- #1
AdrianMay
- 121
- 4
I don't care whether it goes clockwise or anticlockwise so this is not the usual Coriolis conversation.
Why doesn't it just go down straight?
Why doesn't it just go down straight?
AdrianMay said:It doesn't look that way to me. I think the equilibrium speed of rotation down the hole depends on the geometry around it, and the initial currents only kick it into clockwise or anticlockwise.
AdrianMay said:It doesn't look that way to me. I think the equilibrium speed of rotation down the hole depends on the geometry around it, and the initial currents only kick it into clockwise or anticlockwise.
Kind of a strange comment. Mathematics is not usually used to cloak anything -- it's used as a tool for characterizing the real world.AdrianMay said:No mathematical smoke and mirrors required.
As you know, we don't discuss personal theories at the PF. If you can post a link to a reputable source that discusses a similar idea, that would probably be a good way to proceed.AdrianMay said:I have a theory of my own in mind
That makes no sense. I just flushed my toilet and confirmed the Coriolis force explanation. Why do you have a problem with that?AdrianMay said:I don't care whether it goes clockwise or anticlockwise so this is not the usual Coriolis conversation.
Why doesn't it just go down straight?
Sure, sounds fun. Can you provide a link please? My local library doesn't have that on their shelves...AdrianMay said:In the mean time, you might enjoy Helmholtz's 1858 paper on integrals of hydrodynamic equations that correspond to vortex motions.
Not meant as trolling, just honestly confused by your confusion about basic physics.AdrianMay said:I like your sarcasm, but I hope nobody misinterprets it as trolling. That would be incongruous in a mentor.
AdrianMay said:I don't care whether it goes clockwise or anticlockwise so this is not the usual Coriolis conversation.
Why doesn't it just go down straight?
Hmm, this seems like an unjustified conclusion, at least to the precision obtainable by merely looking at the water. Do you have any justification for this?AdrianMay said:Ah, but if it was just a kind of focusing of preexisting currents, then the speed of the rotation down the plughole would depend on the speed of the initial currents.
AdrianMay said:Why doesn't it just go down straight?
Emperical experiment conducted in the kitchen sink, Latitude about 34N. Sink approx 14 x 16 x 6 deep inches with center drain 3.25 inches diameter. Drain choked due to feeding a garbage disposal. About 2/3 to 3/4 fill.Drakkith said:The basic explanation is that the water has non-zero angular momentum that accelerates the rotational speed of the water molecules as they are pulled inwards towards the narrow drain. This magnified rotational speed creates the vortex that you see.
AdrianMay said:@Drakkith, @Dale and http://www.flowillustrator.com/fluid-dynamics/case-studies/bathtub-vortex.php
I already touched on this above. Suppose we take two identical buckets with holes in the bottom. We start the water spinning clockwise in both, but a thousand times faster in one of them than the other. After a while, I reckon the water around both holes will be seen to spin at roughly the same speed.
AdrianMay said:It is definitely not the case that that the vortex in the first bucket will persistently turn at a thousand times the speed of the other.
AdrianMay said:Another way to debunk it would be to dangle the bucket on a string. I think you'd see it turn in the opposite direction to the vortex because of an angular recoil. If I'm right, the web page would be at a loss to explain the effect. You'd need an explanation like "something actively fires the water out with a *new* angular momentum and that something pushes against the bucket." The web page blames the effect on the attempt to conserve angular momentum, but when the bucket is on a string, it's easily conserved when the bucket turns. But then again, I didn't do that experiment so it might confound me.
AdrianMay said:A persistent comment above is that you don't always get a vortex. I'd elaborate on that by saying that you don't get much of a vortex when the bath is nearly full (at most a little dimple dancing around on the surface) but it goes like the clappers when the bath is nearly empty. If we characterise that by comparing the hole diameter with the depth, then the picture above shows the opposite extreme: it's like a bath with only a millimeter of water depth left.
Not true I think . Some loss yes but not a large amount when compared to the total energy in the flow .AdrianMay said:I can see from the dramatic shear in the vortex that loads of energy must be lost to viscous friction
Sorry if I was not clear, but what I am asking for is why you think that the claim along the lines of "the initial angular momentum results in a swirl" implies something like "the speed of the swirl is proportional to the magnitude of the initial angular momentum". You are taking the fact that the latter statement does not hold as a disproof of the former. I don't see the connection.AdrianMay said:We start the water spinning clockwise in both, but a thousand times faster in one of them than the other. After a while, I reckon the water around both holes will be seen to spin at roughly the same speed. It is definitely not the case that that the vortex in the first bucket will persistently turn at a thousand times the speed of the other.
One toilet? One hemisphere? Where are your controls?berkeman said:Not meant as trolling, just honestly confused by your confusion about basic physics.
I flush my toilet 10 times in a row (we no longer are in a drought in Northern California thank goodness), and it swirls per the right hand rule every time.
AdrianMay said:The only remaining question, then, is why we don't need the corkscrew, or even the pipe.
AdrianMay said:The only remaining question, then, is why we don't need the corkscrew, or even the pipe.