Elastic and Inelastic Collisions in Inverse Sprinkler

D. John Jabaraj
Technical Foundation Section, Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Spanish Institute, Kulim Hi-Tech Park, 09000 Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia

Abstract
We analysed the inverse sprinkler problem at elementary level using the Principle of Conservation of Momentum. First, the sequence of
a molecule entering and moving within the nozzle of the inverse sprinkler is modeled. Then, the momentums involved are examined.
Two possibilities on the motion of the inverse sprinkler are obtained. The inverse sprinkler is theoretically shown to either spin slowly
towards incoming fluid or just vibrate without any apparent spinning, depending on the type of collision occurring within the nozzle.
Keywords: Inverse sprinkler; Modelling; Momentum conservation; Elastic and Inelastic Collisions.

1. Introduction
The normal sprinkler is a system or device with right angled nozzles (from axis of rotation or pivot) that spins against
the direction of the fluid that jets out from the nozzles. The motion of the normal sprinkler is perfectly understood through
the Third Newtons Law of Motion. In contrast, the inverse sprinkler is basically a sprinkler submerged and made to suck
in fluid through applied vacuum. The actual motion of the inverse sprinkler have not been properly observed or
understood.
2. Literature Review
The inverse sprinkler problem was made famous in the mid-1980 by Feynman through his anecdotal book Surely
Youre Joking, Mr. Feynman [1]. Feynman, nevertheless; did not clarify the motion of the inverse sprinkler or its probable
mechanism [2]. Since then, physicists have offered conflicting opinions on the subject. Recently, Jenkins describes that the
inverse sprinkler nozzles accelerate towards the incoming water as dissipative effects results in a small torque [4, 5].
However, the inverse sprinkler problem is originally an ancient problem as Mach in 1883 explains that the inverse
sprinkler does not rotate because there is no reaction force because fluid is sucked in from all sides [3]. Few inverse
sprinklers have also been constructed and studied too. Some inverse sprinklers do not spin at all while others spin slowly
towards incoming fluid [6, 7, 8]. The inverse sprinklers that show no signs of motion may, however; just suffer from too
much bearing friction.
The trouble with the inverse sprinkler problem is that it is easily stated and understood but confounds anyone attempting
to explain the basic physics behind it. Therefore, the inverse sprinkler problem is particularly attractive pedagogically in
general physics and its possible solution have fostered lively debate for close to thirty years. This study aims to gain a clear
new perspective on the inverse sprinkler problem by greatly simplifying the inverse sprinkler problem down to its basic
structure and physics. First, the structure of the inverse sprinkler is modelled. Then, the motion of a single molecule of
fluid in the inverse sprinkler is elementarily analyzed through the Principle of Conservation of Momentum.
3. Methodology / Experimental Set-Up / Model Set-Up
1.1. The Modeling of Inverse Sprinkler
First, the inverse sprinkler system is simplified. Basically, a sprinkler has several curved angular nozzle sections
which can freely rotate while attached to the main body. The nozzle section of the inverse sprinkler is simplified here into
an L shaped tube with a pivot at the end (Fig. 1), as done by Jenkins [4]. The pivot allows spinning motion. The pivot is
also hollow, through which vacuum is applied. This causes the surrounding fluid to be sucked in through the open-end of
the L tube and into the pivot. The wall at the opposite end from the open-end is described here as the back wall.

Fig. 1: Simplified L tube model of the nozzle section of the inverse sprinkler.
The simplified nozzle section will only spin if there is a net tangential motion at a time. This means only
horizontal motions of the leg section of the L tube is responsible for any spinning. Therefore, this study will focus and
analyze the leg section along the horizontal axis. The diameter of the leg section is set so that only one molecule of
surrounding fluid can move through it.
1.2. The Motion Sequence in Inverse Sprinkler
The sequence of a molecule moving through the length of the leg section is depicted as in Fig. 2. The momentums
of the leg section throughout the sequence are denoted as PL1 and PL2 while for the single molecule are PF1 and PF2. Any
motion towards right is denoted as positive and to the left as negative as according to the conventional x-axis.

Fig. 2: The idealized sequence of a single molecule moving through the length of the leg section
The Frame A in Fig. 2 depicts the initial state before the molecule is sucked into the leg section. The velocity of
the molecule and also the leg section are zero as they are initially at rest. So the total momentum of this system is zero.
According to the Principle of Conservation of Momentum, this total momentum value of zero is to be maintained
throughout the sequence.
4. Results & Discussion
1.3. The Motion Sequence in Inverse Sprinkler
In Frame B of Fig. 2, the molecule is sucked into the leg section due to vacuum applied at the pivot of the nozzle.
The momentums of the molecule (PF1) and of the leg section (PL1) are analyzed using the Principle of Conservation of
Momentum
P PL1 PF1

(1)

0 PL1 PF1
PL1 PF1
M L (VL1 ) M F (VF1 )

VL1 ( M F / M L )VF1

(2)

The mass of the leg section and its velocity in Frame B are denoted as ML and VL1, respectively. Meanwhile for the
molecule, they are MF and VF1, respectively. The velocity of the molecule is positive because it is sucked into and along the
leg section (towards the right). The velocity of the leg section is negative (towards the left) because it should be opposite of
the velocity of molecule.

4.2. Conservation of Momentum in Frame C

The Frame C of Fig.2 shows the two possible situations after collision between the molecule and the back wall of
the leg section. The basic types of collision that can happen are the completely inelastic collision, partially inelastic
collision and the perfectly elastic collision.
First, the completely inelastic collision is analyzed in Frame C (i) of the Fig. 2. If the completely inelastic
collision occurs here, the molecule and the back wall must move together. Therefore, the velocities after collision of the leg
section (VL2) and the molecule (VF2) are the same and denoted here as V2 = VL2 = VF2. Using the Principle of Conservation of
Momentum, it is observed that
P PL2 PF2

(3)

0 PL2 PF2
0 ( M L M F )V2
V2 VL2 VF2 0

(4)

This implies that the molecule and the leg section stop after the completely inelastic collision (if it occurs).
Afterwards, the molecule is then sucked into the pivot due to the continuous vacuum applied therein.
The partially inelastic collision is analyzed next in Frame C (ii) of the Fig. 2. In this collision, the molecule and
the leg section moves separately after collision. Thus, by using the Principle of Conservation of Momentum
P PL2 PF2
0 PL2 PF2
PL2 PF2
M LVL2 M F VF2
VL2 ( M F / M L )VF2

(5)

Now the velocity of the leg section must be opposite of the velocity of the molecule. Nevertheless due to the
restriction of the back wall of the leg section, the molecule will not be able to move to the right (in positive x-axis
direction) if the leg section moves to the left. The only possibility is for the molecule to move the left while the leg section
moves to the right. Hence, the velocity of the molecule can only be negative and thus the velocity of the leg section will be
opposite and positive. The perfectly elastic collision will also produce similar outcome to the partially inelastic collision as
the molecule and the leg section too must move separately after collision. Nevertheless after partially inelastic collision and
the perfectly elastic collision, the molecule does not shoot out through and out of the open-end of the leg section. The
3

molecule will be stopped by the next incoming molecules (with positive velocities) and then be sucked into the pivot due to
the vacuum applied therein.

4.3. Motion of Inverse Sprinkler

The flow of the molecules into the inverse sprinkler is continuous. If the collisions between the back wall of the
leg section and molecules are completely inelastic, then the velocity of the leg section will change from negative to 0 m/s
and then back to negative, continuously. Therefore, the inverse sprinkler will vibrate slightly and spin slowly towards
incoming fluid. An inverse sprinkler at the University of Maryland exhibits this motion [7]
If the collision between the back wall of the leg section and molecules is partially inelastic or perfectly elastic,
then the velocity of the leg section will change from negative to positive continuously. Therefore the inverse sprinkler will
exhibit slight jerking motion without any real spinning. In his misadventure with the inverse sprinkler, Feynman was said
to have observed only tremors without any spinning [9, 10].
The theoretical results of this study can be further tested in laboratory for independent experimental validation.
The spinning of the inverse sprinkler is shown to depend on the type of collision at the back wall of the leg section. Thus,
an experiment might be constructed where the condition of the back wall of the leg section is changed to obtain various
types of collisions to observe the behavior of the inverse sprinkler. The vibration of the inverse sprinkler too may be
measured and analyzed.
Nevertheless the construction of a leg section with a diameter that only allows one molecule to move through will
be not an easy task. Meanwhile, a method of observing the vibration on an assembly due to molecular collisions with the
leg section might be devised. This theoretical study on the inverse sprinkler further did not take into account the viscosity
of fluid or the frictions that may exist in the system. The forces existing between the molecules of fluid were also ignored.
This study is clearly a gedanken experiment. It requires some ingenuity for the theoretical results of this study to be tested
in laboratory.
5. Conclusion
The application of the basic Principle of Conservation of Momentum to a simplified inverse sprinkler system
demonstrate that the inverse sprinkler could either spin slowly towards incoming fluid or just vibrate without any apparent
spinning.

Acknowledgements
This work was conducted in UniKL-MSI. D. John Jabaraj thanks Sugar many ways for many things.

References
[1] R. P. Feynman and R. Leighton. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character). Reprint ed., W. W Norton
& Company Inc, (1997).
[2] J. Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, (New York: Pantheon, 1992), 106-108.

[3] A. Jenkins, An elementary treatment of the reverse sprinkler, American Journal of Physics, 72 (10), 12761282, (2004).
[4] A. Jenkins, Sprinkler head revisited: momentum, forces, and flows in Machian propulsion, European Journal of Physics, 32 (5),
12131226, (2011).
[5] E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, 4th ed., Chicago: Open Court, (1919),
299-301.
[6] R. E. Berg and M. R. Collier, The Feynman inverse sprinkler problem: A demonstration and quantitative analysis, American Journal
of Physics, 57(7), 654-657, (1989).
[7] R. E. Berg et al., University of Maryland Physics Lecture, D3-22: Inverse Sprinkler - Metal Model, retrieved June 29, 2011.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/deptinfo/facilities/lecdem/services/demos/demosd3/d3-22.htm
[8] MIT Edgerton Center Corridor Lab: Feynman Sprinkler. http://edgerton.mit.edu/feynman-sprinkler
[9] J. A. Wheeler, The young Feynman. Physics Today 42 (2), 2428, (1989).
[10] E. C. Creutz, Feynmans reverse sprinkler. American Journal of Physics 73 (3), 198, (2005).