The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in Their Historical Development

The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in their Historical Development
Author(s): P. F. Neményi
Source: Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1 (16.11.1962), pp. 52-86
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133228
Accessed: 20-09-2016 05:55 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archive for History of
Exact Sciences
This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:55:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics
in their Historical Development
P. F. Neményi
Communicated by C. Truesdell
Communicator's Note. The printing now, on the tenth anniversary o

death, of a work left in rough draft by my teacher, colleague, and friend, th
P. F. Neményi (1895 - 1952)*, calls for explanation.
In the years 1943 - 1946 Neményi wrote a long article on general fluid dyn
for a popular encyclopedia. This article was based on a new plan: The ma
concepts were introduced in their historical origin, and the theme of the
treatise was the unity of past and present, and of experiment and theory,
the diversity of special disciplines and applications to which fluid mech
had by then given rise. He was deeply disappointed when the encyclope
the end refused to print what he considered the most important thing h
ever written.
In 1946 Neményi came to the U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, where his
enthusiasm, guidance, and help encouraged several younger men to work in the
foundations of continuum mechanics at a time when it was virtually unknown
within the disparaged circle of "applied mathematicians". I was honored by his
invitation to collaborate on a treatise on fluid mechanics, intended as a much
more detailed and explicit presentation on the same plan as the rejected article.
Hundreds of pages were drafted, and the work continued when we both moved
to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in 1948. By then, however, a definite
direction in the researches on the foundations of continuum mechanics had been
established; it did not point toward direct interrelation of classic disciplines but
instead toward replacing them by more general ones, defined by physical concepts
rather than by mathematical simplicity or by supposed experiment. Neményi
himself was partly responsible for setting this direction ; he would have followed
it if he could, but his mathematical apparatus was insufficient. By 1950, when
I left Washington, he predicted that my "passion for generality and completeness"
would prevent my ever finishing the part of the book I had promised to write.
He was right, and it was another great disappointment to him.
We then agreed to use his introductory, historical chapter as a basis for a
general history of fluid mechanics. He was to write mainly on the experimental
side; I, on the mathematical. He finished his part, which is printed here.
* Obituary notice, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 43, 62-63 (1953).
Development of fluid dynamics 53
I have to subjoin the reason why I have failed, again, to writ

I began, and indeed I was writing on it at the moment the
Neményi's sudden death reached me. However, partly in re
questioning, my own researches on specific historical pro
had begun. It was my original belief that a relatively sma
of the sources would be enough to establish the facts need
general history projected by Neményi, and for some year
continued to plan completion of the joint work. As my stu
deeply, however, they disabused me of such confidence. Ra
stage-set of puerile ignorance of the origins of mechanics
facile empiric historico-philosophers in the last century fe
intellectual scene appeared. On this scene, mathematics w
and experiment the blunter in the probing of experience
tenets of Neményi do not seem to rne to stand the test of m
of the sources. The secondary material that Neményi reg
general outline must be discarded in its entirety. Perhaps
history of fluid mechanics can be written, but not soon.
The results of Neményi's studies remained, meanwhi
files. Perhaps there are passages he would have changed
publication*. His scattered notes for me indicate that he w
in the account of the mathematical side and indicate topics he
me to clear up. As things stand, however, I can do no more, af
than let his manuscript speak for itself. Apart from correc
and supplying references he indicated, the only change I ha
"the authors'' by "I", since this work is entirely Neményi's. Ma
who knew him his simple sincerity and his devotion to th
bring to others a shade of the fascination for mechanics
upon his hearers and friends !
C. Truesdell
Contents Page
Preliminary
1. The pre
cept of fluid resistance
2. From Galileo to the death of Newton
3. From the Bernoullis to the death of Dubuat
4. The Navier- Stokes equations for viscous fluids

5. The beginnings of turbulence research and the work of Osborne Reynolds 80
6. Modern theoretical developments concerning inviscid fluids
7. The concept of a boundary layer

8. Modern developments in turbulence research
Index of names
Works cited
* His op
the texts
over unch
excised a
I was tem
legacy of
thesis Neményi defended.
54 P. F. Neményi :
Preliminary
The literature of the history o
essays or surveys. To my knowl
exist: by Giacomelli & Pistolesi [1] and by Flachsbart [2], The former
focus attention upon aerodynamics and its applications to flight ; the latter, upon
fluid resistance and its experimental determination.
Nor is justice done to our subject within essays and treatises on the develop-
ment of wider fields of science, even though in some of them, especially in the
recent brilliant book of Whittaker [3] , a few passages are illuminating for the
understanding of fluid dynamics and its development.
The purpose and scope of the present brief article is different from that of
any existing presentation. It focuses attention, not on any particular part of
the subject or any of its applications, but upon the most fundamental concepts and
the most basic laws based upon them. It deals with the main stream of the develop-
ment of these ideas, with little regard to the minor tributaries and bifurcations.
In writing this paper I was greatly aided by the three essays cited. However,
I went back to primary sources, reading most of the classics and consulting
the few important monographs relevant to the subject which are listed at the
end of this paper. In spite of these source studies, I did not make any effort
to clarify difficult and controversial points of priority. I did manage, however,
to correct a few widely held misconceptions concerning the origin of some impor-
tant ideas.
1. The Precursors of Newtonian Dynamics and the Early Development

of the Concept of Fluid Resistance
The development which led to Newton's laws of motion had its origin as
much in the observation and discussion of the motion of a solid in the air (also
in water) as in the controversies concerning the place of the Earth in the planetary
system. In both problems the authority of Aristotelian philosophy, which
had been endorsed by St. Thomas, was the obstacle the new ideas had to overcome.
According to Aristotle, no motion persists unless sustained by the continued
action of a motive power, applied directly to the moving body.1
Now, as to the nature of the motive power continuously acting upon the
moving solid, Aristotle considered three distinct hypotheses, of which he
believed the most likely the assumption that the hand bow or ballistic apparatus
setting the projectile in motion sets in motion also the surrounding air, which
both supports and propels the projectile all along its path.
The first author to question this fanciful theory seems to have been Johannes
of Alexandria, called Philoponus, a Greek philosopher, theologian and gram-
marian. In his commentary on Aristotle's physics, after demolishing Aristotle's
argument he explains that an arrow continues to move because the cord of the
1 The brief part of this historical sketch dealing with the pre-LEONARDiAN develop-
ments of the ideas on motion of a solid in air or other media is essentially based on
Duhem's distinguished study [4], with which Marcolongo's presentation [5] essen-
tially agrees, while Whittaker' s passages [3] on the subject differ from both mainly
by the greater emphasis put upon Occam's initiative as compared to that of the Paris
school.
bow has imparted to it a certain amount of energy which

throughout its way. While Thomas of Aquinas mentio
only in order to warn against it, the Franciscan Will
1290- I35O), most famous as a reformer in the field of pol
independent thinker in various other fields as well, made a
Aristotelian dynamics. Probably it was due to this influen
of some members of the school of Duns the Scot (' 'Do
Philoponus' "energy" reappears in the form of "impetus".
The hypothesis of an "impetus" imparted to a project
machine launching it was developed, and Aristotelian dyn
disproved, several years after Occam's work, by a great teacher
of Paris (rector from I327): Jean Buridan (Joannes Bu
work is distinguished by the acumen and strictness of reas
variety of observations are made to bear upon the most bas
dynamics. Since many of his arguments have a direct bea
"resistance problem" of fluid dynamics and are instructiv
characteristic sentences are quoted here.2 Referring to Ar
which was mentioned above, Buridan writes:
"... This explanation does not permit one to say what
grindstone, or a top, rotate, after the hand which set it in mo
drawn; in fact, if the grindstone were completely covered
it from the surrounding air, the rotation would not stop;
air that moves it.
"Similarly: a ship in rapid motion keeps moving after the oarsmen stop
rowing. It is not the surrounding air that moves the ship .... Indeed, assume
that the cargo of the ship is hay or straw; then, if the surrounding air kept the
ship in motion, it would bend forward the loose straws on the surface of the cargo;
actually, to the contrary, these straws are bent towards the rear, in consequence
of the resistance of the air meeting them.
"However strongly agitated, air is easy to divide; one cannot see, therefore,
how it could propel a 1,000 lb stone thrown by a sling or machine ....
"It would follow [from Aristotelian dynamics] that you could throw a
feather farther than a stone, and any lighter body farther than a heavier one,
provided their shape and volume is the same; experience shows this not to be
true; yet this consequence would follow obviously from the principle [of Aris-
totle] since surrounding air would support, carry and move more easily a
feather than a stone, more easily a light than a heavy solid ....
"It seems to me, therefore, that we have to say: when the thrower sets the
solid in motion, he imparts to it a certain impetus, a certain power capable
of moving the solid in the same direction as the thrower did move the solid,
be it upward, downward, sideward, or in a circle. The greater the velocity with
which the mover moves the solid, the greater the impetus he imparts to it. It
is this impetus that moves the body after the person who has launched it has
ceased to act upon it; but through the resistance of the air and the weight, which
2 Duhem translated large parts of Buridan's work into French. My brief quo-
tations are translations from this French version rather than from the difficult Latin
original.
56 P. F. Neményi:
tends to move the solid in a d

has power to move it, the im
"It seems to me, one has t
explanations proved faulty, a
all observations.
"If, for example, it is stated that one can throw a stone farther than a feather,
and a piece of iron . . . farther than a piece of wood of the same size, I answer
that the reason is the following : all natural arrangements are accepted by matter
in proportion to their quantity; hence the more matter is contained in a body,
the more it can obtain of the impetus, and the greater the intensity with which
it accepts it ; now, in a dense and heavy solid, there is, other things being equal,
more matter than in a rare and light one. Therefore, a dense and heavy solid
obtains more impetus and obtains it with greater intensity, much as a piece
of iron of a certain volume absorbs more heat than an equal volume of wood
or water ....
"The same seems to be the reason by which the free fall of solids is in
accelerated. At the beginning of the motion, weight alone moves th
it falls rather slowly; but soon weight imposes a certain impetus upo
impetus which acts upon it simultaneously with weight ; hence the moti
faster; but the faster it becomes, the more intense the impetus w
hence the motion steadily accelerates.
"He who wants to jump far, retreats and runs in a lively way in
gather the impetus which by his jump will carry him far. Neither
nor in jumping does he feel himself moved by the air; to the contra
in front of him, the air resisting with force."
It is seen that Buridan's refutation of Aristotelian dynamics is

as to his own basic idea, that of impetus as the mover of the body, it is
clearly formulated, being in fact a mixture of the two later notions of "m
and "kinetic energy". But while these two concepts are basically dif
being a directed quantity (a vector), the other nondirected (scalar), t
common the fact that the magnitude of each is proportional to th
that both increase with the velocity (the first in proportion to its f
the second proportionally with its square). Buridan's concept of
tentative though it was, anticipated some essential concepts of
dynamics and gave a correct insight into the laws to which they are
In the quotations above and in a number of other remarks, Bur
ably the first major thinker in the Western Christian world who w
supports his impetus theory of motion by rational analysis of carefu
commonplace phenomena. When it comes, however, to the discuss
motion of heavenly bodies and to the refutation of various theologic
to his theory, Buridan himself uses metaphysical, ethical, and
arguments. This is not surprising, since a strictly scientific meth
could not, any more than any specific scientific theory, jump full-g
any, even the most ingenious, mind.
The University of Paris, which at that time had uncontested le
European learning, had among its scholars and teachers men who co
up and carry further certain of Buridan's ideas, could

for inquiry, and could defend the new viewpoint agains
stotle in the schools of Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus. Foremost
among these men was Nicholas of Oresme (c. 1325 - 1382), Bishop of
Lisieux. He translated Aristotle into Freech, writing his comments and some
of his original contributions, too, also in French. According to Duhem, Oresme
anticipated all essentials of Copernicus' planetary system and indeed expressed
the same ideas much more clearly; he established the time-distance relation of
uniformly accelerated motion (though without pointing out its application to
the free fall of bodies) ; he also anticipated some of Descartes' ideas on analytic
geometry. Another famous disciple of the Paris school was Albert of Saxony
(c. I32O-I398) who in 1365 became Rector of the University of Vienna.
He was primarily an expositor and noted polemist on behalf of Buridan's doctrine.
His original ideas were in the field of geological theory (erosion, sedimentation,
submerging and spreading of continents). Then came Nicolas of Cusa (1401
- 1464) who, although educated in Germany and Italy, was to a considerable
extent a disciple of the Paris school. None of these authors had a clearer view
of the basic idea of impetus than Buridan, but they were ahead of him in its
application to the understanding of the planetary system and contributed to the
dissemination of these ideas of the new dynamics in various parts of Europe.
Although in Italy Buridan's dynamics was late in finding acceptance, the
most prolific and versatile of early scientists, the great artist Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519), was definitely influenced by the teachings of the Paris school
and developed them further. It is not certain whether he read Buridan's work,
but through the work of this followers, especially of Albert of Saxony, he
knew Buridan's ideas well and came gradually to accept them.
There is no doubt that Leonardo was clearly aware, just as Buridan was,
of the law of inertia (the law usually called today the First Law of Newton) ;
indeed, he wrote :
"Every motion tends to persist; that is, every moving body remains in motion
as long as the power of its mover is preserved in it."
Marcolongo credits Leonardo with the discovery of the law of action and
reaction (third law of Newtonian dynamics), quoting such sentences as
"The same force is exercised by the object against the air as by the air against
the object"3,
but GiACOMELLi interprets this or similar sentences as expressions of "the Law
of Aerodynamic Reciprocity" rather than of the general dynamic principle of
action and reaction (or, we may say, of the Galilean relativity principle of
translatory motion) .
As to the "Second Law of Newton", Leonardo was completely unaware
of it. Giving inadequate interpretation to correct observations, he believed that
"that (accidental) motion is faster which has a more powerful cause", thus
tying to the "cause", that is, the force, the velocity rather than the acceleration
as Galilean-Newtonian dynamics does.
3 "Tanta forza si fa colla cosa in contro all'aria, quanto l'aria contro la cosa."
58 P. F. Neményi:
More important than his con

his copious observations and idea
As for Buridan, also for Leon
reasoning. In this respect it is
"Flee the advice of speculator
experience."
"Unlike them, I am unable to quote authorities, but it is a greater and more
worthwhile thing to quote in one's studies experience, which is the master of
their masters."4
But unlike Buridan, Leonardo was not content to observe commonplace

phenomena in the workshop, the playground, and aboard ship; he developed
also techniques for observing the wind (by generating smoke in a tube and adding
it to the wind at suitable points), and he observed with care exceptional pheno-
mena such as the propagation of wildfire, storms and storm floods; most important
of all, he made actual experiments under controlled conditions. For this purpose
he used, among other things, a water tank containing water mixed with fine
millet, through which he moved solids, observing the flow past them. He wrote
about his method of scientific work in general:
"... I will discuss these arguments, but first I will make some experiments,
since it is my principle first to refer to experience, and then to show why bodies
are compelled to behave in a certain way. This is the method to be followed in
the research of natural phenomena ... ."5
Leonardo, who made numerous contributions to geometry, was clearly aware
of the value for science of strictly deductive reasoning. In hydrostatics he used
it for establishing the principle of communicating vessels for liquids with different
densities. But the complexities of fluid phenomena made any strict deductive
treatment impossible, in his time, and his theoretical comments on this subject
were mostly qualitative. He often attempted, not always with success, to explain,
qualitatively, difficult flow phenomena in terms of the impetus concept.
However, one strictly quantitative theoretical law was established (or postu-
lated?) by Leonardo: the principle concerning a constant transfer of liquid,
according to which (in the formulation of Marcolongo) in a watercourse in
which a constant quantity of liquid is transported, the velocity is inversely pro-
portional to the cross-section. This basic and almost self evident relationship
can be considered the simplest formulation of the continuity equation of fluid
dynamics for steady flow of an incompressible fluid.
One of the recurrent remarks of Leonardo is comparison between motion
of air and water. In the idea that there are essentially common elements in these
4 These are my own translations of the following original sentences: "Fuggi

precetti di quelli speculatori che le loro razzioni non son confirmât' alla esperienza";
and "Sebbene, come loro, non sapessi allegare gli altori, molto maggiore e più degna
cosa aleggere allegando la sperienza, maestra a loro maestri".
5 Probably as a concession to the beliefs of his time, he added: "True, nature
starts with reasoning and follows it up by experience; but it does not matter ..."
("Vero che la natura commincia col razzionamento e termina colla sperienza; ma
non importa ...").
phenomena, Leonardo (to a certain extent Buridan,

more recent developments. Leonardo wrote, 'The move
water proceeds like that of air within air", and "The m
resembles that of the water."6 However, he believed th
pressibility) of air plays a vital role in the phenomena o
that at speeds of motion far below the velocity of soun
were known in Leonardo's time) compressibility is not a fac
importance for the understanding of flow and flight ph
Very copious were Leonardo's observations on wave p
face of water. He clearly was aware of their basic natu
that in wave motion, what we see primarily is the mot
vibration that needs not be associated with any water t
"The impetus is much faster than the water, since in
flees its place of origin while the water does not leave i
the waves caused by wind on the surface of the wheat f
the wheat blades themselves do not leave their place."7
He described and drew such diverse wave phenomena
ripples formed around a stone falling into quiet water
two or more such ripple systems, pointing out the anal
sound; the same type of waves formed on quietly flowi
diamond-shaped standing wave patterns observed on th
flowing water8. He is credited by Cialdi with pioneeri
waves. Indeed, he compared the velocity of the wind w
velocity of the waves and found that
"Sometimes the wave moves faster than the wind, so
moves much faster than the wave .... It is possible for
a great windstorm and to preserve a great impetus after th
Thus he describes the phenomenon of swell. He even o

waves on rivers and found that under otherwise similar cir
will be highest if the wind direction is opposite to the flow
Similarly, numerous and almost equally valuable wer
tions on vortex motion. The modern concept of "rotatio
the angular velocity of an infinitesimal fluid particle)
the ken of Leonardo. For Leonardo, vortices or eddies
curl-like, rotatory flow phenomena, which are directly
visible by adding some millet to water or mixing smok
very numerous sketches of such vortices (some of them, of
tized or exaggerated). He not only observed the vortex-
and the vortices at an abrupt broadening of a canal or a
6 McCurdy's translation.
7 My translation.
8 It does not seem that Leonardo distinguished clearly between sluggis
quiet (subcriticai) and rapid (supercritical) flow in open channels, but he made
observations of both, particularly many of the latter.
9 My translation.
60 P. F. Neményi :
jet into a much broader can

vortices at an abrupt narrow
It seems that Leonardo c
vortices on one hand and, o
served at the outflow from a
sense that the elementary par
to the latter, he made the fo
"The helicoidal, circulatory
it is nearer to its axis of revo
It is known that the circular motion of a wheel is slower towards the middle than
towards the periphery. However, this is not the case for the water. In each full
revolution of the water, in the smaller circles as in the larger ones, the total
amount of motion- taking into account both the velocity and the perimeter-
is the same ... ."
Thus, if our interpretation of the slightly inaccurate Italian wording is correc

Leonardo has anticipated one of the key concepts of modern hydro-kinemat
that is, the notion of circulation (path times velocity), and has found correctly th
in an irrotational swirl this quantity is independent of the distance from the axis
To come back to the curl-like, genuine vortices, Leonardo made numerou
observations as to their erosive, destructive effect upon the sides and the bottom
of canals. These observations are only a part of his wide study of erosion, sedimen
transportation and alluviation, which in its turn is the bridge between his d
tinguished work as a hydraulic engineer and his research in geology. (In geolo
starting from the suggestion of Albert of Saxony, Leonardo made pioneeri
discoveries, especially by giving the explanation of the occurrence of fossils.)
He knew also that eddies of the most varied sizes are present in rivers an
in the wind, thus anticipating the modern notion of river turbulence and atm
spheric turbulence. As to the former, the following passage is significant:11
"Of the things carried by the water, those will make the greatest revoluti
that are of least size. This happens because the great revolutions of eddies
infrequent in the currents of rivers, and the small eddies are almost number
and large objects are only turned round by large eddies and not by small on
whereas small objects revolve both in small eddies and large."
As to the wind, Leonardo became chiefly interested in its study because
he realized the importance of wind study for the understanding of the flight
birds. He wrote :
"In order to obtain a true science of the motion of birds in the air it is necessary
first to give a science of the wind
He found that the motion of air in higher altit

much faster and relatively less vorticose than tha
connected this important result with the birds' fligh
10 The paragraph is in my translation. "Helicoidal c
lated from Leonardo's expression "il moto elico o r
11 McCurdy's translation.
12 My translation.
"Nature has made all large birds stay at such a height tha
for their flight should be both straight and powerful, b
between the mountains, the wind turns and is always fu
culatory motions, where they could not ... govern them
wings, dodging shores, high cliffs and trees, collison with w
to their destruction; while at high altitude, if by chanc
its direction, the birds always have time enough to red
which will remain fast; but they always will keep abov
getting their plumage wet13."
As to the mechanics of flight itself, Leonardo was it
He applied the notion of air resistance or drag, inherited
to the flight of birds and introduced the idea of lift, or lif
counteracting the weight of the bird. In his view, if the
velocity between the wing and the surrounding air, th
condensed and supports the bird like a cushion, while a
is rarefied, thus helping to counteract the weight.
rightly, that if we substitute for "condensation", the r
for "rarefaction" suction (negative pressure), we see in L
correct anticipation of modern wing lift theory.
Having realized, after long study, that human muscles
to generate the needed relative velocity by wing flapping, h
only way for human (of course, motorless) flight is gliding
With a viewT to this possible application, he studied the
particular care and made innumerable fine observation
that the circling (helicoidal) motion of the bird is, mostly,
but he seems to have had an incorrect idea about the pr
along such an orbit makes it possible for the bird to uti
(This process was not understood until, almost four cen
gave its correct explanation.)
Characteristic of all Leonardo's work is the thorough
mental and observational method and of reasoning with a
of flight the most successful applications he made of his in
of the parachute and the suggestion of a flying machin
idea of the helicopter.
Various historians of science, among them Ernst M
nardo's importance for the development of science, bec
publication of any major part of Leonardo's ideas took
in a famous essay by Giambattista Venturi. But this view
for various reasons. First, many of the fluid-dynamical
by no means outdated in 1797 and may well have had a
upon 19th-century workers in this field. Second, long
cation, Leonardo's ideas found their way, directly or indirec
Indeed, Duhem showed good reasons to believe that very
death his numerous manuscripts, in spite of Leonardo's
writing, were read by many scientists (and would-be sc
times quoted and often plagiarized, and that a little lat
13 My (free) translation.
62 P. F. Neményi :
widely spread that even bon

originator. The most influ
Bernardino Baldi (1553 -
observations on "bay vortic
broader than the general dept
direction; but he drew the re
serious writer who was pro
Benedictine Benedetto Ca
Galilei and teacher of Torricelli (as well as of Cavalieri). Castelli in his
book, Della Misura delle Acque Correnti (Rome 1628), develops Leonardo's
theorem mentioned earlier, according to which in a watercourse the cross-section
and the velocity are directly proportional, without mentioning the source,
yet in a way which indicates the influence, direct or indirect, of the master.
Duhem shows also a similar influence exerted upon Castelli by Leonardo's
researches in erosion, sedimentation, and their engineering applications, especially
the influence of the following suggestion of Leonardo:
"The filling up of swamps is effected by letting a turbid river flow over the
swamps. This can be proved, because where a river runs fast it erodes its bed,
and where it becomes slow it deposits its suspended load."14
Leonardo's influence upon developments in hydraulics and hydrodynamics
was reinforced by the work of the Dominican, Francesco Arconati, who, about
the middle of the 17th century, made a well arranged (though unfortunately
repetitious) compilation of quotations from Leonardo on hydrodynamics and
hydraulic engineering and illustrated it by copying as best he could Leonardo's
inimitable hand sketches. This manuscript (Cod. Vaticano Barberin 43 3 2) seems
to have been inspired by Arconati's enthusiasm for Leonardo's pioneering and
by his urge to disprove claims made on behalf of Castelli and others. The codex
was first published in print by Cardinali in 1826-1828, and a critical new
edition was arranged in 1923 by Carusi & Fa varo.15
2. From Galileo to the Death of Newton
It is likely that even the great astronomer, physicist and mathematician

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), was influenced by the French school and b
Leonardo. In his early writings we find several references to Philoponus, who
14 My translation from Duhem's French version.
15 A truly readable and essentially authentic edition of Leonardo's extremel
dispersed and unsystematic contributions to all fields of fluid dynamics, including
its many sided applications - from bird-flight to soil reclamation - would be
most useful book, inspiring for the modern fluid dynamicist, and significant for th
history of science and technology. To fulfill these purposes it would have to have
the following features: 1. be complete as to essential content, but omit repetitions
2. organized into chapters, arranged logically (not chronologically), and cross indexed
3. every proposition and illustration dated as accurately as possible; 4. every illustr
tion reproduced after the original drawings of Leonardo, not after any compilatio
The difficulties of such a work are obvious, but its value would be great.
Communicator' s note. Perhaps Neményi had in mind something of the same
kind as A. Uccelli's compilation for mechanics in the narrower sense, excluding
deformable masses: 7 libri di meccanica, Milano, Hoepli, 1940.
critical analysis of Aristotle's dynamics was obviously

to him as were Aristotle's own writings, but we find no re
Oresme's or Leonardo's scientific work. However, Duhem showed reasons to
believe that Castelli and Benedetti did convey some ideas of Leonardo to
the great scientist.
In any case, forceful dissension from Aristotelian dynamics was a most
characteristic and permanent element in Galileo's scientific thinking. Aristo-
telian dynamics had powerful support among the clergy in Italy, both in its
general aspects and because of its connection with the Ptolemaic system of
astronomy ; opposition to the latter was officially proscribed by the Congregation
of Cardinals in Rome, I6l6. No wonder, therefore, that Galileo published his
criticism of Aristotle in what he thought to be a cautious form, using to a great
extent dialogues, thus giving voice to both sides of the argument16. That the
dialogue form did not protect him became clear soon after his famous dialogues
on the "two main system of the world" were published in I632.
The first published record of Galileo's opposition to Aristotelian mechanics
is contained in his paper "De Motu", 1590, which contains also the record of his
first experiments on inclined planes. But there is evidence that even before this,
at least in conversation with his friends, he opposed Aristotelian doctrines;
and there is in his collected writings no evidence that his actual scientific thinking
could have suffered even the slightest modification through his jeopardy, his
condemnation and his recantation in 1633- To the contrary: in I634 he wrote a
powerful answer to his opponent Rocca's pamphlet which remained a manuscript
for centuries and was read, in his time, by only a tew persons. His immortal
"Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nove scienze" published in
Leiden in I638, while deliberately avoiding the Copernican controversy, contain
the most complete refutation of Aristotelian dynamics.
The basic idea of the law of inertia and the impetus theory was formulated
by Galileo in the following way:
"To originate a motion, a mover is needed, but to continue it, absence of
resistance is sufficient.
"The process is just the opposite of what Aristotle believed it to be: the
medium, far from imparting the motion to a projectile, is the only impediment
opposing it."17
The following passage gives an observational argument in favor of the impetus

theory.
"Now, just how strongly the water is inclined to preserve a motion once
obtained, though the cause initiating it has ceased, is shown by impetuous wind-
storms setting the ocean in violent motion, the waves of which remain in motion
a long time after the wind has calmed down ; and this persistence of wave motion
depends on the weight of the water; while light bodies are easier to set in motion
than heavier ones but are also less apt to conserve the motion impressed upon
16 A great admirer of Plato, he might, even without reasons of opportuneness,

have used the Platonic dialogue form.
17 My translation from the Italian.
64 P. F. Neményi:
them after the cause has ce

easily be set in motion by the
serving its motion, the caus
We still see here, just as in t
which cannot be clearly iden
or what we call "momentum
tative understanding of com
Galileo makes very far-rea
cept of inertia. The passage
of the atmosphere not parti
earth's rotation; hence the
from East to West is faster th
for the earth's rotation. In
motion is explained by him as
of its vessel, this motion bein
But in the analysis of the
Galilei had some profound i
In his famous fall experimen
role20:
"Experience shows us that

times heavier than the othe
fall from a height of ISO or
differs but extremely slightly
This seems to be all Galileo

encountered by a falling solid
casual observation suppleme
an ingenious indirect proces
constant acceleration, Gali
is not strictly constant but
from its initial value to zer
important new idea of an ul
troduced is worth quoting in
18 My (free) translation from

19 Galileo, just as Leonardo
ready in their times was bel
the moon or the sun. Only wh
libration, he seems, according
to a revision of his tidal theor
20 Communicator's note. Her
Neményi on the history of the
sult A. Koyre's "A document
Newton", Trans. Am. Phil. S
ett's book, The Science of Mec
Press, Madison, 1959. Cf. also
of Pisa, Cornell Univ. Press, It
21 [7, Fourth Day.]
". . . Your point against my argument is well taken, and t

to be resolved. I did say that a heavy body, by its inherent
towards the common center of all heavy bodies, which is th
with a uniformly accelerated motion .... And this should
if all accidental outside impediments are removed, of w
one which we are unable to remove, namely the resistanc
must be opened up and moved sideways by the falling body
motion, the medium, although fluid, amenable and qui
strongly according to the greater or smaller velocity w
way to the solid; which, going by its nature steadily f
steadily increasing resistance, and thus must decrease the ra
new degrees of velocity; so that finally the velocity re
resistance reaches a magnitude, which, balancing out each
to a uniform motion, in which it will remain henceforth p
Furthermore, Galileo observed that this ultimate f
with the decrease in the size of the solid and explains th
markable dimensional argument :
"If we repeatedly subdivide a body into parts, the mass

in greater proportion than their surface area - the form
f power of the latter- we gradually attain such minute p
and weight will be very small compared to their surfac
require many hours to fall through a certain height wh
a nut, passes in a single pulse-beaťs time/'23
These qualitative remarks imply that the resistance o
shape in a given medium increases both with the size a
know today and will see below, this statement, plausib
found to be correct only with certain exceptions. Galil
ground when he attempts to define quantitatively the
as a function of the density of the medium. In terms of
a law that the fall velocity of a solid in two different medi
of the excess of its density over the densities of the me
valid only insofar as the "linear law of resistance' ' is valid,
resistance is proportional to the first power of the velo
day of his Discorsi this law of resistance is merely imp
perhaps substantiated) by an imagined (or perhaps actu
ultimate fall velocity of an ivory ball in air in and wat
Galileo states the linear law of resistance explicitly and
pendulum experiments :
". . . if two companions apply themselves to count the osc

the one observing very wide oscillations, the other very
22 My translation, from [7, First Day]. Today we know th
velocity" is, if a strictly linear law of resistance is assumed,
value toward which the fall velocity tends without ever rea
small articles, the approximation is soon so close as to m
fectly applicable.
23 My translation from the notes in answer to Rocca.
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. 2 5
66 P. F. Neményi :
go on counting not merely

recording a difference of a
propositions, namely, that
the same time, and that the r
equally for the most speedy
"Sagredo: ... Therefore, th
as the measure of the resist
or resisted in the same propo
Here Galileo, from the obse
today known to be not qui
not conclusive finds the line
only within certain narrow li
However, other statement
was aware that the linear law
"so to speak, supernatural fur
from a piece of artillery. (He
for great speeds, but he rem
the start of the curve is les
Thus, at a time when a dir
resistance was still virtually
especially the impracticabil
Galileo did achieve a certain
of quantitative information
In Galileo's work, "local dy
second in importance to as
time; astronomy was his life'
ment L5, and the cause of th
At this point , his amazingly
spots (which he discovered s
161O), may be mentioned ; his
in the earth's atmosphere, mi
Galileo's associate in the last few months of bis life, and his successor as
philosopher and mathematician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, was a student
of Castelli: Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647). Torricelli reinvestigated
and restated Galileo's results on the parabolic path of a projectile (without
taking air resistance into account) and added to them the remarkable corollary
that the paths of such projectiles issuing in different directions, with velocities
of the same magnitude, are enveloped by a parabola.
Entirely as a new field of application of Galileo's dynamics of a material
point, Torricelli discussed liquid jets issuing from a small orifice of a large
vessel23, starting from the assumption that
24 My translation.
25 He did not exaggerate when he wrote: "... that sky, that world and that uni-
verse, which by my amazing observations and clear demonstrations I made a hundred
and a thousand times larger than that which was commonly observed by the learned
in all past centuries ...".
26 My translation from De motu aquarum in [8],
"... the water which violently issues forth has at the p

impetus as any heavy body, and hence also a drop of t
if it would fall down freely from the water's upper free su
orifice of issue."
He makes this assumption plausible on theoretical grounds and then proceeds

to state:
"Experiment tends to confirm our principle, but partly appears to disprove it,
because the summit of a water jet, issuing from an orifice open upwar
approximates, but does not reach exactly, the level of the free water surf
in the vessel. Torricelli attributed the discrepancy in part, quite correctly
to the air's resistance, in part, however, to a somewhat obscure phenomen
of the motion of oncoming water particles being hampered near the summit
those immediately preceding them. To substantiate this explanation, Torrice
points out the easily observable fact that if the orifice is opened suddenly t
jet at first goes higher than in its steady regime of flow27. Returning to the ide
jet without any resistance, he draws conclusions from the basic assumption
which we quoted. Among other cases, he considered a cylindrical vessel wit
small hole in its side and found that the velocity of the outflow is proportio
to the square of the height of the water's surface over the opening; combin
this result with Galileo's results on the parabolic path of a thrown particle
Torricelli found that the reach of the jet, measured in the level of the vesse
bottom, is proportional to the geometric mean of the height of the openin
over the bottom and the height of the water surface over the opening; he a
added an interesting corollary to this relation. Thus Torricelli added a new a
important subject to fluid dynamics, one which even today occupies the attention
of mathematicians and physicists, but he treated it essentially as a field of ap
cation of Galileo's ideas without creating basically new concepts or method
of fluid dynamics. Fluid jets offered only one of a number of diverse probl
to which Torricelli devoted himself in his brief scientific career; most famou
is his discovery of the principle of the mercury barometer (realized jointly w
Viviani) and its application to the study of the variations of atmosphe
pressure.
Torricelli's work in fluid dynamics (as well as Pascal's work in hydrostatics)

was continued by the abbé Edmé Mariotte (1620? - 1684), a member of the
Paris Académie Royale des Sciences from the time of its inception. Mariotte,
who is remembered mostly for his possibly independent rediscovery of Boyle's
law, which states that density and pressure are proportional in isothermal com-
pression of a "perfect gas", was a highly versatile scientist and one of the most
ingenious experimental physicists of his time. His investigations of fluid mecha-
nics were published partly in his famous Discours de la Nature de l'Air, but
mostly in his posthumous book Traité du Mouvement des Eaux et des Autres
Corps Fluides (1686, edited by De La Hire) which was the first book ever
27 Today we would interpret Torricelli's observations by stating simply that

the energy dissipation takes place not only on the jeťs surface but also inside it and
that this energy dissipation is virtually absent at the flow's sudden start.
5*
68 P. F. Neményi :
printed on general fluid dynam

statics and liquid jets, the p
and of winds, resistance of ob
and also water conduits.
His contributions to the study of liquid jets are numerous. On the theoretic
side, he solved the problem raised by Torricelli concerning the possibilit
of a waterclock keeping uniform time, by showing that the water level in a vessel
of revolution with a parabola y = cx* as meridian curve, having a small orific
at its bottom, sinks at a uniform rate. On the experimental side, he made add
tional and more accurate measurements of water jets issuing from orifices tha
Torricelli did and added some experiments on mercury jets. More important
the force exerted by a water jet upon an obstacle obstructing it he measure
by balancing this force by a weight. He found that the (maximum) force exert
by a jet issuing from a small circular orifice in a large vessel is approximately
equal to the weight of the water column of cross-sectional area equal to that o
the orifice and of height equal to that from the center of the orifice to the free
water surface.
Mariotte used his method of the fluid-dynamic balance to measure the
resistance of an obstacle to the flow of water past it, and with this device he
measured the resistance of rectangular plates, both perpendicular and oblique,
to the flow of rivers. He also points out that the same principle may be applied
to resistance to wind. (The velocities of the flow he obtained at the same time
by observing the velocity of floats in water and small feathers in air.)29
Mariotte's views on the cause of winds constituted a great progress compared
to Galileo's ideas and those of other early investigators. He made some con-
tributions to almost every field of physics of his time, and, in addition, to botany
and to the theory of vision. Finally, he wrote an Essay de Logique (published
during his lifetime only anonymously) which is actually a theory of scientific
method.
Mariotte was probably a firm believer in the Copernican system. The
Church's ban against it still existed, however, when he wrote his book on fluid
dynamics, and, therefore, discussing the three "main and general causes of winds",
he cautiously formulated cause (1) as follows:
"The movement of the Earth from West to East, or, if this hypothesis is not
accepted, that of the sky from East to West."30
The next important contributions to fluid dynamics were made by Sir Isaac
Newton, who, more fortunate than many of his predecessors, was unhampered
in his work by any ecclesiastical dicta about the physical universe. Cosmogonie
problems and controversies loom large, nevertheless, in Newton's studies of
28 While Newton's Principia, published in the same year, contains as its Book II
a treatise on general fluid dynamics, Mariotte had died in 1684, and the bulk of
Newton's studies of fluid dynamics were probably made later than those of Ma-
riotte.
29 Flachsbart's careful evaluation of Mariotte's results, including comparison

with modern ones, shows that Mariotte worked with exactitude great for his time.
30 The two other main causes according to Mariotte were temperature and
lunar influences.
fluid dynamics, which were, in fact, as we shall see, t

by the desire to settle definitively those controversies.
fluid dynamics was merely a tool for Newton for great
of fluids to motion of solids is a physical phenomenon
attention at various times from adolescence onward31, an
wide field of application for his mathematical discoverie
The second book of Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical
Philosophy (1686) is entitled'The motion of bodies in resisti
predominantly with fluid mechanics in a rather wide
only major analysis of fluid mechanics by Newton elsew
of tides, which is treated in the first and third books.
In the first section of the second book, Newton discusses various cases
of the motion of a body resisted in the ratio of the velocity; among others, deter-
mination of the path of a body thrown in a uniform field of gravity is attempted.
The second section contains similar investigations for the more important case
of bodies resisted in the ratio of the velocity squared ; here some interesting inverse
investigations are also made. Newton asks what density distribution would
impel a projectile, resisted in the ratio of the local density and the squared
velocity, to move along a certain path, such as a prescribed conic section ? The
third section of the book deals with "the motion of bodies that are resisted
partly in the ratio of the velocities and partly as the square of the same rati
To this section an important scholium is added, from which we quote:32
"The resistance of spherical bodies in fluids arises partly trom the tenacity
partly from the attrition, and partly from the density of the medium."
He proceeds to point out, without attempting to prove it, that the resi-
stance due to density is in the ratio of the squared velocity, while that due t
tenacity independent of the velocity. At another point he states that the par
due to attrition is in the ratio of the velocity. By "resistance due to density
Newton obviously denotes that resistance which depends solely on the inert
of the medium. "Attrition" roughly corresponds to our idea of viscosity, wh
"tenacity" may mean cohesion.
The fourth section, "Circular motion of bodies in resisting media," deals
with motion of a material point under the influence of a centripetal force an
a resistance, treating mainly the conditions under which such a material poin
would have a logarithmic spiral as its path.
All four sections mentioned so far consist essentially in investigations of th
dynamics of a material point; the fluid dynamics of the resistance acting upo
the material point is only touched upon. Mathematically, many of the problem
treated require the solution of what we call today ordinary differential equations
their treatment is largely intuitive and geometrical, as strict analytic metho
were not available to Newton.
The fifth section deals with hydrostatics and aerostatics and contains
interesting relations based upon Boyle's law of the elastic behavior of a
31 Brewster [9], pp.15 - 16, tells of a curious method by which Newton as a
boy "measured" the resistance of the wind.
32 This and the following quotations are in Cajori's translation [10].
70 P. F. Neményi:
gas in an isothermal process.

fluid: "a fluid is any body wh
by yielding, are easily moved
Section VI deals with the m
gives the theoretical basis for t
experiments ; then (in a length
are discussed. Newton made e
mercury.
Section VII, the most voluminous of all, deals primarily with Newton's
efforts towards a theory of resistance caused by the density (that is, by the inertia)
of the matter constituting a medium. Actually Newton contrives two such
theories: one for the resistance encountered by a completely elastic solid in a
"rare medium consisting of equal particles freely disposed at equal distances
from each other", the particles being assumed absolutely elastic and smooth,
and another for motion in an "extremely fluid medium," a "continued medium"
(a continuum) which, Newton implies, is supposed to be non-elastic. There are
good indications that Newton, at least at some periods of his work on fluid
dynamics, which was spread out over decades, considered the former an adequate
model for motion of a solid in air; the latter model he declared explicitly as
adequate for liquids such "as water, hot oil or quicksilver".
The first, and more famous, theory easily reveals an inner inconsistency :
the originally regular array of particles must, unless extreme rarefication is
assumed, inevitably be upset by encounters; apart from this the average density
must, in the course of motion, be modified. Hence Newton's computation
really yields only that resistance the medium described by him would offer at
the instant when the solid starts, while he considers his results as significant
for the uniform motion of the solid (or a steady regime of motion relative to the
solid).
This theory of Newton's yields a resistance equal to the product of the
density of the medium, the velocity squared, the greatest section of the body
perpendicular to the direction of motion, and the square of the sine of the angle
a formed by the exposed surface and the direction of motion. If this angle is dif-
ferent for various elements of the exposed surface, the quantity sin2a has simply
to be integrated over the area of the projection of the surface upon the plane
perpendicular to the motion. For a disc moving perpendicularly to its own
plane, Newton thus obtains the resistance 2q Av2; for a globe qAv2] and for
a cone of 90° angle of opening, ' q Av2 (q is the density and A the area of the
projection onto the plane perpendicular to direction of motion).33 The inadequacy
of this theory is obscured by the fact that it gives a correct account of the
influence of density, velocity and main cross-section. It accounts very inaccurately
indeed for the influence of the shape of the front side of the body, and, much
33 These formulas correspond to resistance coefficients ÍC = -j - -j - %■, C=4, 2, 1.)

For the Reynolds numbers (a Reynolds number is a number expressing the rela-
tive importance of the inertial and viscous forces in a fluid motion phenomenon)
which could be attained experimentally in Newton's time, the values of £ found
by modern experiments are around 1.20 for the disc and 0.48 for the globe; for a
cone of 90° probably about 0.85 would be found.
worse, it does not account at all for the influence of th

latter shortcoming is inherent in any theory dealing with f
of particle impact, as the "negative pressures" (suctions)
of a solid the seat of the major part of the resistance, canno
for by particle impact.
From a mathematical standpoint, the simplicity of N
of resistance makes it a nice field of application for in
this, Newton discussed the variational problem of finding
of a given base area and height having the least resistance, i
He gave, in the form of a geometrical relation, the differen
the meridian curve of this solid, thus reducing, for the firs
of mathematics, a variational problem to its Eulerian e
Newton deduces also the law of "dynamic similarity" f
of the same shape from his impact theory of fluid res
the similarity law can be obtained as a simple corollary
of resistance, independent of the particular mechanism b
Newton's theory of resistance to motion in a (non-elas
is difficult, indirect, and- because it assumes certain co
materialized- utterly inadequate from a physical stan
element in this roundabout deduction is the analysis of
from a vessel; in spite of the correct observation of the
it leaves the orifice35, it is far from accurate.
We shall not attempt to outline the whole thing, but
If a convex solid of revolution of arbitrary shape is fixed
vessel, tube, or pipe, through which a continuous non-
experiences the same force, namely
' Q Av*.
But this fancifully general formula of resistance is true

out repeatedly, if all the water above the obstacle, "whose f
to make the passage of the water the quickest possible, i
this condition never materializes in any of our ordinary
resistance, nor can be brought about in any significant e
The most valuable part of the seventh section is the
Newton's masterful laboratory experiments with falling
and the two distinct series of fall experiments in St. Pau
in l6lO and 1619, the latter being credited by Newt
these experiments were made with spherical bodies, and
deviations for which Newton gave excellent physical explana
formula R=% qAv2; that is, they yield an average resista
which differs but little from the results of the best mo
ever, since they are very much at variance with Newto
34 In the Principia Newton gave this relation without proo
with David Gregory he gave his deduction in full. The pr
by Bolza and by Forsyth [11].
35 This "contractio venae" had not yet been discovered by Newton when he
first wrote the Principia; discussion of it is one of the very numerous modifications
distinguishing the second and third editions from the first one.
72 P. F. Neményi:
for an elastic ' 'discontinuum"

for water but even the ones for
manages to find excellent agre
he misses the opportunity of
experimentally between the res
ment which must haven been
considered air and water to be
single experiment with a cylindr
second theory with a crash.
The makeshift coordination be
partly to the fact that a large p
the resistance of continuous (non
was published, and these may
(especially Cotes) rather than
Newton himself conceived the
any price whatever, the coveted
theory. At any rate, as Lunnon
more than mere historical valu
In this scholium Newton expl
ferable to pendulum experimen
Finally, with a keen sweep of
his results to "infinitely fluid",
conclusions :
"And though air, water, quicksilver and the like fluids, by the division of
their parts in infinitum should be subtilized and become mediums infinitely
fluid, nevertheless the resistance they would make to projected globes would be
the same. For the resistance considered in the preceding propositions arises
from the inactivity37 of matter; and the inactivity of matter is essential to
bodies and always proportional to the quantity of matter. ... To diminish this
resistance, the quantity of matter in the spaces through which the bodies move
must be diminished and therefore the celestial spaces through which the globes
of the planets and comets are continually passing towards all points, with the
utmost freedom and without the least sensible diminution of their motion, must
be utterly void of any corporeal fluid, excepting perhaps some extremely rare
vapors and the rays of light."
Section VIII ("The motion propagated through fluids") deals with surface
waves on liquids and with compression waves in elastic fluids, that is, with
acoustics. An interesting proposition in this section concerns the analogy between
the oscillations of a pendulum and oscillations of liquid in a symmetrical U-shaped
vessel.
The final section of the book deals with certain vortex motions in a viscous
fluid. Newton formulates the following hypothesis for the analysis of phenomena
connected with viscosity or "want of lubricity":
36 Lunnon's evaluations [12] of Newton's results are partly incorrect and based
on misunderstandings.
37 I.e. inertia.
'The resistance arising from the want of lubricity in t

other things being equal, proportional to the velocity w
the fluid are separated from one another."
This was the first - somewhat inaccurate - formulation of the fundamental
property of most homogeneous fluids, that, if they flow in parallel layers, the
shearing stress in them is proportional to the velocity gradient. Fluids having
this property are called Newtonian, and the theory of viscous flow primarily
deals with them.
Newton, in this section, attempted to solve two boundary- value problems
for viscous incompressible fluids on the basis of his hypothesis: the steady flow
is an infinite fluid caused by the rotation of an infinitely long cylinder around
its own axis, and that caused by rotation of a sphere around an axis through
its center. In the first case Newton finds, through a plausible but erroneous
deduction, a velocity magnitude constant throughout the space, while the correct
solution for this limiting case of shear flow between coaxially rotating cylinders
yields a velocity magnitude inversely proportional to the distance from the axis
of rotation. For the second case the difficulties of the problem are incomparably
greater; in spite of contributions by Kirchhoff, Jeffery and others, to my
knowledge no rigorous solution is known even today. Newton, neglecting the
inertial forces completely, assumed that the flow takes place in concentric, spherical
shells; and, through a reasoning similar to that which he used for the cylinder,
he found that the periodic times of the particles are inversely as the squares
of their distance from the sphere's center.38 Like most other assertions of Book II,
this interesting result has not so far been put to the test of modern analysis or
experiment, so far to as I know. It should be added, however, that the boundary
condition for a viscous fluid, namely, adherence to the solid surface, which was
to be discovered many decades later by Dubuat, was correctly taken into account
in Newton's investigation.
The only attention, it appears, Newton gave to these problems and to viscous
fluids in general was closely bound to his dominating interest in astronomy
and cosmogony. Not only on the European continent but to an extent even in
England, Descartes' vortices were accepted as the physical agent behind the
Copernican motions of the planets and behind the Keplerian laws governing
them. Restricting attention to our planetary system, Descartes' theory can
be stated roughly as postulating a single huge vortex generated and kept in
steady motion by the sun's rotation around its own axis, which carries with it
all planets, much as a whirlwind carries around leaves. Obviously, gravity acting
between the sun and the planets is out of place in such a picture. Newton, who
succeeded in proving not only that the motion of planets, comets and satellites
can be completely explained in terms of the three laws of motion plus the assump-
tion of his law of gravity but also that the weight of bodies on the earth fits
naturally in to this system and that the tides find their explanation on the same
basis, nevertheless felt the need of a direct analysis of the only known alternative
theory, so as to prove it contradictory to astronomical data. Seeing as we do today
the imperfections of his analysis of vortices around rotating solids, we may
38 Newton's statement in Corollary 1 concerning the actual velocity of the par-
ticles seems to contradict this statement on the periodic times.
74 P. F. Neményi:
question the success of his

there were a viscous flow gener
substances, it certainly would
component of flow, unavoidab
vortex phenomena (except if
not be negligible.
The fascinating Scholium wh
for this reason and also becau
mass) is used in a fashion adm
flow.39
Thus we see Newton in Boo
dynamics for which not only al
mathematical and kinematic, w
whole book failed to provide a
fluid dynamics.
3. From the Bernoullis to the Death of DuBuat
Shortly after the first publication of the Principia the Swiss mathem
Johann Bernoulli (1 667-1 748) became interested in hydrodynamical pro
His son Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782) made major contributions to h
dynamics, the most important of which are laid down in his book, pub
in 1 733, in which the word hydrodynamics appeared for the first time. Gener
Torricelli's theorem concerning the velocity of a water jet leaving
shaped orifice at the bottom of a tank, Bernoulli announced here the pr
of "equality between actual descent and potential ascent" of a liquid
and, in connection with it, the energy theorem connected with his name
remarkably sound judgement, Bernoulli, while he emphasized and show
example the ''wonderful usefulness" of his theorem, at the same time
against its inexactness. This theorem was only part of Bernoulli's accom
ments, which include application of ideas which, in modern terminology
be called momentum transfer considerations.
Even greater was the influence upon progress in this field of Leonhard Euler
(1707-1783), the 18th century's greatest mathematician. His most famous
investigation in fluid motion is laid down in the great memoir "Principes Généraux
du Mouvement des Fluides" published in Histoire de V Académie de Berlin for
1755. Here the general differential equations of the motion of frictionless fluids
are developed and the equation of continuity stated in its general form. In three
further papers he returned to this general theory. In other researches he dealt
with problems of hydraulic machinery, in particular setting up the fundamental
equation of turbine motion, based upon the angular momentum theorem of
dynamics. He dealt also with practical problems of ship resistance and propul-
sion; here he found it necessary to use the Newtonian impact theory of fluid
resistance although he was aware óf its unreliability.
While Euler's greatest contributions were of a deductive nature, his con-
temporaries in France made decisive contributions to experimental method in
39 A flow in which in all planes perpendicular to a certain direction an identical
velocity distribution is found.
fluid dynamics. The greatest among these men was D'Alem

His first publications on fluid motion, Traitéde l'Equilibre e
Fluides pour Servir de Suite au Traité de Dynamique, in 1
Nouvelle Théorie de la Résistance des Fluides, were of a theoretical nature.
From a theory which implicitly assumes irrotational (potential) flow (that is,
flow in which the individual particles, while possibly following curved or circu-
lating paths, do not spin) he deduced his famous paradoxical result that a moving
sphere does not encounter any resistance to its motion.
Of course, D'Alembert was fully aware of the contradiction between this
mathematical result and the experimental facts, and he knew that the premisses
of the theory must be at fault. Indeed he consistently emphasized the supremacy
of experiment over theory in physics, and his further investigations were mainly
experimental.
In the broad, cooperative studies of experimental fluid dynamics directed
by D'Alembert in his later years, he had an outstanding precursor: the military
engineer, naval architect and mathematician, Jean-Charles De Borda (1733
- 1799). Two of Borda's memoirs deal with the resistance of fluids to obstacles;
a third one also touches upon this subject but deals mainly with flow from a
vessel through an opening or orifice.40 The two former are important, both for
the methods used and the results obtained. In all his experiments Borda used
moving solids and a medium at rest. In air he used a swirling arm with horizontal
axis, in water a rotating, cantilever arm with a vertical axis which moved the
obstacle around in a circular channel. The velocities were within a fairly narrow
range, the model sizes small, but the accuracy of the results was, it seems, quite
considerable, thanks to judicious methods of allowing for dead resistance of the
apparatus. All experiments in air and those in water with the model deep under
the water's surface were found to fall in the range of a quadratic law of resistance.
Through a comparison of obstacles having a variety of polyhedral and rounded
shapes, Borda proved conclusively that dependence on the square of the sine,
claimed by Newton for the influence of the angle of incidence, is far from correct
and that no other similarly simple general relation could yield satisfactory results.
An even more important result was obtained by Borda when he repeated his
series of experiments in water but with the solids upper edge or face at, or only
slightly below, the water's surface. He found a resistance consistently larger
than that for the same body when deeply submerged, and an appreciably more
rapid change with velocity than that corresponding to a quadratic law of re-
sistance. From the fact that a deeply submerged solid behaves in water essentially
like one in air, while the fluid dynamics of one near the water-surface is basically
different, Borda rightly concluded that, contrary to what had been believed
until then by most investigators (including himself), compressibility of the air
is not an appreciable factor for moderate velocity, but presence or absence of a
free liquid surface is decisive. He attempted also a qualitative explanation of
how a free surface can lead to such an essential increase of the resistance without,
it seems, having attained clarity about the phenomenon which we today call
resistance due to surface waves.
*<> [13].
76 P. F. Neményi:
His paper on the outflow of w

presents appreciable progress
by making a plausible, realistic
of the flow and introducing t
the continuity equation and the p
to the motion in these "tubes",
accurately than by the simple
of "stream-tube flow", introduce
had much and often confusing
engineers. (Borda himself, in t
attempt to explain the existence
and hence to clarify D'Alembe
in regular stream tubes.) In
losses of kinetic energy in the
the shape of orifice, and espec
after him.
Borda's research in fundamental fluid dynamics was supplemented by his
work in fields of application of fluid motion such as pumps, water-wheels and
the motion of projectiles. Some of his famed work was independent of these
endeavours : it was in navigation, in the determination of the length of the seconds
pendulum at Paris, and in the geodesic measurements for the establishment
of the metric system, the latter jointly with such distinguished geometers as
Laplace, Lagrange and Monge. He also wrote a memoir on the calculus of
variations.
In the 177O's the French government decided to build a considerable net of
inland waterways. This gave a great impetus to research in the resistance of
fluids to the motion of solids. The Academie Royale des Sciences, on behalf
of the French government, set as a prize problem the investigation of the de-
pendence of ship resistence upon the ratio of the ship's cross-section to the canal's
cross-section. Also, a committee was formed including D'Alembert, the Abbé
BossuT and Condorcet. In the experiments carried out by this committee the
method of towing models was used in an improved form. D'Alembert published
the results in his work Nouvelles expériences sur la resistance des fluides ('777).
The investigation was continued after D'Alembert's death by Bossut. Much
of Bossut's two volume work Traité théorique et expérimentale ď hydrodynamique
(Paris 1786-1787; a second, enlarged edition was published in 1797) is based
upon this research teams' experimental studies, which produced much accurate
data without, it seems, bringing about any decisive progress either in the
methods or in the concepts of fundamental fluid dynamics.
Of all 18th century experimenters in fluid dynamics the French hydraulic
and military engineer Pierre Louis George DuBuat (1734-1809) was most
successful in making crucial experiments, in analysing the new experimental
data in terms of simple basic concepts of the dynamics of continua, and in es-
tablishing valid and important generalizations. DuBuat's life work in fluid dy-
namics is represented in his two-volume treatise Principes d'Hydraulique,
vérifié par un grand nombre d'expériences faites par ordre du gouvernment
41 Borda calls it "principe de conservation des forces vives''; it is closely related
to the simplest form of Bernoulli's equation.
the second edition, revised and greatly enlarged, Paris

Laplace were the referees who recommended Du Buat's pu
The subtitle gives a brief synopsis of its contents:
'Treatise, in which are discussed: The uniform and non-un
water in rivers, canals and pipelines; the origin of rivers a
their bed; the effect of sluices, bridges and dams; waterje
both in rivers and in narrow canals; fluid resistance in ge
the resistance of air and of water."
The key to many of DuBuat's discoveries is his invention of a method for

measuring the pressure distribution over the surface of an obstacle : he introduced
a scheme, used even today, of arranging many small holes upon the surface
of a body, only one being left open at a time; the pressure in the hollow inside
of the body is then the same as that of the particular hole left open and can
easily be measured by a manometer. By this method Du Buat was able directly
to prove the presence of negative pressures43 in the rear (also on the sides) of
obstacles. He computed the components in flow direction of the positive and nega-
tive pressure forces, and found that the atter accounts in most cases for the major
part of the total "pressure resistance". In addition, using an improved form of
Mariotte's hydrodynamic balance, Du Buat determined the total resistance
The excess of the latter over the total "pressure resistance" gives the frictiona
or shear-resistance, which Du Buat was the first to determine.
In studying the total resistance of bodies Du Buat found that the resistance
of a fixed obstacle against being carried away by water flowing at a certain
velocity v is larger than the resistance encountered if the same body is towed
with velocity v on quiet water; the discrepancy can have very different values
but was found always to be appreciable. Part of this discrepancy Du Buat ex-
plains simply by the slope of the river or the canal and introduces the concept
of a "slope resistance" as distinguished from the resistance due to the velocity
of the water relative to the solid. Du Buat argued that a solid floating in a fixed
position on a river is on an oblique plane, and hence has an extra resistance
equal to the weight of the water it displaces multiplied by the slope.44
Numerous experiments of Du Buat indicated directly the correctness of this
argument. In addition, he pointed out that the existence of an extra force acting
upon a vessel anchored in a river, or an extra slope resistance of a ship towed
upstream on a sloping canal, is, so to speak, the reverse of the phenomenon long
observed by skippers, that a vessel freely drifting on a river tends to attain a
uniform velocity substantially larger than that of the surrounding water.
"If the drifting solid has the velocity of the water which surrounds and
supports it, it is at relative rest with reference to the water and hence does no
encounter any resistance to its motion. Hence the gravitational force com
ponent will accelerate it, as long as the resistance corresponding to its excess
42 I used only the second edition. The material contained in this book was later printed
as part of Du Buat's three-volume Principes d'Hydraulique et de Hydrodynamique.
43 "Negative pressure" here, as in most discussions of fluid dynamics, means a
pressure below that of the fluid at rest or the undisturbed flow just as "pressure"
means the excess of pressure above this value.
44 More accurately : by the sine of the angle of indication.
78 P. F. Neményi:
velocity over the neighboring

force; from then on, it will cont
However, the quantity [wei

means sufficient to account fo
on the basis of Galileo's relativ
fact became particularly obvio
thin plate or disc perpendicular
case the weight of the displaced
between the resistance against
force acting upon the same obs
Because of its apparent cont
the existence of this discrepan
only the vaguest remarks in li
"Can we not believe, that in th
and offers for this reason less
Actually, it is seen easily tod
at all in contradiction with an
a solid to uniform translatory m
relative velocity field which is
primary relative velocity field
we call turblence, quite apart f
lelism and uniformity. This r
and careful results of DuBuat'
examination and analysis tod
the discrepancy could be under
DuBuat also contributed a n
solid in a fluid, a concept whic
motions of a solid, such as for
is that of a "virtual mass"47.
Considering separately a virtual mass in front and one at the wake, DuBuat
defines them as follows :
"... If the sum of all the losses of momenta in the flow direction of the mole-
cules in front of the body is formed and divided by the undisturbed velocity,
as quotient a mass is obtained which can be considered as a mass in front of the
solid and quiescent relative to it; in the same way a mass in rear of the solid
is obtained."
45 Note the analogy of this reasoning to that which led Galileo to introduce
the concept of an "ultimate velocity of fall" in a fluid. DuBuat states without proof
that for geometrically similar vessels the excess of the ultimate drifting velocity
over the velocity of the surrounding water is proportional to the length of the vessel.
This is erroneuos. Actually it is easy to prove that the excess velocity increases much
more slowly; assuming a quadratic law of resistance, the excess velocity increases
with the square root of the vessel's linear dimensions.
46 Joukowsky made an interesting but altogether unsuccessful attempt to clarify
the DuBuat paradox.
Communicator' s note. I have been unable to trace a critical article to which
Neményi referred in an unfinished note here.
47 This expression was not used by DuBuat.
Another group of DuBuat's investigations deals w

steady, of water in an open or closed conduit of uniform
DuBuat gives considerable credit to Pitot in connection
probable that in most essentials these investigations ar
self. He formulates the following "principle or, rather, a
"If the average velocity of a watercourse is uniform,

is equal and opposite to the resistance of the bed/'48
Today we consider this neither a principle nor an axio

case of the momentum transfer theorem which is a co
second law of dynamics as applied to any continuous me
Finally, as to the nature of this tangential resistance
direction, DuBuat found, given a sufficiently smooth
glass, lead, iron or even clay, that the resistance is ent
the material; from this result, and from contrasting i
expect if one were to reason by analogy to the law of frict
DuBuat came to the conclusion that the water really flo
layer of water which adheres to the solid surface.
This is what we call today the Du Buat- Stokes boundary
ingenious syphon experiments, DuBuat proved that tan
is independent of the magnitude of the pressure on this
even more sharply than the independence of the mater
to be a phenomenon entirely different from friction betw
The Italian physcist and mathematician Avanzini,
participation in scientific controversies, measured in 1
method, the pressure distribution on a rectangular plat
with respect to the flow direction and discovered th
of the resultant of the pressure forces acting upon it v
angle of incidence. Since Newton's impact theory of re
always at the midpoint of the plate, here was, if still
evidence against that famous theory. However, Newton'
this by a great many years, and late in the 19th centu
that flight, because of the enormous resistance, is imp
beginning of this century, the building statutes of va
architects to compute the wind pressure upon roofs by
Newton's impact theory of air resistance.
4. The Navier- Stokes Equations for Viscous Flu

We have seen that by the beginning of the 19th cen
had reliable experimental techniques at its disposal and
experimental results on the resistance of obstacles to fl
48 In order to include pipelines in this investigation DuBuat adds: "Closed

conduits are in this just like rivers, provided that from the total height of the water
level in the reservoir the height corresponding to the velocity is subtracted, and the
rest is considered as the head belonging to the pipeline's length/'
49 Du Buat believed that its validity requires the fluid to be one that moistens
the walls. Today we know that DuBuat's boundary condition is valid also for air
and mercury and is apparently unrelated to the capillary behavior of the fluid.
80 P. F. Neményi :
all three known theories wer

of the Newtonian impact the
as Euler pointed out, the flui
but "before reaching the latte
it reaches the body it flows p
tinuous liquids is based on su
the resistance problem as exp
flow, while it takes into accoun
obstacle, gives, in consequence
on the rear as on the front sid
The very notion of a neglec
fault, and it seemed that a th
inertial forces might solve the
with the theory of elasticity
animated by certain repulsiv
up the differential equations
deduction, based upon a som
by S.D. Poisson in I831.
These fundamental equations were then derived on the basis of the mechanics
of continua by the English physicist and mathematician George Gabriel Stokes
(1819- 1903), who in 1845 published his results in an essay, "On the theories of
the internal friction of fluids in motion''. One of the various special cases to
which Stokes later applied his equations was the flow in a conduit of rectangular
cross section, one side of the rectangle being of a small and constant magnitude,
the other varying in an arbitrary way. (This interesting solution became later the
basis of Hele- Shaw's invention of an apparatus for obtaining the streamlines of
a plane irrotational flow in a conduit of arbitrary contour.)
5. The Beginnings of Turbulence Research and the Work of Osborne Reynolds

Stokes, even before he was able to give the new deduction of the general equa-
tions of viscous flow, in one of his first publications, "On some cases of fluid
motion' ' (1 843 ) , discussed ' ' laminar flow, the simplest case of which is a flow in which
all particles follow strictly straight parallel paths", and he anticipated, though
in somewhat vague form, the notion of the instability of such asimple flow pattern.
Somewhat prior to this theoretical work, C. Hagen made an experiment with
closed conduits in which he found that the laminar flow, under certain circum-
stances, changes over into a turbulent flow. He found that the beginning of turbu-
lence is favored by high velocity, by large dimensions, and by low viscosity, but
he did not find the general law defining the way in which these three factors
combine to determine the start of turbulence. (As to the laminar flow itself, its
laws were first studied by Gérard, then by Hagen and, independently, by Jean
Louis Marie Poiseuille, whose interest in the subject originated from the physio-
logical questions of the flow of blood in the veins.)
While Hagen was the first to study the start of turbulence, he was by no means
the first investigator to observe turbulent flow. Indeed, we saw that Leonardo
was very much interested in this phenomenon and characterized it acutely both
in air and in water. Quantitative data on time-averaged turbulent velocity distri-
butions were copiously available in the work of Du Buat (1786) and of Darcy
and Bazin (1865). But these and other students of flow in

pipes hardly ever attempted to study the fluctuations t
results concerning irregular fluctuations with properti
flow. In fact, it seems that they believed turbulence t
fundamental research.
The first to make turbulence the subject of fundamental theoretical investiga-
tion was a young theoretical physicist who later became a distinguished contributor
to almost all classic branches of mathematical physics: J. Boussinesq (1842
1929). Boussinesq started his investigations in the early 1870's; in particular,
his enormous treatise, Essai sur la théorie des eaux courantes, was published as
journal article in 1877. To Boussinesq is due the attempt, an unavoidably un-
successful one, to set up general differential equations for the time-averaged
turbulence from the standpoint of diffusion, an approach which, decades later, in
the hands of the meteorologist Wilhelm Schmidt and the oceanographer L. F.
Richardson, was to become so fruitful. To him is due also the simple suggestion
that certain turbulent flow phenomena may, in first approximation, be treate
by aid of the Navier- Stokes equations, replacing the viscosity coefficient by a
coefficient of apparent viscosity, an idea used successfully in an aerological investi-
gation of G. I. Taylor.
However, Boussinesq's work on turbulence had relatively little influence. The
study of turbulence obtained its greatest stimulus by the brilliant experimenta
investigations started by Osborne Reynolds (1842-1912) almost simultane
ously with Boussinesq's work. Reynolds' first major publication on this subject,
' 'An experimental investigation of the circumstances which determine whether the
motion of water shall be direct or sinuous, and of the laws of resistance in parallel
channels", appeared in I883. Here he defined the dimensionless quantity, now
named after him, on the magnitude of which depends principally whether the
flow will be laminar or turbulent, or, in Reynold's expression, "direct" o
"sinuous". In the same paper he described also his experimental investigation of
the stability of a density current.
Almost equally important was Reynolds' investigation of the transfer of heat
by the turbulent fluctuations, that is, on the "eddy conductivity", an incom-
parably more effective agent of heat transfer than ordinary heat conduction
Lord Rumford seems to have made an observation of eddy conductivity a
early as I8O6, but no systematic study of it was made prior to Reynolds', wh
showed the close analogy between the transfer of momentum and that of heat in a
turbulent flow. His first findings on this subject, published in 1874, indicate
probably his first approach to the phenomena of turbulence.
In the following years he laid the foundations for the mathematical theory of
fully developed turbulence by expressing the shearing stresses in terms of the
velocity fluctuations. Also he started the long line of theoretical investigations
which aimed at the deductive determination of the criterion of turbulence; this
side of Reynolds' theoretical work, although followed up by such outstanding
physicists as H. A. Lorentz, Lord Rayleigh, Arnold Sommerfeld, and Wer-
ner Heisenberg, proved successful only to a very limited extent. This was
probably due to the unclarified difficulties in the concept of stability itself.
Another major discovery of Reynolds concerned the formation of steam in a
conduit under the influence of intense local negative pressures. This phenomenon,
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. 2 6
82 P. F. Neményi :
studied later under the nam

in his paper, " Experiments
ordinary temperatures".
Reynolds was the first and
trend in fluid dynamics whi
periment, of fundamental re
as well as the physics of the ea
experiments and theoretical in
waves and currents on the be
6. Modern Theoretical Dev

Before we can discuss recent d
or less directly by Reynolds
theory of inviscid fluids. Th
vestigations of the famous G
holtz (1821-1894). In the firs
under which a non-viscous fl
up his famous laws of vortex
Helmholtz' dynamic theorem
second publication, "On the
holtz pointed out that if a wat
filled with water, a discontin
edge of the orifice. In his view
tinuity separating the jet fro
Even though Helmholtz ha
discontinuity, he suggested t
irrotational flow bordered b
pressure, suffers a discontin
tative nature of this essay, it h
contributed to the theory of o
About the time of Helmholt
Norwegian physicist, C. A. B
model by which forces of "a
via a medium, found that the
and pulsating spereš gives ris
attraction and repulsion betw
magnetic and electric forces.
in an unexpected direction,
bodies by replacing them by
pressibility of the surroundi
his son, J. Bjerknes, and the
theory for macro-meteorolog
range upon clouds) as well as
distribution of raindrops) .
A third group of problems
fruitful grew up about the t
Leonardo da Vinci. However,
eddies in air and water (he wa
and of waves on water were published too late to be of m

development of fluid dynamics. Afterward came Alfon
whose work De Motu Animalium, was published soon a
work was continued with greater success in the 19th c
naturalist, E. I. Marey, who, in his books, La Machi
Le Vol des Oiseaux (1890), clearly applied the notion of
the mechanism of sustentation and to that of propulsion
A little later, Marey developed powerful methods for
measurement of velocities in a fluid. His contemporari
Germany and F. W. Lanchester in England, also star
birds but soon came to concentrate upon the study of h
heavier than air. In particular, Lanchester had a deep in
essence of this problem. However, it soon became eviden
of birds and the theoretical considerations should be su
ments in artificial air flow; and in 1885 Horatio Frederi
built the first wind tunnel, which was soon followed by a n
the way was prepared for a qualitative theory of the steady
around an airfoil, outlined independently (1902 - 1906)
and JouKOWSKY in Russia. From their results, R. von
according to which the magnitude and position of the li
the angle of incidence of the wing relative to its trans
gave an ingenious geometric representation of this law.
In 1916, Prandtl advanced much further the limits of
concerning inviscid fluids. Giving definite form to an e
chester, Prandtl proposed that the basic assumptions u
of non- viscous fluid flow should be supplemented by the f
1. Along a line of confluence, that is, a line at which
separated by a solid body unite, the formation of a vortex s
2. Among various flow patterns possible for non- viscous
nowhere shows infinitely large velocities (or, in which such
least possible extent) will materialize.
Prandtl showed that in a non-viscous fluid flowing i
properties, at both ends of a wing-shaped body of finite len
filaments would be produced, and that this accounts for a c
resistance or drag of the wing. (The same system of vort
modify the lift.)
7. The Concept of a Boundary Layer
There is, however, a part of the drag for which the theory
cannot account, even in its expanded form. The theory o
its very nature assumes that the flow can pass freely along
solid, exercising upon it forces strictly perpendicular
However, as Du Buat had already suggested and as w
versally after Stokes's work, fluids in consequence of the
surface of solids, thus exerting also tangential forces upon
paper on fluid motion with small friction published in
the Du Buat- Stokes boundary condition could be reconc
the motion around a wing-shaped or other streamlined b
of incidence, follows so closely a pattern of flow possible in
6*
84 P. F. Neményi :
found the answer in the obse

small, the transition betwe
flow pattern that is virtually
extremely thin layer. Pran
from the surface of the body
the negative pressure conn
resistance of blunt obstacle
On the assumption that the
of the body, a theory of l
seemed able both to accoun
under which the separation o
However, very soon the l
early years of the 20th cen
stance of spherical and other
platform of the Eiffel tower
O. Föppl made experiments
sphere a resistance coefficien
In 1914 Prandtl clarified th
Föppl were made at a sligh
and that at this higher Rey
do not determine the point
turbulent before it reaches t
paradoxical fact that a tu
resistance than a laminar o
fact that this reduction of
artificial roughening of the
layer turbulent at a compa
8. Modern Developmen
About the same time turbu
side. Wilhelm Schmidt in Vienna and G. I. Taylor and L. F. Richardson in
England investigated the diffusion phenomena connected with the turbulence of
the wind. Similar investigations for oceanic currents were made by Jacobson
in Denmark and Walfried Ekman in Sweden.
Further progress in turbulence research was prompted by the problem of
flow in closed and open conduits, especially in rivers, also in connection with
problems of the suspension and transportation of sediments ; of the spreading out
of a turbulent jet in a medium of the same density; by the endeavor to establis
turbulent flow of a uniform and prescribed turbulence in a wind tunnel ; and most
of all, by the unique and challenging position of the general turbulence problem
somewhere on the borderline between deterministic and statistical physics.
Index of Names
Ackeret, Jakob (I898 - ) 86 Baldi, Bernardino (1553 - 1617) 62

Albert of Saxon y (fi. 1350-136I) 57,60 Bazin, Henri-Emile (1829-1917) 81
Albertus Magnus (1195 ? - 1206/7 ?) 57 Benedetti, Giovanni Battista (1530-
Arconati, Francesco (mid 1 7th cent.) 62 1590) 63
Aristotle (A.C. 384 - 322) 54-57, 63 Bernoulli, Daniel (17OO-1782) 74, 76
Avanzini, Guiseppi (1753 - 1827) 79 Bernoulli, Johann (1667 - 1748) 74
Bjerknes, Carl Anton (1825 - 1903) 82 Hele-Shaw, Henry (1854 - 1941) 80

Bjerknes, Jakob (1897 - ) 82 Helmholtz, Herman Ludwig Ferdi-
Bjerknes, Vilhelm Friman Koren nand von (1821-1894) 82
(* 1862) 82 Ince, Simon 86
Bolza, Oskar (1857-1942) 71 Jacobsen, Jacob Peter (1877 - ) 84
Borda, Jean-Charles (1733 - 1799) Jeffery, George Barker (1891- ) 73
75-76
Johannes of Alexandria (= Philo-
BoRELLi, Giovanni Alfonso(1 608- 1 679)
ponus) (5th- 6th century A.D.) 54, 55
83
JouKOWSKY, Nikolai (1847 - 1921) 78,83
BossuT, Charles (1730-1814) 76-77
BoussiNESQ, Valentin Joseph (1842 - Kepler, Johann (1571 - 1630) 73
1929) 81 Kirchhoff, Gustav (1824 - 1887) 73
Boyle, Robert (I627 - 1691) 69 Koyré, Alexandre (1892-) 64
Brewster, David (178I - 1868) 69 KuTTA, Martin (* 1867) 83
Buridan, Jean (e. 1300- 1360) 55 - 59, 63 Lagrange, Joseph-Louis (1 736- 1813) 76
Lanchester, Frederick William
Cajori, Florian (1859-1930) 69
Carusi 62 (1868-1946) 83
Castelli, Benedetto (1577 - 1644) 62 - Laplace, Pierre Simon de (1749-1824)
63, 66 76-77
Cavalieri, Bonaventura (1 598 ? - 1 647) Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) 57 -
62 64, 82
CiALDi 59 Lilienthal, Otto (1848-1896)83
Clagett, Marshall (1916 - ) 64 Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853-1928)
81
CoNDORCET, Jean Antoine Nicholas
LUNNON, R. 72
Caritat (1743-1794) 76
Cooper, Lane (* 1875) 64 Mach, Ernst (1838-1916) 61
Copernicus, Nicolas (1472-1543) 57, Marcolongo, Roberto (* 1862) 54, 57, 58
63, 68, 73 Marey, Etienne Jules (1830-1904) 83
Cotes, Roger (1682- 1 716) 72 Mariotte, Edmé (1620-1684) 67 - 68, 74
McCurdy, Edward 59, 60
D'Alembert, Jean le Rond (1 71 7- 1 783)
75-76, 80 Maier, Anneliese (1905 - ) 53
Darcy, Henri (1 803-1858) 80 Mises, Richard von (1883 - 1953) 83
De la Hire, Philippe (1640-1718) 67 MoNGE, Gaspard (1746-1818) 76
Desaguliers, Jean Théophile (1683 - Moody, Ernest Addison (1903 - ) 53
1744) 71 Navier, Claude-Louis-Marie-Henri
Descartes, René (1 596- 1 650) 5 7, 73- 74 (1785-1836) 80
Du Buat, Pierre Louis George (1 734 - Newton, Isaac (1643 - 1727) 54, 56-57,
1809) 73, 76-80, 83 68-75, 79-80
Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie (1861 - Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464) 57
1916) 54, 55, 57, 61-63 Nicholas of Oresme (1 325 ? - 1 382) 57, 63
Duns Scot, John (1265? - 1308) 55 Pascal, Blaise (1623 - 1662) 67
Eiffel, Alexandre Gustave (1832 - Phillips, Horatio Frederick 83
1924) 84 PisTOLEsi, Enrico (1889-) 54
Ekman, Vagn Walfried (* 1874) 84 PiTOT, Henri (1695 - 1771) 79
Euler, Leonhard (1707 - 1783) 71, 74- Plato (A. C. 428 ?- 348/7) 63
75, 80 PoisEuiLLE, Jean Louis Marie (1799 -
1869) 80
Fabrizio, Gerónimo (1537 - 1619) 66
Poisson, Simeon Denis (1781 - 1840) 80
Favaro, Antonio (1847-1922) 62
Prandtl, Ludwig (1875-1953) 83-84
Flachsbart, Otto (1898 - ) 54, 68
Ptolemy (85? - 165?) 63
Forsyth, A. R. (1858-1942) 71
Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) 57, 62- (1842-1919) 81
68, 78
GÉRARD 80
Reynolds, Osborne (1842-1912) 70,
81-82, 84
Giacomelli, Raffaele (1878-) 54, 57, 61
Richardson, Lewis Fry (1 881 - 1953) 81,
Gregory, David (1661 - 1710)71 84
Hagen, Gotthilf (1797 - 1884) 80 Rocca, Angelo (1545 - 1620) 63,65
Heisenberg, Werner (1901-) 81 Rouse, Hunter (1906- ) 86
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.. Vol. 2 6a
86 P. F. Neményi : Development of fluid dynamics
Lord Rumford (Benjamin Thompson) Torricelli, Evangelista (1608-1647)

(1753-1814) 81 62, 66-68, 74
Schmidt, Wilhelm (1862-1905) 81, 84 Uccelli, A. 62
Sommerfeld, Arnold (1868 - 1952) 81
Stokes, George Gabriel (1 81 9- 1903) Venturi, Giovanni Battista (1746 -
79-80, 83 1822) 61
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) 54, 57 ViviANi, Vincenzo (1622-1703) 67
Taylor, Geoffrey Ingram (1886-) 81,84 Whittaker, Edmund T. (1873-1957) 54
Thomson, Willi am (Lord Kelvin) ( 1 824- William of Occam (1280-1347) 54-55
1907) 82
Works Cited
[1] GiACOMELLi, R., & E. Pistolesi: Historical sketch. Aerodynamic Theory,

Vol. 1, 305-394 (1934).
[2] Flachsbart, O. : Geschichte der experimentellen Hydro- und Aeromechanik,
insbesondere Widerstandsforschung. Handbuch der Experimentalphysik 42,
1-61 (1932).
[3] Whittaker, E. T. : A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, 2 vols.
London: Thos. Nelson, 1951, 1953.
[4] Duhem, P.: Les Origines de la Statique. Paris: Hermann, 2 vols., 1905, 1906.
Études sur Léonard de Vinci, ceux qu'il a lus et ceux qui l'ont lu. Paris:
Hermann, 3 vols., 1906, 1909, 1913-
[ô] Marcolongo, R. : Memorie sulla geometria e la meccanica di Leonardo da Vinci.
Napoli, 1937.
[6] Leonardo da Vinci: Del Moto e della Misura dell' Acqua. Ed. E. Carusi &
A. Fa varo. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1923.
[7] Galileo Galilei: Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche intorno a Due Nuove
Scienze, Leiden, 1638. (There are many reprints and translations.)
[8] Torricelli, E. : De motu gravium naturaliter descendentium, et proiectorum.
Opera Geometrica. Florence, 1644 = Opere, ed. Loria & Vassura, 2, 101-232.
[9] Brewster, D : Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac
Newton. Edinburgh, 1855-
[10] Newton, Isaac: Principia Mathematica Naturalis Philosophiae. London: 1686.
Translation by F. Cajori: Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles
of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World. Berkeley, 1934.
[11] Forsyth, A. R. : Newton's problem of the solid of least resistance. Isaac Newton
Memorial Volume. London, 1927.
[12] Lunnon, R. : Fluid resistance to moving spheres. Proc. R. Soc. London A 110,
302 (1926).
[13] De Borda, Jean-Charles: Expériences sur la résistance des lluides. Hist, de
l'Acad. R. Sci., 1 763 (Histoire, pp. 118- 126; Mémoires, pp.258- 376); Sur
l'écoulement des fluides par les ouvertures des vases. Ibid., 1766 (Histoire,
pp. 143 - 149; Mémoires, pp. 379 - 407); Expériences sur la résistance des
fluides. Ibid., 1 767 (Histoire, pp. 145- 148; Mémoires, pp. 495- 503).
Communicator s Note. That the history of fluid mechanics has been studied so
little is one of the reasons for publishing the foregoing essay now. The fairly numerous
recent works on mechanics as a whole do not add much to the material known to
Neményi. The only substantial treatises on his subject published since his death are
the following, none of which covers more than a small fraction of the scope he attempted :
Truesdell, C. : Rational fluid mechanics, 1687-1765- L. Euleri Opera Omnia (2)
12, IX- CXXV. Zürich, 1954.
Truesdell, C. : I. The first three sections ol Luler's treatise on nuia mecnanics
(1766); II. The theory of aerial sound, 1687-1788; III. Rational fluid mecha
i 765-1 788. L. Euleri Opera Omnia (2) 13, VII- CXVIII. Zürich, 1956.
Rouse, H., & S. Ince: History ot Hydraulics. Iowa City: state university 01 Iowa.
1957. [See the review in Isis 50, 69-71 (1959)-]
ackeret, j.: vorreae ^on tneory ana practice ui nyurauiiu mduiimca m we 1/ aim
18th centuries). L. Euleri Opera Omnia (2) 15, VII- LX. Zürich, 1957

The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in Their Historical Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in Their Historical Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Main Concepts and Ideas of Fluid Dynamics in their Historical Development

Communicator's Note. The printing now, on the tenth anniversary o

I have to subjoin the reason why I have failed, again, to writ

2. From Galileo to the death of Newton

3. From the Bernoullis to the death of Dubuat

4. The Navier- Stokes equations for viscous fluids

7. The concept of a boundary layer

1. The Precursors of Newtonian Dynamics and the Early Development

bow has imparted to it a certain amount of energy which

tends to move the solid in a d

It is seen that Buridan's refutation of Aristotelian dynamics is

up and carry further certain of Buridan's ideas, could

More important than his con

But unlike Buridan, Leonardo was not content to observe commonplace

4 These are my own translations of the following original sentences: "Fuggi

phenomena, Leonardo (to a certain extent Buridan,

Thus he describes the phenomenon of swell. He even o

jet into a much broader can

Thus, if our interpretation of the slightly inaccurate Italian wording is correc

He found that the motion of air in higher altit

widely spread that even bon

2. From Galileo to the Death of Newton

It is likely that even the great astronomer, physicist and mathematician

critical analysis of Aristotle's dynamics was obviously

The following passage gives an observational argument in favor of the impetus

16 A great admirer of Plato, he might, even without reasons of opportuneness,

them after the cause has ce

"Experience shows us that

This seems to be all Galileo

18 My (free) translation from

". . . Your point against my argument is well taken, and t

"If we repeatedly subdivide a body into parts, the mass

". . . if two companions apply themselves to count the osc

go on counting not merely

"... the water which violently issues forth has at the p

He makes this assumption plausible on theoretical grounds and then proceeds

Torricelli's work in fluid dynamics (as well as Pascal's work in hydrostatics)

27 Today we would interpret Torricelli's observations by stating simply that

printed on general fluid dynam

29 Flachsbart's careful evaluation of Mariotte's results, including comparison

fluid dynamics, which were, in fact, as we shall see, t

gas in an isothermal process.

33 These formulas correspond to resistance coefficients ÍC = -j - -j - %■, C=4, 2, 1.)

worse, it does not account at all for the influence of th

But this fancifully general formula of resistance is true

for an elastic ' 'discontinuum"

'The resistance arising from the want of lubricity in t

question the success of his

3. From the Bernoullis to the Death of DuBuat

fluid dynamics. The greatest among these men was D'Alem

His paper on the outflow of w

the second edition, revised and greatly enlarged, Paris

The key to many of DuBuat's discoveries is his invention of a method for

velocity over the neighboring

However, the quantity [wei

47 This expression was not used by DuBuat.

Another group of DuBuat's investigations deals w

"If the average velocity of a watercourse is uniform,

Today we consider this neither a principle nor an axio

4. The Navier- Stokes Equations for Viscous Flu

48 In order to include pipelines in this investigation DuBuat adds: "Closed

all three known theories wer

5. The Beginnings of Turbulence Research and the Work of Osborne Reynolds