When can Stokes' law be used for motion in a liquid?

AI Thread Summary
Stokes' law, represented by the equation F = 6(pi)(eta)rv, is derived under specific assumptions about fluid conditions. It assumes the fluid is conserved, meaning there are no sources (where fluid appears) or sinks (where fluid disappears) within the analyzed region. This conservation is crucial, as nonconserved fluids, like heat, can complicate the application of Stokes' theorem. The law applies effectively in scenarios where the Reynolds number is much less than one, indicating the fluid is strongly viscous. The derivation involves solving the stationary Navier-Stokes equations using perturbation methods, particularly in spherical coordinates, to establish the velocity field and pressure distribution. The Ladenburg correction is likely a higher-order perturbation solution related to the Navier-Stokes equations, although further clarification on its derivation was not provided in the discussion.
ManFrommars
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Could anyone tell me what assumptions are made about conditions in the derivation of Stokes' law ( F = 6(pi)(eta)rv )? Also, how is the Ladenburg correction for motion in a fluid derived from/related to this? I have searched high and low on the net and in libraries, but I'm not coming up with anything useful for some reason... any help would be hugely appreciated!
Thanks in advance...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stoke's law assumes that the fluid is conserved, that it has no sources where new fluid appears or sinks where fluid disappears. Then every change in the amount of a fluid in a region must come from flow across the boundary of the region.
 
Hi, thank you for he reply. I'm not sure what you mean though... could ou possibly clarify?
Cheers
 
ManFrommars said:
Hi, thank you for he reply. I'm not sure what you mean though... could ou possibly clarify?
Cheers

A source is a point in space where fluid is appearing, say a faucet or something like that. A sink is a point where fluid is disappearing, like a drain. Nonconserved fluids have sources and sinks. For example if you treat heat as a fluid you have this problem because for example of the specific heat of materials, so heat can appear or disappear upon change of state, without temperature changing. So heat in the atmosphere is not a conserved fluid and you aren't gauranteed that Stoke's theorem will work for that.

Think about what you have in Stoke's theorem. One side is an integral over the volume of some region, right? And the other is an integral over the bounding surface of that volume. And what are the integrands? Really look at them and try to explain to yourself what they mean physically.
 
Stokes' integral theorem is not the same as Stokes' law of resistance, which seems to be the subject of the original question.
Stokes' classical law for the resistance acted upon a sphere by a viscous fluid, may formally be seen as the force consistent with the first-order approximation in a perturbation series solution of the (stationary) Navier-Stokes equations with the Reynolds number as the perturbation parameter.
That is, Stokes' law is a good approximation as long as Re<<1 (strongly viscous fluids).
We use separation of variables (spherical coordinates) in the tedious derivation of the velocity field and pressure distribution.
Stokes' law follows from the calculated pressure distribution.

I haven't heard the name "Ladenburg correction" before; presumably, it is simply a higher-order perturbation solution of N-S.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top