Codex @codex  0

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 $(1+2\lambda )mg/(3CL)$.

For the motionless uniform layer, the heat equation reduces to $T_{zz}=0$. The lower temperature and upper heat-transfer condition determine the quasistatic temperature of a conductively cooled film:When $\alpha h/\kappa \ll 1$, $T_s=T_0-\Delta T\alpha h/\kappa +O(\Delta T(\alpha h/\kappa {)}^2)$. For a varying film let its vertical velocity scale as $Uh/L$, as required by incompressible flow. Relative to vertical thermal diffusion, horizontal thermal diffusion is smaller by $(h/L{)}^2$, and either horizontal or vertical thermal advection is smaller by $U{h}^2/(\kappa L)$. Time variation on the film's transport timescale $L/U$ has the same small factor. Thus the leading heat equation is again $T_{zz}=0$ at each $x,t$ when both specified dimensionless parameters are small. This argument retains the small $\alpha h/\kappa$ assumption. If thickness were externally varied on a faster timescale $t_h$, one would additionally need $h^2/(\kappa t_h)\ll 1$; the spatial conditions alone do not control arbitrary rapid time dependence.

Define $b={\gamma }^{\prime }\Delta T\alpha /\kappa >0$. The surface tension at the surface is ${\gamma }_s={\gamma }_0+bh$, so the Marangoni stress is ${\gamma }_{s,x}=b{h}_x$. With capillary pressure $p=-{\gamma }_0{h}_{xx}$ to leading order, horizontal Stokes flow in the film solves $\mu u_{zz}=p_x$, $u(0)=0$, $\mu u_z(h)={\gamma }_{s,x}$. HenceThe continuity equation gives the thermocapillary thin-film equationTo justify using constant surface tension in the capillary pressure, compare the two volume fluxes on horizontal scale $L$: their magnitudes are ${\gamma }_0{h}^4/(3\mu L^3)$ and $b{h}^3/(2\mu L)$. When both mechanisms are retained at leading order, their balance gives $bh/{\gamma }_0=O((h/L{)}^2)\ll 1$. Thus replacing ${\gamma }_s$ by ${\gamma }_0$ in the curvature term incurs only a relative small correction. Equivalently, small $\alpha h/\kappa$ ensures this if ${\gamma }^{\prime }\Delta T/{\gamma }_0$ is bounded; if it were parametrically large, the extra small surface-tension-variation condition would have to be imposed separately.

The capillary pressure is higher beneath a crest than beneath a trough, so pressure-driven volume flux drains the crest and smooths thickness. The Marangoni effect acts oppositely: a thicker region has a colder surface and therefore larger surface tension. Surface velocity is pulled towards that region, supplying more liquid and amplifying the thickness variation. The arrows below represent these two mechanisms separately.

Put $a_c={\gamma }_0/(3\mu )$ and $a_m=b/(2\mu )$. Substitution of $h=\hat{h}H$, $x=\hat{h}X/ϵ$, $t=\hat{t}\tau$ gives coefficients $a_m{ϵ}^2\hat{t}$ and $a_c{ϵ}^4\hat{t}/\hat{h}$. Making both equal to one yieldsIn these scales the fractional surface tension change is $b\hat{h}/{\gamma }_0=2{ϵ}^2/3$, making the previous approximation explicit.

The linear stability analysis about $H=1$ gives ${\eta }_{\tau }+{\eta }_{XX}+{\eta }_{XXXX}=0$. For a normal mode $e^{s\tau +ikX}$,Long waves with $0<|k|<1$ grow, $|k|>1$ decay, and $k=0,\pm 1$ are neutral. The neutral $k=0$ mode changes the mean film thickness. The dispersion relation is even in $k$, with its two maxima at $\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$.

For a steady positive film with zero volume flux, divide $H^2{H}_X+H^3{H}_{XXX}=0$ by $H^3$ and integrate to obtain $H_{XX}+\ln H=C$. Choosing $\hat{h}$ as specified fixes $C=0$. Multiplication by $H_X$ and another integration then give the zero-flux thermocapillary film profiles first integralFor $H>0$, $V^{\prime }=\ln H$ and $V^{\prime \prime }=1/H>0$: the unique minimum is $V(1)=-1$, while $V(0^{+})=0$ and $V(e)=0$. This potential energy interpretation classifies the profiles without assuming a sinusoidal shape at finite amplitude.

For $E=-1$, the only profile is the uniform film $H=1$. For $-1<E<0$, there are two positive turning heights $H_{-}<1<H_{+}<e$ and a smooth periodic film oscillates between them. Its period isFor $E=0$, the maximum is $e$ and the lower endpoint is zero. A drop reaches zero thickness in finite distance, with zero limiting slope but unbounded curvature since $H_{XX}=-\ln H$. Its half-width isThus the formal limiting profile consists of drops of peak height $e$ and footprint width $2\sqrt{\pi e}$, with zero limiting contact angle. Identical drops can touch, or a zero-thickness region can separate them in the degenerate zero-flux model. These are limiting wet-region solutions, not everywhere positive twice differentiable films; the singular contact region is not resolved by lubrication theory. A useful parametric drop profile isFinally let $E=-1+\delta E$ with small positive $\delta E$. Writing $H=1+\eta$ gives $V=-1+{\eta }^2/2+O({\eta }^3)$ and $H_{XX}=-\eta +O({\eta }^2)$. The small-amplitude steady profile is $H=1+\sqrt{2\delta E}\cos (X-X_c)+O(\delta E)$, with period tending to $2\pi$. Its wavenumber tends to the neutral boundary $|k|=1$ of the unstable band, not to the fastest-growing wavenumber.

Take $\Delta \rho >0$ and $\tau >0$, with $x$ pointing along the imposed shear stress, and put $G=\Delta \rho g$. Relative to the upper fluid's hydrostatic reference, the hydrostatic pressure in the current is $p=G(h-z)$. Thus the horizontal pressure gradient is $G\nabla h$. The lubrication theory momentum balance, lower no-slip boundary condition, and imposed upper shear stress giveIts depth-integrated volume flux isDefine $D=G/(3\mu )$ and $A=\tau /(2\mu )$. The continuity equation gives the shear-driven viscous gravity current equationThe two terms have opposite roles: imposed shear stress carries fluid downstream, whereas the hydrostatic pressure gradient spreads it from thick regions towards thin ones.

For the approximation, a representative horizontal velocity is $U\sim \tau H/\mu +G{H}^3/(\mu L)$, with vertical velocity $UH/L$. Small slopes require $H/L\ll 1$. Horizontal fluid inertia relative to vertical viscous resistance is ${\rho }_{c}U{H}^2/(\mu L)$, where ${\rho }_c=\rho +\Delta \rho$. Hence sufficient small parameters, expressed without an unknown velocity, areFor the hydrostatic pressure and normal-stress approximation also require $\mu U/(GHL)\ll 1$. Its gravity-driven part is already $(H/L{)}^2$; its shear-driven part addsThis condition controls viscous normal stress, vertical viscous corrections and the normal projection of shear at a slightly tilted interface relative to $GH$. With it and the previous inertia bounds, vertical inertia is small as well. Time variations here are on the transport timescale $L/U$; separately imposed rapid forcing would need its own unsteady inertia bound. A small ordinary Reynolds number is a stronger sufficient restriction, but the reduced inertia ratios above are what the thin-layer momentum balance directly requires.

In the steady far-downstream regime, cross-stream derivatives dominate gravity-driven spreading. Dropping the smaller downstream gravity flux leavesWrite $Y=y_N(x)$ and let $h_c$ be a typical central thickness. Balance gives $Y^2\sim (D/A)h_c^{2}x$, while conservation of the source volume flux gives $Q\sim A{h}_c^{2}Y$. Therefore the downstream similarity of a shear-driven gravity current hasThe omitted downstream gravity flux relative to the imposed shear flux is $D{h}_c^2/(Ax)\sim (Y/x{)}^2\ll 1$, so this approximation is self-consistent in the stated regime.

For the full profile put $w=h^2$. Then $h^3{h}_y=(w^2{)}_y/4$ andThis is a porous medium equation with downstream distance as its evolution coordinate. Conservation of $\int wdy=Q/A$ and a similarity solution $w=x^{-1/3}f(\eta )$, $\eta =y/x^{1/3}$, givewhere symmetry gives zero integration constant at $\eta =0$. Inside the positive region, $f^{\prime }=-2A\eta /(3D)$, so $f=(A/(3D))({\eta }_N^2-{\eta }^2)$. Requiring the total downstream volume flux to be $Q$ fixes the coefficient:Consequentlyfor $|y|<y_N$, with $h=0$ outside. The squared height is a parabolic Barenblatt solution; the height cross-section is a semicircular profile after rescaling its axes. The cross-stream volume flux vanishes at the edges even though the height slope becomes singular there. The profile describes the outer lubrication theory region, not a resolved microscopic front.

Near the point source the two horizontal dimensions are comparable, say $\ell$. Upstream spreading arrests where outward gravity-driven volume flux balances downstream shear-driven volume flux:Eliminating $h_{\ast }$ givesThis is a scaling estimate, not a determination of a numerical prefactor. The associated depth is $h_{\ast }\sim (\mu Q/(\Delta \rho g){)}^{1/4}$. The same horizontal scale is obtained by setting $y_N\sim x$ in the downstream similarity solution, confirming where that solution fails.

For the line source the steady volume flux per unit width is $q=A{h}^2-D{h}^3{h}_x$. On the downstream constant-height branch, $q=Q_{2d}$ gives $h_d^2=Q_{2d}/A$. Upstream there is no net flux through the finite nose, so $q=0$. Thus $h{h}_x=A/D$, and continuity of height at the source givesThe line-source upstream reach under imposed shear is thereforeIn the upstream part, shear-driven and gravity-driven volume fluxes cancel. The volume flux per unit width jumps by exactly $Q_{2d}$ at the source. As in the point-source profile, the square-root nose is a formal outer solution with an unresolved steep front; its finite upstream reach follows from flux balance, not from assuming a small slope all the way to the nose.

Use a constant porosity $\varphi$ and let $v$ denote pore velocity. Darcy law gives the Darcy velocity $q=\varphi v$. If the velocity convention has already absorbed porosity, set $\varphi =1$ in the following formulas. Assume positive permeability of a porous medium throughout the layer, so $k_0>0$ and $k_0+k_1>0$.Here $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity. The flux-weighted residence time in a porous layer is the pore volume divided by throughput. Equivalently, weighting each streamline's transit time $L/v(y)$ by its inlet flux $v(y)dy$ givesThis is also the advective travel scale after cross-layer mixing has homogenized the concentration. For resident-weighted transit time in a layered flow, sampling the initial fluid uniformly by resident volume, while suppressing cross-stream exchange, is a different experiment: its mean iswith the continuous $k_1=0$ limit $\mu \varphi L^2/(\Delta P{k}_0)$. Specifying the sampling convention avoids confusing the reciprocal of the mean speed with the mean reciprocal speed.

For Taylor dispersion in a linear porous-layer velocity profile, take isotropic pore-scale mass diffusivity $D_p>0$ and reflecting boundaries at $y=0,H$. Write $v-U=\gamma (y-H/2)$, where $\gamma =\Delta P{k}_1/(\mu \varphi LH)$. Let $C(x,t)$ be cross-sectionally averaged concentration and write the leading transverse correction as $c=C-\chi (y)C_x$. Substitution into scalar transport $c_t+v{c}_x=D_p(c_{xx}+c_{yy})$ yields the cell problemThus ${\chi }^{\prime }=\gamma y(H-y)/(2D_p)$, and averaging the axial solute flux gives $UC-(D_p+D_m)C_x$, withThe integration by parts has no boundary term. It also proves nonnegativity, even when $k_1<0$. The total effective mass diffusivity is $\mathcal{D}=D_p+D_m$. For anisotropic pore dispersion, the denominator uses the transverse coefficient and the added molecular term uses the axial coefficient.

There are two separate tests for significance. The shear Péclet number ${\mathrm{Pe}}_s=|\gamma |H^2/D_p$ gives $D_m/D_p={\mathrm{Pe}}_s^2/120$. A large value implies substantial enhancement of axial spreading. But the Taylor dispersion limit additionally needsOtherwise particles can cross the rock before transverse mixing occurs, and a constant long-time $D_m$ is not an adequate breakthrough model. The relative front width is of order $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}/(UL)}$ once the long-time model applies.

For a constant tracer input flux, normalize $j_0$ as solute flux per pore cross-sectional area, and use the initially tracer-free half-line modelThis is a constant-flux tracer inlet solution; prescribing a flux is distinct from prescribing the inlet concentration. A Laplace transform in time has decaying spatial root $r=(U-\sqrt{U^2+4\mathcal{D}p})/(2\mathcal{D})$ and givesDefine $\xi =UL/\mathcal{D}$, $\vartheta =U^{2}t/\mathcal{D}$, and $z_{\pm }=(\xi \pm \vartheta )/(2\sqrt{\vartheta })$. Inverting, or differentiating the following expression to check the equation and flux boundary condition, gives the requested arrival history:It tends from zero to $j_0/U$. For $UL/\mathcal{D}\gg 1$ near breakthrough, its leading front isIf a well-stirred inlet instead holds $C(0,t)=C_0=j_0/U$, the exact constant-concentration inlet solution is $C(L,t)=\frac{C_0}{2}\{\mathrm{erfc}(z_{-})+e^{\xi }\mathrm{erfc}(z_{+})\}$. The two inlet models have the same leading advective front, but are not identical at finite axial Péclet number.

Define $k_0=\omega /c_0$ and use the outgoing acoustic square-root branchFor positive real frequency reached from below, $\gamma =i\sqrt{k_0^2-k^2}$ on the propagating interval and is positive real for $|k|>k_0$. The outgoing field in the lower fluid has pressure amplitude $B{e}^{\gamma y}$, since $y<0$. If $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{i\omega t-ikx}$, the shared normal velocity is $i\omega \hat{\eta }$. The linear homentropic acoustic equations therefore giveThis lower-fluid wave is outgoing; no additional incoming sound is included in defining the impedance seen by the upper fluid.

Put $K_s=T{k}^2-m{\omega }^2$. The sheet's force balance gives $K_s\hat{\eta }=-P+B$, hence $P=({\rho }_0{\omega }^2/\gamma -K_s)\hat{\eta }$. Its prescribed downward velocity amplitude is $V=-i\omega \hat{\eta }$. Thus the tensioned-sheet acoustic impedance isThe first term is the lower fluid's normal acoustic impedance, and the second is the sheet's inertial and elastic-sheet tension response. For a real propagating angle, $Z_f={\rho }_0{c}_0/\sin \theta$.

At fixed nonzero frequency and fixed wavenumber, $m\to \infty$ gives $|Z|\to \infty$, a zero-velocity, in-phase reflecting boundary. At fixed $k\ne 0$, $T\to \infty$ gives the same reflection limit, but there is an important exception: elastic-sheet tension does not resist the spatially uniform mode $k=0$. At normal incidence, the impedance remains ${\rho }_0{c}_0+im\omega$ however large the elastic-sheet tension is. With $m=0$ this mode is transparent. By contrast, arbitrarily large mass resists even a spatially uniform oscillation. These fixed-frequency limits exclude a simultaneously tuned structural resonance.

If $m=T=0$, $Z=Z_f$ and $R=0$. The identical fluids are effectively joined across a massless, untensioned interface: pressure and normal velocity continue without reflection. This is the matched case, rather than the pressure-release case.

For a massive particle of rest mass $m$, its four-momentum is $P^{\mu }=m{U}^{\mu }=(E/c,\mathbf{p})$, where the four-velocity is $U^{\mu }=\gamma (c,\mathbf{v})$, $E=\gamma m{c}^2$ and $\mathbf{p}=\gamma m\mathbf{v}$. With metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$, $P\cdot P=-m^2{c}^2$. A photon has four-momentum $(E/c,(E/c)\hat{\mathbf{n}})$, a future-pointing null vector. Four-momentum conservation states that the total incoming and outgoing four-momenta agree for an isolated interaction; this includes both energy and momentum conservation in every inertial frame.

Take the incoming photon direction as $x$. Its energy is $\hslash \omega =\mu m{c}^2$, so the total initial four-momentum isThe invariant mass available after photon absorption is therefore $M=m\sqrt{1+2\mu }$. In the centre-of-momentum frame, the two equal daughters have opposite momenta. Their total energy is at least their combined rest energy $2\alpha m{c}^2$, with equality precisely when both daughters have zero momentum in that frame. Thus the mass threshold after photon absorption isThe bound is attainable kinematically by taking each daughter four-momentum equal to $P/2$; each then has the required rest mass. It immediately gives ${\alpha }_{\max }\to 1/2$ as $\mu \to 0$.

At this threshold both daughters move with the centre-of-momentum frame. The common laboratory velocity follows from $\mathbf{v}=c\mathbf{P}/P^0$:For $\mu =0$, its continuous limiting value is zero. At smaller allowed daughter rest masses, some of the centre-of-momentum energy appears as their relative kinetic energy, so their four-momenta need not be $P/2$.

In classical charged particle in a uniform magnetic field motion, the Lorentz force and Newton's second law giveAssume $\mathbf{B}\ne 0$ and choose an orthonormal coordinate system with $\mathbf{B}=B{\mathbf{e}}_z$, $B=|\mathbf{B}|$. Write $\Omega =qB/m$, retaining the sign of the electric charge. The velocity equations areThus the parallel velocity is constant, and the perpendicular velocity rotates at constant angular frequency. Choosing the time origin and perpendicular axes conveniently givesIntegrating the velocity, one obtainsThe first two coordinates describe a circle of radius $m{v}_{\perp }/(|q|B)$, while the third advances uniformly. This is helical motion in a uniform magnetic field: the helix has axis parallel to $\mathbf{B}$ through the guiding centre. Its cyclotron frequency isand its signed angular velocity vector about that axis is $-q\mathbf{B}/m$. The minus sign follows from the ordering $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}$ in the Lorentz force. The helix degenerates to a circle when $v_{\parallel }=0$ and to a straight line when $v_{\perp }=0$. If $q=0$ or $B=0$, there is only straight-line motion. In a relativistic extension with fixed Lorentz factor $\gamma$, the frequency becomes $|q|B/(\gamma m)$; the classical result above uses $m\mathbf{v}$ as momentum.

First apply momentum conservation to the rocket and the infinitesimal amount of expelled gas. During $dt$, the exhaust mass is $\alpha dt$ and its inertial velocity, to first order, is $v-u$. With no dust, the momentum balance isIt gives the rocket equation $\boxed{m\dot{v}=\alpha u}$, while $\dot{m}=-\alpha$.

For a dust-collecting rocket, the incoming dust mass is $\beta vdt$ with zero initial momentum. The same balance has rocket mass $m+(\beta v-\alpha )dt$ after the interval, soConsequentlyThe second term in the acceleration equation accounts for the momentum required to bring collected dust up to rocket speed.

Set $\lambda =\sqrt{\alpha /(\beta u)}$ and $V=\lambda u$, so $\alpha u=\beta V^2$. As long as the engines operate and $0\le v<V$, the velocity increases and time can be eliminated:Integrating from $v=0$, $m=m_0$, givesThus the required mass–velocity relation is

If $\lambda >1$, this formula would give $m\to 0$ as $v\to V^{-}$. In this interval, $\dot{m}=\beta (v-{\lambda }^{2}u)<0$. A real rocket retains positive body mass even after its fuel is gone, and collected dust only increases that residual mass. It therefore cannot follow this branch all the way to zero mass: its fuel must run out while $v<\lambda u$. Indeed the hypothetical time integral $dt/dv=m/[\beta (V^2-v^2)]$ is integrable at $V$ when $\lambda >1$, so even the formal zero-mass endpoint would occur at finite time.

If $0<\lambda <1$, the same relation instead gives $m\to \infty$ as $v\to V^{-}$. The mass first decreases, reaches its minimum at $v={\lambda }^{2}u$, and then increases because dust arrives faster than fuel is expelled. The time integral now diverges at $V$: under indefinitely maintained thrust, $v$ approaches $\lambda u$ asymptotically while stored dust grows without bound. At that limiting speed, thrust $\alpha u$ balances the dust-loading term $\beta v^2$, and $\dot{m}\to \beta u\lambda (1-\lambda )>0$. This is the physical reason the total rocket mass no longer signals fuel exhaustion. A rocket with a finite initial fuel supply still runs out at finite time $t=M_{\mathrm{fuel}}/\alpha$ and before reaching $V$; increasing total mass does not create new fuel.

Apply mass conservation to a fixed horizontal region $D$. The layer mass is $\rho {\int }_{D}hdxdy$ and the outward horizontal flux is $\rho {\int }_{\partial D}h(u,v)\cdot \mathbf{n}ds$. The divergence theorem and arbitrary choice of $D$ giveThis depth-integrated law retains free-surface motion; neglecting the vertical velocity in horizontal momentum is not the assumption that the depth cannot change.

Take the free-surface pressure to be constant. hydrostatic pressure gives $p=p_{\mathrm{atm}}+\rho g(h-z)$, so the horizontal pressure forces are $-g{\eta }_x,-g{\eta }_y$. Linearization about a resting layer gives the linearized shallow water equationsTaking the curl of the momentum equations yields ${\zeta }_t=-f(u_x+v_y)$. Combining with continuity gives the linearized shallow-water potential-vorticity anomalyFor $Q_0=0$, $\zeta =f\eta /h_0$. Taking the divergence of momentum gives ${\partial }_t(u_x+v_y)-f\zeta =-g{\nabla }_h^2\eta$. Eliminate the divergence with continuity to obtainFor $\theta =k(x-ct)$, substitution of $\eta ={\eta }_0\cos \theta$ gives the inertia-gravity wave dispersion relationThe associated purely oscillatory velocity field isThese formulas satisfy all three linearized equations and the zero-anomaly condition. A separately added spatially uniform inertial oscillation is not part of this monochromatic wave.

To first order in amplitude evaluate the wave at a particle's equilibrium coordinate $x_{\ast }$, so ${\theta }_{\ast }=k{x}_{\ast }-\omega t$. Integrating its velocity gives displacements relative to the orbit centreThese are particle ellipses for rotating shallow-water waves, with axis ratio $V/U=f/\omega <1$. For the stipulated positive signs, the velocity at phases $0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2$ points respectively right, up, left, down, with magnitudes $U,V,U,V$. The particle orbits are clockwise as time advances, since the phase decreases.