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

Every essay — page 29

Page 29 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.

Three bluff bodies, whose Strouhal numbers agree once the wake's width is used. The measured Strouhal number of each body, and Roshko's universal number formed with the wake's width and the speed on the free streamline that bounds it. The raw numbers span a factor of 1.462; the collapsed ones span 1.0011, with a mean of 0.16281. The shedding was never body-dependent — the length in the number was.

The frequency a wake chooses

Bluff bodies shed at Strouhal numbers from 0.145 to 0.212, and the spread is not a fact about shedding — it is a fact about which length went into the number. Change the length to the wake's own width and three bodies agree to a tenth of a per cent. Then let the body move, and the number stops deciding anything at all.

9 figures Drop deformation in simple shear, against the capillary number. The shape model's steady deformation for six viscosity ratios. Every curve is linear in the capillary number at small Ca — which is Taylor's result — and every one of them saturates, at 5/2(2λ+3), because the shear's own rotation turns the drop out of the stretching direction. A drop in simple shear cannot be deformed beyond that however hard it is sheared.

The number that cannot break a drop

The capillary number sets the stress that stretches a drop against the stress that holds it round, and it predicts the deformation beautifully. It cannot predict the breakup, because above a viscosity ratio of about four a drop in simple shear cannot be broken at any shear rate — and the theory that says the ratio hardly matters is the same theory that gets the deformation right.

9 figures Morison's two terms over one cycle, at KC = 10. The drag term, in phase with the velocity and going as its square; the inertia term, in phase with the acceleration and ninety degrees ahead of it; and their sum, which is what a load cell records. The peak of the total is not the peak of either, and its position in the cycle is the only thing in the record that says how the two are divided.

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.

8 figures Nu/√Re against the Prandtl number, over eight decades. The whole of the flat plate's heat transfer, as one curve. It is not a power law: it goes as Pr^½ at the bottom, where the thermal layer is far thicker than the viscous one, and as Pr^⅓ at the top, where it is buried inside it. The Pr^⅓ everybody quotes is the upper half. The two asymptotes are drawn beside it, and the low one is √(Pr/π) in closed form.

The number that is an answer

Almost every dimensionless group is a hypothesis: somebody sets the speed, the size and the fluid, and the number licenses a model. The Nusselt number is not. It is what the experiment produces, it sits on the left of the equals sign, and a regime diagram drawn on it is a category error.

9 figures The marginal Taylor number against the axial wavenumber. The smallest Taylor number at which a disturbance of a given axial wavenumber is neutral. Its minimum is 1707.757 at a wavenumber of 3.1158, which are the critical Rayleigh number and critical wavenumber of a layer of fluid heated between two rigid walls — the same numbers, because in the narrow-gap limit the two problems are the same sixth-order eigenvalue problem. This curve is computed by that essay's own solver.

A transition that needs a second number

Fluid between rotating cylinders goes unstable at a Taylor number of 1707.762 — which is the same number, to every digit, as a layer of fluid heated between two rigid walls. It is not an analogy. And two things the number cannot carry decide whether the transition happens at all and what it looks like when it does.

8 figures Nu/Gr^¼ against the Prandtl number, with the exact solution's points on it. The closed form 0.508 Pr^½(20/21 + Pr)^−¼, over eight decades, with Ostrach's exact similarity values marked. The integral method is two to eight per cent high from Pr = 0.7 upwards and 27 per cent high at Pr = 0.01 — which is where the thermal layer is ten times the momentum layer and giving them one thickness stops being an approximation to anything.

A speed nobody imposed

Every regime number in this collection contains a velocity somebody chose. Natural convection has none: a warm plate makes its own flow, and the Grashof number is what is left when the speed is taken out. The Reynolds number of the result — six thousand, on an ordinary radiator — is an output of the solution rather than a setting on an apparatus.

8 figures 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.

8 figures 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.

8 figures 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.

9 figures 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.

9 figures Fourteen pure numbers, and where each came from. Every one of these is dimensionless, exact and quoted as a fact about fluids. None of them comes from dimensional analysis, which says which numbers an answer may depend on and never what any of them is. They come in four kinds — algebra, an integral, a root and an optimum — and the last two are not equally knowable.

Where a pure number comes from

Sixty-four for a round pipe, sixteen twenty-sevenths for a wind turbine, 0.332 for Blasius. Counting dimensions produces none of them — it produces the list of arguments, and the function has to be solved. Which of the four ways it was solved decides how many digits are worth printing.

8 figures Four wakes carrying exactly the same drag. Four velocity-deficit profiles behind a body, each normalised so that the integral of the deficit across the wake is exactly the same. That integral is the drag: the far-wake momentum balance says so with no assumption about the shape of anything. The four are a narrow Gaussian, a wide top hat, the two-lobed wake a body with a splitter plate leaves, and a profile with heavy tails.

Exact in the total, free in the profile

A constraint is one number imposed on a function. Four wakes built to carry exactly the same drag differ by a factor of four and a half in their peak deficit, and the general statement behind that is a question about angles: how much of the wanted answer survives being projected off the constraints, and how much does not.

9 figures