Fluids mechanics is also gas mechanics?

In summary: This bothers me a bit:I addition, this quote is from wiki:Fluid mechanicsThe study of the physics of continuous materials which take the shape of their container.But gases don't just take the shape of their container...they move around BOUND by it, but don't "take the shape of it". I'd say it's a false defintion then.No, they do take the shape of it. Maybe you're confused because sometimes you see "heavy" gases that kinda stay at the bottom of a container, but that's simply because there's gravity pulling it down. In vacuum, they'd be taking the shape of the container.
  • #1
Femme_physics
Gold Member
2,550
1
"Fluids mechanics" is also gas mechanics?

This bothers me a bit:

Fluid mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fluid mechanics is the study of fluids and the forces on them. (Fluids include liquids, gases, and plasmas.)

Gases? You include in the chapter of "fluid mechanics" gases? These are two different states. Why not have a field called Gas mechanics? And if you want, call the entire field "Fluid-gas mechanics".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


By the definition of "fluid", gases are considered fluids. They are not separate states of matter; it's how they interact with the environment that's important.
 
  • #3


They are not separate states of matter

From chemistry I learned there are 3 states of matter: Solids, fluids and gases. If they're not separate states, then they shouldn't be given a separate state status!I addition, this quote is from wiki:

Fluid mechanics
The study of the physics of continuous materials which take the shape of their container.

But gases don't just take the shape of their container...they move around BOUND by it, but don't "take the shape of it". I'd say it's a false defintion then.
 
  • #4


If it will ease your tortured mind, there is a special branch of fluid mechanics call "gas dynamics".

Under certain circumstances, the equations governing the flow of gases are similar to those governing the flow of liquids. When these circumstances are not present, then the compressibility of gases (liquids are generally incompressible) requires modification to the equations of fluid flow.

BTW, in addition to the three phases of matter normally encountered on earth, gases which are ionized and at high temperature are called plasmas, and plasmas are considered a fourth phase of matter, because they behave unlike the other three.
 
  • #5


Femme_physics said:
From chemistry I learned there are 3 states of matter: Solids, fluids and gases. If they're not separate states, then they shouldn't be given a separate state status!

Sorry, I mean fluids are not meant to be part of the gas/liquid/solid/plasma classification.

But gases don't just take the shape of their container...they move around BOUND by it, but don't "take the shape of it". I'd say it's a false defintion then.

No, they do take the shape of it. Maybe you're confused because sometimes you see "heavy" gases that kinda stay at the bottom of a container, but that's simply because there's gravity pulling it down. In vacuum, they'd be taking the shape of the container.
 
  • #6


If it will ease your tortured mind, there is a special branch of fluid mechanics call "gas dynamics".

AHA! So, in fact, the statement that "Fluids include liquids, gases, and plasmas" is false, whereas it should says "fluid MECHANICS include liquids, gases, and plasmas".

And I rather resent you opening with "if it will ease your tortured mind", as though it's a silly issue to raise. Why I hold accuracy to be an important virtue.

Fluids include liquids, gases, and plasmas
Interesting.. I'll read on that!

But another thing on wiki I wonder about

Similarly, it can sometimes be assumed that the viscosity of the fluid is zero (the fluid is inviscid). Gases can often be assumed to be inviscid. If a fluid is viscous, and its flow contained in some way (e.g. in a pipe), then the flow at the boundary must have zero velocity

This is because the fluid sticks to the walls, right?
 
  • #7


Sorry, I mean fluids are not meant to be part of the gas/liquid/solid/plasma classification.
I never heard that. Gosh, chemistry and physics are further apart than I thought!

No, they do take the shape of it. Maybe you're confused because sometimes you see "heavy" gases that kinda stay at the bottom of a container, but that's simply because there's gravity pulling it down. In vacuum, they'd be taking the shape of the container.

No, rather, this is what I imagine (the blue inside the container being the gas)

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2663/container11.jpg [Broken]
Kinda like smoke in a container
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8


You'll typically see shapes likes this when you mix 2 gases, in this case a blue gas with air (which is transparent of course).

The air fills the entire container and in time the blue gas will mix more thoroughly with the air, filling the container completely as well.
 
  • #9


Elementary classifications are just that. Elementary classifications.

When you go into most subjects more deeply they become complicated, the boundaries between classifications blur and new classification categories become necessary.

The solid / liquid / gas classification is both ancient and elementary.
It has been found wholely inadequate by modern science and technology.

Initially fluids (= that which flows) included liquids and gasses, although several famous textbooks have and continue to be published under the title 'hydrodynamics' or even 'Hydraulics'.
In the latter half of the twentieth century this category also softened as it was realized that the same mechanics applies also to powders, sand, bulk grain and other granular material, mixed state materials such as freshly mixed concrete before it sets. The list is constantly being extended and time is now a factor for instance geologists may regard ice as a fluid.

Physicists now like to regard plasmas as a separate state from gasses, rather than just gasses made up of charged particles. The mechanics of plasmas is often called magnetohydrodynamics, although water is not involved!

Equally chemists started distinguishing many states - the dissolved state, the adsorbed state, the disperse state (eg the smoke in your picture) and so on.

I expect, if you think back, you will notice that the examples for solid/liquid/gas were given of pure substances. These days we tend to reserve that classification for pure substances that obey the 'phase rule' in chemical thermodynamics.

go well
 
  • #10


Yes you are right Femme ,Fluids mechanics" is also gas mechanics.
Fluid mechanics, especially fluid dynamics, is an active field of research with many unsolved or partly solved problems. Fluid mechanics can be mathematically complex.
by Electrician[/PLAIN] [Broken] Leeds
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


Femme_physics said:
From chemistry I learned there are 3 states of matter: Solids, fluids and gases. If they're not separate states, then they shouldn't be given a separate state status!
[..].

Probably this is just about words and definitions. :tongue2:

In physics we say that there are 3 (4) states of matter: solid, liquid and gas (and plasma).

Compare http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluid :

1. a substance, as a liquid or gas, that is capable of flowing and that changes its shape at a steady rate when acted upon by a force tending to change its shape.

Cheers,
Harald
 
  • #12


Femme_physics said:
From chemistry I learned there are 3 states of matter: Solids, fluids and gases.
You are confusing "fluid" and "liquid". The 3 states of matter are solids, liquids, and gasses. Both liquids and gasses are fluids.

Fluid means that the material continually deforms under shear stress. I.e. the shear rate is proportional to the shear stress. This definition covers both liquids and gasses.

A liquid is a fluid which is incompressible, and a gas is a fluid which is compressible. But they are both fluids.
 
  • #13


You'll typically see shapes likes this when you mix 2 gases, in this case a blue gas with air (which is transparent of course).

Ah, I see!

The air fills the entire container and in time the blue gas will mix more thoroughly with the air, filling the container completely as well.

I fully accept your explanation :approve:

You are confusing "fluid" and "liquid". The 3 states of matter are solids, liquids, and gasses. Both liquids and gasses are fluids.

Fluid means that the material continually deforms under shear stress. I.e. the shear rate is proportional to the shear stress. This definition covers both liquids and gasses.

A liquid is a fluid which is incompressible, and a gas is a fluid which is compressible. But they are both fluids.

I fully accept this explanation as well :approve;Thanks to the others for their replies. I got nothing else to say other than I accept your explanation :smile:Can anyone though answer me for what I asked before
Similarly, it can sometimes be assumed that the viscosity of the fluid is zero (the fluid is inviscid). Gases can often be assumed to be inviscid. If a fluid is viscous, and its flow contained in some way (e.g. in a pipe), then the flow at the boundary must have zero velocity
This is because the fluid sticks to the walls, right?
 
  • #14


Femme_physics said:
Gases? You include in the chapter of "fluid mechanics" gases? These are two different states. Why not have a field called Gas mechanics? And if you want, call the entire field "Fluid-gas mechanics".

Femme_physics said:
From chemistry I learned there are 3 states of matter: Solids, fluids and gases. If they're not separate states, then they shouldn't be given a separate state status!
.

Liquids and gases are both considered "fluids", as has been pointed out. The relevant parameter in your question is the Knudsen number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knudsen_number

For Kn >>1, the continuum approximation breaks down and we instead model the fluid as a dilute gas using statistical methods.

Femme_physics said:
Can anyone though answer me for what I asked before

This is because the fluid sticks to the walls, right?

Gases are not inviscid! In fact, accounting for the difference in density (the kinematic viscosity, measured in Stokes ), air is as viscous as water. Fluids don't "stick" to walls (exempting adhesion/bonding/chemical interactions)- the no-slip condition arises simply by demanding the stress tensor be finite.
 
Last edited:
  • #15


Gases are not inviscid!

The quote said "fluid" which can also mean liquid! As you probably already know.
 
  • #16


FP,
How about moving on from the argument and telling us what aspects of fluid mechanics you are studying?
 
  • #17


Fluids aren't really inviscid. I guess you can think of it as "sticking" to the wall if it helps you, but I think Resnick answered the question very succinctly. We assume inviscid flow a lot of times to simplify the equation when we know (or think) that viscosity doesn't play a large part in the problem we're trying to solve. However, when dealing with certain types of problems (like in aerodynamics), you can't assume inviscid flow.

Hope that helps.
 
  • #18


Studiot said:
FP,
How about moving on from the argument and telling us what aspects of fluid mechanics you are studying?


Oh I'm just trying to enrich myself before the semester starts :smile:
 
  • #19


Andy Resnick said:
Liquids and gases are both considered "fluids", as has been pointed out. The relevant parameter in your question is the Knudsen number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knudsen_number

For Kn >>1, the continuum approximation breaks down and we instead model the fluid as a dilute gas using statistical methods.
Oh dear.

The Knudsen number has absolutely nothing to do with any of the concepts discussed in this thread. The Knudsen number describes whether a gas is sufficiently rarefied such that individual molecular effects must be taken into consideration when modeling the flow. It comes into play when modeling either very low density flows (such as satellite drag or reentry) or very small scale flows (such as the flow around a hard disk drive's head, or flows around some MEMS and NEMS devices). While the Knudsen number is tremendously useful in some cases, it's completely irrelevant for this discussion.


Andy Resnick said:
Gases are not inviscid! In fact, accounting for the difference in density (the kinematic viscosity, measured in Stokes ), air is as viscous as water. Fluids don't "stick" to walls (exempting adhesion/bonding/chemical interactions)- the no-slip condition arises simply by demanding the divergence of the stress tensor be finite.

True, gases are not inviscid. However, their viscosity is small enough that in some cases, the viscosity can be ignored and useful solutions still arise (which is actually true for some liquids as well). As for air vs water viscosity? Kinematic viscosity isn't really the relevant parameter - dynamic viscosity is the much more common parameter, and using that measurement, air is far less viscous than water (as would be expected).

As for the no-slip condition? No, it does not arise from the need for the divergence of the stress tensor to be finite. It arises from the tendency of the flow to stick to the surface. At a molecular level, individual surface reflections tend to be diffuse, which means that the outgoing angle of an individual molecule after impacting the surface tends to be independent of the incoming angle, and statistically distributed. When averaged over large numbers of molecules, this means that the reflected fluid is stationary with respect to the surface, aside from the velocity away from the surface (that comes from the fact that we are only considering reflected molecules). These reflected molecules then interact with incoming molecules, and the net result is that the fluid adjacent to the surface is stationary for any flow in which the molecular interaction length scale is substantially smaller than the object's length scale (such that the reflected molecules can interact with and slow down the incoming molecules).
 
  • #20


timthereaper said:
Fluids aren't really inviscid. I guess you can think of it as "sticking" to the wall if it helps you, but I think Resnick answered the question very succinctly. We assume inviscid flow a lot of times to simplify the equation when we know (or think) that viscosity doesn't play a large part in the problem we're trying to solve. However, when dealing with certain types of problems (like in aerodynamics), you can't assume inviscid flow.

Hope that helps.

Actually, in aerodynamics, inviscid flow is frequently assumed, as inviscid flow plus a couple of small corrections (the biggest one for aerodynamics is the Kutta condition) can give surprisingly accurate results for high Reynolds number flow. You do need viscosity to correctly model the skin friction drag and boundary layer behavior, but induced drag and lift don't really need viscosity to determine an accurate solution.
 
  • #21


The point I was making was more about the ability/inability to assume inviscid flow. I knew that there were certain problems in aerodynamics that you could assume inviscid flow, but I know there are certain ones you can't. I couldn't come up with another case in other areas of fluids where you could assume inviscid flow off the top of my head.
 
  • #22


Femme_physics said:
The quote said "fluid" which can also mean liquid! As you probably already know.

Eh? The quote within your quote mentioned 'gases":

Femme_physics said:
<snip>

Can anyone though answer me for what I asked before

[Similarly, it can sometimes be assumed that the viscosity of the fluid is zero (the fluid is inviscid). Gases can often be assumed to be inviscid. If a fluid is viscous, and its flow contained in some way (e.g. in a pipe), then the flow at the boundary must have zero velocity]

This is because the fluid sticks to the walls, right?
 
  • #23


I like Serena said:
The air fills the entire container and in time the blue gas will mix more thoroughly with the air, filling the container completely as well.

You may see this as a quibble, but I should like to take issue with this statement. In kinetic gas theory and statistical mechanics it is considered a matter of some importance that most gases do NOT completely fill their container.

For instance, a container of air at NTP is 99.9% nothingness and only 0.1% gas molecules. The air is a long, long way from "filling" the container. I prefer to say that the probability of a gas molecule being in any volume of that container is the same for any similarly-sized volume. The actual number of molecules in any given volume will vary considerably from volume to volume an any given instant; and will vary from instant to instant for any given volume. It's all a matter of probability.

I believe the "filling" language is a holdover from the days when gas molecules were believed to be able to expand indefinitely in size so as to "fill" a container.
 
  • #24


You may see this as a quibble, but I should like to take issue with this statement. In kinetic gas theory and statistical mechanics it is considered a matter of some importance that most gases do NOT completely fill their container.

I don't think that is quite what is meant by filling the container or taking on the shape as mentioned earlier.

Take a container.

The difference in behaviour as regards 'filling' between a gas and a liquid is simple here.

For a gas there is no part of the volume that is not available to the gas molecules to occupy.
Yes there is only a finite probability of finding a gas molecule in any given region at any given time, and yes the distribution will be uneven and vary with time, but unlike a liquid, there is no boundary or surface.

A liquid on the other hand has a surface. All the liquid molecules occupy space on one side of the surface only.
Yes there may be vapour molecules escaped from the surface in the rest of the container, but these are no longer liquid.

go well
 
  • #25


Andy Resnick said:
Eh? The quote within your quote mentioned 'gases":

Then in that case you have an argument to pick against wiki, not me!
 
  • #26


I'm trying to understand this lever principle of fluid based on this:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2637/levery.jpg [Broken]


Does that mean that I can apply a really small force on the right side and lifts a huge heavy car with it?


If so, it's incredible, and reminds me of the pulley lever!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27


That diagram and others like it are a tad misleading.

Your force formulae are correct but the diagram suggest the piston moves the same distance as the plate under the car.

Of course the volume change is the same on both sides so

ALdL = ARdR

where d is the distance moved

So if the area of the plate under the car is 10 times the area of the piston the piston moves 10 times as far!

go well
 
  • #28


Cool huh! :cool:

Although if you put a small pressure on the right side, it will become even harder to lift the heavy car! :smile:
 
  • #29


Studiot said:
That diagram and others like it are a tad misleading.

Your force formulae are correct but the diagram suggest the piston moves the same distance as the plate under the car.

Of course the volume change is the same on both sides so

ALdL = ARdR

where d is the distance moved

So if the area of the plate under the car is 10 times the area of the piston the piston moves 10 times as far!

go well

I see. So not as useful as I thought, but still pretty useful! :smile:
I like Serena said:
Cool huh! :cool:

Although if you put a small pressure on the right side, it will become even harder to lift the heavy car! :smile:
Noted!
 
  • #30


Femme_physics said:
I'm trying to understand this lever principle of fluid based on this:

Does that mean that I can apply a really small force on the right side and lifts a huge heavy car with it?

That's how hydraulic jacks work, so yes.
It's also how brakes work.
 
Last edited:
  • #31


It is not fashionable to teach basic mechanics quantities these days but here are some that are applicable to this hydraulic lift and other purely mechanical things like levers and pulleys.

[tex]{\rm{VelocityRatio = VR = }}\frac{{{\rm{distance}}\,{\rm{moved}}\,{\rm{byload}}}}{{{\rm{distance}}\,{\rm{moved}}\,{\rm{byeffort}}}}[/tex]

[tex]{\rm{MechanicalAdvantge = MA = }}\frac{{{\rm{load}}}}{{\,{\rm{effort}}}}[/tex]

[tex]{\rm{Efficiency = }}\frac{{{\rm{MA}}}}{{{\rm{VR}}}}[/tex]

and finally what is really the law of conservation of energy

[tex]{\rm{load*distance}}\,{\rm{moved}}\,{\rm{by load = effort*distance}}\,{\rm{moved}}\,{\rm{by}}\,{\rm{effort}}[/tex]

Which you can see equals MA * VR
 
  • #32


Similarly, it can sometimes be assumed that the viscosity of the fluid is zero (the fluid is inviscid). Gases can often be assumed to be inviscid. If a fluid is viscous, and its flow contained in some way (e.g. in a pipe), then the flow at the boundary must have zero velocity

This is because the fluid sticks to the walls, right?

Perhaps a bit late, but I'd like to answer this question anyway.

I'll stick my neck out and say: yes, it is because the fluid sticks to the walls.
Or rather, the friction between the fluid and the wall makes it stand still where it makes contact with the wall (in modelling).
 

1. What is the difference between fluids mechanics and gas mechanics?

Fluid mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with the study of fluids, including liquids and gases, and their behavior under different conditions. Gas mechanics, on the other hand, specifically focuses on the study of gases and their properties. Both fields share many similarities in terms of principles and equations, but they differ in the properties and behavior of the substances being studied.

2. What are some real-life applications of fluid and gas mechanics?

Fluid and gas mechanics have numerous applications in our daily lives, such as in the design of airplanes, cars, and ships, as well as in the development of pumps, turbines, and other machinery. They are also essential in understanding weather patterns, ocean currents, and the behavior of gases in the atmosphere.

3. How does the study of fluid and gas mechanics contribute to our understanding of the natural world?

The study of fluid and gas mechanics helps us understand the behavior of fluids and gases in natural phenomena, such as the flow of water in rivers, the movement of air in weather systems, and the behavior of gases in volcanic eruptions. This knowledge is crucial in predicting and mitigating natural disasters and in developing technologies to harness these forces for our benefit.

4. Can fluid and gas mechanics be applied to other fields of science?

Yes, the principles and equations of fluid and gas mechanics can be applied to other fields of science, such as biology, chemistry, and geology. For example, understanding the flow of blood in the human body requires knowledge of fluid mechanics, and the study of atmospheric gases involves the principles of gas mechanics.

5. What are some current research topics in fluid and gas mechanics?

Some current research topics in fluid and gas mechanics include the study of turbulence and its effects on fluid flow, the development of new materials for better aerodynamics, and the use of computational fluid dynamics to model complex systems. Researchers are also exploring the behavior of fluids and gases at extreme conditions, such as in space or in extreme temperatures, to better understand their properties and potential applications.

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
938
Replies
17
Views
669
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Mechanics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
19
Views
3K
Back
Top