Theme

The thread: A smooth picture proves nothing — page 4

Page 4 of 20, continuing through the 172 essays this motif runs through.

172 essays carry this thread — page 4 of 20.

Grid points against Reynolds number, and where a wing sits. The number of grid points needed to resolve every scale of a turbulent flow, which is Re^(9/4) — the cube of the ratio between the largest scale and the Kolmogorov scale. The line is the arithmetic and the marks are flows a reader can picture. An airliner's wing needs about 10¹⁷ points, and the largest calculations ever run are around 10¹².

The grid nobody can build

Resolving every scale of a turbulent flow needs Re to the nine-quarters grid points and Re cubed point-updates. An airliner's wing comes to 2·10¹⁷ points against the 10¹² of the largest calculation ever run, and no amount of patience closes a gap of five orders of magnitude.

Everything a normal shock does, against the Mach number in front of it. Four quantities across a normal shock, each scaled to fit one axis. Pressure and density rise without limit and without bound as the Mach number grows; the Mach number behind falls towards a floor it never passes; and the total pressure — the flow's ability to be turned back into speed — collapses. That last curve is why a supersonic intake is designed around avoiding a single strong shock.

Compressible flow

What a shock costs

All the heat survives a shock and none of it is lost. What is lost is the ability to turn that heat back into speed — 27.9 per cent of it at Mach 2 and 93.8 per cent at Mach 5 — and every supersonic intake ever built is a scheme for paying less.

The same patch, 6 periods later, in two flows. A round patch of 848 marked particles, advanced 6 periods by the blinking flow and by a steady flow of the same strength. The steady flow has drawn the patch into a smooth ribbon along a streamline and every particle in it is still on the streamline it started on; the blinking flow has folded the patch through itself repeatedly and its particles are spread across the whole region. Neither flow has any diffusion in it and neither has lost a particle. The difference between them is that one depends on time.

Flows and fields

No randomness, and it mixes anyway

A steady two-dimensional flow cannot mix, however fast it is stirred, because its trajectories are its streamlines. Switch two vortices on and off alternately and the same fluid, obeying an exact map with nothing random in it, folds a patch of dye through itself until neighbouring particles separate by a factor of a thousand in six periods.

The Ohnesorge diagram, with the boundaries where they belong. The classical map of jet break-up: the Ohnesorge number against the jet Reynolds number, with the five nozzles placed on it. The three sloping lines are Reitz's transitions in the gas Weber number, and their geometry is computed rather than sketched — a fixed We_g means Oh·Re is fixed, which is a straight line of slope exactly −1 in these coordinates, and the assertion checks that a decade in Reynolds number moves each line by exactly one decade. Where they sit is borrowed; that they are straight and parallel is not. A nozzle below and to the right of the last line atomises.

Regimes and numbers

Where a jet stops being a jet

A tap makes drops a few centimetres down, a garden hose makes a stream that carries, a sprayer makes a mist and a diesel injector makes fog. Same liquid, same mechanism, four regimes — and the number that separates them is not the jet's inertia but the surrounding air's.

There is a constriction, and it is a consequence rather than a cause. A cambered section at 5 degrees, with one streamtube traced above it and one below. The tube above narrows by 16 per cent at mid-chord and the tube below by -112 per cent, so the venturi story's premise is true: the flow over the top really is squeezed more than the flow underneath. The difficulty is that the tube's upper boundary is a streamline, not a wall. Nothing put it there but the solution of the whole flow — the same solution that already contains the lift — so the narrowing is a way of describing the answer rather than a reason for it.

What is taught wrongly

Not half a venturi

The air above a wing really is squeezed into a narrower channel, it really does speed up, and the pressure really does fall. Every step of the story is true and the whole is still not an explanation, because the channel's upper wall is a streamline — and where a streamline went is part of the answer, not part of the question.

Two centres, two saddles, and a sum of nothing. A separation pattern: a uniform stream with two counter-rotating cored vortices in it, which reproduces the arrangement of critical points behind a body at a Reynolds number of a few tens. There are exactly four — a saddle where the flow divides, a centre in each recirculating cell, and a saddle where it closes — and their indices sum to 0. The winding number of a loop enclosing all of them is 0, which is what a uniform stream far away requires. A bubble costs nothing in this bookkeeping, which is why one is free to appear.

Flows and fields

The count a pattern cannot break

A picture of a flow has stagnation points in it, and they are not free to be arranged as anybody likes. Their kinds and their number obey an integer constraint that has nothing to do with the equations of motion — and an incompressible flow in a plane is allowed only two kinds of them in the first place.

Three equations, and the set they never leave. The Lorenz trajectory at r = 28, projected on x and z, after the transient has been discarded. It never repeats, never leaves, and never crosses itself in three dimensions. The Lyapunov exponent printed beside it is measured on this system by separating a nearby pair, so the claim of sensitive dependence is a computation.

Transition and turbulence

Three numbers left of a fluid

Saltzman truncated convection to three Fourier modes and Lorenz studied what was left. The result changed science, and it stopped being a description of a fluid at about a fifth of the way to the parameter everybody quotes it at.

Past 23.0° at Mach 2.00 there is no attached shock. The same wedge at two half-angles. On the left the θ–β–M relation has a root and the shock sits on the nose. On the right it has none, and the solver throws rather than returning the nearest thing — which matters, because a solver that quietly clamped to the maximum would draw a neat attached shock on a body that cannot carry one. The bow shock on the right is indicative: its shape is not solved here.

Compressible flow

When the wedge is too blunt

Every curve of shock angle against deflection has a maximum. Past it there is no attached shock at any angle — the solver has no root to return and must say so, rather than quietly handing back the nearest thing and drawing a picture that cannot exist.

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.

Transition and turbulence

A millionth is enough

Two trajectories a millionth apart separate by a factor of e every three-quarters of a second, so a millionfold improvement in the measurement buys about ten seconds of extra prediction. That exchange rate, and not the size of the error, is what limits forecasting.

All themes