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

Transition and turbulence

Where the laminar solutions stop being the ones the flow takes, and what can honestly be said about what follows — which is less than the textbooks imply and more than nothing.
The laminar line does not end; the flow leaves it. Friction factor against Reynolds number in a pipe. The laminar law f = 64/Re is exact and is drawn continuing past the transitional Reynolds number, faintly, because it remains a solution there — the flow simply stops taking it. The turbulent branch is Blasius' correlation and begins where experiments find transition, not where any calculation puts it.

The solutions stop being chosen

Hagen and Poiseuille's pipe profile is an exact solution of the Navier–Stokes equations at every Reynolds number, and it is linearly stable at every Reynolds number. Something else happens at 2300 anyway, and it is not that the solution stopped being one.

 Two drag laws, one derived and one fitted. Flat-plate drag coefficient against Reynolds number, laminar and turbulent, on log axes. The laminar curve is Blasius' similarity solution, solved by shooting; the turbulent one is the 1/7-power correlation, which was fitted to experiment and is drawn dashed-in-kind to keep the difference visible. Their slopes differ — −1/2 against −1/5 — so the gap between them widens rather than staying put.

The number that is not a number

Transition Reynolds numbers are quoted to three figures and vary by two decades. That is not sloppiness in the measurement — it is the honest report of a quantity that depends on the laboratory as much as on the fluid, and knowing which part is which decides what may be designed on it.

 A shear layer, and the point of inflection in it. The velocity profile U = tanh y across a layer of finite thickness, with the inflection point located by searching for a sign change in the second derivative rather than by reading it off the algebra. Rayleigh's theorem says an inviscid parallel flow can only be unstable if such a point exists — a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

A layer with a kink in it

Rayleigh proved in 1880 that an inviscid shear flow cannot be unstable unless its velocity profile bends the other way somewhere. It is one line of algebra, it is necessary and not sufficient, and it ties instability to separation through the sign of a single derivative at the wall.

 Every wavelength grows, and the shortest grows fastest. Growth rate against wavenumber for a vortex sheet of zero thickness and for a layer of thickness δ. The sheet's curve rises without limit, which is the model announcing that it has no shortest scale in it; the layer's turns over and dies at kδ = 1, the neutral wavenumber computed from Rayleigh's equation rather than fitted.

Every wavelength at once

A vortex sheet of zero thickness is unstable at every wavelength, and the shorter the wavelength the faster it grows. The answer has no smallest scale in it, which is not a fact about fluids — it is the model reporting that it left something out.

 Ten unknowns, four equations. What is left after the Navier–Stokes equations are averaged. The mean velocities and mean pressure were there before; the six Reynolds stresses are new, and they arrived from the one term that does not average away. Nothing in the count is an approximation — the averaged equations are exact — and that is what makes the gap uncomfortable.

What averaging costs

Split the velocity into a mean and a fluctuation, average the equations, and the result is exact. It is also short of six equations, because the one nonlinear term does not average away and leaves six new unknowns behind that nothing determines.

 Every rung of the hierarchy is worse than the last. Writing a transport equation for the Reynolds stress does not close the system: that equation contains the triple correlation, whose equation contains the quadruple. The bars are the number of independent components at each order and the number of new unknowns its own equations introduce. The second is always larger, and the gap widens.

The ladder that never closes

Being six equations short is a problem with an obvious remedy — derive six more. The remedy works, produces an exact equation for the Reynolds stress, and leaves ten new unknowns behind. The gap does not narrow at any level, and the counting says why.

 u⁺ = (1/κ) ln y⁺ + B, integrated rather than asserted. The velocity profile in wall units, produced by integrating the mixing-length closure outward from the wall. The straight portion is the log law and the constants beside it were least-squares fitted to the integrated curve over 50 < y⁺ < 500 — so the 1/κ is a measurement on the drawing rather than the number that was fed in. The viscous sublayer u⁺ = y⁺ comes out rather than being pasted on.

A guess with a constant in it

Prandtl's mixing length is one line — an eddy near a wall can only be as big as its distance from the wall. Integrate it and the whole structure of a turbulent wall profile falls out, sublayer and log region and all. That is a fact about the assumption, and the essay is careful about which.

 The inertial range, and the slope read back off it. The model energy spectrum at Re = 1e+6, with production rolling off below the integral scale and dissipation cutting it off above the Kolmogorov scale. The straight middle is the inertial range, and the number printed beside it is the slope least-squares fitted to the drawn points over the middle of that range — not the −5/3 that went in.

Where the energy goes

Energy enters a turbulent flow at the largest scale and leaves it at the smallest, and in between there is nothing for it to depend on but the rate at which it is passing through. Two quantities and one dimensional argument fix the shape of the spectrum, and the exponent is −5/3.

 Grid points against Reynolds number, and where a wing sits. The number of grid points needed to resolve every scale of a turbulent flow, which is Re^(9/4) — the cube of the ratio between the largest scale and the Kolmogorov scale. The line is the arithmetic and the marks are flows a reader can picture. An airliner's wing needs about 10¹⁷ points, and the largest calculations ever run are around 10¹².

The grid nobody can build

Resolving every scale of a turbulent flow needs Re to the nine-quarters grid points and Re cubed point-updates. An airliner's wing comes to 2·10¹⁷ points against the 10¹² of the largest calculation ever run, and no amount of patience closes a gap of five orders of magnitude.

 Every disturbance has its own threshold; one of them is lowest. The Rayleigh number at which a disturbance of horizontal wavenumber a becomes neutral, Ra = (π² + a²)³/a². Every wavenumber has a threshold and the layer goes unstable at the lowest of them, which a golden-section search on this curve puts at a = 2.221441 and Ra = 657.5114 — the exact π/√2 and 27π⁴/4 to fourteen digits. Below the curve the layer conducts and nothing moves.

A threshold with a closed form

A layer of fluid heated from below sits still until buoyancy overcomes both diffusions at once, and then it convects. Unlike every other threshold in this field, that one is an eigenvalue with an exact answer, and the answer is 27π⁴/4.

 Three equations, and the set they never leave. The Lorenz trajectory at r = 28, projected on x and z, after the transient has been discarded. It never repeats, never leaves, and never crosses itself in three dimensions. The Lyapunov exponent printed beside it is measured on this system by separating a nearby pair, so the claim of sensitive dependence is a computation.

Three numbers left of a fluid

Saltzman truncated convection to three Fourier modes and Lorenz studied what was left. The result changed science, and it stopped being a description of a fluid at about a fifth of the way to the parameter everybody quotes it at.

 A millionth, doubling every three-quarters of a second. The separation of two trajectories started a millionth apart, on log axes against time. It grows as a straight line until it saturates at the size of the attractor, and the slope of that line is the largest Lyapunov exponent — measured here on the system by renormalising a nearby pair, not quoted. Sensitive dependence is what the straightness of the line means.

A millionth is enough

Two trajectories a millionth apart separate by a factor of e every three-quarters of a second, so a millionfold improvement in the measurement buys about ten seconds of extra prediction. That exchange rate, and not the size of the error, is what limits forecasting.

 The street, as two rows of point vortices. The exact velocity field of a staggered double row of point vortices at the stable spacing ratio, with the row spacing and the circulation of one core printed from a line integral of the field rather than from the number that built it. This is a model of a wake. It contains no body, no viscosity and no mechanism that would shed anything, and the viscous stepper used here does not produce a street at any Reynolds number.

The street this site cannot draw

The alternating wake behind a cylinder is the most photographed structure in fluid mechanics, and this site's solver does not produce one. What can honestly be drawn instead is a model of it — and the model settles one thing exactly, which is the spacing.

 Stable in every mode, and 100 times larger first. The energy of the worst-case disturbance against time, on a logarithmic scale, at four Reynolds numbers and at the one the slider selects. Time is in units of Re, which is what makes the four curves the same shape; what changes with Reynolds number is the height, and it changes as the square. Every eigenvalue of this operator is negative throughout, so nothing that grows here is an instability in the sense a stability analysis reports.

Every mode decays and it grows anyway

A stability analysis asks whether any mode of a flow grows, and for pipe flow the answer is no, at every Reynolds number, which the pipe disagrees with. The missing ingredient is that the modes are not perpendicular — a disturbance made of two nearly parallel decaying pieces can grow by a factor of Re²/16 before it dies.

 80 per cent of the energy goes to the larger scale. One unit of energy is taken out of the middle wavenumber and shared between its two neighbours. Two conservation laws decide the split completely: the energy must add up, and so must the enstrophy, which weights each wavenumber by k². For (1, 2, 4) the answer is that 80.0 per cent of the energy goes up in scale and 80.0 per cent of the enstrophy goes down. There is no model of turbulence anywhere in that: it is two linear equations in two unknowns, and it is why a two-dimensional flow organises itself into large vortices while its gradients get finer.

The cascade that runs backwards

Three-dimensional turbulence carries energy from large scales to small ones and dissipates it. Take away one dimension and the term that does it vanishes identically, a second quantity becomes conserved, and two conservation laws between them force the energy to go the other way — up in scale, into ever larger vortices.

 A cross at 30.0° for every wavelength it makes. A body oscillating at ω = 0.5N in a stratified fluid, and the four beams along which its energy leaves. The angle is arccos(ω/N) from the vertical — 30.0 degrees from the horizontal here — and it is the same for every wavelength the body excites, because the dispersion relation has no length in it. The short strokes are the crests, which lie along the beams rather than across them: the phase advances perpendicular to the energy, and the two are exactly at right angles. Raise the frequency and the cross closes towards the vertical; reach ω = N and it shuts entirely, because nothing above the buoyancy frequency propagates.

The number that stops the mixing

A fluid whose density falls with height resists being stirred, and the resistance has a threshold at exactly one quarter, from an energy balance with no fluid mechanics in it. The waves such a fluid carries are stranger still — their frequency decides the direction they travel in and says nothing about their wavelength.

 The plateau that is the log law. y⁺ du⁺/dy⁺ across a channel, at five Reynolds numbers. Millikan's argument says this quantity must be constant wherever neither the viscous length nor the channel width may appear, and its value there is 1/κ. At Re_τ = 180 there is no flat part at all; at Re_τ = 100,000 it is flat over 2.16 decades and gives κ = 0.4120. The log law is a statement about a limit, and this is the picture of the flow approaching it.

The layer with no length in it

The logarithm in a turbulent wall profile does not come from any model of turbulence. It comes from a region where neither of the flow's two lengths is allowed to appear, and where a velocity gradient therefore has nothing to depend on but the distance to the wall. The constant in it has never been derived from anything.

 Where the first grid point may go. The error in the friction a wall treatment infers, against the height of the first grid point, at Re_τ = 20,000. The velocity fed to each treatment is the closure's own, so what is plotted is the modelling of the boundary condition with nothing else in it. The log-law function is exact between y⁺ 30 and 10261 and is 64 per cent wrong at y⁺ = 1; the sublayer treatment is exact below y⁺ = 5 and hopeless above it; and the blend that most codes ship is within a few per cent everywhere and exact nowhere.

What a code says to a wall

A calculation that cannot afford to resolve the viscous sublayer has to tell the wall something else instead, and what it tells it is the law of the wall — an asymptotic result, applied at one grid point, on the assumption that the point lies in a region the calculation has not checked exists. Where it does, the answer is exact. Where it does not, the friction is out by tens of per cent, and refining the grid makes it worse.

 One spectrum, two fields. Two one-dimensional fields built from the same amplitudes and different phases. Their energy spectra are identical to the last bit, their two-point correlations agree to 2e-15, their second-order structure functions are the same function — and no measurement of either kind can tell them apart. Everything that distinguishes them is in the phases, which is where the cascade lives.

The moment a spectrum cannot hold

A spectrum and a two-point correlation are the same object, transformed, so everything one of them records the other records too. Give a field the exact Kolmogorov amplitudes and independent phases and every second-order measurement comes out right — while the cascade, which lives in the phases, is not there at all.

 The one exact law, and where viscosity takes it back. The two terms of the Kármán–Howarth relation against separation, measured in Kolmogorov lengths. The four-fifths term rises linearly with r and is the whole of the law at large separation; the viscous term, 6ν dS₂/dr, falls as r^(−1/3) and takes over below 5.64η. Nothing in the calculation was told what η is: the crossing is at the same multiple of it at every viscosity tried, which is what makes the dissipation scale the lower end of the inertial range rather than a separate assumption.

The one exact result

Almost nothing in turbulence follows from the equations without a model in it. One thing does — Kolmogorov's four-fifths law, which fixes the third moment of the velocity differences at −(4/5)εr with no adjustable constant anywhere in it. The companion two-thirds law is not exact, and the 4.02 everybody quotes in it turns out to be a gamma function.

 Two things moving by a million, and their product standing still. Viscosity, the squared velocity gradient at the dissipation scale, and their product, across six decades of Reynolds number at a fixed large-scale flow. The viscosity falls by a factor of 1e+6; the squared gradient rises by exactly the same factor, because η falls as Re^(−3/4) and u_η as Re^(−1/4); and the dissipation ν(u_η/η)² does not move at all. That is the dissipation anomaly stated as arithmetic: the limit of the dissipation as viscosity vanishes is not the value it takes when viscosity is zero.

The limit that is not the value

Dissipation is viscosity times the square of a velocity gradient, so it ought to vanish as the viscosity does. It does not. The gradient rises by exactly the factor the viscosity falls by, the product stands still, and a fluid with no viscosity at all would dissipate nothing — which is why the limit and the value are different numbers.

 Ballistic first, diffusive later. The mean square displacement of a parcel carried by a fluctuating velocity, from Taylor's 1921 integral with an exponential correlation of time scale 1. Below the correlation time it follows the straight-line law u²t² exactly — the parcel has not yet changed its mind — and above it the curve joins the diffusion law 2u²T·t, offset by the head start the ballistic phase gave it. The eddy diffusivity is u²T = 1.000, and it is a property of the correlation rather than of any equation of motion.

How far a parcel gets

Turbulent transport is one integral. A parcel carried by a fluctuating velocity goes in a straight line while it still remembers its own motion and performs a random walk once it has forgotten, and the crossover is the correlation time — so an eddy diffusivity is not a property a flow has, it is the limit of a measurement that has run for long enough.

 Most of the fluctuation is the switching. What a hot wire at the edge of a shear layer records, taken apart. The conditional intensity — the fluctuation inside the turbulent fluid — is flat at 0.16 by construction. The measured intensity peaks 20 per cent above it, and the excess is the third curve: the variance of a signal that keeps switching between two mean velocities, which peaks where the switching is most even and is not turbulence at all. A model calibrated against the measured curve is being fitted to an artefact of averaging.

Turbulent some of the time

At the edge of a jet or a wake a probe is inside turbulent fluid for part of the time and in perfectly smooth flow for the rest, and an ordinary time average mixes the two. Most of the fluctuation it records there is not turbulence at all — it is the switching between two states, and it peaks where the switching is most even rather than where the turbulence is strongest.

 Three thresholds, and none of them is one. The neutral curves for a layer heated from below, computed by taking the smallest eigenvalue of the marginal-stability operator at each horizontal wavenumber. Every curve diverges at both ends — a cell wider than the layer has to carry heat sideways for ever, a narrower one loses it to conduction — so each has a minimum, and that minimum is the critical Rayleigh number. Two free surfaces give 657.5, one rigid and one free 1100.7, two rigid walls 1707.8. Nothing but the boundary condition differs, and it carries a factor of 2.6.

The threshold the walls decide

A layer heated from below convects at a Rayleigh number of 1707.762, and nothing whatever happens at one. The free–free case has a closed form and the two that do not differ from it by a factor of 2.6 — produced by nothing but what the top and bottom surfaces are permitted to do.

 Five numbers, one flow, one name. A hyperbolic-tangent shear layer with a matching density profile, measured five ways, each of which appears in the literature as "the Richardson number". The minimum gradient value is what Miles' and Howard's theorem is about and is the only one the quarter belongs to. The bulk numbers depend on which thickness and which velocity difference were used; the depth-averaged one depends on how far from the layer the measurement extended, and grows without limit as it extends further.

Five numbers, one name

The Richardson number has a threshold at a quarter, and the quarter belongs to one of the five quantities that go by the name. On a single tanh shear layer they run from J to seventeen J, and the largest of them grows without limit as the measurement is extended further from the layer.

 The roughness function, and the asymptote in which the viscosity has gone. The whole effect of a rough wall on a turbulent boundary layer is one number: the downward shift of the logarithmic profile. It vanishes on a smooth wall, rises through a transitional band, and becomes (1/kappa)ln(k+) + B − 8.5 — at which point substituting it back leaves u+ = (1/kappa)ln(y/k) + 8.5, with the fluid's own length gone from the answer entirely.

A second length at the wall

The logarithm in a turbulent wall profile exists because a region of the flow is not allowed to know about any length except the distance to the wall. Roughen the surface and there is one it does know about, which belongs neither to the fluid nor to the flow — and the slope does not change at all.

 Two decay laws from two invariants, and nothing in the equations to choose. The energy of a decaying turbulence against time, integrated from dK/dt = −A K^(3/2)/l with the large scales conserving u² l³ in one case and u² l⁵ in the other. The exponents come out at 1.1997 and 1.4282 against the closed forms 6/5 and 10/7. Which invariant holds is decided by the shape of the spectrum at the very largest scales, at the moment the stirring stops.

What decay never forgets

Stir a box of fluid and stop. The turbulence decays, at a rate with no viscosity in it — so the rate cannot come from the fluid. It comes from an invariant of the very largest scales, fixed at the moment the stirring stops, and never revisited.

 Model spectra at four Reynolds numbers, compensated. The spectrum multiplied by k^(5/3) and divided by eps^(2/3), so that a true inertial range is a horizontal line at the Kolmogorov constant. What a finite Reynolds number has instead is a single maximum: it reaches 1.4996 at the highest and 1.49 at the lowest, and the band over which it is flat to one per cent goes from a third of a decade to two.

The range a real Reynolds number does not have

Kolmogorov's minus five thirds is a statement about a band of scales that has forgotten the forcing and does not feel the viscosity. Both conditions are about separation, and separation is exactly what a finite Reynolds number does not have much of.

 Four sets of scaling exponents, all of them exact at the third moment. zeta_p against p for K41, the beta-model, the log-normal model and She–Leveque. Every one of them passes through zeta_3 = 1 exactly, because the four-fifths law is a consequence of the equations and a model that missed it would be wrong about the one thing that is known. What they disagree about is every other moment.

The exponents that stop being thirds

Kolmogorov's 1941 theory says every moment of the velocity difference scales with the same exponent, p over three, so the distribution keeps its shape at every scale. It does not. The exponents fall below the line, by more the higher the moment, and what the departure measures is a dimension.

 The mean flux, flat across the inertial shells and equal to the dissipation. The time-averaged transfer out of the first n shells, computed as the rate at which the nonlinearity changes their energy rather than from a remembered formula. It is constant to a tenth across the middle of the ladder and equal to the dissipation, which is the cascade — and it is an average.

A flux that runs both ways

The cascade is a statement about a mean. Kolmogorov's four-fifths law fixes an average and the constant flux through the inertial range is an average, and neither says anything about what the transfer is doing at any instant — which turns out to be running backwards a substantial part of the time.

 The condensate, and the limit of no friction which does not exist. In a steady state the friction must remove everything the forcing puts in, so the energy is eps/(2 alpha) and the coherent velocity is sqrt(eps/alpha) — exactly a minus one half power, checked to 10⁻¹². As the friction is weakened the condensate grows without bound: the limit alpha to zero is not a flow with a weak condensate, it is a flow with no steady state at all.

Where the inverse cascade stops

Two-dimensional turbulence sends its energy upward in scale, and the upward direction has an end: the box. Without something to remove the energy before it arrives, it accumulates there in a pair of vortices filling the domain, and the limit of no friction has no steady state at all.

 A normal stress the closure makes negative. The Boussinesq closure's first normal stress in a plane strain, against the strain measured in units of the turbulence's own time scale. It crosses zero at S k/eps = 1/(3 C_mu) = 3.704 — eleven per cent above the value the constant was calibrated at — and goes on falling. A variance below zero is not a small error; it is a statement that cannot be true.

The constant that makes a variance negative

Every engineering turbulence calculation in the world rests on one number, C-mu equals 0.09. It is not a property of turbulence. It is the assertion that a particular ratio is ten thirds, which is true in one flow — and eleven per cent above that flow the same closure reports a mean square below zero.

 Every unstable mode of every profile, inside one circle. The complex phase speeds of the unstable modes, scaled so that each profile's own semicircle is the unit one. Howard's theorem says every one of them must lie inside — the centre and the radius are the mean and half-range of the velocity profile and nothing else — and every one of them does, with the closest approach at 0.915 of the radius.

Every unstable wave is inside one circle

Before solving anything, you know where the answer is. Howard's theorem says the complex phase speed of any growing disturbance in a shear flow lies inside a circle fixed by the fastest and slowest parts of the profile — and by nothing else about it at all.

 Instability up to a quarter, and none past it. The fastest growth rate of a stratified shear layer against its Richardson number, on a profile whose gradient Richardson number is the same at every height. It falls smoothly towards zero and reaches it at a quarter: at Ri = 0.2499 the fastest mode still grows at 0.00106, and at 0.26 the solver finds no unstable mode at all.

Sufficient, and not necessary

A stratified shear layer whose Richardson number exceeds a quarter everywhere cannot go unstable. That is a theorem with an exact number in it. What it does not say — and what it is constantly read as saying — is that a layer below a quarter will.

 The two dissipations, side by side. The strain form on the left and the enstrophy form on the right, for the same field, on the same scale. They have their maxima in different places — 0.46 apart on a box of side 2 pi — and neither is a smoothed version of the other. One says the dissipation is in the strained regions and the other says it is in the rotating ones, which is nearly a complete disagreement about what a turbulent flow is doing.

Equal on average, and nothing else

The rate at which a fluid turns motion into heat can be written two ways, and every textbook says the two are equivalent. Their averages are equal to fourteen decimal places. Point by point they are uncorrelated, and their maxima are in different places.

 The scalar spectrum, with its two ranges. A model scalar spectrum at a Schmidt number of two thousand — dye in water. Below the Kolmogorov wavenumber it is Obukhov and Corrsin's five-thirds, inherited from the velocity; above it there is no turbulence left and the spectrum is Batchelor's minus one, which contains no velocity spectrum at all.

The scalar has its own cascade

Below the Kolmogorov scale there is no turbulence left, and a dye stirred into the flow goes on cascading anyway — on a spectrum whose exponent is minus one and whose amplitude contains no velocity spectrum at all. Resolving it costs the three-halves power of the Schmidt number, which for dye in water is a factor of ninety thousand.

 Four wall models, through the buffer layer. Van Driest's damped mixing length, Reichardt's fit, Spalding's implicit law, and a control with no buffer layer at all — the viscous sublayer joined straight to the logarithm where they cross, at y+ = 11.6. The three fitted models agree with each other to a per cent and a half; the control is nineteen per cent above them at y+ = 10.

Three buffer layers, one friction

Four wall models are put through a pipe. The one with no buffer layer at all is nineteen per cent wrong where the turbulence production peaks and two and a half per cent wrong in the friction; the three respectable ones are within two per cent of each other in the buffer layer and spread by seven in the friction. The answer is not where it was expected.

 Two lifetimes, crossing. The mean time for a turbulent puff to decay and the mean time for it to split into two, against Reynolds number, on a logarithmic axis spanning thirty orders of magnitude. Below the crossing puffs die faster than they multiply; above it they multiply faster than they die, and the flow stays turbulent.

A puff that does not know how old it is

A patch of turbulence in a pipe below the critical Reynolds number dies at random, and its chance of dying in the next second does not depend on how long it has already lasted. The flow that contains it has a memory anyway, because the patches multiply — and where multiplying overtakes dying is a Reynolds number.

 The layer that grows from a change of surface. The internal boundary layer's height against distance downwind of a change in roughness, with the sublayer inside it that is genuinely in equilibrium with the new surface. The layer grows as the fetch to the four-fifths power and the equilibrium sublayer is a tenth of it.

How far downwind a surface is remembered

Walk from a field into a wood and the wind ten metres above your head is still the field's wind. It takes about a kilometre of trees before a ten-metre measurement is measuring the trees — a hundred times the height it is made at, and a great deal more than most masts are given.

 The production jumps and the dissipation does not. Production and dissipation against time, through a step change in the strain rate. The production follows the strain immediately — it is the strain squared times an eddy viscosity — and the dissipation moves by less than one per cent at the instant of the step, because it is set by a cascade that has not been told yet.

A dissipation that lags its production

Change the strain rate on a patch of turbulence and the production of energy follows instantly — it is the strain squared. The dissipation moves by less than one per cent, because it is the far end of a cascade that has not been told yet, and the two are out of balance by a factor of six for the next turnover.

 The stress a closure predicts, and the stress there is. The Reynolds-stress anisotropy through a step change in the strain rate, against what an eddy viscosity gives — which is the equilibrium value at every instant. The real stress takes about a turnover to get there, and during that turnover the closure is wrong by up to sixty per cent.

A closure with no memory at all

An eddy viscosity says the Reynolds stress is the mean strain rate times a number, now. The stress it is standing in for takes a turnover to arrive, so the closure is the zero-frequency limit of a response that has a lag in it — and the curve it is the limit of is the same shape as an aerofoil's lift deficiency.

 How far apart two points can be and still be correlated. The correlation between the logarithm of the dissipation at two points, against how far apart they are in units of the smallest scale, over four decades. It falls as a ratio of logarithms — so it is still a quarter at a thousand smallest scales, and reaches a half only at a hundred.

A dissipation correlated across every scale

The dissipation is supposed to be the most local quantity in turbulence — a thing happening at the smallest eddies, everywhere and independently. A multiplicative cascade makes its logarithm correlated over a distance that is a ratio of logarithms, so two points a thousand smallest scales apart still agree a quarter of the time.

 Two wakes with one drag. The two initial velocity deficits: a slab, which is roughly what a bluff body leaves, and a pair of separated lobes, which is roughly what a body with a jet through the middle of it leaves. Their integrals are identical, so the two bodies have exactly the same drag.

A wake that keeps the drag and forgets the body

Two very different wakes with the same momentum deficit converge to the same profile, because the deficit is conserved and everything else diffuses away. The convergence is a power law rather than an exponential, so it takes two hundred widths for twenty per cent agreement and nine hundred for five.

 Three modes carry heat up to a ceiling of three; the rolls they were cut from keep going. The Nusselt number — heat carried across the layer over what conduction alone would carry — against r, the Rayleigh number over its critical value, for Lorenz's three-mode truncation, 1 + 2(r − 1)/r, and for steady rolls at the same wavenumber computed with 6 and with 42 temperature modes. At r = 2, r = 5 and r = 30 Lorenz gives 2.000, 2.600 and 2.933; the 42-mode rolls give 2.143, 3.323 and 5.970. Lorenz's value can never exceed three whatever the Rayleigh number; the rolls' keeps rising. The ceiling is not in the convection. It is in the three modes, which have only one way to thin the thermal layers, and half of it is used by the time the layer is twice past onset.

The truncation that cannot carry three times the heat

Lorenz's three modes give a convecting layer's heat flux in one line — one plus twice (r − 1) over r — and it can never reach three times what conduction carries. The same rolls computed with forty-two modes agree with that line exactly at onset, carry 7.1 per cent more heat at twice the critical Rayleigh number, and twice as much at thirty times it. The ceiling is not in the convection; it is in having one sine to draw the temperature with.

 The same wavelength drawn as rolls and as hexagons. Plan views of a convecting layer with one critical wavelength, drawn from the amplitude equations' two stable states. On the left, rolls: a single set of parallel bands, rising fluid along one set of lines and sinking along the next. On the right, hexagons: three sets of rolls at 120° to each other with equal amplitudes, whose sum has its maxima on a triangular lattice with spacing 2/√3 of the wavelength, each maximum at the centre of a hexagonal cell. At ε = 0.0250, inside the window, both are stable: rolls with amplitude 0.158 and hexagons with 0.081 in each of their three rolls. A hexagon is not a different kind of cell; it is three roll patterns that the quadratic term lets reinforce one another.

Hexagons remember how the heat was turned up

A layer heated from below convects in rolls, unless its top and bottom are not mirror images of each other. Then three sets of rolls at 120° can feed one another through a term the symmetry used to forbid, hexagonal cells appear before the layer is formally unstable, and there is a range of heating in which rolls and hexagons are both stable — so the pattern a layer shows depends on whether the heat was turned up or down to get there.

 A band of growing waves that opens at 5772 and narrows as the viscosity goes. The wavenumbers at which a two-dimensional wave on plane Poiseuille flow neither grows nor decays, against the Reynolds number on a logarithmic axis. Inside the tongue waves grow; outside they decay. The tongue's tip is the critical point. Both edges slope downward and towards each other in wavenumber as the Reynolds number rises, so the band of unstable waves shrinks towards long waves — the direction in which the inviscid problem, which has no growing wave at all, is reached.

The profile Rayleigh cleared and viscosity did not

Flow between two plates has no inflection point, so without viscosity no wave on it can grow. With viscosity one does, above a Reynolds number of 5772. Taking the viscosity away again slows that wave and narrows the band it grows in, because the stress that feeds it is made by viscosity in the first place.

 Five spectra, five exponents, one linear equation. The energy of a decaying turbulence after the nonlinear term has stopped mattering, computed by integrating the exact modal solution E(k,0)exp(−2 nu k² t) at five different shapes of the spectrum at the origin. Each is a straight line on these axes and no two have the same slope: the exponent is (m+1)/2, where k^m is the spectrum's behaviour at wavenumbers smaller than any eddy. The 5/2 that is quoted as the final period's universal exponent is the m = 4 line and one of five.

Universal, and one of five

A turbulence that has run its Reynolds number down stops being turbulent, the equations go linear, and the decay picks up a new exponent. That exponent is quoted everywhere as 5/2 and as universal. It is neither: it is the same corner of the same spectrum deciding the answer a second time.

 The coefficient that was a constant, against the number it is said not to depend on. The dissipation coefficient Cε = eps·l/u³ along two decays, plotted against the Taylor-scale Reynolds number they pass through. One is flat because it was put in flat; the other falls as the reciprocal of the Reynolds number, which is what is measured in the near field of a grid. Neither line is a derivation. What is exact is the relation between them, Cε = 15(ℓ/λ)/Reλ, which is a rearrangement of two definitions and holds along both curves to 5·10⁻¹⁶.

The constant that travels

Every decay law in the subject rests on the dissipation being some constant times u³ over a length. The constant is not one. Letting it move the way grid measurements say it moves changes the decay exponent by a quarter — and lands one of the answers five per cent from another that is entirely different physics.

 Four over the dimension, and three dimensions is where the three comes from. The constant in front of the exact law, against the number of dimensions the flow lives in. Both exact results — Yaglom's for a scalar and the velocity's law for the mixed third moment — have this same constant, because both come from the same statement: an isotropic radial flux in separation space whose divergence is a constant sink. Integrating that divergence gives 4Q r/d and nothing else. The four-thirds everybody quotes is four over three, and the three is the space rather than anything about turbulence. The dots are the quadrature, which agrees with the closed form to 2·10⁻⁹.

The fraction that is really four thirds

Turbulence has two exact results, not one. The second is about a scalar carried by the flow, its constant is four thirds rather than four fifths, and the difference between the two fractions has nothing in it about turbulence at all — it is the price of writing a three-component object in terms of one component.

 One curve from two to one, with four thirds somewhere in the middle. The ratio of the transverse second-order structure function to the longitudinal one, against separation, at three Reynolds numbers. Every value on every curve follows from the longitudinal function alone by a relation with no dynamics in it. It is exactly 2 where the field is smooth, exactly 1 beyond the correlation length, and it passes through four thirds on the way — but it passes through rather than resting there, and how nearly it rests is the whole of what a Reynolds number buys.

A relation with no turbulence in it

Isotropy and incompressibility alone fix the transverse structure function from the longitudinal one. Divide the relation through and it says the ratio of the two is one plus half the local slope — so the exponent everybody measures as 0.70 and the ratio everybody measures as 1.35 are one measurement, and a model spectrum with no intermittency in it produces both.

 The plateau everybody looks for is a summit, and a low one. −Dₗₗₗ/((4/5)εr) against separation in decaying turbulence at five Taylor-scale Reynolds numbers. None has a plateau at one. Each rises through the viscous range and turns over, peaking at 0.49, 0.63, 0.75, 0.85, 0.90 for Reλ = 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000. A measurement of ε that takes the largest value of this curve as four-fifths reads each of those shortfalls as a smaller dissipation.

The decay inside the four-fifths law

The four-fifths law gives the dissipation of turbulence from one measured moment with no constant in it, which makes it the obvious way to measure how the dissipation coefficient travels during a decay. But the law is exact only in a limit, and a decaying flow is not in it. The decay itself takes a quarter off the moment at the Reynolds numbers grids reach — and the bias moves as the flow decays, by a sixth, in the direction opposite to the effect being looked for.

All essays