Field

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.

Reynolds number: one number, four different flows. Reynolds number is inertia ÷ viscosity. It is not a property of the fluid or of the shape but of the combination, and crossing a threshold changes the physics rather than the magnitude.

One number decides which physics applies

A bacterium and a whale both swim, and they are not doing the same thing at different sizes. The ratio of inertia to viscosity separates them, and crossing it changes the rules rather than the magnitudes.

The Reynolds number, and the length in it

The most useful number in fluid mechanics has an arbitrary quantity buried in it, and quoting one without saying which length was used makes it meaningless. That detail is where most misuse comes from.

Mach number: one number, four different flows. Mach number is speed ÷ speed of sound. It is not a property of the fluid or of the shape but of the combination, and crossing a threshold changes the physics rather than the magnitude.

When air stops being incompressible

Air is a gas and can obviously be squeezed, yet most of aerodynamics treats its density as fixed. The assumption holds until the flow approaches the speed at which pressure information travels — and then everything changes at once.

The Kelvin wake, and the angle it comes out at. The wake behind something moving over deep water. Each curve joins everything radiated at one moment, wherever it has since travelled to. All of it stays inside a wedge whose half-angle is the inverse sine of one third, about nineteen and a half degrees, and that number does not depend on the speed, on gravity, or on the size of the vessel.

The angle that does not care

Every ship on deep water leaves a wake inside a wedge of the same angle. Not roughly the same — the same, for a rowing boat and a supertanker, at any speed either of them can manage, on any planet with any gravity.

The model that cannot be matched

A scale model behaves like the real thing when its dimensionless numbers agree. With one number that is a matter of choosing the tunnel speed. With two it is usually impossible, and every wind-tunnel result ever published has been obtained in spite of that.

Creeping flow, and the same body with inertia. The exact creeping-flow solution beside a solved field at a Reynolds number where inertia matters. The creeping flow is a mirror image of itself front to back — a photograph of it run backwards is a photograph of it — and the field with inertia has a wake, which is what a direction of time looks like.

The world with no inertia

Drop the viscosity and the equations become exactly solvable and wrong about drag. Drop the inertia instead and they become exactly solvable again — and for a cylinder in an unbounded fluid there is no solution at all, which took fifty years to notice and longer to fix.

Where the flow over the section first reaches Mach one. Two curves running towards each other. The falling one is the section's peak suction, solved exactly in incompressible flow and then deepened by the Prandtl–Glauert factor as the free-stream Mach number rises. The rising one is the pressure coefficient at which the local flow would be exactly sonic. Where they cross is the critical Mach number, and above it there is a pocket of supersonic flow on a subsonic aeroplane.

The pocket on top of the wing

An airliner cruising at Mach 0.85 has subsonic flow almost everywhere and a patch of supersonic flow over its wing. Closing that patch takes a shock, the shock separates the layer beneath it, and the correction that predicts all of this also predicts, in the plainest terms, where it stops being true.

5 quantities, 3 rows, 2 left over. The dimension matrix for the drag on a sphere: one column per quantity, one row per base dimension, and every entry an exponent. Buckingham's theorem is a statement about this matrix and nothing else — the number of independent dimensionless groups is the number of columns minus the rank, computed here by elimination. Nothing about fluids enters until somebody decides which columns to write down.

Counting what matters

Five quantities decide the drag on a sphere, and the experiment that measures it has one curve in it rather than a five-dimensional table. The reason is a rank: the matrix of dimensions has three independent rows, and what is left over is the number of dimensionless groups the answer can possibly depend on.

Particles at St = 1, against the flow that carries them. Particle paths and the streamlines they were released on, in this site's exact cylinder solution. At small Stokes number the two are indistinguishable and the body catches nothing; as the particles get heavier their paths straighten, cross the streamlines, and begin to strike. The paths are integrated with Stokes drag and nothing else — no gravity, no lift, no effect of the particles on the flow.

Whether the droplet turns

The air goes round the wing. Whether what is carried in it goes round too is decided by one number — and below a critical value of that number the body collects nothing at all, however many droplets are thrown at it, because the flow turns every one of them in time.

The Ohnesorge diagram, with the boundaries where they belong. The classical map of jet break-up: the Ohnesorge number against the jet Reynolds number, with the five nozzles placed on it. The three sloping lines are Reitz's transitions in the gas Weber number, and their geometry is computed rather than sketched — a fixed We_g means Oh·Re is fixed, which is a straight line of slope exactly −1 in these coordinates, and the assertion checks that a decade in Reynolds number moves each line by exactly one decade. Where they sit is borrowed; that they are straight and parallel is not. A nozzle below and to the right of the last line atomises.

Where a jet stops being a jet

A tap makes drops a few centimetres down, a garden hose makes a stream that carries, a sprayer makes a mist and a diesel injector makes fog. Same liquid, same mechanism, four regimes — and the number that separates them is not the jet's inertia but the surrounding air's.

A million times faster, and the constant is 48.0. The effective diffusivity along a pipe, divided by the molecular one, against the Péclet number — both logarithmic. Below Pe ≈ 7 the tracer simply diffuses and the curve is flat at one. Above it the dispersion is all Taylor's, rising as the square of the Péclet number, so a thousandfold Péclet number is a millionfold enhancement. The constant in D(1 + Pe²/48) is not quoted here: it is recovered from a numerical solution of the cell problem across the section, giving 48.0000 for a tube and 52.5 for a plane channel, which is Aris' 2/105.

Two slow things make a fast one

Shear stretches a slug of dye and mixes nothing, because it is reversible. Molecular diffusion is hopeless at any scale bigger than a hair. Put the two together in a pipe and the dye spreads along it with an effective diffusivity two million times the molecular one — which gets larger as the molecular one gets smaller.

Too fast for a profile

A pipe carrying a steady flow has a parabolic profile. Make the pressure oscillate and one number decides whether it still does — and above about ten the core moves as a plug, a quarter of a cycle behind the pressure, with the fastest fluid in a ring near the wall rather than on the axis.

The other layer, and the one number that separates them

A wall in a stream carries two boundary conditions and grows two layers. Their thicknesses differ by a factor of twenty across ordinary fluids, and at exactly one Prandtl number the two profiles are not similar but identical.

The correction belongs to the wing, not to the air. Lift-curve slope against Mach number for three aspect ratios, each computed by solving the lifting line for the wing the transformation actually implies — one of aspect ratio βAR — and dividing by β. The dashed curve is the two-dimensional rule, which is what an aerofoil section gets. At Mach 0.7 the aspect ratio of 20 has gained 35 per cent of slope and the aspect ratio of 4 has gained 24, against the 40 per cent the section rule promises both. The β in the finite-wing term cancels the β in front of it, so the shorter the wing the less compressibility does to it.

The wing the equation is really solving

The Prandtl–Glauert rule is usually quoted as a factor on the answer. It is a change of shape — and in three dimensions the shape it changes is the aspect ratio, so a short wing is far less affected by compressibility than a long one.

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.

How wrong the ordinary answer already is. The error in a no-slip continuum calculation of the flow through a channel, against the Knudsen number, both logarithmic. The rule at Kn = 1 is where a molecule crosses the whole channel between collisions — the value the number is named for. The error is one per cent at Kn = 1/594, five per cent at 1/114 and ten at 1/54, so the continuum regime of the usual classification, which runs to Kn = 0.01, is a region in which the continuum answer is already six per cent out at its far end.

Where a fluid stops being one

The Knudsen number is the mean free path over the size of the thing, and at one a molecule crosses the whole channel between collisions. The continuum equations with a no-slip wall are already one per cent wrong at one part in five hundred and ninety-four, which is a factor nothing about the definition would suggest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The same data, in a basis the theorem allows just as much. The identical two hundred and forty points, plotted as F/(mu U d) — which is the drag coefficient times the Reynolds number, a perfectly legitimate pi group forming a complete pair with the abscissa. The result is a straight line of slope 0.9985 through five decades with an r-squared of 0.9985, and it contains no physics: the ordinate contains the abscissa.

The groups are not the only groups

Buckingham's theorem fixes how many dimensionless groups an answer can depend on and says nothing about which. Two of the infinitely many legitimate choices are used here on the same data: one manufactures a straight line through five decades out of a constant, and the other erases Stokes' law completely.

Two forces on one cylinder, a quarter of a cycle apart. The inertia and drag terms of Morison's equation over one wave period, at a Keulegan-Carpenter number of ten. The inertia term follows the acceleration and peaks where the velocity is zero; the drag term follows the velocity and peaks where the acceleration is. They are a quarter of a cycle apart and they are different kinds of quantity.

Two forces, and only one of them remembers

Morison's equation adds an inertia term to a drag term and is usually presented as an empirical patch. It is not: the two terms are the two kinds of memory this collection has been separating, one a function of the present acceleration and one a function of the wake left by the previous half cycle.

The curve that lets in more than one answer. The neutral stability curve: the driving needed to sustain a disturbance of a given wavelength. It has a minimum, so at any driving above the minimum there is a whole band of wavelengths that can grow — and the system has to pick one.

The state a machine was started into

Above the critical driving there is not one flow but a band of them, and a container of a given size can hold several. Which one appears is decided by how the apparatus was brought up to speed, and at twice critical there are eight to choose from.

Captured, and not captured. The amplitude of the wake's oscillation over time, for a forcing inside the capture band and one outside it. Inside, the amplitude settles; outside, it beats at the difference between the two frequencies, because the wake is keeping its own time and the forcing is keeping its.

A wake told what to do

Force a shedding wake near its own frequency and it abandons its own and adopts the forcing's. The band over which it will do so is proportional to how hard it is pushed — and near the edge of the band it takes six times as long to make up its mind.

Slip is a memory of one mean free path

A molecule arriving at a wall last collided about a mean free path away and carries the velocity from there. Averaged over arrivals and departures, that leaves the gas at the wall moving — by two per cent of the centreline speed at a Knudsen number of a hundredth, and sixty per cent more flow through a microchannel at a tenth.

$A particle is a low-pass filter. The fraction of a fluctuating flow's velocity that a particle follows, and the phase by which it lags, against the Stokes number. At one the particle follows 71 per cent of the motion and lags by 45 degrees — which is the corner frequency of a first-order filter, arrived at from mechanics rather than from electronics.$

A particle is a low-pass filter

A seeding particle does not report the flow; it reports the flow through its own transfer function. At a Stokes number of one it follows 71 per cent of the motion and lags it by 45 degrees, and a fifty-micron droplet at a kilohertz is following two per cent of what it is supposed to be measuring.

Eight numbers, one construction. The dimensionless groups this collection has produced, placed on a logarithmic axis at a representative value. Each is a memory time divided by a process time, each was named separately in a different field, and each decides the same question: whether the past is still present.

Every memory number is one time over another

These essays produced eight dimensionless groups in eight different fields, named after eight different people, spanning a factor of four hundred in value. Written out, all eight are a memory time divided by a process time, and all eight govern the same curve.

$A gust's lift keeps falling where a pitching wing's stops at a half. The magnitude of Sears' function, the lift a wing gets flying through a sinusoidal gust as a fraction of the quasi-steady value, against the reduced frequency on a logarithmic axis, beside Theodorsen's function for a wing that pitches or heaves. The two agree at low frequency. Above a reduced frequency of about a tenth they part: Theodorsen's levels off at one half, because a moving wing changes its whole boundary condition at once, while Sears' keeps falling as one over the square root of 2πk, because several wavelengths of gust lie along the chord and cancel.$

The gusts that cancel along the chord

A wing that pitches keeps half its circulatory lift however fast it moves. A wing flying through a gust does not: once the gust is a few chords long, its ups and downs lie along the chord together and cancel, and the lift falls without limit. For an airliner that barely touches the root-mean-square gust load, and cuts the load spectrum at the wing's own torsion frequency to a quarter of the quasi-steady value.

$A wave that travels and a wave that spreads. A harmonic pressure wave's amplitude and its instantaneous value along a tube, over two wavelengths of the inviscid wave, at four Womersley numbers. At α = 15 the wave marches on, a little weaker each wavelength. At α = 5 it is visibly damped. At α = 2 it is nearly gone within a wavelength. At α = 0.5 there is no wave to speak of: the disturbance falls away within a small fraction of the inviscid wavelength, as heat does into a wall.$

The pulse that has to travel

In a rigid tube the Womersley number decides the shape of an oscillating flow. Make the wall elastic and the pressure pulse has to travel, a second number appears — the tube's length in wavelengths — and the first number turns out to decide something more basic than the profile: whether the tube carries a wave at all, or only a disturbance that spreads like heat.

One number decides which pulse grows. The pressure pulse and the flow pulse at the far end of the tube, each as a multiple of its value at the entrance, against the load's reflection coefficient. A load that reflects pressure with the same sign — a stiffer or narrower continuation — amplifies the pressure pulse and damps the flow pulse. One that reflects it inverted — a wider continuation, or many branches — does the opposite. With no reflection both fall slightly, by the wave's own attenuation. The two curves cross near Γ = 0 and pull apart on either side.

The pulse that grows as it leaves the heart

The pressure pulse measured at the wrist is larger than the pulse in the aorta that drives it, and the flow pulse is smaller. Nothing downstream is pumping. A wave reflected from the end of an elastic tube arrives back in step with the outgoing wave near the end and out of step near the start, and a single number — the reflection coefficient — decides whether it is the pressure or the flow that grows.

The heat the eddies do not carry

In a laminar layer the temperature and the velocity have different thicknesses in every fluid but one. In a turbulent pipe the eddies carry both, and the difference nearly vanishes — for air, water and oil alike. It does not vanish for a liquid metal, whose molecules conduct heat faster than the eddies can, and the boundary between the two behaviours is a Péclet number of about four hundred at every Reynolds number.

All essays