Topic: can this boat sink?

[Retro Rocket]

My only thought is that for the water to squirt over the side the boat already has to be sinking.  The water will only squirt as high as the level on the outside of the boat.

You have to take into account the pressure created by the weight the boat displaces first as this would add pressure to the leak....

Mick

I should know this as I have several boats but I just never drill holes in them while in the water to study the effect.

Me either....i have a small tender i may just have to experiment with although i doubt it displaces enough water to get mre than a dribble....

Mick

Think of it this way.  If you have a thru hull open on the bottom of the boat with a hose attached and run this up the side of the boat the water level in the hose will only reach as high as the water on the outside.  I have the same effect with my 17 foot daysailor.  It has an open centerboard slot but the top of the slot is above the waterline of the boat so no water comes in.  The question is a bit vague and I would agree with you that as long as the water shoots out of the boat it will not sink but I don't believe the water would shoot over the side unless the sides were already at or below the water level.

My mates crabbing boat is the same, it has a square hole in the middle of the floor with roughly 12 inch walls around it and no water comes into the boat. I suppose if you put a hole in the bottom of an icecream container and pushed it into a bucket of water to simulate the boats displacement then the water should squirt higher than the sides because the water coming through the hole is under pressure....I wish one of the guys that recon it will sink would give us a reason as to why..?

Mick

[mlinder]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

[Industrial Cafe]

no they cannot.

[BeSeeingYou]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

But if it's an African Swallow.....not a European swallow....

[mlinder]

no they cannot.

See? I didnt ask you if they could or couldn't, I asked you if the barrel would fill up.

Same issue in the question you asked.

It assumed an impossibility possible.

[sangyo soichiro]

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level.

Or that the boat was simply not buoyant in the first place, even without a hole.  If you had such a "boat," you would see the water squirt higher than the outside water level as it was sinking, and before the sides of the boat went under the water.  It would squirt higher than the water level, but only if it wouldn't float even without the hole.  If it was a perfectly good floatable boat, then the water could never go higher than the outside water level. 

[mlinder]

Right. The water could reach higher if the boat were, in fact, going down.

[Retro Rocket]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

Thats where the problem lies, the original question was a hypothetical, so if the water did squirt over the side then it wouldn't sink....
I just got a small container and put a hole in it and then filled a bucket with water and if you pushed the container with the hole into the water to simulate the weight of a boat   {guess work here} then it does add to the pressure of the water coming through the hole so i suppose it could be possible for the water to squirt higher than the water level ...thats what this experiment showed.....It all depends on the weight of the boat and the size of the hole...
Anyone got a spare boat....


Mick

[mlinder]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

Thats where the problem lies, the original question was a hypothetical, so if the water did squirt over the side then it wouldn't sink....
I just got a small container and put a hole in it and then filled a bucket with water and if you pushed the container with the hole into the water to simulate the weight of a boat   {guess work here} then it does add to the pressure of the water coming through the hole so i suppose it could be possible for the water to squirt higher than the water level ...thats what this experiment showed.....It all depends on the weight of the boat and the size of the hole...
Anyone got a spare boat....


Mick

But mick, pushing the boat down hard enough to get the water to go above water level means it sinks. You can only push it down as far as the edge, then it's underwater...

There's nothing really theoretical about the question if you take it at face value. It's a given. Same amount of water coming in goes out.

[vanillagorilla]

Wow, people have been awfully pissy on the forums lately... Great question IC, and I was half right all along!!! Thats the best I dare hope for!!!

[BeSeeingYou]

Now if Ed and Che Guevera where in the boat.......would the boat sink under the weight of the political rhetoric alone.

[vanillagorilla]

God I hope so.

[sangyo soichiro]

And that brings up another good point...

Imagine the setup srust mentioned: 
You stick a clear tube in the hole and you watch it.  Now picture what happens as you're just putting the boat in the water.  You'd see the water in the tube rise as the boat moves down in the water.  The water in the tube would continue to rise until the boat displaces the volume of water that, if weighed, would equal the boat's weight (6pkrunner mentioned this).  At this point you'd see that the water in the tube is at the same level as the water outside the boat.  And you'd notice that the water in the tube is no longer moving up the tube.

Now here's the key point.  The only way the water moves up the tube, is if the boat is moving down.  If the water is moving up the tube (or up, period), then the boat is sinking by the very definition of the word "sink."

I thought it was a very cute problem.

[Retro Rocket]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

Thats where the problem lies, the original question was a hypothetical, so if the water did squirt over the side then it wouldn't sink....
I just got a small container and put a hole in it and then filled a bucket with water and if you pushed the container with the hole into the water to simulate the weight of a boat   {guess work here} then it does add to the pressure of the water coming through the hole so i suppose it could be possible for the water to squirt higher than the water level ...thats what this experiment showed.....It all depends on the weight of the boat and the size of the hole...
Anyone got a spare boat....


Mick

But mick, pushing the boat down hard enough to get the water to go above water level means it sinks. You can only push it down as far as the edge, then it's underwater...

There's nothing really theoretical about the question if you take it at face value. It's a given. Same amount of water coming in goes out.

Yes , i understand what you are saying but i went back and read the question and it said that the water went outside the boat, i was answering the question as it was written not after adding science to the equation. I fully understand what you are saying, i was just trying to see if the hull, when loaded up with more weight therefore displacing more water, would  add to the pressure of the water coming out of the hole and it did but it never went high enough to leave the container ....

Mick

[mlinder]

OK, I'll stop it now.

The other guy got it right.

The water from the hole cannot squirt higher than the level of the water OUTSIDE the boat, meaning, it cannot go back out into the lake, ocean, bathtub, whatever. Simply impossible.

The reason soichiro said the boat would sink the way it was worded, hole or no, is that in order for the water from the hole to be able to go over the side of the boat, the side of the boat would have to be lower than the water level. Which means, the boat is already sunk, and no water would be coming through the hole anyway because pressure would now be equalized, due to said boat already being underwater.

Thats why this question was funny. It assumed an impossibility, possible.


If a chute dropped 1 coconut a second into a barrel, and 10 swallows carried one coconut each every 10 seconds back to the top of the chute, would the barrel fill up?

Swallows can't carry coconuts.

Thats where the problem lies, the original question was a hypothetical, so if the water did squirt over the side then it wouldn't sink....
I just got a small container and put a hole in it and then filled a bucket with water and if you pushed the container with the hole into the water to simulate the weight of a boat   {guess work here} then it does add to the pressure of the water coming through the hole so i suppose it could be possible for the water to squirt higher than the water level ...thats what this experiment showed.....It all depends on the weight of the boat and the size of the hole...
Anyone got a spare boat....


Mick

But mick, pushing the boat down hard enough to get the water to go above water level means it sinks. You can only push it down as far as the edge, then it's underwater...

There's nothing really theoretical about the question if you take it at face value. It's a given. Same amount of water coming in goes out.

Yes , i understand what you are saying but i went back and read the question and it said that the water went outside the boat, i was answering the question as it was written not after adding science to the equation. I fully understand what you are saying, i was just trying to see if the hull, when loaded up with more weight therefore displacing more water, would  add to the pressure of the water coming out of the hole and it did but it never went high enough to leave the container ....

Mick

Right.
You were answering the question as stated, and correctly. It's just the question that was fataly flawed.

[Retro Rocket]

Right. Smiley
You were answering the question as stated, and correctly. It's just the question that was fataly flawed.

Phew....i knew someone would understand what i was up too....

Mick

[mlinder]

Yep, but these questions aren't about the surface answer, they're about the scenario.

[Industrial Cafe]

no they cannot.

See? I didnt ask you if they could or couldn't, I asked you if the barrel would fill up.

Same issue in the question you asked.

It assumed an impossibility possible.

I was talking about the swallow and the coconut.

[Gordon]

Who's swallowing coconuts?

Isn't that bad for you?

[mlinder]

no they cannot.

See? I didnt ask you if they could or couldn't, I asked you if the barrel would fill up.

Same issue in the question you asked.

It assumed an impossibility possible.

I was talking about the swallow and the coconut.

Right, but the questionw asn't wether swallows can carry coconuts. It was whether the barrel fills up or not.

[Industrial Cafe]

I didn't want to answer that question.

[mlinder]

I didn't want to answer that question.

But you did answer it. The answer is that swallows can't carry coconuts. Just like water can't squirt to the outside of the boat.

[Industrial Cafe]

hahahaa!

[333]

Hedy would have gotten it right of the bat.  Most people know her as an actress, but she was a scientist as well.


Hedley.... not so much.

[mlinder]

The Walrus and the Carpenter
were walking close at hand,
they wept like anything to see
such quantities of sand.

"If seven maids with seven mops
swept it for half a year,
do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"that they could get it clear?"

"I doubt it," said the carpenter,
and shed a bitter tear.