Timeline for Why does ice melting not change the water level in a container?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 9, 2023 at 18:11 | comment | added | Jon | How does this answer take into account that the densities of water and ice are different? | |
S Aug 17, 2022 at 19:10 | history | suggested | Bananaforscale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I don't know what glass surface has to do with anything...
|
Aug 17, 2022 at 13:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
S Aug 17, 2022 at 19:10 | |||||
Feb 4, 2022 at 18:27 | comment | added | ACRafi | Kenshin I have still not understood why A in both cases are the same. Could you draw the diagram or at least give a more detailed explanation | |
Jan 3, 2021 at 7:37 | comment | added | Guji2203 | I have understood your answer, great answer , can you clarify on more thing about the thermal aspect as many reckon this phenomenon happens due to anomalous expansion of water thank you | |
Jan 2, 2021 at 10:39 | comment | added | Guji2203 | Ok, i understood this part thanks , can you clarify on this part that does this phenomenon of level of liquid remaining same happens to every solid liquid pair of Same material,as your answer generalizes it, but some books mention anamolous expansion of water as a reason.Also when ice melts it would contract while water would lose heat and expand (calorimetry). thanks | |
Jan 2, 2021 at 10:13 | comment | added | Kenshin | If in the final state, a volume V is submerged, then the final volume of the cup should be the initial volume of water V_i plus the submerged volume V. Any volume above the water level doesn't matter, but below the water level we have a final volume of V + V_i. If A is the surface area of the cup, then the final height is (V+V_i)/A. The inital height was V/A. The change in height is thus V_i/A, and is independent of the shape of the submerged object. | |
Jan 2, 2021 at 10:07 | comment | added | Kenshin | @Guji2203 the completely submerged case and partially submerged case are the same. The water doesn't know the object is completely or partially submerged it only knows that some volume V is submerged. I think your mistake is that you are imagining the object being partially submerged and then the water subsequently rising up further, but instead you need to realise the water has already risen and in its final state, and it is in that final state where a volume V is submerged. Draw a diagram of the final state of a submerged vs partially submerged case side by side and you see they are same. | |
Jan 1, 2021 at 13:08 | comment | added | Guji2203 | @Kenshin , if we push a mug into a bucket filled with water , the water displaced comes out from the sides of the mug and distributes itself over the surface outside the mug so how can we include the area of mug? For an object which completely submerges in liquid i have understood your area argument but can't understand in partially immersed case. Also can you clarify on your answer which generalizes it to solid liquid pair of any material., Is it true for every material. Also can you clarify Why then at elementary schools we are taught that this happens due to anomalous expansion of water? | |
Jan 1, 2021 at 9:20 | comment | added | Kenshin | @Guji2203 if you submerge volume V into a glass of water, the water will rise by V/A where A is the area of the glass regardless of what the cross-section area is for the submerged item. | |
Dec 30, 2020 at 9:37 | comment | added | Guji2203 | @ Kenshin why have you taken the area of cross section in two cases to be equal, when ice is floating the cross about which water displaces is A(beaker)—A(ice block). Whilst it's just A(beaker) in the 2nd case. The area of cross section is different so the proof won't work. Can you clarify on this. | |
Dec 30, 2020 at 8:16 | comment | added | Guji2203 | @ Kenshin Does this mean that if any solid melts over any liquid both of same material the level won't change because the answer doesn't focuses on any property of water or ice ,it generalizes every solid and liquid material.? Why then at elementary schools we are taught that this happens due to anomalous expansion of water? | |
Jun 4, 2020 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
Dec 19, 2019 at 11:38 | history | edited | PM 2Ring | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
Dec 19, 2019 at 11:26 | comment | added | S H | @PM2Ring the density of ICE is not considered here. That p in the first equation is the density of the fluid the ice is submerged in (which is just water). And later when the ice cube melts, again, we're considering the density of the liquid water which is just p again. | |
Jul 10, 2019 at 18:54 | comment | added | user197994 | Yes, do we have to take into account any oxygen trapped in the ice? | |
Jul 4, 2018 at 7:36 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added link and quotes from it
|
Feb 2, 2017 at 8:21 | comment | added | Anand Thangappan | why complex thinking, ice has only less water than it looks, so you wont see water increment of your life period. After 500 years some changes will be happen in sea | |
Oct 10, 2016 at 13:00 | comment | added | M.M | Ice cubes actually contain some air that was trapped during the freezing process. This air contributes some mass to the ice, but does not contribute mass to the water once the ice has melted (since the air escapes into the atmosphere). So perhaps the water level would lower slightly in accordance with the mass of trapped air. | |
Jul 28, 2015 at 1:10 | comment | added | paparazzo | @mew Really that is you answer? Add a liter of unsalted water to a liter of salted water I have two liter of water with half the salt density. | |
S Nov 26, 2014 at 18:07 | history | suggested | Arkady | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed grammar
|
Nov 26, 2014 at 17:46 | review | Suggested edits | |||
S Nov 26, 2014 at 18:07 | |||||
May 1, 2014 at 21:25 | comment | added | prototype | Actually we're asssuming in these answers that the ice was floating in the water, which wasn't in the original question. Much Antarctic ice is sitting on land, so when it melts it adds to the ocean water and raises it. Or in the glass if the ice were held submerged (say, under a strainer) the water volume would subside a bit. | |
May 1, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | Tim B | @Jodrell Antarctica for example is an entire continent covered with ice several km thick. If all the ice in Antarctica melted then that alone is estimated that it would raise see level by 60m+ worldwide (estimates vary). science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/… | |
May 1, 2014 at 9:02 | comment | added | Jodrell | Mew, I think your analysis applies whenever something solid floats in a liquid and thus displaces an amount of liquid with mass equal to the floating solid. As the density of the sea reduces with salinity, and the meting ice is less saline than the sea, the meting would actually decrease bouancy and result in an extra rise. However, as @Hurkyl states I guess that would be minor compared to other water from ice that currently sits on land. | |
May 1, 2014 at 8:50 | comment | added | Kenshin | skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html | |
May 1, 2014 at 8:48 | comment | added | user5174 | @Jodrell: It's the big sheets of ice sitting on Greenland and Antartica that everyone worries about. | |
May 1, 2014 at 8:48 | comment | added | Kenshin | @Jodrell, the case for polar ice caps is different, since the icecap will melt to form fresh water, where as the surrounding ocean water is salty (differing densities). The above analysis only applies if the floating solid melts to form the same liquid initially supplying buoyancy force. | |
May 1, 2014 at 8:18 | comment | added | Jodrell | So, does this mean melting polar ice caps shouldn't effect sea levels, those floating on the sea anyhow? | |
May 1, 2014 at 7:58 | comment | added | Bob Tway | Aha, so they counter balance perfectly? I had no idea. That's the danger of knowing more chemistry than physics :) | |
Apr 30, 2014 at 19:49 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improve formatting
|
Apr 30, 2014 at 17:49 | comment | added | David Wilkins | @MattThrower But that illustrates that ice is less dense than water, which is why ice is buoyant to begin with... But ice will only displace a volume of water equivalent to the volume of ice that is below the water level... They cancel each other out? | |
Apr 30, 2014 at 16:25 | comment | added | Bob Tway | IIRC the water level when the ice is melted will actually be marginally lower. Water molecules are dipolar, and thus repel one another when forced into close proximity and kept there by a solid state, forcing the ice to expand. Thus the volume of a block of ice is slightly larger than that of an equivalent amount of water. | |
Apr 30, 2014 at 15:45 | comment | added | stackseverywhere | THANK YOU!! much better than any textbook explanation when you added the "h" term! very easy to see now. | |
Apr 30, 2014 at 15:45 | vote | accept | stackseverywhere | ||
Apr 30, 2014 at 14:35 | history | answered | Kenshin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |