Continuity Between Statistical Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between statistical mechanics and fluid dynamics, particularly regarding heat transfer from a fluid jet to a flat plate. It posits that the jet's higher mean velocity leads to increased molecular kinetic energy, suggesting heat should transfer from the fluid to the plate due to this disparity. The conversation highlights the potential for using statistical mechanics to derive the drag coefficient analytically, rather than relying solely on empirical testing. It emphasizes that both macrostate and microstate analyses describe the same physical processes, with frictional effects between the fluid and plate being akin to conventional heat transfer. Ultimately, the discussion raises questions about the feasibility of modeling these interactions at a molecular level.
parsec
Messages
112
Reaction score
1
Imagine a jet of fluid (perhaps air) impinging on a flat plate. It could be said that the jet has a slightly higher mean velocity in the direction normal to the flat surface (we'll arbitrarily call this X).

From a classical thermodynamic point of view it could be said that the gas has a higher temperature (I guess the normal distribution of gas velocities is now centred around a slightly higher median velocity in the X direction), although the distribution of particle velocities is no longer isotropic as one would expect for a static fluid.

Using the laws of classical thermodynamics, shouldn't heat (molecular kinetic energy) be transferred from the fluid to the plate as the molecules in the fluid are on average traveling faster than the molecules in the plate (in the x direction at least).

I imagine the amount of heat transferred to the plate would be relatively small for a jet of say 20m/s given a plate and fluid initially at room temperature, as the average particle velocities at room temperature are in the order of hundreds of meters per second.

From an fluid dynamics point of view, the power dissipated by the jet on the plate should be some function of the drag force on the plate and the velocity of the jet.

From a thermodynamic point of view, shouldn't this power dissipated by the jet acting on the plate be equal to the heat transferred to the plate by virtue of the disparity between the jet's molecules' kinetic energy and the plate's molecules' kinetic energy (temperature), since all of the work done by the fluid on the plate must result in the heating of the plate.

Shouldn't there be some sort of direct coherence between the shear force applied to the plate (determined using fluid dynamics) and the heat transferred to the plate.

The fluid should heat the plate through frictional effects (shear between the fluid and plate), but what I'm getting at is; (I think) the heating calculated through frictional shearing should be equal to the heat transferred to the plate if analysed using statistical mechanics methods.

If so, could one use statistical mechanics to ascertain the drag coefficient of a body without having to empirically test a model, by solving equations for the heat transferred to the plate (using statistical mechanics) and the power dissipated by drag(0.5*rho*A*V^3Cd)

I guess without knowledge of the collisional efficiency between the fluid's and plate's molecules and the velocity distribution it could be difficult to arrive at figure for the heat transferred to the plate, however I don't see why these properties can't be calculated, at least for simple geometries.

Fundamentally both approaches describe are the same process. The shear forces on a plate incurred by a jet impinging on it are derived from macrostate descriptions of the fluid molecules interacting with the plate, whereas a statistical mechanics analysis is derived from a microstate description of the molecules interacting with the plate (this analysis looks more like classical heat transfer than some hydrodynamic phenomenon like drag)

Fundamentally, the molecular processes are the same (they have to be right!). I'm hypothesising whether the drag coefficient of a body be analytically derived by approaching the analysis of the frictional effects by considering them to be on a molecular scale?

The shearing frictional process between a fluid and immovable body is afterall very similar (on a molecular level) to a conventional heat transfer process. Friction occurs through the collision of molecules in the fluid with molecules in the plate.

The only difference I can see here is that the molecules have some aggregate velocity rather than an isotropic velocity distribution (which would be the case if a static fluid at a higher temperature were transferring heat conventionally to the plate).

It may be that the modelling of these statistical parameters is incredibly difficult (moreso than conventional macrostate fluid modelling techniques, e.g. CFD).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone? I'd like to edit the post to contain more question marks and be a bit more concise, but I can't seem to anymore.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top