Fluid Dynamics: The nature of vortex's

[Kiril]

I've recently read a paper which suggested some properties of vortex's, which I could not confirm in my elementary physics textbooks or during a quick google search.

I hope to find some evidence that:
All vortex phenomena are actually composed of two vortex's:
1 - An outer vortex which is contracting
2 - And inner vortex which is expanding, and rotating counter to vortex (1)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Can you provide the reference? That will help me understand your question.

 

[Kiril]

Yes, of course, however, if I was not clear, please inform me of what is the cause of confusion and I will try to clarify.

Reference:
http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/scalar_wave-effects.pdf
Page :7

Thanks,

Kiril

 

[Antiphon]

This has the smell of crackpottery all over it.

RFID technology is not scalar Tesla waves. (in fact nothing is.)

 

[Kiril]

Antiphon, I understand your objection(scalar has no direction, etc...) and welcome your input in future discussions. However, my primary concern in this thread is fluid dynamics. I will greatly appreciate any assistance to this end.

Thanks,

Kiril

 

[boneh3ad]

Where in the paper does it mention fluids?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Yes, of course, however, if I was not clear, please inform me of what is the cause of confusion and I will try to clarify.

Reference:
http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/scalar_wave-effects.pdf
Page :7

Thanks,

Kiril

Yikes... I'd have to go through the E&M part in detail, but the vortex/antivortex part about tornadoes is foolish.

Vortices in fluid mechanics is an extensively researched topic, but there's nothing in your reference to support the claim of vortex/antivortex.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521477395/?tag=pfamazon01-20
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PhDT...39P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamical_helicity
http://dragonfly.tam.cornell.edu/cfd.html

 

[Studiot]

Hello kiril,

Are you aware of the difference between fluid vorticity and rotational/irrotational flow as in a line vortex?

There is a fluid flow phenomenon, known as a Taylor vortex where the flow develops into a series of contra rotating 'Taylor vortices'.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hello kiril,

Are you aware of the difference between fluid vorticity and rotational/irrotational flow as in a line vortex?

There is a fluid flow phenomenon, known as a Taylor vortex where the flow develops into a series of contra rotating 'Taylor vortices'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor–Couette_flow

Chandrasekar has an excellent chapter on the stability of Couette flow in "Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability", and discusses critical Taylor numbers in detail.

It's not clear (to me, anyways) how Couette flow relates to tornadoes.

 

[Studiot]

It's not clear (to me, anyways) how Couette flow relates to tornadoes.

I was wondering if Kiril had mixed up a few things he had come across.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Yes, of course, however, if I was not clear, please inform me of what is the cause of confusion and I will try to clarify.

Reference:
http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/scalar_wave-effects.pdf
Page :7

Thanks,

Kiril

There's a lot about this that doesn't 'smell' right- for example, his 1.11 and 1.12 are both fine and don't seem to contradict each other- what he calls "longitudinal scalar waves" are better known as the near-field components, and are included as part of Maxwell's equations: using his equations, the divergence term in 1.12 corresponds to the near-field, which is also his 'vortex damping' term in 1.11- IIRC, you can get one from the other. Why he uses the term 'field vortices' is beyond me. Sometimes the near field components are called "inhomogeneous waves", as opposed to the far-field traveling "homogeneous" waves.

Then, after creating confusion where once there was none, the author goes off in some weird direction. To be fair, reconciling 2.1 and 2.2 is not trivial and has resulted in it's own set of literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

In the end, all he seems to be talking about is evanescent field coupling.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I was wondering if Kiril had mixed up a few things he had come across.

Maybe, but considering how mangled the reference is, much of the fault has to go to Prof. Meyl.

 

[Kiril]

Yikes... I'd have to go through the E&M part in detail, but the vortex/antivortex part about tornadoes is foolish.

Vortices in fluid mechanics is an extensively researched topic, but there's nothing in your reference to support the claim of vortex/antivortex.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521477395/?tag=pfamazon01-20
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PhDT...39P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamical_helicity
http://dragonfly.tam.cornell.edu/cfd.html

There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of Meyl's books/papers to support this claim. Since it is integral to his entire theory and since he claims universality of the phenomenon - he claims that it exists in eddies of electrons, gases and liquids - its what I sought to validate first.

There's a lot about this that doesn't 'smell' right- for example, his 1.11 and 1.12 are both fine and don't seem to contradict each other- what he calls "longitudinal scalar waves" are better known as the near-field components, and are included as part of Maxwell's equations: using his equations, the divergence term in 1.12 corresponds to the near-field, which is also his 'vortex damping' term in 1.11- IIRC, you can get one from the other. Why he uses the term 'field vortices' is beyond me. Sometimes the near field components are called "inhomogeneous waves", as opposed to the far-field traveling "homogeneous" waves.

Then, after creating confusion where once there was none, the author goes off in some weird direction. To be fair, reconciling 2.1 and 2.2 is not trivial and has resulted in it's own set of literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

In the end, all he seems to be talking about is evanescent field coupling.

Mayl's books on the subject go into much more detail and explain away most of the confusions you've pointed out. What remains however, is his physical interpretation of the equations, which as I say rest on the claim of the vortex/anti-vortex structure of eddies.

To be sure there seem to be some problems with this approach, however, on the level of physical descriptions/interpretation, there are no fewer problems with the classical and quantum approaches to EM/light propagation(perhaps worse, since the law of identity/causality is largely discarded). In this respect, I consider his an honest attempt, not worthy of discussion via odors/smells.

 

[Kiril]

Hello kiril,

Are you aware of the difference between fluid vorticity and rotational/irrotational flow as in a line vortex?

There is a fluid flow phenomenon, known as a Taylor vortex where the flow develops into a series of contra rotating 'Taylor vortices'.

No I'm not aware of the difference, but I'm intrigued by the distinction, thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, I was aware of the Taylor vortex phenomenon, however Meyl is referring to concentric vortexs.

I was wondering if Kiril had mixed up a few things he had come across.

No, I'm certain this is Meyl's claim.

 

[Antiphon]

To be sure there seem to be some problems with this approach, however, on the level of physical descriptions/interpretation, there are no fewer problems with the classical and quantum approaches to EM/light propagation(perhaps worse, since the law of identity/causality is largely discarded). In this respect, I consider his an honest attempt, not worthy of discussion via odors/smells.

I'm not impuning the Professor in any way. His views are more mainstream Physics than a lot of people who's views I take seriously.

But the onus isvery much on the professor here to not taint his work with the terminology of crackpottery which he has most certainly done. If you want to be dismissed immediately in physics and banned from this forum, keep talking about Scalar Tesla fields and hydrodynamic augmentations of Maxwell's equations.

It would be like 1) an astronomer coming up with equations for the positions of the planets having an effect on your personality and calling it the Capricorn Effect then 2) having people call it crackpottery / Astrology and 3) having a third party get upset that the second party derides the astronomer.

You're the third party, I'm the second, and the professor is the astronomer.

The verbiage of "Smells" is not inappropriate here.

 

[Kiril]

Antiphon, please understand that I had no intention to offend the sensibilities or beliefs of anyone in the way you describe - note again the form of my initial question, and that it does not include any mention of Maxwell or Tesla, nor does it implicate them(nor was there need for it).


I will say however, that your approach which reeks of second handedness, of emotional generalization, is epistemologically and psychologically inadequate.