I Bernoulli and Momentum Disconnect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the application of Bernoulli's equation and the Momentum Equation to analyze a simple fluid jet, revealing discrepancies in pressure calculations. It highlights that Bernoulli's equation, which represents conservation of energy, yields a different pressure result than the momentum analysis due to an unaccounted force acting on the nozzle. The need for a force of restraint to prevent acceleration in the control volume is emphasized, suggesting that this force influences the momentum pressure calculation. The conversation concludes that Bernoulli's equation can be derived from the Euler equation, indicating its dual role in representing both momentum and energy conservation. Ultimately, the added force from the nozzle wall is crucial for accurate momentum analysis.
erobz
Gold Member
Messages
4,442
Reaction score
1,839
I was playing around, and I found something unexpected. If we are analyzing a simple fluid jet:

1676303588122.png


We can apply Bernoulli's (which is Conservation of Energy) and arrive at:

$$ P_{1_{B}} = \frac{1}{2} \rho \left( v_2^2 - v_1^2 \right) = \frac{1}{2} \rho ( v_2 - v_1 ) ( v_2+ v_1) $$

It would seem you could also use the Momentum Equation:

$$ \sum \boldsymbol F = \frac{d}{dt} \int_{cv} \boldsymbol v \rho~dV\llap{-}+ \int_{cs} \boldsymbol v \rho \boldsymbol V \cdot d\boldsymbol A $$

Which says in words:

$$ \left[ \begin{array} ~sum~ of~ forces \\ ~acting ~on ~matter \\ ~in~ control ~volume \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}~time ~rate~ of \\ ~change ~of~ momentum \\ ~in ~control ~volume \end{array} \right] + \left[ \begin{array} ~ net ~outflow~ rate \\ ~of ~momentum \\ ~through~ control ~surface \end{array} \right]$$

Assuming constant properties across the control surface and steady flow (changing only in position, not time) for that nozzle its reduced to:

$$ P_{1_{M}} = \rho v_1 ( v_2 - v_1) $$

Comparing the two taken independently you get differing results for ##P_1##

$$ \frac{P_{1_{M}} }{P_{1_{B}}} = \frac{\rho v_1 ( v_2 - v_1)}{\frac{1}{2} \rho ( v_2 - v_1 ) ( v_2+ v_1)} = \frac{v_1}{\frac{1}{2} ( v_2 + v_1 )}$$

This implies that:

$$ P_{1_{M}} < P_{1_{B}}$$

I guess the difference comes from the fact that I've subtlety left out something in the momentum analysis. In order for the control volume to not be accelerating there must be a force acting on the nozzle in the momentum analysis that was not taken into account, perhaps this is where the discrepancy lies? I notice that in my fluids text they use momentum to solve for the force acting on the nozzle to keep it in place, by first invoking Bernoulli's to solve for the velocities ##v_1,v_2## given pressure ##P_1##.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, I think I solved my own problem by trying to explain it. The momentum equation is actually given by:

$$P_{1_{M}} A_1 - F_{restraint} = \rho A_1 v_1 ( v_2-v_1)$$

That added force of restraint would be necessary to keep the cv from accelerating and would act to increase the value of ##P_{1_{M}}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller and Lnewqban
Consider that the Bernoulli equation is simultaneously a conservation of momentum and energy equation. It can be derived directly from the more general versions of each.

For example, if you start with the 1-D, incompressible Euler equation (e.g. taken along a streamline)
\rho u\;du = -dp
you can pretty straightforwardly integrate both sides between two stations 1 and 2
\rho\int_1^2 u\;du = -\int_1^2 dp
\left.\dfrac{\rho u^2}{2}\right|^2_1 = -p|^2_1
\dfrac{\rho u_2^2}{2} + p_2 = \dfrac{\rho u_1^2}{2} + p_1
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and erobz
boneh3ad said:
Consider that the Bernoulli equation is simultaneously a conservation of momentum and energy equation. It can be derived directly from the more general versions of each.

For example, if you start with the 1-D, incompressible Euler equation (e.g. taken along a streamline)
\rho u\;du = -dp
you can pretty straightforwardly integrate both sides between two stations 1 and 2
\rho\int_1^2 u\;du = -\int_1^2 dp
\left.\dfrac{\rho u^2}{2}\right|^2_1 = -p|^2_1
\dfrac{\rho u_2^2}{2} + p_2 = \dfrac{\rho u_1^2}{2} + p_1
Ok, so "The Momentum Equation" is apparently not both momentum and energy arguments simultaneously, and that must then have something to do with the treatment of a control volume as opposed to the treatment of streamline, because in the beginning both the Euler and "The Momentum Equation" are variations of Newtons Second Law?
 
erobz said:
Yeah, I think I solved my own problem by trying to explain it. The momentum equation is actually given by:

$$P_{1_{M}} A_1 - F_{restraint} = \rho A_1 v_1 ( v_2-v_1)$$

That added force of restraint would be necessary to keep the cv from accelerating and would act to increase the value of ##P_{1_{M}}##.
That added force is the axial component of the force exerted by the wall of the converging nozzle on the flowing fluid.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top