Need help with fourier transformation to derive oseen tensor.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster attempts to derive the Oseen tensor from the Navier-Stokes equation, focusing on an incompressible fluid with a specified velocity field and negligible inertia forces. The problem involves rewriting the governing equations using Fourier transforms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster expresses confusion about the lack of explanation in textbooks regarding the Fourier transformation of the Navier-Stokes equations. They seek assistance in understanding this process.

Discussion Status

Some participants acknowledge the original poster's efforts and share that they found the discussion useful, indicating that the conversation has provided some level of guidance, though no explicit solutions have been reached.

Contextual Notes

The original poster's question dates back to 2009, suggesting that the discussion may have historical context and that the problem may have been resolved previously by the original poster.

Hoeni
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Derive the Oseen tensor from the Navier-Stokes equation, Consider an incompressible fluid where the velocity field \vec{v}(\vec{r},t) is given by
\nabla.\vec{v}=0 (1)
Assume inertia forces are negligible.

Homework Equations


The Navier-Stokes eq becomes:
-\nablaP+\eta\Delta\vec{v}+\vec{f}=0 (2)
With pressure P, \eta the fluid viscosity and f the force acting on a unit volume.

Now we define the Fourier transform as \vec{v}k=\int\vec{v}(\vec{r}) exp[i \vec{k}.\vec{r}] d\vec{r} and so on.
Show that eq (1) and (2) can be rewritten as:
\vec{k}.\vec{v}k=0 and -\eta \vec{k}^{2} \vec{v}k - i\vec{k} Pk = -\vec{f}k (3)

The Attempt at a Solution


In every book it is just said that Fourier transforming eq (1) and (2) just leads to (3) but it is not explained. I've tried it but maybe someone can help me. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a nice derivation in the attached file.
 

Attachments

Haha, thank you!
but I posted this question in 2009 and as I remember correctly was able to figure it out in the end and hand in my exercises.
To save you some time, next time check the data of the post!
Cheers
 
I saw the date actually; just figured it might be useful to someone else at some point.
 
You are right, didn't think about it. I never posted my answer, doubt I still have it.
Good job!
 
thanks it was useful to me!
 
Good to hear!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K