Robert’s Reviews > An Introduction to Magnetohydrodynamics > Status Update
Robert
is on page 248 of 452
The author continues to show a poor grip on the principle of conservation of energy: It's all very well to say that energy cascades downward in scale from larger to smaller eddies in a turbulent flow, because the energy is still kinetic energy. When one gets to the scale where "viscous effects" are important we're back to the mysterious "destruction" of the energy. IT IS NOT DESTROYED! Where does it REALLY go? Heat.
— Jun 15, 2017 01:05AM
Like flag
Robert’s Previous Updates
Robert
is on page 199 of 452
Skipped the stuff on the geo-dynamo (origin of Earth's magnetic field) - interesting but not urgent. Alfven waves are qualitatively straight-forward; imagine plucking magnetic field lines like they are guitar strings! Of course the field must be embedded in a moving plasma. Magnetostrophic waves on the other hand, are clear as mud. They can occur when the magnetic field is rotating in relation to the plasma.
— Jun 09, 2017 01:04AM
Robert
is on page 159 of 452
I skipped the material specific to liquid metals as it is not relevant to my interest (plasmas).
— Jun 08, 2017 01:53AM
Robert
is on page 132 of 452
The presentation remains bad but I've just come across a possible explanation of the ionospheric phenomenon of "(magnetic) field-aligned irregularities."
— Jun 05, 2017 01:05AM
Robert
is on page 95 of 452
"...efficient method of destroying energy." Anybody who's done school physics knows that's just plain wrong. In this case the rotational kinetic energy of the fluid is being converted to heat or at least to small scale turbulent flow (ultimately because the fluid is viscous). (The example is why the vortex you create by stirring a cup of tea disappears so fast when you remove the spoon!)
— May 10, 2017 12:48AM
Robert
is on page 83 of 452
Yep, gonna need to find a better book than this one.
— May 08, 2017 01:32AM
Robert
is on page 63 of 452
If I read "...a characteristic scale length, l," without any explanation of how to determine such a length in any specific case one more time, I am liable to scream. This isn't an isolated problem; undefined terms are popping up all over the place. The author also appears to have missed a subtle point about vorticity in fluid flows, namely it totals to zero even in a turbulent flow, unless there is external stirring.
— Apr 27, 2017 01:25AM
Robert
is on page 47 of 452
I can't remember any other book deteriorating so rapidly from an excellent start...the issue (besides the typographical problems) seems to be that the author can give a good verbal description of what is going on but the mathematical presentation is awful. Even the verbal part is flawed by the use of undefined terms, however.
— Apr 19, 2017 12:56AM
Robert
is on page 31 of 452
OK, no; the "derivation" of the appropriate electrodynamic equations just states stuff without proof or any indication of how to proceed by oneself. That's crap textbook writing (but all too common).
— Apr 12, 2017 01:43AM
Robert
is on page 30 of 452
After some revision of classical electrodynamics, this is beginning to look tractable, though not easy.
— Apr 11, 2017 01:35AM
Robert
is on page 27 of 452
The first mathematical treatment is basically incomprehensible; this bodes ill for the remainder of the book.
— Jan 13, 2017 01:22AM

