Confused with flow rate of water

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between pressure and flow rate in liquids, referencing Bernoulli's law and Poiseuille's law. Bernoulli's law suggests that if potential energy is constant, the work done (pV) equals the change in kinetic energy, implying that flow rate may relate to the square root of applied pressure. However, Poiseuille's law, which describes flow in a circular pipe, indicates that flow rate is directly proportional to pressure, factoring in viscosity and other variables. The discrepancy arises because Bernoulli's equation assumes non-viscous flow, while Poiseuille's law applies to laminar flow and incorporates viscosity. For accurate flow rate calculations, one must also consider the Reynolds number, which helps determine whether the flow is laminar, transitional, or turbulent. Understanding these principles is crucial for designing experiments related to fluid dynamics.
Koveras00
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
By Bernoulli's law, if potential energy is constant, the work done, given by pV, where p is the pressure, V is the change in volume, is equal to the change in kinetic energy, 1/2mv^2.

Does that mean that the flow rate of the liquid is proportionate to the root of the pressure applied??

If it is so, why is it that by Poiseuille's law of flow, E = (pi)r4pt/8Vl,

E is the viscosity of the flowing liquid, t is the time for which the liquid flows, V is the volume of liquid which flows in that time, r is the radius of the pipe, and l is the length of the pipe,

that the rate of flow is proportionate to the pressure applied??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Viscosity is friction. Potential Energy is not conserved.
 
hmmm, i knew that, but, now i am designing a experiment and i do not know how to relate pressure to the flow rate of a liquid. What i am asking is that which formulae shld i use?? Since, both of them gave mi different proportionality, i can't possibly refer to both of them...
 
The reason your Bernoulli result and your Poiseuille result aren't agreeing is that Bernoulli's equation assumes non-viscous flow.

Poiseuille's flow equation comes from some application of the Navier-Stokes equations to the laminar velocity profile in a circular pipe. Poiseuille's law is given by:

Q=\frac{\pi R^4 \Delta p}{8 \mu L}

Q is the volumetric flow rate, R is the pipe radius, \Delta p is the pressure drop, \mu is the dynamic viscosity, and L is the length of the pipe.

This result is only valid for laminar flow in a circular pipe (it also ignores the roughness of the pipe). Therefore, once you calculate a flow rate, you should also calculate a Reynolds number and see that it is less than 2100. The Reynolds number is given as:

Re=\frac{\rho V D}{\mu}

Re is the Reynolds number (a dimensionless parameter), \rho is the fluid density, V is the flow velocity, and D is the pipe diameter. V=Q/A, where A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe.

If you find that the Reynolds number is between 2100 and 4000, then the flow is called transitional. If it is greater than 4000, the flow is considered turbulent. You might get away with applying Poiseuille in the transitional case, but in the turbulent region, there are more complicated results from Fluid Mechanics that you should apply. Any introductory text should be more than enough to help you out.

Edited for LaTeX errors, and fixing R^2 to R^4 in Poiseuille's equation.
 
Last edited:
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