Strange fluid-mechanics formula made by crazy textbook author

In summary, the author claims that the "vertical component of the ring surface-tension force at the interface in the tube balances the weight of the column of fluid of height h". However, this is strange because the pressure-difference between the air inside the tube and outside must lift the water. Additionally, capillary action is used to explain how the fluid level is lowered in relation to the rest of the liquid.
  • #1
Nikitin
735
27
Please look at the picture I uploaded.
attachment.php?attachmentid=61194&d=1377612599.jpg


Can somebody explain to me how the author of my book can claim that the "vertical component of the ring surface-tension force at the interface in the tube balances the weight of the column of fluid of height h"? This stuff is weird. How can TENSION FORCES which are on the TOP of a column of fluid support the weight of the column?

I mean, it's obviously the pressure-difference between the air inside the tube and outside which lifts the water, assuming that the tube is closed on the top.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 669
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The tube need not be closed at the top. The air pressure is equal at the top of the fluid in the tube and at its base outside. So there must be something else that counteracts the weight of the fluid in the tube. This is what the author states.
 
  • #3
Then how does it work? Does the fluid actually "stick" to the sides of the tubes, and thus drags some of the rest of the fluid along with it? So, if you lift the tube very carefully, theoretically the water would stick to it?

How can the fluid, say H2O, stick to a normal glass or plastic tube? I mean neither of those substances are polarized...

And can somebody pls help me here too? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4484367#post4484367
 
  • #5
Hmm, thanks. But 2 questions remain:

1) Why is the surface-tension connecting the water to the tube-wall the same as the regular surface-tension?

2) Doesn't this mean that there will be a tension vertically throughout the water, which lifts the water up the tube?
 
  • #6
Given how the solution is framed in your book, I would expect that it should have an explanation of the mechanism before it plunges into the calculation. Is it completely silent on that?
 
  • #7
1. surface tension is surface tension. It's the fluid and the size (diameter) of the tube which produces this phenomenon.

2. At least in the tube.

Weird corollary to capillary action. When the fluid is mercury, Cap Action produces a depression in the fluid level relative to the level of the rest of the liquid.
 
  • #8
voko said:
Given how the solution is framed in your book, I would expect that it should have an explanation of the mechanism before it plunges into the calculation. Is it completely silent on that?

The book we use is called Fluid Mechanics by Frank M. White, and it is only fit as firewood.

Anyway I have understood this subject thanks to you guys and Cengel & Cimbala's far superior text on fluid mechanics. thanks :)
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Strange fluid-mechanics formula made by crazy textbook author

1. What is the purpose of this strange fluid-mechanics formula?

The purpose of the formula is to calculate the behavior of fluids in motion, such as gases and liquids, and their interactions with solid objects.

2. Is this formula widely accepted in the scientific community?

No, it is not widely accepted. It is considered a controversial and unconventional approach to fluid mechanics and has not been thoroughly tested or verified by other scientists.

3. Why was this formula created by a "crazy" textbook author?

The term "crazy" is subjective and not a fair characterization of the author. It is possible that the author had unconventional ideas or a unique perspective on fluid mechanics, leading to the creation of this formula.

4. Can this formula be used in practical applications?

It is not recommended to use this formula in practical applications as it has not been proven to be accurate and may lead to incorrect results. It is important to use established and widely accepted formulas in practical scenarios.

5. What are the potential implications of using this formula?

The potential implications of using this formula are inaccurate results, lack of reproducibility, and potential harm to individuals or structures if applied to practical situations without proper testing and validation.

Similar threads

Back
Top