h a l f b a k e r yFewer ducks than estimates indicate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Water will climb a wick but only to certain height. What
if the
water, in the top of the wick, was then induced to pool
allowing it to be wicked up another step?
The water would have to move horizontally at the top. A
wick
weave or material change would allow a droplet to
overcome
adhesion
and release the droplet into the next wick's
pooling
vessel. A release of a droplet would dry out the top of
the
wick allow more water to move up.
The overall construct would be a ladder of stepped r
shaped
wicks (umbrella shaped in 3D) each sitting in a pooling
vessel.
[link]
|
| |
I already posted this under the name 'sponge pump' and it was fairly squished. Something to do with surface tension cancelling out the waters ability to leave the wicking device. |
|
| |
You can race me and [xenzag] if you don't mind leaving the gate a bit late.
<place smiley face here> |
|
| |
Apparently the name has been changed to 'Sponge Pump cubed'.
It's like spongebob square pants in 3d. |
|
| |
You want to leave the theater,
but it's so bad that you just can't look away. |
|
| |
The world's science education is in shambles. |
|
| |
how do you 'induce the water to pool' ? |
|
| |
That would be a perpetual motion machine. Hence, impossible. |
|
| |
I don't think these are necessarily perpetual motion
machines. The stored internal energy is in the form of the
capillarity of the wick which will not last forever. |
|
| |
//The world's science education is in shambles//
|
|
| |
I think your methodology is a bit flawed if you're using data gathered from halfbakery.com to reach that conclusion. |
|
| |
As mentioned on 2fries's earlier idea, this won't work. |
|
| |
Consider the piece of wick which is just before the tip
(rightmost end) of your "r". You're asking this wick to suck
up water from the stem of the "r" in preference to sucking
up water from the supposed pool immediately to its right. |
|
| |
In fact, if I described a "wick-based siphon" in which a
similar arrangement was used to carry water *from* a
higher
pool to a lower one, it would be basically this. |
|
| |
[daseva] points out that the "stored internal energy is in
the form of the capillarity of the wick", which is another
way of looking at it. The energy to lift the water comes
from the decrease in surface energy of the wicking
material as it is covered with water. Once the available
surface of the wick (including its interpiliary spaces) is
saturated, there's nothing driving anything. |
|
| |
(The "energy" got there in the first place by making the
wick, which, for example, may have been done by pulling
apart some fibrous material, or by using heat to remove
the water from some natural wicky stuff.) |
|
| |
Sorry, My delusion is, water is in constant brownian motion and given the correctly scaled path structure, water can be led anywhere. |
|
| |
The weave at the top of the wick would include a more hydrophobic strand mix to start drip cluster formation. A tiny incline, greater weave gap and more hydrophobic fibres may be just enough to overcome that adhesion stall problem.
The goal is to get a cohesive cluster of water molecules large enough to beat wick fibre adhesive forces. A very fine balance game. |
|
| |
This would be very very slow, if it could be engineered.
Max's syphon wick would be a lot faster because drips could build up speed because of more allowable height drop. |
|
| |
The lead path, in this case in the wick tip, has a slight probability of fail. The fail is what is wanted, it leads to the drip. |
|
| |
I want the random motion to get the molecules to leave the path. |
|
| |
Hire Maxwell's Demon, then. |
|
| |
I don't have the correct handcuffs if the contract goes sour. |
|
| |
//Hire Maxwell's Demon, then.// |
|
| |
He's pre-occupied with moles. |
|
| |
You've agreed that my "wick siphon" would work better
than your "wick lifter". Since they're both the same
structure, this is equivalent to saying that your device will
tend to move water down, not up, which is indeed the
case. |
|
| |
Interesting discussion, but [-] for bad science. |
|
| |
I read about the Sequoia that it uses some kind of
"stepping" system like this, but cannot find the
article. [Edited:] Sorry, found it. It simply takes
from the fog, because it cannot use the capillary
action. |
|
| |
The main force in the trees comes from the
evaporation. See my research in wikipedia on
[Capillary action] (I added the section on trees and
two refs. |
|
| |
Anyway, you'll have to find a way to remove the
water from the capillary tube into your pool.
Perhaps by joining them in a downward loop at
the top, would bring the water together, creating
droplets that would pull down together exiting the
tube as liquid water drops. Its easy to try it out. |
|
| |
You can bend physics, but you can't break it. |
|
| |
The water HAS been pulled up, so its there
without breaking any laws of energy. Its means
that the capillary internals had potential
(molecular force) energy waiting to be exploited.
Now that the water is up there, you need only the
energy to a. block the tube till the loop
downward, and b. remove some of the water in
the small tube leaning towards the pool, which is
now in any case being assisted by gravity. |
|
| |
Similar to rain, gathering the water together can
cause enough pull to release them from the tube. |
|
| |
Then again, there must be somewhere where the
extra energy is coming from, since there will now
be water with potential energy that it hadn't had
before. [Sigh] Maxwell and Flying, and AntiQuark,
and especially rcarty are as usual correct. |
|
| |
Yup, the source of energy is surface tension (and
some stuff with the surface of the capillary), and
that same surface tension prevents the deposition of
the liquid at the top end. |
|
| |
It's more useful, in this context, to think of
surface energy rather than surface tension. |
|
| |
Surfaces (any interfaces between different
materials) have an energy associated with them.
When you break something, some of the energy
you use in the breaking is needed to create the
new surface. Wetting happens because the
surface energy of the new liquid-solid interface is
less than of the liquid-air plus solid-air interfaces. |
|
| |
The increase in the potential energy of the wicked
liquid is offset by the decrease in surface energy
of the wetted wick. You can only restore the wick
by removing the water and thereby putting back
its wick-air surface energy. |
|
| |
Max, re: your earlier anno: would a wick-based siphon work ? |
|
| |
As a means of lowering liquid? Interesting question.
Instinct says yes. |
|
| |
so probably not then. I found some references to siphon wicks used in gardening, both high>low and low>high. |
|
| |
So long as the water is removed at the top and the attraction between water molecules isn't over forced. The water should at as a chain. The environment field would have to be as neutral as possible. Possibly like electrons and superconducting materials. Put it another way -
does water act like a magnet to itself over a small distance and thus beat gravity? |
|
| |
People, this isn't difficult. Water wets wicks. If you
evaporate the water from one end, more will soak
in, working against gravity to an extent which
depends on the wickiness (capillarity) of the wick. |
|
| |
The essential physical principals at work here can be
illustrated by standing in socks in a shallow puddle
on a warm dry day. |
|
| |
Would these be school principals? |
|
| |
Als, Les, I always get those confused. |
|
| |
pals are always people.... |
|
| |
Yeah, but Al and Les are both people. It's not so
easy to put into practise, unless you're a licenced
grammarian. |
|
| |
To save face, designing a fully dimensioned environment field is probably a few Eurekas off. What probably can be done now is a photomechanic material that gives energy at the top of each step to break adhesion. |
|
| |
// It's not so easy to put into practise// Practise brings prefects. |
|
| |