Linearized Continuity (Fluids)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity Fluids
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 1K views
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.