B Why is Julius Sumner Miller saying Torricelli's law is not correct?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of Dr. Julius Sumner Miller's claims regarding Torricelli's law as demonstrated with a three-holed can. Participants debate whether the middle hole produces the strongest jet and the furthest distance, contrary to common diagrams suggesting the lowest hole is the strongest. Mathematical analysis indicates that while the lower hole has a stronger jet, it does not necessarily achieve the greatest range due to shorter time in the air. The middle hole, at half the height, is shown to yield the maximum range despite not having the strongest jet. Overall, the conversation highlights misconceptions about jet strength versus range in fluid dynamics.
Yonut
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
A video of Julius Sumner Miller from a TV show in the 70's suggests that Torricelli's law is not entirely correct. He says text books have been wrong for centuries. If this is so, why are people still using Torricelli's law?
Hello,

I'm just starting my research on a project I would like to build. But the design on the project has been delayed until I can get a concrete answer to this problem.

I grew up loving the "The Professor" segments on a kids show from the 70's called "The Hilarious House of Frightenstein". It was hosted by Dr. Julius Sumner Miller. In one episode, he talks about Torricelli's law with a three holed can. The holes are placed at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 the distance from the top of the can. Julius suggests that the top and bottom holes will cover the same distance from the can when draining. He then suggests that the middle hole will be the strongest and go the furthest from the can. He states the distance from the can, from the middle hole, will be equal the the water height in the can.

He then goes on to say how, the diagram relating to Torricelli's law, is wrong and has been wrong for centuries in textbooks.

So I try to confirm this on the web, but all I come across are diagrams using Torricelli's law. The same one, Julius suggests are incorrect.

torricelli.png

Torricelli-Law.png

tlaw.jpg


All of the attached diagrams suggest the lowest hole will have the strongest jet (cover the furthest distance).

Here is the link to Julius's solution segment (as this experiment spanned two episodes):
Julius Sumner Miller 20 HHOF - The Case of the Three Holed Can Cont.

I understand you can't trust most of the people that are allowed to permeate the television waves. But Julius, I feel being so popular, would have been called out for such a wrong statement, if it were indeed wrong. So please can someone shed some light on this. I really just want to know if the middle hole indeed has the strongest jet, or if it is the bottom hole.

Ty.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yonut said:
##\dots## suggest the lowest hole will have the strongest jet (cover the furthest distance).
Here is your misconception. Even though the lower hole has the strongest jet, the water from it does not necessarily go farther because it stays in the air for a shorter time. Do the math and you will see that the Professor is correct.

Let
L = Height of the column from the ground.
h = The distance from the ground to a given hole.

Then the speed of the water coming out of a hole is ##v=\sqrt{2g(L-h)}.##
The time of flight is ##t_f=\sqrt{\dfrac{2h}{g}}##.
The range is ##R=vt_f=2\sqrt{h(L-h)}##.

How does the range at ##h=\frac{3}{4}L## (highest jet) compare with the range at ##h=\frac{1}{4}L## (lowest jet)?
What about the range of the middle jet at ##h=\frac{1}{2}L##?
 
Tyvm.
 
Yvw.
 
Yonut said:
View attachment 291348All of the attached diagrams suggest the lowest hole will have the strongest jet (cover the furthest distance).
This diagram from the Wikipedia page clearly shows the lowest jet being the strongest, yet the middle jet having a greater range, as measured at the base of the container. There's nothing wrong there.

I wasn't very impressed by Dr JSM as he seemed more intent on the point that everyone else was wrong without explaining why he was right - and not taking the time to explain why they were wrong - by sloppily equating the strength of the jet to the range at the base of the container.

If he had explained it properly, you wouldn't have had to post here to get a more sober and less dramatic exposition from @kuruman

The other two diagrams are inaccurate, as they make the sloppy mistake that Dr JSM avoided explaining.
 
Here is a plot showing the ratio of the range ##R## to the column height versus the ratio of the hole height to the column height. Note that the range is double-valued for heights other than the middle of the column where there is a maximum. The shape is half an ellipse with equation ##r^2+4\left(h-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2=1.##

WaterSquirt.png
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and vanhees71
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top