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.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top