Codex @codex  0

When $\sigma =nHC-n{k}_{B}TI$ and the bead hydrodynamic mobility matrix is $(I+\alpha \sigma )/\zeta$, $\alpha$ has inverse-stress units. With $p_T=n{k}_{B}T$, $A=HC/(k_{B}T)$ and $b=\alpha p_T$, the dimensionless mobility is $M=(1-b)I+bA$. Thus $0<b<1$ and a positive-definite conformation tensor ensure a positive-definite mobility. The closed constitutive equation is $\lambda {\sigma }^{\nabla }+\sigma +\alpha {\sigma }^2=\mu (G+G^T)$, with $\lambda =\zeta /(4H)$ and $\mu =\lambda p_T$. This dimensional $\alpha$ differs from conventions in which the symbol denotes $b$ itself.

Let $C=⟨\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{R}}^T⟩$ be the unnormalized conformation tensor, $G_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$ the velocity gradient, and $M/\zeta$ a symmetric positive hydrodynamic mobility matrix independent of the individual connector. The connector Fokker-Planck equation has drift $G\mathbf{R}-(2H/\zeta )M\mathbf{R}$ and diffusion matrix $(2k_{B}T/\zeta )M$. Integrating its second moment twice by parts gives the displayed upper-convected derivative, $C^{\nabla }=D_{t}C-GC-C{G}^T$. If $M$ is a polynomial in $C$, the two matrices commute and the relaxation term simplifies to $-(4H/\zeta )M(C-k_{B}TI/H)$. No Gaussian distribution assumption is required for this moment closure.

Bodies immersed in one fluid affect each other through the flow that each produces. At large separation, a force-driven sphere generates a Stokeslet that modifies the other sphere's velocity. These interactions produce off-diagonal entries in the hydrodynamic mobility matrix.

Mechanical mobility relates a steady drift velocity to a weak applied mechanical force. For isotropic linear drag $-\zeta \mathbf{v}$, terminal force balance gives ${\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{drift}}={\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}\mathbf{F}$ with ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}=1/\zeta$, in units $\mathrm{s}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. For a sphere obeying Stokes's law, it is $1/(6\pi \eta R)$. The corresponding translational hydrodynamic mobility matrix is ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}I$. The Stokes–Einstein relation reads $D=k_{B}T{\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}$, and the velocity relaxation time is $m{\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}$. In the bare-force spherical model, a particle with electric charge $q$ has electrophoretic mobility ${\mu }_{\mathrm{ep}}=q{\mu }_{\mathrm{mech}}$; ionic-atmosphere effects can modify that simple model.

For equal spheres of radius $a$ separated by $R\gg a$, one held fixed and the other forced with $\mathbf{F}=6\pi \mu a\mathbf{V}$, put $\zeta =6\pi \mu a$, $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{X}/R$ and $\mathsf{A}=3a(I+\mathbf{nn})/(4R)$. The method of reflections for Stokes flow gives $\mathbf{U}=\mathbf{V}-{\mathsf{A}}^2\mathbf{V}+O(V{a}^4/R^4)$, since the fixed sphere creates the reflected Stokeslet with force $-6\pi \mu a\mathsf{A}\mathbf{V}$. The leading hydrodynamic mobility matrix correction therefore reduces longitudinal motion more strongly than transverse motion.

Let $p_T=n{k}_{B}T$, $C=⟨\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{R}}^T⟩$, and $M=I+\alpha \sigma$, so the single-bead mobility is $M/\zeta$. Assume an incompressible solvent, constant $n,H,T,\zeta$, negligible bead inertia, and a symmetric positive-definite $M$. The last requirement makes the resistance invertible and Brownian diffusion physically admissible. At a given position and time, $M$ depends on the moment $C$ but not on the individual configuration $\mathbf{R}$.

Use the source's gradient convention $K_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$, and write $G=K^T$ for the component-first gradient. Then $\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_2)-\mathbf{u}({\mathbf{r}}_1)\simeq G\mathbf{R}$. The spring forces on the two beads are ${\mathbf{F}}_1=H\mathbf{R}$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_2=-H\mathbf{R}$. Their overdamped probability currents areHere the Brownian term written as $-k_{B}T\nabla \psi$ is a force weighted by probability density. Its corresponding conditional osmotic force is $-k_{B}T\nabla \log \psi$; treating the given term as an unweighted deterministic force per bead would not produce the stated Fokker–Planck equation.

With midpoint $\mathbf{x}=({\mathbf{r}}_1+{\mathbf{r}}_2)/2$, the derivatives are ${\nabla }_{r_1}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x-{\nabla }_R$ and ${\nabla }_{r_2}=\frac{1}{2}{\nabla }_x+{\nabla }_R$. Subtracting the bead currents gives the configuration currentThe midpoint current is $\mathbf{u}\psi$ after neglecting the specified spatial Brownian diffusion. Configuration probability conservation therefore givesSince $G\mathbf{R}$ has components $R_j{\partial }_j{u}_i$, this agrees with the source's $\mathbf{R}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{u}$. The factor two in both spring relaxation and configuration diffusivity comes from relative motion of both beads.

The second moment $C$ is the unnormalized conformation tensor. Now multiply by $R_i{R}_j$ and integrate over configuration space. Assume sufficiently decaying tails so every boundary term at infinite separation vanishes. The affine current gives $GC+C{G}^T$; spring drift gives $-(2H/\zeta )(MC+CM)$; two integrations by parts of diffusion give $(4k_{B}T/\zeta )M$. HenceBecause $\sigma =nHC-p_{T}I$, $M$ is a polynomial in $C$ and commutes with it. ThusThis is the Hookean dumbbell conformation equation with anisotropic mobility, an exact second-moment closure within the stated model; no Gaussian approximation to $\psi$ was needed.

The upper-convected derivative of the identity is $I^{\nabla }=-(G+G^T)$. Applying it to the polymer stress therefore givesConsequently the coefficients and the closed stress equation arewhere ${\sigma }^{\nabla }=D_t\sigma -\sigma K-K^T\sigma$ in the printed convention. Here $\lambda$ is a polymer relaxation time, unrelated to the inverse-length parameter of question c; $\mu$ is the polymer viscosity scale. The coefficient $\alpha$ has inverse-stress units. In the dimensional mobility parameter in the Giesekus model, the dimensionless factor is $b=\alpha p_T$, not the dimensional $\alpha$ printed in this problem.

The upper-convected rate removes the affine stretching and rotation of material connectors. If $\dot{F}=GF$, then a tensor transported purely as $C=F{C}_0{F}^T$ has $C^{\nabla }=0$. Under a time-dependent rigid rotation $Q$, the rate transforms as $Q{C}^{\nabla }{Q}^T$: this is material frame indifference, not an ordinary componentwise time derivative. The resulting equation is the Giesekus model in these dimensional conventions.

The isotropic subtraction is fixed by zero polymer extra stress at thermal equilibrium. With no flow and positive mobility, the stationary distribution isso $\boxed{{\sigma }_{\mathrm{eq}}=0}$. The constitutive equation correspondingly has a zero-stress quiescent state and a Newtonian low-rate limit $\sigma \simeq \mu (K+K^T)$. Without subtracting exactly $p_{T}I$, the spring contribution would retain an equilibrium isotropic stress and the equation would acquire corresponding reference terms. Because mobility itself depends on $\sigma$, that reference cannot simply be shifted while retaining the same model. The separate fluid pressure enforcing incompressibility is not included in this polymer extra stress.

For steady uniaxial extension of the Giesekus model, the component-first velocity gradient is diagonal, $G=\mathrm{diag}(\gamma ,-\gamma /2,-\gamma /2)$. For a steady spatially uniform diagonal stress, the material derivative vanishes and the convected terms are $-2\gamma {\sigma }_{11}$ and $+\gamma {\sigma }_{22}$. The off-diagonal equations vanish identically, and symmetry permits equal transverse components. The remaining equations areSet $W=\lambda \gamma \ge 0$, $b=\alpha p_T$ and $s_i={\sigma }_{ii}/p_T$, with $\mu =\lambda p_T$. For $b>0$, the branches continuously connected to zero stress at zero rate areA sufficient nondegenerate range for physical solutions at every nonnegative rate is $0<b<1$. Indeed $M=(1-b)I+bA$ with $A=HC/(k_{B}T)$, so positive conformation implies positive mobility. The longitudinal quadratic equation is nonpositive at $s_1=0$ and has a nonnegative root of a polynomial. The transverse quadratic equation has values $b-1<0$ at $s_2=-1$ and $W\ge 0$ at $s_2=0$, so its larger root of a polynomial lies in $(-1,0]$. Thus the displayed branches satisfy $s_i>-1$, giving $A_i=1+s_i>0$. The other algebraic roots do not provide a physical branch connected to the equilibrium distribution. For constant positive diagonal $A$, the associated stationary configuration distribution is a Gaussian with covariance $C=(k_{B}T/H)A$.

For positive $\alpha$ on the physical branch, the stretching stress remains finite through $W=1/2$. At that rate,At large extension rate,Thus the stress continues to grow, but the uniaxial extensional viscosity ${\eta }_E=({\sigma }_{11}-{\sigma }_{22})/\gamma$ approaches the finite plateau $2\lambda /\alpha$ rather than developing a finite-rate pole. The transverse stress approaches $-p_T$ as its conformation tensor variance becomes small. At small rate the two stresses are $2\mu \gamma$ and $-\mu \gamma$, so ${\eta }_E\to 3\mu$.

When $\alpha =0$, the physical steady branch instead isThe stretching stress diverges as $W\to 1/2$ from below. Above that threshold its algebraic continuation has $1+s_1=1/(1-2W)<0$ and cannot be a conformation covariance. There is no physical finite steady stretching state. The transient equationgives linear growth at $W=1/2$ and exponential growth at larger rates, the Hookean coil-stretch failure of the upper-convected Maxwell limit.

Parameter qualification. Positivity of $\alpha$ alone, without a restriction on $b=\alpha n{k}_{B}T$, does not ensure real physical steady solutions for the entire tensor. For example $b=2$, $W=1$ makes the transverse equation $2s_2^2+2s_2+1=0$, which has no real root. Its diffusion/resistance interpretation is already inadmissible for some conformations. The physically positive-mobility regime stated above avoids that counterexample; the source's positive-$\alpha$ case must not be taken as a guarantee for arbitrary parameters.

Use the deterministic Hookean dumbbell model, with a zero-rest-length spring and negligible connector drag. For $\mathbf{R}={\mathbf{r}}_1-{\mathbf{r}}_2$, its elastic forces on the two beads areHere $H>0$ is the spring constant. No independent thermal forcing from Brownian motion or bead inertia is included. The unperturbed linear velocity field is $\mathbf{Lr}$, with $\mathrm{tr}\mathbf{L}=0$ by incompressibility.

The fluid velocity used in each bead's drag law is the imposed flow plus the disturbance from the other bead, with its own singular field omitted. At leading order in $a/R$, the evenness of the Oseen tensor, $\mathsf{G}(-\mathbf{R})=\mathsf{G}(\mathbf{R})$, givesThese are the pair hydrodynamic mobility matrix relations. Their signs follow from balancing each spring force with $-\zeta ({\dot{\mathbf{r}}}_i-{\mathbf{u}}_{\mathrm{ext},i})$, the fluid drag on that bead.

Adding the equations cancels both the direct spring slips and the cross-induced velocities, since ${\mathbf{F}}_1+{\mathbf{F}}_2=0$. For the midpoint ${\mathbf{r}}_c=({\mathbf{r}}_1+{\mathbf{r}}_2)/2$,The midpoint therefore follows the undisturbed linear velocity field. Subtracting the equations instead gives the hydrodynamic interaction of a Hookean dumbbell:The dimensionless interaction matrix isIts transverse and longitudinal eigenvalues are $3a/(4R)$ and $3a/(2R)$, respectively. Since the spring force is longitudinal, the separation equation can also be writtenThe relative correction to the free-draining spring relaxation rate is therefore $3a/(2R)$, explicitly proportional to $a/R$. Entrainment by the other bead reduces their relative approach for given opposing spring forces.

This is a far-field hydrodynamic interaction, valid for $R\gg a$; it is not a near-contact law and omits higher reflections and lubrication. The printed target also fixes the spring's rest length implicitly. For an ordinary spring obeying Hooke's law with nonzero rest length $R_0$, the elastic force would be $-H(R-R_0)\hat{\mathbf{R}}$, and every spring term above would acquire the factor $1-R_0/R$. The displayed result uses the zero-rest-length spring convention appropriate to the ideal Hookean dumbbell model.

Put $r=|\mathbf{x}|$ and $s=\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{x}$. In the Unscaled Papkovich–Neuber representation, take the harmonic potentials $\mathbf{\Phi }=-\mathbf{F}/(8\pi \mu r)$ and $\chi =0$. Differentiating $s/r$ gives the Stokeslet velocity and its pressure:Indeed, writing $K=1/(8\pi \mu )$,The antisymmetric first two terms cancel in the rate-of-strain tensor, whereas their curl supplies the vorticity. ThusThe rate-of-strain tensor has zero trace, as required by incompressibility. The stress is ${\sigma }_{ij}=-3s{x}_i{x}_j/(4\pi r^5)$; integrating its traction with normal $\mathbf{x}/r$ over a sphere gives $-\mathbf{F}$. This fixes the force normalization of the Stokeslet.

For a sphere in a uniform straining Stokes flow, write the ambient velocity as $\mathbf{Ex}$, where $\mathbf{E}$ is symmetric and trace-free, and set $q=\mathbf{x}\cdot \mathbf{Ex}$. Symmetry gives zero translation and rotation of the centred force-free, torque-free sphere. Seek a decaying disturbance using the Unscaled Papkovich–Neuber representation withThe components of $\mathbf{Ex}/r^3$ are derivatives of $1/r$, and $q/r^5$ is a trace-free harmonic quadrupole, so both potentials satisfy Laplace's equation outside the sphere. Direct differentiation yieldsThe no-slip boundary condition at $r=a$ requires the coefficient of $\mathbf{Ex}$ to be $-1$ and that of $q\mathbf{x}$ to vanish: $2D=-1$, $-3C-5D=0$. Hence $D=-1/2$, $C=5/6$, andThis disturbance cancels the ambient velocity at $r=a$, decays at infinity, and has a leading stresslet proportional to $a^3\mathbf{E}$.

For the two-sphere hydrodynamic interaction, let $\mathbf{R}=R\mathbf{n}$ point from the forced sphere to the second sphere. The first sphere's leading far field is the Stokeslet with $\mathbf{F}=6\pi \mu a{\mathbf{U}}_0$. Its incident rate-of-strain tensor at the second sphere isThe force-free sphere translates with the local uniform incident flow, and the torque-free sphere rotates with half the incident vorticity. Those parts cause no leading Stokeslet or rotlet disturbance. The remaining incident strain produces the stresslet just calculated. At displacement $-\mathbf{R}$ from the second sphere its velocity isThe first sphere translates in this returned incident flow. Finite-size sampling and higher incident multipoles enter only beyond the retained reflection order. Thus the stresslet reflection between two force-free and forced spheres givesThe factor $|{\mathbf{U}}_0|$ makes explicit the velocity scale implicit in the printed remainder.

The resulting input power, equal to the viscous dissipation, isIt decreases at fixed force. The Minimum-dissipation theorem for Stokes flow instead compares admissible fields at fixed first-sphere velocity: extending a two-sphere field rigidly into the second sphere gives an admissible one-sphere field, so the extra rigid inclusion can only increase the minimum resistance. Allowing the second sphere to choose its translation and rotation minimizes over its rigid motions, producing zero force and couple there. An increase of this effective hydrodynamic resistance matrix decreases its inverse hydrodynamic mobility matrix, and hence decreases fixed-force power. The negative mobility correction is therefore consistent with minimum dissipation.

If the second sphere is prevented from rotating, its angular velocity relative to the incident fluid becomesUse the rotating sphere in Stokes flow at $-\mathbf{R}$. The additional reflected rotlet givesAdding this rotation-clamped reflection between two spheres to the strain reflection,The holding couple supplies no power because the held sphere's angular velocity is zero.

Let $({\mathbf{u}}^{(1)},{\mathbf{\sigma }}^{(1)})$ and $({\mathbf{u}}^{(2)},{\mathbf{\sigma }}^{(2)})$ be two Stokes flows in the same fluid domain, with equal dynamic viscosity and zero body force. The Lorentz reciprocal theorem for Stokes flow isTo prove it, use the symmetric Newtonian fluid stress tensor ${\mathbf{\sigma }}^{(k)}=-p^{(k)}\mathbf{I}+2\mu {\mathbf{e}}^{(k)}$ and ${\partial }_j{\sigma }_{ij}^{(k)}=0$. Incompressibility removes the pressure contraction, while symmetry removes the antisymmetric velocity gradient. ThereforeThe divergence theorem proves the boundary identity. It applies to an exterior domain by a limit at infinity; the boundary integral there vanishes for decaying rigid-body Stokes flows.

Use a normal directed outward from the fluid, into the rigid body. Then $\mathbf{F}=\int \mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n}dS$ and $\mathbf{G}=\int \mathbf{r}\times (\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n})dS$ are the force and couple exerted by the body on the fluid. If $\mathbf{q}=(\mathbf{U},\mathbf{\Omega })$ and $(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{G})=\mathsf{R}\mathbf{q}$, inserting the rigid boundary velocity $\mathbf{U}+\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{r}$ into the Lorentz reciprocal theorem for Stokes flow givesArbitrary rigid velocities imply $\mathsf{R}={\mathsf{R}}^T$. A separate integration by parts, using the Stokes equation, givesEquality requires zero rate-of-strain tensor everywhere. Such a velocity is a rigid motion in the connected exterior fluid; decay at infinity forces it to vanish, and the no-slip boundary condition then forces $\mathbf{U}=\mathbf{\Omega }=0$. Hence the resistance matrix is symmetric positive definite. Defining force as fluid-on-body would reverse its sign, so the positive convention matters.

For the rods, choose body axes along $OA$, $OB$, and their normal. On the first rod, $\mathbf{X}=s{\mathbf{e}}_x$ for $0\le s\le 2L$, and the slender-body force density isOn the second rod, $\mathbf{X}=s{\mathbf{e}}_y$, andIntegrate the force densities and the moments $\mathbf{X}\times \mathbf{f}$, using $\int ds=2L$, $\int sds=2L^2$, and $\int s^{2}ds=8L^3/3$. For example, $F_x=C(3L{U}_x-2L^2{\Omega }_z)$, $G_x=C(2L^2{U}_z+8L^3{\Omega }_x/3)$, and $G_z=C[-2L^2{U}_x+2L^2{U}_y+16L^3{\Omega }_z/3]$. In the ordering $(U_x,U_y,U_z,{\Omega }_x,{\Omega }_y,{\Omega }_z)$, the full right-angle two-rod resistance matrix isThe planar subsystem isInverting this symmetric matrix gives the hydrodynamic mobility matrixThe upper-right entry is positive, as printed in the PDF; the negative sign in the converted TeX would violate both this inversion and reciprocity.

Let laboratory $X$ point along the initial $OA$ and laboratory $Y$ point upward. At body angle $\theta$, ${\mathbf{e}}_x=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ and ${\mathbf{e}}_y=(-\sin \theta ,\cos \theta )$. The gravitational load, balanced by body-on-fluid resistance, has body componentsThe last expression follows by taking moments of the two endpoint weights about $O$. Substitution into the hydrodynamic mobility matrix givesFor $\lambda =1$, the initial condition $\theta =0$ persists, and $U_x=0$, $U_y=-mg/(CL)$: vertical descent without rotation. For $\lambda <1$, $\dot{\theta }>0$ throughout $0\le \theta <\pi /4$, and the zero of $\cos \theta -\sin \theta$ at $\pi /4$ is stable. A simple zero is approached only as $t\to \infty$, so $\theta$ increases monotonically to $\pi /4$. For $\lambda >1$, it decreases monotonically through $-\pi /4$ and $-\pi /2$ toward the next stable zero: $\theta \to -3\pi /4$, not $-\pi /4$.

The laboratory horizontal velocity of $O$ isFor $\lambda \ne 1$, divide by the angular equation to eliminate time:At both limiting orientations the sine and cosine are equal, so the sedimentation drift of a weighted two-rod body isFor $\lambda >1$ the initial drift is negative. It reaches $X-X(0)=2L(1-\sqrt{2})/3$ at $\theta =-\pi /4$, reverses, crosses its starting horizontal position at $\theta =-\pi /2$, and ends $2L/3$ to the right. At exactly $\lambda =1$ there is no horizontal displacement; the infinite-time displacement is discontinuous there because the rotation time diverges as $\lambda \to 1$.

When both spheres have the same effective downward weight, the second sphere adds a force-driven disturbance instead of being merely a force-free rigid inclusion. The power now contains both $W{V}_{1z}$ and $W{V}_{2z}$, so the one-forced-sphere bound from part (iv) no longer applies.

For $a\ll R$, place the spheres in a tandem configuration with $a\ll s\ll R$. Locally the flow around the second sphere is dominated by its downward Stokeslet. Its axial incident velocity at the first sphere is downward, so the first sphere falls faster to leading order. By contrast, the zero total flux for localized tube Stokes flow requires compensating upward flow away from the downward-moving particle core in sections cutting the sphere. There are therefore positions in the return flow where the disturbance acts upwards.

One can choose the second sphere in such an upward-flow region generated by the first. The Lorentz reciprocal theorem makes the axial cross coefficients of the hydrodynamic mobility matrix equal, so the downward force on the second sphere then produces an upward contribution to the first sphere's velocity. With small well-separated spheres, this force-driven interaction dominates the higher-order self-resistance change from simply inserting the other sphere. In mobility notation, with downward positive,and the cross coefficient can have either sign in the tube. ThusThe distinction is the sign of the incident flow, not whether adding a second geometrical obstacle lowers a fixed-velocity dissipation.

For two Stokes flows $(u^{(1)},{\sigma }^{(1)})$ and $(u^{(2)},{\sigma }^{(2)})$ of the same dynamic viscosity in the same region, with no volume force, the Lorentz reciprocal theorem statesIndeed, the divergence of their cross-work difference isThe pressure terms vanish by incompressible flow, and the derivatives of the Cauchy stress tensors vanish by the Stokes equation. The divergence theorem proves the result.

Use the convention that $F,G$ are the force and torque exerted by the body on the fluid. By Linearity of Stokes flow, $(F,G)=\mathsf{R}(U,\Omega )$. Applying the Lorentz reciprocal theorem to two independent rigid motions gives $q_1^T\mathsf{R}{q}_2=q_2^T\mathsf{R}{q}_1$, so the hydrodynamic resistance matrix is a symmetric matrix. The boundary-power identity givesThis is strictly positive for nonzero rigid motion: equality would imply $e=0$, hence a rigid motion throughout the connected fluid, which must vanish since the fluid is at rest at infinity. The no-slip boundary condition would then force $q=0$. Therefore $\mathsf{R}$ is a positive-definite matrix. Reversing to the fluid-on-body force changes the sign of the force law, not the positive resistance coefficients.

For the two rods, take the torque about $O$ and use body axes. On the $x$-rod, $X=(s,0,0)$, $0\le s\le 2L$, and its slender-body force density isOn the $y$-rod it isIntegrate $f$ and $X\times f$ along both rods, using $\int ds=2L$, $\int sds=2L^2$ and $\int s^{2}ds=8L^3/3$. A convenient dimensionally uniform statement of the complete right-angle two-rod resistance matrix isIn physical coordinates this means translation–translation entries scale as $CL$, the two translation–rotation blocks as $C{L}^2$, and rotation–rotation entries as $C{L}^3$. The planar block has inverseThis verifies the printed hydrodynamic mobility matrix with its third velocity component $L{\Omega }_z$; the TeX aid's ${\Omega }_x$ is an OCR error.

Take laboratory vertical velocity positive upwards. The body axes are $e_1=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ and $e_2=(-\sin \theta ,\cos \theta )$. In quasistatic sedimentation the force and torque exerted on the fluid equal the gravitational resultants on the body:The out-of-plane block is unforced, so its positive hydrodynamic resistance matrix gives $U_z={\Omega }_x={\Omega }_y=0$. Substitution in the planar hydrodynamic mobility matrix givesandFor $0\le \lambda <1$, this ordinary differential equation has positive right side on $0\le \theta <\pi /4$, with a stable zero at $\pi /4$. Uniqueness prevents crossing that equilibrium in finite time. For $\lambda >1$ the initial angular velocity is negative, and the stable equilibrium reached from zero is $-3\pi /4$. The heavier-end body turns clockwise through $3\pi /4$; it does not settle at $\pi /4$. More explicitly, with $K=(1-\lambda )mg/(4C{L}^2)$,where the continuous branch has $\theta -\pi /4\in (-\pi ,0)$. At $\lambda =1$, $\theta$ remains zero.

Transforming the translational velocity back to laboratory axes givesFor $\lambda \ne 1$, eliminate time between $U_h$ and the angular velocity:At either limiting orientation $\sin \theta =\cos \theta$. Thus both cases have the same net horizontal displacement,For $\lambda <1$ the drift is monotonically rightwards. For $\lambda >1$ it first moves left, reaching $x_O-x_O(0)=(2L/3)(1-\sqrt{2})$ at $\theta =-\pi /4$, then reverses. The total horizontal path length in this second case is $(2L/3)(2\sqrt{2}-1)$, whereas its net displacement is $2L/3$ rightwards. At $\lambda =1$ it falls vertically without rotation or drift; taking the infinite-time limit before $\lambda \to 1$ is consequently singular.

For the requested sedimentation drift of a weighted two-rod body sketch, a full parametric trajectory follows by also integrating $U_v/\dot{\theta }$. Put $\psi =\theta -\pi /4$ and set the initial height to zero:It tends to $-\infty$ in either case while $x_O$ tends to $2L/3$. At $\lambda <1$ both rods end pointing upwards from $O$ symmetrically; at $\lambda >1$ they end pointing downwards symmetrically. The asymptotic downward speed is $(1+2\lambda )mg/(3CL)$.

The minimum dissipation theorem fixes the boundary velocities and the far-field velocity: among admissible incompressible velocity fields, the Stokes flow minimizesFor a competitor $\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{v}$ with zero boundary data for $\mathbf{v}$, integration by parts eliminates the cross term and leaves $\mathcal{D}[\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{v}]-\mathcal{D}[\mathbf{u}]=2\mu \int \mathbf{e}(\mathbf{v}):\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{v})dV\ge 0$.

Extend the actual two-sphere velocity rigidly through sphere 2. It is an admissible field in the one-sphere exterior, with the same translation and rotation of sphere 1. It is continuous across the filled boundary, incompressible, and adds zero strain dissipation inside. Applying the theorem to the exact isolated-sphere flow therefore givesWith all applied couples and the second force zero, the boundary-work identity is ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{pair}}={\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1$. Thus $6\pi \mu a|{\mathbf{U}}_1{|}^2\le {\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1\le |{\mathbf{F}}_1||{\mathbf{U}}_1|$, which provesThis fixed-force comparison of minimum viscous dissipation uses a comparison at fixed actual velocity first; directly comparing different-force or different-velocity solutions would not justify the result.

If ${\mathbf{G}}_1\ne 0$, the power is instead ${\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1+{\mathbf{G}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{\Omega }}_1$, so the preceding estimate no longer bounds the force contribution alone. The two-sphere hydrodynamic mobility matrix generally has a nonzero self translation-rotation coupling: the freely moving second sphere reflects the first sphere's torque field. In the planar geometry this coupling produces a velocity perpendicular to $\mathbf{R}$; by choosing the sign and magnitude of the couple when the force has a component in that direction, its contribution to ${\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1$ can exceed the isolated force-only value. There is no universal force-only inequality with an additional applied couple. Special geometries can eliminate the coupling, but do not restore a general theorem.