- #1
Deadstar
- 104
- 0
Suppose an inviscid, incompressible fluid is rotating uniformly with angular velocity [tex]\Omega[/tex]. Take Cartesian axes fixed in a frame rotating with that angular velocity.
Show that the evolution of a SMALL velocity field, [tex]u_1 = (u_1, v_1, w_1)[/tex], relative to the rotating axes and starting from rest is governed by...
[tex]\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial t} + 2 \Omega \times u_1 = -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla p_1[/tex]
[tex]\nabla \cdot u_1 = 0[/tex]
By eliminating u1, v1 and w1 , show that
[tex](\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} +\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}) + 4 \Omega^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2})p_1 = 0[/tex]First of I have to show that...
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x} ) = -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla^2 p_1[/tex]
and
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial y} ) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x})[/tex]
Which I can sort of do by taking dot product/cross product with respect to nabla except I can't justify why...
[tex](u_1 \cdot \nabla)2\Omega = 0[/tex]
and I don't see how the left hand side of...
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial y} ) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x})[/tex]
is not zero as it should be given the incompressible condition.
Show that the evolution of a SMALL velocity field, [tex]u_1 = (u_1, v_1, w_1)[/tex], relative to the rotating axes and starting from rest is governed by...
[tex]\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial t} + 2 \Omega \times u_1 = -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla p_1[/tex]
[tex]\nabla \cdot u_1 = 0[/tex]
By eliminating u1, v1 and w1 , show that
[tex](\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} +\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}) + 4 \Omega^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2})p_1 = 0[/tex]First of I have to show that...
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x} ) = -\frac{1}{\rho} \nabla^2 p_1[/tex]
and
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial y} ) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x})[/tex]
Which I can sort of do by taking dot product/cross product with respect to nabla except I can't justify why...
[tex](u_1 \cdot \nabla)2\Omega = 0[/tex]
and I don't see how the left hand side of...
[tex]2\Omega ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial y} ) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ( \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x})[/tex]
is not zero as it should be given the incompressible condition.
Last edited: