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

The thread: One number decides the regime — page 14

Page 14 of 34, continuing through the 305 essays this motif runs through.

305 essays carry this thread — page 14 of 34.

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.

 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. Regimes and numbers

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 downwash approaches twice the value at the wing — from above. The downwash behind an elliptically loaded wing of aspect ratio 8, as a multiple of the induced angle at the wing itself, against distance in spans. Every account of tail sizing quotes a factor of two here. Two is the value at infinity: the trailing legs of the horseshoe system contribute a factor (1 + x/√(x² + a²)) which is one at the lifting line and two far downstream. Close behind, the bound vortex dominates and the field is much larger, and the curve comes down to its limit. A tailplane sits two or three chords behind, which on this wing is 0.31 of a span — where the factor is 2.46, a quarter above the number in the formula. Circulation and lift

The surface in the wake

A wing has no opinion about its own incidence, which is why it needs a second surface behind it. How much that surface is worth depends on how much of the wing's downwash it is sitting in, and the factor of two everybody quotes for that is the value at infinity — where no tailplane has ever been put.

 Two terms, one with viscosity in it and one without. Ergun's two contributions to the pressure gradient, against the pore Reynolds number, on logarithmic axes. The viscous term rises with the first power of the velocity and the inertial one with the square, so on these axes they are straight lines of slope one and two and there is exactly one crossing. The second term contains no viscosity at all — it is the price of accelerating fluid into every pore and out again — which is why a linear resistance law has to fail eventually whatever the fluid is. Fluids at work

Where Darcy stops

A linear resistance law has to fail eventually, because pushing fluid into a pore and out again costs energy that has nothing to do with viscosity. Where it fails is one dimensionless number, and that number is 150/1.75 — read out of a correlation's own constants rather than measured.

 Twice as fast is not twice as thick. The film a plate carries out of water, against the speed it is withdrawn at, both logarithmic. The slope is exactly two-thirds, so doubling the speed thickens the film by 58.7 per cent and never by more. The open marks are outside the range the derivation holds in — above a capillary number of about a hundredth the film is no longer thin against the capillary length, and the measured thickness leaves this line. Viscosity

What a plate takes with it

Pull a plate out of a bath and it comes out wet. How wet is not set by the plate, the bath or how much liquid there is, but by a competition in a region a fraction of a millimetre long that nobody looking at the plate can see — and the film goes as the two-thirds power of the speed, never as the first.

 One signature, aged four times. The pressure signature of a slender body at four distances, computed by the exact Lax formula for the nonlinear propagation. Each point of the waveform moves forward in proportion to its own overpressure, so the compression at the front catches the undisturbed air and a shock forms there, while the expansion at the rear falls behind and forms a second one. What is left is an N-wave: two discontinuities and a straight line between them, spreading and weakening. Compressible flow

The signature that forgets the shape

The pressure field near a supersonic aeroplane depends on every part of it. What reaches the ground has two parameters. Two bodies whose near-field signatures differ by fifty-five per cent in peak and by their whole shape age into the same N-wave, to two and a half per cent.

All themes