F1technical.net

i have a question to all people here that work in the aerodynamic or are studying at the moment in aerodynamic.I would like to know if physical(i am talking about elctromagnetic,nuclear physic and all the other non-classical physic) are important in aerodynamic ? Cause i know aerodynamician use alot second newton law and also energy formula but what else ?

Yes, classical Newtonian physics still apply in Aerodynamics.

For instance when working out the wake structure for a wind turbine, you must consider conservation of momentum to work out the vortex direction.

ok thanks scot

In applied aerodynamics yes conservation equations are still used, but in fundamental aerodynamics statistical atomic physics start to be used.

Requires much more computing process but the basic laws are easier to apply a allow more complex suitable models.

Ogami musashi wrote:In applied aerodynamics yes conservation equations are still used, but in fundamental aerodynamics statistical atomic physics start to be used.

Requires much more computing process but the basic laws are easier to apply a allow more complex suitable models.

Could you please expand? As far as I know, conservation laws plus Newton's laws result in the Reiner-Rivlin equation (this may be wrong, though), which can be simplified into Navier-Stokes. I suppose this works fine for most, if not all, big stuff (i.e. compared to a molecule). If I wanted to work on small scales, I'd do Car-Parrinelo molecular dynamics (an approximation for the Schrödinger equation). This is pretty expensive, but would treat the "gas"* and interacting "solids" in equal footing. This could be good for, I don't know, oxygen absorption by an iron surface.

What kind of systems do you treat with those "statistical aerodynamics"? How does it work? Is it similar to applying linear response theory in order to describe brownian motion?

* It's not that trivial to define a solid or a gas in a molecular scale. What you do is see how likely it is to find an atom a certain distance from another one. Roughly speaking, fluids are smooth up to atomic scale, while solids are not.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that electromagnetism is considered as "classical physics" in every single textbook of mine, as is statistical mechanics. I don' work "in real life", but I suppose that unless someone in F1 tries to predict material properties using DFT, all physics they use is "classical", with the exception of some semiconductor work. It's not that bad, people after all thought that there was nothing left to explain in the late 19th century. Classical physics usually works

Miguel wrote:
Could you please expand? As far as I know, conservation laws plus Newton's laws result in the Reiner-Rivlin equation (this may be wrong, though), which can be simplified into Navier-Stokes. I suppose this works fine for most, if not all, big stuff (i.e. compared to a molecule). If I wanted to work on small scales, I'd do Car-Parrinelo molecular dynamics (an approximation for the Schrödinger equation). This is pretty expensive, but would treat the "gas"* and interacting "solids" in equal footing. This could be good for, I don't know, oxygen absorption by an iron surface.

This is the type of molecular aerodynamics used. They use the Kinetic Theory as a basis.

As you note, this is pretty expensive, but in fundamentals aerodynamics starts to be used for larger and larger simulations/studies.

That said, i'm not an expert in that domain.