Paper detail

A molecular dynamics test of the Navier-Stokes-Fourier paradigm for compressible gaseous continua

Knudsen's pioneering experimental and theoretical work performed more than a century ago pointed to the fact that the Navier-Stokes-Fourier (NSF) paradigm is inapplicable to compressible gases at Knudsen numbers (Kn) beyond the continuum range, namely to noncontinua. However, in the case of continua, wherein Kn approaches zero asymptotically, it is nevertheless (implicitly) assumed in the literature that the compressible NSF equations remain applicable. Surprisingly, this belief appears never to have been critically tested; rather, most tests of the viability of the NSF equations for continuum flows have, to date, effectively been limited to incompressible fluids, namely liquids. Given that bivelocity hydrodynamic theory has recently raised fundamental questions about the validity of the NSF equations for compressible continuum gas flows, we deemed it worthwhile to test the validity of the NSF paradigm for the case of continua. Although our proposed NSF test does not, itself, depend upon the correctness of the bivelocity model that spawned the test, the latter provided motivation. This Letter furnishes molecular dynamics (MD) simulation evidence showing, contrary to current opinion, that the NSF equations are not, in fact, applicable to compressible gaseous continua, nor, presumably, either to compressible liquids. Importantly, this conclusion regarding NSF's inapplicability to continua, is shown to hold independently of the viability of the no-slip boundary condition applied to fluid continua, thus separating the issue of the correctness of the NSF differential equations from that of the tangential velocity boundary condition to be imposed upon these equations when seeking their solution. Finally, the MD data are shown to be functionally consistent with the bivelocity model that spawned the present study.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.