Codex @codex  0

A pressureless test particle feels tidal gravity, Coriolis acceleration and linear drag toward the prescribed gas velocity. Its planar equations areThere is no gas-pressure force on this test particle. For $(x,y)=(X,Y)e^{\lambda t}$, the coefficient matrix isNontrivial solutions require a zero determinant. Expansion givesEach root has a nonzero modal vector in the matrix kernel; real motions are obtained from conjugate pairs. Repeated roots may also supply polynomially weighted exponential solutions. Negative real parts make the centre linearly asymptotically attracting for trajectories governed by this interior linear flow.

The dimensional linear friction coefficient is $\zeta$. Put $y=x-v_{T}t$ and $u(y)=F(y)/\zeta$. In overdamped particle dynamics the laboratory velocity is $\dot{x}=u(y)$, whereas the trap-frame velocity is $\dot{y}=u(y)-v_T$. The particle enters the optical tweezers at $y=X_R$ and leaves at $y=-X_L$ when the trap overtakes it. Write $w=X_R+X_L$ for this support width. The printed subtraction in the later definition of the width is a sign error: the distance between these endpoints is their sum. We use $w=2X_0$ in the circular calculation.

For a bounded continuous force, the strict conditionensures finite passage through a translating optical trap: the trap-frame coordinate decreases throughout the interaction. If $u(y)=v_T$ is encountered from the right, the deterministic trajectory cannot pass this stationary trap-frame point for a locally Lipschitz force; it approaches or stays at a locked state. At a smooth maximum the critical passage time diverges. More generally the passage criterion is $v_T-u>0$ on the traversed interval together with a finite integral below. Separating the trap-frame equation givesThese formulas account for both portions of the optical tweezers, including motion against the trap direction.

The forward-displacement result uses the ordinary localized potential energy interpretation of an optical trap: $F=-U^{\prime }$ and $U$ has the same value outside both ends, hence $\int Fdy=0$. Compact support of the force alone does not ensure that condition. Under the equal-endpoint condition,for a nonzero force and a passing trajectory. This is forward displacement from a translating localized potential. A zero force gives zero displacement. If the force is negative everywhere on its support, it instead gives $\Delta x<0$; thus an arbitrary compactly supported force does not satisfy the printed assertion.

There are two complementary explanations of the forward displacement from a translating localized potential. The forward push slows the relative passage and therefore acts longer, while the backward pull speeds up the relative passage and therefore acts for less time. An exact potential energy balance makes the same point: along the trajectoryThe moving optical trap supplies the positive work lost to linear drag, although the initial and final potential energy are equal.

For $v_T\gg \Vert u{\Vert }_{\infty }$, a uniformly convergent expansion of the passage integrals givesFor a localized potential energy well the first integral vanishes, soThe displacement decreases quadratically with the trap speed, rather than linearly. Without the equal-endpoint assumption the general expansion above remains valid.

For repeated kicks from a circular optical trap, let $L=2\pi R$ and interpret the force profile locally along the arc. This description requires a tangential constraint, a nonoverlapping force support $w<L$, and, if the straight profile is used geometrically, a small support compared with $R$. The condition $R\gg a$ alone does not specify that latter width hierarchy. During an encounter the particle advances by $\Delta x$ and the trap advances by $v_T\Delta t=w+\Delta x$. Between encounters the deterministic particle is stationary and the trap travels the remaining relative distance $L-w$. Thus the time between corresponding points of successive encounters isHere $f_T$ and $f_p$ are revolution frequencies, not angular velocities; the printed relation $f_T=v_T/(2\pi R)$ fixes this convention. The encounter frequency is $f_T-f_p$, so the same result follows from $L{f}_p=\Delta x(f_T-f_p)$.

The precise condition for the stated approximation is $|\Delta x|/L\ll 1$, in addition to finite passage and separated encounters. A sufficient high-speed regime is $v_T\gg \Vert F{\Vert }_{\infty }/\zeta$ with fixed $w<L$, for which the asymptotic displacement divided by $L$ tends to zero. ThenThis condition controls the encounter frequency correction; there is no need to discard the finite interaction time without accounting for the support width.

For the triangular optical-trap response, set $v_c=F/\zeta =L{f}_c$. In the passing regime $v_T>v_c$, the approach side has velocity $-v_c$ and the trailing side has velocity $+v_c$. ConsequentlyWith $\alpha =2X_0/L=X_0/(\pi R)$ and $\beta =v_T/v_c=f_T/f_c$, the repeated kicks from a circular optical trap formula becomesFor $0<\beta <1$ the usual ideal triangular-well dynamics locks at the cusp: the forces on its two sides direct the trap-frame particle towards the cusp. This is understood as the sticking limit of a rounded potential or of the overdamped differential inclusion at its discontinuous force. The particle follows the trap, giving $f_p/f_c=\beta$. At $\beta =1$ it can remain at a fixed point of the trailing segment and also has $f_p/f_c=1$. Thus the physical triangular optical-trap response is continuous at threshold, even though the isolated passing-kick displacement diverges there. For $\beta \gg 1$,and the more general kick approximation requires $\alpha /({\beta }^2-1)\ll 1$.

The dimensions are $[m]=\mathsf{M}$, $[\alpha ]=\mathsf{M}{\mathsf{T}}^{-1}$, $[u_0]=\mathsf{L}{\mathsf{T}}^{-1}$, and $[g]=\mathsf{L}{\mathsf{T}}^{-2}$. Under the stated model, $m,\alpha ,u_0,g$ are the only parameters determining the ascent time. If $m^p{\alpha }^q{u}_0^r{g}^s$ is dimensionless, then $p+q=0$, $r+s=0$, and $-q-r-2s=0$, leaving one independent dimensionless variable. One convenient choice isThus dimensional analysis fixes the form, but Newton's second law must determine the function $f$.

Take upward velocity as positive. Throughout ascent, Newton's second law with linear drag gives $m\dot{v}=-mg-\alpha v$. An integrating factor or direct solution of this linear ordinary differential equation givesThe first zero of this velocity is the highest point, soThis vertical ascent under linear drag has $T<u_0/g$ for $u_0>0$, since $\log (1+\lambda )<\lambda$. The limit $\alpha \to 0$ recovers the no-drag ascent time $u_0/g$; $u_0=0$ gives $T=0$.

A stationary microporous network removes fluid momentum through linear drag rather than through a domain-scale viscous stress. With $[\bar{\eta }]=\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{L}}^{-3}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$, the single-scale force estimate becomesThis drag-limited hydrodynamic coarsening closure uses a fixed isotropic drag coefficient and domain sizes large compared with the pore scale. The only length and time made from $\rho ,\sigma ,\bar{\eta }$ areIndeed $L_1^3=\sigma t_1^2/\rho$, while the choice of $t_1$ equates inertial and drag prefactors. With $L=L_{1}g(u)$ and $u=t/t_1$, all force terms share $\rho L_1/t_1^2=\bar{\eta }{L}_1/t_1=\sigma /L_1^2$. ThereforeAs before, a parameter-free function of this one argument refers to the asymptotic advective scaling model with fixed morphology and negligible extra scales. Retaining the diffusive mobility or resolved network geometry can introduce additional dimensionless parameters. The original $\eta$ does not remain as an independent viscous coefficient after the stipulated replacement.

On the surface of revolution, a normal vector is proportional to $-H^{\prime }(r){\mathbf{e}}_r+{\mathbf{e}}_z$. Thus the normal force and gravity have no ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ component. The ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ component of Newton's second law, using the given linear drag force, isMultiplication by $r$ therefore givesThe printed target equation omits the factor $1/m$. The matching original PDF, page 5, gives both ${\mathbf{F}}_D=-\alpha \dot{\mathbf{r}}$ and $\dot{h}=-\alpha h$, so this is a source inconsistency. If its $\alpha$ in the target equation is intended to mean the drag coefficient per unit mass, put $\lambda =\alpha /m$ and write $\dot{h}=-\lambda h$. Equivalently, if the intended force was ${\mathbf{F}}_D=-m\alpha \dot{\mathbf{r}}$, the requested convention givesThese formulas determine $\dot{\theta }$ once $r(t)$ is known; they do not assume a constant radius.

Take the upward velocity as positive during ascent. Newton's second law with linear drag givesMultiplication by the integrating factor $e^{kt}$ and integration giveThe maximum height occurs at the first zero of this velocity, henceHere $k$ has units of inverse time. The limit $k\to 0$ gives $v_0/g$, and positive drag shortens the ascent relative to motion in a vacuum. The expression applies only up to the turning point; the drag force opposes the subsequent downward motion.

For positive linear drag, $v_x$ decays exponentially toward zero. The vertical velocity decreases monotonically toward $-mg/\alpha$, with an initially steeper gradient $-g-(\alpha /m)v_0\sin \theta$ and positive second time derivative for an upward launch. It crosses zero atThe right panel shows the two components and the formal terminal velocity. To identify the end of the physical flight, integrate the vertical velocity once:The first positive root of $y(t)=0$ is ground contact. The terminal velocity need not be reached before that event; dashed portions in the sketch are mathematical extensions without a ground surface.

Choose upward velocity positive during ascent. Gravity and linear drag both point downward, giving the linear differential equationAt the highest point $v=0$, soThe vertical ascent under linear drag time is smaller than $v_0/g$ for $\alpha >0$, because $\log (1+x)<x$. Its zero-drag limit is $v_0/g$, as required by constant-gravity projectile motion.

Write the linear drag as ${\mathbf{F}}_d=-b\mathbf{v}$, with $b>0$, and let $m$ be the projectile's mass. Taking upward as positive, Newton's second law givesThe downward terminal velocity is $-v_t$, whereEquivalently, if the drag acceleration is specified as $-k\mathbf{v}$, then $v_t=g/k$. Solving the first-order equation,The highest point occurs at $v_y=0$, soFor an upward launch this root is positive and ${\dot{v}}_y=-g$ there, confirming a maximum height. As $b\to 0$, expanding the logarithm gives the drag-free result $t_{\mathrm{top}}\to u_0\sin \alpha /g$. A horizontal launch has its highest point at launch; a downward launch from the ground does not have a later airborne maximum.

Write $\gamma =b/(2m)$ and $\nu =\sqrt{{\omega }^2-{\gamma }^2}$, where $\omega =\sqrt{k/m}$ is the undamped angular frequency. The linear drag gives the vector damped harmonic oscillator equationFor the original circular initial conditions, ${\mathbf{r}}_0=(c,c)$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_0=\omega (-c,c)$, the exact underdamped solution isUsing $|{\mathbf{r}}_0{|}^2=2c^2$, $|{\mathbf{v}}_0{|}^2=2{\omega }^2{c}^2$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_0\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_0=0$ givesThis exact potential energy is useful because it satisfies the prescribed initial conditions, including $\dot{U}(0)=k{\mathbf{r}}_0\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_0=0$. In the stated weak-damping limit $\gamma \ll \omega$, $\nu \simeq \omega$ and the square bracket differs from one by a small oscillatory term. The leading approximation is thereforeThe radius is approximately $\sqrt{2}c{e}^{-bt/(2m)}$, so the trajectory is approximately a shrinking logarithmic spiral. The exactly exponential result would require slightly adjusted initial velocity; with the specified undamped circular velocity, the small modulation above is real. This is the initially circular damped planar oscillator.

The first equation expresses horizontal incompressibility. The other two express steady balance of the Coriolis force, a geopotential gradient, linear drag and a prescribed zonal acceleration $F_u(y)$; nonlinear advection has been neglected. The parameter $r>0$ is an inverse drag time, so the frictional acceleration is $-r(u,v)$. On the equatorial beta plane, $f=\beta y$.

Use the streamfunction conventionTake ${\partial }_x$ of the meridional momentum equation minus ${\partial }_y$ of the zonal one. The mixed geopotential derivatives cancel, andHorizontal incompressibility removes the first term, leavingThe right side is the vertical curl of the imposed acceleration, with units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. The left side balances planetary vorticity advection and frictional removal of relative vorticity. The streamfunction has units ${\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, since it describes horizontal velocity, rather than depth-integrated volume flux.

A dwarf planet in the outer Solar System. Its slow rotation and finite atmosphere make it an illustrative setting for comparing planetary vorticity gradients, linear drag and basin geometry in simplified circulation models.

Quadratic drag has magnitude proportional to the square of the relative speed and points opposite to the relative velocity.

For an isotropic model of a body of fixed shape, let $\mathbf{U}={\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{body}}-{\mathbf{u}}_{\infty }$ denote its relative velocity through the distant fluid, with $U=|\mathbf{U}|$. A constant positive resistance $k$ givesHere density $\rho$, reference area $A$ and drag coefficient $C_D$ are held fixed over the modeled range of relative speeds. The vector formula makes the direction explicit: the drag force on the body opposes its motion relative to the fluid, and vanishes at $U=0$. For a general body, orientation and other flow conditions can affect the drag coefficient; treating it as a constant requires a regime in which that is an adequate approximation. ^[ref]

Compare two distinct models at a chosen relative speed $U_0>0$. A linear drag model has $F_D(U)/F_D(U_0)=U/U_0$, while a constant-coefficient quadratic drag model has $F_D(U)/F_D(U_0)=(U/U_0{)}^2$. At $U=2U_0$ their drag force ratios are two and four respectively.

This distinction matters when estimating terminal velocity or trajectories such as descent from rest under quadratic drag: doubling relative speed increases the resistance much more strongly in the quadratic drag model. An approximately constant drag coefficient can occur in another Reynolds number regime; its use must be justified there. Conversely, substituting the creeping-flow sphere coefficient $C_D=24/{\mathrm{Re}}_d$ into $F_D=\frac{1}{2}\rho U^{2}A{C}_D$ recovers linear drag, so writing this general formula does not make the resistance quadratic. Neither approximation should be extended across all Reynolds numbers.

The distinction already appears in the original investigation underlying the Stokes drag law, read on 9 December 1850: article 42 identifies resistance proportional to relative speed and distinguishes it from a contribution proportional to the square of relative speed. ^[ref]

Take downward as positive and let gravity have magnitude $g$. For a rigid sphere of density ${\rho }_p$ in otherwise stationary fluid of density ${\rho }_f$, its weight minus buoyancy is $\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3({\rho }_p-{\rho }_f)g$. At terminal velocity, this balances the Stokes drag law:This signed downward settling velocity is negative for a buoyantly rising sphere and zero for equal densities. For fixed density contrast and dynamic viscosity, the submerged weight grows as $a^3$ while linear drag at fixed speed grows as $a$; their balance gives the settling-velocity radius scaling $U_s\propto a^2$. Meanwhile,Thus doubling the radius multiplies the predicted Stokes settling speed by four and the particle Reynolds number by eight. This makes the formula useful for separating particles by size, while also providing its own check against extrapolation to large particles.

For a computed water example, take ${\rho }_f=1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $\mu =1.00\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, ${\rho }_p=2500\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, and $a=10.0\mu \mathrm{m}$. These are specified rounded inputs rather than a claim of exact water properties at every temperature. They giveThe diameter is $20.0\mu \mathrm{m}$, and both the net downward weight and the upward drag force are $6.16\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{N}$. At this terminal velocity, falling $1.00\mathrm{mm}$ takes $3.06\mathrm{s}$. At $a=20.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ the prediction is $1.308\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ with ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=0.05232$; at $a=50.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ it is $8.175\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ with ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=0.8175$, which is no longer a convincing small-Reynolds number case. The figure labels these as predictions of the Stokes settling velocity formula and shows where its inertia check fails.

The calculation describes the eventual terminal velocity, not the release transient governed by particle acceleration and possibly the Unsteady Stokes equation. Walls, hydrodynamic interactions, departures from a rigid sphere, or a different surface condition require a different resistance. For sufficiently small particles, Brownian motion can obscure individual settling trajectories; the formula still specifies the gravitational drift within its assumptions. The balancing argument already appears in article 43 of ^[ref].

For an isolated rigid sphere of radius $a$ moving at velocity $\mathbf{U}$ relative to a distant uniform Newtonian fluid, the drag force exerted by the fluid isThe assumptions are steady incompressible flow, constant dynamic viscosity $\mu$, an unbounded surrounding fluid, the no-slip boundary condition, and a small diameter-based particle Reynolds number, ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=2a{\rho }_{f}U/\mu \ll 1$. Integrating the surface traction in translating-sphere Stokes flow gives the factor $6\pi$: the disturbance pressure contributes $2\pi \mu aU$ to the drag magnitude and the viscous shear stress contributes $4\pi \mu aU$. See Richard Fitzpatrick, Axisymmetric Stokes Flow Around a Solid Sphere, equations 10.120–10.129.

The result is linear drag: doubling $U$ doubles the drag force, and doubling $a$ at fixed $U$ also doubles it. The required power is $6\pi \mu a{U}^2$, all supplied to viscous dissipation. Density enters the check of the particle Reynolds number, although it does not appear in the leading drag formula.

Nearby walls or other particles change the hydrodynamic resistance matrix and invalidate the isolated-sphere coefficient, even at very small Reynolds number. Finite Reynolds number introduces inertia corrections; the Oseen approximation resolves the distant region where the leading Stokes flow approximation ceases to be uniform. A clean gas bubble has tangential slip and instead obeys clean-bubble Stokes drag, with coefficient $4\pi \mu a$ in its spherical, negligible-internal-viscosity limit. See H. K. Moffatt, Six Lectures on General Fluid Dynamics, section 3.4 for the sphere solution and its small-Reynolds number limitation. The continuum mechanics and boundary assumptions must also remain valid as the particle becomes very small.

Balancing this Stokes drag law against gravity and buoyancy gives the Stokes settling velocity of an isolated rigid sphere.

In the trap frame, a particle under linear drag has relative speed $F(y)/\zeta -v_T$. A uniform strictly negative relative speed guarantees finite passage through a compact support. For a bounded continuous force, $v_T>\sup F/\zeta$ supplies that condition. For ordinary smooth forces, an encountered zero of the relative speed is an equilibrium or a passage bottleneck, not a finite crossing. Negative forces do not impede forward trap passage.

Terminal velocity is a constant limiting velocity approached when a velocity-dependent resistance balances the other applied forces. A falling body may keep moving while its net force and acceleration tend to zero. For downward motion in a stationary medium, its limiting speed is set by balancing gravitational weight against drag force, including buoyancy if appreciable. The balance, rather than a universal numerical value, is the defining idea. ^[ref]

The terminal velocity under linear drag gives a simple example with an explicit approach to the limit. Real falling objects need an appropriate resistance model: linear drag is useful for slow motion of a small sphere in Stokes flow, whereas many faster falling objects require quadratic drag. Changing mass also changes the question: the existing accreting raindrop with quadratic drag has a speed-radius attractor of an accreting raindrop, rather than the fixed-mass balance used below.

Consider a point mass of fixed mass $M>0$ released from rest in a stationary medium. Choose downward as positive, assume constant gravitational acceleration $g>0$, neglect buoyancy, and impose linear drag $F_d=-bv$ with constant linear friction coefficient $b>0$. Here $v$ is the signed downward velocity component; it equals speed during this descent. Newton's second law becomesThe terminal velocity balances the two forces, and the time constant $\tau$ controls how quickly that balance is approached:For the illustrative parameters $M=1\mathrm{kg}$, $b=2kg/s$ and $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the time constant is $0.5\mathrm{s}$ and the terminal velocity is $4.9m/s$ downward. At $t=1\mathrm{s}=2\tau$, the downward velocity is $4.9(1-e^{-2})m/s\simeq 4.23686m/s$ and the downward acceleration is $9.8e^{-2}m/{\mathrm{s}}^2\simeq 1.32629m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. This is a toy linear drag model, not a claim that every $1\mathrm{kg}$ falling object has this resistance law.

For a proof outline, subtract the equilibrium value: $u=v-v_T$ obeys $du/dt=-u/\tau$. The exponential decay solution and the initial condition give $u=-v_T{e}^{-t/\tau }$; one derivative gives the acceleration. Every time constant multiplies the remaining gap $v_T-v$ by $e^{-1}$. The exact limit is reached only as $t\to \infty$. This makes the model useful for estimating a settling duration without mistaking vanishing acceleration for vanishing velocity.

Newton already analyzed vertical motion under uniform gravity and resistance proportional to velocity in Book II, Section I, Proposition III of the Principia. His geometric construction includes a greatest downward velocity, illustrating that a limiting rate can emerge from balancing a driving force and resistance. ^[ref]

For $\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}+{\omega }_0^2(x-x_0)=0$, the particular path $x=x_0$ is a solution precisely when ${\ddot{x}}_0+\gamma {\dot{x}}_0=0$. An exponentially moving equilibrium $x_0=d{e}^{-\gamma t}$ satisfies this condition. If the initial position and velocity match it, uniqueness removes all homogeneous oscillations even when the natural system is underdamped. The motion is sustained dynamically by linear drag, with zero instantaneous spring extension.

For a body of mass $M$ initially at speed $U$, suppose the total resistance is linear drag $\lambda u$ until speed $u_{\ast }>0$, followed by kinetic friction $\mu Mg$ until rest. The first stage solves $M\dot{u}=-\lambda u$, giving duration $(M/\lambda )\log (U/u_{\ast })$ and distance $(M/\lambda )(U-u_{\ast })$. Constant deceleration in the second stage gives duration $u_{\ast }/(\mu g)$ and distance $u_{\ast }^2/(2\mu g)$. The stopping distance is finite because the switch removes the infinite exponential stopping time of pure linear drag.