density difference in the melting of the ice cube. I don't see how the would EXACTLY compliment as most people here are saying.

Please elaborate on how it increases and give a scientific equation/principle to back it up

ty

...
Is this bait? Or do you seriously not know how greentext works?

Just pour a glass of water put some ice in it and observe.

...

I can't believe retards are actually arguing over this, it's like basic simple 3rd grade science.

What if we replace the water with jet fuel and the ice with steel beans? Would it float after melting?

fall, the volume water takes up as a solid is greater than that taken up as a liquid. the space displaced by the ice cube is greater than the space it will take up as a liquid.

also, why you such a faggot OP?