Fluid Mechanics: Constant Pressure and Incompressible flow

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the assumptions of constant pressure and incompressibility in fluid mechanics, particularly in the context of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) temperature equation derivations. Participants explore the implications of these assumptions on pressure and temperature relationships in incompressible flows.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the constant pressure assumption can coexist with the incompressibility assumption, arguing that heating an incompressible fluid would increase pressure, thus challenging the constant pressure condition.
  • Another participant references a thermodynamic relationship for incompressible fluids, suggesting that changes in enthalpy are related to temperature changes and pressure changes, indicating a complex interaction between these variables.
  • There is a discussion about a potential error in a textbook regarding the formula for enthalpy change, with some participants asserting that the book's statement of dh = Cp dT is incorrect, while others defend the consistency of the equations presented in the book.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the textbook's formula and the implications of the constant pressure and incompressibility assumptions. No consensus is reached regarding the correctness of the formula or the compatibility of the assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion arising from the thermodynamic relationships and the assumptions made in the derivations, highlighting the need for clarity on definitions and conditions under which the equations apply.

olski1
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Assuming a flow can be idealised as incompressible, then can you use the constant pressure assumption ?

I just want to get my understanding clear. My problem is the following.Consider a fluid element with volume ##V## and a fixed number of molecules. If the flow is incompressible, then the volume of this element does not change. Right? (otherwise the density would change). Then if the volume does not change, and say you heated it through some process (Joule dissipation, Viscous Dissipation, Conduction etc), then the pressure would have to increase right? So hence, you cannot use the constant pressure assumption and the incompressible assumption at the same time?

The reason I am asking is because I am looking at some MHD temperature equation derivations. There is one step where the substantial derivative ##DP/DT## disappears, where ##P## is the pressure field. There is no reason given, but if it does, then there must be some assumption that the pressure field is atleast approximately constant in both space and time. But how can this be if the fluid is also considered incompressible?

Here is the equations that have confused me

\rho \frac{Dh}{Dt} = \frac{Dp}{Dt} + \rho \dot{q}_{rad} + \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbf{j}^2+ \mu \nabla^2 \mathbf{V}

\rho c_p\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} + (\mathbf{V} \cdot \nabla)T\right) = \rho \dot{q}_{rad} + \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbf{j}^2+ \mu \nabla^2 \mathbf{V}

Note that the LHS is just the definition of enthalpy substituted for ##h=c_pT## and the substantial derivative being expanded.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thermodynamically, for an incompressible fluid dh = CpdT + vdP = CpdT + dP/ρ

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: olski1
Chestermiller said:
Thermodynamically, for an incompressible fluid dh = CpdT + vdP = CpdT + dP/ρ

Chet
...and that's the key...thanks Chester, so the book used the wrong formula.
 
olski1 said:
...and that's the key...thanks Chester, so the book used the wrong formula.
I'm not sure the book used the wrong formula. Did they actually say that dh = Cp dT? Both equations form the book look consistent with the equation I wrote down.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
I'm not sure the book used the wrong formula. Did they actually say that dh = Cp dT? Both equations form the book look consistent with the equation I wrote down.

Chet
Yes, the book stated dh=cpdT bizarrely
 
olski1 said:
Yes, the book stated dh=cpdT bizarrely
Go figure. Even the experts make mistakes.

Chet
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
15K