A Is there a stagnation point in turbulent flows not involving solids?

Click For Summary
When two free jets collide at an angle, a stagnation point typically forms in the impingement zone, around which streamlines are deflected. Recent analyses indicate that the collision may not be completely elastic, suggesting energy loss and potential turbulence in this zone. The presence of turbulence raises questions about the existence of a stagnation point, as it may be dynamically moving due to the turbulent flow. However, it is argued that a stagnation point can still exist as a fixed point where fluid velocity is zero, even in turbulent conditions. The discussion emphasizes the complexity of fluid dynamics in collisions and the potential for multiple fixed points in turbulent flows.
rdemyan
Messages
67
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
Is there a stagnation point in turbulent flows not involving solids?

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/classical-physics.61/post-thread
When two free jets collide at some impingement angle (not necessarily a head on collision), the usual assumption is that in the impingement zone there is a stagnation point around which stream lines are deflected. From this stagnation point, a thin liquid sheet is created, which eventually breaks down into droplets at some distance downstream. Originally, all analyses assumed that there was no loss of energy in the impingement zone. However, more recent results seem to suggest that the collision is not 100% elastic. My question is: if there is in fact turbulence created in the impingement zone of colliding free jets (as a result of an energy release), can there be a stagnation point? Is a stagnation point possible in a turbulent impingement zone especially when only two liquids are involved and there is no solid object.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

If a steady flow is separated, by any collision, into one or more different paths, there must be a stagnation point. That stagnation point may be moving dynamically as a result of the turbulence.

Where there is counterflow, or an eddy, there must also be a fixed point.
 
I don't understand your comment regarding a fixed point. I assume you are stating that the fixed point is the stagnation point.
 
rdemyan said:
I assume you are stating that the fixed point is the stagnation point.
I am saying the inverse, that the stagnation point is a fixed point. The fluid there has zero velocity.

There may be other fixed points in a turbulent flow. If the flow divides into two paths at one of those points, then it is also a stagnation point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem
 
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K