Concept

Asymptotics — where it appears

The study of how a quantity behaves as a parameter becomes very large or very small, including whether the limit is reached and how fast. It is where the difference between a variable dropping out of an answer and merely shrinking in it is decided.

Named by 12 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where the number says, and where it happens. Fourteen dimensionless groups on one logarithmic axis. The open circle on each row is the value at which the two terms the group compares are equal, which is one by the way the group is formed; the filled mark is the value at which the thing a reader cares about first changes by 1%. The bar between them is the distance the folklore phrase "of order one" hides, and it runs from nothing at all to a factor of 594.

What "of order one" is worth

A dimensionless group is built by comparing two terms, so it is one when the terms are equal — and that is the only thing it says. Where the behaviour actually changes is a separate question with a separate answer, and across fourteen groups on this site the two numbers differ by factors from one to five hundred and ninety-four.

regimes · Crossover

How small is small enough

Creeping flow drops the inertia terms and gets an exact answer for the drag on a sphere. The Reynolds number at which those terms are equal is one — and at one, Stokes' law is already sixteen per cent low. The honest boundary is 0.054, and the reason it is so far down is the same reason the theory needed repairing in the first place.

regimes · Reynolds

A limit that exists and is never reached. The exponent of the best power law fitted across the overlap layer, against the friction Reynolds number. A logarithm is the zero-exponent member of that family, so the log law is what this sequence is heading for — and it heads there as 1/ln Re_τ, which is the slowest useful way of approaching anything. The exponent is still 0.102 at Re_τ = 10⁶, and driving it to a hundredth needs a Reynolds number with a hundred and fourteen in its logarithm.

A limit nothing reaches

A dimensional argument that succeeds says a variable has dropped out of the answer. The Blasius profile has no Reynolds number in its shape at any Reynolds number; the overlap layer's power-law exponent is still 0.102 at Re_τ of a million and falls as a logarithm, so the limit exists and nothing ever gets there.

regimes · Dimensional

Two exact solutions of the same problem. Two steady Euler flows in the same square cell with the same boundary condition, differing only in the function relating vorticity to streamfunction. On the left the vorticity is proportional to the streamfunction, which is the textbook cellular flow; on the right it is uniform. Both satisfy the equations exactly. Nothing in the ideal theory prefers either, and at the same peak streamfunction their kinetic energies differ by thirty-one per cent.

The vorticity nothing decides

A streamline that comes from upstream carries its vorticity with it. A closed one comes from nowhere, so nothing determines what it carries — the ambiguity is not one number per body but a whole function. What closes it is a limit, and setting the viscosity to zero gives a different answer from letting it go to zero.

inviscid · Euler rotational

Model spectra at four Reynolds numbers, compensated. The spectrum multiplied by k^(5/3) and divided by eps^(2/3), so that a true inertial range is a horizontal line at the Kolmogorov constant. What a finite Reynolds number has instead is a single maximum: it reaches 1.4996 at the highest and 1.49 at the lowest, and the band over which it is flat to one per cent goes from a third of a decade to two.

The range a real Reynolds number does not have

Kolmogorov's minus five thirds is a statement about a band of scales that has forgotten the forcing and does not feel the viscosity. Both conditions are about separation, and separation is exactly what a finite Reynolds number does not have much of.

turbulence · Spectrum

Four corners, and what the flow does in each. The local flow in corners of four different interior angles, drawn from the exact local solution ψ = r^(π/α) sin(πθ/α). The exponent of the speed is π/α − 1 and depends on nothing else: at a right angle the corner is stagnant, at a flat wall nothing happens, and at any angle greater than a straight line the speed has no bound at the corner. The last panel, at 360 degrees, is the flow round the edge of a plate.

Nothing turns a sharp corner

Near a corner the flow is fixed by the angle and by nothing else — not by the size of the corner, not by the flow far away, not by the fluid. The exponent is π/α − 1, and every sharp edge in aerodynamics is the one case where it comes out at minus one half.

inviscid · Wedge flow

So splitting a turn into N ramps costs one over N squared. A twelve-degree compression at Mach 3, done in one ramp and in up to sixty-four. The entropy is N times a cube of one Nth, so it falls as exactly the inverse square of the number of ramps — the measured exponent is −2.00 — and sixty-four ramps cost a two-hundred-and-fifty-sixth of what one costs.

A compression that costs nothing in the end

Turning a supersonic stream away from itself is free and turning it into itself is not. But the price of a compression is the cube of its strength, so splitting one turn into N turns costs one over N squared — and in the limit the compression is free too.

compressible · Expansion fan

Three exponents for one dimensionless group. The local slope of each error, measured over one decade at a time. The duct's is exactly 1, the long wave's is exactly 2, and the slender body's drifts from 1.900 to 1.733 across the range and never reaches either. The same geometric ratio, in three problems that look alike, and the third one has no exponent at all.

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.

regimes · Slenderness

The convergence exponent depends on the gas, which a dimensional exponent cannot. R ∝ (−t)^α for a converging shock, against the ratio of specific heats, for cylindrical and spherical symmetry. Guderley's exact values are marked and the agreement is to four figures. The Sedov blast's two-fifths is drawn beside them: it is the same for every gas, because it comes from dimensions and a conserved energy, and γ is dimensionless.

An exponent dimensions cannot give

A blast wave's radius goes as the two-fifths power of time, and the two-fifths is arithmetic: count the dimensions and it falls out. A shock converging on a point goes as the 0.717 power, and no amount of counting will produce that number — because it depends on the gas, and γ is dimensionless.

regimes · Similarity

The exact solution and its three approximations, at ε = 0.02. The outer solution is excellent everywhere except in a layer of width ε at the left, where it is wrong by a whole unit. The inner solution is excellent inside that layer and wrong everywhere else. The composite is their sum less the part they agree about, and it is within order ε of the exact solution across the whole interval — which is the entire content of matched asymptotics, drawn.

One formula for both ends

Two limits, each with its own description, neither valid everywhere. The composite is the sum less the part they agree about, and it is uniformly good — but the overlap region that justifies the construction does not exist at ε = 0.01, and the composite is still accurate to two per cent there.

regimes · Crossover

And they are one piece of arithmetic. All three corrections against one over the logarithm of their own large parameter. Each is a straight line through the origin, with its own slope: one third exactly for the enstrophy range, near one for the wall layer, and near ln 10 for Oseen's per-decade measure. Three disappointments in three different fields, written up separately, are the same function.

The three that never converge

Oseen's drag coefficient, the overlap layer's power-law exponent and the enstrophy range's slope are three separate disappointments in three different fields. They are one piece of arithmetic, and the arithmetic says why none of them will ever be reached.

regimes · Crossover $The best efficiency runs from nine-eighths of φ² to one. The best efficiency a peristaltic pump can reach, against the fraction of the channel its wave closes, with its two limits. For a shallow wave it is 9φ²/8, which is small — a wave closing a fifth of the channel is at best 4.5 per cent efficient. As the wave closes the channel the best efficiency tends to one, and its shortfall shrinks in proportion to the remaining gap: about 1.9(1 − φ). Nothing in between is independent of the amplitude.$

The pump that is better the more it squeezes

A waving sheet swims at a cost per metre with no amplitude in it. A waving wall pumping fluid is the same mechanism turned round, and its efficiency is nothing like that: it starts at nine-eighths of the amplitude ratio squared, is exactly 2 − √3 at half closure, and rises towards one as the wave closes the tube — where the pump stops being a wave and becomes a piston.

kinematics · Continuity

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Measurement Model limit Dimensionless Scaling Threshold Characteristics Creeping flow Matched asymptotics Regime Reynolds number Tolerance Convergence

All concepts