There are two leading theories about how siphons cause liquid to flow uphill, against gravity,

without being pumped, and powered only by gravity. The traditional theory for centuries was that
gravity pulling the liquid down on the exit side of the siphon resulted in reduced pressure at the
top of the siphon. Then atmospheric pressure was able to push the liquid from the upper
reservoir, up into the reduced pressure at the top of the siphon, like in a barometer or drinking
straw, and then over.[2][3][4][5]However, it has been demonstrated that siphons can operate in a
vacuum[5][6][7][8] and to heights exceeding the barometric height of the liquid.[5][6][9] Consequently, the
cohesion tension theory of siphon operation has been advocated, where the liquid is pulled over
the siphon in a way similar to the chain model.[10] It need not be one theory or the other that is
correct, but rather both theories may be correct in different circumstances of ambient pressure.
The atmospheric pressure with gravity theory obviously cannot explain siphons in vacuum, where
there is no significant atmospheric pressure. But the cohesion tension with gravity theory cannot
explain CO2 gas siphons,[11] siphons working despite bubbles, and the flying droplet siphon,
where gases do not exert significant pulling forces, and liquids not in contact cannot exert a
cohesive tension force.
All known published theories in modern times recognize Bernoulli's equation as a decent
approximation to idealized, friction-free siphon operation

Figure 2 - In the flying droplet siphon, surface tension pulls the stream of liquid into separate droplets inside
of a sealed, air filled chamber, preventing the liquid going down from having contact with the liquid going
up, and thereby preventing liquid tensile strength from pulling the liquid up. It also demonstrates that the
effect of atmospheric pressure at the entrance is not canceled by the equal atmospheric pressure at the
exit

A practical siphon, operating at typical atmospheric pressures and tube heights, works because
gravity pulling down on the taller column of liquid leaves reduced pressure at the top of the
siphon (formally, hydrostatic pressure when the liquid is not moving). This reduced pressure at
the top means gravity pulling down on the shorter column of liquid is not sufficient to keep the
liquid stationary against the atmospheric pressure pushing it up into the reduced pressure zone
at the top of the siphon. So the liquid flows from the higher pressure area of the upper reservoir,
up to the lower pressure zone at the top of the siphon, over the top, and then with the help of
gravity and a taller column of liquid, down to the higher pressure zone at the exit.[19][20]
The chain model – where the section marked "B" pulls down because it is heavier than the section "A" – is
a flawed but useful analogy to the operation of a siphon.

The chain model is a useful but not completely accurate conceptual model of a siphon. The chain
model helps to understand how a siphon can cause liquid to flow uphill, powered only by the
downward force of gravity. A siphon can sometimes be thought of a little like a chain hanging
over a pulley, with one end of the chain piled on a higher surface than the other. Since the length
of chain on the shorter side is lighter than the length of chain on the taller side, the heavier chain
on the taller side will move down and pull up the chain on the lighter side. Similar to a siphon, the
chain model is obviously just powered by gravity acting on the heavier side, and there is clearly
no violation of conservation of energy, because the chain is ultimately just moving from a higher
to a lower location, as the liquid does in a siphon.

Even the falling lighter lower leg from C to D can cause the liquid of the heavier upper leg to flow up and
over into the lower reservoir[21]

There are a number of problems with the chain model of a siphon, and understanding these
differences helps to explain the actual workings of siphons. First, unlike in the chain model of the
siphon, it is not actually the weight on the taller side compared to the shorter side, that matters.
Rather it is the difference in height from the reservoir surfaces to the top of the siphon, that
determines the balance of pressure. For example, if the tube from the upper reservoir to the top
of the siphon has a much larger diameter than the taller section of tube from the lower reservoir
to the top of the siphon, the shorter upper section of the siphon may have a much larger weight
of liquid in it, and yet the lighter volume of liquid in the down tube can pull liquid up the fatter up
tube, and the siphon can function normally.[21]
Another difference is that under most practical circumstances, dissolved gases, vapor pressure,
and (sometimes) lack of adhesion with tube walls, conspire to render the tensile strength within
the liquid ineffective for siphoning. Thus, unlike a chain which has significant tensile strength,
liquids usually have little tensile strength under typical siphon conditions, and therefore the liquid
on the rising side cannot be pulled up, in the way the chain is pulled up on the rising side.[8][20]

Figure 5 - Air Start Siphon - When the column of liquid is allowed to fall from C down to D, liquid in the
upper reservoir will flow up to B and over the top.[19][20] No liquid tensile strength is needed to pull the liquid
up.

Demonstration of siphoning tropical fruit punch with a flying droplet siphon.

An occasional misunderstanding of siphons is that they rely on the tensile strength of the liquid to
pull the liquid up and over the rise.[19][20] While water has been found to have a great deal of
tensile strength in some experiments (such as with the z-tube[22]), and siphons in vacuum rely on
such cohesion, common siphons can easily be demonstrated to need no liquid tensile strength at
all to function.[8][19][20] Furthermore, since common siphons operate at positive pressures
throughout the siphon, there is no contribution from liquid tensile strength, because the
molecules are actually repelling each other in order to resist the pressure, rather than pulling on
each other.[8]To demonstrate, the longer lower leg of a common siphon can be plugged at the
bottom and filled almost to the crest with liquid as in Figure 5, leaving the top and the shorter
upper leg completely dry and containing only air. When the plug is removed and the liquid in the
longer lower leg is allowed to fall, the liquid in the upper reservoir will then typically sweep the air
bubble down and out of the tube. The apparatus will then continue to operate as a normal
siphon. As there is no contact between the liquid on either side of the siphon at the beginning of
this experiment, there can be no cohesion between the liquid molecules to pull the liquid over the
rise. It has been suggested by advocates of the liquid tensile strength theory, that the air start
siphon only demonstrates the effect as the siphon starts, but that the situation changes after the
bubble is swept out and the siphon achieves steady flow. But a similar effect can be seen in the
flying droplet siphon of figure 2. The flying droplet siphon works continuously without liquid
tensile strength pulling the liquid up. The siphon in the video demonstration operated steadily for
more than 28 minutes until the upper reservoir was empty. Another simple demonstration that
liquid tensile strength isn't needed in the siphon is to simply introduce a bubble into the siphon
during operation. The bubble can be large enough to entirely disconnect the liquids in the tube
before and after the bubble, defeating any liquid tensile strength, and yet if the bubble isn't too
big, the siphon will continue to operate with little change as it sweeps the bubble out.
Another common misconception about siphons, is that because the atmospheric pressure is
virtually identical at the entrance and exit, the atmospheric pressure cancels, and therefore
atmospheric pressure can't be pushing the liquid up the siphon. But equal and opposite forces
may not completely cancel if there is an intervening force that counters some or all of one of the
forces. In the siphon, the atmospheric pressure at the entrance and exit are both lessened by the
force of gravity pulling down the liquid in each tube, but the pressure on the down side is
lessened more by the taller column of liquid on the down side. In effect, the atmospheric
pressure coming up the down side doesn't entirely "make it" to the top to cancel all of the
atmospheric pressure pushing up the up side. This effect can be seen more easily in the
example of two carts being pushed up opposite sides of a hill. As shown in the diagram, even
though the person on the left seems to have his push canceled entirely by the equal and
opposite push from the person on the right, the person on the left's seemingly canceled push is
still the source of the force to push the left cart up.

An example of equal and opposite forces that would seem to cancel each other, yet the seemingly
cancelled force from the left, still pushes the object up, similar to how the equal and opposite atmospheric
pressure at each end of a siphon, that would seem to cancel, leaves atmospheric pressure still able to push
the liquid up. (Note that the cars are not bound, so they don't pull on each other, only push.)
In some situations siphons do function in the absence of atmospheric pressure and via tensile
strength – see vacuum siphons – and in these situations the chain model can be instructive.
Further, in other settings water transport does occur via tension, most significantly
in transpirational pull in the xylem of vascular plants.[19][23] Water and other liquids may seem to
have no tensile strength because when a handful is scooped up and pulled on, the liquids narrow
and pull apart effortlessly. But liquid tensile strength in a siphon is possible when the liquid
adheres to the tube walls and thereby resists narrowing. Any contamination on the tube walls,
such as grease or air bubbles, or other minor influences such as turbulence or vibration, can
cause the liquid to detach from the walls and lose all tensile strength.
In more detail, one can look at how the hydrostatic pressure varies through a static siphon,
considering in turn the vertical tube from the top reservoir, the vertical tube from the bottom
reservoir, and the horizontal tube connecting them (assuming a U-shape). At liquid level in the
top reservoir, the liquid is under atmospheric pressure, and as one goes up the siphon, the
hydrostatic pressure decreases (under vertical pressure variation), since the weight of
atmospheric pressure pushing the water up is counterbalanced by the column of water in the
siphon pushing down (until one reaches the maximum height of a barometer/siphon, at which
point the liquid cannot be pushed higher) – the hydrostatic pressure at the top of the tube is then
lower than atmospheric pressure by an amount proportional to the height of the tube. Doing the
same analysis on the tube rising from the lower reservoir yields the pressure at the top of that
(vertical) tube; this pressure is lower because the tube is longer (there is more water pushing
down), and requires that the lower reservoir is lower than the upper reservoir, or more generally
that the discharge outlet simply be lower than the surface of the upper reservoir. Considering
now the horizontal tube connecting them, one sees that the pressure at the top of the tube from
the top reservoir is higher (since less water is being lifted), while the pressure at the top of the
tube from the bottom reservoir is lower (since more water is being lifted), and since liquids move
from high pressure to low pressure, the liquid flows across the horizontal tube from the top basin
to the bottom basin. Note that the liquid is under positive pressure (compression) throughout the
tube, not tension.
Bernoulli's equation is considered in the scientific literature to be a fair approximation to the
operation of the siphon. In non-ideal fluids, compressibility, tensile strength and other
characteristics of the working fluid (or multiple fluids) complicate Bernoulli's equation.
Once started, a siphon requires no additional energy to keep the liquid flowing up and out of the
reservoir. The siphon will draw liquid out of the reservoir until the level falls below the intake,
allowing air or other surrounding gas to break the siphon, or until the outlet of the siphon equals
the level of the reservoir, whichever comes first.
In addition to atmospheric pressure, the density of the liquid, and gravity, the maximum height of
the crest in practical siphons is limited by the vapour pressure of the liquid. When the pressure
within the liquid drops to below the liquid's vapor pressure, tiny vapor bubbles can begin to form
at the high point and the siphon effect will end. This effect depends on how efficiently the liquid
can nucleate bubbles; in the absence of impurities or rough surfaces to act as easy nucleation
sites for bubbles, siphons can temporarily exceed their standard maximum height during the
extended time it takes bubbles to nucleate. One siphon of degassed water was demonstrated to
24 meters for an extended period of time[9] and other controlled experiments to 10
meters.[24] For water at standard atmospheric pressure, the maximum siphon height is
approximately 10 m (32 feet); for mercury it is 76 cm (30 inches), which is the definition of
standard pressure. This equals the maximum height of a suction pump, which operates by the
same principle.[18][25] The ratio of heights (about 13.6) equals the ratio of densities of water and
mercury (at a given temperature), since the column of water (resp. mercury) is balancing with the
column of air yielding atmospheric pressure, and indeed maximum height is (neglecting vapor
pressure and velocity of liquid) inversely proportional to density of liquid.

Modern research into the operation of the siphon[edit]

In 1948, Malcolm Nokes investigated siphons working in both air pressure and in a partial
vacuum, for siphons in vacuum he concluded that: "The gravitational force on the column of
liquid in the downtake tube less the gravitational force in the uptake tube causes the liquid to
move. The liquid is therefore in tension and sustains a longitudinal strain which, in the absence of
disturbing factors, is insufficient to break the column of liquid". But for siphons of small uptake
height working at atmospheric pressure, he concluded that: "... the tension of the liquid column is
neutralized and reversed by the compressive effect of the atmosphere on the opposite ends of
the liquid column."[8]
Potter and Barnes at the University of Edinburgh revisited siphons in 1971. They re-examined
the theories of the siphon and ran experiments on siphons in air pressure. Their conclusion was
that; "By now it should be clear that, despite a wealth of tradition, the basic mechanism of a
siphon does not depend upon atmospheric pressure."[26]
Gravity, pressure and molecular cohesion were the focus of work in 2010 by Hughes at
the Queensland University of Technology. He used siphons at air pressure and his conclusion
was that: "The flow of water out of the bottom of a siphon depends on the difference in height
between the inflow and outflow, and therefore cannot be dependent on atmospheric
pressure…"[27] Hughes did further work on siphons at air pressure in 2011 and concluded that:
"The experiments described above demonstrate that ordinary siphons at atmospheric pressure
operate through gravity and not atmospheric pressure".[28]
The father and son researchers, Ramette and Ramette, successfully siphoned carbon
dioxide under air pressure in 2011 and concluded that molecular cohesion is not required for the
operation of a siphon but that: "The basic explanation of siphon action is that, once the tube is
filled, the flow is initiated by the greater pull of gravity on the fluid on the longer side compared
with that on the short side. This creates a pressure drop throughout the siphon tube, in the same
sense that 'sucking' on a straw reduces the pressure along its length all the way to the intake
point. The ambient atmospheric pressure at the intake point responds to the reduced pressure by
forcing the fluid upwards, sustaining the flow, just as in a steadily sucked straw in a milkshake."[2]
Again in 2011, Richert and Binder (at the University of Hawaii) examined the siphon and
concluded that molecular cohesion is not required for the operation of a siphon but relies upon
gravity and a pressure differential, writing: "As the fluid initially primed on the long leg of the
siphon rushes down due to gravity, it leaves behind a partial vacuum that allows pressure on the
entrance point of the higher container to push fluid up the leg on that side".[3]
The research team of Boatwright, Puttick, and Licence, all at the University of Nottingham,
succeeded in running a siphon in high vacuum, also in 2011. They wrote that: "It is widely
believed that the siphon is principally driven by the force of atmospheric pressure. An experiment
is described that shows that a siphon can function even under high-vacuum conditions.
Molecular cohesion and gravity are shown to be contributing factors in the operation of a siphon;
the presence of a positive atmospheric pressure is not required".[29]
Writing in Physics Today in 2011, J. Dooley from Millersville University stated that both a
pressure differential within the siphon tube and the tensile strength of the liquid are required for a
siphon to operate.[30]
A researcher at Humboldt State University, A. McGuire, examined flow in siphons in 2012. Using
the advanced general-purpose multiphysics simulation software package LS-DYNA he examined
pressure initialisation, flow, and pressure propagation within a siphon. He concluded that:
"Pressure, gravity and molecular cohesion can all be driving forces in the operation of siphons".[4]
In 2014, Hughes and Gurung (at the Queensland University of Technology), ran a water siphon
under varying air pressures ranging from sea level to 11.9 km (39000 ft) altitude. They noted
that: "Flow remained more or less constant during ascension indicating that siphon flow is
independent of ambient barometric pressure". They used Bernoulli's equation and the Poiseuille
equation to examine pressure differentials and fluid flow within a siphon. Their conclusion was
that: "It follows from the above analysis that there must be a direct cohesive connection between
water molecules flowing in and out of a siphon. This is true at all atmospheric pressures in which
the pressure in the apex of the siphon is above the vapour pressure of water, an exception being
ionic liquids".[31]