I Explain Bernoulli at the molecular level?

  • Thread starter Thread starter user079622
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Static pressure remains equal to atmospheric pressure regardless of vehicle speed, as demonstrated by static ports in pitot tubes. The discussion highlights that Bernoulli's principle does not apply in this context, as static pressure does not decrease with increased airflow speed. Instead, the focus shifts to understanding how static pressure is transmitted at the molecular level and the role of pressure gradients in accelerated flow. The conversation also emphasizes that pressure is frame invariant, while speed is frame dependent, complicating the relationship between the two. Overall, the dialogue seeks to clarify the conditions under which Bernoulli's principle is valid and the physical implications of static pressure in various scenarios.
  • #211
rcgldr said:
With a longer wingspan, a greater mass of air per unit time is accelerated by a smaller amount, resulting in smaller velocity and energy changes. If there is zero energy change due to a wing, then why would a longer wing span be more efficient?
Because efficiency of wings is not defined in terms of energy changes of the relative flow. Deflecting the relative flow by 5° will give you a better lift/drag ratio than deflecting it by 10°, even if the air is not slowed down and thus doesn't loose any kinetic energy in either case. And for a given required total lift, longer wingspan allows using less deflection.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
I : "So if accelerated airflow flow parallel over stationary static port, he will show same static pressure as if airflow flows with constant speed or zero speed?"

you: "Correct indeed."

you now: "And just to state what I think should now be obvious: if a rocket is bolted to the ground and the air around it is accelerated, the static probe will not measure the ambient pressure."

I dont understand now, what is correct?

Arjan82 said:
Last: I don't know what you mean with 'an open wind tunnel'.
Open wind tunnel has open test section to atmospheric pressure. I like open tunnel more, because to avoid manipulation with static pressure, because closed wind tunnel is indeed close tube so we can set pressure inside what ever we want, so of course it will not match ambient pressure.
kaihou.gif



I didn't understand you, so does the static pressure here in the open test section change if accelerated air is blowing, compared to ambient/atmospheric pressure?
 
Last edited:
  • #213
A.T. said:
Because efficiency of wings is not defined in terms of energy changes of the relative flow. Deflecting the relative flow by 5° will give you a better lift/drag ratio than deflecting it by 10°, even if the air is not slowed down and thus doesn't loose any kinetic energy in either case. And for a given required total lift, longer wingspan allows using less deflection.
Just to be clear, this is in regards to 3D models of aircraft as used in some high end simulators as opposed to 2D models of airfoils?
 
  • #214
user079622 said:
I : "So if accelerated airflow flow parallel over stationary static port, he will show same static pressure as if airflow flows with constant speed or zero speed?"

you: "Correct indeed."

you now: "And just to state what I think should now be obvious: if a rocket is bolted to the ground and the air around it is accelerated, the static probe will not measure the ambient pressure."

I dont understand now, what is correct?

Both are and both are not. It depends, that's the whole point. So to repeat:

Case 1:
An object that accelerates in stationary air, so an accelerating rocket in free flight. In this case the static port will always measure the same static speed which is equal to the surrounding pressure (if placed well).

Case 2:
A stationary object in accelerating airflow. This is a wind tunnel test where the rocket is bolted to the ground and the air speed in the tunnel is speeding up. In this case the static port will not measure the surrounding pressure. What it will measure entirely depends on the setup.
 
  • #215
Arjan82 said:
the pressure field of a slowly moving earth towards the glider has hardly any influence on the results

I wasn't referring to the pressure gradient versus altitude, I was referring to the decrease in gravitational potential energy as the earth gets closer to the glider (- G M m / r) (it becomes more negative), or since the distance from earth to glider is relative small versus Earth radius, a change in gravitational potential energy: ΔU = m (mass of glider) g Δh.
 
Last edited:
  • #216
Arjan82 said:
Case 2:
A stationary object in accelerating airflow. This is a wind tunnel test where the rocket is bolted to the ground and the air speed in the tunnel is speeding up. In this case the static port will not measure the surrounding pressure. What it will measure entirely depends on the setup.
If this wind tunnel is open jet style, so rocket is in open test section(atmosphere), will be static pressure at rocket, different from ambient pressure when airflow accelerating?
 
  • #217
user079622 said:
If this wind tunnel is open jet style, so rocket is in open test section(atmosphere), will be static pressure at rocket, different from ambient pressure when airflow accelerating?
Yes. This is because for the air to accelerate, you need a pressure gradient. A pressure gradient is how you apply a force to an air parcel. And to get a pressure gradient the pressure needs to be higher in front of the rocket than behind it.
 
  • #218
rcgldr said:
I wasn't referring to the pressure gradient versus altitude, I was referring to the decrease in gravitational potential energy as the earth gets closer to the glider (- G M m / r) (it becomes more negative), or since the distance from earth to glider is relative small versus Earth radius, a change in gravitational potential energy: ΔU = m (mass of glider) g Δh.
You're misunderstanding me, I'm also not talking about the pressure gradient vs altitude. But any object that comes towards you through the air wil have an increased pressure in front of it that is needed to push the air away that is in front of it. That's the pressure I was talking about.

This is entirely consistent with the earth fixed perspective you yourself mentioned earlier where the glider is 'pushing off' of the earth's surface. In that case you can also happily ignore the tiny increase in pressure that this will cause (because the entire weight of the airplane is spread out over quite an enormous surface).
 
  • #219
rcgldr said:
change in gravitational potential energy: ΔU = m (mass of glider) g Δh.

Arjan82 said:
ignore the tiny increase in pressure

Again, my prior post wasn't about the tiny increase in pressure but instead the decrease in gravitational potential energy which is frame independent (this is a link) (assuming Newtonian physics), and ends up being transferred to the air as an increase in energy as the earth approaches the glider from the glider's frame of reference.

Usage of gravitational potential energy only applies if using the earth as a frame of reference. If a frame of reference where the earth is moving is used, then as noted in an answer from Stack Exchange, if the potential well is moving with respect to some frame of reference, "the concept of potential energy no longer offers a quick and easy way to keep track of the energy movements."
 
Last edited:
  • #220
Arjan82 said:
Yes. This is because for the air to accelerate, you need a pressure gradient. A pressure gradient is how you apply a force to an air parcel. And to get a pressure gradient the pressure needs to be higher in front of the rocket than behind it.
Is pressure higher or lower compared to atmosphere pressure?
 
  • #221
rcgldr said:
Again, my prior post wasn't about the tiny increase in pressure but instead the decrease in gravitational potential energy which is frame independent (this is a link) (assuming Newtonian physics), and ends up being transferred to the air as an increase in energy as the earth approaches the glider from the glider's frame of reference.
1) I think this discussion about energy balance of the entrie Earth glider system should be a separate thread, because this one is already too long and too confused.

2) Did you read the entrie stackexchange post you are linking, including this part regarding a frame where the Earth is moving?
Andrew Steane at physics.stackexchange.com said:
The concept of potential energy only really works as an aid to calcualtion (in a simple way at least), when the potential at a given place is not itself a function of time in the reference frame under consideration. We can still imagine a potential well with the Earth at the middle, for example, but a moving potential well produces time-dependent forces and that means you don't expect that a particle going away and coming back to the same place will have the same change in its kinetic energy. In this sense the force is then "non-conservative". This terminology doesn't mean that energy conservation no longer applies, it does mean that the concept of potential energy no longer offers a quick and easy way to keep track of the energy movements.

Link: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/459374
 
  • #222
rcgldr said:
Just to be clear, this is in regards to 3D models of aircraft as used in some high end simulators as opposed to 2D models of airfoils?
It was a simple idealized example demonstrating that you can have different lift/drag ratios without change of the kinetic energy of the relative flow in either case. So your question in post #210 makes no sense:
rcgldr said:
If there is zero energy change due to a wing, then why would a longer wing span be more efficient?
Or you have to explain better what you mean by "energy change" and "wing efficiency".
 
  • #223
"If this wind tunnel is open jet style, so rocket is in open test section(atmosphere), will be static pressure at rocket, different from ambient/atmospheric pressure when airflow accelerating?"

answer: Yes. This is because for the air to accelerate, you need a pressure gradient. A pressure gradient is how you apply a force to an air parcel. And to get a pressure gradient the pressure needs to be higher in front of the rocket than behind it.

@A.T. @jbriggs444
Does everyone agree with answer?
If answer is yes, is pressure higher or lower then atmospheric?

1YABh.webp
 
  • #224
user079622 said:
Is pressure higher or lower compared to atmosphere pressure?
Depends entirely on the setup as I said earlier. You have a pressure gradient, so it depends where on this gradient you put the static port.
 
  • #225
1747748327753.webp

Velocities pictured in inertial frame G unless labeled otherwise ( there are a lot of symbols to juggle...if I messed up somewhere fundamentally I'll fix it later).

So continuing on ( continuity is a scalar equation at this point)

$$ V_1 A_1 = V_2 A_2 \sin \theta $$

Skipping to Energy ( neglecting system dynamics of flow between stations 1 and 2:

$$ \cancel{\dot Q}^0 - \cancel{\dot W_s}^0 = \cancel{\frac{d}{dt} \int_{cv} \rho \left( \frac{V^2}{2} + gz + u \right) d V\llap{-}}^{\text{neglecting}} + \int_{cs} \left( \frac{V^2}{2} + gz + u + \frac{p}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} $$

$$ \implies 0 = \int_{1} \left( \frac{V^2}{2} + gz + u + \frac{p}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} + \int_{2} \left( \frac{V^2}{2} + gz + u + \frac{p}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} $$


$$ \int_{1} \left( \frac{V^2}{2} + gz + u + \frac{p}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} $$

$$ = \int \left( \frac{V_1^2}{2} + gz_1 + u_1 + \frac{p_1}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V_1}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A_1} + \int \left( \frac{V_2^2}{2} + gz_2 + u_2 + \frac{p_2}{\rho} \right) \rho \boldsymbol {V_2}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A_2} $$

$$\boldsymbol {V_1}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A_1} = V_1 \langle -1 i + 0 j \rangle \cdot dA_1 \langle 1 i + 0 j \rangle = -V_1 dA_1 $$

$$\boldsymbol {V_2}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A_2} = V_1 \langle -\cos \theta i + \sin \theta j \rangle \cdot dA_2 \langle 0 i + 1 j \rangle = V_2 \sin \theta dA_2 $$

$$ \implies 0 = \int \left( \frac{V_1^2}{2} + gz_1 + u_1 + \frac{p_1}{\rho} \right) \rho (-V_1 dA_1)+ \int \left( \frac{V_2^2}{2} + gz_2 + u_2 + \frac{p_2}{\rho} \right) \rho (V_2 \sin \theta dA_2) $$

All properties are uniformly distributed over the stations 1 and 2, so they can come outside the integral:

$$\left( \frac{V_1^2}{2} + gz_1 + u_1 + \frac{p_1}{\rho} \right) \rho V_1 \int dA_1 = \left( \frac{V_2^2}{2} + gz_2 + u_2 + \frac{p_2}{\rho} \right) \rho V_2 \sin \theta \int dA_2$$

Assume ##u,p## are constant, and ##z## change is negligible they will cancel at each station:

$$ \left( \frac{V_1^2}{2} \right) \rho V_1 A_1 = \left( \frac{V_2^2}{2} \right) \rho V_2 \sin \theta A_2 $$

Substitute from continuity and we have:

$$ \left( \frac{V_1^2}{2} \right) \cancel{\rho V_1 A_1} = \left( \frac{V_2^2}{2} \right) \cancel{\rho V_2 \sin \theta A_2} $$

$$ \implies V_1 = V_2 $$

Finally Apply Momentum Equation to control volume:

$$ \sum \boldsymbol{F} = \cancel{\frac{ d}{dt} \int_{cv} \rho \boldsymbol{v} d V\llap{-}}^{\text{neg. dyn. for fluid}} + \int_{cs} \boldsymbol{v}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} ) $$

Also, I'm just focusing on horizontal components ( There would also be a normal force required ##\boldsymbol N## )

$$ F \langle 1i + 0j \rangle = M \frac{dv}{dt} \langle 1i \rangle + \int_{1} \boldsymbol{v}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} ) + \int_{2} \boldsymbol{v}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} ) $$

$$ F \langle 1i + 0j \rangle = M \frac{dv}{dt} \langle 1i \rangle + \cancel{\int \boldsymbol{v_1}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} )}^{\text{still air in inertial frame}} + \int \boldsymbol{v_2}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V_2}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A_2} ) $$


$$ \boldsymbol{v_2} = \langle (V_1 - V_2 \cos \theta)i+ V_2 \sin \theta j \rangle $$

$$ F \langle 1i + 0j \rangle = M \frac{dv}{dt} \langle i \rangle+ \int \langle ( V_1- V_2 \cos \theta ) i + V_2 \sin \theta j \rangle \rho \langle V_2 ( -\cos \theta i + \sin \theta j\rangle \cdot dA_2\langle 0 i + 1 j \rangle $$

$$ F \langle i \rangle = M \frac{dv}{dt} \langle i \rangle + \langle ( V_1- V_2 \cos \theta ) i \rangle V_2 A_2 \sin \theta $$

With ##V_1 = V_2## ( these are just scalars), Continuity, and the velocity of the cart is ##v = V_1## we get the scalar equation:

$$ F = M \frac{dv}{dt} + \rho A_1 v^2 ( 1 - \cos \theta ) $$

Making a really long story short, we get the same force on the cart if its accelerating or moving with constant velocity so long as we ignore the dynamics of the fluid flow inside the control volume between stations 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:
  • #226
erobz said:
Making a really long story short, we get the same force on the cart if its accelerating or moving with constant velocity so long as we ignore the dynamics of the fluid flow inside the control volume between stations 1 and 2.
In time when you measure, force that accelerate the cart isn't disappear, it is still there.
Cart that accelerate, in front produce force on air particle, particle with same force push back on the cart.
This additional force dont exist in constant velocity case.
Isnt it?
 
Last edited:
  • #227
user079622 said:
Cart that accelerate, in front produce force on air particle, particle with same force push back on the cart.
This additional force dont exist in constant velocity case.
Isnt it?
In an idealized model of a rare gas with elastic collisions the acceleration of the object is irrelevant to the force.

In a real dense gas / liquid the object drags some fluid along in the frontal stagnation area / boundary layer. When the object is accelerating, that "attached" fluid must also be accelerated.
 
  • #228
A.T. said:
In an idealized model of a rare gas with elastic collisions the acceleration of the object is irrelevant to the force.

In a real dense gas / liquid the object drags some fluid along in the frontal stagnation area / boundary layer. When the object is accelerating, that "attached" fluid must also be accelerated.
Do you agree with answer in post #223?
 
  • #229
user079622 said:
Do you agree with answer in post #223?
I agree with post #224.
 
  • #230
A.T. said:
2) Did you read the entire stackexchange post you are linking, including this part regarding a frame where the Earth is moving?
The caveat brought up there is a time dependent force. This isn't an issue for the earth + air + glider example I've been using. For example, the gravitational potential energy between the earth and a satellite circularly orbiting the earth remains constant, even if the earth is moving with respect to some frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
  • #231
rcgldr said:
Just to be clear, this is in regards to 3D models of aircraft as used in some high end simulators as opposed to 2D models of airfoils?

A.T. said:
It was a simple idealized example demonstrating that you can have different lift/drag ratios without change of the kinetic energy of the relative flow in either case. So your question in post #210 makes no sense:

Example, XFOIL is a 2D model, XFLR5 includes 3D panel modeling. High end simulators use full 3D CFD tools.
 
  • #232
A.T. said:
I agree with post #224.

How to set equation for this specific case?
 
  • #233
rcgldr said:
Example, XFOIL is a 2D model, XFLR5 includes 3D panel modeling. High end simulators use full 3D CFD tools.
You have to define what you mean by "energy change" and "wing efficiency" in terms of physics, not point to some software.
 
  • #234
rcgldr said:
...the gravitational potential energy between the earth and a satellite ...
What is your actual point about the energy in rest frame of the glider in steady decent? That the stationary glider is adding energy to the air? Or that the moving Earth is adding energy to the air?
 
  • #235
Arjan82 said:
Depends entirely on the setup as I said earlier. You have a pressure gradient, so it depends where on this gradient you put the static port.
Do we have any diagram of how pressure over distance from nozzle looks, it is expected that the pressure will drop with distance from nozzle, maybe linearly?
At first, my intuition say that pressure can't drop below atmospheric pressure, it can only be higher (or maybe equal at the end of air jet.)


Untitled.webp
 
Last edited:
  • #236
rcgldr said:
With a longer wingspan, a greater mass of air per unit time is accelerated by a smaller amount, resulting in smaller velocity and energy changes.

I agree

rcgldr said:
If there is zero energy change due to a wing,

There is not zero energy change due to a wing. What I'm saying is that from the perspective of a reference frame attached to the wing, the wing does not add energy to the flow. But if you want a complete picture, you now also need to include the earth. Because now it is the earth that is putting energy into the flow (let's assume a stationary earth with no wind anywhere, from the perspective of the wing the earth is dragging air along the wing, this costs energy.)

rcgldr said:
then why would a longer wing span be more efficient?

From a wing-fixed reference frame this argument is a lot harder to make since now you need to involve the earth (otherwise no energy is added to the system). So, it is a lot easier to just use the eart-fixed reference frame for this question.
 
  • #237
rcgldr said:
Again, my prior post wasn't about the tiny increase in pressure but instead the decrease in gravitational potential energy which is frame independent (this is a link) (assuming Newtonian physics), and ends up being transferred to the air as an increase in energy as the earth approaches the glider from the glider's frame of reference.

So I agree, the gravitational potential energy is the same as long as you take the same reference level. I was confused because normally it makes no sense to talk about gravitational potential energy from a wing-fixed reference frame. I also agree that in an earth fixed reference frame the glider is converting potential energy into kinetic energy with its wings.

My point however, is that from a wing-fixed reference frame, the wing is not putting kinetic energy into the flow. Now it is the earth that is moving closer to the wing, from the wing's perspective the boundary of the earth is moving. So it is the earth that is converting potential energy into kinetic energy, not the wing.

This matters, because from a wing-fixed reference frame you can use Bernoulli to compute pressure from velocity (as is done in XFoil). From an earth-fixed reference frame that is a lot harder to do.
 
  • #238
user079622 said:
Do we have any diagram of pressure over distance from nozzle looks,

This is way to complex to solve in a few forum posts. You need a physics book about turbulent jets for this.
 
  • #239
Arjan82 said:
This is way to complex to solve in a few forum posts. You need a physics book about turbulent jets for this.
Maybe will moderators add CFD section one day.
 
  • #240
Arjan82 said:
This is way to complex to solve in a few forum posts.
It's been a few... I'd say we are working on the textbook! :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K