. 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.
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 siphon can function normally.
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.
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. While water has been found to have a great deal of tensile strength in some experiments (such as with the z-tube), and siphons in vacuum rely on such cohesion, common siphons can easily be demonstrated to need no liquid tensile strength at all to function. 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. 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 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 litt