Step 1: Compute viscosity from experiment 1.
Given:
\[
\tau_1 = 2\ \text{N/m}^2,\ h_1 = 1\text{ mm} = 0.001\text{ m},\ U_1 = 2\text{ m/s}
\]
\[
\mu_1 = \tau_1 \frac{h_1}{U_1} = 2 \times \frac{0.001}{2} = 0.001
\]
Step 2: Compute viscosity from experiment 2.
Given:
\[
\tau_2 = 3,\ h_2 = 0.25\text{ mm}= 0.00025,\ U_2 = 1
\]
\[
\mu_2 = \tau_2 \frac{h_2}{U_2} = 3 \times 0.00025 = 0.00075
\]
Step 3: Compare viscosities.
\[
\mu_2 = 0.00075, \mu_1 = 0.001.
\]
These values are not consistent, which means the fluid is not Newtonian.
Step 4: Analyze trend.
- In pseudoplastic (shear-thinning) fluids, viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate.
- In dilatant (shear-thickening) fluids, viscosity increases with shear rate.
Here, the trend is inconsistent because the changes in gap and velocity create changing shear rates in a way that cannot be classified systematically.
Step 5: Key observation.
The shear stresses do not scale proportionally with velocity gradients, which strongly suggests the fluid behaves as if it offers negligible resistance — characteristic of an ideal, inviscid fluid.
Thus, the only option matching the observed behavior is:
Ideal and inviscid.