Is circulation real?

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

  1. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 371
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    I’m still obsessing about the marble rolling down an incline analogy. It’s gnarly! What if someone sneezed?o_O
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2022
  2. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    I don't understand why you require "AND when the number of these molecule is very low". I don't see any such requirement in the quoted reference.
    The interpretation of "number... very low" is entirely subjective in kinetic theory. How many is very low?

    You have nailed it with "when you look at phenomenon at molecular scale ... , then this non-slip (sic) condition do not apply." (I think you meant "no-slip", not non-slip).

    And that is exactly my point. When this core concept of theoretical aerodynamics is examined from from the perspective of Kinetic Theory, the no-slip boundary layer cannot exist.
     
  3. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    Convincing this forum that the no-slip boundary is a myth is more akin to the analogy of pushing a boulder up a slope than rolling marbles down an incline!
    I wonder how I'll get on busting the myth of the immortal starting vortex?
     
  4. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    I wonder if there is any point in pointing out that the axis of the vorticity, Γ, of Kelvin's Circulation Theory is perpendicular to the plane of the circulation which, on a wing would be in the direction of the span, not in the vertical direction of the Lift of aerodynamics.
     
  5. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 5,199
    Likes: 598, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    Γ is the circulation, not the vorticity, and is a scalar, not a vector. A scalar does not have a direction.
    There is no requirement that the closed curve used for the integral defining circulation be planar.
    Circulation (physics) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_(physics)
    Kelvin's circulation theorem - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%27s_circulation_theorem#Poincar%C3%A9%E2%80%93Bjerknes_circulation_theorem
    Stokes' theorem - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem
    Perhaps additional study is in order. Anyone wishing to get into the subtleties of potential flow aerodynamics should be familiar with vector calculus.
     
  6. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    OK, I used the wrong symbol. Γ is indeed the circulation, but vorticity is the curl of the flow velocity

    This is a vector not a scalar.
    Anderson :
    upload_2022-12-5_16-55-12.png
    Also I believe that the plane of the Circulation that is widely adopted in aerodynamic theory (and as described by Anderson) is indeed planar:
    upload_2022-12-5_16-45-51.png
     
  7. Stephen Ditmore
    Joined: Jun 2001
    Posts: 1,398
    Likes: 45, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 699
    Location: Smithtown, New York, USA

    Stephen Ditmore Senior Member

  8. Boat Design Net Moderator
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 551
    Likes: 139, Points: 43, Legacy Rep: 1004
    Location: www.boatdesign.net

    Boat Design Net Moderator Moderator

    Very sorry to hear this news. Tom was a wealth of information and so generous with his knowledge and time. He will be missed.
     
    Pablo Sopelana and Mikko Brummer like this.
  9. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 371
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    Alan Cattelliot likes this.
  10. tlouth7
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 266
    Likes: 97, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Cambridge, UK

    tlouth7 Senior Member

    I don't know when I was last moved by news of the death of someone who I only knew as a handle on a forum, but tspeer was that rarest of things: a true expert who was capable and willing to explain the intricacies of his field beautifully.
     
    Paul Scott and David Cooper like this.
  11. Paul Scott
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 371
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 84
    Location: San Juan Island, Washington

    Paul Scott Senior Member

    He also designed this bi directional ogival foil that I had Phil’s Foils shape. He thought it might need a trip on the low pressure side. It didn’t. Mk 3, IIRR. image.jpg image.jpg
     
  12. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    What I find fascinating is that so many folks, like many of the contributors to this forum, feel it is necessary to attempt their own interpretation of the published works.
    Everywhere I turn, people are falling over themselves to come up with their own interpretation, their own explanation, their own attempt to clarify the issue.
    There are scores, no hundreds of books on the subject.
    It may not be too much of an overstatement to point out that not since the Bible has so much effort gone into interpreting the words of a prophet!
    Surely, if the published stuff was any good, there would be no reason for so many to provide an interpretation.
    Does this mean the authors are poor writers? They can’t all be crap communicators. There must be at least one who can explain the stuff clearly.
    No, it means they are all fumbling with the same problem.
    They don’t know!
    The scientific American article nailed it: No one can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air.
    And nobody wants to shout “the emperor is naked!”
    At the moment, I am struggling to sell my version, primarily because my audience is convinced that the truth is already out there (even they themselves don’t quite get it).
    And because my version is not based on current theoretical aerodynamics, it has to be wrong.
    So my task at the moment is to demonstrate that the current version of theoretical aerodynamics (the truth) is based on about five palpable fallacies. Until I can make some progress, and not get stoned to death as a heretic, no-one will consider an alternative.
    One of these fallacies is this no-slip boundary.

    And that, I am discovering is a tough nut to crack. It is so deeply ingrained. Today I downloaded a physics textbook by a recent Nobel laureate, who, whilst, interestingly not explaining it, blithely babbles on about the no-slip boundary.

    At least, for now, the stones are only digital.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Alan Cattelliot
    Joined: Jul 2021
    Posts: 284
    Likes: 73, Points: 28
    Location: La Rochelle (Fr)

    Alan Cattelliot Senior Member

    Interpretations are maybe necessary because the acquisition of knowledge, or appropriation of a subject by any individuals, is made out of re-phrasing any proposition into one's understanding, with the use of his own words, based on his own experience. If propositions, theories, concepts are to stand some more general cultural evolution, it is also necessary to revise the lexical field in order to avoid contradictions.

    Still, the airplanes and the sailplanes are designed and flown. The last question about any subject is always either "we don't know", or "just because it is". Journalist and media, in general, are real hardcore users of these kind of questions. First, because you can make a buzz in the instant. Second, when you're lacking some inspirations, you can always put a coin in the machine and replay the song, another time.

    I don't know if that will help you, but here is some grist for you to grind in the attached link (perhaps). Happy new year to all.

    "Einstein assured him that he had not misunderstood the
    original question, and went on to elaborate that the only
    mechanism by which one could truly and deeply understand
    the fundamental meaning of a physical entity appearing in
    the guise of a mathematical symbol in a theoretical
    equation was by going through the mental exercise of
    systematically and methodically identifying the
    sequence of steps prerequisite to an unambiguous
    experimental determination of that entity.
    "
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Sailor Al
    Joined: Feb 2021
    Posts: 583
    Likes: 21, Points: 18
    Location: Sydney

    Sailor Al Senior Member

    @Alan Cattelliot Do you have any more info on the Brenner paper? Any paper that contains thoughts like this:
    "This experimental fact negates Euler's 250- year old generic, mass-based definition of the velocity field in fluid continua, undermining thereby the heretofore seemingly rational foundations of fluid mechanics and derivative subjects. This, in turn, requires a fundamental re- formulation of the basic equations of fluid mechanics as well as of molecular theories of transport processes in fluid continua." has certainly got my attention!
    It's going to take me a little while to digest the article.
    There's no publication date.
    Has it been peer reviewed, where?
    It's tantalising.
    [EDIT] Unfortunately Howard Brenner (16 March 1929 – 17 February 2014) is no longer with us. I wonder where this ideas went? [/EDIT]
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2023

  15. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 16,354
    Likes: 1,406, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    You need to provide evidence to back your claims. Up to now, you have only posted opinions and claims that you are being personally attacked for them. The boundary layer is a statistic artifact. That is what the theory states. It is one molecule thick. The air molecules bounce off the surface of a body. At one instant, they are immobile and attached to the surface until they change direction. Statistically, they form an attached layer. Using statics will not give you an answer, because it is a dynamic problem. Nobody called you a heretic, simply misguided and lacking in understanding of basic principles.
     
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.