Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Difference Between Lift Force And Buoyant Force  
User currently offlinesurajit001 From India, joined Dec 2012, 7 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4593 times:

I really want to know the difference between lift force and buoyant force? When does a fluid exert lift force on a body and when does it exert buoyant force. In my opinion, buoyant force occurs when the fluid is at rest and when we immerse an object in the fluid, the fluid exerts a buoyant force. Whereas lift force occurs in a moving fluid and the pressure difference on the object creates the lift force. Can someone kindly explain me the basic difference between these two forces?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

A helium balloon is positively buoyant. Helium is less dense at a given pressure than air, so there is a buoyant lifting force. It's the same idea as floating a cork in water.

An airplane is much more dense than air. An aerodynamic lifting force is therefore needed to lift it off the ground.

PC



In-trail spacing is a team effort.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Quoting surajit001 (Thread starter):

I really want to know the difference between lift force and buoyant force?

Lift is due to motion through a fluid. Buoyancy is due to static pressure gradients within a fluid.

Quoting surajit001 (Thread starter):
When does a fluid exert lift force on a body and when does it exert buoyant force

Fluids will exert lift forces any time the body is moving (the net sum may be zero, like a symmetric body at zero AoA).
Fluids will exert a buoyant force any time there is a static pressure gradient in the fluid (usually caused by gravity, but not always).

Quoting surajit001 (Thread starter):
In my opinion, buoyant force occurs when the fluid is at rest and when we immerse an object in the fluid, the fluid exerts a buoyant force.

Just immersing a body in a fluid doesn't cause a buoyant force. Buoyancy is really just a pressure differential, so it only happens when you have a pressure gradient. If you stick a cork in water in zero-g (e.g. on the Space Shuttle) it doesn't experience a buoyant force because there's no pressure gradient.

Quoting surajit001 (Thread starter):
Whereas lift force occurs in a moving fluid and the pressure difference on the object creates the lift force.

Yes. Both forces are caused by pressure differential. The difference is why there's a pressure differential...for buoyance, the differential was in the fluid whether the body was there or not. For lift, the differential is caused by the moving body.

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 1):
A helium balloon is positively buoyant. Helium is less dense at a given pressure than air, so there is a buoyant lifting force.

Careful about "buoyant lifting"...that just means the buoyant force is greater than the weight. All balloons experience a buoyant force, regardless of the density of the gas inside them. They only float if the buoyant force exceeds their weight.

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 1):
An airplane is much more dense than air. An aerodynamic lifting force is therefore needed to lift it off the ground.

Airplane still experience buoyancy (exactly the same amount as a blimp of equivalent volume). But, as you note, airplanes are so dense relative to air that the buoyant force on them is effectively nil so it's almost always ignored and you just deal with lift. Note that that same airplane is *not* very dense relative to water, which is why airplanes generally float pretty well as long as they don't have holes in them.

Tom.


User currently offlineA320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

Buoyancy is only dependant on lateral density variations too. Lift is caused by variations in pressure above and below a wing.

A320ajm



If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2687 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Buoyancy is due to static pressure gradients within a fluid

Interesting. I always had buoyancy figured out as being due to the density difference between the two entities in question. My mental picture was that the denser fluid experienced a greater force from gravity for a given unit volume. This "pulled" the denser fluid "down" around the less dense fluid causing it to rise in response.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
If you stick a cork in water in zero-g (e.g. on the Space Shuttle) it doesn't experience a buoyant force because there's no pressure gradient.

Could the absence of a net gravity force also explain this behaviour?

I'm not questioning the pressure gradient explanation (which is also given by Wikipedia); I'm just surprised that gravity acts indirectly via the production of a pressure gradient rather than more directly as I first imagined.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 4):
I always had buoyancy figured out as being due to the density difference between the two entities in question.

This is a mixup between the buoyant force (which depends only on the object's volume and the fluid's density) and the net force (buoyancy minus weight). It's only the net force that depends on the density of the object (and hence the density difference) because the object's density determines its weight.

Quoting jetmech (Reply 4):
My mental picture was that the denser fluid experienced a greater force from gravity for a given unit volume. This "pulled" the denser fluid "down" around the less dense fluid causing it to rise in response.

I used to have this mental picture too and it's intuitively appealing. It's really an energy argument...having the heavier stuff on the bottom (whether that's the fluid or the object) is a lower energy state and hence favoured. The danger with thinking about it in terms of density difference giving rise to the buoyant force is that the gravity force on both the fluid and the object is the same whether the object is in the fluid or out of it.

Part of the problem with the buoyant force is that you can easily move the math around to get equations that work in terms of density differences and, since it's just algebraic manipulation, the answer is still valid. However, it obscures the physics behind the math. Most of the time, working in density is fine as long as you never forget the assumptions behind the mathematical manipulations that got you there (constant uniform densities, no acceleration, etc.). However, it's not as fundamental on the physics side and I find it more accurate, though sometimes less intuitive, to work in pressure.

Tom.


User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2687 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
It's only the net force that depends on the density of the object (and hence the density difference) because the object's density determines its weight.

Fair enough. My mental picture was developed around the case of a gas such as air interacting with water. In this case, the reduction of the buoyancy force due to weight would not be too significant. An object like a ship would of course would be different.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
I used to have this mental picture too and it's intuitively appealing. It's really an energy argument...having the heavier stuff on the bottom (whether that's the fluid or the object) is a lower energy state and hence favoured.

It is interesting how nature seems to always seek the state of least energy. It would be a pretty fundamental, almost philosophical exercise to understand why. Perhaps this is some sort of explanation for the lack of a buoyancy force whilst in space?

Ignoring an electro-magnetic interaction and anything more exotic also, nature would only have gravity as a tool to exert influence over a fluid and an object of a different density within that fluid. In the situation of zero net gravity nature cannot influence the fluid / object system, hence that lack of preference for any particular physical arrangement between the two entities?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
However, it's not as fundamental on the physics side and I find it more accurate, though sometimes less intuitive, to work in pressure.

I always seek the fundamental explanation, even if it may be beyond my intuitive grasp   .

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 6):
It is interesting how nature seems to always seek the state of least energy. It would be a pretty fundamental, almost philosophical exercise to understand why.

If you get to playing with Lagrangian mechanics, there's basically a one-to-one correspondance with energy gradients and force gradients...the forces in a system tend to push it towards the lower energy state.

Quoting jetmech (Reply 6):
Perhaps this is some sort of explanation for the lack of a buoyancy force whilst in space?

Basically, yes. There's no preferred energy arrangement.

Quoting jetmech (Reply 6):
In the situation of zero net gravity nature cannot influence the fluid / object system, hence that lack of preference for any particular physical arrangement between the two entities?

Exactly.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Difference Between Lift Force And Buoyant Force
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Difference Between CFM56-7B And -7B/3 posted Tue Nov 8 2011 06:30:31 by plane507
Rotation Difference Between A319/320 And B733/73NG posted Wed Jul 27 2011 17:26:53 by flaps30
Difference Between Reg Number And Tail Number? posted Wed Apr 27 2011 17:11:50 by c5load
What Is The Difference Between Code-share And ... posted Thu Apr 7 2011 06:54:53 by LPSHobby
Fuel Burn Difference Between The A346 And 742/3/4? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 08:27:16 by EA772LR
Difference Between A DC-9-31 And A DC-9-32? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 06:32:24 by SIBILLE
Difference Between A DC-8-71 And A -73 posted Tue Jul 25 2006 02:23:39 by Jeffry747
Difference Between Part 61 And Part 141. posted Tue May 3 2005 05:28:21 by Swimpilot
What's the difference between the SP and other 747's? posted Mon Aug 9 2004 21:52:55 by T1210s
Difference Between CFM 56 And IAE V2500? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 20:10:59 by MEA321

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format