The reverse sprinkler problem popularized in Richard Feynman's memoirs has long been a source of interest and controversy. Numerous theoretical and experimental studies have illuminated many important facets of the problem, yet disparities persist between theory and experiment. This work considers, for the first time, the spatial distribution of inertial and pressure forces on the sprinkler arms. Differences in the regions over which internal and external forces act constitute a force-couple with different moment arms consistent with reverse rotation. Two novel sprinkler forms are presented, in principle capable of forward-only and reverse-only rotation, to elucidate specific features of this concept. It is also seen that the resulting flow-field asymmetry developed downstream from the sprinkler-arm bends supports the role of vortices in reverse sprinkler rotation by suggesting a mechanism for generating vortices in a consistent direction. The experimental challenges of isolating specific forces in light of both non-conservative forces and the influence of device design are also discussed.
References
1.
R. P.
Feynman
et al, “ Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!
,” Adventures of a Curious Character
(W.W. Norton
, New York
, 1985
).2.
A.
Mironer
, “ The Feynman sprinkler
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
(1
), 12
–12
(1992
). A letter to the editor decrying the moratorium imposed on the topic of the reverse sprinkler and quoting the journal editor's explanation regarding the volume of disagreeing papers submitted on the subject.3.
A. T.
Forrester
, “ Inverse sprinklers: A lesson in the use of a conservation principle
,” Am. J. Phys.
54
(9
), 798
–799
(1986
). Forrester uses conservation of angular momentum arguments to predict a non-rotational result, and reports an experiment with a twisting design that purportedly supports this conclusion.4.
A. K.
Schultz
, “ Comment on the inverse sprinkler problem
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
(6
), 488
–488
(1987
). Schultz responded to Forrester's analysis by observing that in fact the correct application of the conservation principle yields a somewhat different result.5.
A. T.
Forrester
, “ Comments on a letter by A. K. Schultz
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
(6
), 488
–489
(1987
).6.
A.
Jenkins
, “ An elementary treatment of the reverse sprinkler
,” Am. J. Phys.
72
(10
), 1276
–1282
(2004
). Jenkins reduces the problem to first principles, relating pressure, force, and momentum to demonstrate the fact that there must be a balance of forces and he concludes there can be no rotation. He only briefly acknowledges complicating factors, e.g., dissipative effects, but his fundamental analysis provides one of the best examples of a methodical and clear-thinking approach to the problem.7.
A.
Jenkins
, “ Sprinkler head revisited: momentum, forces, and flows in Machian propulsion
,” Eur. J. Phys.
32
(5
), 1213
–1226
(2011
). In this work Jenkins nuances his earlier analysis, and extends it to devices other than the reverse sprinkler, but his basic arguments remain unchanged.8.
J. A.
Wheeler
, “ The Young Feynman
,” Phys. Today
42
(2
), 24
–28
(2008
).9.
A.
Ruina
et al, “ Feynman: Wobbles, bottles and ripples
,” Phys. Today
42
(11
), 127
–130
(2008
).10.
R. E.
Berg
and M. R.
Collier
, “ New device lets you un
‐
water your lawn!
,” Phys. Today
43
(7
), 13
–13
(2008
).11.
E.
Creutz
, “ Feynman's reverse sprinkler
,” Am. J. Phys.
73
(3
), 198
–199
(2005
). Refs. 8–11 represent a debate on what actually occurred in Feynman's experiment, with Wheeler suggesting one result, Kuzyk (Ruin et al.) arguing a different interpretation, and Berg and Collier questioning Kuzyk's interpretation.12.
L.
Hsu
, “ Inverse sprinklers: Two simple experiments and the resolution of the Feynman–Forrester conflict
,” Am. J. Phys.
56(4)
, 307
–308
(1988
).13.
C.
Mungan
, “ Inverse lawn sprinkler
,” Phys. Teach.
43
(L2
), L1
–L2
(2005
). Water-based experiments using a variety of arm shapes, including arms that radially pierce the walls of the hub and then curve one way or another inside the hub. A good example of an experiment that is effectively, if inadvertently, designed to create vortices and then reflect their influence, rather than assessing the forces acting on the arms themselves; included in Table I.14.
S.
Dasgupta
et al, “ More on inverse sprinklers
,” Eur. J. Phys.
11
(5
), 311
(1990
).15.
R. E.
Berg
and M. R.
Collier
, “ The Feynman inverse sprinkler problem: A demonstration and quantitative analysis
,” Am. J. Phys.
57
(7
), 654
–657
(1989
).16.
M. R.
Collier
et al, “ The Feynman inverse sprinkler problem: A detailed kinematic study
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
(4
), 349
–355
(1991
). A thorough analytical and experimental study in which reverse rotation is demonstrated using both air and water; experimental details of which are included in Table I.17.
W.
Rueckner
, “ The puzzle of the steady-state rotation of a reverse sprinkler
,” Am. J. Phys.
83
(4
), 296
–304
(2015
). The first work to explicitly and thoroughly explore the potential role of vortices in the rotation of the reverse sprinkler. A number of the experiments reported are included in Table I. Rueckner's studies incorporate a wide range of different sprinkler configurations and geometries. Some of the designs represent examples of vortex inducing configurations, while others represent classic embodiments of the prototypical S-shaped reverse sprinkler. This work is among the most comprehensive empirical investigations of the problem available in the literature.18.
M. P.
Païdoussis
and M.
Tétreault-Friend
, “ Aspirating cantilevers and reverse sprinklers
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
(4
), 349
–353
(2009
). A detailed analysis of the fluid flow and forces at play in aspirating pipes. Païdoussis and Tétreault-Friend present experimental results from a prototypical reverse sprinkler operating in air that rotates in the reverse direction but for which “Two additional modes of operation were possible: it would occasionally begin rotating in the opposite direction…and it could remain essentially still, quivering while oscillating back and forth by 5°…. If the rotation occurs in the same direction as the discharging sprinkler, its interruption leads after some time to rotation in the opposite direction.”19.
A.
Jenkins
, “ Irreversibility in an ideal fluid
,” Am. J. Phys.
82
(11
), 1040
–1046
(2014
).20.
B. L.
Méhauté
, An Introduction to Hydrodynamics and Water Waves
(Springer Science & Business Media
, New York
, 1976
).21.
22.
S. A.
Berger
et al, “ Flow in curved pipes
,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
15
, 461
–512
(1983
).23.
M.
Norouzi
and N.
Biglari
, “ An analytical solution for Dean flow in curved ducts with rectangular cross section
,” Phys. Fluids (1994-Present)
25
(5
), 53602
(2013
).24.
Y. T.
Ng
et al, “ On the relation between centrifugal force and radial pressure gradient in flow inside curved and S-shaped ducts
,” Phys. Fluids (1994-Present)
20
(5
), 55109
(2008
).25.
A. K.
Vester
et al, “ POD analysis of the turbulent flow downstream a mild and sharp bend
,” Exp. Fluids
56
(3
), 1
–15
(2015
). In Refs. 24 and 25, both works report on experiments conducted to directly observe and measure (using pressure gauges and cameras) the flow field and related velocity and pressure gradients of fluid going around a 90° bend and how these metrics are asymmetrically distributed downstream of the curved region.26.
Q. H.
Mazumder
, “ CFD analysis of the effect of elbow radius on pressure drop in multiphase flow
,” Model. Simul. Eng.
2012
, 125405
.27.
X.
Guan
and T. B.
Martonen
, “ Simulations of flow in curved tubes
,” Aerosol Sci. Technol.
26(6)
, 485
–504
(1997
).28.
R.
Adjei
and A.
Mohsin
, “ Simulation-driven design optimization: A case study on a double 90 elbow bend
,” Int. J. Model. Optim.
4
(6
), 426
–432
(2014
). References 26–28 report on results from computation fluid dynamic models explicitly investigating the pressure and velocity profiles in bends. Collectively, curves of various angles are explored with different fluids, including air, water, and admixtures. In all instances, the general finding of radial shifts in velocity and pressure is reported. Model outputs included in each of these works include excellent and intuitive visual depictions of cross-sectional gradients at various points approaching, within, and downstream of the curved portion of the pipe.29.
M.
El-Gammal
et al, “ The hydrodynamic effects of single-phase flow on flow accelerated corrosion in a 90-degree elbow
,” Nucl. Eng. Des.
240
(6
), 1589
–1598
(2010
).30.
T. A.
Mekhail
et al, “ CFD simulation of dilute gas-solid flow in 90 degree square bend
,” Energy Power Eng.
3
(3
), 246
–252
(2011
).31.
M.
Muhammadu
et al, “ Numerical methodology to determine fluid flow pattern with corrosion in pipe bends using computational fluid dynamics software
,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci.
9
(1819
), 1978
–1982
(2014
).32.
C. B.
Solnordal
et al, “ An experimental and numerical analysis of erosion caused by sand pneumatically conveyed through a standard pipe elbow
,” Wear
336–337
, 43
–57
(2015
).33.
G.
Homicz
, “ Computational fluid dynamic simulations of pipe elbow flow
,” Sand Report No. SAND2004-3467
(2004
).34.
Y.
Nakayama
and Nihon Kikai
Gakkai
, Visualized Flow: Fluid Motion in Basic and Engineering Situations Revealed by Flow Visualization
(Pergamon
, Oxford
, 1988
). References 29–34 all provide recent, and convincingly consistent modeling results with a particular emphasis on how the pressure and velocity gradients in pipe bends distributes the force and hence abrasion characteristics of the fluid and particulates within it. Model outputs in these works also include computer-generated images of the pressure and velocity gradients, including areas of turbulence and vorticity, especially in the area immediately following the bend.35.
S. F.
Moujaes
and S.
Aekula
, “ CFD predictions and experimental comparisons of pressure drop effects of turning vanes in 90° duct elbows
,” J. Energy Eng.
135
(4
), 119
–126
(2009
).36.
R.
Röhrig
et al, “ Comparative computational study of turbulent flow in a 90° pipe elbow
,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow
55
, 120
–131
(2015
).37.
P.
Dutta
et al, “ Numerical study on flow separation in 90° pipe bend under high Reynolds number by k-ε modelling
,” Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J.
19
(2
), 904
–910
(2016
).38.
D. B.
Giacobbi
et al, “ The dynamics of a cantilevered pipe aspirating fluid studied by experimental, numerical and analytical methods
,” J. Fluids Struct.
30
, 73
–96
(2012
). A sophisticated analysis of the forces acting on an aspirating pipe suggesting that the flow field is not a classic sink, but is instead “sink-like.”© 2017 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2017
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.