Skip to main content

Why can we measure the volume of a liquid directly, but not a solid?

Matter has 3 main states or forms: solid, liquid and gas (plasma is another form of matter, but it is not commonly observed). Solids, liquids and gases are classified based on their intermolecular attraction. Solids have the highest intermolecular attraction among all the states of matter. This is the reason solids are so compact and rigid. Liquids have less intermolecular attraction as compared to solids. They find it easier to flow and occupy the shape of the container they are in. Gases have the least intermolecular attraction (when compared to other forms of matter).


The ability to flow makes the volumetric measurement of liquids easy. If we need to measure the volume of a given liquid, we can transfer it to a measuring cup or cylinder or beaker and calculate its volume using the graduations on the vessel. In comparison, solids cannot flow and hence cannot be transferred to measuring vessels (beaker, cup, etc.). To determine the volume of a solid, we have to measure its dimensions and use geometry to calculate its volume. We could also submerge the solid into a known amount of water and measure the volume of water that it displaces.


Hope this helps. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more