Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/26474420
CITATIONS READS
2 1,871
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Retrieval of canopy water content of different crop types with hyperspectral indices View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jesús Delegido on 05 June 2014.
2004
M. Dolz / A. Casanovas / J. Delegido / M. J. Hernández
AN EXPERIMENTAL SETUP TO VERIFY STOKES’ LAW USING AN ELECTRONIC
BALANCE
Revista Mexicana de Física, junio, año/vol. 50, número enseñanza 1
Sociedad Mexicana de Física
Distrito Federal, México
pp. 29-32
An experimental setup has been designed to allow direct measurement of the force acting upon a sphere immersed in a moving fluid. This
experiment confirms the direct proportionality between the force and each of the variables involved (sphere-fluid relative velocity, sphere
radius and fluid viscosity). A simple experimental demonstration has been made of Stokes’ law for spheres immersed in fluids moving, for
very small Reynolds numbers, along cylindrical tubes.
Keywords: Stokes law; students laboratory; particle drag.
Se ha diseñado un montaje experimental que permite la medida directa de la fuerza que actúa sobre una esfera sumergida en un lı́quido
en movimiento. Mediante este experimento se confirma la relación de proporcionalidad directa entre la fuerza y cada una de las variables
implicadas (velocidad relativa esfera-fluido, radio de la esfera y viscosidad del fluido).Se ha realizado una sencilla demostración experimental
de la ley de Stokes para esferas introducidas en el seno de fluidos en movimiento en un tubo cilı́ndrico, para números de Reynolds muy
pequeños.
1. Introduction to R, η and ν,
spheres. Figure 2 shows the measured force as a function of 3.2. Dependency of viscous force upon fluid viscosity
fluid velocity. For each sphere radius, the experimental points
are on straight lines going through the origin: Now, in order to complete the check of the linear dependence
of Eq. (1), now on viscosity, the radius R will be kept un-
F = K1 v. (3)
changed and the experiment will be repeated using five dif-
The best values for K1 were obtained by the least squares ferent fluids, varying the viscosity of the medium.
method. These ones, together with the correlation coeffi- Therefore, measurements have been made of the force
cients for each of the spheres are shown in Table II. There- acting upon the 1 cm radius sphere for five different fluid ve-
fore, we can show by the experiment that for a specific liquid locities and the five glycerol aqueous solutions indicated in
and sphere radius, the viscous force acting upon the sphere is Table I. The data of the viscous force, as a function of veloc-
directly proportional to the relative sphere-fluid velocity. ity v, for the different mixtures are represented in Fig. 3, and
The experiment corroborates linear dependence of the fit of
Eqs. (1) and (2) with very good approximation for constant
values of η and R, which is our case. Besides, Table II clearly F = K3 v (6)
shows that the K1 values increase for spheres of increasing
radius. Representing K1 values as a function of sphere ra- yielded correlation coefficients over 0.997 in all cases.
dius, we obtain again a straight line passing trough the ori-
As in the previous section, the K3 slopes have been plot-
gin. This can be assured, e.g., by adding the point (0,0). In
ted in Fig. 4 as a function of viscosity. The linear least
fact, (0,0) is an obvious point, because it is no force at R=0.
squares fitting provides the following equation:
This is more pedagogical than using an ’ad hoc’ least square
fit without an independent term. The linear fit
K3 = K4 η (7)
K1 = K2 R, (4)
gives K2 = (70.4 ± 0.3)Pa s, with r2 = 0.998. Therefore,
combination of the relations (3) and (4) provides
F = K2 Rv, (5)
for η constant, in agreement with Eq. (2). Therefore the stu-
dent can conclude, by experiment, that the force is not only
linearly related to velocity but also to the radius of the sphere.
∗. To whom correspondence should be addressed. 10. J.W. Kane and M.M. Sternheim, Fı́sica (Reverté, Barcelona,
1. K.E. Van Holde, Physical Biochemistry (Prentice-Hall Inc. New 1989) p. 324.
Jersey, 1971) p. 122. 11. J. Jou, J.E. Llebot, and C.P. Garcı́a, Fı́sica para las ciencias de
2. R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phe- la vida (McGraw-Hill. Madrid, 1994) p. 167.
nomena (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1960) p. 6.11. 12. M.A. Lauffer, J. Chem. Educ. 58 (1981) 250.
3. P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry (Oxford University Press. Ox- 13. J.R. van Wazer, J.W.Lyons, K.Y. Kim, and R.E. Colwell, Vis-
ford, 1998) p. 688. cosity and Flow Measurement. A Laboratory Handbook of Rhe-
4. J.I. Tinoco, K. Sauer, and J.C. Wang, Physical Chemistry ology Interscience Publishers (John Wiley & Sons, New York,
(Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1995) p. 277. 1963) p. 272.
5. J.T. Edward, J. Chem. Educ. 47 (1970) 261. 14. D. Auerbach, Am. J. Phys. 56 (1988) 850.
6. G.K. Vemulapalli, Physical Chemistry (Prentice Hall Interna- 15. L. Landau and E. Lifchitz, Fı́sica Teórica 6. Mecánica de Flui-
tional, New Jersey, 1993) p. 944. dos (Reverté, Barcelona, 1986) p. 74.
7. E.D. Schukin, A.V. Pertsov, and E.A. Amélina, Quı́mica 16. M.S. Greenwood, F. Fazio, M. Russotto, and A. Wilkosz, Am.
coloidal (Mir. Moscow, 1988) p. 166. J. Phys. 54 (1986) 904.
8. H.B. Hansall, and J.R. Wermeling, J. Chem. Educ. 59 (1982) 17. G.T. Fox, Am. J. Phys. 39 (1971) 947.
1076. 18. M. Dolz, J. Delegido, M.J. Hernández, and J. Pellicer, J. Chem.
9. J.R. Shanebrock, Am. J. Phys. 46 (1978) 306. Educ. 78 (2001) 1257.