Abstract
Calculations of the flow of He II are difficult because of its two-fluid nature and unusual boundary conditions. Investigators made many assumptions and approximations, over the years, to simplify the calculations and make them tractable. We find in scanning the literature that in a large number of situations approximations have been used beyond their range of validity. In some cases, this has resulted in substantially incorrect predictions. We have made a list of commonly used approximations and analyzed the range of validity of each. Examples of approximations are: assuming a critical velocity for the onset of turbulence in the superfluid when no critical velocity exists; attempting to specify the problem with less than four boundary conditions; neglect of the pressure gradient in evaluating the gradient of the chemical potential; neglect of property variations in one-dimensional flow; assuming the normal component flows like a Navier-Stokes fluid; attributing a dependence of the Gorter-Mellink coefficient to the structure of the material; using formulas for heat flow that apply only to counterflow situations when there is not mass flow; and assuming the normal fluid is clamped in porous flows. We made a comparison of calculations with and without the assumptions where possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Landau, The theory of superfluidity of helium II, J. Physics (Moscow), 5:71–90 (1941).
C. J. Gorter and J. H. Mellink, On the irreversible processes in liquid helium II, Physica, 15: 285–304 (1949).
H. E. Hall and W. F. Vinen, I. Experiments on propogation of second sound in uniformly rotating helium II, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A238:204–214 (1956).
I. M. Khalatnikov, “Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity,” Benjamin, New York, (1965).
H. A. Snyder and A. J. Mord, Calculation of He II flow in tubes, J. Low Temp. Physics, 86:177–209 (1992).
G. L. Mills, A. J. Mord and H. A. Snyder, Pressure maxima in the flow of superfluid He II in tubes, Phys. Rev. B, 49:666–669 (1994).
H. A. Snyder, A. J. Mord and G. L. Mills, Comparison of modeling predictions and experimental data for He II flow in porous materials, Adv. Cryo. Eng. 39:1821–1828 (1994).
W. E. Keller, “Helium-3 and Helium-4,” Plenum Press, New York, (1969).
A. J. Mord, D. A. Newell and H. A. Snyder, End to end modeling of He II flow systems, Cryogenics, 32:291–299(1991).
H. A. Snyder and A. J. Mord, Modeling phase separator systems, Presented at the Cryogenics Engi neering Conference, Portland, OR (1997).
P. H. Roberts and R. J. Donnelly, in “Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics”, Vol. 6, M. VanDyke, W. G. Vincenti and J. V. Wehausen, eds., Annual Reviews, Palo Alto (1974), p 179–200.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Snyder, H.A., Mord, A.J. (1998). Common Approximations that Can Invalidate Calculations of the Flow of Superfluid Helium. In: Kittel, P. (eds) Advances in Cryogenic Engineering. Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, vol 43. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9047-4_173
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9047-4_173
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-9049-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-9047-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive