Aerodynamics remains an active field of research, with ongoing efforts to improve numerical modeling of fluid flow, particularly in addressing the turbulence problem. The Navier-Stokes equations, fundamental to computational fluid dynamics (CFD), are not yet fully solved, and many researchers continue to explore new numerical models and algorithms. The discussion emphasizes the importance of balancing mathematical modeling with experimental observation, as real-world validation is crucial for accurate predictions. Notably, the belief that all phenomena can be captured by predictive mathematical formulations is challenged, highlighting the necessity of empirical data in fluid mechanics.
PREREQUISITESResearchers, engineers, and students in fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, and computational modeling who seek to deepen their understanding of current challenges and methodologies in the field.
Most of the 'solutions' to it that I've seen invoke chaos theory and talk about pendulums for some reason.vanhees71 said:
I very strongly disagree with this assessment. The very purpose of mathematically modeling systems is to save the cost (sometimes very expensive) of constructing numerous configurations of equipment to manufacture and improve products or provide other functionality. Although crude CFD models are now available to analyze systems involving turbulence, they are still often somewhat inaccurate, and substantial improvement of. these models would be very desirable. Anyone who has had to design or analyze a real world system involving turbulent flow, where real money is at stake in the outcome, is well aware of the potential value of more accurate CFD models that include turbulence.InkTide said:
I don't mean to say that such a model would be useless - quite to the contrary, for all the reasons you stated.Chestermiller said:
That is excellent. We frequently get posters who think they can calculate in cases where they should experiment. If you could reduce it to a memorable quote short enough to print on a Tee-shirt, we could quote it again and again.InkTide said:
Maybe something like, "If the math must model reality, a real model might be easier"? I think that still contains the gist of the idea.anorlunda said:
My experience is that it is not an either-or prospect. Experience has shown that, for best results, modeling and experimentation go hand-in-hand in an overall development, and are complementary, rather than competing. It is up to the judgment of the researcher to determine the extent to which each is used in a particular development.InkTide said:
There are many, many areas of active research in fluid mechanics/aerodynamics. More specific examples would need more specific questions, however.Jurgen M said:
This is categorically false. There are many open problems in fluid mechanics. One avenue to solving them is through new numerical models and algorithms, but those models and algorithms themselves are far from the only active areas of research.Baluncore said:
No.vanhees71 said:
Y'mean something like this?anorlunda said:
I think back to my high school physics class where we were basically given a bunch of formulae that covered various situations with very little context for why they applied. Obviously this was rectified later in my education when taking calculus-based physics and learning first principles, but not everyone has that or escapes the original mindset. I think that's why we get a lot of posters who think they can find a simple formula for anything.anorlunda said:
I agree, but there's another factor. Even if you have a formula, you're still stuck if you don't know the values of the coefficients. Finding the coefficient with a bit of experimentation is the best advice sometimes.boneh3ad said:
I think that's wrapped up in the same issue as before, though. My favorite example is when we get someone asking about calculating drag on an object. They say things like "I found the drag equation, ##D = 0.5 C_D A \rho v^2##, but how do I calculate the drag coefficient?" That's a good example of an equation where students and other curious minds are deceived by its simplicity without realizing the amount of complicated physics baked into ##C_D##. Like you said, that isn't something that can generally be calculated, but must be measured in an experiment.anorlunda said:
anorlunda said:
Feynman said: