Feynman's Sprinkler: Explaining the Paradox Without Experiment

  • Thread starter Curl
  • Start date
In summary, the water going into the pipe has a lower pressure and the water coming out has a higher pressure.
  • #1
Curl
758
0
I can't believe I couldn't find a thread about this.

I'd like to see a few ways of explaining this, using pure thought, not experiment trash.

If you don't know what I'm talking about (shameonyou) it goes like this:

Take a regular S shaped garden sprinkler (the ones that spin when you run water through them) and submerge it in an inviscid liquid. Then suck fluid from the middle. Assuming no friction anywhere, what happens to the sprinkler? Which way does it spin, or does it?

Every way I think about it, it's messed up. Let's see what you can come up with. Diagrams encouraged.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
THis was covered very will in Am. J. Physics:

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v72/i10/p1276_s1?isAuthorized=no
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v59/i4/p349_s1?isAuthorized=no
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v73/i3/p198_s2?isAuthorized=no
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v56/i4/p307_s1?isAuthorized=no
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v57/i7/p654_s1?isAuthorized=no

The most straightforward explanation I know of is recognizing that the fluid leaving the forward sprinkler is a highly directional jet, while the water sucked into a reverse sprinkler is not- the flowfield is very broad in angle to the orifice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Hehe, I figured it out, its very simple. Thanks guys.
 
  • #5
A video of the actual result of sucking water backwards through the reverse sprinkler can be seen here: http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch4/q061.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Thank you for the video yuiop, but the explanation may not be quite so simple. It seems to me there is another force involved, that of the centripetal force of the water or air rounding the bend in the tube. In the forward direction the centripetal force adds to the reactionary force of the water leaving the nozzle but in the reverse direction it subtracts. However since centripetal force varies as mv^2/r, the v^2 factor should cause the centripetal force to eventually become dominant. What we may see as the water's velocity is increased from zero is that the sprinkler head begins to turn in the direction counter to it's direction in forward mode and as the velocity of water is increased the rotation rate increases to a maximum. As the water's velocity is further increased, the rotational velocity of the sprinkler begins to slow down, stop and reverse as the centripetal force becomes dominant.

Perhaps the reason Feynman kept increasing the pressure was in order to see this effect.
 
  • #7
Curl said:
I'd like to see a few ways of explaining this, using pure thought, not experiment trash.

I'm curious why don't want any "experiment trash" and what makes experiments "trash"?

It's the best way to answer your question so far as what happens goes.
 
  • #8
I just did a quick analysis using a control volume, momentum flux, and some inviscid assumptions, and much to my surprise, I get that in a purely inviscid flow, it should rotate in the same direction as it did under normal operation, but with 1/3 the torque. I'll post the analysis here later, after I've had a chance to run it by a friend of mine first to see if there are any obvious errors (I also want to check a couple of things first).
 
  • #9
Make sure you don't use inertial control volumes or it becomes a mess and can easily make errors.

I'd like to see what you did, since you should get no torque in steady state.
 
  • #10
Curl said:
Make sure you don't use inertial control volumes or it becomes a mess and can easily make errors.

I'd like to see what you did, since you should get no torque in steady state.

That's what I expected as well, which is why I want to go over it a bit more before posting it.
 
  • #11
Can we say that when the water speeds up going into the pipe that there is a decrease in pressure and the the pressure is greater on the other side with no inlet , Or is this wrong?
 
  • #12
If it is an inviscid fluid then there is no pressure gradient in the pipe or else the fluid will accelerate endlessly. We're assuming steady state.
 

1. What is Feynman's Sprinkler paradox?

Feynman's Sprinkler paradox is a thought experiment proposed by the renowned physicist Richard Feynman. It involves a sprinkler that rotates in the opposite direction when water is turned off, seemingly violating the law of conservation of angular momentum.

2. How does Feynman explain the paradox without experiment?

Feynman explains the paradox by considering the angular momentum of the water in the sprinkler system. When the water is turned on, the sprinkler spins in one direction due to the angular momentum of the water. But when the water is turned off, the water in the sprinkler starts to drain and the angular momentum decreases, causing the sprinkler to spin in the opposite direction.

3. Is Feynman's explanation widely accepted?

Yes, Feynman's explanation is widely accepted among scientists and is considered to be a valid explanation for the paradox. It is based on the principles of conservation of angular momentum and does not require any additional experimental evidence to support it.

4. Are there any other proposed explanations for the paradox?

Some scientists have proposed that the sprinkler's rotation is caused by the Coriolis effect, which is the apparent deflection of moving objects on Earth due to the Earth's rotation. However, this explanation has been largely disregarded as it does not fully account for the paradox.

5. What is the significance of Feynman's Sprinkler paradox?

Feynman's Sprinkler paradox is significant because it challenges our understanding of fundamental laws of physics, such as the conservation of angular momentum. It also highlights the importance of critical thinking and considering all factors when trying to explain a scientific phenomenon.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
712
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
112
  • Classical Physics
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
645
Back
Top