Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitza's 1938 test compared helium flow through optically flat glass disks. Suspension set the tube-to-bath level difference; a cathetometer read levels. The gap was estimated as . Levels barely moved over minutes above the transition, but equalized in seconds below. A laminar flow viscosity calculation gave only an upper bound.[ref]
The essential control is to compare the same restriction and level readout at different temperatures. A changed pressure head is not itself evidence for a changed material response: the driving head must be included when interpreting the flow. For an idealized comparison at equal vapor pressure, negligible surface tension corrections and nearly constant mass density , hydrostatic equilibrium gives
Here is the difference in free-surface heights and is gravitational acceleration. This explains why following a liquid level provides both a driving pressure and a transported volume; it does not turn a finite-resolution observation into proof of zero viscosity.
Figure 1. . Original functional schematics, not historical reconstructions. Left: level-head flow measurement with an enlarged slit. Right: ideal thermomechanical effect with imposed heat input, suppressed normal component of a superfluid flow, and temperature and pressure readouts. The heated chamber is closed; its final pressure rise is distinct from a flowing fountain. Details.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.