Fluid Flow & Aerodynamics
why things fly, and why the usual explanation is wrong
The collection

Every essay — page 28

Page 28 of 39, continuing through the fields in the same order.

Flows and fields Ideal flow Circulation and lift Viscosity Regimes and numbers Compressible flow Transition and turbulence Fluids at work What is taught wrongly Series Concepts Regimes Refutations Search

Regimes and numbers

Reynolds, Mach, Froude, Strouhal. One number decides whether a flow creeps, separates or shocks, and the same shape behaves differently at each.

Quasi-steady stops being true a long way before one. The magnitude of Theodorsen's function, which is the factor a quasi-steady lift calculation is wrong by, and the phase the lift lags the motion. Quasi-steady means C = 1, and the amplitude is already one per cent low at k = 0.0061 and fifteen per cent low at k = 0.1 — a reduced frequency at which nobody hesitates to call a flow quasi-steady. The lag is worse: it reaches a degree at k = 0.003, and a flutter calculation is decided by phase rather than by amplitude.

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.

8 figures How small is small enough. The error in Stokes' law for the drag on a sphere, against the Reynolds number, both logarithmic. Oseen's correction is the first term the neglected inertia puts back, and it says the error is 3Re/16: one per cent at Re = 16/297 = 0.054, five per cent at 0.28, and already sixteen per cent at Re = 1 — which is the value at which the two terms the Reynolds number compares are equal, and is where every textbook draws the boundary of creeping flow.

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.

8 figures How big before gravity shows. A drop's height over its width against the Bond number, which is the ratio of its weight to the force its own skin can supply. The number is one where those two are equal, and by then the drop is a bun: it is one per cent from a ball at Bo = 0.0079, five per cent at 0.054 and ten at 0.13. Every one of those is below one, and the first is below it by a factor of a hundred and twenty-six.

The size a drop is allowed

The Bond number sets a drop's weight against the force its own skin can supply, and it is one when they are equal. By then the drop is a bun — it is a per cent from being a ball at Bond number 0.0079, which is a water drop half a millimetre across.

8 figures A falling drop is a bun, not a tear. The shape of a drop pressed on by the air it is falling through, computed by matching the Legendre component of a sphere's own potential-flow pressure distribution against the change in curvature it produces. The result is oblate — flattened along the direction of travel — because the pressure is high at the poles and low round the equator. The teardrop of every illustration has the wrong symmetry entirely: a drop in free fall has no up, and one at terminal speed is being pressed on from in front.

The drop that is not a tear

A falling raindrop is flattened along the direction it is going, by the pressure of the air passing it rather than by its own weight, and the group that decides is the Weber number. The teardrop of every illustration has the wrong symmetry entirely — there is no up in the problem it is drawn for.

8 figures Which speed the number is formed on. The fractional change in air density at three places on a body, against the free-stream Mach number. At a stagnation point the density rises, and it reaches five per cent at M = 0.314 — which is where the familiar 0.3 comes from, and it is a five per cent tolerance rather than a physical boundary. At the suction peak the density falls instead, and how fast depends on the body: a lightly loaded section is milder than its own nose, and one working at cp₀ = −2 reaches five per cent at M = 0.22 and is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is at 0.3.

Which speed goes in the number

The most quoted threshold in the subject — air is incompressible below Mach 0.3 — is a five per cent tolerance on the density at a stagnation point wearing a physical boundary's clothes. A wing working for its living is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is still at 0.3.

7 figures The error in the balance is the number itself. The fractional error in the geostrophic wind, against the Rossby number, on logarithmic axes. It is a straight line of slope one through the origin, and that is not an approximation: keeping the centripetal term gives V_g/V = 1 ± Ro exactly, so the error and the number are the same quantity. The geostrophic wind is one per cent right at Ro = 0.01 and a hundred per cent wrong at Ro = 1, which is the value the number is named for and is quoted as the boundary of the approximation.

The balance that is its own error

Geostrophic balance is licensed by the Rossby number being small, and the fractional error in the geostrophic wind is the Rossby number — exactly, not approximately. So the balance everybody uses at Ro of order one is a hundred per cent wrong, and the same quadratic has a hard limit at a quarter that no anticyclone can pass.

8 figures The relaxation time a particle actually has. Two quantities against the particle-to-fluid density ratio. β = 3ρ_f/(2ρ_p + ρ_f) is three for a bubble, one for a neutrally buoyant particle and nearly zero for anything heavy; it is the factor by which the fluid's own acceleration is felt. The other curve is the true relaxation time over the usual formula's, which is one for a heavy droplet, exactly three halves for a neutrally buoyant tracer, and unbounded for a bubble — the usual formula gives a bubble a relaxation time of zero, and therefore no dynamics at all.

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.

8 figures Where a profile stops being a parabola. Two measures of how far Womersley's solution has left the quasi-steady parabola, against the Womersley number, both logarithmic. The amplitude deficit reaches a hundredth at α = 0.28 and the phase lag reaches a hundredth of a right angle at α = 0.22 — both well below α = 1, which is where the unsteady and viscous terms are equal and is the value the number is named for. By α = 1 itself the flow is already a tenth short and eight degrees late.

Where the parabola goes

A pipe carrying a steady flow has a parabolic profile, and the Womersley number is supposed to say when an oscillating one still does. For the flow rate it is very nearly honest — one per cent at α = 0.91 — and for the phase it is out by a factor of three, because a lag is second order in the number and an amplitude deficit is fourth.

8 figures The number a duct settles at is an eigenvalue. The local Nusselt number against x⁺ = x/(D·Re·Pr), from a Crank–Nicolson march that contains no eigenvalue anywhere. It settles at 3.6568, which is λ₀²/2 for the Graetz eigenvalue problem — a completely separate calculation. The mark at x⁺ = 0.05 is the entry length every textbook quotes: it delivers a Nusselt number 1.45 per cent above the developed value, which is a perfectly reasonable tolerance and is never the one stated.

How far before the heat arrives

A duct's thermal entry length is quoted everywhere as x/(D·Re·Pr) = 0.05, with no tolerance attached. Working out what it delivers gives a Nusselt number 1.45 per cent above the developed value — and the developed value itself is not a term ratio at all but an eigenvalue, 3.6568, which is also the rate at which the duct forgets its inlet.

5 figures 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.

8 figures The one number that really is one. Three quantities against the Froude number. The upper line is the speed of a surface wave travelling downstream and the lower one the speed of the same wave travelling upstream, both in units of the wave speed itself; the second changes sign at Fr = 1 and not near it. That sign change is not a comparison of two term sizes going through unity — it is the moment a signal stops being able to reach upstream at all, so the equations change from elliptic to hyperbolic and the flow stops knowing what is ahead of it. The specific energy, drawn beneath, has its minimum at the same place, and for the same reason.

The number that really is one

Almost every threshold in this subject sits somewhere other than where its dimensionless group is one. The Froude number does not. At Fr = 1 a disturbance stops being able to travel upstream, the specific energy is least and the equations change type — three statements, one number, and no tolerance anywhere in it.

8 figures Storage and loss moduli, for one relaxation time and for a spectrum. The two moduli of a Maxwell fluid and of a Rouse chain, against frequency in units of the longest relaxation time. One relaxation time makes the storage modulus overtake the loss modulus at λω = 1 and then leave it behind without limit. A spectrum of 1000 modes makes them rise together as the square root of frequency and stay a fixed ratio apart, so the material never becomes the solid the single time predicts.

A solid, if it is not given time

The Deborah number is the only group on this site with no fluid in it — two times and nothing else — and it says a material is a solid or a liquid depending on how long anybody watches. What it throws away is that no real material has one time, and the spectrum it replaces changes the answer in kind rather than in degree.

8 figures