Is circulation real?

Discussion in 'Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics' started by Mikko Brummer, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 5,229
    Likes: 634, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    The thickness of the portion of the boundary layer with zero speed relative is smaller than can be resolved using the scales of fluid mechanics. Velocity and speed in fluid mechanics only have meaning at resolutions significantly larger than the mean free path of individual molecules of the fluid.

     
  2. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 584
    Likes: 106, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    Sailor Al likes this.
  3. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Nothing heard.
     
  4. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Yes, I agree. The mean free path of Nitrogen at STP is (according to Mean Free Path Calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/mean-free-path) 0.000006319 centimetres.
    That's 6 x 10^-6 centimetres.
    I would suggest velocity and speed in fluid mechanics only have meaning at least the scale of centimetres. That's a million times larger!

    For theoretical aerodynamics to work, there has to be a no-slip boundary, but for Kinetic Theory to work, that boundary has to be measurably thick (in centimetres).
    But you are saying that it "is smaller than can be resolved using the scales of fluid mechanics".
    And that's just the zero-velocity part of the overall boundary layer.

    In which case, isn't there a paradox with Prandtl's no-slip boundary?
     
  5. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Not at all. It is basic Calculus: a function with an asymptote at zero.
     
  6. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,790
    Likes: 1,714, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    You are still not understanding that the theory is not referring to any one particular molecule. It is based on Calculus where a value can approach a limit (asymptote). The interface between the solid surface and the air is where the limit (asymptote) is.
     
  7. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    If your theory requires an impossible physical condition (a single layer of stationary air molecules) then the theory must be wrong!
     
  8. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 584
    Likes: 106, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    There was an America’s cup boat that iirr attached its stern or bustle or something (?) to the rest of the hull with a gap in between. There was conjecture that this was to cheat the rule using the boundary layer, the notion being that the boundary layer thickened towards the stern. It was I think called the magic hula or something. It did not work.

    Comment?
     
  9. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Which "rule using the boundary layer" ?
    More information, please.
     
  10. Barry
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 1,851
    Likes: 505, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 158

    Barry Senior Member

    Splitting hairs here but your are incorrect in suggesting that there are air molecules. Air is a mixture of elements and compounds. Nitrogen, Oxygen, elements, water vapor-compounds
    And whatever else is floating around with it

    Another aspect regarding boundary layers. Fluids seem to be the dominant words that Prandtl etc use. Gasses and liquids. The current argument is that SA says that the velocity even infinitely close to the
    interface cannot be zero. Certainly the smoke pulses in air show that the velocity approaches zero
    But with liquids perhaps the first molecular layer in contact with the interface will not move.
    If the first layer of molecules contact the interface and wet the surface, in order for the layer to move, it would require the liquid at the interface to evaporate to permit the next adjacent layer to wet the surface.
    I would not think that this is possible as it would not anywhere to evaporate to
     
  11. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    I wondered how long it would take for that. Yes, you're right, but the accent is not on "air" but "molecules".
    It has been a very long thread and you can be forgiven for not following the whole argument, but many pages ago I made the point that the difference between "none" and "a little" is not a matter of degree. Prandtl and his followers insist that it has to be zero. Any chink in that assertion opens the floodgates of how little. I can accept that the air may slow down towards a surface. We are all aware of wind shear between the top of the mast and the water, but I am adamant that it cannot be brought to zero.

    It was Prandtl's pottering with the potable that pitched us into this pickle in the first place!
    Let's stay focused on air. The paradox exists for liquids as well but it's much more apparent when applied to gases. And it's aerodynamic theory that is being discussed with Circulation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2022
  12. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 584
    Likes: 106, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    All I’ve got, and impossible to find on the web, going by memory, but at the time the boundary layer getting thicker aft was received knowledge, or at least in sailing magazines etc.

    I’ll keep looking- I think there’s a shot of it on SA somewhere…
     
  13. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 584
    Likes: 106, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

  14. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 650
    Likes: 27, Points: 28
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member


  15. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 584
    Likes: 106, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.