I Can Air Resist a Piston? A Serious Discussion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dynamics of a piston moving through a long, open-ended tube and whether the force required to maintain its speed varies with time. Participants argue that as the piston moves, it must accelerate the air in front of it, leading to an increasing force requirement even at constant velocity. The concept of a steady state is debated, with some asserting that it cannot be achieved due to the continuous accumulation of air that needs to be moved. The implications of pressure waves and their effects on air movement are also explored, suggesting that the air cannot remain stationary while the piston moves. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of fluid dynamics in this scenario and the need for further mathematical analysis.
  • #51
Sailor Al said:
Explaining why the pressures are different is the subject of my paper "[Link to unpublished paper redacted by the Mentors]" . It really quite simple and nothing to do with Bernoulli, Newton, streamlines, flow fields and PDEs.
From your paper: "..., no attempt has been made to ascribe values to the size of the pressure variations....."

While your simple idea is not completely wrong, it's not the full picture, and doesn't by itself provide the correct quantitative results in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes boneh3ad
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
snorkack said:
Consider the case of an infinite (and non-expandible) tube in which the gas travels at a steady velocity, with negligible head loss. And the velocity of the gas is small relative to speed of sound.
Now suddenly put the piston in the way of the tube by way of closing a valve.
The air right upwind of the piston is instantly stopped.
The air hammer will travel upwind along the tube from the piston at the speed of sound - but since the initial velocity of the airflow was small, the pressure jump at air hammer will also be small. It will travel upwind at speed of sound, not faster - and it will not be a true shockwave. At the air hammer front, the kinetic energy of air moving at a slow speed is converted to potential energy of the stationary compressed air. But the force from the air hammer will be steady.
Since the piston/valve is in the middle of the tube, a second air hammer will travel downwind with equal speed and exert equal force, just in suction.

Now what happens if you start with stationary air in a long tube and set the piston in motion?
Same. Air hammers will propagate upwind and downwind with the same speed and force as if the air had been moving and piston stationary. The forces on piston will only change if and when either of the air hammers will have reflected from somewhere and travelled back to the piston.
What you've described is the inverse of the piston problem I described and only varies from it by a change of reference frame. The "air hammer" you describe is still a shock and is still supersonic, per the equations I derived.

On the other side, an expansion wave is generated, lowering pressure. That one does travel sonically.

Also, there's no such thing as a suction force. All pressure forces act toward a surface.
 
  • #53
Sailor Al said:
My point is that Anderson makes no attempt to explain why the pressure, that in all his figures is represented as arrows of equal length pointing towards the surface, is greater at the bottom and lower at the top.
He promises on p. 284:
" Keep in mind that the true physical sources of aerodynamic force on a body are the pressure and shear stress distributions exerted on the surface of the body, as explained in Section 1.5."
But here, in section 1.5, he makes no attempt to explain how the pressure differences arise.
And that's not a slip in the graphical editing of a blurry figure.
Hence my concern about his credibility.
That's because the explanation is not simple. Conceptually, you can make claims about compression and rarefaction, but that's not the full story. If you want to know how those pressure changes occur and what they are quantitatively, the answer isn't simple anymore. Various concepts throughout that book need to be used together to do the actual aerodynamic analysis of a wing (or sail).
 
  • #54
Sailor Al said:
I have spent an hour speed reading Liepman and trying to get a sense of the subject. Having skimmed over pistons in closed cylinders and pipes with varying cross-sections, I arrived at Chapter 3 "One-Dimensional Wave Motion" and thought, "That sounds like my problem" but my brain went pop! when I got to para 4 :
View attachment 325929
"The fluid flows through the shock with speed ua
What does that even mean?
That's a simple change in reference fame. In one, the shock propagates through stationary air with velocity ##u_1##. In the other, you subtract that velocity so the shock is stationary and the flow appears to flow through it with velocity ##u_1##. The later is the most straightforward problem mathematically since you've made it steady.
 
  • #55
boneh3ad said:
What you've described is the inverse of the piston problem I described and only varies from it by a change of reference frame. The "air hammer" you describe is still a shock and is still supersonic, per the equations I derived.

On the other side, an expansion wave is generated, lowering pressure. That one does travel sonically.

Also, there's no such thing as a suction force. All pressure forces act toward a surface.
Certainly in gas. So dropping the approximation of constant ambient pressure...
boneh3ad said:
I am going to use ##v## to represent velocities in the lab reference frame and ##u## to represent velocities in the frame of the compression wave ahead of the piston.

Case 1: Impulsively-started piston
Consider first the impulsively started piston. It is initially at rest, and, at some time ##t=0##, it is impulsively accelerated to a velocity of ##v_p## (moving left to right, per the diagram in the original post). No penetration requires that no fluid crosses the face of the piston, so locally at the piston face, the flow is moving with ##v=v_p##, but in the far field it is still moving at ##u = 0##, creating a velocity discontinuity. It is a classical result that such a change in a 1D duct occurs discontinuously, i.e., as a result of a shock. This shock propagates with a speed ##v_s##.

Consider a change in frame of reference such that the coordinate system follows along with the shock, i.e., subtract ##v_s## from everything. Then the velocity upstream of the shock is ##u_1=0-v_s=-v_s## and downstream of the shock is ##u_2 = v_p- v_s##. One of the standard methods for determining the Mach number of a shock is to look at the velocity ratio across it (in its reference frame), which follows the relation
\dfrac{u_2}{u_1} = \dfrac{2 + (\gamma-1)M_1^2}{(\gamma + 1)M_1^2}
or
\dfrac{v_p- v_s}{-v_s} = \dfrac{v_s-v_p}{v_s} = 1 - \dfrac{v_p}{v_s} = \dfrac{2 + (\gamma-1)M_s^2}{(\gamma + 1)M_s^2}.
From there,
\dfrac{v_p}{v_s} = 1 -\dfrac{2 + (\gamma-1)M_s^2}{(\gamma + 1)M_s^2} = \dfrac{(\gamma + 1)M_s^2 - 2 - (\gamma-1)M_s^2}{(\gamma + 1)M_s^2} = \dfrac{2}{\gamma + 1}\left( \dfrac{M_s^2 - 1}{M_s^2} \right)
Note that ##M_s = v_s/a_1## where ##a_1## is the speed of sound in the stagnant air in the tube, so you can eliminate ##v_s## above and end up with
\boxed{\dfrac{v_p}{a_1} = M_p = \dfrac{2}{\gamma + 1}\left( \dfrac{M_s^2 - 1}{M_s} \right).}

Here, ##M=u/a## is the Mach number, ##\gamma## is the ratio of specific heats, and ##a## is the local speed of sound. You can uniquely determine the Mach number of the shock that propagates away from the piston based on the velocity of the piston and the conditions in the tube at the beginning. Indeed, the term ##M_p = v_p/a_1## represents a Mach number for the piston relative to the calm air in the tube (i.e., the lab frame).

You can easily solve the boxed equation for ##M_s## for a given piston Mach number.
M_s^2 - \left(\dfrac{\gamma + 1}{2}\right)M_p M_s - 1 = 0.
That's a straightforward quadratic equation. If you pick a very low piston Mach number, say, ##M_p=0.1##, you still get a supersonic shock Mach number of ##M_s=1.06##.

A fundamental truth about shocks is that they increase the temperature, pressure, and density of the air into which the propagate. Thus, the piston face experiences a pressure greater than ambient even if it moves at constant velocity, and a constant force is required to maintain that constant velocity (assuming the tube is sufficiently long).

If it seems odd that the shock is supersonic, that's likely because the shock Mach number is measured based on its speed relative to the medium into which it is propagating (here, the stagnant air). But the shock is propagating through the heated air behind it, which has a higher temperature and, thus, a higher speed of sound. It is still subsonic relative to that medium.

Some good sources
[1] Liepmann, H. W., Roshko, A.1957. "Elements of gasdynamics." Dover.
[2] Anderson, J. D. 2003. "Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective." McGraw-Hill.
[3] https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/normal.html
But the total force on the piston, as pointed out, is the difference of the forces exerted by the compression wave on upwind side and the expansion wave on downwind side. So does the mathematics of the downwind expansion wave differ? An expansion wave travels into warmer air and makes it colder (thus diminishing the sound speed in it). Does it mean that an expansion wave travel exactly at the speed of sound downwind of it - neither faster nor slower?
 
  • #56
snorkack said:
Certainly in gas. So dropping the approximation of constant ambient pressure...

But the total force on the piston, as pointed out, is the difference of the forces exerted by the compression wave on upwind side and the expansion wave on downwind side. So does the mathematics of the downwind expansion wave differ? An expansion wave travels into warmer air and makes it colder (thus diminishing the sound speed in it). Does it mean that an expansion wave travel exactly at the speed of sound downwind of it - neither faster nor slower?
Yes, the mathematics of the expansion wave are different. They'd be related to the Prandtl-Meyer expansion.
 
  • #57
Chestermiller said:
So, what do you want to do first (a) test the solution I presented to make sure you are comfortable that it satisfies the differential equation and boundary conditions or (b) have me present the derivation of the PDE for your consideration?
Actually I have little experience in modelling practice.
I'm still stuck at understanding why this is a modelling process at all. Is it not a relatively simple one-dimension mechanics problem?

We have all the rules:
F = m * a, a continuum which obeys PV/T = C, we have the speed of the piston v, the speed that the pressure moves, the density of the fluid at NTP, c and the area of the piston.

I don't understand why it's not a relatively simple exercise to build an equation of the pressure in the fluid at time t and position x. Then solve it for x = v * t to get the pressure at the face of the piston and thus the force required to maintain the piston speed at that time.

And I think it can be done without reference to challenging concept of the velocity of the fluid. I've read Brenner's paper* that points out the different interpretations of that term: Lagrangian velocity, and volume velocity. I am of the opinion that the concept of fluid flow velocity is sufficiently challenging that all attempts should be made to avoid any such reference.

Having said my piece, @Chestermiller, if you are confident that following your option a) or b) will lead to the solution I have described above, then please proceed in the sequence you consider most effective.

* I hope this doesn't get me a second warning about referencing an unpublished paper. It's on the Ohio State University website.
 
  • #58
A.T. said:
From your paper: "..., no attempt has been made to ascribe values to the size of the pressure variations....."

While your simple idea is not completely wrong, it's not the full picture, and doesn't by itself provide the correct quantitative results in general.
Absolutely!
As it stands, and as is candidly declared in the paper, it does not provide any quantitative results.
And that is precisely the reason for this thread.
I want to gain an understanding of how the shape and speed of the foil affects the size of the pressure on the sail's surface. I'm starting out small with my infinite cylinder, then I'd like to develop into a more and more realistic environment. I know I don't have the skills. I'm hoping someone brighter and younger can show some interest and come up with some answers.
First of all I have to convince you that the existing literature is incomplete. Maybe that will stir some minds into action.
 
  • #59
boneh3ad said:
That's a simple change in reference fame. In one, the shock propagates through stationary air with velocity ##u_1##. In the other, you subtract that velocity so the shock is stationary and the flow appears to flow through it with velocity ##u_1##. The later is the most straightforward problem mathematically since you've made it steady.
I have no problem with the pressure wave moving relative to the cylinder. The cylinder is a solid, nonrotating object. In any (inertial) frame of reference, all parts of the cylinder are moving at the same speed.
The air is a compressible fluid - a continuum. All parts of it may be moving at different speeds. The concept of stationary fluid is not so challenging. None of it is moving, no problem. But the speed of a moving, compressible fluid under the influence of a pressure wave is what makes my brain go pop!
Liepman's statement that the fluid flows through the shockwave with speed u1 cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Sailor Al said:
Liepman's statement that the fluid flows through the shockwave with speed u1 cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Perhaps "unchallenged" is not quite the best term for you to use in this situation... :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes boneh3ad and Sailor Al
  • #61
snorkack said:
Now what happens if you start with stationary air in a long tube and set the piston in motion?
Same. Air hammers will propagate upwind and downwind with the same speed and force as if the air had been moving and piston stationary. The forces on piston will only change if and when either of the air hammers will have reflected from somewhere and travelled back to the piston.
I have no issue with your upstream “suction” wave. It’s just a way of describing a low pressure wave. The downstream wave is a high pressure wave propagating downstream.
What I’m after is a mathematical function that will solve for the pressure on the piston at time t.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Sailor Al said:
I have no problem with the pressure wave moving relative to the cylinder. The cylinder is a solid object. In any (inertial) frame of reference, all parts of the cylinder are moving at the same speed.
The air is a compressible fluid - a continuum. All parts of it may be moving at different speeds. The concept of stationary fluid is not so challenging. None of it is moving, no problem. But the speed of a moving, compressible fluid under the influence of a pressure wave is what makes my brain go pop!
Liepman's statement that the fluid flows through the shockwave with speed u1 cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Again, it's a simple change of reference frame. I don't know how else to explain it other than that. A shock can propagate with a velocity past a stationary observer. The frame of reference can also be changed such that the observer moves along with the shock, making the shock appear stationary with the flow passing through it.

Even then, it's actually very easy to create a stationary shock in nature with air flowing through it. Take, for example, any supersonic wind tunnel. Mounting an object in the flow will result in shock waves.

Here is an example of a model aircraft mounted in a supersonic wind tunnel producing oblique and conical shock waves captured via schlieren imaging:
Schlierenfoto_Mach_1-2_Pfeilfl%C3%BCgel_-_NASA.jpg


Here is a similar pair of schlieren images of a supersonic inlet in a wind tunnel. This time, the unstarted inlet produces locally normal shocks that are stationary in the lab frame.
Inlet_shock_waves_at_Mach_2.jpg
 
  • #63
Sailor Al said:
I have no issue with your suction wave. It’s just a way of describing a low pressure wave. It’s a high pressure wave propagating downstream.
What I’m after is a mathematical function that will solve for the pressure on the piston at time t.
I gave you all the tools you need for that with my post related the piston Mach number and the shock Mach number. You may be able to come up with a closed-form solution by solving that quadratic equation and substituting it into the pressure ratio across a shock of Mach number ##M_s## (available in all of the references I previously gave you).

But aside from all of this, the bigger problem is that this has nothing to do with sail boats or airfoils. Those don't operate in environments with solid walls and no opportunity for air to move around them. And sailboats especially do not generate shock waves.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #64
boneh3ad said:
Again, it's a simple change of reference frame. I don't know how else to explain it other than that. A shock can propagate with a velocity past a stationary observer. The frame of reference can also be changed such that the observer moves along with the shock, making the shock appear stationary with the flow passing through it.
A physicist has no problem with the shock wave appearing stationary w.r.t. the cylinder.
But not “the flow passing through it”
As stated, a stationary flow is one thing: all parts of it are stationary. But in the problem context, the flow is a compressible fluid subject to varying pressures. The step from being stationary and moving is not a simple case. When stationary, all parts of the fluid have the same zero velocity. When subject to the pressure of the piston, this homogeneity is destroyed.
I know it’s a bitter pill for an engineer, but for a physicist, it’s a show-stopper.
 
  • #65
Sailor Al said:
I know it’s a bitter pill for an engineer, but for a physicist, it’s a show-stopper.
Which are you? I'm not finding your educational background in your Profile page. Clarifying that would help us a lot to try to answer your questions...
 
  • #66
boneh3ad said:
And sailboats especially do not generate shock waves.
I have not propose a “shock wave”, that has serious supersonic connotations.
But a sailboat certainly does create pressure waves.
Go race a sailboat and experience the pressures generated by nearby boats: wind shadow, lee-bow effect, dirty wind astern and leeward etc. These are pressure variations which move propagate through air and move with the boat. That is a pretty good description of pressure waves.
 
  • #67
berkeman said:
Which are you? I'm not finding your educational background in your Profile page. Clarifying that would help us a lot to try to answer your questions...
My BSc. is in Mathematical Physics, Birmingham UK, 1967. I am a retired but still very active software developer, private pilot and enthusiastic keelboat racer.
 
  • #68
Sailor Al said:
My BSc. is in Mathematical Physics, Birmingham UK, 1967. I am a retired but still very active software developer, private pilot and enthusiastic keelboat racer.
I'm not familiar with the Mathematical Physics degree in the UK, but why are you saying that such a fundamental concept is a show-stopper for you with your background? Is there something in the mathematics presented so far in this thread that is problematical?
 
  • #69
berkeman said:
I'm not familiar with the Mathematical Physics degree in the UK, but why are you saying that such a fundamental concept is a show-stopper for you with your background? Is there something in the mathematics presented so far in this thread that is problematical?
Yes, I think I have expressed it pretty clearly in my last reply to @boneh3ad .
 
  • #70
Sailor Al said:
A physicist has no problem with the shock wave appearing stationary w.r.t. the cylinder.
But not “the flow passing through it”
As stated, a stationary flow is one thing: all parts of it are stationary. But in the problem context, the flow is a compressible fluid subject to varying pressures. The step from being stationary and moving is not a simple case. When stationary, all parts of the fluid have the same zero velocity. When subject to the pressure of the piston, this homogeneity is destroyed.
I know it’s a bitter pill for an engineer, but for a physicist, it’s a show-stopper.
It is a simple case, actually. So simple, that physicists have a name for it: a Galilean transformation.

Not only is this not a contested process (by engineers or physicists) but its accuracy has been confirmed by the successful design of rockets, supersonic airplanes, and engines of all kinds relying on this exact type of analysis with shocks.
 
  • #71
Sailor Al said:
I have not propose a “shock wave”, that has serious supersonic connotations.
But a sailboat certainly does create pressure waves.
Go race a sailboat and experience the pressures generated by nearby boats: wind shadow, lee-bow effect, dirty wind astern and leeward etc. These are pressure variations which move propagate through air and move with the boat. That is a pretty good description of pressure waves.
And none are well-modeled by the piston-in-tube problem, which, notably, does produce a shock.
 
  • #72
Sailor Al said:
I have no issue with your upstream “suction” wave. It’s just a way of describing a low pressure wave. The downstream wave is a high pressure wave propagating downstream.
What I’m after is a mathematical function that will solve for the pressure on the piston at time t.
Were you asking for pressure as a function of t, or of v?
 
  • #73
snorkack said:
Were you asking for pressure as a function of t, or of v?
Well, both, since they both probably affect the result. t>0, 0<v<Mach 1.0.
 
  • #74
boneh3ad said:
I gave you all the tools you need for that with my post related the piston Mach number and the shock Mach number. You may be able to come up with a closed-form solution by solving that quadratic equation and substituting it into the pressure ratio across a shock of Mach number ##M_s## (available in all of the references I previously gave you).
I guess you mean the fromula given here?
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/normal.html

I'm still wondering if there isn't a simpler approach to get the steady state force on the piston, based on momentum conservation: A piston moving at v must continuously accelerate air from 0 to v, and this impulse propagates at the speed u in both directions. This should give you the steady state rate of momentum transfer (force). It assumes that u ≈ const, but would that not be the case if v << Mach 1?

As an analogy: Consider a locomotive coupled to an infinite number of cars in front and back, which starts moving at a constant speed v. The cars are perfectly rigid, but the coupling is such that the impulse propagates at u = 10v. From this you can calculate the average force the locomotive has to supply.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Sailor Al said:
Well, both, since they both probably affect the result. t>0, 0<v<Mach 1.0.
Nope. t actually does not affect the force.

And here is where the difference between free air and tube goes in. Note that the force is independent of t each case.
A sail placed perpendicular to airflow will bring the wind to a halt. Stagnant compressed air forms upstream of the sail.
But since the air is free to flow around the sail, the volume of stagnant air will be modest and constant with time. A small sail will not stop the wind indefinite distance upwind. Air far upwind will be deflected around the sail and the small body of stagnant air upwind of the sail.
Now, there will be a steady flow of wind that arrives at the sail and is stopped. But it will be replaced by equal amount of air that passes around the sail and is accelerated downwind.

The reason the sail experiences any force at all is that although the mass flux of air downwind is identical to the mass flux upwind, the momentum flux is not.
In principle, a fluid decelerated by the obstacle might make a perfect recovery and accelerate to exactly the original speed. The energy for that is there (in the potential energy of compressed stagnant air). But in practice, there is some imperfection in the recovery. Which is why there is any air resistance.

This resistance is independent of t.
In terms of v, the mass of air that hits the sail in unit time is proportional to v, and the momentum of unit mass is also proportional to v. So the aerodynamic forces are generally proportional to v2 - but the resistance is not close to it. Because the fraction of imperfection of recovery will depend on flow pattern and thus through Reynolds number on v, in a manner that is complex and cannot be analyzed from first principles.

Now compare the piston/tap closing the long pipeline!

The tap also brings the airflow to stagnation upstream (and downstream).
But since the air cannot get around, unlike sail, the volume of stagnant air will not reach a steady state. It will grow without bound, at the speed of sound (plus a small increment thanks to the warming on the air when stopped).
The volume of stagnant air will not reach a steady state but the force it exercises will. Because the volume of new air stopped in unit time will stay proportional to c.
The force is independent on t. But since the momentum of an unit volume of air is proportional to v (as in previous case), while the amount of air stopped in unit time is proportional to c (and not to v, as in the case of sail), the force on a tap is proportional to v, in contrast to the force on a sail, which was proportional to v2
 
  • #76
A.T. said:
I guess you mean the fromula given here?
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/normal.html

I'm still wondering if there isn't a simpler approach to get the steady state force on the piston, based on momentum conservation: A piston moving at v must continuously accelerate air from 0 to v, and this impulse propagates at the speed u in both directions. This should give you the steady state rate of momentum transfer (force). It assumes that u ≈ const, but would that not be the case if v << Mach 1?

As an analogy: Consider a locomotive coupled to an infinite number of cars in front and back, which starts moving at a constant speed v. The cars are perfectly rigid, but the coupling is such that the impulse propagates at u = 10v. From this you can calculate the average force the locomotive has to supply.
A big NO to the NASA reference. I think the formulae apply specifically to supersonic flow.

But I like your thinking about the train. I’ll try that out to see what pops out. I’m thinking once we do the basic maths, we may be able to reduce the length of the cars for an integration.
 
  • #77
Sailor Al said:
A physicist has no problem with the shock wave appearing stationary w.r.t. the cylinder.
But not “the flow passing through it”
As stated, a stationary flow is one thing: all parts of it are stationary. But in the problem context, the flow is a compressible fluid subject to varying pressures. The step from being stationary and moving is not a simple case. When stationary, all parts of the fluid have the same zero velocity. When subject to the pressure of the piston, this homogeneity is destroyed.
I know it’s a bitter pill for an engineer, but for a physicist, it’s a show-stopper.
a pipeline engineer for example does take this into account.
You can look up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanno_flow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_flow

With fanno flow the temperature of the fluid decreases along the pipe, which would be contrary to expectations. flow will approach M=1 down the pipe.
With rayleigh flow, the loss of heat will cause the flow to not approach M=1.
 
  • #78
berkeman said:
I'm not familiar with the Mathematical Physics degree in the UK, but why are you saying that such a fundamental concept is a show-stopper for you with your background? Is there something in the mathematics presented so far in this thread that is problematical?
In 1967 Birmingham University did have a BSc. Mathematical Physics. Now that I'm back at my desk I have dug out and scanned the certificate attached.
Degree.png
Please feel free to delete after reading.
 
  • #79
Sailor Al said:
A big NO to the NASA reference. I think the formulae apply specifically to supersonic flow.

But I like your thinking about the train. I’ll try that out to see what pops out. I’m thinking once we do the basic maths, we may be able to reduce the length of the cars for an integration.
The formulae apply to shocks. And they apply here.
 
  • #80
A.T. said:
As an analogy: Consider a locomotive coupled to an infinite number of cars in front and back, which starts moving at a constant speed v. The cars are perfectly rigid, but the coupling is such that the impulse propagates at u = 10v. From this you can calculate the average force the locomotive has to supply.
Sailor Al said:
But I like your thinking about the train. I’ll try that out to see what pops out. I’m thinking once we do the basic maths, we may be able to reduce the length of the cars for an integration.
If the cars can move without resistance, then you get a constant average force, that corresponds to the rate of total momentum change of the cars:

F = 2vuρ

where:
v : locomotive speed
u : impulse propagation speed = v * (car_length + initial_coupling_length) / coupling_give_distance
ρ : initial linear mass density of the train = car_mass / (car_length + initial_coupling_length)
 
Last edited:
  • #81
A.T. said:
If the cars can move without resistance, then you get a constant average force, that corresponds to the rate of total momentum change of the cars:

F = 2vuρ

where:
v : locomotive speed
u : impulse propagation speed = v * car_length / coupling_give_distance
ρ : initial linear mass density of the train = car_mass / (car_length + initial_coupling_length)
If v = u/2 then coupling_give_distance = car_length/2? Makes sense.
In the impact, the distance between the cars, initially with a value of coupling_give_distance, becomes zero, right?
What happens if the coupling is a spring, initially under no compression or tension? Maybe emulating gas compression?
Could the spring be damped - energy loss -> heat?
Do you know if this approach has been explored elsewhere and shown to be fruitful or shown to diverge seriously from the piston/gas problem?
Is this your own work or from a standard text? This is not a challenge to your work but a request for a source of more information without hassling you.
 
  • #82
Sailor Al said:
If v = u/2 then coupling_give_distance = car_length/2? Makes sense.
In the impact, the distance between the cars, initially with a value of coupling_give_distance, becomes zero, right?

I was inconsistent about including the initial_coupling_length in the car_length. I corrected the original post now. I think this is clearer:

F = 2vuρ

where:
v : locomotive speed
u : impulse propagation speed = v * (car_length + initial_coupling_length) / coupling_give_distance
ρ : initial linear mass density of the train = car_mass / (car_length + initial_coupling_length)

So (car_length + initial_coupling_length) is the initial distance from the start of a car to the start of the next car.

coupling_give_distance is the distance a car has to move, before the next car starts to move (or previous car for the back side).
Sailor Al said:
Is this your own work or from a standard text?
This was just the simplest possible model that came to my mind. But whatever happens in the more complex gas piston case, in the steady state it will have to obey F = 2vuρ, to be consistent with momentum conservation.

A difference for gas is that u is not a function of v, if v << Mach 1. But no matter what the relation between u and v in the gas case is: As long as u stays finite, the force F will also stay finite, and not increase without bound.
 
  • #83
boneh3ad said:
The formulae apply to shocks. And they apply here.
By "shocks" do you mean "shock waves?
According to my Physics text* :
"A shock wave is produced continuously by any object that moves through the air at supersonic speed"
As noted my piston is not supersonic.
And BTW, I think the Wikipedia page is incorrect when it claims, in the opening sentence:
"In physics, a shock wave (also spelled shockwave), or shock, is a type of propagating disturbance that moves faster than the local speed of sound in the medium."
The speed of sound is a medium is the speed that a pressure wave travels in that medium. A shockwave is a pressure wave - it travels at the speed of sound in that medium, not "faster than the local speed of sound in the medium."
So much misinformation!😒
*Young H. Freedman R. (2018) University Physics with Modern Physics, 15th Edition , Sears & Zemansky
 
  • Skeptical
Likes jbriggs444
  • #84
@jbriggs444 Why the skeptical emoji? Do you have an alternative proposal? Please don't snipe from the sideline.
 
  • #85
Sailor Al said:
By "shocks" do you mean "shock waves?
According to my Physics text* :
"A shock wave is produced continuously by any object that moves through the air at supersonic speed"
As noted my piston is not supersonic.
And BTW, I think the Wikipedia page is incorrect when it claims, in the opening sentence:
"In physics, a shock wave (also spelled shockwave), or shock, is a type of propagating disturbance that moves faster than the local speed of sound in the medium."
The speed of sound is a medium is the speed that a pressure wave travels in that medium. A shockwave is a pressure wave - it travels at the speed of sound in that medium, not "faster than the local speed of sound in the medium."
So much misinformation!😒
*Young H. Freedman R. (2018) University Physics with Modern Physics, 15th Edition , Sears & Zemansky
A shock wave travels faster than the sound speed of the medium in front of it (and subsonic relative to the medium behind it). In the infinitesimal limit, it moves at the sound speed which is why there is a lot of similarity between shock and sound wave equations.
 
  • #86
Frabjous said:
A shock wave travels faster than the sound speed of the medium in front of it.
Nope. If you position yourself (from a balloon in still air) in front of a supersonic jet plane, you won't hear it till it hits you.
 
  • Sad
Likes Frabjous
  • #87
@Frabjous Sad emoji because you didn't hear the plane?
 
  • Haha
Likes Frabjous
  • #88
Since other people will be reading this thread…
What you have failed to take into account is that a supersonic plane is moving faster than the speed of sound so your argument is not necessarily valid. There are also detached (bow) shocks which move in front of vehicles.
 
  • #89
Frabjous said:
What you have failed to take into account is that a supersonic plane is moving faster than the speed of sound so your argument is not necessarily valid.
What part of "supersonic jet plane" makes you think that? It is moving faster than the speed at which pressure waves will propagate through the medium.
There are also detached (bow) shocks which move in front of vehicles.
Yes, but they only move in front of subsonic vehicles.
Read your physics book: The speed of sound is as fast as a wave will propagate in that medium.
You will get hit by the supersonic jet at the moment you hear it. You won't hear it till it hits you!
I thought this was a serious forum, for discussing real physics.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes jbriggs444
  • #90
@jbriggs444 Once again a skeptical emoji. Please put up or....
 
  • #91
Sailor Al said:
@jbriggs444 Once again a skeptical emoji. Please put up or....
It is rude to tell others how to respond.

We know that a flat plate moving through the air broadside can exceed the speed of sound. We know that the disturbance from this flat plate exists upstream of the plate. You might quibble that this is not really "exceeding the speed of sound" because the "speed of sound" is locally elevated due to heating and, perhaps, non-ideality of the fluid. You might quibble that this is not really "exceeding the speed of sound" because there is fluid flow in the direction of motion carrying the disturbance along with it.

But we see no such nuance in your postings. It's just "you can't hear the jet until it hits you". Or "Wikipedia is wrong".

I dislike posting in a thread where experts such as @boneh3ad are already participating because they've forgotten more abound fluid dynamics than I've ever learned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #92
jbriggs444 said:
It is rude to tell others how to respond.
Yes, that would be rude. I asked, I didn't tell.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes jbriggs444
  • #93
jbriggs444 said:
We know that a flat plate moving through the air broadside can exceed the speed of sound. We know that the disturbance from this flat plate exists upstream of the plate.
But that's exactly my point, it doesn't.
If the plate is exceeding the speed of sound then the disturbance does not exist upstream of the plate.
If you're upstream of the plate, just like being in front of the supersonic plane, you won't hear the plate till it hits you.
No nuance is needed, it's basic physics.
The speed of sound in a medium is the speed that a disturbance will proceed through the medium.
I have provided the reference above:
Young H. Freedman R. (2018) University Physics with Modern Physics, 15th Edition , Sears & Zemansky
 
  • Skeptical
Likes jbriggs444
  • #94
Sailor Al said:
If you're upstream of the plate, just like being in front of the supersonic plane, you won't hear the plate till it hits you.
A supersonic flat plate and other blunt objects will produce a bow shock in front of them, which travels at the same supersonic speed as the object. You will hear that before the objects hits you or passes close to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock_(aerodynamics)

330px-Bowshock_example_-_blunt_body.jpg
 
  • #95
A.T. said:
A supersonic flat plate and other blunt objects will produce a "bow shock-wave" in front of them, which travels at the same supersonic speed as the object. You will hear that before the objects hits you or passes close to you.
That's a pretty picture, but there's nothing in the text that indicates the shock wave is propagating at >Mach 1.0. The caption says the flow is supersonic in the wind tunnel, so that shockwave is clearly propagating slower than the flow. If it were going faster its curve would be convex, not concave as in the pic!
Please, check your physics books. Mach 1.0 is the speed that disturbances propagate through a medium.
 
  • #96
Sailor Al said:
That's a pretty picture, but there's nothing in the text that indicates the shock wave is propagating at >Mach 1.0.
The bow shock is in front of the supersonic object, so it will obviously reach you before the object.

Sailor Al said:
The caption says the flow is supersonic in the wind tunnel, so that shockwave is clearly propagating slower than the flow.
No idea what you mean here. Maybe you have problems understanding/accepting Galilean Invariance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Relative to the wind tunnel walls the bow shock and object are both stationary, which means that both are moving faster than Mach 1 relative to the air in the wind tunnel.
 
  • Like
Likes renormalize
  • #97
A.T. said:
The bow shock is in front of the supersonic object, so it will obviously reach you before the object.
Like I said, there's nothing in the text to support your claim.
Relative to the wind tunnel walls the bow shock and object are both stationary, which means that both are moving faster than Mach 1 relative to the air in the wind tunnel.
Please refer to your physics textbook:
Mach 1.0 is the speed that a disturbance will propagate in a medium.
You will not hear the supersonic jet plane before it hits you.
 
  • #98
A.T. said:
The bow shock is in front of the supersonic object, so it will obviously reach you before the object.
Sailor Al said:
Like I said, there's nothing in the text to support your claim.
Because it is trivially obvious. How would you hit the object from the front, without first passing through the bow shock in front of it?

330px-bowshock_example_-_blunt_body-jpg.jpg


Sailor Al said:
You will not hear the supersonic jet plane before it hits you.
We aren't talking about a jet plane with a pointy nose, but flat plate which generates a bow shock in front of it.

Sailor Al said:
Mach 1.0 is the speed that a disturbance will propagate in a medium.
What you are missing is that medium itself is moving at different speeds. A blunt object like a plate or piston will push some air in front of it, and move that air along. So a disturbance traveling at a certain speed relative to that local air can be traveling much faster relative to the surrounding air.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and renormalize
  • #99
Sailor Al said:
Mach 1.0 is the speed that a disturbance will propagate in a medium.
You will not hear the supersonic jet plane before it hits you.
Your statement is simply wrong.

Please take a look at this recent experimental paper: Measurement of unsteady shock standoff distance around spheres flying at Mach numbers near one, T.Kikuchi & K.Ohtani (2022)
The authors fired plastic, aluminum and steel ball-bearings of diameter ##\sim0.8\text{cm}## through air at speeds spanning Mach 1.0 and observed the shocks produced. For example, here is a photo of a plastic bearing traveling from left to right at Mach 1.03:
Supersonic Projectile.jpg

The detached bow shock wave clearly leads (stands-off) the projectile by about 2 ball diameters. If you do the math, you find that the shock reaches your ear about ##45\mu\text{s}## before the projectile does. So much for your claim.

Moreover, for all projectile speeds from Mach 0.95 to 1.25, the speed of the shock is equal-to or greater-than that of the projectile:
Detached Shock Speed.jpg

High-amplitude, non-linear disturbances in air such as shock waves most certainly can travel at supersonic speeds! Perhaps you're the one who needs to refer to research literature?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #100
A.T. said:
Because it is trivially obvious. How would you hit the object from the front, without first passing through the bow shock in front of it?
Like I said: there's nothing in the text that supports your argument.
What you are missing is that medium itself is moving at different speeds. A blunt object like a plate or piston will push some air in front of it, and move that air along. So a disturbance traveling at a certain speed relative to that local air can be traveling much faster relative to the surrounding air.
But if there's a small region of compressed air in front of the object, then in that compressed region the speed of sound will be higher than the speed of sound in the surrounding air. The shock wave may be travelling faster there but it's still Mach 1.0 in that medium.
From anywhere else in the surrounding air, the shock wave will move at Mach 1.0
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
Back
Top