🚀 go-pugleaf

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:857c43Frv2U1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <4IhHn.24789$pv.16671@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Don H"
<donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >#  According to my Concise Oxford Dictionary:
> [...]
> >   "Utilising atmospheric pressure" is the agency; no mention of gravity
> >(Version 1). ( Gk siphon: tube.)
>
> G'day Don,
>
> You haven't been keeping up!  Even the daily tabloid here in Qld has
> publicised the fact that the above definition in the OED is simply
> *wrong*, and has been for 100 years or so.
>
> The driving force of syphons is *gravity*.  The OED will be corrected
> in the next edition.
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> -- 
> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>

# I don't really dispute that, but am merely querying various aspects :
(1) Static pressure is mooted - or is this traction?
(2) Can a siphon function in a vacuum; ie totally eliminate any atmospheric
aspect?
(3) Conversely, can a siphon function in a weightless environment (eg. outer
space)?
(4) Has any experiment been done to prove that a gas can be siphoned (eg.
C02 is heavier than air)?
(5) Must a siphon (ie. the pipe or tube), be totally filled with fluid (no
air bubbles, or air entry valve)?
(6) How did Oxford Dictionary get it wrong in the first place; and is a
switch to gravity (only) another rash move?