Talk:Suction

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vacuums

Vacuums do actually attract matter; matter is pushed into them by the higher pressure of surrounding air. Why is it that matter is pushed into vacuums, not pulled? All your base are belong to us 09:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing in a vacuum to do any pulling :) Kappa 09:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, of course... Thanks! All your base are belong to us 09:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does suction happen ?

why suction port always larger in diameter than pressure port (In case of hydrulic pumps)?

"Gers"

What is "Gers" in relation to suction?

Should it be "gears"? Or, is this just some Gersois vandalism?

Thank You

Thanks to this article I now know that סניקה is "discharge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.140.59 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sample video

The sample video does not demonstrate a vacuum from suction (see video description). Not sure what to replace it with. 62.232.179.170 (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suction does suck

This page has multiple references to suction not sucking. Obviously that is wrong. While it is valuable to say that sucking/suction is caused by pressure from a fluid pushing on an object, not pulling on it, it is incorrect to say that suction doesn't suck. Sucking is creating a partial vacuum in the direction you want an object to move. When air is "sucked" into the lungs, a partial vacuum is created causing ambient air pressure to push air into the lungs. During uncontrolled decompression, objects are "sucked out" when they are pushed by air pressure toward a relative vacuum. In fact, the page contradicts itself. In the caption, it says that by convention, "sucked in" means to be moved from ambient pressure towards a low pressure zone. Obviously, that is what is happening during uncontrolled decompression. The source for that paragraph about the semantics involving uncontrolled decompression is an article on Quora. This is not a reliable source. Anybody can write anything on Quora. And the 2nd reference is another article referencing the first. I made one correction yesterday which seems to have been reversed. I changed, "Accordingly, from a physics point of view, the objects are not sucked but pushed." to "Accordingly, from a physics point of view, the objects are not pulled The way I put it was correct. from a physics point of view, when an object is sucked, it is pushed, not pulled. Still, it is sucked. Jheim.math.wisc.edu (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your concern. Everything you wrote is described in the article.

The difference between suction and blowing lies in whether the movement results from locally reduced pressure relative to the ambient pressure (e.g., lungs) or from locally increased pressure (airplane cabin) relative to the ambient pressure. This is described and illustrated on the page.

If you spit out a cherry stone, you can hardly explain that by saying the stone was sucked out of your mouth. NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, partially it's correct now because I edited it.

The section on explosive decompression is illogical, poorly sourced, and unclear. It doesn't actually even explain what explosive decompression is. Instead, it claims it is an error to say objects are blown out of the vessel during explosive decompression. Yeah, who says? AFAIK, there's no IEEE standard for when to use sucked out vs blown out. At worst, saying objects are sucked out the vessel during explosive decompression merely contradicts the *usual* convention of when to use blown out vs sucked out. But, if, as the section itself states, it's common to say objects are sucked out of a vessel during explosive decompression, then *that* is the convention. IMO, the whole thing about symantics should be removed in favor of simply explaining explosive decompression. No need to be pedantic, just state the facts. Jheim.math.wisc.edu (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section including uncontrolled decompression is semantically correct (in contrast to your personal opinion or articles in a tabloid newspaper, semantics matter a lot in an enzyklopedia), links the wikipedia article on uncontroled decompression, is consistent with the wording in that article, and is consistent with the wording in several articles on accidents involving uncontroled decompression.

The difference between blown out and sucked out is clearly defined and as far as I can see understandable for most. It would be helpful if you articulate your critisism as to what precisely you think is illogical and unclear so we can settle this. I will not support you breaking consistency across articles because you don't understand the matter or you prefer tabloid wording.

Its also common to say there is a dark side of the moon. Remains wrong. Doesnt belong in an enzyclopedia. NedFlandersThe2nd (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]