Is there a difference between work and circulation?

AI Thread Summary
Work and circulation are often confused due to their similar formulas, but they represent different concepts in physics. Work is defined as the integral of force over distance, while circulation refers to the integral of velocity around a closed loop. The term "circulation" is commonly used in fluid dynamics, particularly in aerodynamics, but it does not directly relate to energy in the same way work does. The discussion raises questions about the relationship between these terms and their applications in thermodynamic cycles like the Rankine or Brayton cycles. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for clarity in physics discussions.
Ahmz
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
These two things seem to be exactly the same (even down to the same formula), so I'm having difficulty understanding why they are two different terms.

Is circulation just the work done as you go around a circle once?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What exactly do you mean by "circulation"? It is not a standard name for anything in physics unless you mean the circulation of fluids (e. g. water going around in pipes), but then the comparison to energy doesn't make sense.
 
Hi Ahmz, :welcome:
Ahmz said:
even down to the same formula
Seems strange to me. Could be a 'lost in translation' mishap. Can you show us the text ?
 
Ahmz said:
These two things seem to be exactly the same (even down to the same formula), so I'm having difficulty understanding why they are two different terms.

Is circulation just the work done as you go around a circle once?
Isn't work the integral of Fds and circulation the integral around a loop of vds? How are these the same?
 
Can you provide a reference to the two equations. I only half remember circulation being a term in aerodynamics.
 
Does this question have anything to do with thermodynamic cycles ?

Like the Rankine or Brayton cycles ?
 
Last edited:
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