What causes liquid to rise in a capillary tube?

AI Thread Summary
Liquid rises in a capillary tube primarily due to surface tension, which allows the liquid to climb against gravity. Air pressure may play a role, but it is not the main factor unless the tube is closed. The contact angle between the liquid and the solid surface determines whether the liquid will rise or fall; a contact angle greater than 90° indicates a hydrophobic surface, causing the liquid to descend. Understanding these principles is crucial for applications like damp-proofing, where hydrophobic treatments are used to manage liquid movement in materials. Capillary action is a fundamental concept in fluid dynamics and has various practical implications.
AudioFlux
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
This question struck me when i was watching a liquid rise in a capillary tube. I'm curious to know from where the energy gets transferred to the liquid to rise above the surface. Well, one possible explanation that i can think of is air pressure. Though, it can be a possible reason only if the other end is closed (i don't remember if it was open or closed). So am i on the right track?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi AudioFlux! :smile:
AudioFlux said:
I'm curious to know from where the energy gets transferred to the liquid to rise above the surface. Well, one possible explanation that i can think of is air pressure.

No, it's surface tension, see …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action#Height_of_a_meniscus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_angle :wink:

(if the contact angle is greater than 90°, the solid surface is hydrophobic, and the liquid will fall

this is how those damp-proofing injections work, they line the capillaries in the bricks with a hydrophobic lining)
 
Last edited:
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top