Excess pressure on the concave side of the meniscus

AI Thread Summary
Excess pressure on the concave side of the meniscus is explained by the balance of vertical resultant forces due to surface tension. The shape of the meniscus is influenced by two main forces: adhesion, which pulls the water upwards along the container's surface, and cohesion, which maintains the integrity of the water's surface. While the vertical component of force is acknowledged, it does not directly dictate the meniscus shape, as the curvature results from the interplay of adhesion and cohesion. In thin tubes, the adhesive force can overcome gravity, causing the water to rise. Overall, the meniscus shape is a complex balance of these forces, though existing models do not perfectly match experimental outcomes.
Joel Jacon
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Why is there excess pressure always on the concave side or surface of the meniscus?

In my book it is also written that excess pressure balance the vertical resultant forces due to surface tension.
How can a pressure balance a force?

My teacher said that shape of meniscus does not depend on vertical component of force.
Which force is she talking about? Why doesn't the shape of meniscus does not depend on vertical force as there are also curved meniscus so shouldn't vertical force should have some role to play in the curved surface?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two forces involved in capillary action which dictate the curvature of the meniscus.
1. The adhesion of the molecules to the surface of the container - so water adheres to glass which drags the sides of the meniscus upwards
2. The cohesion of water which glues the surface of the water together as in raindrops.
So the shape of the meniscus is the balance, basically, of these two forces.

Naturally if a tube is thin the grip on the sides of the tube pulling the water upwards overcomes the force caused by gravity and pulls the water upwards. There are a few models for this but interestingly none of them exactly predict experimental results.

There a few complexities which I have left out for the sake of brevity.
 
Puma said:
There are two forces involved in capillary action which dictate the curvature of the meniscus.
1. The adhesion of the molecules to the surface of the container - so water adheres to glass which drags the sides of the meniscus upwards
2. The cohesion of water which glues the surface of the water together as in raindrops.
So the shape of the meniscus is the balance, basically, of these two forces.

Naturally if a tube is thin the grip on the sides of the tube pulling the water upwards overcomes the force caused by gravity and pulls the water upwards. There are a few models for this but interestingly none of them exactly predict experimental results.

There a few complexities which I have left out for the sake of brevity.

What about the shape of meniscus?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top