

 For 99 Years, Oxford English Dictionary Got It Wrong - mikecane
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/oxford-english-dictionary-got-siphon-definition-wrong-for-99-years/19472844

======
btilly
Both are right.

The force that makes water want to go from one end to the other of the siphon
is gravity. However what pushes the water _up_ the siphon is atmospheric
pressure. And if the middle of the siphon is too high for atmospheric pressure
to push water up to the middle, then the siphon won't work no matter what
height differential exists between the two ends.

So both gravity and air pressure are involved.

~~~
VBprogrammer
I initially doubted you however <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon> agrees.

Nice catch.

~~~
btilly
However <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31098/> which was written by the physicist
that submitted the correction to the OED claims, contrary to wikipedia, that
the tensile strength of water is relevant.

Anyone have the ability to run a siphon and pull the middle up about 50 feet
in the air? If atmospheric pressure is key, it should stop working at
something like 30 feet high. If tensile strength is key, it should go several
times that height.

 _Edit:_ I accidentally said that the tensile strength of water was said to be
irrelevant, not relevant.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Wikipedia also says that the tensile strength of water is not relevant.

~~~
btilly
I wrote irrelevant where I meant to write relevant. Thanks for catching it.

------
swernli
Yes, and children are still taught that Bernoulli's principle is the reason
why planes can fly. There are a lot of interesting physics misconceptions that
have become widely accepted, but because physics (and perhaps science in
general) is not a major focus of our culture, no one really worries about
these misconceptions being out there.

Well, no one except the physicists :).

~~~
stoney
I have heard so many different explanations of why planes fly that I doubt
that anyone really understands it. There was a memorable moment towards the
end of my engineering degree, when after being given yet another explanation
of why planes fly a classmate shouted out, "I think we've heard enough
theories about whether planes can fly".

Apparently chemists encounter a similar thing when studying chemical bonds -
every new academic year you are told that what you learned the previous year
was such a gross simplification that it's basically wrong.

------
edge17
Anyone ever read the history of the OED? It's a fascinating and ill conceived
project that took 70 years to actually yield a product (mind blowing when you
compare the time and growth of Wikipedia).

If you know a little about it's history, it's pretty easy to see how mistakes
were made. Wikipedia has mistakes too.

------
JacobAldridge
Local link that correctly identifies the university Hughes works for -
[http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/qut-physics-
professor-s...](http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/qut-physics-professor-
siphons-knowledge-to-rewrite-oxford-dictionary/story-e6frfku0-1225864889509)

One of my life dreams is to add a word to the OED. I would definitely be happy
with adjusting an existing definition as well !

------
jackfoxy
The first entry doing define: siphon on Google also gets it wrong. I'll look
it up in my old Webster's Unabridged when I get home. If Noah got it wrong
_,it's possible the error dates back to Samuel Johnson.

_ There have been intervening editors since Noah Webster's time.

~~~
jackfoxy
Better yet I found Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary online.

<http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,siphon>

A device, consisting of a pipe or tube bent so as to form two branches or legs
of unequal length, by which a liquid can be transferred to a lower level, as
from one vessel to another, over an intermediate elevation, by the action of
the pressure of the atmosphere in forcing the liquid up the shorter branch of
the pipe immersed in it, while the continued excess of weight of the liquid in
the longer branch (when once filled) causes a continuous flow. The flow takes
place only when the discharging extremity of the pipe ia lower than the higher
liquid surface, and when no part of the pipe is higher above the surface than
the same liquid will rise by atmospheric pressure; that is, about 33 feet for
water, and 30 inches for mercury, near the sea level.

It seems the error traces back to Noah (but he correctly points out the
receiving side must be at a lower elevation). Johnson's definition is simply
"a pipe to convey liquors through".

------
anigbrowl
In other news, scientists say they are 'appalled' to discover that _Physical
Review Letters_ does not instill good prose style among its readership, before
going on to characterize their emotions with several other superficial and
unnecessary adjectives (N > 3).

