Boundary conditions errantly applied to pressure across flui

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential error in a paper regarding pressure calculations across the interface of two compressible fluids with different densities. It highlights the necessity of a pressure gradient for equilibrium, suggesting that pressure should be treated as discontinuous at the boundary. However, participants argue that pressure should remain constant across the interface, especially if density is constant on both sides. The confusion arises from the paper's treatment of pressure as a single value rather than distinguishing between pressures on either side of the boundary. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the importance of clarifying assumptions about pressure continuity in fluid dynamics.
TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
I am trying to decipher if an error occurred in a calculation given in this paper.

It is understandable that if two compressible fluids of different uniform densities have a common interface (e.g. Figure 1), then to be in equilibrium and supported against gravity, there must be a pressure gradient across the boundary of the two fluids. Thus on either side of the boundary is a different pressure (i.e. pressure discontinuity). Based on reading the authors' assumptions, each fluid has a constant density and pressure (and thus sound speed) at equilibrium, but these values differ between the two fluids. Using simply (16) from the paper, I have calculated that the pressure difference across the boundary in equilibrium is given by: ##p_2 - p_1 = \frac {c^2}{4}(\rho_{01} - \rho_{02}) > 0## (where ##g## is a constant acceleration given by a static field) and thus non-zero.

In the paper, the authors solve the problem and essentially derive equations (21) and (25) which are evaluated on either side of the boundary. When plugging (21) into (25), what I fail to understand is why the pressure can be taken outside of the summation/difference across the boundary as indicated in (26)? They now treat the pressure, ##p##, as a given value yet it only has meaning on either side of the boundary as ##p_1## or ##p_2## to my knowledge. Thus is there an error in the paper? What is the definition of this ##p##? In the ensuing equations, the authors distinguish between the densities on either side of the boundary (i.e. ##\rho_{01}## and ##\rho_{02}##), but make no such distinctions about the pressure, which is now simply ##p## instead of ##p_1## and/or ##p_2## and I am failing to recognize the obvious reason(s) why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Who says that the pressure has to be discontinuous at the interface? Where did you get this idea? Only if the boundary is curved (so that surface tension comes into play) or when viscous stresses are significant can the pressure be discontinuous at the interface.
 
Chestermiller said:
Who says that the pressure has to be discontinuous at the interface? Where did you get this idea? Only if the boundary is curved (so that surface tension comes into play) or when viscous stresses are significant can the pressure be discontinuous at the interface.

I agree, the pressure should be constant on the interface and thus continuous. My only reason to question this was based on the paper stating the speed of sound is constant on either side of the interface. But if density is constant on either side of the interface, this would imply pressure is similarly constant on either side, although a pressure gradient is needed for force balance. Hence why the assumption of discontinuous pressure along the boundary which was alarming and suggesting a possible error. I suspect that the authors were not exactly suggesting the speed of sound is uniform throughout either fluid and this may have simply resulted in my misinterpretation of their wording. In the correct case, believe this would indicate a non-uniform temperature and thus a non-uniform pressure in either fluid to support this constant density in either fluid, where the density (and thus temperature) would be discontinuous along the interface, but not pressure.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top