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

Every essay — page 50

Page 50 of 53, 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

Viscosity

The thin layer next to a surface that ideal flow ignores, and which supplies drag, separation and the wake.

Seven fluids in one pipe at one pressure gradient. Velocity profiles of power-law fluids in a round pipe, all at the same pressure gradient and the same consistency, scaled to the fastest. A shear-thinning fluid (n below one) is flatter in the middle and steeper at the wall; a shear-thickening one is the reverse. The flattening is often called plug-like, which invites the reading that the fluid is moving more freely — what has actually happened is that all the shear has been pushed into a thin annulus at the wall, which is the expensive place to put it.

A viscosity that depends on the question

Blood, paint, molten polymer and drilling mud have no viscosity. They have a relation between stress and strain rate that is not proportional, so the ratio of the two depends on how hard they are being sheared — and an instrument that reports one number is reporting a property of itself.

7 figures Where Einstein's line stops being the measurement. The viscosity of a suspension of rigid spheres relative to the liquid's, against the volume fraction. Einstein's 1 + 5φ/2 is exact for one sphere and holds while the spheres cannot feel one another, which is up to about five per cent by volume. Batchelor and Green's two-sphere term takes it a little further; beyond about a fifth nothing derived works and the curve drawn is a fit, which diverges at a maximum packing that is itself a measurement.

A viscosity made of particles

Stir rigid spheres into a liquid and the mixture is thicker, by five halves of the volume fraction. Einstein's coefficient is not an empirical constant — it is a dissipation calculation on one sphere — and doing it as an energy rather than as a stress shows that four-fifths of it comes from somewhere nobody mentions.

8 figures Two-thirds to one, and nothing outside it. The drag on a spherical drop as a fraction of Stokes' drag on a rigid sphere of the same size, against the ratio of the viscosities. It runs from exactly two-thirds for a clean gas bubble to exactly one for a rigid particle and takes no value outside that range, however light or heavy the drop is — the formula has no density in it anywhere. A drop of water in air and a drop of mercury in water sit at opposite ends of it.

The surface that moves with the flow

A clean gas bubble feels two-thirds of the drag a rigid sphere of the same size would, and the formula has no density in it anywhere. What buys the third is that the bubble's surface is free to move — and real bubbles in ordinary water do not get it, for a reason that is a millionth of a per cent of the water by mass.

8 figures A fifth of the drag power is not heat yet. The energy account of towing a flat plate a metre long through air at thirty metres a second. The power it takes is the drag times the speed. The heat made inside the boundary layer is half the free-stream energy times the energy thickness, and it is less — 78.6 per cent of what was paid. The rest has not been destroyed: it is kinetic energy still in the wake, which will become heat somewhere downstream, in fluid that is no longer touching the plate.

The third thickness

A boundary layer has no edge, so every thickness quoted for it is an integral of the profile against some weight. Two of them are famous. The third answers a question the other two cannot — how much of the power spent towing a plate has actually become heat by the time the fluid leaves it — and the answer is 78.6 per cent.

8 figures A vortex has no energy. The kinetic energy of a Lamb–Oseen vortex inside a circle, per metre of its length, against the logarithm of that circle's radius. It is a straight line and it does not stop: outside the core the swirl is Γ/2πr, the energy density falls as 1/r², and the area grows as r², so every decade of radius adds the same amount. There is no such thing as the energy of a line vortex without a stated cutoff, and no cutoff is physical.

The energy a vortex cannot have

A line vortex has infinite kinetic energy. Not a large amount — infinite, growing without limit as the logarithm of however far out the counting stops. And it is losing that energy at a rate that is finite, exactly known, and contains no cutoff at all.

8 figures A swimmer that dissipates the same everywhere. Taylor's waving sheet, with the wave drawn along the bottom and the dissipation drawn against height above it. The dissipation function works out at 4μb²c²k⁶y²e^{−2ky} — with no x in it at all, so the sheet is destroying energy at the same rate under every part of the wave and at every instant of the cycle. It peaks one radian of wavelength above the sheet and is gone within about three.

A swimmer that cannot go backwards

Taylor's waving sheet is the simplest self-propelled object in a viscous fluid, and its arithmetic contains a result that reads like a mistake — the work it does to travel a metre does not depend on how big its waves are. Doubling the amplitude quadruples both the speed and the power, and changes the bill for the journey by nothing at all.

8 figures The coefficient Stokes threw away is not a correction. What absorbs sound in dry air, split into the three transport effects that add to make the diffusivity of sound. Shear viscosity is the largest single contribution and it is not most of it; the bulk viscosity — which Stokes set to zero in 1845, saying in the same paper that he had no argument for doing so — is a quarter, and thermal conduction is a fifth. Setting ζ to zero does not make a small error in the absorption; it makes a 24 per cent one.

The viscosity nobody uses

A fluid has two viscosities. One resists a change of shape and appears in every viscous calculation; the other resists a change of volume, was set to zero by Stokes in 1845 in a paper that says he had no argument for doing so, and for carbon dioxide is fifteen hundred times larger than the one everybody quotes.

8 figures Stokes' drag stops being the answer almost at once. The damping on a millimetre sphere oscillating in air, divided by Stokes' steady drag on the same sphere, against frequency. The extra term is the sphere's radius over the layer thickness, so it takes over as soon as the layer is thinner than the body — which for a millimetre sphere in air is below one hertz. At a kilohertz the damping is fifteen times the steady value, and the exponent is a half rather than zero.

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.

8 figures The only candidate the far field allows, and the wall it slips past. The general Stokes solution has four constants; the condition at infinity kills two of them and fixes a third, leaving one to satisfy two conditions at the wall. Setting the stream function to zero there uses it up, and the tangential velocity that remains is exactly twice the free stream — for every radius, every speed, and every fluid.

The flow with no solution

Creeping flow past a sphere has a solution and everybody knows it. Creeping flow past a cylinder has none — not a difficult one, not one needing a clever method. The equations, the no-slip condition and the uniform stream at infinity are inconsistent, and the residual is exactly twice the free stream.

8 figures The wall shear, marched to the station where it stops. Howarth's linearly retarded outer flow, marched with an implicit finite-difference scheme from a Blasius profile. The wall shear falls, its slope steepens, and at x = 0.11983 it reaches zero — against Howarth's 0.1198, which is a quarter of a per cent. There is nothing downstream of it: the solution does not continue.

The singularity a layer makes for itself

March Prandtl's equations into an adverse pressure gradient and the wall shear reaches zero with an infinite slope at a finite station, and the solution cannot be continued past it. The singularity is real, it is not a numerical difficulty, and it belongs to the boundary condition rather than to the equations.

8 figures The core that does not move, and where its edge is. Four velocity profiles at the same pressure gradient and four yield stresses. The shear stress in a pipe is G r/2 whatever the fluid is — that is a force balance and not a constitutive law — so the fluid is unyielded exactly inside r = 2 tau_y/G, and the plug radius is known before anything is solved.

The core that does not move

Toothpaste in a tube has a region in the middle that is not being sheared at all, and its edge is at a radius you can write down before solving anything. Four things about that core are exact, and one of them is that the fluid does not flow below a threshold — not slowly, at all.

9 figures A pure number with no fluid in it. The load a plane slider bearing carries, divided by everything dimensional in it. What is left is a function of the convergence ratio alone — no viscosity, no speed, no size, no material — so the tilt that carries the most load is decided before anything about the machine is known. It is the root of one transcendental equation, at 2.1887048.

The gap that carries the most

A bearing's most consequential dimension is decided by a number with no oil in it, no speed and no size — the root of one transcendental equation, at 2.1887048. And the maximum it sits on is flat enough that the value printed in every handbook is not it.

8 figures