Lab C - Vacuum

Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

Vacuum – Much Ado About Nothing

Abstract: The production and maintenance of a vacuum has great importance to many of the
most advanced systems and experimental setups found today. Many experimental schemas
strive to isolate a research subject from outside elements, such as air and other gasses, for which
pumps and vacuum inducing apparatuses are needed. In this report, we review several
experiments conducted on different systems in order to gauge the behavior of vacuum pumps
and the production of a vacuum.
Theoretical background
In layman’s terms, vacuum means the complete absence of matter in a system; as physicists,
we understand that a complete lack of matter in any system is not realistic, so we define vacuum
as an environment in which the matter’s pressure is much lower than the surrounding (1 atm).
From the laws of thermodynamics, we know that in a state of equilibrium the pressure
of gas in a system is uniform. In order to induce a system with a lower pressure we need to
spend energy using a pump. The sucking action of the pump transfers particles from within our
system to the outside environment thereby creating lower pressure in our system.
dN
Accordingly, we’ll be interested in the rate of particle sucking by our pump, noted by .
dt

Where 𝑁 is the number of particles in the system.

From the law of ideal gases: PV = NK B T (1), therefore at a fixed temperature we receive:
dN d(PV)
∝ .
dt dt
d(PV)
We thus define the pump’s throughput as – Q ≡ (2).
dt
dV ∂P ∂P
By using the chain rule of derivation, we get – Q = P dt + V ∂t ≡ Qs + Vc (3)
∂t

The first term, noted as Qs , relates to the change of volume under a fixed pressure, i.e. due to
leaks; at the beginning of the sucking it is insignificant relative to the pump’s effectiveness.
The second term relates to the change of pressure under a fixed volume, which results from the
∂P
sucking. When we reach a state where Qs = −Vc (when the total throughput Q is zero) there
∂t

is effectively no more pumping, and we reach the ultimate pressure.

Q
Another term we’ll define is the sucking speed – S = (4)
P

In order to simplify and generalize the vacuum pump model, we’ll define a ‘conductance
coefficient’ for the connection between two parts in our system, in the case of a stable
condition. To this end we’ll assume two reasonable assumptions:

1
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

1. The connection does not contain any gas sources or sinks.

2. There is no suction of the connections, unless they’re used as conductance tubes for the
vacuumed compartments.
For this case we’ll receive – Q = U(P2 − P1 ) (5). Where U is the conductance coefficient and
P2 ,P1 are the pressure values on each side of the tube.
The conductance coefficient is also essential to assessing the effective suction velocity, which
takes into account the suction velocity at the pumps’ opening (the theoretical velocity) is
different than the suction velocity at the opening of the vacuumed compartment –
𝑆𝑈 1 1 1
𝑆𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑆+𝑈 ↔ S = S + U (6)
eff

We’ll note that at the limit where the conductance coefficient is infinite, the effective suction
velocity equals the theoretical suction velocity.
Another parameter relevant to our system is the Reynolds number – it is used to characterize
ρuL
the border between laminar and turbulent flow. It is defined as –Re = (7) and by using the
μ
P
law of ideal gases (1), we receive that at a fixed temperature the following relation holds: ρ1 =
1

P2 seff ρuL P∙L∙Seff ∙ρ0 P∙L∙Seff ∙ρ0

; and using u = we get that in our system: Re = = = d 2
ρ2 A μ P0 ∙μ∙A P0 ∙μ∙π∙( )
2

π∙d4
Assuming laminar flow, our tube’s conductance is given by - U = 256∙μ∙l 〈p〉 (8)

Where d is the tube’s diameter, l is its length, µ is the gas’ viscosity and 〈p〉 is the mean pressure
at the tube’s ends.
In our first experiment, we measured the pressure in a tank as a function of time when being
sucked by a rotary pump. Combining equations (3) and (4) we receive the following ODE:
∂P
𝑃𝑆𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑄𝑠 + Vc (9)
∂t
Seff t
Assuming that 𝑄𝑠 = 0 (no leaks), its solution yields: P(t) = P0 exp (− ) (10)
V

In the second experiment, our system consisted of one tank at higher pressure connected to
another tank with lower pressure. When sucking this system, the derived solution for the
pressure in both tanks, assuming they have equal volumes, is:

(P1 +P2 ) (P1 −P2 ) 2∙Seff t

P1 (t) = (0) + (0) exp (− ) (11)
2 2 V
(P1 +P2 ) (P1 −P2 ) 2∙Seff t
P2 (t) = (0) − (0) exp (− ) (12)
2 2 V

2
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

Where P1 and P2 are the pressure values in tanks 1 and 2, respectively. The notation of (0) refers
to the value of the expression at 𝑡 = 0.

First experiment -
Experiment goal: To find the dependency of the effective suction velocity on the
characteristics of the tube through which suction has been conducted and comparing the
conductance coefficient of the tube as calculated from Seff to the value calculated through
equation (9).
System structure: For this experiment we’ve used a metal tank with a volume of 2 litre (2.1
± 0.2 litres). We used an Alcatel rotation pump with a nominal suction velocity of 3.9cfm (1.79
litres/second). We’ve connected the pump to the tank using three different tubes with varying
diameters and lengths, and we’ve used a Pirani gauge to measure the pressure in the tank.
Experiment process: We sucked the air out of the metal tank using the rotation pump, and we
measured the changing pressure in the tank using the Pirani gauge during the suction process.
We repeated this process several times, connecting the pump to the tank with varying tubes,
thus changing the conductance coefficient and Seff .
Results: Below are plots displaying the pressure inside the tank as a function of time. The
pressure decreases exponentially in accordance with our theoretical expectations.

Figure 1: Graphs display pressure vs. time for three

different tube sizes. Fit was calculated according to the
formula: P = a*exp(-b*t)+c. Tube diameters from bottom-
left to top-right are 1.59 cm, 0.3 cm, 0.2 cm. The Pirani
pressure gauge is less accurate for pressures far above
1mbar; therefore, fit was conducted for pressure values
below 10mbar.

From these measurements we’ll derive the theoretical conductance coefficient, calculated from
the tube’s geometry (equation 8), the effective suction velocity as calculated by fitting the

3
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

graph to equation 9, and the conductance coefficient as calculated from the graph using the
theoretical suction velocity (equation 6). The results are given in this table:
Tube Diameter Length Effective U as calculated U (theoretical),
(cm) (cm) suction by fit to graph multiplied/divided
velocity 10−4 m3 by <p>
( )
m3 s
Seff ( )
s
1 1.59 ± 0.05 14.8 ± 0.05 1.239 ± 0.08 1.42 ± 1.5 5.21 ± 0.1
2 0.3 ± 0.05 20.5 ± 0.05 0.355 ± 0.03 0.369 ± 0.05 0.0285 ± 0.005
3 0.2 ± 0.05 15.1 ± 0.05 0.185 ± 0.188 ± 0.02 0.00967 ± 0.0004
0.012

An important finding stemming from this table is the relation between the conductance
coefficient and the effective suction velocity. From equation 6 we know that the effective
suction velocity is given by the pump’s suction velocity and the conductance coefficient;
however, from the table we can see a difference of nearly one order of magnitude between the
suction velocity and the effective suction velocity. This can imply that the effective suction
velocity is dominated mostly by the conductance coefficient, and the actual suction velocity
has a lesser effect. An explanation for this can be that when there’s a significant gap (a
magnitude or more) between the suction velocity and the conductance coefficient, then the
effective suction velocity is set by the lower of the two, which in our experiment is the
conductance coefficient. Therefore, we’ll note that in the table, the effective suction velocity
and conductance coefficient are similar in magnitude, both being much lower than the pump’s
suction velocity.
Another point of interest in our results is the characteristic gas flow during the suction,
since we used equations assuming laminar flow. We know that laminar flow is given at
Reynold numbers lower than 2300. We’ll therefore examine at what pressure the Reynolds
d 2
2300∙P0 ∙μ∙π∙( )
2
number in our system becomes lower than 2300. The pressure is reached at: P = L∙Seff ∙ρ0

.
We reach this pressure at 0.85mbar with the second tube and 0.4mbar with the third tube. Since
in this experiment we worked mostly with higher pressures, our flow was therefore not entirely
laminar. Nonetheless, our equations proved mostly true.

4
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

Second experiment – Suction between two Tanks

Experiment goal: To find the effective suction velocity and conductance of a vacuum system
consisting of two metal tanks that are connected together by tubes of various sizes. The tanks
are of the same volume and of different pressure.
System layout: We took two metal tanks of 2.1±0.2 litres and connected them using tubes of
varying lengths and diameters. We used the same Alcatel pump as before, and we’ve used two
Pirani gauges to measure the pressure in each tank.
Experiment process: At first, we pumped both tanks to a low pressure using the rotation
pump; at a certain point we isolated one tanks from the pump, and continued pumping the
other, thus creating a pressure difference between them. After reaching the ultimate pressure
in the tanks, we turned off the pump, opened a valve connecting the two tanks, and measured
the pressure in both tanks. We’ve conducted this with varying tubes.
Results: In the following graphs we can see the change in pressure of the two tanks for different
tube sizes. First and foremost, we’ll note that the rate at which the pressures change seems
exponential, fitting qualitatively the result from the first experiment. However, while in theory
we expected that the rates of increase/decrease in pressure will be equal in the two tanks, we’ll
note that there exists a difference; moreover, we’ll see that there’s an air leak into the system,
which results in the rising total pressure in the system over time. We can also note that there’s
no point in which the pressure in both tanks becomes equal, perhaps stemming from leakages
as well.

5
 Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

As seen in equation 10, the exponential

Figure 2: Graphs display pressure vs. time for three different tube sizes.
Fit was calculated according to the formula: P = a*exp(-b*t)+c. Tube
diameters from top to bottom are 1.59 cm, 0.3 cm, 0.2 cm. As we can
see, our theoretical fits corresponded well with the data – both curves
exhibit exponential behavior. However, a different exponential constant
was calculated for each tank, deviating from our expectations. Results
shown in table below. Furthermore, after exponentially decaying, both
curves seem to exhibit a slight linear growth, indicating that leaks are
present in the system. The orange lines in each plot indicate the linear
growth of the pressure in both tanks due to leakages.
constant of the pressure functions is
supposed to be the same for both tanks; this
is because in a closed system without
leaks, the total number of particles is fixed
and therefore the sum of pressures (under
equal volume and temperature) is
proportional to it. However, in the
measurements displayed in the table
below, we can see that the exponent in the
sucking tank is almost two times than the
exponent in the sucked tank. We gather
that this is caused by insufficient isolation
of the system, into which air leaks
unevenly.
The plots in Figure 2 show that the leakage
in this experiment in non-negligible as the
pressure for both tanks rises linearly.
Therefore, fitting the results to an exponent
without accounting for the leakage would
be wrong. Therefore, we’ve added a linear
argument to our fit to accommodate the
leakage factor. Doing so resulted in better
fits, also resulting in similar exponents in
the two tanks, as expected. Results for one
tube size are featured in Figure 3.

𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑓 1 𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑓 1
Tube Diameter (cm) Sucked Tank (sec) Sucking Tank (sec)
𝑣 𝑣

1.59 ± 0.05 0.054 ± 0.0035 0.08 ± 0.002

0.3 ± 0.05 0.026 ± 0.0013 0.046 ± 0.0017
0.2 ± 0.05 0.025 ±0.0012 0.033 ± 0.002

6
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

Figure 3: Graph displays pressure over time for two tanks

connected with a tube of 1.59 cm. Fit was calculated according to
the formula: P = a*exp(-b*t) + c*t + d.
For the sucked tank:
b = 0.05204 ± 0.003, c = 0.00029 ± 3e-5

For the sucking tank:

b = 0.05222 ± 0.002, c = 3.11e-5 ± 2e-6

Comparing the graphs and the exponents raises few points of interest – first we’ll note that
adding the linear leakage factor improves the fit, mostly at the edges of the measure where the
leakage factor becomes more dominant. Second, we’ll identify that when adding the leakage
factor, the exponents of the two tanks are practically identical – as is expected. Third, the linear
constant of each tank is different, as may be expected; the leakage for each tank is different
and this is precisely what resulted in different exponential decay values for our initial fit.

Third experiment – Suction between Two Tanks with Argon Gas

Experiment goal: In this experiment we recreated the second experiment, using Argon gas
instead of air. We sought to find the effect of the gas in the system on the suction properties.
System layout: same as in the second experiment, adding a connection to an Argon gas
container to fill the tanks.
Experiment process: First, we pumped the air out of both tanks to a low pressure using the
rotary pump and then filled them with Argon. We repeated this process several times to make
sure the cans contain only a minimal amount of air; then we repeated the process described in
the second experiment.
Results: Figure 4 shows the pressure in both tanks as a function of time for two different tube
sizes.

7
 Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

Figure 4: Graphs display pressure vs. time for two different tube sizes for tanks containing Argon. Fit was calculated
according to the formula that takes leakages into account: P = a*exp(-b*t)+c*t +d. Tube diameters from left to right are
1.59 cm and 0.2 cm. As we can see, our theoretical fits corresponded well with the data – both curves exhibit exponential
behavior.
For the tube with 1.59 cm diameter, the following exponential decay constants were found:
𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 = 0.02045 ± 2.16𝑒 − 3 , 𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.01891 ± 6.4𝑒 − 4
For the tube with 0.2 cm diameter, the following exponential decay constants were found:
𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 = 0.01071 ± 1.9𝑒 − 3 , 𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.01705 ± 1𝑒 − 3

It is of interest to compare the effect suction velocity of the tanks when using different gases.
The table below includes the suction velocities calculated for both air and Argon for different
tube sizes:
Gas Tube Diameter 𝑚3 μ (𝜇𝑃𝑎 ∗ sec)
𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑓 ( )
[cm] 𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 25° 𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑢𝑠
1.59 ± 0.05 0.1092 ± 0.004
Air 18.447
0.2 ± 0.05 0.0609 ± 0.003
1.59 ± 0.05 0.04 ± 0.005
Argon 22.62
0.2 ± 0.05 0.029 ± 0.004

We’ll note that the effective suction velocity is inversely proportional to the gas’ viscosity –
when the viscosity goes up, the suction velocity goes down. This is as expected; as the gas is
more viscous, it is harder to suck for more energy is lost on the ‘friction’ between gas particles.
This finding also corresponds with the relation found for the gas conductance of the system
(eqn. 8).

Summary
In this experiment we looked into the phenomenon of vacuum – gas suction to pressure lower
than atmospheric pressure. We examined the phenomenon’s characteristics and found the time

8
Lab C - Vacuum
Ben Shenhar, Michael Focshaner | 28.05.2019

dependency of the pressure during the suction process. In the first experiment, we sucked a
tank using a rotary pump and measured its pressure as a function of time for different tube
sizes. We found that a wide tube can be treated as using a tube with infinite conductance. In
the second experiment, we sucked one tank and then connected it to a tank with a higher
pressure, allowing the first tank to effectively act as a pump. By doing so, we found the
effective suction velocity and the conductance of the tubes used to suck the gas. We also found
a linear growth of pressure in both tanks, indicating leakages. In the third experiment we used
Argon, a gas with different viscosity than air, and we found that the change in effective suction
velocity matched our theory.