**Subject:** Fwd: AW: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory

**Date:** Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:45:23 EST

Very interesting discussion between Horst Eckardt and Barry Hunt.

The first reference is indeed interesting and goes in my direction since angular momentum, not linear momentum is the basic quantity of ECE dynamics. The second reference uses Euler’s equation which is “less” than ECE equations. Besides this, it is interesting to know where to find an online book on Navier-Stokes equations. Thanks for your contact offer to Peter Bradshaw but I do not intend to deal with this subject in depth in the next time. But it is good to know that you have such good contacts.

Horst

> —–Urspr?ngliche Nachricht—– > Von: Hunt, Barry (GE Infra, Aviation, US) [mailto:barry.hunt] at [ge.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2009 17:23 > An: Horst Eckardt > > Betreff: RE: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > In a simple boundary layer, each fluid element simultaneously SPINS and > translates. It is the effect of tangential frictional stresses on the > element boundary that causes and controls the spin. In an inviscid flow > (no friction) there is no such spin. However, in an inviscid transonic > flow (Crocco’s eqn.) a flow element passing through a shock discontinuity > will become rotational. > > Personally, I am NOT an expert on Navier-Stokes; my specialty is inviscid > flows. However, if you wish, I can immediately put you in touch with one > of the world’s top authorities on viscous flows — Peter Bradshaw of > Stanford U., who is a very good friend of mine, and a great philospher. > Let me know if you like to communicate with him. > > The following seems to be saying something similar to what you are saying: > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ2-46FYYD5- > 1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_v er > sion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a1d2f3b9da35010550d7179c9e70073e > > … but also see the following (eq. 1.3.13 ff): > > http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6asDd- > b5LYC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=navier+stokes+angular+momentum&source=bl&ots=k 91 > _iQIXuu&sig=ZkF5f275n7LUiaCD1mxYUNjpHD0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum =5 > &ct=result#PPA9,M1 > > Barry > > —–Original Message—– > > **Sent:** Friday, January 30, 2009 11:06 AM > > > **Subject:** AW: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > PS: I am not absolutely sure if spin is contained in its most general form > in the Navier-Stokes equations. There are similar cases for example for > the Einstein equation, where you get spin effects, but spin is not > contained in the basic assumptions. Another example is that spin is > describable by Newtonian mechanics, but these are not the most general > equations for spin, as we know from ECE equations of dynamics. > > Horst > > > —–Urspr?ngliche Nachricht—– > > Von: Hunt, Barry (GE Infra, Aviation, US) [mailto:barry.hunt] at [ge.com] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2009 16:52 > > An: Horst Eckardt > > > > Betreff: RE: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > > > I agree. I am very sure that a whole new world of mathematical physics > is > > about to open up. I have thought for more than 40 years that this > would > > happen, but now it seems more true than ever. Laithwaite seemed to be > on > > the verge of something big many years ago, before he made a fool of > > himself with some elementary mistakes. Keep up the good work. > > > > Barry > > > > —–Original Message—– > > > > **Sent:** Friday, January 30, 2009 10:49 AM > > > > > > **Subject:** AW: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > > > Thanks fort he hints. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see if > > Navier-Stokes can be derived from ECE theory directly. > > > > Horst > > > > > —–Urspr?ngliche Nachricht—– > > > Von: barry_hunt] at [cinci.rr.com [mailto:barry_hunt] at [cinci.rr.com] > > > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2009 16:23 > > > An: EMyrone] at [aol.com > > > > > > Betreff: Re: [AIAS] Fwd: Extension of ECE momentum theory > > > > > > Myron & Horst, > > > > > > The expression for the mass m of a fluid element of volume V should > be > > > V*rho, not (1/V)*rho. > > > > > > The Navier-Stokes equations are “complete” and DO include all linear > > and > > > angular terms. The reason they do not match experiment in some cases > > is > > > that “turbulence” is “random” and has to be “modeled”; the same > > “model” > > > does not describe all possible situations. > > > > > > Also, The GENESIS Identity (that you have looked at), when applied > to > > > fluid dynamics, contains local or global “spin” in the curl term. > This > > is > > > usually called “vorticity”. The velocity induced by a vortex element > > > involves (in 3-D) an inverse square VECTOR product with the radius > > (unit) > > > vector. In contrast, the div term (compressibility) involves just > the > > > simple inverse square TIMES the radius (unit) vector. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > —- EMyrone] at [aol.com wrote: > > > >