Mathelirium's banner
Mathelirium's profile picture

Mathelirium

@mathelirium34,407 subscribers

I work in applied maths, com physics, & scientific visualization. My hobby is turning mathematical models into unique, original simulated visuals

Shorts

d’Alembert’s Paradox: The 1752 Paradox That Stood in the Way of Real Aerodynamics In 1752, d’Alembert found a result that still feels wrong at first sight: An ideal fluid can flow around a body and produce no drag at all. In the first animation, viscosity is set to zero. The fluid bends around the object, accelerates, slows down, and stitches itself back together downstream. You get no wake, no loss and no scar in the flow. The equations have removed the very thing that would let the body leave a trace. That is Euler flow: ρ(∂u/∂t + (u · ∇)u) = −∇p ∇ · u = 0 For steady irrotational flow, u = ∇φ and ∇²φ = 0. The pressure field stays perfectly symmetric front to back, so when you integrate pressure over the body, the drag cancels: D = 0 The second animation changes one thing: viscosity is allowed back in. ρ(∂u/∂t + (u · ∇)u) = −∇p + μ∇²u ∇ · u = 0 Now, the surface can grip the fluid. A boundary layer forms. It can separate, vorticity rolls off the body and wake appears. Drag is now built by the flow. Therefore, making viscosity tiny is not the same as deleting it. ν → 0 still has a boundary layer. ν = 0 has no memory.

d’Alembert’s Paradox: The 1752 Paradox That Stood in the Way of Real Aerodynamics In 1752, d’Alembert found a result that still feels wrong at first sight: An ideal fluid can flow around a body and produce no drag at all. In the first animation, viscosity is set to zero. The fluid bends around the object, accelerates, slows down, and stitches itself back together downstream. You get no wake, no loss and no scar in the flow. The equations have removed the very thing that would let the body leave a trace. That is Euler flow: ρ(∂u/∂t + (u · ∇)u) = −∇p ∇ · u = 0 For steady irrotational flow, u = ∇φ and ∇²φ = 0. The pressure field stays perfectly symmetric front to back, so when you integrate pressure over the body, the drag cancels: D = 0 The second animation changes one thing: viscosity is allowed back in. ρ(∂u/∂t + (u · ∇)u) = −∇p + μ∇²u ∇ · u = 0 Now, the surface can grip the fluid. A boundary layer forms. It can separate, vorticity rolls off the body and wake appears. Drag is now built by the flow. Therefore, making viscosity tiny is not the same as deleting it. ν → 0 still has a boundary layer. ν = 0 has no memory.

43,356 views

d’Alembert’s Paradox: ν → 0 Is Not ν = 0 In 1752, Jean-le-Rond d’Alembert proved a result that still trips people up: An inviscid, incompressible, steady flow exerts zero drag on a body. No wake. No resistance. The equations let the fluid slip past as if the object weren’t there. The first animation shows exactly that world. The flow is ideal Euler flow. Streamlines bend around the body, accelerate, slow down, then recombine perfectly downstream. Nothing is left behind. The motion you see comes from pathlines moving through a steady velocity field, not from any evolving structure in the flow itself. The setup is the ideal fluid model: Euler (ν = 0) ρ(∂u/∂t + (u·∇)u) = −∇p ∇·u = 0 Assume steady flow and zero viscosity and the picture locks in. If the flow is also irrotational, ∇×u = 0, you can write u = ∇φ and the problem collapses to potential flow: ∇²φ = 0 u = ∇φ The force on the body comes entirely from pressure: F = −∮ p n dS D = F·eₓ Under these assumptions the pressure field is perfectly front–back symmetric, so the integral gives D = 0 That’s the paradox. Not a small correction. Zero. Now look at the second animation. This is the same geometry and the same inflow, but with viscosity turned on, even if it’s only a small amount. Navier–Stokes (ν > 0) ρ(∂u/∂t + (u·∇)u) = −∇p + μ∇²u ∇·u = 0 That extra term changes everything. A thin boundary layer forms near the surface. Separation becomes possible. Vorticity is generated and shed. A wake appears. Drag is no longer optional. The contrast is the point. Letting viscosity go to zero is not the same thing as setting it to zero. The inviscid limit deletes the mechanism that breaks time-reversal symmetry and allows energy dissipation. Once that mechanism is gone, wakes can’t exist, and drag vanishes by construction. #FluidDynamics #NavierStokes #EulerEquations #DAlembertParadox #BoundaryLayer #Physics

d’Alembert’s Paradox: ν → 0 Is Not ν = 0 In 1752, Jean-le-Rond d’Alembert proved a result that still trips people up: An inviscid, incompressible, steady flow exerts zero drag on a body. No wake. No resistance. The equations let the fluid slip past as if the object weren’t there. The first animation shows exactly that world. The flow is ideal Euler flow. Streamlines bend around the body, accelerate, slow down, then recombine perfectly downstream. Nothing is left behind. The motion you see comes from pathlines moving through a steady velocity field, not from any evolving structure in the flow itself. The setup is the ideal fluid model: Euler (ν = 0) ρ(∂u/∂t + (u·∇)u) = −∇p ∇·u = 0 Assume steady flow and zero viscosity and the picture locks in. If the flow is also irrotational, ∇×u = 0, you can write u = ∇φ and the problem collapses to potential flow: ∇²φ = 0 u = ∇φ The force on the body comes entirely from pressure: F = −∮ p n dS D = F·eₓ Under these assumptions the pressure field is perfectly front–back symmetric, so the integral gives D = 0 That’s the paradox. Not a small correction. Zero. Now look at the second animation. This is the same geometry and the same inflow, but with viscosity turned on, even if it’s only a small amount. Navier–Stokes (ν > 0) ρ(∂u/∂t + (u·∇)u) = −∇p + μ∇²u ∇·u = 0 That extra term changes everything. A thin boundary layer forms near the surface. Separation becomes possible. Vorticity is generated and shed. A wake appears. Drag is no longer optional. The contrast is the point. Letting viscosity go to zero is not the same thing as setting it to zero. The inviscid limit deletes the mechanism that breaks time-reversal symmetry and allows energy dissipation. Once that mechanism is gone, wakes can’t exist, and drag vanishes by construction. #FluidDynamics #NavierStokes #EulerEquations #DAlembertParadox #BoundaryLayer #Physics

27,053 views

The Breather surface is the surface of Gaussian curvature -1 that corresponds to the solution of the Sine-Gordon equation

The Breather surface is the surface of Gaussian curvature -1 that corresponds to the solution of the Sine-Gordon equation

16,570 views

Videos