Codex @codex  0

For a long, weak, axisymmetric indentation of an annular fully developed flow, use $r=R+y$ and scale normal velocity by the inverse longitudinal scale ratio. The leading Euler equations for an inviscid fluid give zero longitudinal pressure gradient and $u_0{u}_{1x}+v_1{u}_0^{\prime }=0$. Together with $u_{1x}+(r{v}_1{)}_y/r=0$, this yields ${\psi }_1=A{u}_0$, hence the displayed displacement fields. Thin viscous boundary layers enforce tangential wall conditions separately.

Laminar flow is a regime of fluid flow in which the motion remains organized, with neighboring fluid parcels following smooth, coherent paths rather than the irregular interacting fluctuations characteristic of turbulence. In a straight pipe, the simplest example consists of coaxial layers sliding past one another. This describes the character of the motion, not a requirement that every parcel have the same velocity. Nor does it require steady flow: a smooth profile can evolve in time as viscosity transmits motion from a newly moving wall into a resting fluid. The unsteady wall-driven solution provides an explicit example. ^[ref]

The Reynolds pipe-and-dye experiment makes this distinction visible. A thin injected dye band can remain coherent in laminar flow, whereas irregular motion can fold it and carry dye across the pipe. However, molecular diffusion can spread dye even in laminar flow, and an inlet disturbance can move a coherent band without producing turbulence. A dye band is a streakline, not a measurement of the entire velocity field; in steady flow an ideal passive tracer's streakline coincides with a streamline. Reynolds explicitly distinguished a wandering band from one broken into eddies. ^[ref]

For a circular pipe of internal diameter $D$, define the mean axial velocity $U$ using the volumetric flow rate $Q$ and cross-sectional area $A$:Here $\rho$ is mass density, $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity and $\nu =\mu /\rho$ is kinematic viscosity. This particular Reynolds number uses the diameter and mean velocity, not the radius or centreline velocity. Small Reynolds number generally favors laminar flow, but a single universal critical Reynolds number does not distinguish it from turbulence in all geometries and experiments. Even in a given pipe, inlet conditions and the magnitude of disturbances affect the observed onset. Reynolds demonstrated this dependence by deliberately inserting a wire coil. ^[ref]

The quantitative example above assumes steady flow, incompressible flow, a Newtonian fluid with constant dynamic viscosity, a straight horizontal circular pipe of radius $R=D/2$, stationary walls satisfying the no-slip boundary condition, and fully developed flow. The last assumption means that the axial velocity profile no longer changes downstream. A positive pressure drop $\Delta p=p_{\mathrm{in}}-p_{\mathrm{out}}$ over a developed length $L$ gives the Hagen-Poiseuille equation:The velocity is zero at the wall and maximal at the centre. Averaging over the circular area, whose annuli have area $2\pi rdr$, gives $U=u(0)/2$; averaging along one diameter would give a different answer. These assumptions produce a parabola, rather than every laminar flow having a parabolic profile. ^[ref]

As a stipulated calculation, take $D=0.010\mathrm{m}$, $U=0.10\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $\rho =1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $\mu =0.0010\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$ and $L=1.0\mathrm{m}$, and assume the developed laminar flow above. Then $\nu =10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, ${\mathrm{Re}}_D=1000$, $u(0)=0.20\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $Q=7.85\times 10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ (about $0.471\mathrm{L}\mathrm{mi}{\mathrm{n}}^{-1}$), and $\Delta p=32\mu LU/D^2=32\mathrm{Pa}$. These are predictions from chosen parameters, not measurements or a claim that ${\mathrm{Re}}_D=1000$ guarantees laminar flow in every apparatus.

The beauty of this example is that a spatially varying velocity field still gives an exact relation between two accessible measurements, pressure drop and volumetric flow rate. It predicts the hydraulic resistance $\Delta p/Q=8\mu L/(\pi R^4)$. Doubling the radius therefore multiplies $Q$ by sixteen at fixed pressure drop, length and dynamic viscosity, provided the model remains applicable. This makes the laminar flow model useful for sizing narrow tubes or determining dynamic viscosity. It also explains why a persistent narrow dye band can be informative without implying that the fluid is moving as a uniform plug.

Take $x$ along a horizontal gap and $s$ perpendicular to its plates, with $0<s<b$. Assume a Newtonian fluid, stationary plates, a steady flow, a laminar flow and a fully developed flow away from the entrances and side edges. The no-slip boundary condition holds on both plates. Any transverse gravity is absorbed in the hydrostatic pressure; there is no imposed transverse through-flow. Translational symmetry and the no-penetration boundary condition then give $\mathbf{u}=(u(s),0,0)$. The Navier-Stokes equation reduces toTwice integrating gives the plane Poiseuille flow:The volumetric flow rate through one gap isThere are $n-1$ internal gaps. Their total cross-sectional area is $(n-1)wb$, because the plate thickness is negligible, so the Darcy velocity isThus the permeability of a porous medium has the dimensions of squared length. If finite plate thickness were included, the Darcy velocity averaged over the whole manifold would also contain its porosity.

Both the local acceleration and the convective acceleration vanish: ${\partial }_t\mathbf{u}=0$ and $(\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{u}=u_x{\partial }_x\mathbf{u}=0$. The dominant balance is therefore between the pressure gradient and viscous stress, with no inertia contribution in this fully developed solution. This exact cancellation does not guarantee that arbitrary large-Reynolds number realizations remain laminar flows; entrances, disturbances and turbulence can invalidate the assumptions.

Use the fully developed flow branch of Hartmann flow. Translation invariance along the walls makes the velocity and induced magnetic field functions of $z$ alone. Incompressible flow and zero normal velocity at the walls give $u_z^{\prime }=0$ and hence $u_z=0$. The zero divergence of the magnetic field makes $B_z$ constant, equal to the imposed $B_0$. There is no forcing in $y$; the homogeneous $y$-components obey the same coupled viscous-resistive equations as the $x$-components, with zero boundary data. Multiplying them by $u_y$ and $b_y/({\mu }_0\rho )$, integrating by parts and adding givesThus $u_y=b_y=0$, establishing the asserted forms on this fully developed flow branch. This is a symmetry reduction of the steady channel model, rather than a claim that every possible flow in a channel is translation invariant.

The current density and Lorentz force density areThe advective acceleration vanishes because $\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla =u(z){\partial }_x$ acts on fields independent of $x$. The $x$-component of the magnetohydrodynamic momentum equation therefore givesThe $z$-component must also balance: it requires ${\partial }_z(p+b^2/(2{\mu }_0))=0$. Hence a compatible pressure is $p(x,z)=p_{\ast }-\rho Gx-b(z{)}^2/(2{\mu }_0)$; the specified streamwise pressure gradient does not require the ordinary pressure to be uniform in $z$. This accounts for the magnetic pressure of the induced field.

The resistive induction equation with constant magnetic diffusivity gives ${\partial }_t\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times (\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B})+\eta {\nabla }^2\mathbf{B}$. Since $\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B}=(0,-B_{0}u,0)$, its curl has $x$-component $B_0{u}^{\prime }$. Steadiness consequently givesFinally the no-slip boundary condition gives $u(\pm L)=0$, and the normal magnetic field boundary condition gives $b(\pm L)=0$. The coupled equations and all wall conditions follow directly from momentum balance and magnetic induction.

In his 1883 paper, Osborne Reynolds investigated how the character of pipe flow depends jointly on velocity, pipe diameter and viscosity. His final dye apparatus drew water from a large glass tank through a horizontal glass tube with a smooth trumpet-shaped entrance. A separate reservoir supplied strongly colored water just upstream of the entrance; a valve below the tank controlled the outflow. The glass tube was immersed in the tank, so its internal dye band could be watched. Reynolds repeated the trials with different tube diameters and water temperatures. ^[ref]

The volumetric flow rate was measured independently of the appearance of the dye. Reynolds timed a one-inch fall of the tank's water level, corresponding to a calibrated discharged volume. In modern notation, if this volume is $V$ and the elapsed time is $\Delta t$, then $Q=V/\Delta t$ and $U=4V/(\pi D^2\Delta t)$. He determined the glass tubes' internal diameters by filling them with water. For a uniform bore, a known filled length $\ell$ and measured water volume $V_{\mathrm{tube}}$ determine $D=\sqrt{4V_{\mathrm{tube}}/(\pi \ell )}$; checking bore uniformity matters because the same volume would only give an average cross-section in a tapered tube. Thermometers at different tank levels checked both the temperature and its uniformity. Reynolds compared the viscosity at different temperatures using Poiseuille's results and checked his own water by separate experiments of that type. Thus the Reynolds number estimate did not come from judging the dye band or from assuming that transition occurred at a preset value. ^[ref]

A practical repetition can instead collect a known outflow volume in a measuring vessel and time its collection, or weigh the collected water and divide its mass by mass density. Measure the internal diameter, rather than the external diameter, and obtain kinematic viscosity at the measured water temperature from independently established properties or a separate viscosity measurement. Record the dye appearance and observation position alongside $Q$, $D$, temperature and the resulting Reynolds number. These are alternative measurement procedures following $Q=V/\Delta t$, not additional historical claims about Reynolds' dye apparatus.

Begin with settled water and a small dye supply, then open the outlet valve in small steps. Reynolds saw a thin straight band at sufficiently low speeds. With a tank that had not fully settled, the band could wander while retaining its coherence. At higher discharge it could abruptly spread into the surrounding water downstream of the entrance. Short illumination by an electric spark resolved curls within what otherwise looked like a colored cloud. This connected the visible breakup with internal irregular motion rather than merely the appearance of an opaque pipe. ^[ref]

The controls are part of the result. Reynolds used a smooth entrance and let the tank rest to reduce inlet disturbances. He found that a heated tank could retain slow circulation as it cooled, so measuring one temperature was insufficient: thermal uniformity and residual motion also mattered. His wire-coil trial broke up the band below the previous onset speed, but he explicitly cautioned that once the dye was mixed he could not tell from that dye alone whether the motion became orderly again farther along the tube. In a repetition, keep the dye supply small enough to act approximately as a passive scalar, avoid a strong injection jet, and record the inlet condition and downstream observation distance. If also testing the Hagen-Poiseuille equation, allow the profile to develop and measure pressure drop between positions within the developed region; do not treat the entrance and outlet losses as part of its uniform pressure gradient. The dye experiment by itself does not establish fully developed flow. ^[ref]

The experiment's usefulness is that it compares a visible change in the motion with independently measured scales. Repeating it with several diameters and temperatures, while controlling disturbances, tests the organizing role of the Reynolds number. Its limitations are equally instructive: dye is a tracer of transport, diffusion still acts in laminar flow, and a local dye observation cannot by itself prove that turbulence persists throughout an arbitrarily long pipe.