gorbax asks: I’ve been wondering for a while, actually, how do we know when the method of flow visualization doesn’t actually alter the flow of a fluid itself?
This is a great question and one that fluid dynamicists have to deal with all the time. Ideally, we’d love to measure everything we want from a flow at all points at all times without doing anything to affect it. In reality, however, that just doesn’t happen. Some measurement techniques are less intrusive than others, but just about everything risks having some effect. This raises two questions: 1) How small can we make that effect? and 2) Do we even care if we’re affecting the flow?
With regards to the first, the onus is typically on the experimentalist to show that whatever visualization technique he/she uses is not significantly affecting the flow. For something like particle image velocimetry, which requires seeding the flow with particles, this means selecting particles that follow the flow rather than changing it and considering carefully how and where to seed the flow such that any added vorticity from the injection does not alter the flow significantly. Checking for this can be done many ways, for example with comparisons to other measurement techniques (with and without seeding) or by comparing to simulation.
The second question–do we care?–is also a significant consideration. Because the purpose of flow visualization is often to get a qualitative feel for the flow field rather than quantitative information, it is often not a significant concern if there is some slight effect from the visualization technique. This can often be the case with smoke-wire and dye visualizations where we just want to see what’s going on.
Finally, there are some instances of flow visualization which are completely unobtrusive to the flow. Schlieren photography and infrared thermography are two examples. Both are optical techniques that act from a distance and take advantage of extant flow properties to make certain features visible. The real key is knowing what technique(s) will work for the flow you have and will give you the information you want. After that, it’s all about proper and thorough execution. (Photo credits: N. Vandenberge et al., T. Omer, M. Canals, P. Danehy et al., A. Wilkens et al., W. Saric et al.)
Reader Question: Drafting in Triathlons
Reader juleztalks writes:
I’ve just entered an amateur triathlon, and there’s a whole load of rules about not “drafting” in the cycle stage (basically, not sitting in other cyclists’ slipstream). However, there are no such rules for the swim or run stage; I thought the effects would be the same from drafting other swimmers and runners. Any ideas?
As in many endurance sports, it’s all a question of energy savings from drag reduction. Drag on an object, like a triathlete, is roughly proportional to fluid density (air for cycling or running, water for swimming), frontal area, and the velocity squared. Because drag increases more drastically for an increase in velocity, it makes sense one would worry most about drag when one’s velocity is highest – on the bike.
Drafting has major benefits in cycling and can reduce drag on a rider by 25-40%. Aerodynamic drag accounts for 70% or more of a cyclist’s energy expenditure, so that reduction can really add up. The energy saved by drafting during cycling can even increase a triathlete’s speed during a subsequent running leg. So it makes sense for a sport’s governing body to be concerned with it.
That said, there’s plenty of room for drag reduction in swimming as well. Even though the velocities are much lower, water’s density is 1,000 times higher than air’s, generating plenty of drag for an athlete to overcome. For swimmers at maximum speed, drafting can reduce drag by 13-26%, depending on relative positioning. Such drafting has been found to increase stroke length and may (or may not) improve subsequent cycling performance.
Although a similar reduction in drag is possible by drafting when running, drag on a runner only accounts for about 8% of his/her energy expenditure so such savings would matters very little next to the swimming and cycling legs. There could be some psychological benefits, though, in terms of pacing oneself. (Photo credit: Optum Pro Cycling p/b Kelly Benefit Strategies)
Reader Question: Energy from Whirlpools?
shiftymctwizz asks:
So I just read your post about vortices, and now I’m wondering if we could build structures similar to the Corryvreckan and put turbines in them for energy production? Would it be any more efficient than hydroelectric dams? Are you the right person to ask?
I can’t give you numbers off the top of my head, but I suspect that your typical hydroelectric dam will be more reliable if not more efficient. The trouble with things like the Corryvreckan, aside from the randomness of where the vortices pop up, is that they aren’t there every single day the way, say, Niagara Falls is.
That said, there is on-going work to effectively harness ocean waves for power, with ideas like buoy generators or sea snake generators. As with most concepts one of the difficulties in implementation is determining a safe and efficient manner to transmit the electricity generated from these offshore sites (we’re generally talking miles from shore) to where it’s needed. This problem is often similarly faced by solar and wind energy producers. There are already wave farms in place around the world, though, and it’s a promising field of renewable energy. (Photo credit: Wikimedia)
Reader Question: More Standing Waves
corroding-touch asks:
So, further to the wave question, how about pressure? How does the pressure in a fixed spot beneath a wave vary, and how does this change with depth?
The primary factor for pressure at any point in the water is depth. Deeper water means a higher pressure. So if you imagine your fixed point at a particular depth relative to a flat ocean, it will have some nominal pressure dependent on its depth. Waves passing induce a higher-than-nominal pressure at the fixed point as the crest passes overhead and a lower-than-nominal pressure as the trough passes. Basically, the waves cause a fluctuation in pressure around some nominal point. As you increase in depth, the fluctuation will have less and less effect because the nominal pressure is ever increasing.
Reader Question: Standing Waves
captainandry asks:
What would happen to a fish or swimmer in a standing wave?
First of all, check out the video that inspired this question, which shows a standing water wave created in a wave tank. Before we tackle the standing wave, it’s helpful to know what motion exists in a typical water wave. For deep water waves, the motion of a particle as the waves pass is circular, with a decreasing radius with increasing depth. Below a certain depth the energy of the surface wave doesn’t penetrate. Here’s an animation, where the red dots represent massless particles and the blue circles show their paths:
In shallower waters, the circular paths get compressed into ellipses. The image below shows pathlines for particles at different depths as a water wave passes. Notice how the paths are circular near the surface, where the depth is much greater than the wavelength, while close to the bottom, the pathlines are elliptical.
So what about motion for a standing water wave? Such a wave has no apparent horizontal motion, as seen in the animation below:
Similar to the way that decreasing the depth compresses the circular particle motion into an ellipsoid, creating a standing wave compresses the horizontal motion of any particle near the surface. What this means is that anything floating near the surface of the standing wave will simply bob up and down. Unless it’s located at one of the nodes (marked by red dots), in which case it won’t move at all! As with the other types of water waves, the amount of displacement will decrease with depth. People and fish, of course, are not massless particles, so their motion will be damped by inertia, but the same principles apply.
(Photo credits: P. Videtich; R. L. Wiegel and J.W. Johnson; Wikipedia)
Reader Question: Frosty Cars
Reader Mike L asks:
Why do I never see frost on my car when I park in a detached garage or under a carport?
Great question! Frost forms on surfaces when their temperature drops below the freezing point of water and the dew point of the surrounding air. The water vapor in the air gets deposited as a solid directly; this is called deposition. This means that the surface–in this case your car–has to be colder than the nearby air. Neither conduction nor convection of heat between your car and the surrounding air can cause this drop; heat transfer between your car and the surrounding air would tend to make them the same temperature, not make the car colder than the air. The third–and typically least effective–type of heat transfer, radiation, is the answer because it allows heat transfer between two objects that are not in direct contact like the air and car are.
Frost typically forms on still, clear nights with little clouds or wind. A car sitting beneath a clear night sky will radiate heat out into space. Since space is much, much colder than the air, this radiation cooling to space allows the car’s surface temperature to drop below that of the surrounding air, which is not a good radiator by comparison. On a night with little wind (and thus little convection), this radiation cooling can be quite effective. Frost will tend not to form on one’s car under a carport because the car is sheltered from the night sky, blocking such radiative cooling. Having a tree or house blocking the car from the night sky is also effective at preventing frost formation. (Photo credit: N. Sharp; with thanks to Keri B and Jerry N for the meteorological assistance)
Reader Question: Snow from Boiling Water?
[original media no longer available]
Reader kylewpppd asks:
Have you seen the post of a man in Siberia throwing boiling water off of his balcony? Can you provide a better explanation of what’s going on?
As you can see in the video (and in many similar examples on YouTube), tossing near boiling water into extremely cold air results in an instant snowstorm. Several effects are going on here. The first thing to understand is how heat is transferred between objects or fluids of differing temperatures. The rate at which heat is transferred depends on the temperature difference between the air and the water; the larger that temperature difference is the faster heat is transferred. However, as that temperature difference decreases, so does the rate of heat transfer. So even though hot water will initially lose heat very quickly to its surroundings, water that is initially cold will still reach equilibrium with the cold air faster. Therefore, all things being equal, hot water does not freeze faster than cold water, as one might suspect from the video.
The key to the hot water’s fast-freeze here is not just the large temperature difference, though. It’s the fact that the water is being tossed. When the water leaves the pot, it tends to break up into droplets, which quickly increases the surface area exposed to the cold air, and the rate of heat transfer depends on surface area as well! A smaller droplet will also freeze much more quickly than a larger droplet.
What would happen if room temperature water were used instead of boiling water? In all likelihood, a big cold bunch of water would hit the ground. Why? It turns out that both the viscosity and the surface tension of water decrease with increasing temperature. This means that a pot of hot water will tend to break into smaller droplets when tossed than the cold water would. Smaller droplets means less mass to freeze per droplet and a larger surface area (adding up all the surface area of all the droplets) exposed. Hence, faster freezing!
Reader Question: Dry Rear Windshields in the Rain
Reader sheepnamedpig asks:
I was driving through the rain down the highway when I noticed something strange: though the rain was heavy enough to reduce visibility to a quarter mile, the rear windshield of my Corolla was bone dry except for the streams of water flowing off the roof. There was no wind so far as I could tell, but I had to slow down all the way to ~20-25 mph for rain to start falling on the rear windshield. Why is that?
That’s a wonderful observation! Like many sedans, your Corolla has a long, sloped rear window that acts much like a backward-facing step with respect to the airflow while the car is moving. Note the smoke lines in the photo above. At the front of the car, we see closely spaced intact lines near the hood and windshield, indicating relatively fast, smooth airflow over the front of the vehicle. At the back, though, there is a big gap over the rear windshield. This is because flow over the car has separated at the rear windshield and a pocket of recirculating air. This recirculation zone is, for the most part, isolated from the rest of the air moving over the car; that’s why the smoke lines continue relatively unaffected a little ways above the surface. This same pocket of recirculating air is protecting your rear windshield from rainfall. It’s an area of low-speed, high-pressure fluid, and the raindrops are preferentially carried by the high-speed, low-pressure air over the recirculation zone. This is one reason why many sedans don’t have rear windshield wipers. (Photo credit: F-BDA)
ETA: Reposted by request to make it rebloggable.
Reader Question: How Useful is Flow Viz?
Reader Andrew asks:
I’ve noticed you’ve posted a bunch of flow visualization/wind tunnel content. I’m just curious where how useful information is obtained from these. Is it just observation? Or are there instruments that are usually used in conjunction with these techniques to provide data?
Great question, Andrew! The answer can vary based on the technique and application. In some cases, flow visualization is used for purely qualitative observation, but in others it can provide more quantifiable data. For example, the water tunnel flow visualization of Google’s heliostat array gave very qualitative data about flow around a given configuration but allowed quick evaluation of many configurations. Flow visualization can also help identify key features for additional study like vortices in a wake. This identification of structure can be so useful that even in computational fluid dynamics, where researchers have all possible information about pressure, temperature, and velocity in a flow field, flow visualization is regularly used to identify underlying structures.
Some flow visualization methods can also give very specific information. Oil-flow visualization gives a snapshot of shear stress at the surface of an object, letting an engineer identify at a glance areas of laminar and turbulent flow as well as regions with vortices and streaks. Naphthalene flow visualization and infrared thermography are both great for identifying the location of laminar-turbulent transition and can do so across the span of an object, which is much easier than trying to traverse a probe across the entire object. And some forms of flow visualization allow for extraction of velocity field information, as in particle image velocimetry. In this technique, tiny particles seed the flow and carefully timed image pairs are taken and correlated to determine the flow field velocity based on the changes in particle positions between images.
Like every measurement, flow visualization methods have their strengths and limitations. But for many applications, flow visualization provides much more than just pretty pictures and thus remains an important tool in any fluid dynamicist’s arsenal!
Reader Question: Drafting in Cycling
jonesmartinez asks:
As a cyclist, I’m curious about drafting. How fast do I need to be going for there to be a measurable benefit? Additionally, often in a time trial a single rider is often followed by the team car and I’ve heard the rider can be pushed by the air around the team car. Any truth to this rumor? Thanks, I love the blog.
Drafting plays a major role in cycling and its tactics (check out our previous series on cycling). In general, drag increases with the square of velocity and data show this holds for cyclists. The rule of thumb I’ve heard given is that aerodynamic drag doesn’t play a large role below 15 mph, but I have not seen the numbers that inform that claim. Moreover, you have to consider the resultant airspeed around the cyclist. For example, a cyclist moving 13 mph into a 15 mph headwind (28 mph effective) will be experiencing more drag than a cyclist moving 20 mph with a 10 mph tailwind (10 mph effective). With drag being reduced 25-40% by drafting a leading rider, it is almost always beneficial to get behind someone.
That said, I have seen no measurable benefit for a leading rider with a paceline behind him, even though this should, in theory, reduce the drag on the lead rider by closing out his wake. With a large object like a car behind a solo rider, there might theoretically be some benefit. However, the car would have to be driving extremely close to the rider–far closer than they do in reality.
That said, with the prevalence of power meters in the amateur market these days, I think it would be a neat project to go out and try a few of these things firsthand and see whether such tactics actually result in a measurable difference in a cyclist’s performance–though I don’t recommend riding a foot off the front or back of a car!