Conversations on Natural Philosophy, in which the Elements of that Science are Familiarly Explained Part 30

_Caroline._ Some kinds of wood are heavy, certainly, as oak and mahogany; others are light, as cedar and poplar.

_Emily._ I think I should call wood in general, a heavy body; for cedar and poplar, are light, only in comparison to wood of a heavier description. I am at a loss to determine whether chalk should be ranked as a heavy, or a light body; I should be inclined to say the former, if it was not that it is lighter than most other minerals. I perceive that we have but vague notions of light and heavy. I wish there was some standard of comparison, to which we could refer the weight of all other bodies.

_Mrs. B._ The necessity of such a standard, has been so much felt, that a body has been fixed upon for this purpose. What substance do you think would be best calculated to answer this end?

_Caroline._ It must be one generally known, and easily obtained; lead or iron, for instance.

_Mrs. B._ The metals, would not answer the purpose well, for several reasons; they are not always equally compact, and they are rarely quite pure; two pieces of iron, for instance, although of the same size, might not, from the causes mentioned, weigh exactly alike.

_Caroline._ But, Mrs. B., if you compare the weight, of equal quant.i.ties of different bodies, they will all be alike. You know the old saying, that a pound of feathers, is as heavy as a pound of lead?

_Mrs. B._ When therefore we compare the weight of different kinds of bodies, it would be absurd to take quant.i.ties of equal _weight_, we must take quant.i.ties of equal _bulk_; pints or quarts, not ounces or pounds.

_Caroline._ Very true; I perplexed myself by thinking that quant.i.ty referred to weight, rather than to measure. It is true, it would be as absurd to compare bodies of the same size, in order to ascertain which was largest, as to compare bodies of the same weight, in order to discover which was heaviest.

_Mrs. B._ In estimating the specific gravity of bodies, therefore, we must compare equal bulks, and we shall find that their specific gravity, will be proportional to their weights. The body which has been adopted as a standard of reference, is distilled, or rain water.

_Emily._ I am surprised that a fluid should have been chosen for this purpose, as it must necessarily be contained in some vessel, and the weight of the vessel, will require to be deducted.

_Mrs. B._ You will find that the comparison will be more easily made with a fluid, than with a solid; and water you know can be every where obtained. In order to learn the specific gravity of a solid body, it is not necessary to put a certain measure of it in one scale, and an equal measure of water into the other scale: but simply to weigh the body under trial, first in air, and then in water. If you weigh a piece of gold, in a gla.s.s of water, will not the gold displace just as much water, as is equal to its own bulk?

_Caroline._ Certainly, where one body is, another cannot be at the same time; so that a sufficient quant.i.ty of water must be removed, in order to make way for the gold.

_Mrs. B._ Yes, a cubic inch of water, to make room for a cubic inch of gold; remember that the bulk, alone, is to be considered; the weight, has nothing to do with the quant.i.ty of water displaced, for an inch of gold, does not occupy more s.p.a.ce, and therefore will not displace more water, than an inch of ivory, or any other substance, that will sink in water.

Well, you will perhaps be surprised to hear that the gold will weigh less in water, than it did out of it?

_Emily._ And for what reason?

_Mrs. B._ On account of the upward pressure of the particles of water, which in some measure supports the gold, and by so doing, diminishes its weight. If the body immersed in water, was of the same weight as that fluid, it would be wholly supported by it, just as the water which it displaces, was supported, previous to its making way for the solid body.

If the body is heavier than the water, it cannot be wholly supported by it; but the water will offer some resistance to its descent.

_Caroline._ And the resistance which water offers to the descent of heavy bodies immersed in it, (since it proceeds from the upward pressure of the particles of the fluid,) must in all cases, I suppose, be the same?

_Mrs. B._ Yes: the resistance of the fluid, is proportioned to the bulk, and not to the weight, of the body immersed in it; all bodies of the same size, therefore, lose the same quant.i.ty of their weight in water.

Can you form any idea what this loss will be?

_Emily._ I should think it would be equal to the weight of the water displaced; for, since that portion of the water was supported before the immersion of the solid body, an equal weight of the solid body, will be supported.

_Mrs. B._ You are perfectly right; a body weighed in water, loses just as much of its weight, as is equal to that of the water it displaces; so that if you were to put the water displaced, into the scale to which the body is suspended, it would restore the balance.

You must observe, that when you weigh a body in water, in order to ascertain its specific gravity, you must not sink the dish of the balance in the water; but either suspend the body to a hook at the bottom of the dish, or else take off the dish, and suspend to the arm of the balance a weight to counterbalance the other dish, and to this attach the solid to be weighed, (fig. 7.) Now suppose that a cubic inch of gold, weighed 19 ounces out of water, and lost one ounce of its weight by being weighed in water, what would be its specific gravity?

_Caroline._ The cubic inch of water it displaced, must weigh that one ounce; and as a cubic inch of gold, weighs 19 ounces, gold is 19 times, as heavy as water.

_Emily._ I recollect having seen a table of the comparative weights of bodies, in which gold appeared to me to be estimated at 19 thousand times, the weight of water.

_Mrs. B._ You misunderstood the meaning of the table. In the estimation you allude to, the weight of water was reckoned at 1000. You must observe, that the weight of a substance when not compared to that of any other, is perfectly arbitrary; and when water is adopted as a standard, we may denominate its weight by any number we please; but then the weight of all bodies tried by this standard, must be signified by proportional numbers.

_Caroline._ We may call the weight of water, for example, one, and then that of gold, would be nineteen; or if we choose to call the weight of water 1000, that of gold would be 19,000. In short, specific gravity, means how many times more a body weighs, than an equal bulk of water.

_Mrs. B._ It is rather the weight of a body compared with a portion of water equal to it in bulk; for the specific gravity of many substances, is less than that of water.

_Caroline._ Then you cannot ascertain the specific gravity of such substances, in the same manner as that of gold; for a body that is lighter than water, will float on its surface, without displacing any of it.

_Mrs. B._ If a body were absolutely without weight, it is true that it would not displace a drop of water, but the bodies we are treating of, have all some weight, however small; and will, therefore, displace some quant.i.ty. If the body be lighter than water, it will not sink to a level with its surface, and therefore it will not displace so much water as is equal to its bulk; but only so much, as is equal to its weight. A s.h.i.+p, you must have observed, sinks to some depth in water, and the heavier it is laden, the deeper it sinks, as it always displaces a quant.i.ty of water, equal to its own weight.

_Caroline._ But you said just now, that in the immersion of gold, the bulk, and not the weight of body, was to be considered.

_Mrs. B._ That is the case with all substances which are heavier than water; but since those which are lighter, do not displace so much as their own bulk, the quant.i.ty they displace is not a test of their specific gravity.

In order to obtain the specific gravity of a body which is lighter than water, you must attach to it a heavy one, whose specific gravity is known, and immerse them together; the specific gravity of the lighter body, may then be easily calculated from observing the loss of weight it produces, in the heavy body.

_Emily._ But are there not some bodies which have exactly the same specific gravity as water?

_Mrs. B._ Undoubtedly; and such bodies will remain at rest in whatever situation they are placed in water. Here is a piece of wood which I have procured, because it is of a kind which is precisely the weight of an equal bulk of water; in whatever part of this vessel of water you place it, you will find that it will remain stationary.

_Caroline._ I shall first put it at the bottom; from thence, of course, it cannot rise, because it is not lighter than water. Now I shall place it in the middle of the vessel; it neither rises nor sinks, because it is neither lighter nor heavier than the water. Now I will lay it on the surface of the water; but there it sinks a little--what is the reason of that, Mrs. B.?

_Mrs. B._ Since it is not lighter than the water, it cannot float upon its surface; since it is not heavier than water, it cannot sink below its surface: it will sink therefore, only till the upper surface of both bodies are on a level, so that the piece of wood is just covered with water. If you poured a few drops of water into the vessel, (so gently as not to give them momentum) they would mix with the water at the surface, and not sink lower.

_Caroline._ I now understand the reason, why, in drawing up a bucket of water out of a well, the bucket feels so much heavier when it rises above the surface of the water in the well; for whilst you raise it in the water, the water within the bucket being of the same specific gravity as the water on the outside, will be wholly supported by the upward pressure of the water beneath the bucket, and consequently very little force will be required to raise it; but as soon as the bucket rises to the surface of the well, you immediately perceive the increase of weight.

_Emily._ And how do you ascertain the specific gravity of fluids?

_Mrs. B._ By means of an hydrometer; this instrument is made of various materials, and in different forms, one of which I will show you. It consists of a thin bra.s.s ball A, (fig. 8, plate 13.) with a graduated tube B, and the specific gravity of the liquid, is estimated by the depth to which the instrument sinks in it, or by the weight required to sink it to a given depth. There is a small bucket C, suspended at the lower end, and also a little dish on the graduated tube; into either of these, small weights may be put, until the instrument sinks in the fluid, to a mark on the tube B; the amount of weight necessary for this, will enable you to discover the specific gravity of the fluid.

I must now take leave of you; but there remain yet many observations to be made on fluids: we shall, therefore, resume this subject at our next interview.

Questions

1. (Pg. 118) What are the two divisions of the science which treats of the mechanical properties of liquids?

2. (Pg. 118) Of what do hydrostatics and hydraulics treat?

3. (Pg. 118) What is a fluid defined to be?

4. (Pg. 118) From what is fluidity supposed to arise?

5. (Pg. 118) Into what two cla.s.ses are fluids divided?

6. (Pg. 119) What is said of the incompressibility of liquids, and what experiment is related?

7. (Pg. 119) Ought this experiment to be considered as conclusive?

8. (Pg. 119) Why do fluids appear to gravitate more freely than solids?