What Equations Govern This Hypothetical Fluid Flow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluid
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around analyzing a hypothetical 2D inviscid potential flow described by a velocity vector, with specific conditions of being steady, uniform, and parallel to a stationary plate. The user contemplates using the Navier-Stokes Equations, noting that the steady state implies time invariance and that inviscid flow suggests zero viscosity. They clarify that parallel flow means no velocity component in the y-direction, while uniform flow indicates spatial consistency in velocity. The user proposes that the equation of motion simplifies to the Laplace equation, leading to the conclusion that both components of velocity must satisfy the condition of being harmonic. Confirmation or further insights on these points are sought to enhance understanding.
member 428835
Hi PF!

I was reading lecture notes from a university and I stumbled on this situation:

We have a hypothetical 2D inviscid, steady, uniform and parallel, potential flow, described by
the velocity vector ## \vec{v} = <u,w>##, with ##u= U[z]## and ##w= W[z]##. It is moving parallel to a stationary plate that lies along the ##x## axis. By “parallel,” it is meant that flow is everywhere parallel to the plate.
By “uniform”, it is meant that the flow is spatially uniform. By “steady”, it is meant that the flow
is time invariant.

When solving for a velocity profile, my first thought was to consult the Navier-Stokes Equations for ractangular coordinates and go from there. What I was thinking was steady implies ##\partial_t = 0##, inviscid implies ##\mu = 0## (or would this be ##\nabla \times \vec{v} = 0##?). Parallel implies ##v_y = 0## where ##y## is orthogonal to the base plate (I think ##u## and ##w## move in the plate direction and from side-to-side respectively (any ideas here)? Potential implies the existence of some scalar ##\phi : \vec{v} = \nabla \phi##. Uniform implies ##\partial_x v = \partial_z v = 0##.

Can someone confirm this?

If I'm right, the equation of motion would simply be ##\nabla ^2 \vec{v} = 0 \implies \nabla^2 u = 0## and ##\nabla^2 w = 0##. Do you agree or disagree?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the post! Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top