Theme

The thread: The exact theory is wrong — page 9

Page 9 of 22, continuing through the 193 essays this motif runs through.

193 essays carry this thread — page 9 of 22.

Two divergence-free fields with the same boundary conditions. On the left, the exact potential flow round a cylinder moving through fluid at rest. On the right, the same flow with a divergence-free eddy added — one that has no normal velocity on the body or on the outer circle, so it changes nothing about what crosses a boundary. Both fields conserve mass, both satisfy the wall condition, and only one is the flow. Nothing in the drawing says which.

The flow with the least energy in it

Draw a flow that conserves mass and does not go through the walls, and it will look exactly like a solution. There are infinitely many of them and one is the flow. What separates it from the others is not visible anywhere in the picture — it is a number, and the number is an energy.

Flow net — a stream past a cylinder. Two families of curves drawn over the same flow: the streamlines, along which the streamfunction is constant, and the equipotentials, along which the velocity potential is constant. They cross at right angles at every point, because they are the two parts of a single analytic function of position.

Ideal flow

The mirror that is a circle

A flat wall is made by reflecting everything in it. A round one is made the same way, except that the mirror is an inversion — the image of a point at distance d sits at a²/d, and a vortex acquires a second image at the centre that nothing about the wall requires.

The Hugoniot of a gas that can burn, and the gap in the middle of it. Pressure against specific volume, both scaled on the unburnt gas. The lower curve is the ordinary shock Hugoniot, which passes through the initial state because a jump of zero strength satisfies mass, momentum and energy. Adding a heat release lifts it away, and the initial state now sits in a region no wave can reach: between the two branches a Rayleigh line would need a positive slope, and its slope is minus the square of the mass flux. A burning gas has no weak waves available to it at all.

Compressible flow

The other branch of the same curve

Put heat into the jump conditions and the Hugoniot lifts away from the initial state, leaving a gap no wave can occupy. A burning gas has no weak waves: it must run supersonically or subsonically, and the conservation laws pick the first speed exactly and say nothing at all about the second.

$Which speed the number is formed on. The fractional change in air density at three places on a body, against the free-stream Mach number. At a stagnation point the density rises, and it reaches five per cent at M = 0.314 — which is where the familiar 0.3 comes from, and it is a five per cent tolerance rather than a physical boundary. At the suction peak the density falls instead, and how fast depends on the body: a lightly loaded section is milder than its own nose, and one working at cp₀ = −2 reaches five per cent at M = 0.22 and is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is at 0.3.$ Regimes and numbers

Which speed goes in the number

The most quoted threshold in the subject — air is incompressible below Mach 0.3 — is a five per cent tolerance on the density at a stagnation point wearing a physical boundary's clothes. A wing working for its living is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is still at 0.3.

The Kirchhoff flow past a flat plate. A uniform stream meeting a flat plate held across it, with two streamlines leaving the edges and never returning. Between them is a wake of fluid at rest at a constant pressure. The equations solved are the same equations that give d'Alembert's paradox for a closed body, and this flow has a drag coefficient of 0.8798.

Ideal flow

Drag in the theory that forbids it

d'Alembert's paradox is a theorem about flows that close behind the body. Stop requiring that, let two streamlines leave the edges and never come back, and the same equations — no viscosity, no vorticity — produce a drag coefficient of 0.8798.

The two ways a shock can meet a wall. Left: the incident shock from the wedge reaches the wall and a second shock turns the flow back parallel to it, meeting at a point. Right: at a larger wedge angle no reflected shock can turn the flow that far, and the intersection lifts off the wall into a triple point with a nearly normal Mach stem standing on the surface and a slip line trailing downstream. The two configurations are drawn at the angles the solver returns, with every shock angle computed rather than sketched.

Compressible flow

When a shock cannot bounce

A shock reflects off a wall until the reflected shock runs out of turning, which happens at a wedge angle well below the free stream's own limit. Between the two boundaries both configurations exist, both are stable, and which one appears depends on which direction the experiment came from.

Two things moving by a million, and their product standing still. Viscosity, the squared velocity gradient at the dissipation scale, and their product, across six decades of Reynolds number at a fixed large-scale flow. The viscosity falls by a factor of 1e+6; the squared gradient rises by exactly the same factor, because η falls as Re^(−3/4) and u_η as Re^(−1/4); and the dissipation ν(u_η/η)² does not move at all. That is the dissipation anomaly stated as arithmetic: the limit of the dissipation as viscosity vanishes is not the value it takes when viscosity is zero.

Transition and turbulence

The limit that is not the value

Dissipation is viscosity times the square of a velocity gradient, so it ought to vanish as the viscosity does. It does not. The gradient rises by exactly the factor the viscosity falls by, the product stands still, and a fluid with no viscosity at all would dissipate nothing — which is why the limit and the value are different numbers.

Four aeroplanes, one number. Four biplanes with the same gap and the same loadings, staggered by nothing, by four tenths, by nine tenths and by one and six tenths of a chord. Their induced drags agree to the last bit of the arithmetic — the calculation cannot even express the stagger, because the Trefftz plane is a cross-section and everything drawn here projects onto the same one. That is Munk's stagger theorem, and stating it as the drag is unchanged understates it: there is no place in the computation where the stagger could be entered.

Circulation and lift

Two wings and it does not matter where

Move one wing of a biplane a chord forward and the induced drag does not change. Not approximately, not to a good approximation — the calculation that gives the induced drag has nowhere to put the stagger, because everything projects onto the same cross-section of the wake.

Viscosity

The cheapest shape the walls allow

The parabola in a pipe is usually presented as what the equations give. It is better understood the other way round — of every profile that could carry that flow between those walls, it is the one that destroys the least energy, and the equations give it for that reason.

All themes