The Inverted Whirlpool Paradox 

One of those rare occasions where fluid dynamics makes sense! The sponsor is KiwiCo: Get 50% off ANY crate: kiwico.com/stevemould50

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you had three different liquids with different densities. The bottom layer would surely bulge up, but what would the boundary between the middle and top layer look like?

When we were kids our grandma's house had a circular pool, and when we were done playing late in the afternoon, me and all of my cousins would run in circles on the edge of the pool to Form a whirlpool, and all the dirt would bunch up in the middle making it easier to clean. As a kid I always thought it unintuitive so this explanation was pretty interesting.

That genuine excitement from your kids is possibly the most compelling marketing I've ever seen.

If I'm not mistaken, this effect doesn't have anything to do with density at all. It's just pressure and drag, so it also occurs if you only have water in the container, but you can't see it happening. That made the tea leave paradox look even more like magic to me. I'm glad I now know how it works

"The fluid on the bottom is water. I've dyed it brown, fittingly, with tea leaves." I hate to break it to you Steve, but you've just made tea.

Used to do this as kids to make cleaning above-ground pools easier. Send the kids into the pool and do 20-30 laps, all the leaves and debris gathers in the middle.

I haven't seen anyone mention this, but this video is probably the most comprehensive explanation of how Hilsch vortex tubes work from a fluid dynamics perspective. It's a shame that they are widely accepted as black magic, but a simple demonstration like the one you did with the liquids helps immensely in understanding the actual mechanics behind what's happening. Although there are a few differences, and you also have to account for pressure, the working principle is the same. Amazing video! Thank you, Steve, for making the internet better!

The two fluids interacting with each other is so mesmerizing to watch.

Experiment: Try a vessel with a very smooth bottom surface vs one with a very rough bottom surface. Like, sandblast the bottom of the flask or glue down some sandpaper. Rougher surface should mean more drag so a bigger effect

I'm constantly amazed at the explanations you choose to give that I must have witnessed 1000x in my daily life but never questioned. Then, on top of that, you make it SO INTERESTING and easy to understand! Keep up the amazing work Steve.

Love your videos !! The way you explain things is very clear and easy to follow whilst providing a brilliant visual way of seeing the forces and physics behind things.

Ok, now what will happen if you use 3 different liquids?

While the majority of what you describe here makes good sense, it also overlooks a fundamental reason this exists. I learned about this when I was in school studying atmospheric physics in the Navy. First of all, the pressure gradient you are describing and showing is accurate, water column depth is directly proportional to the "weight" of the column when measured at the bottom, but likely will not be the primary driver behind this phenomenon. If it were, then you should be able to set up a flat wave tank with the same different densities of liquid and see inverted wave patterns in the more dense liquid than in the lighter top liquid. I suspect you won't. Secondly, you can observe in your videos portions where the vortex depth of the lighter liquid is nearly nil, yet the bulge height of the more dense liquid in the bottom doesn't diminish proportionally. These observations alone should give anyone pause when considering the pressure gradient as the primary cause of this phenomenon. Now lets consider what happens to a contained fluid in motion. When you stir your cup of water, as you note, inertia wants the water/fluid to travel in a straight line, but because there is a physical barrier the fluid must turn. Starting at the glass, pressures build up to a peak from the SIDE of the glass, not from the height of the fluid. The real culprit of pressure related causes here is not the height of the fluid but instead the "traffic jam" of molecules being forced to follow the path of the curved glass, so that pressures near the glass are much higher than the pressure at the center of the glass because of this.(although, while there is a 'funnel' in the center of the vortex, there technically is a difference in 'column weight', but the resulting pressure gradient would not be enough to overcome or balance with the fluid inertia). Even in an open body of water, such as an ocean we can see this horizontal pressure gradient have substantial impacts to fluid. In the Ocean, as you probably know, there exist eddy currents where for whatever reason (orographic disturbances, speed gradients, etc) closed circulations of water form. The same fundamental thing occurs where the area of max speed around the circulation is generally the highest pressures, despite the actual height difference of the water within the circulation compared to say, the center, is practically nil. And whatever difference that may exist there is certainly "washed out" by wind and swell wave features that move across the circulation. Now, in open ocean eddy currents, you get into other things that effect water density, such as temperature and salinity, where you can end up with a warm core eddy or a cold core eddy as those circulations become 'cut off' from the surrounding waters, but I digress. Love the video, and I don't intend to be a muck raker, I just hope that you could better explain where the source of the pressure gradient that causes this comes from. Again, it is not the height difference of the less dense liquid, but instead the pressure gradient caused by the lateral motion of the water. Cheers! -A

I require both a 2D version of this and a whistle version.

Based on your turntable demonstration, this effect seems to have something to do with the velocity distribution in vortex flow versus uniform solid-like rotation. Another interesting experiment would be to have a higher level of the lower fluid, to get away from the boundary layer at the bottom, and also possibly a taller container for the same reason.

Through most of the video, I kept thinking of how the fluids would perform using a magnetic stirrer. You cannot understand how unreasonably excited I got when you said you actually did this!!!

It's amazing how I was stumped over this solution until you said 'when the container itself isn't spinning' and I got a bolt if lightning and suddenly had no idea how I didn't get it before. Your presentation skills are absolutely phenomenal

9:24 It may have more do do with which liquid is primarily being stirred, not the horizontal stirring location. I wonder if you had three liquids would you see the effect once, or twice. Or if you could get two liquids with different densities, but the same viscosity, what would happen?

This is extremely interesting as it also happens to describe the mechanics of the whirlpool process in brewing. Instead of dealing with liquids of different densities, the pressures exerted by the whirlpool force solids such as proteins and hops to accumulate at the bottom of the kettle after boiling the wort, greatly reducing the amount of suspended solids. Absolutely love your videos, thanks again for all the amazing content!!

Hey man, I've been watching your videos for many years. I'm an HVAC tech. I've never had formal training, but you and other channels like you taught me to analyze things on a fundamental energy transfer level. It seems like it should be obvious, but now I'm spending the slower months traveling across Texas teaching a 2 day class for my distributor to help other techs. This kind of stuff makes a real difference, even if we don't notice it all the time. Thank you!

Another nice video! I agree that "inverted whirlpool paradox" sounds much cooler than "tea leaf paradox". 7:20 The critical mechanism for this phenomenon is the drag from the bottom of the container. I would explain it this way: Only the heaviest liquid is in contact with the entire surface at the bottom of the container, which provides an exceptional amount of drag, lowering the moment of inertia for the heavier liquid as a whole. Since the lighter liquid does not experience as much drag, it has a higher rotational inertia, and it displaces some of the heavier liquid near the edges of the container. So at 9:15 when the experiment was to use a magnetic stirrer at the bottom of the container I was certain that the inverted whirlpool paradox would not be present. Since the stirring action is coming from the bottom of the container, the rotational velocity of the heavier liquid would NOT be lower than that of the lighter liquid, and thus the whirlpool would be regular and not inverted.

Hi Steve, can you try the same experiment but without air in the glass with just two liquids ...

I've observed this for almost sixty years, as a mechanic, I never realized the questionable behavior, perhaps because I've never seen it behave any other way. This makes sense, it falls exactly in line with the rest of my physics experience. Thanks for making this video, very interesting, informative.

Excellent lighting and filming! The Fresnel effect on the liquid to liquid boundary looks so pretty!

I really like that for the sponsor segment for kiwico you demonstrated how much your kids like the product, without showing them. Parents these days, especially influencers, show their kids far too much, robbing them of their privacy. Definitely speaks for you! :)

I would love to see this experiment again with three liquids on top of each other. How would the middle one behave?

One thing I observed when seeing this inverse whirlpool effect with tea leaves is that when you stir it, the leaves at the bottom move to the middle because of the drag you explained, but some of the leaves that float up higher in the cup will spread to the outside of the whirlpool, sinking again to the bottom after sometime and then move again to the middle, it's kind of a circular motion if you ignore the orbit motion

Dude, your channel is incredible. I appreciate you.

Steve you're honestly such a treasure. I don't know where else I could have learned how this complex intermingling fluid-dynamic quirk of physics works, other than your channel. Breaking this down and iteration it in such an easy to understand way is such a gift. I truely feel like I understand our world a little more. Thank you Steve.

I just have to stop watching this video for a sec to say: Great content again!🔥🔥

As usual, another fantastic and interesting video Steve! Thank you!

I am surprised that you did not try the stirring magnetic rod with a container that is sealed and FULL of the two liquids . That would be interesting to see .

A vortex occurs at the boundary of two fluids in a cylinder because one fluid is spinning faster - or more accurately has a higher angular velocity times density - and is flung toward the outside of the cylinder. The difference in how fast each fluid is spinning can be caused by the source of the stirring motion and/or drag.

If I recall correctly, similar concept is used in the process of separating spent grain from the wort in breweries. The liquid part is recirculated to the side of the wort grain mix at an angle causing circular flow with the tank. The centrifugal force causes the liquid part to swirl on the wall of the cylindrical tank and the grain to pile up in the middle. The outlet of the tank is on the bottom edge of the tank and lets only the wort out after sufficient circulation.

yessssss. thank you for considering the magnetic stir bar. That was in my head the WHOLE video

Years ago i remember thinking about this problem in my teenage years. I wasn't able to figure it out. Probably because of my lack of knowledge of in fluid dynamics. At the start of the video i paused the video and thought about it again and i was able to figure it out. Seems like i've made some progress in physics (after my bachelor in chemistry and physics and 10 years of teaching physics and adding to my repertoire). I'm pretty happy about that. Thanks for the video! I enjoyed it very much :)

With the magnetic stirrer, you also have a not unsubstantial portion of the bottom surface (where the drag for the vortex is generated) now providing the propulsion for the liquid and overcoming the drag. You have the reverse situation to before, where the liquid at the base of the container is moving faster than the liquid at the top.

I’ve always loved science and phenomenons like this but your videos make them even better. I’ve heard about this paradox but never understood it until now so thank you!! 🙏🏽

these careful explanations make it so easy to understand the thought process. I wonder now, what would happen with 3, 4, .... fluid boundaries.

Oh this was more complex than expected. Nice explaining.

I would argue that the difference in pressure doesn't come from the difference in depth, but the other way around. The pressure differential comes from the centrifugal force and the surface of the water changes to minimize potential energy. If the liquid was encased in a sealed container without air, no whirlpool could form at the top, but I would still expect the bottom whirlpool to form. It is also interesting that the bottom whirlpool forms because of friction, not because the liquid is more dense. It happens to the denser liquid only, because the denser fluid settles at the bottom. I suspect, in a completely sealed container without air, the direction of the whirlpool depends on the level of the boundary between the two liquids. If it is close to the top the lighter liquid would form a regular whirlpool, but there would also now be friction with the top surface, so maybe not. If it is close to the bottom, the denser liquid would form an inverted whirlpool. It would be cool to see some follow up experiments.

That's an interesting explanation of why whirlpools happen in the first place. There are probably a lot of ways you could look at them, but considering the centripetal force as being supplied by pressure differentials due to depth is not something I'd considered before. Quite a cool thought! As to the inverted whirlpool, before you provided your explanation based on pressure differentials I'd come up with my own explanation which does also appear to be valid. My initial thought was that when you stirred the fluid, you were only stirring the lighter fluid on top and the heavier fluid was only orbiting as a result of friction with the lighter fluid on top and was likely orbiting as a lower speed. As a result, there would be a greater tendency for the lighter fluid to be flung out and therefore would displace the heavier fluid into the middle. Friction with the bottom of the flask would also be slowing down the bottom fluid. I'm still trying to resolve in my head whether this is an additional factor that might drive the formation of these vortices or whether it's just the same pressure differential phenomenon looked at from a different perspective.

Love the mug. I remember my father giving me that puzzler when I was a kid. Thx for the vid

My intuitive understanding during the intro was that the differential in angular velocities of the two liquids would result in the behavior we witness, but I hadn't considered that the effect itself is caused by a differential in /pressures/ resulting from the differential in velocities, not did I understand that the differential in velocities was caused by the differential in viscosities and their relationship to the counterforce from the unmoving container. Thank you for another excellent video!

What would this experiment look like with three liquids of different densities? Would all they all bulge up or would the middle fluid do something different?

I was hoping to see a test where you put a lid on the container and fill it all the way to the top so no whirlpool can form. What happens if you swirl it then?

I've been trying to find a video about this for so long and now finally this is on my feed.😂

I already intuitively knew this phenomenon (for once in your videos) I had guessed it would involve lower pressure in the center and drag at the bottom. Years of loose tea and sugar stirring finally paid off :D

Steve, if you are looking for your next fluid dynamics video idea, consider vortex tubes. They're used primarily for industrial cooling applications (commonly machining), and are able to separate a stream of compressed air into hot and cold using no moving parts.

Wow, I love it when you answer questions about fluid dynamics and forces that I didn’t even consider before :D So much cool stuff you can do with this! You could make an awesome self sustaining kinetic sculpture by combining this concept (using water/air interface) with the fire tornado(offset glass for air intake/tea light) experiment (hopefully the air gets enough velocity to make a significant bulge in the water)!! Also I wonder what happens when the fluid on top is less dense but more viscous (but doesn’t emulsify) and at what difference in viscosity the effect is overcome

I'm glad you mentioned the magnetic stirrer, because i had a slightly different idea. What if you had the stirrer at the TOP, same mechanism, with a "lid" that completely seals-off the top, with no air pocket, and the stirrer capsule is in the inside with it's electronic mechanism above the sealed line at the top ? Think of those "executive toys" with the oil and water completely sealed in a transparent container, no air gaps, and you flip the whole thing to see the coloured oil trickle down in various patterns. So the stirrer stirs the top liquid, but there's no air to cause the displacement that would allow the top vortex, and hence the pressure delta. So would there still be the bottom inverted vortex ?

great explanation, stunning visuals!

Thank you for making our boring day better and imparting knowledge in the process

I was actually hoping you'd try the magnetic stirring. However I was also hoping you'd put on a lid to force the surface to stay flat.

Lovely work! There is one effect which I don't think you mentioned but which did strike my eye. The height of the oil column on the edges is higher bc of the primary vortex. This would mean more vertical pressure being delivered to the edges of the aqueous layer below. Would this not simply force the water inward as observed? Perhaps this and the drag effect operate in tandem?

I'm glad you did the stir stick as well, I was curious what effect that would have.

This explanation suggests that the effect only occurs if the top of the liquid can be displaced - but what would happen if the container was sealed and a stir bar is placed at the top of the container?

I always thought it was because the liquid near the surface was spinning faster than the liquid near the bottom, so it had a tenfency to flow outwards on the top, near the surface, and inwards near the bottom, pushing the dense stuff to the center.

Great vid indeed! White spirits have very similar specs to crude oil as far as aliphatics and aromatics percentages (despite appearing cleaner). We use them and similar controlled solvents (exxol D80 is one) to mimick crude in corrosion testing all the time. Very useful hydrocarbon mixtures indeed. They are essentially like crude oil for salts and chemical solubility but do not have the side effect of interfering severely with sensitive electrochemical measurements that are required to effectively simulate systems that we are trying to replicate succinctly.

0:40 this mug is awesome!

We used this phenomenon to quickly vacuum our pool when I was a kid. Never understood why it worked til now. It was a 4-foot above-ground circular swimming pool. We'd start running laps around the interior of the pool rubbing our feet along the bottom to kick up any algae we felt and once we felt we had a strong enough whirlpool, we'd get out, grab the vacuum, start at the center from the top down, then pick up any straggling pieces of debris.

Brilliantly explained!! Thank you

I used the effect to clean debris out of round pools. I think the surface on top has no boundary friction so the movement outwards there is easiest and the rest is forced to follow that pattern. Outward on the surface, inward at the bottom and downwards on the sides. I aimed the filter jet sideways to always generate a rotation and rigged up a surface net projecting in from the edge. It caught everything from the surface as it rotated and all the sunken debris gathered in the center of the bottom.

I notice that in all the jars, you have more spirits than water. Does that matter? Would it work with equal parts of each? Or more water than spirits?

Very nice video with a beautiful, intuitive explanation. I loved it. Small remark on the explanation of the pressure difference staying equal at any depth (around 6:40): the pressure does not only depend on the depth but also the density of the liquid that is above it, the pressure will increase more in the center once you're in the denser liquid. So, the pressure difference is smaller in the denser liquid than higher up. I suppose this decrease in pressure difference is relatively small and therefore does not nullify your explanation on the inverted whirlpool paradox, yet is something to take into account when one would build this on a larger scale or with a larger density difference between the liquids. If you would model this phenomenon, this decrease in pressure difference is definitely important and would result in a smaller bulge compared to when you assume pressure to be solely dependent on depth. TL;DR: the explanation around 6:40 is not completely correct (pressure depends on the density of the liquid column above a certain point), but I think the main take-away of the video is still correct and very educational.

What an amazing video! Thanks Steve :)

This is an awesome video ! So much information, thanks !

What is a more interesting question is what shape would a 3rd liquid layer under the water take? Would all layers below the first peak in the middle or would it alternate middle-sides-middle-sides?

The pressure difference drawing for the two spots at 4:54 seems wrong to me. Pascal's principle would say that those two spots would have the same pressure, at least for a body of stationary water in that shape. I definitely believe there's a pressure difference there, but I wonder if it has more to due with velocity differences or something, and not the column of water height. Your videos are awesome!

Very beautiful high quality closeup! Seeing ripples of the vortex is amazing 😍 thanks for the video!! 💪🍀🙏😇

We use this concept in my circular outdoor pool. In order to get all the dead bugs into the center, all we do is walk around in the pool near the outer edge a few times to create a whirlpool, then all the bugs quickly group up at the bottom in the center where we can use the skimmer to quickly scoop them all up.

I _think_ there’s an element to it, that you skipped. The denser liquid at the bottom is experiencing friction at the bottom of the beaker, so it’s slower, yes. But it’s also experiencing friction at the interface between the two liquids. That’s what makes it move in the first place. That’s also why the phenomenon does not occur when fully dipping the spoon/spatula into the beaker. Same for the magnetic stirrer. The crucial bit is the friction between the liquids.

people drink loose leaf tea without a strainer?! ...

good video, i understood everything, i love it when you make videos that explain counter intutive stuff :D

Another brilliant video... Thanks Steve...

Dear Steve, something behaving counterintuitively is not the same as being a paradox. -kindly everyone

I have an alternate explanation to what you gave. 1. When you stir the liquid you create a vortex in the top liquid. 2. There is greater force on a body with greater depth as you noted. 3. Therefore there is less force on the bottom liquid in the center than there is at the edges. 4. That pushes the bottom liquid toward the center again decreasing the depth of it and therefore the pressure on it in the center. 5. This continues until equilibrium is reached. 6. When the top liquid starts to slow down the vortex gets smaller. 7. This increases the pressure on the bottom liquid pushing some of it towards the side. 8. Again a positive feedback is set up where the more the top vortex shrinks the more level the bottom liquid becomes. This also would explain the same effect seen yet has nothing to do with movement or orbits, rather it is just an effect of gravity.

This channel melts my brain down

One of the first videos from Steve that I knew the answer to before he explained it. But now I know how to do this at home with spirits cause this is a dope effect!

What makes this channel delightful is the non-trivial resolution of an apparently trivial problem. This combination, plus the intelligent delivery and Steve's amicable personality turn this channel into my favorite science-oriented one. Just to emphasize what I mean, there are (is, rather) a channel that often tackles issues in Quantum Mechanics where the person delivering the material is clearly pretending to understand what he is talking about, while his body language and speech subtly betray he is totally lost. This never happens with Steve, as far as I can tell.

Your kids' reaction to the Kiwi Co arrival was the best advertisement for that company that I've ever scene :D Also an excellent video :D

GR8 vid. Many thanx Steve 👍👍

I always looked at is as following the path of least resistance from outside to inside. Rotating around the outside has more friction over a longer distance, verse the center with a shorter distance and less friction. A round swimming pool with leaves and gravel is a great backyard example.

I thought about it like it's harder to move the middle section because it's less dense, so it would be moving slower and NOT be flung out to the sides.

There’s an interesting application of this to tornado formation. This effect occurs when the air feeding a rotating thunderstorm is not entering at the ground level. It explains why most rotating thunderstorms do not produce a tornado. There is a mode flip when the fastest inflow is no longer decoupled from the ground due to the combination of friction and slightly denser air settled near the ground due to evaporating precipitation nearby. When a tornado forms, the invisible ground-level bulge goes away, and this allows the vortex to contract to a much sharper point at the ground. Why it happens with some storms and not others is not easy to understand, but its definitely a type of dynamical tipping point, or mode flip.

Lovely explanation! Thank you.

Just taking a moment to appreciate your perfect timing of that next video recommendation.

I see this every day as an organic chemist. we utilize the inability of water and these organic solvents to selectively extract compounds between phases. I've never really thought about how weird it really was. nice video.

Hey @SteveMould, i paused the video to think about an explanation of this phenomenon when you presented it before you started explaning it yourself and my explanation was a bit different from yours as it didn't take into consideration the drag of the glass. So i wanted to know if you guys think it's just another way of thinking about it or if my explanation is incomplete : I just thought about the difference in pressure you mentioned : as you spin the liquid, the white spirit at the top is flung to the sides so there is a bigger column of white spirit on the sides than in the middle. Therefore the water at the bottom is experiencing a bigger pressure on the sides than in the middle and that difference in pressure alone can explain why the water is moving to the middle as there is a lower absolute pressure in the middle. I don't understand why there is a need to take into consideration the drag that this water is experiencing as i feel that the difference in pressure alone can account for the phenomenon. Anyway, would like to have your thoughts on that. Keep up the great videos, always a pleasure to find one i haven't watched yet

I had a strong hunch early on that it was the poor coupling from the boundary of the two liquids - the spirits have a higher velocity not just because of the drag of the bottom of the vessel, but just the repulsive cohesion between the liquids isn't imparting as much momentum into the heavier liquid. The only way for the heavier liquid to gain angular momentum is from the lighter fluid having a higher velocity. By that logic the heavier liquid can never go faster than the lighter, and thus can never achieve a higher moment of inertia.

The Kiwi Co reaction was awesome 🤩

Mathematic explanations of hermetic principles are amazing

As a kid, we used to use this to clean our round swimming pool. When you've got leaves and dirt and junk on the bottom of the round pool, you get in and walk around the outside edge of the pool making the water spin with you. Eventually, all the crud on the bottom settles in the middle (where kinetic energy is lowest) after you've whipped it up, and the stuff starts to settle. Then you get the vacuum hose and just have to suck up a small pile instead of millions of tiny piles all over the bottom of the pool.

Why it happens was obvious just from glancing at it, but you explained it better than I could have.

This was an exam question in my fluid dynamics exam at university. It is a quite fun problem to unravel for the first time in an exam . 😅

@SteveMould This is inertia and centrifugal force at its finest, as well as a perfect example of how forces on different subjects can vary results. Centrifugal force is best defined as when objects are being acted on by a rotational force and the velocity of the spinning object, combined with the friction of the container's surface against the contained fluid, which forces the fluid to, at first, spin against the walls (from rest), and then eventually be pulled alongside the walls (in motion); This pull (additive force) forms an origin, which may be defined as the center of the entire plane of motion, below which also acts as the shear point. As the pull increases, the shear point expands, with less and less mass at the origin. The more dense a fluid is, the more mass gets pulled from the origin. At their extremes, if you were to rotate the object at extreme velocities, you would cause a capitation reaction at the shear point, and upon the capitation collapsing on itself, the resulting shockwave would shatter/warp the container itself. An example of this would be if you were to tape rope to an egg on two ends, and then spin it in one direction. Your result will be either an exploded egg, or a homogenous mixture of yolk and egg white when you crack it open. *However,* If you were to stir the fluid inside a stationary container, the resulting reaction would be (a loss of force) being absorbed by the container (which is at rest). A shear point does not appear below the origin in this case -but rather, above or at it. This is due to the presence of gravity, and the fact that the fluid itself is doing the spinning, not the container which holds it. Atmospheric pressure also has very little to do with this reaction, as it would still persist if the container had a lid. At extreme velocities, this wouldn't cause capitation reactions due to the presence of a less dense fluid being sucked into the shear point, dampening the reaction itself. Orbital terminology is better for describing multi-planar instances of movement. This instance is primarily Bi-planar.

"Orbit" is one of those scientific terms that has a very specific technical definition in multiple fields. It's used in astronomy, atomic physics, and anatomy, for example, to mean very different things. Given a context in which the word isn't commonly used, so long as you use the word for something round, you can define it however you want.

Dear Mr. Mould, i would like to encourage you to make an addional video on the Taylor vortices inside a couette rheometer (two concentric cylinders, inner one is rotationg, gap filled with fluid) and so called Görtler vortices (spinning cylinder filled with a fluid at constant speed with a sudden stop of rotation) Both can be visualzed with aluminium glitter or perhaps with mica. these two subjects are inbetween your anti whirl pool vortex and the suns granules (rayleigh benard convection cells) shown by you in another video. that would be great to see. i love your videos. All the best.

This is like seeing a stacked surface low pressure vortex (higher density fluid) under an upper level high pressure system.