1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Irrotational/Rotational Flows and Velocity Potentials

  1. Jan 5, 2017 #1

    I am a bit confused about rotational and irrotational flows, in this way:

    When I do exam questions/problems, there is often a bit at the start of a question on flows about why you can treat the velocity as the gradient of a potential. The only information it gives you is that it is incompressible and irrotational. Now, I would have said that 'irrotational' implies that the curl of the velocity is zero, which I have always been told implies that the velocity can be written as the gradient of a potential. But then what about the flow velocity u_0/r in the theta_hat direction, in cylindrical coordinates? This has zero curl, but the flow comes back round on itself so can't be written as a gradient of a potential, which throws "curl(A) = 0 => A = grad(f)" into doubt. What on Earth is going on here? Is "curl(A) = 0 => A = grad(f)" incomplete?

    It seems that the condition is that there mustn't be some net circulation about some point, in which case I would have said 'irrotational' does not necessarily mean zero vorticity as many sources give, but instead means there isn't a net circulation about a point, whilst there is with the 1/r velocity field. I have a feeling this 1/r thing may be causing a breakdown of "curl(A) = 0 => A = grad(f)" because of the flow's unrealistic behaviour as r -> 0.

    Thanks in advance.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2017 #2

    Charles Link

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    With a quick look at it, I could not spot any flaw in your initial logic. Perhaps we're both missing something simple, but I think you may be correct, that the velocity function is not well-behaved as r ==>0 may make Stokes' theorem not valid for this case. I will take a closer look at it, but it is a bit of a puzzle. ## \\ ## Editing..This one is interesting. @Ray Vickson Can you take a look at this please.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted