Pressure difference to maintain blood flow

AI Thread Summary
To maintain normal blood flow in a smoker with increased blood viscosity and reduced arterial diameter, a new pressure difference must be calculated. The non-smoker requires a pressure difference of 8.0 mmHg, but smoking raises blood viscosity to 2.7 x 10^-3 Pa.s and constricts the artery to 90% of its normal diameter. The discussion revolves around using Poiseuille's equation to determine the necessary adjustments for these changes. Participants suggest focusing on the relationship between viscosity, diameter, and pressure difference to find the solution. Understanding these principles is crucial for calculating the new pressure difference required for adequate blood flow.
twiztdlogik
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
hey guys.. i need a bit of help on this question...

For a non-smoker, with blood viscosity of 2.5x10-3Pa's, normal blood flow requires a pressure difference of 8.0 mm of Hg between the two ends of an artery. If this person were to smoke regularly, his blood viscosity would increase to 2.7x10-3 Pa's, and the arterial diameter would constrict to 90% of its normal value. What pressure difference would be needed to maintain the same blood flow?


any help here would be greatly appreciated!

cheers :smile:
KC
 
Physics news on Phys.org
twiztdlogik said:
For a non-smoker, with blood viscosity of 2.5x10-3Pa's, normal blood flow requires a pressure difference of 8.0 mm of Hg between the two ends of an artery. If this person were to smoke regularly, his blood viscosity would increase to 2.7x10-3 Pa's, and the arterial diameter would constrict to 90% of its normal value. What pressure difference would be needed to maintain the same blood flow?

Hi KC! :smile:

Show us what you've tried, and where you're stuck, and then we'll know how to help! :smile:
 
ok, this is what i had so far... not sure if i am on the right track or not though...

non smoker:2.5 x 10^-3 Pa.s
smoker: 2.7 x 10^-3 Pa.s

density of blood @ 1 atm: 1060 kg/m3

normal blood flow: \Delta 8.0 mmHg

pressure difference:
smoker - nonsmoker = 2 x 10^-4

pressure difference: ________________________________

that's where i am not sure about what to do.

i tried: 8.0 mmHg / 2 x 10^-4 = 40,000 mmHg or 4.0 x 10^-3...
but i know that that's not the answer coz i haven't taken into account for the 10% constriction of the artery.:bugeye:

any clues or nudges in the right direction would be GREAT! :biggrin:
 
twiztdlogik said:
ok, this is what i had so far... not sure if i am on the right track or not though...

non smoker:2.5 x 10^-3 Pa.s
smoker: 2.7 x 10^-3 Pa.s

density of blood @ 1 atm: 1060 kg/m3

normal blood flow: \Delta 8.0 mmHg

pressure difference:
smoker - nonsmoker = 2 x 10^-4

pressure difference: ________________________________

that's where i am not sure about what to do.

i tried: 8.0 mmHg / 2 x 10^-4 = 40,000 mmHg or 4.0 x 10^-3...
but i know that that's not the answer coz i haven't taken into account for the 10% constriction of the artery.:bugeye:

any clues or nudges in the right direction would be GREAT! :biggrin:

Hi twiztdlogik! :smile:

I have to confess I only know about non-viscous flow. :redface:

But this looks to me like a dimensions question … y'know, of the "if three men take two days to paint a cube, how long do seven men take to paint a cube with twice the radius and with brushes half as small and paint twice as thin" sort. :wink:

So what equation do you know relating pressure to viscosity and diameter and flow? :smile:
 
erm.. are you thinking of the poiseuilles equation...?
i think that would work if i can transpose it to get the right formula for this situation

thanks any ways!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top