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

The thread: Taught wrongly, everywhere — page 5

Page 5 of 14, continuing through the 124 essays this motif runs through.

124 essays carry this thread — page 5 of 14.

Two triangles, and the work is the difference between them. The velocity triangles at inlet and outlet of a rotor at constant blade speed and constant axial velocity. The horizontal arrow is the blade speed; the arrow from the origin is the absolute velocity of the fluid; the arrow closing the triangle is what the blade sees. Euler's equation says the work is the blade speed times the change in the swirl component alone — the horizontal distance between the two upper corners, times U — and nothing else in the picture appears in it. Fluids at work

Work out of a change of swirl

The work a rotor does per unit mass is the blade speed times the change in swirl, and that is all of it — no blade shape, no pressure, no efficiency, no gas properties. It is the same equation for a pump, a compressor, a turbine and a fan, and it follows from angular momentum on a box with nothing assumed about the inside.

 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. What is taught wrongly

The randomness that is not in the equations

Turbulence is described in the language of statistics — means, variances, spectra, probability distributions — and none of that language appears in the equations it is a description of. The Navier–Stokes equations have no random term anywhere in them. What is random is the observer's ignorance of the initial data, and the flow's habit of amplifying it.

 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.

 A slotted flap at 30°, in a flow with no viscosity anywhere. Streamlines through a main element and a flap, computed by a two-body panel solve. Each element carries its own circulation and its own Kutta condition, and the two interfere through their velocity fields and through nothing else — there is no boundary layer here, no wake, no mixing region and no high-energy air. The system's lift coefficient is 2.757 against 0.698 for the main element alone at the same incidence, and the main element itself is carrying 3.98 times the circulation it carries by itself. Circulation and lift

A slot is not a nozzle

The gap between a wing and its flap is supposed to blow fast air into a tired boundary layer. A solver with no boundary layer in it at all — no viscosity, no wake, no mixing — produces most of the lift increment anyway, and produces it on the element nobody moved.

 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.

 One flow, two observers, two pictures. The same ideal flow past a circular cylinder, drawn in the frame of the tunnel and in the frame of the undisturbed air. The two are related by subtracting one constant velocity. On the left the flow arrives from infinity, divides at a stagnation point on the nose and closes at another on the tail. On the right the air is at rest far away, the body pushes through it, the streamlines are closed loops, and there is no stagnation point anywhere in the field. Every force, every pressure and every measurement either observer can make is identical. Flows and fields

The picture belongs to whoever is watching

Photograph the flow past a cylinder from the tunnel and it has two stagnation points. Photograph the same flow from a frame moving with the air and it has none at all, and its surface speed is exactly the free stream at every angle. Both pictures are correct and no measurement distinguishes them.

 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.

 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.

 Three accounts of lift, one of them tuned to be exactly right at five degrees. Thin-aerofoil theory, which is the answer; Newtonian impact theory with its constant tuned so that it passes exactly through the truth at five degrees; and the equal-transit story, which has no free constant and sits along the bottom. At the tuning point the tuned model and the truth are indistinguishable, and no measurement there separates them. What is taught wrongly

A right total from a wrong picture

Newtonian impact theory has a free constant in it. Tuned at five degrees it reproduces a NACA 2412's lift exactly, and no measurement at five degrees can tell it from the truth. What separates them is the derivative — a lift-curve slope 2.8 times too steep — which is a second constraint rather than a better one.

All themes