Linearized Continuity (Fluids)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity Fluids
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the linearized continuity equation for incompressible flow in cylindrical coordinates. Participants are examining the differences between two formulations of the continuity equation and questioning the terminology used, particularly the term "linearized." The context includes theoretical aspects of fluid dynamics and the interpretation of mathematical expressions in the literature.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the standard continuity equation for incompressible flow in cylindrical coordinates and questions the inclusion of the term ##u_z## in a linearized form presented by another author.
  • Another participant suggests that the authors of physics textbooks may not always provide clear explanations, implying that understanding the equation itself is more important than the authors' intentions.
  • A later reply acknowledges the confusion regarding the dimensions involved in the equations and suggests that they may be incomparable.
  • One participant mentions the Plateau-Rayleigh instability as a context for the problem but expresses a desire to move on from the confusion surrounding the equations.
  • Another participant proposes that in some texts, ##u_z## could be interpreted as the partial derivative of velocity with respect to z, but questions this interpretation based on the notation used in the continuity equation.
  • One participant challenges the interpretation of ##u_z## as a derivative, arguing that it does not align with the continuity equation as presented by the authors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the continuity equation and the terminology used. There is no consensus on how the term "linearized" is applied or on the correct interpretation of the velocity components involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with dimensional analysis and the use of subscripts to denote specific velocity components, which may lead to confusion in understanding the equations presented.

member 428835
Hi PF!

Continuity for incompressible flow independent of ##\theta## is ##\nabla\cdot u = \partial_ru_r+u_r/r+\partial_z u_z=0##. However, I'm following a problem in cylindrical coordinates, same assumptions as above, and the author states the linearized conservation of mass is ##\partial_ru_r+u_r/r+u_z## (two different authors wrote this so I doubt it's a typo). How are they arriving at this? Also, continuity is already linear in ##u##, so what do they mean by "linearized"?

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Authors of physics textbooks ramble sometimes. You understand the equation by itself do not you? Then skip this comment and go on.
 
zwierz said:
Authors of physics textbooks ramble sometimes. You understand the equation by itself do not you? Then skip this comment and go on.
I do, but that still doesn't explain how they get ##u_z## rather than ##\partial_z u_z##.
 
O! now I see what the point is. This is strange indeed. Dimensions must be incomparable
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
Good call on the dimensions. I don't know what they're doing but I'll just move on and forget it (it was the Plateau-Rayleigh instability if you're curious).
 
perhaps in some books ##u_z=\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}##
 
zwierz said:
perhaps in some books ##u_z=\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}##
I don't think so because this does not match continuity as they wrote it, since they're using subscripts to denote a particular velocity component.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
954
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K