Theme

The thread: What is conserved — page 15

Page 15 of 33, continuing through the 292 essays this motif runs through.

292 essays carry this thread — page 15 of 33.

$A film with nothing useful to show for itself. The pressure under two discs squeezed together, as a fraction of the pressure at the centre. It is a parabola, and it holds an enormous load — but nothing is sliding, so there is no output at all and every joule put in becomes heat in the oil. The two routes to that heat share no arithmetic: one integrates the dissipation function over the film, the other multiplies the force by the approach speed.$ Viscosity

The last of the oil

A wet plate on a table is held down by nothing but the difficulty of getting air in underneath it. The force required to separate two flat surfaces with a film between them goes as the inverse cube of the gap, which means there is no finite energy that removes the last of the film and no finite time in which it drains away.

Ideal flow

Inviscid does not mean irrotational

Dropping viscosity gives Euler's equations. Assuming nothing is spinning gives Laplace's — one scalar, linear, unique. The second step is a separate hypothesis about the flow's history, and a flow that fails it is still an inviscid flow with exact solutions of its own.

The chord and the tangent, which are the two speeds. The flux of a conserved quantity against its own density, for a wide river and for traffic. At any point the slope of the chord from the origin is the speed the material moves at, and the slope of the tangent is the speed a disturbance moves at. They are the same number only if the curve is a straight line through the origin. For the river the tangent is five-thirds of the chord at every depth; for traffic the tangent turns negative above half the jam density while the chord never does.

Flows and fields

A wave nothing in it travels with

A flood crest moves at five-thirds the speed of the water it is made of, at every depth, whatever the roughness and whatever the slope. A traffic wave moves backwards through cars that are all going forwards. Neither result contains a momentum equation.

$Two velocities, 2.50 apart, and only one of them is anybody's. The velocity in Darcy's law is the flow rate divided by the whole cross-section, solid included: a speed no fluid particle ever has, since the fluid occupies only the fraction ε of that area. The speed the fluid actually averages is larger by exactly 1/ε — 2.50 times here — and it is the one that belongs in a residence time, in a pore Reynolds number and in any statement about when a tracer arrives. The grains are drawn to say that the pore-scale flow is not computed anywhere: no figure on this site claims to resolve it.$ Fluids at work

A velocity nobody has

The velocity in Darcy's law is the flow rate divided by the whole cross-section, solid included — a speed no fluid particle in the bed ever has. Averaging buys a linear law and charges for it in exactly this coin, and the constant that comes with it is an area of about a square micron.

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.

Regimes and numbers

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.

Hill's spherical vortex. A sphere of rotating fluid travelling steadily through fluid at rest, drawn in the frame that moves with it. Outside the sphere the flow is the ordinary potential flow past a sphere; inside, the vorticity is proportional to the distance from the axis and the fluid recirculates. The two solutions match in value and in slope across the surface, and there is no body anywhere — the boundary is a streamline and nothing else.

Ideal flow

The one rotational solution anybody can write down

A sphere of spinning fluid travelling steadily through fluid at rest, with no body anywhere in it — the boundary is a streamline and nothing else. It is exact, it is two lines long, and the reason it is the famous one turns out to be the reason it is the only one a real fluid can settle into.

One streamline, sectioned, in two steady flows. Every time a single streamline crosses the plane z ≡ 0 going upwards, a point is plotted. On the left the flow is integrable and the points lie on a curve, however long the trajectory is run. On the right one coefficient of the same exact solution has been changed and the same single streamline scatters over a sixth of the plane. Both flows are steady, both are incompressible to machine precision, and both are exact solutions of the Euler equations.

Flows and fields

Steady, three-dimensional, and mixing anyway

A steady flow that solves the Euler equations exactly, with its vorticity equal to its velocity to six parts in ten thousand million — and one of its streamlines wanders through a sixth of the box while another, started nearby, lies on a curve for ever.

γ for air, against temperature. The ratio of specific heats for air as a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, with the vibrational mode filling according to the Einstein function. It is 1.400 at room temperature, where only translation and rotation are available; 1.337 at a thousand kelvin; and 1.288 at six thousand. Every compressible result on this site has used 1.4, and that is the value for a gas that is not hot — which, behind any shock worth drawing, it is not.

Compressible flow

When gamma stops being a number

Every compressible result on this site has used γ = 1.4, which counts the ways a nitrogen molecule can hold energy at room temperature. Behind a Mach 10 shock the gas is at 3,800 kelvin and the count is different — and the pressure barely moves while the temperature falls by fifteen per cent.

The number that settles the argument. How many turns the earth's contribution gets through in the time the vessel takes to drain: the draining time divided by the rotation period at the drain. A bathtub manages a tenth of one and there is nothing to see. The apparatus that settled it manages nearly nineteen hundred, and that is the whole of what its enormous area-to-drain ratio was for.

What is taught wrongly

The bath that was only ever a wait

The Coriolis force is far too weak to steer a draining bath, and it does steer a large enough tank that has been left alone long enough. Both are true, and the number that separates them is not a force ratio — it is how many turns the earth's contribution gets through before the vessel is empty.

All themes