I'm sure that's right... The following video illustrates this but also I think points to the venturi having some effect so a combination of the two I think?
Siphon in what I'm calling "cycling mode"
Feel like I'm starting to understand this now as a result of this discussion...
Seems like air...
Appears to me to be broken off as bubbles at the hole. If you freeze frame the video you can see the exact makeup and the individual bubbles.
There also appears to be a minimum flow required before air is sucked in. If I run the siphon near the bottom of it's range just before the siphon might...
I think it's worth noting another major plus for this setup is that if the level falls a short distance below the setpoint (maybe because the inflow is interrupted) the siphon breaks, so no danger of emptying the tank.
I just checked it out and it is exactly as you say... Air is sucked in the instant the hole rises above the water line. At equilibrium the hole is approximately 2.5cm above the waterline using the present setup.
The hole may well be smaller in practice as my 3D printer doesn't necessarily make...
Just to illustrate why I got excited when I found this worked, the following link leads to a hell of a lot of videos offering ways to achieve the same effect but none coming close in terms of simplicity...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=diy+overflow+siphon
I'm not expecting anyone...
So if I read you right... The pressure inside the pipe reduces as you move up the pipe. Somewhere between the waterline and the apex of the pipe there will be a sweet spot at which air will begin to be sucked in. So if the water level rises the sweet spot will rise and vice versa? And am I right...
Hopefully the following will make things clearer...
The version in the video includes a small 3D printed part containing the hole.
Dimensions are OD 5mm ID 2mm small hole in side approximately 0.5mm.
You can see this printed part in the video. It is blue and connects the black tube below to...
I have a fish tank into which is flowing a steady stream of water at around 2L/H. I set up a submerged pump controlled by a float switch to remove water at the same rate as it was coming in and so maintain a constant water level. The pumped water is discarded to a drain via a 6mm flexible tube...
I don't see the rocket at rest with respect to the stone. From either perspective the rocket must move between Earth and the stone, otherwise (I think) you are comparing apples with oranges.
Edit: Woops..! I misread your post and confused the stone with the pebble. Your absolutely right of course.
Marvellous isn't it..!
Within minutes of my last post I came across a post on another forum which I think elucidates my thinking much better than my clumsy attempts here.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to place links to other forums so I'll take the liberty of quoting the post...
Edit: Which I...
Thanks for that. Seems I just keep asking the wrong questions so I'll stop now.
I am left with the impression that excluding the acceleration effects the traveling twin will still be younger in the scenario where the pebble is fixed.
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.
Thanks for that. I think it was when I first realized the turnaround point was at rest relative to the stay at home twin that the penny dropped for me. I understand you might construct scenarios where that isn't the case but I had not considered those. Many scenarios have the traveling twin...
Apologies to all. I should have made it clearer my objective was not to resurrect a discussion of the twin paradox but to simply verify whether or not the stay at home twin would measure a longer distance to the turnaround point than would the traveling twin when viewed from either perspective...
It's really the length of the path I'm trying to get at. It seems to me that the traveling twin takes the shorter path due (at least in part) to length contraction. Let's say we place a pebble at the turn around point. This pebble would always be at rest with respect to the stay at home twin but...