Past exam of the physics B course of the University of Cambridge / 2013 / Paper 1 / Section C / C13 / Solution

Locally, zero curl permits $\mathbf{v}=\nabla \Phi$; for a global single-valued potential the circulation around every noncontractible loop must also vanish. incompressibility gives $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}={\nabla }^2\Phi =0$. The exterior of a cylinder is multiply connected, so local irrotationality alone does not exclude a circulating solution.

For inviscid constant-density flow under conservative gravity, Euler's equation is ${\partial }_t\mathbf{v}+(\mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{v}=-\nabla (p/\rho +{\varphi }_g)$. The identity $(\mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{v}=\nabla (v^2/2)-\mathbf{v}\times (\nabla \times \mathbf{v})$ gives, for irrotational flow,For steady flow, absorb the potential's time-only gauge term and obtain $p+\rho v^2/2+\rho {\varphi }_g=\mathrm{constant}$ throughout the connected fluid region. Without irrotationality the steady constant need only be common along each streamline.

Use $U$ for the uniform upstream speed and take the flow along $+x$. The boundary conditions are $v_r(a,\theta )=0$ and $\mathbf{v}\to U{\mathbf{e}}_x$ at infinity. A perfect inviscid model imposes no penetration, not no slip. For the intended no-circulation solution, require a globally single-valued potential, so the coefficient of $\theta$ is zero. The logarithmic term would be a net source and violates no penetration, so its coefficient is also zero. Growing terms with $n\ge 2$ violate the uniform far field. For each remaining $n\ge 2$, the surface normal condition then forces its decaying coefficient to vanish. The $n=1$ terms satisfy $C_1=U$ and $D_1=U{a}^2$:An irrelevant additive potential constant is understood. At the same elevation, Bernoulli balance with the upstream stream givesThe force per unit height ispressure symmetry gives zero drag and zero lift in this zero-circulation idealization. D'Alembert's paradox is the failure of this inviscid model to represent real separated viscous wakes and their drag, not a claim that a real pole feels no force.

The zero-circulation assumption matters: $\Phi \to \Phi +\Gamma \theta /(2\pi )$ leaves the stated velocity boundary conditions intact but adds $\Gamma /(2\pi a)$ to the surface tangential speed. It produces $F_y^{\prime }=-\rho U\Gamma$ for positive counterclockwise circulation. Thus the boundary conditions alone do not justify excluding the angular term; an initially noncirculating inviscid start, or an explicitly single-valued potential, supplies the missing condition.^[ref]