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

The thread: Taught wrongly, everywhere — page 7

Page 7 of 14, continuing through the 124 essays this motif runs through.

124 essays carry this thread — page 7 of 14.

Four sections, and what the shape story says about each. A flat plate, a symmetric section twelve per cent thick, a cambered one, and a section with a wavy upper skin. The first two have upper and lower surfaces of exactly equal length; the last has an upper surface two and a half per cent longer than its lower one, which is twice the cambered section's excess. What is taught wrongly

The wing that is flat, and flies

Refuting the equal-transit story by computing the parcels leaves its premise standing, and the premise is the part most readers believe: that the shape is what makes the lift. It is a claim about shapes, so it is tested with shapes — a flat plate, a symmetric section, and a cambered one flown upside down.

 Nothing can deliver more than h/H, and here that is 10.0%. The fraction of the supply a ram can deliver, against the height it is asked to deliver to, from a supply falling 2 m. The upper curve is the exact ceiling h/H, which follows from the energy audit with every loss set to zero and can be reached by no real machine; the lower one is what a ram at 65% efficiency actually sends. Asking for twice the height halves the delivery, exactly, and there is no design that escapes it. Fluids at work

A pump with no engine

A hydraulic ram lifts water uphill using nothing but the water that is already falling. It has one moving part and no power supply, and everything it can and cannot do follows from an energy audit that fits on one line — including a ceiling nothing about its design can move.

 The error in the balance is the number itself. The fractional error in the geostrophic wind, against the Rossby number, on logarithmic axes. It is a straight line of slope one through the origin, and that is not an approximation: keeping the centripetal term gives V_g/V = 1 ± Ro exactly, so the error and the number are the same quantity. The geostrophic wind is one per cent right at Ro = 0.01 and a hundred per cent wrong at Ro = 1, which is the value the number is named for and is quoted as the boundary of the approximation. Regimes and numbers

The balance that is its own error

Geostrophic balance is licensed by the Rossby number being small, and the fractional error in the geostrophic wind is the Rossby number — exactly, not approximately. So the balance everybody uses at Ro of order one is a hundred per cent wrong, and the same quadratic has a hard limit at a quarter that no anticyclone can pass.

 A flow that is incompressible and carries a density that varies three to one. Ideal flow past a cylinder, shaded by a density that is constant along each streamline and runs from one to three across the field. Every parcel keeps the density it started with, so the divergence is zero — measured at 10⁻¹⁰, which is the differencing — and the flow is incompressible in the only sense the word has. The density is not uniform anywhere. Incompressible is a statement about what the flow does to a parcel's volume, not about what the fluid is made of. Flows and fields

Incompressible is not a property of the fluid

A flow whose density varies three to one across it, with a divergence of 10⁻¹⁰ everywhere. And a flow of air at Mach 0.1, whose divergence is three per cent of U/a and which every textbook calls incompressible. The word is about what the flow does to a parcel's volume, and about nothing else.

 Where four insects have to turn round. Wagner's function — the fraction of its eventual circulation a wing has built after a stated distance of travel — with the half-stroke of each of four insects marked on it. Every one of them reverses while the curve is still climbing, so no insect wing ever reaches the circulation a steady calculation assigns it. What is taught wrongly

A calculation with no memory in it

The bee calculation is famous for using the wrong velocity. Done with the right one it still falls short, and the reason is structural: a quasi-steady sum is a statement about a wing that has always been going, and an insect's wing travels between two and five chord lengths before it turns round.

 The relaxation time a particle actually has. Two quantities against the particle-to-fluid density ratio. β = 3ρ_f/(2ρ_p + ρ_f) is three for a bubble, one for a neutrally buoyant particle and nearly zero for anything heavy; it is the factor by which the fluid's own acceleration is felt. The other curve is the true relaxation time over the usual formula's, which is one for a heavy droplet, exactly three halves for a neutrally buoyant tracer, and unbounded for a bubble — the usual formula gives a bubble a relaxation time of zero, and therefore no dynamics at all. Regimes and numbers

The tracer that is not one

Every Stokes number is built on a relaxation time that counts the particle's own inertia and nothing else. Adding the two terms it leaves out gives a bubble a relaxation time where the usual formula gives zero, makes a neutrally buoyant tracer half as slow again as advertised, and sends bubbles into vortex cores that droplets are flung out of.

 A sphere does not go at the speed of the flow it is in. How far a force-free sphere on the axis of a round tube lags the fluid at its own centre, against its size. The lag is two-thirds of the square of the size ratio and comes from the reciprocal theorem in one line: the sphere moves at the average of the ambient flow over its own surface, and a parabolic profile is slower everywhere on that surface than at the middle. At a fifth of the tube's radius the lag is 2.7 per cent, which is the difference between a tracer and a thing being measured. Viscosity

A force without the flow that makes it

A sphere carried along by a flow does not travel at the speed of the fluid at its centre. It travels at the average of the flow over its own surface — and getting that result needs no solution of the flow around the sphere at all, only the answer to a completely different problem that everybody already knows.

 Ideal flow past a sphere, drawn in a meridional plane. The Stokes stream function of ideal flow past a sphere, contoured at equal intervals. Its relations to the velocity carry factors of r sin θ that the plane stream function does not have, and differencing it reproduces the closed-form velocity to 10⁻¹¹. The surface speed at the equator is exactly one and a half times the free stream, against twice for a circular cylinder: a three-dimensional body lets the flow past in two directions rather than one. Flows and fields

The one number that runs out at three dimensions

A stream function is one function where the velocity is two, and four essays here are built on it. It exists because the divergence vanishes, it is single-valued only if nothing inside is making fluid, and in three dimensions it is not one function at all.

 The exposure lengths that give the true mean, and the ones that do not. How far a finite exposure of a shedding wake lands from the long-exposure mean, against how many shedding periods the shutter was open for. It is exactly zero at every whole number of periods — an average over a complete cycle is the mean, with no error at all — and between the zeros it falls as one over the exposure. Nothing about the picture tells the reader which of these they are looking at. What is taught wrongly

The shutter is part of the answer

Flow photographs are compared as though the exposure were a detail of the camera. It is a term in the measurement: an average over exactly one shedding period returns the true mean to fourteen figures, any other length carries a residue that falls only as one over the exposure, and a two-pulse velocity reading is short by exactly the sinc of the swept angle.

All themes