- #36
Dale
Mentor
- 35,319
- 13,537
There is nothing wrong with mixing approaches.Dario56 said:They mixed two approaches
There is nothing wrong with mixing approaches.Dario56 said:They mixed two approaches
I disagree. If you pick fluid element you should compute how its COM moves in space and time not do energy balance on control volume. Approaches can't be mixed.Dale said:There is nothing wrong with mixing approaches.
Approaches absolutely can be mixed. In fact, typically one approach is derived from the other. If they are derived from one another then there is no way to claim that they cannot be mixed. In this case, since they explicitly started with the fluid element approach if you believe that implies the control volume approach, then doesn’t that in itself demonstrate that the approaches are compatible? One implies the other here, by your interpretation.Dario56 said:I disagree. If you pick fluid element you should compute how its COM moves in space and time not do energy balance on control volume. Approaches can't be mixed
In my opinion, the fact they are combined implies not that they are compatible, but that this derivation isn't correct in sense that is says one thing and than does the other. I used analogy to describe it.Dale said:Approaches absolutely can be mixed. In fact, typically one approach is derived from the other. If they are derived from one another then there is no way to claim that they cannot be mixed. In this case, since they explicitly started with the fluid element approach if you believe that implies the control volume approach, then doesn’t that in itself demonstrate that the approaches are compatible? One implies the other here, by your interpretation.
Often it is convenient to use one approach to provide an input to another approach. As long as the final result satisfies both approaches then it is completely legitimate to combine approaches.
You have recognized that the work energy theorem is legitimate in a fluid element approach. The derivation in question explicitly uses a fluid element approach. Anything that might be implied certainly does not make what was explicitly stated magically disappear. The work energy theorem is explicitly applicable in this derivation.
If I say I am going to build a barn using lumber and I do use lumber and also nails, did my use of the nails somehow make the lumber disappear or did it make my statement that I would use lumber false? Obviously not.Dario56 said:Derivation says that it is going to use fluid element in the beggining and than actually uses control volume approach and than falsely applies work - energy theorem.
I don't agree with the analogy.Dale said:If I say I am going to build a barn using lumber and I do use lumber and also nails, did my use of the nails somehow make the lumber disappear or did it make my statement that I would use lumber false? Obviously not.
I think that the derivation is a flawed derivation, but I think your complaint about it is not the problem at all.
Your complaint is not even valid because you are trying to pretend that they didn’t do something that they explicitly did. I even quoted the relevant sentence for you. Your claim that they didn’t do what they said they were going to do is demonstrably false.
I directly quoted the sentence. They literally said the words “fluid elements” and described what the fluid elements did. It is hard to be more explicit than that.Dario56 said:They said they will use fluid element approach … How explicitly was that said is a matter of debate
A proof is just words. There is no difference between saying and doing in a proof.Dario56 said:I don't pretend they didn't say they will use this approach, but I am saying they didn't actually use it given arguments I said many times. Acta, non verba.
Yes, we agree on that. We don’t agree on “wrong” but we agree on “bad” and “sloppy”.Dario56 said:What we both agree upon is that this derivation is bad and sloppy as far as I understood you.
It is easier to consider energy. Those forces don’t move so they don’t do any work. Which means that, from an energy perspective, their complicated direction and unknown magnitude can be neglected.anuttarasammyak said:I am sorry it is just step aside but when I consider your problem I have got primitive question on momentum as sketched. I should appreciate you would teach me. Thanks in advance.
A "mixed approach" (mixed beween Lagrange and Euler descriptions) is the approach I proposed in my longer posting above, using integrals over a material fluid volume applying Reynold's transport theorem, which is a special case of the Leibniz rules for deriving integrals wrt. an parameter with parameter-dependent boundaries (in continuum mechanics the parameter of course is time).Dale said:Approaches absolutely can be mixed. In fact, typically one approach is derived from the other. If they are derived from one another then there is no way to claim that they cannot be mixed. In this case, since they explicitly started with the fluid element approach if you believe that implies the control volume approach, then doesn’t that in itself demonstrate that the approaches are compatible? One implies the other here, by your interpretation.
Often it is convenient to use one approach to provide an input to another approach. As long as the final result satisfies both approaches then it is completely legitimate to combine approaches.
You have recognized that the work energy theorem is legitimate in a fluid element approach. The derivation in question explicitly uses a fluid element approach. Anything that might be implied certainly does not make what was explicitly stated magically disappear. The work energy theorem is explicitly applicable in this derivation.
Forces (or pressures) you've sketched that have grip on the pipe wall do no work and so can't accelerate fluid. Reason is that these are normal forces of pipe surface and these are always perpendicular do direction of the flow (local fluid velocity) and so work of these forces is zero.anuttarasammyak said:View attachment 291429
I am sorry it is just step aside but when I consider your problem I have got primitive question on momentum as sketched. I should appreciate you would teach me. Thanks in advance.
Work would be zero but momentum change or velocity change might not be zero.Dario56 said:Forces (or pressures) you've sketched that have grip on the pipe wall do no work and so can't accelerate fluid. Reason is that these are normal forces of pipe surface and these are always perpendicular do direction of the flow (local fluid velocity) and so work of these forces is zero.
In your example, velocity or momentum does change, but not because of normal forces, but because of net work done by pressure forces on fluid.anuttarasammyak said:Work would be zero but momentum change or velocity change might not be zero.
Say a ball bounce back from the floor, the ball speed changes sign by normal force from the floor which stays at rest.