Is Asymmetric Capacitive Propulsion at Play in Meniscus Propulsion?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wywong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Meniscus Propulsion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of meniscus propulsion in small boats, particularly whether asymmetric capacitive propulsion plays a role in their movement. Participants explore the mechanics of surface tension, pressure forces, and the implications of these on propulsion methods, including comparisons to existing technologies and biological locomotion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a boat with hydrophilic material at the back and hydrophobic material at the front could potentially propel itself using surface tension, while others question the feasibility of this idea.
  • Wai Wong argues that a meniscus cannot propel a boat because the forces acting on it must balance, suggesting that movement would require a difference in surface tension on either side.
  • There is a suggestion that the movement of a previously demonstrated boat was due to an externally applied electric field rather than the meniscus itself.
  • Participants discuss the implications of Cho's analysis, noting that it may overlook other forces acting on the boat, such as water and air pressure.
  • Wai Wong presents an experiment with a triangular paper boat, concluding that pressure changes from moving water, rather than surface tension, may be responsible for propulsion.
  • Some participants mention that soap and camphor propelled boats rely on chemical energy and molecular arrangements, which complicates the understanding of propulsion mechanisms.
  • Asymmetric capacitive propulsion is introduced as a potential explanation, but some participants express skepticism regarding its applicability to meniscus propulsion due to differences in voltage and required current types.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the mechanisms of propulsion, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the limitations of meniscus propulsion as described by Cho, while others propose alternative explanations and models, leading to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for further exploration of the forces involved in propulsion, including the effects of pressure and surface tension, as well as the implications of electrical forces. The discussion highlights the complexity of defining propulsion mechanisms and the potential for misunderstanding in existing analyses.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying fluid dynamics, propulsion mechanisms, and the interplay between surface tension and pressure in various contexts, as well as individuals exploring innovative propulsion technologies.

wywong
Messages
146
Reaction score
6
Earlier this year, a team of scientists demonstrated a tiny boat that uses surface tension, but no moving parts to navigate through water (see http://www.pitt.edu/news2009/Cho.pdf" ).

I wonder if a boat with hydrophilic material at the back and hydrophobic material at the front can propel itself in the same manner. If not, why? If so, does that mean a perpetual motion machine can be made using a circular trough and one such boat?

Wai Wong
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
After thinking through, I figured out (I think) why a meniscus can't propel a boat. The meniscus itself is stationary, so the horizontal forces acting on it, which include surface tension as well as water/air pressure, must be balanced. There is only one horizontal force - water surface tension - acting on the far side of the meniscus. That shows that the forces - surface tension and water/air pressure - acting on the near side of the meniscus must add up to be the same. By Newton's 3rd law of motion, the side of the boat must experience the same force whether there is meniscus or not. So the boat won't move unless the water surface tension on either side is different, as in the case of those toy boats that use chemicals to change surface tension.

I think the experimenters' boat movement was caused by the *externally* applied electric field. Had they used on-board batteries, the boat wouldn't have been able to move.

Wai Wong
 
wywong said:
After thinking through, I figured out (I think) why a meniscus can't propel a boat. [...] Had they used on-board batteries, the boat wouldn't have been able to move.
Is that conclusion consistent with your source's example of some larvae's locomotion?
 
Another team of scientists led by D.L. Hu had earlier invented a robotic water-walking insect with moving parts and their work is the only reference in S.K. Cho's paper. According to Hu's observation, those insects move by generating vortices around their legs. It is plausible that the larvae's locomotion is based on the same principle. I know almost nothing about insects so I have no way to tell for sure, but Cho's interpretation seems implausible to me.

Wai Wong
 
I get your point about the thermodynamics not being explained, but isn't it premature to make such a conclusion about all manners (incl. mechanical and chemical) of surface-tension propulsion, before finishing your alternate explanation for Cho's apparatus?
 
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

In Cho's analysis, he only took into account the surface tension forces and overlooked the forces acting on the walls of the boat due to water and air pressure. In my argument, if those forces are considered, the meniscus can be ignored - the horizontal force acting on the wall is the same whether there is meniscus or not.

When I said meniscus propulsion is impossible, I meant Cho's unique meniscus propulsion, because when I googled the term 'meniscus propulsion', all the matches I got were related to his "discovery". If a propulsion is caused by any other manner, I suppose some other name should apply, like mechanical propulsion, surface tension propulsion, etc., because the meniscus doesn't affect the total horizontal force.

Wai Wong
 
I wonder if the better analogy to Cho's boat is http://www.csiro.au/resources/soap-boat-activity.html" (noting since an oscillating potential is in use we can't assume power isn't being continuously expended into the water), rather than the the larvae behaviour Hu observed (as Hu was specifically describing "meniscus climbing" edge-effects not locomotion in mid-pond, although admittedly the surface won't be exactly flat anywhere). Nonetheless, WW, I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing the precise details of your calculations, both of the exact horizontal cancellation of surface tension by pressure force, and of the electromagnetic explanation for the demonstrated manoeuvring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cesiumfrog you are right. I made a big mistake in my previous argument. I previously argued that the surface tension force of a meniscus is balanced by the static water pressure so that the perpetual motion boat is impossible. I think that argument is correct as far as the perpetual motion boat is concerned. Cho's boat is different in that the meniscus at the back is moving up and down. So I did the following experiment:

A loaded triangular paper boat is put in the middle of a basin of water. A pencil parallel to and near the back of the boat is pushed into and out of water at a rate of about twice a second. The boat is observed to move forward until it hits the wall in a few seconds.

Surface tension force does not seem responsible for the propulsion of the paper boat above. My explanation is as follows. When water is pushed downwards quickly, it is pushed against surrounding water which is quite heavy and viscous, so the water pressure nearby increases considerably, and it is this pressure that propels the boat. When water is drawn upward, there is negative pressure, but that pressure is limited - the pressure at the back of the boat cannot be lower than the atmospheric pressure by any significant amount, while the pressure built up at the front is small because of the boat's slow speed. As a result, the boat gets a big push and small pull in each cycle. This propulsion mechanism can also account for the larvae's locomotion.

Thus, while Cho's invention is sound, his explanation is dubious, and I proved myself a fool B:(.

Wai Wong
 
Soap and camphor propelled boats actually 'consume' some of the substance which coats the stern / engine as they move. The energy for the propulsion comes from the altered molecular arrangement as the camphor / soap spreads out into the water. No conservation law is violated. The difference in meniscus angles at front and back is only maintained by a 'chemical' source of energy. The boat stops when the propellant has all gone away.
 
  • #10
Mr Wong I believe that they found just another form of asymmetric capacitive propulsion. The working fluid being water instead of air.
 
  • #11
Asymmetric capacitive propulsion is an interesting idea which is new to me. However I doubt if it is at play in meniscus propulsion due to the following reasons:

a. the voltage for the latter is 2 orders of magnitude less (about 140V vs 30KV) and thus the electrostatic attraction would be too small,
b. DC is required for the former while AC is required for the latter (the inventor Cho wouldn't have used AC if DC works, and if DC works, we get a perpetual motion machine!),
c. the electrode at the back of the boat in question propels the boat forward as if it repels water, while the electrodes in asymmetric capacitive propulsion are attracted to the ionized air molecules.

Wai Wong
 

Similar threads

April Fool's Physics Papers 2026
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
579