Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 360

Your doubt and intuition versus peer-reviewed science? Hmm. Tough choice.

How do you know it wouldn't work with a 1 metre siphon? You're still claiming you need atmospheric pressure for a siphon to work when it;s demonstrably not the case.

This vacuum experiment works with any liquid that can stay liquid under those conditions - like mercury, for example, although you can't go quite as low.

The two properties you need for a siphon are the cohesion of the liquid (and this is true for the regular water siphon) and gravity, with the latter being the key player. Atmospheric pressure is not needed.

Comment Re:Still need atmospheric pressure to syphon (Score 1) 360

Now you're changing your argument.

TFA demonstrated that the siphon stopped working when the pressure fell too low because of the properties of the fluid being siphoned, not because a siphon requires atmospheric pressure to work.

An analogy would be that I can demonstrate that F=ma is not true for high values of F and small values of m because air resistance starts to affect the result. This doesn't mean that the equation doesn't work at these values, just that the experiment cannot measure the data under those conditions.

The water siphon experiment is the same - it stops working at low pressure, but not because you need pressure for a siphon to work. It's simply not possible to take data because the water boils off.

The ionic liquid experiment demonstrates that you do not need pressure for it to work at all - since it operates in UHV. The ionic liquid has cohesion in the same way that water does - it just has more of it due to the physical properties of the liquid. However, it is clear that gravity is the most important part, since you can siphon almost any liquid (like gasoline, which has very little cohesion compared to water or an ionic liquid) as long as you have a change in elevation.

There's no "substitution" of weak ionic bonds for pressure, because it's not pressure that is driving the water siphon. There happens to be pressure, purely because there's an atmosphere, but it's not why the siphon works. The water siphon works because of the cohesion of the water and gravity... just like the ionic liquid version under vacuum.

Ionic liquids aren't really "exotic", they're just uncommon to non-chemists. Almost any melted salt is an ionic liquid. If you make it with large, oddly shaped diffuse ions then it tends to be liquid at room temperature. They flow like other liquids. They can be decanted, they have surface tension, they work as solvents. There's no "cheating" or substitution going on. It was just used because it has a low vapour pressure and can thus go beyond the range capable with water.

You could do the same experiment with a liquid metal, such as mercury (convenient) or any other metal that you can keep liquid long enough to test it if you can stop it solidifying, although even mercury has a vapour pressure and will boil off in a high vacuum so you'd have to be careful about repeating the experiment.

Comment Re:Actually it's both. (Score 1) 360

Here's a video of a siphon working in a vacuum (10^-5 mbar) (and also a link to the paper featured as a result of the work).

You *do not* need an atmosphere, or atmospheric pressure to make it work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You just need a liquid that won't boil off under vacuum. The only reason the Nature experiment failed was because the working fluid was water, which boils at low pressure.

Comment Re:An even simpler experiment (Score 1) 360

It's been done by a group at my university that works with ionic liquids. They used an ionic liquid with almost zero vapour pressure and a vacuum chamber and showed exactly this - that the siphon works in the absence of atmospheric press and is driven by gravity.

It didn't get published in Nature though, they just made a youtube video of it.

Comment Re:Actually it's both. (Score 1) 360

I'm not sure you do need atmospheric pressure. Experiments have been done at my university with an ionic liquid as the working fluid in a siphon that is in a vacuum chamber. An ionic liquid has virtually no vapour pressure so remains liquid even under vacuum.

It was demonstrated that the siphon continued to work, even at high vacuum (i.e., as good as you can get with a standard vac pump used on a lab fume hood).

Comment Re:OMFG compile! (Score 1) 113

You know the man pages are the manual right?

How about you bother to learn something instead of coasting on the work of others for a decade then complaining things don't fulfil your every need after you've contributed exactly bugger all.

I assume you synthesise your own medicines, right?

And build your own car.

No, I expect you're just coasting along on the hard work of others. Next time you take any medication remember that you're contributing nothing but reaping all the benefit.

Comment Re:Snow Leopard (Score 0) 96

My Macbook Pro is from mid 2010. I stopped "upgrading" at Snow Leopard because that is when OS X went off the deep end. Snow Leopard itself actually annoys me with the "integrated app store" bullshit. I wanted a Unix based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI and all I would have if I upgraded to the latest is an ugly IOS device doing everything it can to get me to buy shit.

Loving the hyperbole.

OS X looks nothing like iOS. It has the launchpad, which is clearly derived from the iOS springboard, but using it is totally optional (I never do - I just launch apps the way I've been doing it since 10.1).

OS X also doesn't "do everything it can" to get you to buy shit - using the App Store is optional for anything other than the core apps and OS. It's where you get core updates from (for the OS and built in apps), but it is far from the sole source of software, nor is it intrusive.

I'm struggling to think of what you mean when you say OS X is "doing everything it can" to "force you" to buy things. Can you give me some specific examples?

Also, I wasn't aware that they removed all of the Unix underpinnings and command line with OS X beyond 10.6. Again, can you give me some specific examples of what is missing from OS X after Snow Leopard that means it would no longer be a "Unix-based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI"?

Comment Re:Not a open source issue. (Score 1) 96

Tell me again how this whole issue with SSL is due to the nature of open source and how it's only the commie OpenSSL which can't be trusted...

Seems to me Apple's got a bit of a quality control issue itself.

What's Apple's excuse ?

Apple's SSL implementation is also open source.

Oh, sorry, I interrupted you in the middle of an uninformed Apple bash. Do carry on. My apologies.

Their excuse is "open source means lots of eyes!" No wait, it's "whatever we do we'll be attacked, so we just dropped the ball and said 'fuck it'".

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...