Will a Siphon Function on the Moon?

[Steve B]

According to http://tinyurl.com/2cfghd5", an Australian physicist has discovered that The Oxford dictionary's definition of "siphon" is incorrect, attributing its effect to atmospheric pressure, rather than gravity, which is what he maintains causes it a siphon work.

This seems to me to come down to whether a siphon would work in a vacuum (but in the presence of a reasonable gravitational field - on the surface of the Moon, say). It seems to me that it wouldn't. If you sucked some liquid past the bend in the siphon, it would surely fall down the siphon's longer arm, but it seems to me that the liquid in the shorter arm would just fall back into the main body of liquid, leaving a vacuum in the siphon as it did so.

Does anybody agree or disagree?

Thanks in advance,
Steve = : ^ )

 

[rcgldr]

How would you get a liquid to exist in a vacuum in the first place? Even if the surface pressure of such a liquid was zero, you'd have non-zero and increasing pressure with depth of the fluid, similar to the atomsphere's pressure being zero at the outer fringes of the atmosphere, which increasing presssure versus distance from the center of the earth.

If such a liquid existed, a siphon that went above the surface of the upper tank would probably not work, since such a liquid would permit pressure to go to zero at the surface level of the upper tank.

 

[Steve B]

How would you get a liquid to exist in a vacuum in the first place? Even if the surface pressure of such a liquid was zero, you'd have non-zero and increasing pressure with depth of the fluid, similar to the atomsphere's pressure being zero at the outer fringes of the atmosphere, which increasing presssure versus distance from the center of the earth.

If such a liquid existed, a siphon that went above the surface of the upper tank would probably not work, since such a liquid would permit pressure to go to zero at the surface level of the upper tank.

Thanks for the reply. If I had a tub of water in a room, and then evacuate the room of air, would gravity not keep the water in the tub, and surface tension not give it a surface? What about a tub of mercury?.

Steve = : ^ )

 

[russ_watters]

[edit]
You are correct, Steve: A siphon needs air pressure, otherwise it will lose its "prime". Water won't flow through, it will just fall out both sides because there is nothing pushing the water up toward the top of the tube.

I read the article and his reasoning wasn't clear, so it is possible he's just splitting hairs about what gravity does in a siphon, since you do also need gravity to make the siphon work.

 

[rcgldr]

Thanks for the reply. If I had a tub of water in a room, and then evacuate the room of air, would gravity not keep the water in the tub, and surface tension not give it a surface? What about a tub of mercury?.

The low pressure would result in vaporization at the surface. This would continue until the weight of the vapor generated sufficient pressure and saturation at the remaining surface of the fluid (if any was left) to prevent further vaporization. In the case of most solids, the rate of vaporization would be negligible.

In the case of the moon based siphon, you could use the weight of solid objects as a substitute for pressure from the air. In this case the tanks would be cylinders filled with water with piston shaped weights containing the water and maintaining pressure within the water.

 

[cesiumfrog]

According to http://tinyurl.com/2cfghd5", an Australian physicist has discovered that The Oxford dictionary's definition of "siphon" is incorrect, attributing its effect to atmospheric pressure, rather than gravity, which is what he maintains causes it a siphon work.

This seems to me to come down to whether a siphon would work in a vacuum (but in the presence of a reasonable gravitational field - on the surface of the Moon, say). It seems to me that it wouldn't. If you sucked some liquid past the bend in the siphon, it would surely fall down the siphon's longer arm, but it seems to me that the liquid in the shorter arm would just fall back into the main body of liquid, leaving a vacuum in the siphon as it did so.

I agree with Hughes that since the work is supplied by gravity the dictionary definition is very misleading. In particular (since the air pressure acts on both reservoirs) the siphon does not normally depend on the amount of air pressure. *

But I think the issue has to do with the notion that "there is no such force as suction" **. Indeed, in normal circumstances for a typical siphon, it is technically true that the water in the short arm rises because it is being pushed (ultimately by air pressure upon the top reservoir) rather than being pulled (by the absence of an equal force from the opposite direction). This is why it is difficult to say the dictionary is outright incorrect.

** Actually, there is such a force as suction. Tall trees in fact use negative pressure to suck water up to their leaves. The problem is that the siphon tube has to be carefully tuned for the liquid to remain liquid under negative pressures. Normally, any liquid would start to boil and form an embolism, disconnecting two regions of liquid and interrupting the transfer of force (and the transport of liquid).

* So, if a siphon tube is very carefully made, it can in fact siphon a liquid even with literally zero atmospheric pressure (by means of the gravitational force in the long arm producing negative pressure in the bend as it exerts an upward pull on the liquid in the long arm). Very similar to a "chain siphon". But you're right in that a typical siphon tube (at least with a typical liquid) will not work in a vacuum, exactly as you described (an embolism would form at the peak of the siphon tube). Now, actually a typical liquid (like water or mercury) cannot be kept in a vacuum in the first place (it boils until a certain amount of vapour pressure is restored), but nonetheless we can still say that a typical siphon fails every time the peak height of the tube (above the surface of the top reservoir) is too large for the atmospheric pressure (after accounting for the strength of gravity and density of the liquid), so indeed most practical siphons would fail if the atmospheric pressure becomes sufficiently low.

So you're right about typical siphons, but wrong about some specialised siphons. And still, the dictionary has chosen a very poor way of describing what a siphon is.

 

[Steve B]

Thanks for the extremely educational response. I'm now grappling with the concent of "negative pressure".

Steve

 

[rcgldr]

Thanks for the extremely educational response. I'm now grappling with the concent of "negative pressure".

I assume he meant a negative pressure gradient, where pressure at the base of a tree is higher than pressure at the top of a tree. There are a huge number of very small tubes (xylem) that transport fluid upwards via capillary (surface tension) and chemical actions (osmosis) that draws in fluid through the roots, and evaporation through the leaves.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I assume he meant a negative pressure gradient

No.

Not gauge pressure either. I mean the sort that relies on the existence of attractive forces between real molecules (unlike ideal gas particles).
For trees, the pressure generally comes from surface tension in the leaves (the air-water meniscus in the stoma or wherever, curved by evaporation). The issue arises after tree height exceeds the 10mH2O of normal atmospheric pressure.

 

[Rockhoundnz]

There are actually two aspects to this discussion. Firstly, the force that drives the transfer of liquid from the short leg of the pipe to the long leg of the pipe and secondly the force that prevents the short leg of the pipe from emptying backwards, and forming a vacuum at the top of the pipe. They are separate.

To demonstrate that hydrostatic pressure alone drives the transfer, consider this experiment:

Simply fill a hose with water and insert each end into one of two level containers of water. Nothing will happen. The water will remain in the hose and will not flow in either direction.

Then lower one container and water will start to move from the higher container to the lower one. The only change is in hydrostatic pressure - atmospheric pressure is unchanged at both ends (in fact, to be pedantic, it is sightly now slightly higher at the lower end!). Therefore it is hydrostatic pressure that is driving the transfer, not atmospheric pressure.

What atmospheric pressure does do is prevent the short leg of the pipe from emptying, at least up to a height where the hydrostatic pressure in the short leg of the pipe is equal to 1 atmosphere (about 10m or 33 feet), if the short leg is higher than 10m then a vacuum will start to form at the top of the pipe and the transfer of liquid will cease. So, therefore a siphon couldn't work in a vacuum because a second vacuum would form at the top of the pipe ceasing the flow.

 

[cragar]

How could we explain the frictionless fountain of liquid helium that flows as long as the temperature is cold enough , in terms of siphoning ,

 

[skeptic2]

[edit]
I read the article and his reasoning wasn't clear, so it is possible he's just splitting hairs about what gravity does in a siphon, since you do also need gravity to make the siphon work.

But wouldn't a siphon still work where the effect of gravity was nil but where there is air pressure, for instance the space station? Suppose you had two plastic bags, one filled with liquid and one empty, connected with a tube. If you started the liquid flowing from the full bag to the empty one, wouldn't the liquid continue moving by its own inertia? Isn't it really the inertia of the liquid that makes any siphon work?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Isn't it really the inertia of the liquid that makes any siphon work?

What about energy loses (friction/turbulence)?

 

[skeptic2]

What about energy loses (friction/turbulence)?

Exactly. Siphons do eventually slow to a stop.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Exactly. Siphons do eventually slow to a stop.

Uh, no they don't? Not unless the reservoir surface levels equalise, or one empties.

 

[skeptic2]

My apologies, I was speaking from personal experience rather from established theory.

 

[cesiumfrog]

My apologies, I was speaking from personal experience rather from established theory.

Nothing wrong with that, evidence trumps dogma. But I'm not quite sure what experience you're referring to? Maybe what you're accustomed to is the siphon slowing as the difference between reservoir levels falls (while the resistance to current through the hose stays the same)? Maybe you could settle this if you tried pinching off the flow in a running siphon, since there would be no inertia to restart the flow when you remove the kink. (In my experience, one prefers to start a siphon not by sucking on the bottom of the tube but by statically pre-filling the tube, with thumb sealing the lower end of the tube.) Or use two buckets (add some kind of particulates in the tube so you can see the flow) and try to find out how long inertia lasts if you eliminate the height differential?

 

[cjameshuff]

This seems to me to come down to whether a siphon would work in a vacuum (but in the presence of a reasonable gravitational field - on the surface of the Moon, say). It seems to me that it wouldn't. If you sucked some liquid past the bend in the siphon, it would surely fall down the siphon's longer arm, but it seems to me that the liquid in the shorter arm would just fall back into the main body of liquid, leaving a vacuum in the siphon as it did so.

Liquids do have some tensile strength, which allows them to pull some negative pressure. As long as the column of liquid in the pipe doesn't break, the siphon can run, just like a rope or chain can pull itself over a pulley.

Also, note that evaporation is highly dependent on surface thermodynamics. Depending on the liquid and pipe materials (which will affect the conditions at the interface between pipe and liquid), the liquid in the pipe might effectively have a much lower, even negative vapor pressure, as long as no vapor or nucleation sites are present. Keep the siphon very clean and it'll work better.

 

[threadmark]

if you want to siphon the fluid out of the bath tub into the vacuumed room, it’s not a problem. But if you try to siphon the fluid out of the room it’s impossible because there is no space to fill the void. The vacuum is proportionate to the volume of the room. if you take something out you increase the volume. if you increase the volume whilst in vacuum the room would implode.

 

[cjameshuff]

if you want to siphon the fluid out of the bath tub into the vacuumed room, it’s not a problem. But if you try to siphon the fluid out of the room it’s impossible because there is no space to fill the void. The vacuum is proportionate to the volume of the room. if you take something out you increase the volume. if you increase the volume whilst in vacuum the room would implode.

That's nonsense. Vacuum is vacuum, space empty of matter, it has no pressure, tension, or preferred volume. There is no force on the walls of an evacuated vessel in vacuum, no matter what changes you make to the volume of that vessel. The volume of vacuum on either side of the siphon only becomes relevant when the fluid being siphoned fills that entire volume.

 

[threadmark]

Sorry , decrease the volume of the room whilst in vacuum . But I am pretty sure that the walls of a vacuumed room would be affected by the fluid exerting from the vacuumed room considering you had the power to pump it out. It would be limited by the room’s elasticity.

 

[threadmark]

I’m no expert, but fluid dynamics is not affected by air pressure, only gravity. Vacuuming the room of air will not affect fluid dynamics in a siphon. No air would suggest an inability to move the fluid out of a vacuum without compromising the vacuum state in capsule. But the dictionary definition stats to convey liquid through a tube with suction or ((immersion)), how you immerse that tube is that of many ways. Reverse airlock is one way, fill a portion of the room in liquid and seeling it off from the vacuum and releasing it. To continue close the portion and re-vacuum the area before exposing it for submergence again in the vacuum. The dictionary states immersion this implies you can use a reverse airlock.

 

[threadmark]

Ok I just read the article at the start of the question. I should read things closer before running my mouth off. I’m probably wrong because I don’t have the stature of a senior physicist. But the definition states convey meaning transfer in a tube, which a tube is” a long, hollow cylinder used for conveying or holding liquids or gases>a long flexible metal or plastic sealed at one end and a cap at the other end “. The method of conveying liquid can be achieved with reverse airlock. Submerging the cup like tube in liquid and conveying it through the reverse airlock. The note stated in the dictionary under siphon being “maintained by different fluid pressures at the tube openings” would suggest if I fill a cup with water, the bottom of the cup is maintaining the fluid pressure equal to rXpi^2Xhight of the cup. So where does this definition suggest water is affected by air pressure? The dictionary states “or immersion”. correct me please!

 

[cjameshuff]

Sorry , decrease the volume of the room whilst in vacuum .

Increase or decrease, it makes no difference. Vacuum is vacuum, there's nothing there to push or pull on the walls of the vessel. Obscure things like the Casimir effect aside, vacuum exerts no force, positive or negative, no matter what the volume.

But I am pretty sure that the walls of a vacuumed room would be affected by the fluid exerting from the vacuumed room considering you had the power to pump it out. It would be limited by the room’s elasticity.

As I mentioned, liquids have tensile strength which allows them to exert negative pressure and "pull" on surfaces in contact with them that they adhere to. The forces involved are relatively weak, though, and present in atmosphere as well. It is quite common to drain liquids from containers without the containers imploding, there's no reason to think this will change in vacuum.

I’m no expert, but fluid dynamics is not affected by air pressure, only gravity. Vacuuming the room of air will not affect fluid dynamics in a sipher.

The first statement is just wrong. Or "not even wrong". Fluid dynamics is the dynamics of fluids, and air is certainly a fluid...air pressure is of great importance in a wide variety of situations in fluid dynamics. Including siphons. They can work in vacuum with liquids that don't boil, but air pressure affects how high the siphon tube can rise above the higher liquid level without breaking the fluid column.

No air would suggest an inability to move the fluid out of a vacuum without compromising the vacuum state in capsule.

Just how does removing a liquid from a container that otherwise only contains vacuum "compromise" that vacuum? What, there's not enough nothing to replace the liquid?

But the dictionary definition stats to convey liquid through a tube with suction or ((immersion)), how you immerse that tube is that of many ways. Reverse airlock is one way, fill a portion of the room in liquid and seeling it off from the vacuum and releasing it. To continue close the portion and re-vacuum the area before exposing it for submergence again in the vacuum. The dictionary states immersion this implies you can use a reverse airlock.

It's not at all clear what you're proposing or why you think it's necessary.

 

[cjameshuff]

Ok I just read the article at the start of the question. I should read things closer before running my mouth off. I’m probably wrong because I don’t have the stature of a senior physicist. But the definition states convey meaning transfer in a tube, which a tube is” a long, hollow cylinder used for conveying or holding liquids or gases>a long flexible metal or plastic sealed at one end and a cap at the other end “. The method of conveying liquid can be achieved with reverse airlock. Submerging the cup like tube in liquid and conveying it through the reverse airlock. The note stated in the dictionary under siphon being “maintained by different fluid pressures at the tube openings” would suggest if I fill a cup with water, the bottom of the cup is maintaining the fluid pressure equal to rXpi^2Xhight of the cup. So where does this definition suggest water is affected by air pressure? The dictionary states “or immersion”. correct me please!

Fluid pressure at the bottom of the cup is proportional to the depth of the liquid and on air pressure, it does not depend on the area. The article was correct in saying that the siphon was maintained by the pressure differential across the tube: if the liquid column in the tube does not break, the lower leg will have a higher pressure from the liquid inside the tube, and the liquid will exit that side as long as the pressure outside is lower.

This can work in vacuum because liquids have tensile strength. They have very finite tensile strength, however, and the liquid column will break if the middle of the siphon goes too far above the two containers...the liquid will fall down both legs of the siphon, leaving a vacuum in the tube. External air pressure will support part of the weight of the fluid column, allowing the middle of the siphon to rise higher before the column breaks.

I have no idea where you're going with "reverse airlocks".

 

[threadmark]

ok ,I am not to good with words. If I had a capsule half filled with water, then vacuum the air from the top of the capsule to the structures maximum pressure threshold(any more would collapse the structure).could water be taken from the capsule without affecting the structure. An example would be when you drink from a plastic bottle sealing your lips over the opening. As you draw flexing your mouth to get it full it collapses the structure of the bottle because of the elasticity of thin plastic. Could you extract water from the capsule? The point I’m making is you can siphon water from a vacuum and the definition in the dictionary does not conflict with this process. You can convey through immersion and if you look up immersion it doesn’t denote to needing air pressure at all. For argument sake, the cup of water could be submerged before the vacuum is present. Then simply put the cup in a reverse airlock through the means of robotics if you wish and seal the R airlock and quench your thirst. All of these actions do not conflict with what the oxford English dictionary defines as a siphon. I have just siphoned a cylinder of water from the vacuum through immersion and conveying. the structure could collaps after the cup had been removed but I still siphoned a glass of water from a water exempted vacuumed capsule. Using the 99 year old definition.

 

[threadmark]

I quote from my 11th edition concise Oxford English dictionary at home.

 

[threadmark]

Increase or decrease, it makes no difference. Vacuum is vacuum, there's nothing there to push or pull on the walls of the vessel. Obscure things like the Casimir effect aside, vacuum exerts no force, positive or negative, no matter what the volume.




Just a note, if you increase the vacuumed structures dimensions whilst in vacuum. It would void the integrity of the structures ability to hold a vacuum. So if I increase the dimensions of the structure wouldn’t I theoretically change its volume irrelevant to it becoming void? I say this as I wait for some more info on this dictionary correction montage to help me understand where they went wrong with definition of siphon. Please give the dictionary edition that this mistake took place. If it helps to correct my misunderstanding i read this from a concise oxford dictionary (11th edition). Please correct my confusion.

 

[tyroman]

threadmark,

Look at Steve B's original post in this thread. The definition at issue is the one you can find by going to the link in his post;

http://tinyurl.com/2cfghd5

which re-directs to this article in The Sydney Morning Herald;

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...oes-unnoticed-for-99-years-20100510-uoh2.html

The portion of the definition which is in error is where it says that a siphon operates "by means of atmospheric pressure, which forces the liquid up the shorter leg and over the bend in the pipe"

In fact, a differential hydrostatic pressure (between the two vertical legs of the siphon) is what makes a siphon operate. Such a pressure difference is both necessary and SUFFICIENT for a siphon to work.

The dictionary entry is NOT trying to describe factors (such as atmospheric pressure) which can affect the operation of a siphon... it is asserting that atmospheric pressure CAUSES a siphon to flow... WRONG!

Dr. Hughes is not "splitting hairs" when he insists that the publishers of "The Oxford English Dictionary" should correct the entry.

We have enough trouble in this world resulting from scientific ignorance among the non-science community... we need to aggressively address the correction of "bad science" whenever we encounter it...

The higher the "authority" of the source - the more credible the erroneous assertion becomes - and the more importance we should attach to the effort to correct the error.

.

 

[cjameshuff]

ok ,I am not to good with words. If I had a capsule half filled with water, then vacuum the air from the top of the capsule to the structures maximum pressure threshold(any more would collapse the structure).could water be taken from the capsule without affecting the structure. An example would be when you drink from a plastic bottle sealing your lips over the opening. As you draw flexing your mouth to get it full it collapses the structure of the bottle because of the elasticity of thin plastic.

No. The bottle collapses because of the external air pressure and the lack of countering pressure from inside. As I've said before, there is no pressure from a vacuum.

Could you extract water from the capsule? The point I’m making is you can siphon water from a vacuum and the definition in the dictionary does not conflict with this process. You can convey through immersion and if you look up immersion it doesn’t denote to needing air pressure at all. For argument sake, the cup of water could be submerged before the vacuum is present. Then simply put the cup in a reverse airlock through the means of robotics if you wish and seal the R airlock and quench your thirst. All of these actions do not conflict with what the oxford English dictionary defines as a siphon. I have just siphoned a cylinder of water from the vacuum through immersion and conveying. the structure could collaps after the cup had been removed but I still siphoned a glass of water from a water exempted vacuumed capsule. Using the 99 year old definition.

Again with the reverse airlock, and with structures collapsing. Can you describe just what, exactly, a "reverse airlock" is? And what could possibly cause a container containing nothing, surrounded by nothing, to collapse? What is the source of the forces on its walls causing it to collapse, when there's nothing on either side of them?

Just a note, if you increase the vacuumed structures dimensions whilst in vacuum. It would void the integrity of the structures ability to hold a vacuum.

As I've explained in detail, no, it wouldn't. It takes no structural integrity to hold a vacuum in vacuum. None. The forces on the walls of the structure are precisely zero, no matter the changes in volume you make.

So if I increase the dimensions of the structure wouldn’t I theoretically change its volume irrelevant to it becoming void?

What does "Irrelevant to it becoming void" mean?
You'd change its volume, yes. That's not theory, it's reality, there's numerous ways of making structures that change in volume. The part you keep missing is that when vacuum is concerned, it doesn't matter what the volume is.

It is as tyroman said. Air pressure will support the fluid in the connecting tube and allow that tube to rise to a greater hight before breaking the fluid column, but it acts on both ends of the tube, and has nothing to do with moving fluid through the siphon.

 

[threadmark]

No. The bottle collapses because of the external air pressure and the lack of countering pressure from inside. As I've said before, there is no pressure from a vacuum.




Again with the reverse airlock, and with structures collapsing. Can you describe just what, exactly, a "reverse airlock" is? And what could possibly cause a container containing nothing, surrounded by nothing, to collapse? What is the source of the forces on its walls causing it to collapse, when there's nothing on either side of them?




As I've explained in detail, no, it wouldn't. It takes no structural integrity to hold a vacuum in vacuum. None. The forces on the walls of the structure are precisely zero, no matter the changes in volume you make.




What does "Irrelevant to it becoming void" mean?
You'd change its volume, yes. That's not theory, it's reality, there's numerous ways of making structures that change in volume. The part you keep missing is that when vacuum is concerned, it doesn't matter what the volume is.

It is as tyroman said. Air pressure will support the fluid in the connecting tube and allow that tube to rise to a greater hight before breaking the fluid column, but it acts on both ends of the tube, and has nothing to do with moving fluid through the siphon.

You are not making sense in your observations; “there is no pressure from a vacuum”. I did not state there is pressure in a vacuum, I am pointing out the fact that putting a capsule in vacuum is a structural dependant action. And if you don’t understand that let me break it down. If you vacuum a capsule you could keep vacuuming until it implodes. But besides that, to siphon liquid is not dependant on air pressure. The definition also states to immerse a tube. Look up siphon in the oxford dictionary then we can have a discussion about how to siphon water in a vacuum.
And to answer your question” What is a reveres airlock” to have an airlock in space is to exit a spacecraft without compromising the air in the space craft. so to have a reverse airlock I thought would be to exit a vacuum without compromising the vacuum.
And to say a vacuum is not pressure dependant is silly in this context because its put forward there is a capsule involved and that pressure would be relevant even though I didn’t say it is pressure dependant. You stated “ The bottle collapses because of the external air pressure and the lack of countering pressure from inside”
I’m sorry but this would make pressure relevant..

 

[cjameshuff]

You are not making sense in your observations; “there is no pressure from a vacuum”. I did not state there is pressure in a vacuum,

You stated a container in vacuum would implode if the volume of vacuum inside it were increased by drawing a liquid out with a siphon:

if you want to siphon the fluid out of the bath tub into the vacuumed room, it’s not a problem. But if you try to siphon the fluid out of the room it’s impossible because there is no space to fill the void. The vacuum is proportionate to the volume of the room. if you take something out you increase the volume. if you increase the volume whilst in vacuum the room would implode.

I am pointing out the fact that putting a capsule in vacuum is a structural dependant action.

That statement has no meaning. The phrase "is a structural dependant action" does not make sense.

And if you don’t understand that let me break it down. If you vacuum a capsule you could keep vacuuming until it implodes.

What could cause a container in vacuum to implode? Implosion implies that an inward force is being applied to the structure of the container...by stating that this would happen, you are claiming that a vacuum exerts pressure.

And to answer your question” What is a reveres airlock” to have an airlock in space is to exit a spacecraft without compromising the air in the space craft. so to have a reverse airlock I thought would be to exit a vacuum without compromising the vacuum.

That's just an airlock, there's nothing reversed about it.

And to say a vacuum is not pressure dependant is silly in this context

No, it's just another meaningless phrase. Those words do not have meaning when put together in that way.
Freezing is pressure dependent, boiling is pressure dependent, vacuum is a state of zero pressure and absence of matter...it depends on nothing.

because its put forward there is a capsule involved and that pressure would be relevant even though I didn’t say it is pressure dependant. You stated “ The bottle collapses because of the external air pressure and the lack of countering pressure from inside”
I’m sorry but this would make pressure relevant..

This was in response to a remark you made about sucking water from a plastic bottle. You're not in vacuum, the bottle is not in vacuum, the fact that the bottle collapses is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about siphons in vacuum.

You seem extremely confused about pressures and vacuum in general. The question you asked in another thread, "Isn’t the act of a vacuum to exert all possible mass whilst maintaining the structure the vacuum resides in?", simply makes no sense...to start with, mass isn't something that's exerted, and a vacuum doesn't exert anything. Once again, a vacuum is just an absence of matter. Aside from relatively tiny effects like photon pressure and the Casimir effect, a vacuum exerts precisely zero force...there's nothing there to exert force. There's nothing there to change properties based on volume, there's no pressure. You don't need "space to fill the void".

Out in the open here on Earth, reducing pressure in a container with insufficient structural strength to support the outside atmospheric pressure will cause the container to implode. Put it in a vacuum chamber, and you can draw a vacuum in even the flimsiest container without it imploding. If that vacuum chamber can support an atmosphere of external pressure, it doesn't matter how many vacuum pumps you hook up to it or how good they are, it won't implode. Once the air has been removed, the interior is a vacuum, and that's that.