Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Is irrotational flow field a conservative vector field?

  1. May 22, 2016 #1
    For a flowing fluid with a constant velocity, will this field be described as conservative vector field? If it is a conservative field, what will be the potential of that field?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2016 #2
    I suspect that "irrotational flow field" means "##\mathrm{rot} =0"## but not necessarily
    Assume that a vector field v is defined in simply connected domain and its rotor equals zero. Then v has a potential function.

    this you will see from definition of the potential function
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2016
  4. May 22, 2016 #3
    What sort of potential function that its gradient yields a constant velocity field? If I integrate a constant velocity ##v(x)=c## with respect to ##x##, this gives ##cx##. So what physical potential has this form?
     
  5. May 22, 2016 #4

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Didn't you just answer your own question? And potential of the form ##\phi = Ax + By## will give you a constant velocity field.

    Regarding your irrotationality question: saying a flow field is irrotational is equivalent to saying it is conservative. Consider that a conservative field can always be described as a gradient of a potential, and rotational is measured by the curl. Therefore,
    [tex]\nabla \times \nabla\phi \equiv 0[/tex]
     
  6. May 22, 2016 #5
    So if fluid is pumped through a pipe and flows at a constant velocity, what is the name of physical potential which is measured at any point along the length of the pipe? In general, does the potential gradient of a conservative field have to be a force field or it may be just a constant velocity field?
     
  7. May 22, 2016 #6
    this is wrong. The standard counterexample is as follows. Consider a domain
    $$D=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{R}^3\mid 1<x^2+y^2<2\}$$ and the following field ##v## in it
    $$v=\Big(-\frac{y}{x^2+y^2},\frac{x}{x^2+y^2},0\Big).$$ It is easy to see that ##\mathrm{rot}\,v=0##. However there is no function ##f## in ##D## such that ##\mathrm{grad}\,f=v##
     
  8. May 23, 2016 #7

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's fair. I took it a step too far with the "iff" relationship. I'll amend my original post to say that any flow field that can be described by a potential function is also, by definition, irrotational. Irrotationality is necessary but not sufficient for a field to be expressible as a potential.

    I am not sure that I fully understand what you are asking here. What do you mean by the "name of the physical potential"? Further, you can't really measure potential in a fluid flow. A potential gradient is, by definition (at least in this case) a velocity field (##\vec{v} = \nabla \phi##). The velocity in field does not have to be constant.
     
  9. May 23, 2016 #8
    The convention in physics is that the potential is just a short name of potential energy. But the unite of the potential in this example is velocity times distance which is not a unite of energy? So my question, what does this potential represent?
     
  10. May 23, 2016 #9

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Potential is not, in general, a short name for potential energy. It often works out that way (an started out that way), but that is not a general rule, as scalar potentials have much broader application than just gravity and electrostatics. A scalar potential is a scalar-valued function that can be used to completely describe a conservative vector field.
     
  11. May 24, 2016 #10

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is the famous example of the potential vortex. It has a potential in any domain with some half plane along the z-axis taken out. Such a potential is given in cylinder coordinates by
    $$V=-\varphi$$
    since then
    $$-\vec{\nabla}V=1/r \vec{e}_{\varphi}=(-y,x,0)/(x^2+y^2).$$
    Depending on which open interval of length ##2\pi## you have taken out a corresponding half-plane, which restricts the domain to a single connected part.
     
  12. May 24, 2016 #11
    I don`t understand this famous example because I am confusing about definitions. First what is the meaning of "some half plane along z taken out"? If the vector field can be represented as a gradient of a potential as required by the definition of conservative field, why isn`t it conservative?
    Also, wrobel said that the rot of that field =0 but in wikipedia is equal to ##2\pi##.
    Finally, by Stokes theorem the microcirculation in the form of curl should equal to macrocirculation in the form of rot, but here it is not the case?
     
  13. May 25, 2016 #12

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted