Flow visualisation — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
What a photograph of a flow shows
Wind-tunnel pictures are the evidence this whole subject is argued from, and hardly anybody says which quantity a given technique records. They are not interchangeable — smoke, tufts, oil and pressure taps measure four different things, and none of them is the velocity field.
The number on a streamline is a flow rate
Streamlines get drawn as decoration — curves the flow follows, spaced however the plotting looked best. Each one carries a number, the difference between two of those numbers is the volume of fluid passing between them every second, and it does not matter what route the measurement takes.
Where a vortex stops
Four criteria decide where a vortex ends, and in two dimensions three of them are the same criterion. The fourth is a knob. And the one that is not a knob is not objective: a co-rotating pair of vortices occupies four per cent of a window to one observer and more than half of it to another.
The one number that runs out at three dimensions
A stream function is one function where the velocity is two, and four essays here are built on it. It exists because the divergence vanishes, it is single-valued only if nothing inside is making fluid, and in three dimensions it is not one function at all.
The shutter is part of the answer
Flow photographs are compared as though the exposure were a detail of the camera. It is a term in the measurement: an average over exactly one shedding period returns the true mean to fourteen figures, any other length carries a residue that falls only as one over the exposure, and a two-pulse velocity reading is short by exactly the sinc of the swept angle.
The exact theory, drawn by viscosity
Two flat plates a millimetre apart, syrup between them, an obstacle in the gap. The Reynolds number is a hundredth, inertia is absent, and the streamline pattern is the potential flow past that obstacle — exactly, to a part in ten billion. The one hypothesis ideal flow cannot do without is the one this flow most conspicuously breaks.
A prior the pictures can refute is the one worth having
A few views of a flow with no symmetry leave most of the field unseen, and a reconstruction has to fill that part in by assuming something. Three common assumptions were tried on the same field and the same views. Non-negativity saves three views of ten, and five on a field of puffs; smoothness saves one; a dictionary of known shapes saves none unless it is exactly right, and when it is nearly right it can be wrong by a factor of a hundred. The prior that helps most is also the one the data can catch being wrong.
A prior chosen from noisy pictures keeps most of its gain, and a wrong one loses its alibi
With exact rays, a reconstruction's prior could be judged by its error, and a constraint that was wrong gave itself away by missing its own rays. With noise every prior needs a weight — how far to trust the rays against the assumption — and the weight has to be chosen without the answer. Chosen where the misfit falls to the noise, it costs the smooth and unassuming priors almost nothing and non-negativity two or three views, so the ranking survives. What does not survive is the refutation: a dictionary that misses a field's rays by four per cent is caught at three per cent noise and invisible at seven, where it fits the noise as well as any prior and is about as accurate as they are.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MeasurementModel limitDivergenceInverse problemMass conservationModel validityNull spacePotential flowRegularisationStreamfunctionStreamlineAnalogy