Added mass — where it appears
Named by 22 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The force of getting going
The exact theory says a body moving steadily through an ideal fluid feels no force at all. It does not say the fluid is free. Accelerating the body has to accelerate the fluid too, and the bill for that is exactly the mass of fluid the body displaces.
Three dimensions are kinder
Every ideal flow solved on this site so far is plane, and plane flow is the harsh case. Put the third dimension back and the fastest surface speed drops from twice the free stream to one and a half times, the disturbance dies as the cube of distance instead of the square, and the body cannot carry circulation at all.
The mean is not the flow
Average an unsteady flow and the result is a new object with its own properties, and it is not a solution of anything. An inviscid stream oscillating about zero has a mean velocity of exactly nothing everywhere, a mean pressure that reaches minus two dynamic pressures at the shoulders, and a missing term in its own momentum equation that can be written down in closed form.
A body with no lift, and a moment anyway
A fuselage in ideal flow carries no lift at any incidence and still tries to turn the aeroplane over. The couple is computable in one line, it is why tails are the size they are, and the line comes from applying the wall condition to a place where there is no wall.
Slow enough to be steady
A wing moving slowly enough is assumed to carry the lift its instantaneous angle asks for. The reduced frequency has two thresholds — one where the apparent-mass and circulatory lifts are equal, and one where the quasi-steady answer stops being right — and they are a hundred and seventy-eight apart.
The flow with the least energy in it
Draw a flow that conserves mass and does not go through the walls, and it will look exactly like a solution. There are infinitely many of them and one is the flow. What separates it from the others is not visible anywhere in the picture — it is a number, and the number is an energy.
The tracer that is not one
Every Stokes number is built on a relaxation time that counts the particle's own inertia and nothing else. Adding the two terms it leaves out gives a bubble a relaxation time where the usual formula gives zero, makes a neutrally buoyant tracer half as slow again as advertised, and sends bubbles into vortex cores that droplets are flung out of.
The momentum with no value
A cylinder is pushed from rest to a steady speed. Work was done, energy went into the fluid, something was pushed. How much momentum does the fluid carry? The integral converges, the answer is finite, and it is a different finite number for every shape of region it is summed over.
The pressure that depends on the past
Bernoulli's equation for an unsteady flow has a term nobody writes down and a right-hand side that is a function of time rather than a constant. The term is exactly zero once a flow has started and is the whole of the flow while it is starting, which is why it never appears in an answer and is never negligible in getting to one.
Long enough to make a wake
A Reynolds number cannot ask whether an oscillating flow gets round a body before it turns and comes back, because it has no time in it. The Keulegan–Carpenter number can, and it decides which of Morison's two terms is the force. What it discards is the phase — and a peak force measurement cannot recover it.
The cushion that is there after all
A wing near the ground makes more lift for reasons that have no cushion in them, and that account cannot reach two cases — a wing descending, and a rotor in the hover, where there is no steady flight for the image-vortex account to be about. Those cases have a term that really is about carried air, and it grows without limit as the gap closes.
What a fluid takes out of a swing
The damping a body feels from the air around it is not Stokes' drag, and stops being it far earlier than anybody expects — a millimetre sphere in air is already forty-six per cent above the steady answer at one hertz. Past that the damping rises as the square root of the frequency, and the fluid it is fighting is a shell a fraction of its own size.
One group, three exponents
Lubrication theory, shallow water and slender-body theory are taught in three places and are one expansion in one group — a ratio of two lengths, with no speed, no viscosity and no fluid in it at all. The error is supposed to be second order. In three problems that look alike it is first order, second order, and an exponent that does not exist.
Two answers to one question
Unsteady aerofoil theory collapses a wing's whole history onto one function of one variable, and every quasi-steady gust calculation convolves something with it. There are two such functions, not one: a wing that is pitched changes its boundary condition everywhere at once, and a wing flying into a gust has not met most of the gust yet.
A cushion that changes its physics
A plate closing on a plane is resisted by the fluid it has to squeeze out, and the resistance is two different forces with two different laws — one from the fluid's inertia and one from its viscosity. They hand over at a gap of twenty-four kinematic viscosities per unit of closing speed, which for a wing in air is a third of a millimetre, and the two films disagree about whether the plate ever lands at all.
The borrowed mass the boundary decides
A body accelerating near a solid wall has to squeeze out the fluid between them, and borrows more mass than it would in the open. The same body accelerating near a free surface, or inside an open-jet wind tunnel, borrows less. The fluid, the body and the speed are identical, and what reverses the answer is the one thing each boundary is allowed to tell the flow.
The drag that integrates a whole history
A particle released in still air does not stop exponentially. The unsteady drag on it carries a term that is an integral over everything the particle has already done, weighted by the inverse square root of how long ago — so there is no time constant, and five particle time constants later it is still moving four times faster than the quasi-steady answer allows.
Two forces, and only one of them remembers
Morison's equation adds an inertia term to a drag term and is usually presented as an empirical patch. It is not: the two terms are the two kinds of memory this collection has been separating, one a function of the present acceleration and one a function of the wake left by the previous half cycle.
The mass a body has to borrow
Accelerate a sphere through water and it resists as though it were half again as heavy. The half is exact, it is a rational number rather than a measurement, and almost everything a reader infers from it about carried fluid is false.
Everything about the start, except one vector
Six ways of accelerating a body from rest to the same speed produce six force histories with nothing in common — peaks spanning a factor of thirty-nine, two of them negative for part of the journey. The impulse left in the fluid is the same ten-figure number in every case, and so is the energy.
The inflow that takes time to arrive
Momentum theory gives a rotor's induced velocity from its thrust, instantly. It does not arrive instantly: the air the disc has to accelerate has a mass, and the response is a first-order climb with a time constant of 33 milliseconds — a twentieth of the time the wake itself takes to convect a radius.
The theory with no memory in it
Laplace's equation has no time in it, so an ideal flow's response to a body being jerked into motion is instantaneous and complete. Its indicial kernel is a spike and nothing afterwards. Beside it sit the two kernels that are not, and the comparison says which ingredient every memory in this collection came in through.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Potential flowMeasurementUnsteady flowModel limitRegimeDoubletKinetic energyMemory kernelModel validityMomentumd'Alembert's paradoxBoundary condition