1

TITLE PAGE
Paper

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions in Inverse Sprinkler

D. John Jabaraj
Corresponding Author: D. John Jabaraj
MSI-Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Kulim Hi-Tech Park, 09000 Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia.
(e-mail: jojab77@yahoo.com)
(Tel: +60174194717)

Abstract
The inverse sprinkler problem is theoretically analyzed using the Principle of Conservation of
Momentum. The nozzle section of the inverse sprinkler is firstly simply modeled as an L tube.
Then, the Principle of Conservation of Momentum is applied throughout the motion sequence of
a molecule entering and moving within leg section of the L tube model. Two possibilities are
found to occur in the inverse sprinkler. The inverse sprinkler is theoretically shown to either
vibrate and spin slowly towards incoming fluid or just vibrate without any apparent spinning;
depending on the type of collisions within the leg section.

PACS: (02.30.Zz), (45.20.df), (47.85.Dh)

Keywords: Inverse sprinkler; Theoretical modelling; Momentum conservation;

MAIN TEXT
1. Introduction
The inverse sprinkler problem was made famous by Feynman in the mid-1980 through his
anecdotal book Surely Youre Joking, Mr. Feynman [1]. The inverse sprinkler is basically a
sprinkler which is submerged and made to suck in the surrounding fluid through applied vacuum.
Feynman, nevertheless; failed to give a clarification regarding the motion of the inverse sprinkler
and its mechanism [2]. Since then, physicists have offered conflicting opinions on the subject.
The inverse sprinkler problem is actually an ancient problem. As early as 1883, Mach states that
the inverse sprinkler does not rotate because it sucks the fluid from all sides, unlike in the normal
sprinkler where fluid jets out resulting in reaction force [3]. Meanwhile, Jenkins recently
describes that dissipative effects results in a small torque and cause the inverse sprinkler nozzles
to accelerate towards the incoming water [4, 5]. Various inverse sprinklers have been constructed
and studied too. Some found that their inverse sprinkler do not spin at all while the others report
of inverse sprinklers that 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 physics behind it. Therefore, the inverse sprinkler
problem is particularly attractive pedagogically and its solution has 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 analyzed through basic Newtonian mechanics,
notably the Principle of Conservation of Momentum.

2. Methods
2.1 The Modeling of Inverse Sprinkler
The first step taken in this study is to simplify the inverse sprinkler system. 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 was done by Jenkins [4]. The pivot allows spinning motion, and is
hollow through which vacuum is applied. This causes the surrounding fluid to be sucked in
through the open-end of the L tube and out through the pivot. The wall at other end of the leg
section is described here as the back wall.
The simplified nozzle section will only spin if there is a net tangential motion at a time. This
means only the motions along the leg section is responsible for any spinning of the inverse
sprinkler. Therefore, this study will focus on the leg section. In order to facilitate the analyzing of
the motions of the leg section, the diameter of the leg section is set so that only one molecule of
the outside surrounding fluid can move through it. The inverse sprinkler is idealized in this study
as the forces existing between the molecules of fluid are ignored.

Fig. 1: Simplified L tube model of the nozzle section of the inverse sprinkler.

2.2 The Motion Sequence in Inverse Sprinkler

The sequence of a molecule moving through the length of the leg section can be 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.
The Frame A depicts the initial stage before the molecule is sucked into the leg section by
vacuum applied at the pivot. The velocity of the molecule and also the leg section are zero as
they are considered 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.

Fig. 2: The idealized sequence of a single molecule moving through the length of the leg section.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Conservation of Momentum in Frame B
In Frame B, the molecule is sucked into the leg section by the inverse sprinkler due to vacuum
applied at the pivot. It is accelerated inwards and along the leg section, and hence acquires a
positive velocity. The momentums of the molecule (PF1) and of the leg section (PL1) are analyzed
using the Principle of Conservation of Momentum:

P P

L1

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 leg section is
negative and towards the left because it should be opposite of the velocity of molecule which is
positive.

3.2 Conservation of Momentum in Frame C

The Frame C shows the situation after the collision between the molecule and the back wall of
the leg section. Here, three types of collisions may happen. They are the completely inelastic
collision, partially inelastic collision and the perfectly elastic collision.
First, the completely inelastic collision is analyzed. If this type of collision happens at Frame C,
then the velocities after collision of the leg section (VL2) and the molecule (VF2), should be the
same because the molecule attaches with the inner wall and moves together. The velocity is

denoted here as V2 = VL2 = VF2. Thus using the Principle of Conservation of Momentum, it is
observed that

P P

L2

PF2

(3)

0 PL2 PF2
0 ( M L M F )V2

VL2 VF2 0

(4)

This implies that the system actually stops after the completely inelastic collision (if it occurs).
The molecule is then sucked and accelerated towards the pivot due to the continuous vacuum
applied therein.
The partially inelastic collision is analyzed next. In this collision, the molecule moves separately
from the leg section after collision. Thus, by using the Principle of Conservation of Momentum
as in E.3:

P P

L2

PF2

0 PL2 PF2

PL2 PF2
M LVL2 M FVF2

VL2 ( M F / M L )VF2

(5)

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 inverse sprinkler, the molecule will not be able to
move to the right (in positive x-axis direction) while the leg section moves to the left. 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. Nevertheless after these collisions, the molecule does not shoot out
through and out of the leg section. This is because after collision, the molecule will be
decelerated and stopped by the next incoming molecules (with positive velocities). The stopped
molecule will be then sucked into the pivot due to the vacuum applied therein.
3.3 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 and spin slowly towards incoming fluid.
If the collision between the back wall of the leg section and molecules is partially inelastic or is
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 had observed only tremors
without any spinning [9, 10].
The theoretical results of this study should 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 and
then observe the behavior of the inverse sprinkler. The vibration of the inverse sprinkler too can
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 jerking on an
assembly due to individual molecular collisions must 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. This study is clearly a gedanken experiment. It requires some ingenuity for
the theoretical results of this study to be tested in laboratory.

4. Conclusion

The application of the basic Principle of Conservation of Momentum to a simplified inverse

sprinkler system demonstrate that the inverse sprinkler could either vibrate and spin slowly
towards incoming fluid or just vibrate without any apparent spinning.
Acknowledgements
This work was conducted in UniKL-MSI. D. John Jabaraj thanks his father Mr S. Devadason in
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] E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development,
4th ed., Chicago: Open Court, (1919), 299-301.
[4] A. Jenkins, An elementary treatment of the reverse sprinkler, American Journal of Physics, 72
(10), 12761282, (2004).
[5] A. Jenkins, Sprinkler head revisited: momentum, forces, and flows in Machian propulsion,
European Journal of Physics, 32 (5), 12131226, (2011).
[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] The University of Maryland Department of Physics, D3-22: Inverse Sprinkler - Metal Model,
retrieved June 29, 2011. http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosd3/d322.html
[8] The Edgerton Center Corridor Lab: Feynman Sprinkler.
http://web.mit.edu/Edgerton/www/FeynmanSprinkler.html
[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).

10