🚀 go-pugleaf

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:hsnsp6$nko$7@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 19:07:16 +0000, Don H wrote:
>
> > "Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:857c43Frv2U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> In article <4IhHn.24789$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 :
>
> The real problem is that if you want meaningful answers, you had better
> define the full situation as you are clearly a stupid senile toss pot
> that asks one question when he means another
>
> > (1) Static pressure is mooted - or is this traction?
>
> The current incorrect dictionary definition is static pressure.
> There is a vital element of traction(~definition) in the gravity
> definition
>
> (2) Can a siphon function in a vacuum;
>
> in a (non-existent)theorectical(sp) No for atmospheric, but Yes for
> gravitational.
>
>
> > (3) Conversely, can a siphon function in a weightless environment (eg.
> > outer space)?
>
> Outer space is not a true weightless environment. Gravity flows through
> out space.
>
> > (4) Has any experiment been done to prove that a gas can be siphoned
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > (5) Must a siphon (ie. the pipe or tube), be totally filled with fluid
> > (no air bubbles, or air entry valve)?
>
> Depends on the material being syphoned.
>
>
> > (6) How did Oxford Dictionary get it wrong in the first place; and is a
> > switch to gravity (only) another rash move?
>
> Who knows, you would have to ask them. No scientist uses a dictionary as
> a source of a scientific definition.
>

# Interesting that word siphon was used in latest TV report on oil spill in
Gulf of Mexico - to pipe oil to surface from opening on sea floor.
   My definition of "siphon" would be:
(1) a pipe or tube used to convey a liquid from one place to another, where
the liquid initially goes above the source, but descends below it. (2) (as
verb; and generally) to use a pipe/tube re liquids, as in pipette.
   Omitting all reference as to how this is done.