T HE followingexpositionis intended to clarify the fundamental issues raised in Glick’s commentary. Despite the commentary’s focus on one individual study,2 the multiple questions that were raised apply just as easily to most theoretical, numerical, and experimental simulations of idealized motors based on simpli ed geometric con gurations and smooth porous walls. In fact, all reported core ow studies have so far relied, to some extent, on idealistic conditions. The main concern by Glick1 is that mathematicalmodels may be inadequate as vehicles for physical understanding, especially that burning surfaces in production rocket motors are rough, heterogeneous, and pliable. From this perspective, a core ow that does not account for all conceivable features, including surface vibrations and complex boundary conditions, may be deemed impractical or uncertain. Unfortunately,Glick’s commentary does not explore the physical bene ts of mathematical models nor does it recognize the role, scope, objectives, and recent successes of core ow idealizations. These have been motivated by important technologicalapplications that will now be overviewed. As a problem of real concern in rocket motors and large gas turbines, aeroacoustic instabilities have received much scrutiny in the propulsion community. Models of these instabilities have invariably pointed to the importance of providing judicious assessments of correspondingcore ow details.3i8 The desire for explicit ow models has also been motivated by the need to understand physically the intricate coupling between unsteady pressure waves and gas motions.9i12 As ultimately suggestedby repeated tests, not only does this inevitable pairing provoke unsteady burning, but it also generates intense sound-pressure levels and boundary-driven vortices. This delicateinterplayof underpinningcore owmechanismshas inspiredover the years severalcapable theoreticiansto seekphysical idealizations.The goal has been generallyset to isolatecarefully the intricate mechanisms by parametric linearization or vector decomposition. In the midst of this unusually complex problem, the quest for basic answers has often become a central focus. Pioneeredby Culick13i19 andFlandro,3i8 theoreticalstudiessimilar to the one under consideration2 have elucidated a number of physical features in rocket motors. Among them were the multidimensional spatial and temporal velocity, vorticity, and stress distributions along the length of simulated motors. Points exhibiting maximum and minimum stress disturbances were identi ed, and the acoustic character in the chamber was being disclosed.21i27 These analyses have been accomplished by rst unraveling the problem’s principal convection–diffusion equations and their un-
Read full abstract