This seems to be a classical problem [1]: what is the weight of an hourglass? Careful consideration shows that the weight is larger while running than at rest!
![]() |
Figure 1: Running hourglass. |
Here is where quick reasoning gave me the wrong result:
All the mass is essentially at rest, except for the flowing sand, which accelerates downwards. The overall acceleration then has the same sign (positive) and G<G0.
All the mass is essentially at rest, except for the flowing sand, which accelerates downwards. The overall acceleration then has the same sign (positive) and G<G0.
This is wrong, because the contribution of the flowing sand is negligible, while the sand in the upper part is not at rest (the upper surface moves downwards with a velocity v.) As Shen & Scott put it [1], the effect of the flow during time dt is to transfer a mass dm from the top (at a velocity v) to the bottom (at rest). The additional force due to this momentum variation is then: ΔG=G−G0=vdmdt=Kvwith K=dmdt the rate of mass flow (taken as constant). The result (1) is valid up to a numerical prefactor defined by the geometry of the setup.
Let us now do the full analysis for the center of mass motion. Instead of the traditional-shaped hourglass in Figure 1 we will consider the simpler setup shown in Figure 2 [2]. zu and zl are the heights of the centers of mass for the sand in the upper and lower compartments, respectively. mu and ml are the corresponding masses.
![]() |
Figure 2: Simplified setup (adapted from [2]). |
The compartments are separated (in z=0) not by one orifice, but by a fine sieve, such that the sand flow is homogeneous over the cross-section. The center of mass is at a height:
zCM=(zumu+zlml)/M.The masses vary linearly in time: mu=M−Ktandml=Kt with K defined above.
For the heights we need to introduce the density of the sand ρ, the cross-section area A, the position of the bottom zb and the height of sand in the two compartments, hu and hl (see Figure 2). We can now write:
zu=−hu2=−mu2ρAandzl=zb−hl2=zb−ml2ρASubstituting in (2) and taking the second derivative (only terms quadratic in time contribute to it) yields:¨zCM=2M[−K22ρA−K22ρA]⇒G−G0=−M¨zCM=2KKρA=2Kvwhere the last step follows from K=dmdt=ddt(ρAh)=ρAv. We have retrieved the result (1), up to a factor of 2.
This geometrical prefactor is related to the velocity ratio between the upper and lower interfaces and thus to the ratio of their areas, see [1] for the complete derivation.
[1] K. Y. Shen & B. L. Scott, The hourglass problem. Am. J. Phys. 53, 787 (1985).↩
[2] F. Tuinstra & B. F. Tuinstra, The weight of an hourglass. Europhys. News 41, 25 (2010).↩
So, does it or does it not?
ReplyDelete