Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Transition between advection and inertial wave propagation in rotating turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Advection yields to inertial waves when the local Rossby number hits one.

desk verdict Scale-dependent transition criterion at Ro_k≈1 is novel and plausible, but the max-velocity model needs a quantitative test against an additive wave-advection alternative. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05462 v2 pith:CA2TPB75 submitted 2019-08-15 physics.flu-dyn

J.A. Brons , P.J. Thomas , A. Potherat This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn PACS 47.27.-i47.35.-i
keywords inertialwavesrotatingturbulenceturbulentfrontscale-dependentRossbynumberadvectiongroupvelocityjet-drivenspectraltracking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish exactly where and when rotation stops turbulence from spreading by advection and starts carrying it by inertial waves. Tracking the turbulent front made by four jets entering a rotating tank, the authors find the changeover is local in space and in scale: each transverse wavenumber $k$ switches when the local advection speed $U(z)$ drops to the group velocity of inertial waves, $2\Omega/k$. The criterion matters because rotating turbulence appears in oceans, atmospheres, and industrial flows, where knowing which mechanism carries energy at which scale controls momentum spreading and the formation of columnar structures. In the same experiment the authors show that rotation suppresses advection itself, and that a front model built on the faster of the two speeds reproduces the measured spectral contours for $z/L > 1.5$.

What carries the argument

The key object is the speed comparison at each scale, expressed as $U(z) = V_g(k) = 2\Omega/k$, equivalently $\mathrm{Ro}_k = kU(z)/(2\Omega) = 1$. The authors embody it in a Lagrangian front model, $z(k,t) = \int_0^t \max\{\max_x u(x,z(t'),t')\cdot e_z,\, v_g(k)\}\;\mathrm{d}t'$, which says a Fourier mode advances at whichever is faster, local advection or inertial-wave group velocity, and they test its predicted arrival-time contours against the measured spectral energy front. The measurement machinery tracks arrival times of each horizontal wavenumber $k$ by thresholding the spectral energy $E(k,z,t)$, the same scale-by-scale approach used in earlier rotating-front experiments.

What would settle it

Track a single Fourier mode $k$ in a rotating jet while independently varying the mean jet speed and rotation: if the height where the mode departs from the pure-advection curve does not follow $U(z) = 2\Omega/k$, the criterion fails. A complementary check is to measure the axial phase speed of individual inertial-wave packets; any Doppler shift showing that waves are advected by the mean flow would indicate the maximum-of-two-speeds rule is only a kinematic approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the transition between advective and propagative transport of turbulent fluctuations is set by a local, scale-dependent Rossby number: fluctuations of wavenumber $k$ travel advectively where $\mathrm{Ro}_k = k U(z)/(2\Omega) > 1$ and switch to inertial-wave propagation where $\mathrm{Ro}_k < 1$, so the boundary sits at $U(z) = 2\Omega/k$, the equality between the local mean-flow speed and the axial group velocity of inertial waves. In the jet experiment the largest scale $k_1$ switches at height $z_T/L \simeq 8.96\,\mathrm{Ro}_Q^{1/2}$, consistent with a jet whose centreline velocity decays as $U(z)\sim U_0 d/z$. The paper further reports that rotation suppresses advection itself, because inertial waves carry momentum ahead of the advected front, and that after waves reflect from the top wall and interfere with upward waves, wave transport weakens and advection resumes at a slower pace.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that each scale advances at the faster of the local advection speed and the inertial-wave group velocity, with the two mechanisms acting independently; if inertial waves are themselves carried by the mean flow, or if nonlinear interactions change arrival times, the match between this model and the measured fronts would not certify the $\mathrm{Ro}_k = 1$ criterion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any localized turbulent region embedded in a rotating flow, large scales (small $k$) become wave-dominated first, while small scales stay advective until the local mean flow slows enough.
  • For a jet, the transition height scales as $z_T \sim (U_0 d/\Omega)^{1/2}$, giving a testable prediction for other forcing geometries once the advective velocity profile is known.
  • Rotation does not merely add a transport channel: by carrying momentum ahead of the advected front, inertial waves suppress the usual turbulent spreading and slow the advected front.
  • Reflected inertial waves can cancel upward momentum transport, so in confined rotating vessels wave transport loses efficiency once reflections arrive, a point relevant to spin-up and quasi-two-dimensional flows.
  • The spectral criterion offers a way to separate advective from wave contributions in statistically steady rotating turbulence, where the two mechanisms coexist.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same $U(z) = c_g(k)$ balance may apply to other wave-bearing turbulent systems, such as stratified turbulence with internal gravity waves, where the group velocity has a different wavenumber dependence; the transition would then be a spectral analogue of a critical layer.
  • A direct numerical simulation with controlled mean shear and rotation could measure the spectral energy flux across the $\mathrm{Ro}_k = 1$ boundary, testing whether the front model's success reflects genuine wave transport or only the kinematics of taking the faster of two speeds.
  • The authors' own caveat that axial advection of inertial waves could be shadowed by faster advection suggests a Doppler-shift test: phase measurements along the rotation axis would reveal whether waves are carried by the mean flow, which the front-tracking alone cannot resolve.
  • The reflected-wave interference phase implies that in taller or open domains the third-phase slowdown should disappear, a prediction that could be checked by varying the vessel height.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of the transport of turbulent fluctuations in a rotating fluid, using a four-jet forcing mechanism at the bottom of a tank mounted on a turntable and 2D-PIV measurements of the turbulent front that invades the quiescent fluid. In the non-rotating case the front is scale-independent and follows z − z0 ~ (τU0/L)^0.48, recovering the oscillating-grid front law of Dickinson & Long with an offset z0 of a few centimeters. Under background rotation the front becomes scale-dependent: low-wavenumber modes advance at the inertial-wave group velocity v_g = 2Ω/k while high-wavenumber modes are advected by the jet, with a narrow transition between the two regions. The authors propose that the transition occurs where the scale-dependent Rossby number Ro_k = kU(z)/2Ω equals unity (Eq. 4.2), equivalently where the local advection velocity U(z) equals v_g(k), and they encode this criterion in a front model in which each mode advances at the maximum of the advection and group velocities (Eq. 4.3). Support is provided by single-mode trajectory analysis (Fig. 10), the transition-height scaling zT/L ≈ 8.96 Ro_Q^1/2 (Eq. 4.1, Fig. 11), and a comparison of model contours with measured spectral energy contours (Fig. 9).

Significance. If the criterion is confirmed, the paper delivers a genuinely local and spectral statement about the advection-versus-wave transition in rotating turbulence: the regime boundary is Ro_k = 1, with faster (larger-scale) modes propagating and slower (smaller-scale) modes advected. This goes beyond the spatially averaged critical Rossby numbers (~0.4–0.5) reported in earlier grid studies and is falsifiable in other geometries, as the authors note in connection with the experiments of Burmann & Noir and the numerics of McDermott & Davidson. The experimental effort is a clear strength: five repetitions per condition with ~5% run-to-run standard deviation, six flow rates and four rotation rates spanning Ro_Q from 0.026 to 2.04, and a scale-resolved front-tracking method adapted from Kolvin et al. The transition threshold itself is not fitted; it follows from equating the measured jet-velocity profile with the theoretical group velocity 2Ω/k, and the fitted quantities elsewhere (front-law prefactors and exponents, transition-height prefactor) are reported with uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4.3), Fig. 9] The model-data comparison offered as the whole-spectrum validation of the criterion depends on an assumed transport rule, max(U, v_g), which is not derived in the paper and which is not the superposition predicted by linear wave theory if the mean flow advects the wave packets; in a moving medium the absolute group velocity is U + v_g to leading order. The two prescriptions differ by up to a factor of two precisely where U ≈ v_g, which is the transition zone that defines the Ro_k = 1 boundary, so the visual overlay of the dashed model contours on the measured spectral contours in Fig. 9 cannot discriminate between them; no quantitative misfit is reported anywhere in §4. I request (i) an arrival-time misfit metric as a function of k and z for the model, (ii) the same comparison with the additive U + v_g model, and (iii) a quantitative justification, based on the Sec. 3.2 momentum-deficit argument or otherwise, for neglecting axial advection of the wave packets in the wave-dominated region. The Sec. 5 admission that 'Axial advection of inertial waves could take place in our setup' marks exactly this assumption as the point that needs support; the mode trajectories in Fig. 10(b), which appear to converge to the pure v_g lines, are helpful but cover only the largest mode at high z. If axial advection of waves is not negligible, the statement that the transition occurs at U ≈ 2Ω/k is not established from the contour comparison.
  2. [§4.2–4.3, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.3)] The paper should specify which velocity field supplies U(z) in the criterion and in the model. Eq. (4.3) integrates with max_x u(x,z,t')·e_z taken from the rotating PIV fields, which include wave-induced and turbulent fluctuations, whereas the physical argument behind Eq. (4.1) and the phrasing of the transition condition in Eq. (4.2) are given in terms of the mean jet advection profile (the non-rotating law U/U0 ≈ 6.41×10^-2 (z/L)^-1.07 and the steady-jet scaling U ~ d/z). These are not the same quantity: rotation and wave emission modify the jet, and taking the maximum over x of the instantaneous vertical velocity in the wave region could partially track wave-induced velocities, so the criterion risks being confirmed by construction. Please clarify whether U in Eq. (4.2) is the measured instantaneous maximum, the ensemble-averaged jet profile, or the non-rotating profile, and quantify how sensitive the Ro_k = 1 boundary is to this choice.
  3. [§4.3, test of the criterion] The statement that the Fig. 9 comparison 'tests this criterion on the entire spectrum' is partly circular, since the switching condition of Eq. (4.3) is the criterion Ro_k = 1 itself; agreement of the model with the contours validates the piecewise max-rule synthesis, but it does not independently certify the threshold value. The genuinely independent evidence for the threshold comes from the mode-trajectory convergence in Fig. 10(b) and from the zT ~ Ro_Q^1/2 scaling in Fig. 11, and the interpretation of Fig. 9 should be framed accordingly. To make the contour comparison informative about the threshold, the authors could vary the crossover condition (e.g., replacing v_g in the max rule by c·v_g) and report how the predicted contours, and a misfit metric, respond; this would also quantify how sharply the data constrain the Ro_k = 1 location.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, item (i)] The sentence 'A clear separation exists between scales advected by inertial waves and by the local mean flow' reads as though inertial waves advect scales; it should read 'between scales propagated by inertial waves and scales advected by the local mean flow'.
  2. [§3.2, text near Fig. 7] The phrase 'not only does advection itself is suppressed' is ungrammatical; the abstract and conclusion contain similar wording, and the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread.
  3. [Fig. 11 and Eq. (4.1)] The points departing from the scaling for Ro_Q > 3×10^-1 are the ones that would anchor the high-Rossby end of the law; please report the range of β over which zT was verified to be stable and show that the conclusion is unchanged when those points are included.
  4. [Fig. 10 caption] The quantities zIW, Δz and zT are used in the caption without definition; please define them in the caption for self-containment.
  5. [§3.1 and §5] The scale-independence claim is demonstrated for the first six Fourier modes (about 0.3–2 in Lk/2π); the conclusion in §5 states the law holds 'regardless of their transversal wavenumber', which is stronger than the displayed range; please add the resolved k-range to the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ro_k=1 criterion is an independent equality between measured advection and theoretical group velocity; Eq. (4.3) is a consistency check, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central criterion Ro_k = kU(z)/2Ω = 1 is not fitted to the turbulent-front data. It is obtained by equating the independently measured local advection velocity U(z) (from PIV, summarized in Eq. 3.2) with the theoretical inertial-wave group velocity v_g = 2Ω/k from the linear dispersion relation (1.1). The transition height z_T is defined from the measured departure of mode trajectories from the inertial-wave line, and the scaling z_T ~ Ro_Q^{1/2} is then explained by the same balance; this is a consistency argument, not a fitted prediction. Equation (4.3) is a synthetic model built from the criterion and compared visually with the spectral contours of E(k,z,t); it is an in-sample consistency check rather than an independent falsification, but it does not make the criterion equivalent to its inputs because the contour data could in principle contradict the model. The self-citation to Brons et al. (2019) for details of the wave-packet frequency analysis is not load-bearing for the transition criterion. The Sec. 5 caveat about possible axial advection of inertial waves is a physical limitation of the max(U, v_g) model, not a circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central criterion Ro_k=1 is not fitted; it is obtained by equating the measured advection velocity to the theoretical inertial-wave group velocity. The fitted quantities listed here enter the secondary scaling laws and the definitions of the front and transition height. The max-rule model (4.3) is the key assumption used to test the criterion.

free parameters (7)
  • Prefactor C1 in non-rotating front law = 0.377±0.014
    Fitted in Eq. (3.1) to the non-rotating front displacement; serves as the advection baseline used throughout the paper.
  • Exponent alpha in non-rotating front law = 0.483±0.010
    Fitted in Eq. (3.1); its near-0.5 value is used to claim consistency with the classic t^(1/2) law.
  • Prefactor and exponent in jet velocity profile = 6.41e-2 and -1.07
    Fitted in Eq. (3.2) to the axial velocity decay U(z)/U0; used in the dimensional argument that yields the zT ~ Ro_Q^(1/2) scaling.
  • Prefactor in transition height scaling = 8.96±0.74
    Fitted to the zT data in Eq. (4.1); this prefactor is the quantitative content of the scaling law.
  • Prefactor and exponent in third-phase advection law = 0.48 and 0.381
    Fitted to the late-time advected particle position in Eq. (3.5), after reflected waves suppress wave transport.
  • Virtual origin offset z0 = 0.5 to 2.0 cm
    Fitted offset in the front power law, needed to extend the fit to t=0.
  • Transition threshold beta = 0.2
    Hand-chosen threshold defining zT in Section 4.2; the authors state results are independent of its exact value.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Inertial wave dispersion relation and group velocity (Eq. 1.1)
    Taken from Greenspan (1968); the paper assumes energy in each horizontal wavenumber propagates at the maximum axial group velocity 2Ω/k.
  • domain assumption Jet velocity decays as U(z) ~ U0 L/z in the transition region
    Used in Section 4.2 to derive zT ~ Ro_Q^(1/2); consistent with Eq. (3.2) and with steady turbulent jet theory (Pope 2000).
  • ad hoc to paper Front arrival is governed by the maximum of local advection velocity and inertial wave group velocity (Eq. 4.3)
    This max-rule model is the paper's central testable hypothesis; it is introduced to synthesize the transition criterion and is validated against the measured front contours rather than derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional PIV fields represent the three-dimensional dynamics
    In Section 2.1, the authors invoke a ±π/2 rotation and reflection symmetry of the forcing to justify using 2D measurements for group velocity estimates; if the symmetry is imperfect, the advection velocity estimates could be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transition between advection and inertial wave propagation in rotating turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CA2TPB75

@misc{pith2026190805462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transition between advection and inertial wave propagation in rotating turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CA2TPB75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05462}
}
abstract

In turbulent flows subject to strong background rotation, the advective mechanisms of turbulence are superseded by the propagation of inertial waves, as the effects of rotation become dominant. While this mechanism has been identified experimentally, the conditions of the transition between the two mechanisms are less clear. We tackle this question experimentally by tracking the turbulent front away from a solid wall where jets enter an otherwise quiescent fluid. Without background rotation, this apparatus generates a turbulent front whose displacement recovers the $z(t)\sim t^{1/2}$ law classically obtained with an oscillating grid and we further establish the scale-independence of the associated transport mechanism. When the apparatus is rotating at a constant velocity perpendicular to the wall where fluid is injected, not only does the turbulent front become mainly transported by inertial waves, but advection itself is suppressed because of the local deficit of momentum incurred by the propagation of these waves. Scale-by-scale analysis of the displacement of the turbulent front reveals that the transition between advection and propagation is local both in space and spectrally, and takes place when the Rossby number based on the considered scale is of unity, or equivalently, when the scale-dependent group velocity of inertial waves matched the local advection velocity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of the side- and top-view of the experimental setup, highlighting all important components. The green rectangle shows the approximate size of the flow field recorded and the green line shows the position of the laser sheet across a source/sink pair. Red dots show the position of the origin in our experiments. In top-view (+) refers to a source and (-) to a sink. 1.0034 × 10−6 m2/s and density ρ = 0.9982 × 103… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a,b) Temporal energy profiles E(k, t) for modes k3L/2π ≈ 1.0 and k6L/2π ≈ 2.0 at ReQ = 2500 and a height z/L = 4.91. c,d) Contour plots of E(k, t), where solid black lines highlight E(k, t) for modes k3 and k6. Experiments conducted at a,c) Ek = ∞ and b,d) Ek = 4.25 × 10−5 . Arrival times (τ (k3), τ (k6)) are represented by dashed lines. Green lines in b) represent the theoretical arrival time for inertial waves of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Arrival time τ at height z for the first six modes ki at ReQ = 6000 in the absence of rotation (Ek = ∞). The dashed line is a fit of the experimental data for z > 0.8. 100 101 102 103 100 101 ReQ 600 1200 2500 4000 6000 12000 0.377 τU0 L 0.483 (¯z(τ ) − ¯z0)/L τU0/L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Arrival time τ at height z at Ek = ∞ across all ReQ, where τ is taken as the average across first six modes ki. The solid black line is a fit of data where z/L > 0.8 of Coriolis force. By non-dimensionalizing τ by the characteristic injection time L/U0 the data for ¯z …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Snapshots of the jet velocity field for ReQ = 2500 and a) Ek = ∞ and b) Ek = 8.50×10−5 . The red dot shows the position z a (t) of a numerical particle initially positioned at z0/L = 2, where t = 0 coincides z/L = 2. The red line shows the position of the front. The sm…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Offset z0 measured across ReQ and scales ki at Ek = ∞. velocity across the x direction rather than the local one and define the purely advective displacement as z a (t) = Z t 0 max x {u(x, za (t 0 ), t0 ) · ez}dt0 . (3.4) It is noteworthy that the coordinate z a (t) do…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Position z a of a particle initially placed at z0/L = 2 as function of time. (a) ReQ = 1200 with varying Ek. (b) Ek = 4.25×10−5 with varying ReQ. Supplementary material: movie2.avi contains a video showing the evolution of the jet next to the evolution of z a (t) and z…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reference velocity UR based on the point of onset of the third advection phase normalized by the inertial wave velocity 2ΩL versus a) Ek and b) ReQ. Only experiments where the onset of third phase was observed were considered. 4. Transition to inertial wave propagation…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour plots of E(k, t) across a number of heights z/L for ReQ = 1200 at a) Ek = 17.0×10−5 , b) Ek = 8.50×10−5 and c) Ek = 4.25×10−5 . The solid black line represents the shape of the energy contours assuming propagation is fully driven by inertial waves, i.e. τ = z/v…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a) Arrival time τ at height z for mode k1 at Ek = 4.25 × 10−5 (triangles), Ek = 8.50 × 10−5 (squares) and Ek = 1.70 × 10−4 (circles). The dashed line represents (3.1). Coloured lines mark zT where the motion of the turbulent front has transitioned to the propagative m…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Height zT beyond which the displacement of scales of wavenumber k1 are driven by the propagative mechanism. expected, trajectories start away from the horizontal propagation lines in the initial advective phase identified in figure 10(a), but gradually bend toward the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    , Poth\'erat, A

    Baker, N. , Poth\'erat, A. , Davoust, L. & Debray, F. 2018 Inverse and direct energy cascades in three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence at low magnetic R eynolds number . Physics Review Letters 120 (224502)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    , M\'etais, O

    Bartello, P. , M\'etais, O. & Lesieur, M. 1994 Coherent structures in rotating three-dimensional turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 273 , 1–29

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Brons, J. A. , Thomas, P. J. & Poth\'erat, A. 2019 Mean flow anisotropy without waves in rotating turbulence, arXiv:arXiv: 1902.07984

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    & Noir, J

    Burmann, F. & Noir, J. 2018 Effects of bottom topography on the spin-up in a cylinder . Physics of Fluids 30 (10), 106601 , arXiv:arXiv: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5051111

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5051111 2018

  7. [7]

    , Mansour, N

    Cambon, C. , Mansour, N. N. & Godeferd, F. S. 1997 Energy transfer in rotating turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 337 , 303–332

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    & Scott, J.F

    Cambon, C. & Scott, J.F. 1999 Linear and non-linear models in anisotropic turbulence . Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 31 , 1

    work page 1999

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    , Gallet, B

    Campagne, A. , Gallet, B. , Moisy, F. & Cortet, P.P. 2015 Disentangling inertial waves from eddy turbulence in a forced rotating-turbulence experiment . Physics Review E 91 , 043016

    2015

  2. [10]

    , Gallet, B

    Campagne, A. , Gallet, B. , Moisy, F. & Cortet, P. P. 2014 Direct and inverse energy cascades in a forced rotating turbulence experiment . Physics of Fluids 26 , 125112

    2014

  3. [11]

    , Lamriben, C

    Cortet, P.P. , Lamriben, C. & Moisy, F. 2010 Viscous spreading of an inertial wave beam in a rotating fluid . Physics of Fluids 22 , 086603

    2010

  4. [12]

    Davidson, P. A. 2013 Turbulence in Rotating, Stratified and Electrically Conducting Fluids\/ . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

    2013

  5. [13]

    Davidson, P. A. 2015 Turbulence: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers\/ . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2015

  6. [14]

    Davidson, P. A. , Staplehurst, P. J. & Dalziel, B. 2006 On the evolution of eddies in a rapidly rotating system . Journal of Fluid Mech. 557 , 135--144

    2006

  7. [15]

    & Long, R.R

    Dickinson, S.C. & Long, R.R. 1983 Oscillating-grid turbulence including effects of rotation . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 126 , 315--333

    1983

  8. [16]

    Dickinson, S. C. & Long, R. R. 1978 Laboratory study of the growth of a turbulent layer of fluid . The Physics of Fluids 21 (10), 1698--1701

    1978

  9. [17]

    , Fl\`or, J.-B

    Duran-Matute, M. , Fl\`or, J.-B. , Godeferd, F. S. & Jause-Labert, C. 2013 Turbulence and columnar vortex formation through inertial-wave focusing . Phys. Rev. E 87 , 041001

    2013

  10. [18]

    2015 Exact two-dimensionalization of rapidly rotating large-reynolds-number flows

    Gallet, B. 2015 Exact two-dimensionalization of rapidly rotating large-reynolds-number flows . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 783 , 412–447

    2015

  11. [19]

    Greenspan, H. P. 1968 The Theory of Rotating Fluids\/ . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

    1968

  12. [20]

    Hopfinger, E. J. , Browand, F. K. & Gagne, Y. 1982 Turbulence and waves in a rotating tank . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 125 , 505–534

    1982

  13. [21]

    Hopfinger, E. J. & Toly, J.-A. 1976 Spatially decaying turbulence and its relation to mixing across density interfaces . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 78 (1), 155–175

    1976

  14. [22]

    , Cohen, K

    Kolvin, I. , Cohen, K. , Vardi, K. & Sharon, E. 2009 Energy transfer by inertial waves during the buildup of turbulence in a rotating system . Phys.Rev.Let 102 , 014503

    2009

  15. [23]

    1978 Theory of turbulence in a homogeneous fluid induced by an oscillating grid

    Long, Robert R. 1978 Theory of turbulence in a homogeneous fluid induced by an oscillating grid . The Physics of Fluids 21 (10), 1887--1888

    1978

  16. [24]

    McDermott, B. R. & Davidson, P.A. 2019 A conjecture for the dipolar-multipolar dynamo transition . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 874 , 995--1020

    2019

  17. [25]

    McEwans , A. D. 1976 Angular momentum diffusion and the formation of cyclones . Nature 260 , 126–128

    1976

  18. [26]

    & Saffman, P.G

    Moore, D.W. & Saffman, P.G. 1969 The flow induced by the transverse motion of a thin disk in its own plane through a contained rapidly rotating viscous liquid . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 39 (4), 831--847

    1969

  19. [27]

    Moore, D. W. & Saffman, P. G. 1968 The rise of a body through a rotating fluid in a container of finite length . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 31 (4), 635--642

    1968

  20. [28]

    1987 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics\/

    Pedlosky, J. 1987 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics\/ . Springer, New York

    1987

  21. [29]

    Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows\/ . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

    2000

  22. [30]

    2012 Three-dimensionality in quasi-two dimensional flows: Recirculations and B arrel effects

    Poth\'erat, A. 2012 Three-dimensionality in quasi-two dimensional flows: Recirculations and B arrel effects . Europhysics Letters 98

    2012

  23. [31]

    & Klein, R

    Poth\'erat, A. & Klein, R. 2014 Why, H ow and W hen MHD turbulence at L ow R m becomes three-dimensional . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 761 , 168--205

    2014

  24. [32]

    Smith, L. M. & Waleffe, F. 1999 Transfer of energy to two-dimensional large scales in forced, rotating three-dimensional turbulence . Physics of Fluids 11 , 1608

    1999

  25. [33]

    & Moreau, R

    Sommeria, J. & Moreau, R. 1982 Why, H ow and W hen MHD turbulence becomes two-dimensional . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 118 , 507--518

    1982

  26. [34]

    & Dalziel, B

    Staplehurst, P.J , Davidson, P.A. & Dalziel, B. 2008 Structure formation in homogeneous freely decaying rotating turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 598 , 81--105

    2008

  27. [35]

    Royal Society of London A 102 , 180

    Taylor, G.I 1922 The motion of a sphere in a rotating liquid . Royal Society of London A 102 , 180

    1922

  28. [36]

    & Stamhuis, E

    Thielicke, W. & Stamhuis, E. J. 2014 PIV lab – towards user-friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in matlab . Journal of Open Research Software 2

    2014

  29. [37]

    1868 Letter to L ord K elvin ( W

    Thomson, J. 1868 Letter to L ord K elvin ( W . T homson) . Glasgow University Library, MS Kelvin T120

  30. [38]

    Vanyo, J. P. 1993 Rotating Fluids in Engineering Science\/ . Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, USA

    1993

  31. [39]

    & Sharon, E

    Yarom, E. & Sharon, E. 2014 Experimental observation of steady inertial wave turbulence in deep rotating flows . Nature Physics 10 (7), 510

    2014

  32. [40]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib cod...

  33. [41]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  34. [42]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.