A Reinterpretation of the Results of the Moby Dick Experiments in Terms of the Nonequilibrium Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Z. Bilicki, J. Kestin, M. M. Pratt

Brown University, Providence, RI 02912

J. Fluids Eng 112(2), 212-217 (Jun 01, 1990) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2909390 History: Received December 12, 1988; Online May 23, 2008


The topological pattern of the set of measured pressure distributions included in the Moby Dick series of experiments on critical flow through a slender channel provided with a throat does not agree with that expected on the basis of the rigorous mathematical theory which predicts the appearance of a singular point, most likely, of a saddle point at or near the throat. This is considered to be paradoxical. The paper provides an alternative interpretation of these results. The Moby Dick experiments have clearly demonstrated the profound influence of the existence of metastable conditions near the flash point. For this reason, among others, the paper undertakes a re-evaluation of some of the Moby Dick results in terms of the nonequilibrium model first suggested by L. J. F. Broer in 1958 for use in flows of chemically reacting gases. Since the Moby Dick data contain measurements of the distribution α(z ) of void fractions, it becomes possible to calculate local relaxation times, θ[α(z )], and so to close the system of differential equations of the model. Extensive numerical calculations reproduce the measured pressure distributions with an error of 6–10 percent at most. More importantly, the topological features of the calculated pressures, P th (z ), turn out to be identical with the measured ones, P ex (z ). The most important, and totally unexpected, result is that the flow in the Moby Dick channel remained subcritical everywhere. In particular, the channel was not choked at the throat. Since the mass-flow rates were independent of back-pressure, it is concluded that the flows were choked at or near the exit. The paper advances additional reasons for the feasibility of this alternative interpretation, but emphasizes and re-emphasizes its provisional nature.

Copyright © 1990 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.






Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In