I Explain Bernoulli at the molecular level?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter user079622
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
  • #201
rcgldr said:
Consider earth, air, and glider as a closed system. Gravitational potential energy is a function of distance between earth and glider, regardless of what inertial frame of reference is used. From the glider's frame of reference, the earth is moving closer to the glider, gravitational potential energy decreases, energy of the air increases, energy is conserved.

Please re-read the appropriate books on this topic. Nobody is denying that a glider is converting potential energy into kinetic energy of the air. But that's only true from the earth-fixed reference frame.

The question is whether you can apply Bernoulli on a wing. I say yes, because no energy is added to the flow in the frame of reference that is attached to the wing. You are not providing any additional arguments to the point you are making and the point that we have debunked a few times now, and in fact every fluid dynamicist is using this fact on a daily basis.

Energy is not frame independent. In the reference frame attached to the wing there are no moving boundaries, so no work is being done. From the wing's perspective it is the Earth's surface that is coming closer, so from the wing's perspective it is actually the Earth that is doing the work (since that is now a moving boundary) not the wing.

Please do not simply repeat your statement, but provide extra arguments or some reasoning on why you think you are right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
Arjan82 said:
only true from the earth-fixed reference frame. Energy is not frame independent.
What I stated is that conservation of energy (not the amount of energy) in a closed system is frame independent.

Lift and drag parameters for an airfoil can be calculated assuming no energy change (Navier Stokes, Kutta Joukowski, Euler, ...) but that doesn't mean that an energy change does not occur. My assumption here is that most of the energy change occurs behind the wing, and is not needed to calculate flows and pressures on the airfoil itself.

Gravitational potential energy is frame independent, it's a function of distance between objects (-G M m / r). From the earth frame, the glider moves closer, from the glider frame the earth moves closer. So if using the glider frame of reference, as the earth gets closer, where is that decrease in gravitational energy going?
 
Last edited:
  • #203
Arjan82 said:
Depends on what you want to do with the results. It is not really correct. It depends on the next steps.
Nothing other than try to get some quantitative model that acts reasonable enough to be worth studying a bit. My other goal is just to learn how these equations apply in different circumstances under different assumptions, explore for fun.
 
  • #204
rcgldr said:
What I stated is that conservation of energy (not the amount of energy) in a closed system is frame independent.

That is indeed what you also stated, and that is true, I'm not arguing that.

But what you also stated is that if you are in the frame of reference attached to the wing, energy is added to the flow. And that is NOT true.

rcgldr said:
Lift and drag parameters for an airfoil can be calculated assuming no energy change (Navier Stokes, Kutta Joukowski, Euler, ...) but that doesn't mean that an energy change does not occur.

You need to keep your eyes on the ball, because you are moving the goalposts... For Navier-Stokes or Euler there can be energy change, no problem. Kutta Joukowski is very specifically derived for flow around an airfoil from the frame of reference of that airfoil. So in that case you really NEED to have no energy exchange (the word 'assumption' implies there could be energy exchange but it is somehow not relevant enough, that is NOT what we are talking about here). However, none of this is the point.

The point is whether Bernoulli can be applied or not. In the derivation of Bernoulli you need to assume there is no energy added to the flow anywhere, not just on the wing's surface.

rcgldr said:
My assumption here is that most of the energy change occurs behind the wing,

Assumption?!? That is a very wrong assumption. You are trying to fit your misconception to your story. But it just doesn't fit. You need to reconsider this assumption.

There are only several specific ways you can add energy to a flow:
  • Moving boundaries (work is a force over a distance). From the perspective of the wing, there are no moving boundaries
  • Body forces, i.e. volume forces directly applied to an air parcel itself. This can be gravity or magnetic forces if you have a ferrofluid. But for potential flow gravity drops out of the equation because it is a conservative force field, so no body forces doing work in this case.
  • Some type of direct heating, and I'm sure you can think of som other exotic ways which are not relevant here.

So, none of the above mechanisms apply for a wing analyze from a reference frame that is attached to the wing. Conclusion: no energy is added to the flow in this case. Please explain how energy would be added to the flow behind the wing. How does that work?!?

rcgldr said:
and is not needed to calculate flows and pressures on the airfoil itself.

That is again simply not true. The effect of pressure is not just felt on the airfoil itself, it propagates well beyond that. The Kutta Joukowski equation is actually a solution of the entire flow around the airfoil, not just on the surface. So there is no location around the airfoil where it is allowed to add energy, not on the surface, not behind it, nowhere... Because if you do, Kutta Joukowski is not valid anymore...

rcgldr said:
Gravitational potential energy is frame independent, it's a function of distance between objects (G M m / r).

That is not true, read a mechanics book.

rcgldr said:
From the earth frame, the glider moves closer, from the glider frame the earth moves closer. So if using the glider frame of reference, as the earth gets closer, where is that decrease in gravitational energy going?
To the air... But the pressure field of a slowly moving earth towards the glider has hardly any influence on the results, you can happily ignore that. However, technically, this is an assumption. A very very mild one though...
 
  • #205
@Arjan82 My Next step is The Momentum Equation. I'm going to try and parse out how to apply it to this problem to derive the force from the air when the frame is the ground with an accelerating cart. I hope ( based on this discussion) to find that it will be equivalent to the force from the air on the cart when the cart is moving at a constant velocity only when I ignore the details of the acceleration of the air in the control volume. After that I hope to explore how to handle some forced kinematics in the unsteady term ( my ignorant assumptions) - I only hope there to explore how the machinery of the equations work when I give them some inputs about what is happening inside the control volume - when its time for that - probably in a new thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #206
erobz said:
@Arjan82 My Next step is The Momentum Equation. I'm going to try and parse out how to apply it to this problem to derive the force from the air when the frame is the ground with an accelerating cart. I hope ( based on this discussion) to find that it will be equivalent to the force from the air on the cart when the cart is moving at a constant velocity only when I ignore the details of the acceleration of the air in the control volume. After that I hope to explore how to handle some forced kinematics in the unsteady term ( my ignorant assumptions) - I only hope there to explore how the machinery of the equations work when I give them some inputs about what is happening inside the control volume - when its time for that - probably in a new thread.

I can save you a lot of trouble. Look again at this equation:
1747673683732.webp


You can easily rewrite this equation to be expressed as an expression for the static pressure:
$$
p = \rho \left(f(t) - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} - \frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi\right|^2 \right)
$$

If you assume acceleration (and since this equation is derived for an inertial frame of reference, we are talking about a cart that is actually moving with respect to the frame of reference), then ##\partial\phi / \partial t## is not zero.

But if you assume acceleration is zero, then ##\partial \phi / \partial t = 0##. Since you want to compare the time instance that velocity is equal for both the non-accelerating and accelerating case, that means that ##\nabla \phi## is equal for both cases. Therefore, the static pressure ##p## must change.

So, whatever you come up with, it has to agree with this analysis.
 
  • #207
Arjan82 said:
But what you also stated is that if you are in the frame of reference attached to the wing, energy is added to the flow. And that is NOT true.
The glider is adding turbulence to the flow. The kinetic energy embodied in turbulence is an invariant. Of course the turbulence eventually dissipates into thermal energy. That is also an invariant.
 
  • #208
jbriggs444 said:
The glider is adding turbulence to the flow. The kinetic energy embodied in turbulence is an invariant. Of course the turbulence eventually dissipates into thermal energy. That is also an invariant.
But in that case Bernoulli doesn't apply anyway. In the whole discussion we (at least I am) talking about potential flow.
 
  • #209
Arjan82 said:
I can save you a lot of trouble. Look again at this equation:
View attachment 361250

You can easily rewrite this equation to be expressed as an expression for the static pressure:
$$
p = \rho \left(f(t) - \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} - \frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi\right|^2 \right)
$$

If you assume acceleration (and since this equation is derived for an inertial frame of reference, we are talking about a cart that is actually moving with respect to the frame of reference), then ##\partial\phi / \partial t## is not zero.

But if you assume acceleration is zero, then ##\partial \phi / \partial t = 0##. Since you want to compare the time instance that velocity is equal for both the non-accelerating and accelerating case, that means that ##\nabla \phi## is equal for both cases. Therefore, the static pressure ##p## must change.

So, whatever you come up with, it has to agree with this analysis.
I'm sure you are correct, but my objective ( finding the force acting againt ##F##) is I believe currently adjacent to finding the static pressure.

Also, the notation is too compact for me to get any sense of. I only have a single reference textbook to work with and they don't have much of anything about the Navier Stokes Equations, other than some derivations from the equations they expect an engineer to work with at low level, namely these forms.

erobz said:
$$ 0 = \frac{ d}{dt} \int_{cv} \rho d V\llap{-} + \int_{cs} \rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} ) \tag{Continuity}$$

$$ \sum \boldsymbol{F} = \frac{ d}{dt} \int_{cv} \rho \boldsymbol{v} d V\llap{-} + \int_{cs} \boldsymbol{v}\rho ( \boldsymbol {V}\cdot d \boldsymbol{A} ) \tag{Momentum}$$

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


They are the only thing I have any type of familiarity (If I dare say) with, and/or can try to extrapolate from basic examples given in the text. So, I have to stay in my lane with these for a bit.

In the text these are said to be valid so long as ## \boldsymbol v ## is referenced from an inertial frame. ## \boldsymbol V ## is always in reference to the control surface. They would coincide if the control volume (including cart here as I've drawn) was not accelerating.
 
Last edited:
  • #210
Arjan82 said:
But what you also stated is that if you are in the frame of reference attached to the wing, energy is added to the flow. And that is NOT true.
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?
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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:
 
  • #241
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?
Yeah, I agree (I think we all do now) that is the reality of an accelerating cart. If a wall is moving at constant velocity it will have displacement ## \delta x \approx v \delta t##. If the wall is accelerating at constant ##a##, then it has displacement ## \delta x \approx v \delta t + \frac{1}{2}a (\delta t)^2 ##. So, presumably more work will be done on the particle per unit ## \delta t ## in the case where the wall is accelerating assuming ##\delta t## doesn't strongly depend on ##a##.

The devil here is in the details of the unsteady terms I crossed out in post no 225. You can work on the equations I provided (with now some hopefully sensible examples), make some different assumptions and pull the levers. That will be the same thing I am doing. Perhaps start with a constant velocity control volume and try to make some assumptions about the flow-mass acceleration inside it and see what happens to the equations.
 
Last edited:
  • #242
A.T. said:
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?
rcgldr said:
Simplified velocity vectors for a wing in level flight (v is smaller than actual).
What do you mean by "(v is smaller than actual)". Is v the freestream velocity, or is it already reduced due to interaction with the wing?
A.T. said:
The incoming air is deflected mostly downwards (lift), and somewhat forwards (drag). The resulting vector is greater in magnitude, reflecting an increase in energy.
Greater in magnitude, than the freestream velocity?

That would violate energy conservation: You could put a bunch of those airfoils in a circular pipe, and they would keep speeding up the flow.

A static object cannot do positive work on anything, and thus cannot transfer energy to the flow. Just like the static road cannot do positive work on the wheel, as was explained to you ad nauseam in this previous thread:

Look at the definition of mechanical power:
P = F dot v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)#Definition
Since the angle between relative flow velocity (freestream) and force by the air on the wing is always less than 90°, the angle between relative flow velocity (freestream) and force by the wing on the air is always greater than 90°. So the dot product of F_on_air and v_air is negative, meaning that no energy is added to the air by the wing in the rest frame of the wing, and the air must actually slow down on average in that frame.
 
Last edited:
  • #243
A.T. said:
A static object cannot do positive work on anything, and thus cannot transfer energy to the flow.
You're correct. I deleted that post (brain fade on my part). I don't recall where I got those images from. There would be a decrease in energy: Δ v would be angled more forwards, and | v + Δ v | < | v | (using | ... | for magnitude).

Getting back to the glider in a steady descent, using the glider as frame of reference, the energy of the air affected by the glider is decreasing. Energy is conserved, so some form of energy is increasing. As noted in that answer from Stack Exchange, since the potential well is moving with respect to the glider's frame of reference, "the concept of potential energy no longer offers a quick and easy way to keep track of the energy movements."

There have already been posts that agree that if using the earth | air as a frame of reference, gravitational potential energy decreases and energy of the air increases.

Getting back on topic, I previously posted about the OP question about Bernoulli at the molecular level, would apply in the case of an idealized Venturi tube with no change in total energy, but in the case of an aircraft the total energy increases as the speed of the aircraft increases, and that static pressure remains constant in that case.
 
Last edited:
  • #244
rcgldr said:
Getting back to the glider in a steady descent, using the glider as frame of reference, the energy of the air affected by the glider is decreasing.
Yes, locally around the glider the kinetic energy of the air is reduced in the rest frame of the glider.

But the kinetic energy of the atmosphere as a whole cannot be continuously decreasing in the rest frame of the glider, because here the Earth is moving at constant speed, and the atmosphere must move along with the Earth. So, the moving Earth must transfer energy to the now slower moving atmosphere to compensate for the local KE reduction by the static glider. This is where the gravitational potential energy of the Earth-glider-system is going to.
 
Last edited:
  • #245
A.T. said:
1) I think this discussion about energy balance of the entire Earth glider system should be a separate thread, because this one is already too long and too confused.
I agree with this, if someone is willing to take the time to do this. I wouldn't mind a restart on the earth glider system, especially for a glider based frame of reference versus gravitational potential energy.

I'm also thinking that the best example of Bernoulli at the molecular level would be a idealized Venturi tube and a fluid or gas with zero viscosity, and no change in total energy.

Wings complicate things because viscosity is needed to cause a gas to follow a convex surface.

For some of the other cases mentioned, static pressure remains constant while total energy changes as relative speed changes.
 
  • #246
rcgldr said:
I wouldn't mind a restart on the earth glider system, especially for a glider based frame of reference versus gravitational potential energy.
If my post #224 doesn't sufficently answer this, then you can start a new thread. Consider replacing the glider with something falling in the atmosphere vertically at constant terminal velocity. Then you have a simpler 1D case that captures the same issues regarding energy, for which the horizontal motion of the glider is not key.
 
  • #247
A.T. said:
If my post #224 doesn't sufficiently answer this, then you can start a new thread.
I'm still wondering about the horizontal component, especially if you consider the earth's surface to be frictionless, in which case, there could be a continuous change in the horizontal component of air velocity until the glider lands. If the earth's surface is not frictionless, then a horizontal component of flow would apply a toque onto the earth. However, I'm not looking for answer to this now, as I need to do more research. It only took me about 3 minutes to figure out DDWFTTW was possible, but I'm still having issues with the earth + air + glider situation.
 
  • #248
rcgldr said:
... but I'm still having issues with the earth + air + glider situation.
That's no reason for hijacking someone else's thread. Start your own.
 
  • #249
A.T. said:
That's no reason for hijacking someone else's thread. Start your own.
I agree. I'm waiting to see if someone wants to move all the glider related posts to another thread. If they just want to delete them, I wouldn't have an issue with that either, but don't know about the others involved. I did go through and did strike-through on my prior posts.
 
  • #250
A.T. said:
A static object cannot do positive work on anything, and thus cannot transfer energy to the flow.
Getting back on topic, in the case of a static Venturi, as the tube diameter decreases, pressure energy decreases while kinetic energy increases. In a real world situation, the total energy decreases due to losses, but kinetic energy can be increased. Indy and Formula 1 race cars use Venturi principle to reduce pressure underneath a car which also speeds up the relative (to the car) air flow underneath the car. Diffusers at the back of the car smooth out the transition at the rear to reduce losses (drag).
 
Back
Top