Kinematic viscosity confusion

AI Thread Summary
Kinematic viscosity is a measure of a fluid's resistance to flow, expressed in mm²/s, indicating how quickly a fluid can spread over an area. Thinner oils cover larger areas than thicker oils in the same time, leading to confusion about viscosity; however, thinner oils actually have lower viscosity. Viscosity relates shear stress to velocity gradients, acting as a proportionality constant rather than a direct measure of flow area. The concept of momentum dissipation is key, as viscosity describes how momentum diffuses between fluid layers, which is crucial for understanding fluid behavior in motion. The clarification on momentum diffusion helped resolve the initial confusion regarding kinematic viscosity.
DerrickStorm
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Fluids with a relatively high viscosity have a high resistance to flow. Fluids with a relatively low viscosity have very little resistance to flow.

Kinematic viscosity is measured in mm2/s. (This is area per second.)

If one "thick" oil and one "thin" oil are poured down onto a flat plane. The thinner oil covers a relatively larger area in than the thick oil does in the same amount of time.

The "thinner" oil clearly therefore covers a larger area per second. So does the thinner oil have a higher viscosity? I know this is incorrect.

How would one make sense of this given the existing unit of kinematic viscosity? Or is the example misleading? Some feedback would be most appreciated. :)

DJ Storm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The important thing to note is that viscosity is effectively just a proportionality constant relating shear stresses to velocity gradients. As such, the units are derived out of necessity for the proportionality to work, not from some physically measurable quantity like how much of a surface it wets at a given rate.
 
Thanks for the reply however its not very helpful. I've read that viscosity can be described as an ability to dissipate momentum. Is there a way to tie this description to the unit in a way that makes sense practically? An example or analogy would be helpful.
 
You pour syrup down a chute and it moves slowly and seems to resist flowing down the chute. It is more viscous than water, which readily flows down the same chute.
 
DerrickStorm said:
Thanks for the reply however its not very helpful. I've read that viscosity can be described as an ability to dissipate momentum. Is there a way to tie this description to the unit in a way that makes sense practically? An example or analogy would be helpful.

Perhaps you are confused by the unit area/time in viscosity (e.g., Stokes). You are correct that viscosity is a measure of momentum dissipation. Recall also that viscosity, in one dimensional flow, is used to relate the momentum of neighboring layers of moving fluid (e.g., du/dy). The momentum diffuses normal to the direction of flow and so conceptually, the flux of momentum out of one layer into another layer is expressed as area/time.

Does that help?
 
Andy Resnick said:
Perhaps you are confused by the unit area/time in viscosity (e.g., Stokes). You are correct that viscosity is a measure of momentum dissipation. Recall also that viscosity, in one dimensional flow, is used to relate the momentum of neighboring layers of moving fluid (e.g., du/dy). The momentum diffuses NORMAL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW and so conceptually, the flux of momentum out of one layer into another layer is expressed as area/time.

Does that help?

Thanks Andy, once I read "normal to the direction of flow" it made complete sense.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top