Talk:Vorticity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology. |
Contents |
[edit] Biot-Savart?
How is Biot-Savart a part of fluid dynamics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.218.1.100 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Used to evaluate flow due to a system of vortices - see say Horseshoe vortex of a wing, or thin-airfoil theory. Bob aka Linuxlad 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit wars and others
(William M. Connolley 19:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)) I've made some minor changes, and also removed the ref (and hence its section). This needs justifiying. The justification is twofold: firstly the ref'd defn isn't very good. But more importantly, the ref def doesn't include anything that isn't in the wiki article. So there is no point in referring people to it: they will learn nothing new. If its there to bolster claims in the edit war, it belongs here on the talk page and we'll discuss it: but still not on the article page.
As to the edit war: vorticity *is* its definition. Its not a natural-language word. If the definition is difficult or confusing then some text trying to explain it may help. But in that case you have to be very careful that the explanatory text is accurate.
[edit] Pmurray bigpond.com 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions "vorticity" moving from place to place. Is this related to the conservation of angular momentum? It might be worthwhile mentioning it if so. I suppose that angular momentum density would be equal to the vorticity times the density of the fluid or something.
- There is indeed a close relation between the two ideas, because ω is twice the local angular rotation rate. So the angular momentum of a small spherical blob in the fluid, of moment of inertia I, is (0.5 I ω) (see Batchelor eqn 2.3.12 & 5.2.2). But you'ld need to keep tabs on I, as the fluid distorts, as well as ω. The constancy of the strength of a (small circular) vortex-tube in inviscid flow is essentially a statement of the conservation of the angular momentum within it (see Batchelor, eq 5.3.4). Linuxlad 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misprint or my bug?
Somewhat counter-intuitively, an irrotational fluid can have a non-zero angular velocity (e.g. a fluid rotating around an axis with its angular velocity inversely proportional to the distance to the axis has a zero vorticity)
It should probably be azimuthal velocity. For a simple cylindrical rotating case rot V = 1/r*(d(r V_phi)/dr ). When V_phi=1/r then rot V = 0.
I'm not changing the page because I may be wrong but still check this out, pls.
Best regards, Step.
Yes it's rv=constant in a 'free vortex'. The description of forced and free vortices in vortex uses the term 'tangential velocity' which may be preferable to 'azimuthal' (which suggests angular rather than linear measure). Linuxlad 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. 'Tangential' seems to be the correct word there... Although not to introduce linear velocity at all it may be better just to change
(e.g. a fluid rotating around an axis with its angular velocity inversely proportional to the distance to the axis has a zero vorticity)
to
(e.g. a fluid rotating around an axis with its angular velocity inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the axis has a zero vorticity)
or something like that.
--194.85.80.92 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Southern Hemisphere vorticity
In the atmospheric sciences, vorticity is the rotation of air around a vertical axis. In the Northern Hemisphere, vorticity is positive for counter-clockwise (i.e. cyclonic) rotation, and negative for clockwise (i.e. anti-cyclonic) rotation. It is the same in the Southern Hemisphere although the rotational direction differs to that in the Northern Hemisphere.
These sentences seem confusing to me for the Southern Hemisphere consideration. Is vorticity positive for counter-clockwise rotation (anti-cyclonic) or for clockwise (cyclonic) rotation? --User:ludooohhh 08 October 2007
Done. Dolphin51 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
