1
$\begingroup$

If a fluid has the complex potential $$w(z)=\frac{-\Gamma i}{2 \pi}\operatorname{log}z$$ Can anyone show me how to find it's radial and transverse velocity components in polar coordinates?

They are meant to be $u_r=0$ and $u_\theta=\frac{\Gamma}{2r \pi}$

  • 0
    Are you completely sure $u_r = 0$ ?2012-04-13
  • 0
    @Yrogirg: Yes, this is the complex potential for a vortex, probably should have mentioned that.2012-04-13

1 Answers 1

1

Oh, I've forgot, what is the complex potenial. So,

$$w = \varphi + i \psi$$

where $\varphi$ is a potential and $\psi$ is a stream function.

Thus, $\boldsymbol v = \text{grad} \varphi \;$:

$$v_r = \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial r} = \text{Re} \left[ \frac{\partial \, w(r e^{i \varphi})}{\partial r} \right] $$

$$v_{\theta} = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \theta} = \text{Re} \left[ \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial \, w(r e^{i \varphi})}{\partial \theta} \right] $$

You could use stream function $\psi$ instead of potential though.

I've used FriCAS to evaluate things to the answer:

(15) -> D(real(-G*%i/(2*%pi)*log(r*exp(%i*phi))),r)     (15)  0  (16) -> D(1/r * real(-G*%i/(2*%pi)*log(r*exp(%i*phi))),phi)              G    (16)  ──────          2%pi r 
  • 0
    btw, one could swap Re and $\partial$, that is first differentiate, then take the real part.2012-04-14
  • 0
    Thank you, but could you explain in a little more detail how you found those expressions for $v_r,v_{\theta}$ and how they are implied from $v=\nabla \phi$ as I am unsure, thanks so much!2012-04-15
  • 1
    Quick explanation --- That's just an expression for gradient in polar coordinates. Personally, I usually consult tables to look up for $\nabla$ or $\Delta$ in various coordinates. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates the part about cylindrical coordinates. Polar coordinates are just cylindrical without $z$. Check also http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/47618/definition-of-the-gradient-for-non-cartesian-coordinates2012-04-15
  • 0
    Actually, If you thought $\text{grad} \varphi \;\;$ to be $\left( \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial r}, \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \theta} \right) \;\;\;$ then it doesn't make sence due to inconsistent units. $\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \;\;$ divides by meters, while $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \;\;$ is dimensionless.2012-04-15
  • 0
    I was using $\nabla \phi = (\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x},\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y})$ But I see now.. I proved these last year.. I guess i'll just have to remember them! Thank you so much for your help!2012-04-15