Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

The Lagrangian kinetic energy cascade in Rayleigh-B\'{e}nard convection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A split kinetic-energy cascade exists in Rayleigh-Bénard convection

desk verdict First experimental Lagrangian flux measurement in a RB cell, with a plausible split-cascade signal, but the missing kdot methodology and the strong LSC shear make the sign-flip claim less than fully verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01714 v1 pith:D4E7DJLX submitted 2025-05-03 physics.flu-dyn

Robin Barta , Claus Wagner , Ron Shnapp This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords kineticenergycascadeRayleigh-BénardconvectionLagrangianturbulenceparticletrackingvelocimetryupscaletransferdownscaleBolgianoscale
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 that the kinetic energy cascade in turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard convection is split by scale, not uniform: on average kinetic energy moves toward smaller scales for small particle separations and toward larger scales for separations above about $r^\dagger = 0.32L$, with a gradual mixed regime in between. The evidence comes from Lagrangian particle tracking in a cubic convection cell at $\mathrm{Ra}=2.5\times10^9$, following the rate of change of the kinetic energy of relative motion of tracer pairs. If the claim is correct, it tells where the energy injected by buoyancy goes and shows that the mechanisms driving downscale and upscale transfer are different physical processes, not time-reversed versions of each other. A sympathetic reader would care because it resolves a basic question about energy pathways in a canonical turbulent flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lagrangian flux $\langle\dot{k}\rangle_r$, the average rate of change of $k = \frac{1}{2}\delta_r v^2$, the kinetic energy of the relative velocity of two tracer particles separated by distance $r$. The paper derives $\langle\dot{k}\rangle_r = 2\langle v\,\nabla p^*\rangle_r - 2\langle v\, f_b^*\rangle_r$ for scales above the dissipation range, so the flux is set by spatial correlations between velocity and pressure and between velocity and buoyancy across distance $r$. This quantity is measured from 3D particle tracking data and combined with the conditional mean of $\dot{k}$ given the particles' separation velocity $\delta v_r$ to identify which flow topology carries the transfer.

What would settle it

Regenerate the same $\langle\dot{k}\rangle_r$ statistics from a direct numerical simulation of the same Rayleigh-Bénard setup, sampling synthetic particles with the same density, noise, and interrogation volume; if a well-resolved material-derivative estimate does not change sign from negative to positive near $r\approx0.3L$, the crossover would be an artefact of the trajectory estimator rather than a property of the flow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the mean rate of change of the relative kinetic energy $\langle\dot{k}\rangle_r$ of tracer pairs as the Lagrangian measure of kinetic energy flux across scale $r$, the paper finds a sign flip with scale. For separations $r<r_*\approx0.06L$ the mean flux is negative and decreasing with $r$, a downscale cascade reminiscent of Kolmogorov turbulence. For $r>r^\dagger=0.32L$ the mean flux is positive, an upscale cascade driven by thermal plumes; the crossover sits near the Bolgiano scale $L_B\approx0.3L$, and between $r_*$ and $r^\dagger$ the two behaviours coexist in a mixed regime in which extreme events carry the downscale flux and weaker events carry the upscale flux. The paper also claims that the flow topology is reversed between regimes: at small scales the downscale flux is associated with converging trajectories (bi-axial strain), while at large scales the upscale flux is associated with converging trajectories and the residual downscale flux with separating trajectories. This reversal is the paper's main qualitative discovery.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the value of $\dot{k}$ computed from discrete particle trajectories is equal to the true material derivative of the relative kinetic energy of fluid elements; since the paper does not state how the trajectories were differentiated or filtered, the sign of the mean flux at small separations could depend on that unstated estimator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inertial range in this flow does not have a constant flux: $\langle\dot{k}\rangle_r$ keeps changing across the K41 range, so the classical picture of scale-invariant transfer does not hold there.
  • The scale $r^\dagger\approx0.32L$ is a genuine crossover of the mean flux; above it, kinetic energy is on average collected into larger scales, which sustains the large-scale circulation from below rather than only from boundary forcing.
  • The downscale and upscale transfer mechanisms are not time-reversed images, implying that irreversibility is visible already in the two-point Lagrangian statistics.
  • The gradual mixed regime between $r_*$ and $L_B$ means that local events of opposite cascade direction coexist over a broad range, not as a sharp switch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to repeat the same analysis at higher Rayleigh numbers: the prediction would be that $r^\dagger$ stays tied to the Bolgiano scale $L_B$ rather than to a fixed fraction of $L$, so the crossover should move with $L_B$.
  • The conditional-topology asymmetry suggests a subgrid-modelling route: models that only parameterise downscale transfer would miss the upscale branch, so a two-way energy transfer closure may be needed for convection at these parameters.
  • Because the paper's flux derivation is Lagrangian, the same pair statistics could be extracted from direct numerical simulation datasets with known ground truth, which would isolate how much of the measured crossover is physical versus an artefact of discrete trajectory differentiation.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an experimental study of the Lagrangian kinetic energy transfer in a cubic Rayleigh-Bénard cell at Ra = 2.5×10^9 using three-dimensional particle tracking velocimetry. The authors compute the rate of change of the relative kinetic energy of particle pairs, kdot, as a function of separation r and observe a negative mean at small scales, a crossover to a positive mean at r† ≈ 0.32L, and a broad transition region between the two. They interpret the sign change as a split cascade—downscale at small scales and upscale at large scales—characterize the non-Gaussian statistics of kdot, and use joint statistics with the separation velocity to argue that downscale and upscale transfer events have different flow topology. The central claim is that the Lagrangian kinetic energy flux reverses direction at a scale near the Bolgiano scale.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would be a valuable experimental confirmation of a split cascade in Rayleigh-Bénard convection, with implications for the scale-by-scale energy budget and for Lagrangian turbulence theory. The paper has notable strengths: it analyzes a large dataset (2.5×10^5 trajectories, millions of pairs per bin), the central observable is measured rather than inferred from a fitted model, the structure-function scalings are obtained by independent fits, and the topological analysis of the joint statistics is original. The main risk is that the flux identification and the sign of the mean kdot may be corrupted by the strong large-scale circulation, which is not subtracted and which the authors themselves identify as causing shear effects at the same scales.

major comments (4)
  1. [Flux statistics (Fig. 2)] The load-bearing claim that ⟨kdot⟩_r crosses zero at r† = 0.32L requires that the values of ⟨kdot⟩_r be statistically reliable and that the estimator be fully specified, but neither is provided. The manuscript does not state how the Lagrangian derivative kdot is obtained from the discrete PTV trajectories: no differentiation scheme, filter width, spline order, or time window is given, even though kdot involves particle acceleration and is therefore strongly affected by tracking noise. Fig. 2 shows no error bars or confidence intervals on the mean or the moments, so the reported r† uncertainty (0.32 ± 0.01L) has no visible basis. I request a Methods paragraph describing the kdot estimator, and bootstrap or subsampling error bars on the curves in Fig. 2, with particular attention to the zero crossing.
  2. [A Lagrangian view energy flux, Eqs. (3)–(5); Methods; Fig. 1(f)] The identification of ⟨kdot⟩_r with an interscale energy flux, following Mann et al., assumes a homogeneous flow with no mean shear. The experiment is wall-bounded Rayleigh-Bénard convection with a persistent large-scale circulation, and the manuscript itself attributes the super-BO59 structure-function slope ζ = 1.3 ± 0.07 (Fig. 1f) to "shear effects associated with the LSC" at separations 0.3L ≲ r ≲ 0.4L, exactly the range where ⟨kdot⟩_r becomes positive. Since Eq. (6) uses the total velocity increment without subtracting the local mean or the LSC, the positive mean ⟨kdot⟩_r for r > r† could be produced by mean-shear production of relative kinetic energy rather than by an upscale turbulent cascade. I ask the authors to test this by recomputing the flux after removing the large-scale/LSC contribution (e.g., subtracting a locally averaged velocity at scale r or conditioning on the LSC phase) or by comparing the Lagrangian flux with an independent Eulerian scale-by-scale budget.
  3. [A Lagrangian view energy flux, Eq. (4)] The derivation of Eq. (5) relies on ∇⟨T⟩ = 0 via Stokes theorem and on the global cancellation ϵb = ϵk, both of which hold for the full closed domain. However, all statistics are computed in a measurement volume that excludes near-wall regions, and trajectory-pair sampling is not uniform in space, so the boundary term and the work-dissipation balance inside the sub-volume are generally nonzero. Without quantifying these contributions, the step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is not justified for the measured data, and the interpretation of ⟨kdot⟩_r as a pure transfer term is incomplete. The authors should either show that the omitted terms are negligible in the measurement volume or formulate the flux balance with explicit boundary terms.
  4. [Flow structure and energy flux (Fig. 3)] The topological conclusion that downscale events at large scales are associated with separating trajectories while upscale events are associated with converging trajectories is supported only by a visual inspection of the conditional means in Fig. 3. No confidence intervals or significance tests are given for the zero crossings or the inflection point of ⟨kdot|δvr⟩_r, and the number of independent samples per bin is not reported. Since this is a central secondary claim, I ask for a quantitative statistical characterization (e.g., bootstrap intervals on the conditional mean and a test of the monotonicity/inflection).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "how kinetic energy is transfers across the scales" is ungrammatical, and "downwscale" should be "downscale".
  2. [Section heading] The heading "A Lagrangian view energy flux" should be "A Lagrangian view of the energy flux".
  3. [Eq. (2)] The notation T ≡ p v − 2ν v S mixes a vector and a tensor product; please define the contraction explicitly (e.g., v·S) and state the vector character of T.
  4. [Flux statistics] The flatness values cited in the text ("from approximately 200 at r = 0.05L to approximately 30 at r = 0.5L (not shown)") are not displayed; either add a panel or remove the quantitative claim.
  5. [Fig. 2(a) inset] The inset histogram lacks axis labels and a legend for the Gaussian comparison; please clarify the normalization and the parameters of the Gaussian.
  6. [Fig. 1(f)] The scaling exponents ζ = 0.67 ± 0.06 and ζ = 1.3 ± 0.07 are stated without specifying the fitting range or the fit method; a brief description would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux statistics are measured outputs, not fitted inputs, and the theoretical identification rests on external prior work.

full rationale

The central observable, the scale-conditioned mean of the Lagrangian relative kinetic energy rate of change (⟨kdot⟩_r), is computed directly from tracked particle pairs in the 3D-PTV data; neither r* nor r† is a parameter fitted to produce the conclusion. Rather, r* and r† are empirically estimated transitional scales read off the measured moment curves, with r† defined as the point where the mean ⟨kdot⟩_r changes sign. The statement that a crossover occurs is therefore a data summary, not an independent prediction, and the underlying sign statistics are the measurement itself. The theoretical identification of ⟨kdot⟩_r with an interscale kinetic energy flux is taken from external references (Mann et al. [32], Pumir et al. [28], and the filtering view of Germano [35]), not from any self-citation; the paper's own Eq. (3)-(5) provide a derivation of the flux balance from the Navier-Stokes equations. The authors' self-citations are instrumental or contextual: proPTV software [37], camera calibration [38], the source dataset from a prior LSC experiment [39], and earlier Lagrangian intermittency studies [26,44]. None of these supplies the split-cascade claim; the split-cascade interpretation is instead compared with independent Eulerian results [18,46] and with BO59 scaling expectations. Possible weaknesses, such as the unsubtracted large-scale circulation shear, boundary terms from excluding near-wall regions, and the lack of explicit trajectory-differentiation details, are empirical validity or correctness concerns rather than circularity: they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for its main assertion, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard turbulence and particle tracking assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to force the central claim, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Boussinesq approximation holds for the working fluid.
    Used in Eq. (1) to write buoyancy as a body force with constant fluid properties.
  • domain assumption The flow is statistically stationary over the 30-hour measurement, so global production equals dissipation.
    Required for Eq. (2) with the mean of the squared acceleration equal to zero and for the cancellation of epsilon_b and epsilon_k in Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption The viscous strain covariance term is negligible for separations much larger than the Kolmogorov scale.
    Dropped to obtain Eq. (5); standard in turbulence but not directly verified at all measured separations.
  • domain assumption Tracer particles behave as passive fluid markers.
    The 20 micron particles with density 1.03 g/cm^3 are assumed to follow the flow; the particle response time is not discussed.
  • standard math The boundary contribution to the volume-averaged divergence vanishes.
    Used after Eq. (2) via Stokes theorem, relying on no-slip boundaries where the velocity vanishes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Lagrangian kinetic energy cascade in Rayleigh-B\'{e}nard convection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4E7DJLX

@misc{pith2026250501714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Lagrangian kinetic energy cascade in Rayleigh-B\'enard convection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4E7DJLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01714}
}
read the original abstract

Rayleigh-B\'{e}nard convection at high Rayleigh number exhibits turbulence superimposed on large-scale circulation. While buoyancy forces drive the flow at certain scales, how kinetic energy is transfers across the scales is not understood. Here, utilizing a Lagrangian description of the kinetic energy flux, we present experimental evidence of a split cascade where energy flows downwscale at small scales and upscale at large scales. The flow topology of these energy transfer events differ profoundly, and the transition between them occurs gradually, over a broad range of scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Characterization of the experimental system. (a) 3D rendering of approximately 2000 trajectories measured in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Statistics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Joint probability distribution functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A conceptual sketch for the energy transfer regimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New perspectives in turbu- lent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    F. Chill` a and J. Schumacher, “New perspectives in turbu- lent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” The European Physi- cal Journal E 35 (2012), 10.1140/epje/i2012-12058-1. 6

    doi:10.1140/epje/i2012-12058-1 2012

  2. [2]

    Turbulent superstructures in Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    A. Pandey, J. D. Scheel, and J. Schumacher, “Turbulent superstructures in Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” Nature Communications 9 (2018), 10.1038/s41467-018-04478-0

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04478-0 2018

  3. [3]

    Ultimate Rayleigh-B´ enard turbulence,

    D. Lohse and O. Shishkina, “Ultimate Rayleigh-B´ enard turbulence,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 035001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Asking the right questions on Rayleigh–B´ enard turbulence,

    D. Lohse, “Asking the right questions on Rayleigh–B´ enard turbulence,” Journal of Fluid Me- chanics 1000 (2024), 10.1017/jfm.2024.871

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.871 2024

  5. [5]

    Cascades and transitions in turbulent flows,

    A. Alexakis and L. Biferale, “Cascades and transitions in turbulent flows,” Physics Reports 767, 1–101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Frisch, Turbulence: The legacy of A.N

    U. Frisch, Turbulence: The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Inertial ranges in two-dimensional tur- bulence,

    R. H. Kraichnan, “Inertial ranges in two-dimensional tur- bulence,” Physics of fluids 10, 1417 (1967)

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    Experimental observation of the two-dimensional inverse energy cascade,

    J. Paret and P. Tabeling, “Experimental observation of the two-dimensional inverse energy cascade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4162–4165 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Spectrally con- densed turbulence in thin layers,

    H. Xia, M. Shats, and G. Falkovich, “Spectrally con- densed turbulence in thin layers,” Physics of Fluids 21 (2009), 10.1063/1.3275861

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Upscale energy transfer in thick turbulent fluid layers,

    H. Xia, D. Byrne, G. Falkovich, and M. Shats, “Upscale energy transfer in thick turbulent fluid layers,” Nature Physics 7, 321–324 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    In- verse cascade and symmetry breaking in rapidly rotat- ing Boussinesq convection,

    B. Favier, L. J. Silvers, and M. R. E. Proctor, “In- verse cascade and symmetry breaking in rapidly rotat- ing Boussinesq convection,” Physics of Fluids 26 (2014), 10.1063/1.4895131

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Inverse cascades of kinetic energy and thermal variance in three-dimensional horizontally extended tur- bulent convection,

    P. P. Vieweg, J. D. Scheel, R. Stepanov, and J. Schu- macher, “Inverse cascades of kinetic energy and thermal variance in three-dimensional horizontally extended tur- bulent convection,” Physical Review Research 4, 043098 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Lagrangian irreversibility and energy ex- changes in rotating-stratified turbulent flows,

    S. Gallon, A. Sozza, F. Feraco, R. Marino, and A. Pumir, “Lagrangian irreversibility and energy ex- changes in rotating-stratified turbulent flows,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 024101 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Spectra of velocity and temperature fluc- tuations with constant entropy flux of fully developed free-convective turbulence,

    V. S. L’vov, “Spectra of velocity and temperature fluc- tuations with constant entropy flux of fully developed free-convective turbulence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 687– 690 (1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    Small-scale properties of tur- bulent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    D. Lohse and K.-Q. Xia, “Small-scale properties of tur- bulent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 42, 335–364 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Ob- servations and other characteristics of thermals,

    E. M. Sparrow, R. B. Husar, and R. J. Goldstein, “Ob- servations and other characteristics of thermals,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 41, 793–800 (1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    Turbulent heat flow: structures and scaling,

    L. P. Kadanoff, “Turbulent heat flow: structures and scaling,” Physics today 54, 34–39 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Physical and scale-by-scale analysis of Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    R. Togni, A. Cimarelli, and E. De Angelis, “Physical and scale-by-scale analysis of Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 782, 380–404 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Com- pleting the mechanical energy pathways in turbulent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    B. Gayen, G. O. Hughes, and R. W. Griffiths, “Com- pleting the mechanical energy pathways in turbulent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” Physical Review Letters 111, 124301 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Bubble-induced convection and flow instability in liquid vessels,

    R. Shnapp and M. Holzner, “Bubble-induced convection and flow instability in liquid vessels,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 996, A2 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Subgrid-scale energy transfer in the near-wall region of turbulent flows,

    C. H¨ artel, L. Kleiser, F. Unger, and R. Friedrich, “Subgrid-scale energy transfer in the near-wall region of turbulent flows,” Physics of Fluids 6, 3130–3143 (1994)

    1994

  14. [22]

    Local energy flux and the refined similarity hypothesis,

    G. L. Eyink, “Local energy flux and the refined similarity hypothesis,” Journal of Statistical Physics 78, 335–351 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    Local energy flux and subgrid-scale statistics in three-dimensional turbulence,

    V. Borue and S. A. Orszag, “Local energy flux and subgrid-scale statistics in three-dimensional turbulence,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 366, 1–31 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Large eddy simulations of high Reynolds number turbulence based on interscale energy transfer among resolved scales,

    J. A. Domaradzki, “Large eddy simulations of high Reynolds number turbulence based on interscale energy transfer among resolved scales,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 044609 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    The coherent structure of the energy cascade in isotropic turbulence,

    D. Park and A. Lozano-Dur´ an, “The coherent structure of the energy cascade in isotropic turbulence,” Scientific Reports 15, 14 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Universal alignment in turbu- lent pair dispersion,

    R. Shnapp, S. Brizzolara, M. M. Neamtu-Halic, A. Gam- bino, and M. Holzner, “Universal alignment in turbu- lent pair dispersion,” Nature Communications 14, 4195 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lagrangian studies of coherent sets and heat transport in constant heat flux-driven turbu- lent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,

    P. P Vieweg, A. Kl¨ unker, J. Schumacher, and K. Padberg-Gehle, “Lagrangian studies of coherent sets and heat transport in constant heat flux-driven turbu- lent Rayleigh-B´ enard convection,” European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids 103, 69–85 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    The La- grangian view of energy transfer in turbulent flow,

    A. Pumir, B. I. Shraiman, and M. Chertkov, “The La- grangian view of energy transfer in turbulent flow,” Eu- rophysics Letters 56, 379 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Dissipation-energy flux correlations as evi- dence for the Lagrangian energy cascade in turbulence,

    M. Wan, Z. Xiao, C. Meneveau, G. L. Eyink, and S. Chen, “Dissipation-energy flux correlations as evi- dence for the Lagrangian energy cascade in turbulence,” Physics of Fluids 22 (2010), 10.1063/1.3447887

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in turbulent flows,

    C. Meneveau, “Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in turbulent flows,” Annual Re- view of Fluid Mechanics 43, 219–245 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Single-particle motion and vortex stretching in three- dimensional turbulent flows,

    A. Pumir, H. Xu, E. Bodenschatz, and R. Grauer, “Single-particle motion and vortex stretching in three- dimensional turbulent flows,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 124502 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    J. Mann, S. Ott, and J. S. Andersen, Experimental study of relative, turbulent diffusion , Denmark. Forskningscen- ter Risoe. Risoe-R No. 1036(EN) (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Parti- cles and fields in fluid turbulence,

    G. Falkovich, K. Gaw¸ edzki, and M. Vergassola, “Parti- cles and fields in fluid turbulence,” Reviews of modern Physics 73, 913 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Flight– crash events in turbulence,

    H. Xu, A. Pumir, G. Falkovich, E. Bodenschatz, M. Shats, H. Xia, N. Francois, and G. Boffetta, “Flight– crash events in turbulence,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 7558–7563 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Turbulence: the filtering approach,

    M. Germano, “Turbulence: the filtering approach,” Jour- nal of Fluid Mechanics 238, 325–336 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Tsinober, An informal conceptual introduction to tur- bulence (Springer, 2009)

    A. Tsinober, An informal conceptual introduction to tur- bulence (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    proptv: A probability-based particle tracking ve- locimetry framework,

    R. Barta, C. Bauer, S. Herzog, D. Schiepel, and C. Wag- ner, “proptv: A probability-based particle tracking ve- locimetry framework,” Journal of computational physics 514, 113212 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Compari- son of camera calibration methods for particle track- ing velocimetry,

    R. Barta, A. Liberzon, and R. Shnapp, “Compari- son of camera calibration methods for particle track- ing velocimetry,” Measurement Science and Technology (2025), 10.1088/1361-6501/adc6a2

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Large-scale reorientation in cubic Rayleigh–B´ enard convection measured with parti- cle tracking velocimetry,

    R. Barta and C. Wagner, “Large-scale reorientation in cubic Rayleigh–B´ enard convection measured with parti- cle tracking velocimetry,” Journal of Turbulence , 1–14 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Turbulent spectra in a stably stratified atmosphere,

    R. Jr. Bolgiano, “Turbulent spectra in a stably stratified atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research 64, 2226– 2229 (1959)

    1959

  33. [41]

    Turbulent flow in the bulk of Rayleigh-B´ enard convection: small-scale proper- 7 ties in a cubic cell,

    M. Kaczorowski and K.-Q. Xia, “Turbulent flow in the bulk of Rayleigh-B´ enard convection: small-scale proper- 7 ties in a cubic cell,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 722, 596–617 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Universal intermit- tent properties of particle trajectories in highly turbulent flows,

    A. Arn´ eodo, R. Benzi, J. Berg, L. Biferale, E. Bo- denschatz, A. Busse, E. Calzavarini, B. Castaing, M. Cencini, L. Chevillard, et al. , “Universal intermit- tent properties of particle trajectories in highly turbulent flows,” Physical Review Letters 100, 254504 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Lagrangian studies in convective turbu- lence,

    J. Schumacher, “Lagrangian studies in convective turbu- lence,” Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 79, 056301 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    On small-scale and large-scale intermittency of lagrangian statistics in canopy flow,

    R. Shnapp, “On small-scale and large-scale intermittency of lagrangian statistics in canopy flow,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 913, R2 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Probability density functions, skewness, and flatness in large Reynolds number turbulence,

    P Tabeling, G Zocchi, F. Belin, J Maurer, and H Willaime, “Probability density functions, skewness, and flatness in large Reynolds number turbulence,” Phys- ical Review E 53, 1613 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Bolgiano scale in confined Rayleigh–Taylor turbulence,

    G. Boffetta, F. De Lillo, A. Mazzino, and S. Musacchio, “Bolgiano scale in confined Rayleigh–Taylor turbulence,” Journal of fluid mechanics 690, 426–440 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Physical mechanism of the two-dimensional inverse energy cascade,

    S. Chen, R. E. Ecke, G. L. Eyink, M. Rivera, M. Wan, and Z. Xiao, “Physical mechanism of the two-dimensional inverse energy cascade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 084502 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Phys- ical mechanism of the inverse energy cascade of two- dimensional turbulence: a numerical investigation,

    Z. Xiao, M. Wan, S. Chen, and G. L. Eyink, “Phys- ical mechanism of the inverse energy cascade of two- dimensional turbulence: a numerical investigation,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 619, 1–44 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Split energy cascade in turbulent thin fluid layers,

    S. Musacchio and G. Boffetta, “Split energy cascade in turbulent thin fluid layers,” Physics of Fluids 29 (2017), 10.1063/1.4986001

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.