Dispersion of soluble matter in tube

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the article "Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube" by Sir Geoffrey Taylor, particularly cases A2 and B2, which analyze concentration profiles in a tube. Case A2 shows a linear decrease in concentration without diffusion, while case B2 includes radial diffusion, resulting in a symmetric erf function that theoretically extends infinitely. Concerns arise regarding the transition between these cases, especially when flow increases or diffusion decreases, as it seems case B2 should revert to A2 under certain conditions. The need for a practical method to determine when case A2 is sufficient versus when to apply the more complex B2 calculations is emphasized, potentially involving the Peclet number. Overall, the discussion highlights the challenges in reconciling the theoretical models with practical applications in fluid dynamics.
jencam
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi

I am reading and trying to comprehend the article "Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube", Sir Geoffrey Taylor, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1953.

I am particularly interested in cases A2 and B2, where a concentrated solution is injected into one end of a tube filled with solvent only.

Case A2 handles the (average) concentration at different positions in the tube disregarding diffusion, which happens to become a linear decrease in concentration.

Case B2 generalizes the model to include radial diffusion still ignoring axial diffusion. The solution in this case becomes a symmetric erf function, which principally extends infinitely in both directions.

What bothers me is that when flow increases or coefficient of diffusion decreases, case B2 should in my opinion asymptotically fall back to case A2. Principally I would think the concentration profile should be limited in length - we have no axial diffusion so the concentrated part shouldn't be able to extend beyond case A2.

I don't know if I am plain stupid or if this is due to some assumptions that are not fulfilled at low-D.

Can anyone please give me a hint?

Regards

--Jens
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But equation (29) doesn't describe a continuum between cases A and B, it only describes case B, where convective effects are already assumed to be minimal. That being assumed, we can't then consider the case of minimal diffusion and hope to recover equation (6). We would need a general solution of equation (11) to be able to recover the extreme cases A and B. Does this make sense?
 
I understand neither solution is complete and simpliying assumptions have been made in both cases. I don't see which of the assumptions that causes the elongation of the slope to (-infinity,+infinity) instead of (0,u0). If there were axial diffusion I would understand. I did the experiment with syrup (colored/colorless) and understand that the diffusion-less theory is pretty accurate.

What I really need for my project is a means to determine when case A2 is "good enough", when I can estimate the concentrated part as a plain "edge" and when I need to use the complicated B2 calculations. I can do this with the equations in the article so principally I don't "need" the generic result that works in all cases. I am just a bit unsatisfied with it. A "full" solution would be better but may of course not be possible. An alternative would be for me to understand *why* the solutions are so different.

As an engineer I could of course invent an interpolation model between the cases. This isn't a very scientific approach though ;-).

Regards

--Jens
 
jencam said:
I understand neither solution is complete and simpliying assumptions have been made in both cases. I don't see which of the assumptions that causes the elongation of the slope to (-infinity,+infinity) instead of (0,u0). If there were axial diffusion I would understand. I did the experiment with syrup (colored/colorless) and understand that the diffusion-less theory is pretty accurate.

At the top of p191 Taylor assumes that any radial variation in concentration is negligible. This is equivalent to assuming that the fluid velocity is very fast, or equivalently that we are very far downstream of where the solute was introduced. That's why the B2 solution extends essentially to infinity.

You may already see this, but the way I think about Taylor dispersion is that the parabolic profile of fully developed flow creates relatively large concentration gradients as high-solute fluid is continually positioned next to low-solute fluid. These gradients promote fast mixing that smears out radial nonuniformities.

jencam said:
What I really need for my project is a means to determine when case A2 is "good enough", when I can estimate the concentrated part as a plain "edge" and when I need to use the complicated B2 calculations.

This may be the Peclet number, but check this.
 
OK, I see now, and appreciate the difficulties solving the general case. I wish I had more experience with partial differential equations...

I'll look into the Peclet number but I think just estimating the distance to fall from e.g. 90 to 10% concentration (or whatever I am interested in) as in equation (30) will do. This will have an illustrative meaning to people that haven't studied physics.

Thanks for helping me out.

--Jens
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
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...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top