Fluid Mechanics'Deriving' Incompressible Flow Criteria

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving criteria for determining when a flow can be considered incompressible. It emphasizes the manipulation of density in the continuity equation, specifically approximating the term involving density and velocity gradients. The transition from one mathematical expression to another raises questions about the reasoning behind the steps, particularly the shift from partial derivatives to relative changes. Participants clarify that the changes in notation reflect a simplification of the relationships between variables. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities involved in fluid mechanics and the importance of understanding these approximations.
Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
Here we go...

My text attempts to 'derive' an expression that explains when a flow is compressible or not:

]When is a given flow approximately incompressible? We can derive a nice criterion by playing a little fast and loose with density approximations...

Great :rolleyes: ... if there's anything I like better than making density approximations, it's playing 'fast and loose' with them. :smile:

He then goes on to say:
..In essence, we wish to slip the density out of the divergence in the continuity equation and approximate a typical term as
\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{x}} (\rho u)\approx\rho\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}} \qquad (1)

This is equivalent to the strong inequality

<br /> <br /> |u\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{x}}|\ll |\rho\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}}| \qquad (2)<br /> <br />

or

<br /> <br /> |\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho}|\ll|\frac{\delta V}{V}| \qquad (3)<br />

I am completely baffled as to how we went from (1) to (2) ...let alone from (2) to (3)?
Any thoughts?

Casey
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Casey! :smile:

∂(ρu)/∂x = u∂ρ/∂x + ρ∂u/∂x,

so if u∂ρ/∂x << ρ∂u/∂x, we can ignore it, and then ∂(ρu)/∂x ~ ρ∂u/∂x. :wink:

(2) to (3) is simply rearrangement (and changing u to V for some reason which escapes me)
 
Oh...that darned chain rule! :smile: Thanks tiny-tim.

Also, silly question, but why did we change the ∂'s into \delta's ?

Is it because the (∂x)'s 'canceled' and thus it is no longer a derivative, but just a relation between 'changes?'
 
(2) to (3) is based upon the fact that this argument must be repeated for the v and w-components as well, and hence, that the relative infinitesemal change in density must be much less than the relative infinitesemal change in the maximal velocity component, and hence, much less than the relative infinitesemal change in the fluid speed.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top