Theme

The thread: One number decides the regime — page 9

Page 9 of 34, continuing through the 305 essays this motif runs through.

305 essays carry this thread — page 9 of 34.

One number instead of a porous medium. The velocity through the bottom of a channel whose lower wall is a porous block of permeability 1e-4. Inside the block the flow decays over the pore scale √K = 1.0e-2 to Darcy's seepage velocity; above it the channel profile arrives at the interface with a slip velocity rather than at rest. A channel told nothing but u = √K du/dy at a flat wall reproduces that profile to 0.058 per cent of the flow rate, against 3.03 per cent for a wall told to hold the fluid still. The grid solve of the coupled problem agrees with the closed form to 0.0077 per cent. Flows and fields

A wall that is not quite there

A porous surface has structure on every scale below the pore, and no calculation resolves it. The whole of it can be replaced by one length — the square root of the permeability — and the replacement is exact to first order, with what it leaves out identifiable as the flow the wall itself carries.

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. Transition and turbulence

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.

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. Regimes and numbers

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. Regimes and numbers

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.

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. Transition and turbulence

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.

An hour for every tenfold, for ever. How long a forecast lasts, against how well the initial state is known. The relation is T = ln(tolerance/error)/lambda — exactly logarithmic — so improving the measurement by a factor of ten buys exactly the same extra time every time: ln(10)/lambda, which for this flow is 24.5 time units. It does not get harder and it does not get easier. What is taught wrongly

An hour for every tenfold

Turbulence is deterministic and unpredictable, and the exchange rate between those two is exact: measuring the initial state ten times better buys the same extra forecast time every time, for ever. A constant, and it belongs to the flow rather than to the instrument.

Most power at exactly half the jet speed, found by search at 0.5000. The power a bucket takes from a jet, against how fast the bucket runs, for four deflection angles. Every curve is a parabola with roots at zero — where the force is greatest and the bucket is not moving — and at the jet speed, where the bucket is running away and there is no force at all. The peak is halfway between, at U = V/2, and it is there for every angle and every flow rate. A golden-section search that knows none of the algebra puts it at 0.500000. Fluids at work

Half the jet speed takes everything

A bucket standing still feels the largest force and does no work; a bucket running with the jet does no work either. Between them the power peaks at exactly half the jet speed, for every bucket shape and every flow rate — and at that speed a perfect bucket leaves the water motionless.

The wall's condition, on its way to the middle. Five profiles across the half-channel, from just inside the entrance to fully developed, each drawn at the station where it occurs. The march starts from a slab of uniform flow and never assumes a shape: what arrives at the far end is a parabola, with a centre-line speed of 1.4979 times the mean against the exact 3/2 and a momentum flux of 1.1995 against 6/5. Notice what the middle does while the edges are being slowed: it speeds up, because the flow rate is held, and that acceleration is what the entrance's extra pressure drop pays for. Viscosity

How far before a duct forgets what was fed into it

A pipe is always drawn with its answer already in place. Getting there takes a distance proportional to the Reynolds number, which means a more viscous fluid is done sooner — and the entrance costs a fixed number of dynamic pressures however long the pipe is.

How small is small enough. The error in Stokes' law for the drag on a sphere, against the Reynolds number, both logarithmic. Oseen's correction is the first term the neglected inertia puts back, and it says the error is 3Re/16: one per cent at Re = 16/297 = 0.054, five per cent at 0.28, and already sixteen per cent at Re = 1 — which is the value at which the two terms the Reynolds number compares are equal, and is where every textbook draws the boundary of creeping flow. Regimes and numbers

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.

All themes