
Theory of Radial Momentum Correspondence Log (19971999) The pressure of radially flowing fluid is inverse to the distance from its source.
1997Feb25 Letter to Exploratorium 1999June11 Letter to Brad Snyder, UNR
Sign on the Levitator Exhibit: In this exhibit, air blowing down keeps a plywood disc hovering. To do and notice: Lift plywood disc up under the air outlet until it stays there by itself. If the disc is already hovering, try pulling it down. What's going on? When you lift the plywood disc up towards the air outlet you constrict the space that the air can flow through. In order for the same amount of air to get through the increasingly narrow space, it has to go faster. As air moves faster its pressure drops. As you continue to raise the disc, there is a certain point where the air is going so fast that its pressure drops below the pressure of the normal surrounding air. This fast moving, low pressure air above the disc pulls the board up. This lifting force is counteracted by the air blowing down on the disc and at a certain point the two forces cancel each other out and the disc just hovers. I wrote to The Exploratorium on 97Feb25 and received this prompt reply from Dr. Paul Doherty, (a prominent MIT physicist who looks over the Exploratorium): Oh I see, you are after a fundamental physics explanation of the Bernoulli effect. I too have looked for a long time, and there isn't one. Very few books give the correct statement. They usually say something like: 'air flowing at high speeds exerts low pressures,' which is often incomplete. A more correct statement of Bernoulli would be 'Under certain conditions, as air speeds up its pressure drops.'
To:
Brad Snyder, UNR, 89557 From:
Ed Seykota Dear
Brad, 1.
Thinking
crisply and getting through to the fundamental issues. 2.
Pointing
out that my reading of Potter and Foss was incorrect. 3.
Suggesting
that I fractionate my thesis into smaller, publishable chunks. 4.
Noting
that breezytype newsperiodicals generally don't take risks. 5.
Suggesting
I take some formal course work. Based
on your comments, I have revised The Bernoulli Fallacy and hopefully
strengthened it considerably. I would like you to apply your keen eye to it for
another hour and expose any residual misconceptions. I
am also working to bring The Levitator Model in line with conventional
fluid mechanics parlance, particularly (1) recasting my own homebrew terms such
as "pushacceleration" into a conventional momentum flux term and (2)
clearly enumerating the mass, momentum and thermal energy balances. I
am still a bit puzzled about how to run the pressure balance for a control
volume with fluid entry and exit. I continue to feel that a numerical solution,
based on Euler's method of recursive solution of integral equations for small dt
offers the most direct approach. I am not sure, however, how to increment the
pressure and temperature from mass and momentum flux along adiabatic
lines. Per
course work, I would like to sign up for something in fluid mechanics, perhaps
your course if appropriate and available. I hold two BS degrees, one from MIT in
EE, and would not mind continuing where I left off. I like simulations. My
interim goal is to get something into print, preferably a suite of articles
about an alternative way to analyze the levitator and other flownormal lift
devices. Perhaps you can suggest a target publication and a template for
bringing my writings into acceptable form. Enclosed
is [$ x] against the time you claimed for reading. I appreciate your generosity. Regards,
Yes,
that would be Daniel Bernoulli, of rho + dv^2 = k fame, who also said, "It
would be better for the true physics if there were no mathematicians on
earth." (In
hopes of) a possibility of advancing a 262 yearold science, I offer the
following peek under Bernoulli's skirts. Daniel
Bernoulli, contemporary of Newton and Euler, developed an interest in blood, and
also in other fluids, enumerated pressure, density and velocity as properties,
and in 1738 (Hydronamica) established the kinetic theory of gases. I
claim, however, that his famous pressure/velocity relationship has some
fundamental limitations that preclude its application from solving for lift in
hydrodynamic situations, ironically, in the essential "Bernoulli
Effect" phenomena. Bernoulli's
classic derivation assumes a torus of varying width, perhaps conceived after
consuming a malformed donut, inside which fluid necessarily circulates in a
velocityvarying way. Now, from the principle of conservation of energy, kinetic
energy must counterbalance pressure energy, so pressure would then be inverse
to the square of velocity. The
often overlooked tinyfootnote conditions to the scheme, namely, that density is
simply and everywhere constant, and that friction is zero, preclude an internal
flow motivator, so an actual lab device would contain dormant fluid. Bernoulli's
solution, then, in the lab, turns out to be another excellent example that a lot
of things are all exactly equal to each other when all things are exactly equal
to zero. Having
got my toe onto this theoretical tarbaby, I abandon all caution and jump into
its gooey core by claiming that flowinduced pressure gradients are, of all
things, a variable density phenomenon. Bernoulli's
empirical garments seem a bit short in places, as you might yourself witness by
modestly inspecting, of all things, a garden hose. This
ubiquitous and flexible conduit does not collapse, when you widen the faucet, a
la Bernoulli's predictapressure program, nor, indeed, does a thin paper tube
collapse when you blow lots of highvelocity air through it. A
paper cone, however, curiously, does collapse,
when you blow into the narrow end. I
have run numerous trials with various lab apparatus mostly fabricated from
acrylic plastic, replete with p & v meters that yield empirical data, all of
which supports my thesis. Classic
texts, such as Potter and Foss, have problems with Bernoulli solutions that just
don't work. These
observations, however, cut directly across the grain of some of the fundamental
tenants of formal fluidic faith, so my attempts to secure an audience, at least
at UNevReno have generally induced autonomic disbelief and anger, a somewhat
disappointing proxy for logical counterargument. I
suspect some of the aversion to my approach has to do with my daring to travel,
computationally, out past the simplifying horizon of incompressibility. My
suggestion to use Euler's numerical method for solving simultaneous integral
equations as a way to beat the mathematical intractability seem to find little
currency among those bred to think along the lines of the conventional
derivations of the closedform NavierStokes equation. Were
you to be interested enough in the above rantings to study my empirical data and
theoretical derivations and forward serious, constructive logical reactions
I would be willing to post a URL for your perusal. Yours
truly, Ed
Seykota 
One final thing, the Bernoulli's attached their names to several things. I assume you're thinking of the principle dealing with velocity and total pressure. Peter Olsen, PE, n2ell engineer@draper.com P.O. Box 410, Simpsonville, MD 211500410 USA, 4109978584 "Engineering is the art of applying a professional knowledge of mathematics and the physical sciences to improve the quality of life."
To:
Rick Purcell 10505
San Fernando Rd. Reno
NV 89506 9720142 Rick
Purcell <rickp@dri.edu> Dear
Rick  Thank
you for the feedback. : Ed
I was laying in bed this morning thinking about levitators (not a good sign) and
realized what has been bothering you about the text book problems. You have
picked up on something that tens of thousands of physics students and hundreds
or thousands of professors have missed. The author gives the wrong answer.
Bernoulli is alive and well and can be applied to the situation. The problem is
the simplifying assumption both authors give: that the flow can be simulated as
an average value or, for problem 2, that the flow velocity is essentially
constant. The levitator will not work with constant velocity  that assumption
turns it from a circular device to what you call a slot levitator, which also
has constant velocity, and you know empirically that they don't work. I
agree, average velocity is a problem. It is a minor problem, however, compared
to using Bernoulli's Principle when you have compressible flow. In
fact, there is a third possibility. If you could build a circular device with
flow from the outside toward the center (with center static pressure
communicating with the back of the card), it would actively blow the card away. I
agree. So
decelerating flow attracts, constant flow velocity is neutral, and accelerating
flow is repulsive for this geometry. I should be able to provide a simple closed
form solution using Bernoulli. The authors' simplify the problem to focus on the
particular effect they are trying to teach. Additionally, at this level, the
students calculus skills are still being developed and may not be up to the
task. In this case they have simplified themselves out of business; and probably
don't realize it (although they may not admit it). I
doubt this approach will succeed. It
would be interesting to send Halliday the solution and get his comments. I
would like to wait until I have a tighter, more convincing presentation. Rick
 June
9, 1999 Ed
I've been having trouble finding time to review your two papers, but wanted to
get you some interim thoughts even thought they are incomplete. My comments
generally follow the flow of the paper. You mentioned publishing your findings;
do you have an audience or publication in mind? Most of the technical papers and
journals I see are much more bland then your writeup and they tend to take
great care defining their terms, equations, statements, and conclusions. Newsy
journals, as a rule, do not like to take risks. Standard procedure is to work
yourself up the journalistic food chain, starting with the fustydusty
peerreview ones. Regarding
'The Bernoulli Fallacy': 1. I don't know why you limit it to closed systems
only; I've not seen that restriction eleswhere. But you could include the term
lossless, inviscid, or potential in the first sentence. Good
call. 2.
I think he is exactly, not fundamentally, correct for his stated conditions
(steady, inviscid, incompressible flow with no added work). Yes.
However, I claim incompressibility and lift are fundamentally incompatible. 3.
Explain what the accounting error is. I
have abandoned and/or revised this argument in favor of the variable density
disallowance for BP. 4.
Why doesn't the B. eqn apply to the levitator, with the caveat of lossless flow?
It has steady, incompressible flow. To
the extent the flow is incompressible it is also absent lift. 5.
Bernoulli does not imply that high velocity means low pressure, but it implies
lower pressure than if the fluid was flowing a low velocity. It
works for nonmotivated, lossless flow; in other words, the kind that does not
exist in the thick of the lift. 6.
I would redraw the standard diagram with a smoothed transition section; square
corners always distract me when dealing with flow. Square
corners are not the half of it. The real problem is that there is no source or
target for the flow. The diagram, in the limit, implies a vacuum pump that can
fire molecules out like rifle shots. 7.
In example #1 you state the approach is incorrect; this would be a good place to
briefly state why. I
am developing the argument along these lines. 8.
In most cases, the Greek letter rho is used to represent density. I understand
you are duplicating an existing solution, but lower case d is usually reserved
for calculus. Good
call. I plead laziness and lack of knowing how to do a rho on the word
processor. I have learned since. 9.
You spring the term 'valve' on the reader, but it is not apparent to what that
refers; I'm guessing you are referring to the area where the flow enters the
levitator. You should clarify this. Good
call. 10.
It is not true that the pressure on top of the card and the pressure below the
card are not related. Here are three fundamental things we need to discuss that
may help: A. We need to agree on the definition of static, dynamic, and total
pressure. B. For subsonic flow issuing from a duct (or the outer edge of a
levitator), the flow will adjust such that the static pressure at the exit plane
will be equal to ambient pressure. This truly relates the pressure above and
below the card. This is not an intuitive situation, but is the way I was taught
and I believe it to be true. I'll look for references. This
is strictly true only when exit velocity = 0. Bernoulli's Principle leads
irreconcilable problems at both the center and the outside edge of the disk. At
the center the pressure does not agree with experiment; at the outside, the
velocity doesn't match. A
somewhat analogous argument might be a battery hooked to a resistor with
lossless leads. If voltage is referenced to the negative terminal of the
battery, and you hook a voltmeter between there and the exit of the resistor, it
will always read zero volts. You can change the battery voltage and value of the
resistor and it will effect current, voltage drop, and dissipated power, but you
will still read zero volts at that location. The current will adjust such that
there is zero potential leaving the resistor. C. From A. and B. The
voltage is zero at ground. The current (airflow) at ground (outside of the disk)
is not. I
think I can show that Bernoulli's equation with predict lift for a circular
levitator and no lift for a channel levitator. I'll try to fax you an
explanation of A, B, and C in a few days. 11. The textbook example #2 makes a
horrible statement  that the flow velocity is essentially uniform at 200 fps.
If the inner radius is 2" and the outer radius is 12", the velocity
will vary by a factor of 6! 12. The
strange math is not the half of it. Strange math typically accompanies Bernoulli
Principle problems. When you straighten out the math, Bernoulli's Principle
still fails since it assumes incompressible flow. The real motor behind lift
(and my central thesis) is that lift is a function of radial decompression. So
Bernoulli's Principle does not apply. Again,
explain what you mean by a valve. Good
call. 13.
Your explanation of this problem would better fit conventional format, and read
a bit more easily, if the equation numbers follow the equations in parentheses.
All the variables should defined below the equations or at the end or beginning
of the paper; use rho for density. Good
call. 14.
The r^2 term disappears between eqn 5 and 6. 15. Good
call. The
diagram uses V1, not V0. Good
call. I did not carry it back to the pipe entry velocity. I'm
getting my office ready to move this weekend, we have an instrument rack for
NASA's DC8 that has to be completed, tested and delivered to Dryden (Edward
AFB) a week from Monday, and a large sampler that needs to ship in two weeks so
it is not clear how soon I'll have more discussion for you; but I'll keep
trying. Rick Thanks for the feedback. To:
Rick Purcell 10505
San Fernando Rd. Reno
NV 89506 9720142 Rick
Purcell <rickp@dri.edu> Dear
Rick  Thank
you for your fax of 99Jun28. It
seems well stated and clearly shows your thinking. Your conclusions seem to
follow logically from your premises. It seems to be a pretty good example of
applying Bernoulli's Principle. At
this point I think the matter has some definition and hopefully it will be a
fairly simple to demonstrate the validity (or invalidity) of applying Bernoulli
by further examining your derivation. To
move forward, I have enumerated some points that I think demonstrate some of the
problems with applying Bernoulli to the levitator. It you can defend these, then
I would seem to have little further argument. On the other hand, if you cannot,
then I might gain fortification to proceed to a more general statement of the
inapplicability of Bernoulli's Principle to the physics of lift. So
I think, at this point, you are in a position to either (1) put my thesis out of
its misery or (2) breathe a little more life into it. Either way, I appreciate
your interest and willingness to take the time to examine these concerns about
your fax: 1.
Page #1
drawing. Let's say you simplify things by setting t (plate separation) so that
the interplate cross section at r1 is the same as the cross section of the feed
tube  so there is no initial contraction or expansion of the flow path where it
turns the corner. That leaves you with a rather sticky problem: namely, the
pressure just to the right of r1 is the very minimum pressure in the system
while the pressure just to the left of r1 is the pump source pressure and must
therefore be the maximum. So you have this discontinuity from the highest to the
lowest pressure, with no change in cross section, all, right in the middle of
the most important region of the effect. I do not think a nice theory would have
such a huge and inexplicable discontinuity right in the middle of the effect. 2.
Proceeding
along these lines from another angle, you do have to feed the realworld device
with a realworld feed pump to make it go. The only way that you can get the
drawing to work, consistent with all the constraints, is to feed it with a pump
that radiates high velocity molecules at a very low pressure  a kind of
thermodynamically radiant black hole. I couldn't find such a device (a vacuum
cleaner that ejects highvelocity air molecules out the suction tube) at a
hardware store so I think I'd have to rule out using one in this case. And, I
think that without such a conflicted contraption at the center, the drawing just
won't work. 3.
Page #1,
about halfway down: t = plate separation (influences flow rate, not lift).
Experimental results show lift is indeed a function of central pressure, flow
rate and separation. Furthermore, the levitator suspension plate actually does
come to equilibrium at some t that depends on the other variables. The Bernoulli
derivation does not account for this phenomenon, much less predict a value for
t. 4.
Page #1
near the bottom "along streamline, Bernoulli says."
Now we have a radially expanding flow so you either have to say (1) there
are really no nice parallel streamlines or (2) there are some sort of
"radially separating streamlines" and these are going to invalidate
the constant density (incompressibility) assumption. So at this point I would
question the application of Bernoulli since you cannot claim parallel flow lines
and incompressibility. 5.
Page #2
bottom: the last equation for P(r) can produce P(r) < 0 for large (r2/r). How
can you get a negative pressure? Not in the real world. Only with equations that
are somehow drifting away from the real world. I think something may be a little
off here. Yours
truly, Rp990629
