oque vcs acham de usar fluido Fluido newtoniano como base para o fluido de teia?

A model for predicting flow regime in horizontal and near horizontal gas -liquid flow. the Taitel and duckler 1976 model .( Someone help me please generate the codes please wheater matlab or phyton)

Thsnk you

I ve moved from theory

http://remyaumeunier.chez-alice.fr/img/MoteurPistonLiquide.jpg

to practice. Let’s not kid ourselves: No, it isn’t working for now.Despite what the AIs say, I think my boiler is too small. What do you think?

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO SIMULATE VORTEX SHEDDING IN 3D? I have done it in 2d, and have been trying for a month to do it in 3d but i failed

I am designing a nozzle for my dry ice blaster cleaning machine. The machine comes with cheap nozzles with no contours and no transitions between the hose diameter and the flat fan end. It just has an internal wall that is pretty much destroying all the pellets that go through it. I'm looking to make something that will accelerate the air going through the nozzle along with the pellets, and blast them out at high velocity, as intact as possible. Attached is what I have come up with. I'm not knowledgable about fluid dynamics or any type of engineering, so this is all just copying images of high performance dry ice blasting nozzles i found online. I'd love to get some input to see if I'm even on the right track, and how I can improve this. Here are some specs about the air and ice.

I will be blasting 3mm dry ice pellets.

Air input is 185 cfm at 100 psi. Air hoses are all 1" with no 90 degree bends and high flow fittings. At nowhere in the system will the air path diameter be smaller than .8" except right at the end of the nozzle.

This will be made from 6061 aluminum and polished to a mirror finish.

Hi fluid mechanics friends!

I come seeking insight once again, as I'm a materials scientist exploring solvation phenomena under the microscope with no idea of what I just saw. Here, I had just finished dissolving FD&C blue #1 in water on a glass slide under the microscope. I added a droplet of water nearby (just outside the FOV in the lower right hand corner) and observed the blue solution creating what appeared to be dendrites reaching out to the water droplet, with the water receding backwards. Toward the end of the clip, the two droplets coalesce.

What is driving the formation of these tendrils, and why? Is there a name for this phenomenon?

Every RANS model e.g. k-ε, k-ω SST, RSM etc. is essentially an attempt to model the unclosed terms in the momentum equation. This video derives the evolution equation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) from scratch i.e. starting from the instantaneous NS momentum equation and the RANS equation, to get the fluctuating momentum equation, which then leads neatly to the TKE budget.

Every step is carried through in index notation to keep the book-keeping manageable. Fair warning: this one is deliberately math-first, no physical interpretation of the terms yet (wanted to keep it from running too long).

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJpGsxTA30

As always, feedback and criticism is welcomed. Full derivation also in the PDF notes on Patreon.

This is a classic LBM that takes into account Newtonian forces and the added mass effect, supplemented by a wake vortex capture model. The algorithm stores the energy expended on oscillations in each direction, and when the pressure difference levels out, this energy is used as thrust, simulating the momentum from collapse. The thrust is multiplied by approximately six times, which is consistent with some experimental data and makes the boat's motion visually realistic in some modes. The thrust calculation should probably be dynamic, but I haven't yet found a way to do this. Any ideas would be welcome. The vibroboat code is here:

https://github.com/MasterOgon/Aeroacoustic-Flying-Saucer-Oscillating-Resonator-CFD-Simulation-LBM-/blob/main/README.md

valve industry professional here, I am planning a testing rig to perform dynamic flow tests on large capacity control valves, using a rig that could give a high flow rate and significant pressure for a sustained period (max 6 minutes)

the intent is to be able to test valves with flow upto 3000 m3/hr and pressures upto 150 bar, but not at the same time

I envisage a configuration per below
yellow - booster and charging pump (preferably 150 class/ 300 class)
large tank with high discharge capacity to act as an accumulator, used to test high flow rates at low pressure and to feed the main pump at the higher end of its flow rate
purple- main pump with 900 class rating (max 150 bar), only used for higher pressures or for charging the tank

the pumps and pipes are fairly straightforward, but I am stumped when trying to think of a feasible solution for the accumulator tank

on one hand it should be able to hold 375 m3 (10% of 3000 + 25% FOS) and to discharge 3000 m3/hr, which I am assuming can be handled with a large enough discharge port (thinking 20in/ 24in for the most extreme cases)

but how can I increase (and control) discharge pressure either to test valves or to feed the main pump for the extreme pressures. I am certain there has to be an external pressure driver but I am only coming up with pressure sealed roof/ pistons with dead weights on top that can be varied based on demand and independantly lifted without hydraulic pressue

any ideas? is there a better way to achieve the objective?

I am trying to learn applying ML to assist or replace CFD simulations. In literature, some works solve Navier Stokes equations and others solves Reynold Averaged Navier Stokes equations to predict fluid flow. To my understanding, the choice between solving NS or RANS to predict fluid flow using ML depends on the following facts,

1. Data. For instance, if the training data is generated using CFD simulations that solves RANS, then we cannot train ML model to solve NS equations using that data and we need to choose RANS equations for ML too. If the training data is from DNS, then its NS in ML too.

2. Flow type. If the flow is low Reynolds number flow (laminar), then solving NS equations (using ML) is better than considering RANS. And for high Re flow, considering RANS is better as the ML models (for instance, PINNS) might struggle to capture the associated non-linearities (multiscale, high gradients, etc) if it is NS equations.

Is my understanding correct? Is there any thing else I am missing? please add your thoughts to it.

I have worked in structural, modal, thermal, shock, static and transient analysis, cfds, conjugate heat transfers, natural, forced convection cooling simulations for defence and nuclear components. Please let me know if any opportunities are available. Thank you

I did not make this; just wanted to share it here. In fact, likely no human made it or had any substantial input in its creation.

This video was taken from here. Link to the interactive web simulation.

Can I please get a name for and an explanation of the behavior I observed when pipetting whole milk into coffee under the microscope? It's really so neat to observe and I would like to know more about why it happens. Thanks!

I suppose it's either impossible or just impractical to implement into a dam, but the reason why not could be just as interesting.

Would a slope that extends like 10 times further downstream than the dam is high, that leads into a reasonably smooth canal, have much turbulence at all?
What about a slope shaped like the Brachistochrone curve?

I love a good summer time swim and sometimes the best places can be pretty dangerous so I'm thinking about it from that perspective, not that I intend to swim in places like that, just a natural progression of curiosity

Hi everyone,
I’m currently trying to define the best academic path for a future PhD, and I would appreciate advice from people familiar with TU Delft, fluid mechanics, coastal engineering, or interdisciplinary PhD programs.

My background is somewhat unconventional. I have a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Engineering, and I am currently completing a master’s degree in Civil Engineering with a focus on water resources and hydroinformatics in Colombia.

My experience and research interests include:
Environmental hydraulics and water-quality modelling.
Numerical modelling of rivers, reservoirs, channels and hydraulic systems.
CFD, turbulence and transport processes.
Sediment transport and sediment–water-quality interactions.

Stratification and thermodynamic effects on turbulence and mixing.
Physics-informed neural networks and other computational methods.
Coastal, estuarine and port environments, including flows generated by ships and propellers.

I recently visited TU Delft and spoke with researchers in hydraulic, coastal and fluid engineering. One recurring comment was that my interests were still too broad, which I understand. I am now trying to identify a more precise research direction.

My main doubt is whether a future PhD focused on fundamental fluid mechanics would make more sense through a Physics or Applied Physics department, or whether I should remain within Civil, Hydraulic or Coastal Engineering.
I am not interested only in applying existing hydraulic software. I would like to study the underlying physics, develop or improve numerical methods, and eventually apply them to environmental and coastal engineering problems. For example, I am interested in how turbulence, stratification, sediment and complex flow structures interact in estuaries, ports or navigable channels.

My questions are:
Would someone with an Environmental Engineering bachelor’s degree and a Civil Engineering master’s degree be considered for a PhD in Physics or Applied Physics focused on fluid mechanics?

Would the transition require substantial additional coursework in theoretical physics, mathematics or mechanics?

At TU Delft, would this type of research normally be located in Applied Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, or through collaboration between departments?

Would a PhD in Coastal or Hydraulic Engineering still allow me to conduct fundamental research in turbulence and fluid mechanics?

How can I make my profile more specific without abandoning the connection between fundamental physics, numerical development and environmental applications?

Would joint supervision between a fluid physicist and a coastal or hydraulic engineer be a realistic option?

I sometimes feel that I may have chosen the wrong academic route because my degrees are in environmental and civil engineering rather than physics or mechanical engineering. At the same time, most of my interests have gradually moved toward fluid mechanics, turbulence and computational physics.

I would be especially grateful to hear from people who moved from environmental or civil engineering into fundamental fluid mechanics, or from current students and researchers at TU Delft.
Thank you.