  In part I of this paper, I proposed a new set of equations, which I refer to
as the M(D,{\eta})-formulation and which differs from the Navier-Stokes-Fourier
description of fluid motion. Here, I use these equations to model several
classic examples in fluid mechanics, with the intention of providing a general
sense of comparison between the two approaches. A few broad facts emerge: (1)
it is as simple--or in most cases, much simpler--to find solutions with the
M(D,{\eta})-formulation, (2) for some examples, there is not much of a
difference in predictions--in fact, for sound propagation and for examples in
which there is only a rotational part of the velocity, my transport
coefficients D and {\eta} are chosen to match Navier-Stokes-Fourier solutions
in the appropriate regimes, (3) there are, however, examples in which
pronounced differences in predictions appear, such as light scattering, and (4)
there arise, moreover, important conceptual differences, as seen in examples
like sound at a non-infinite impedance boundary, thermophoresis, and gravity's
effect on the atmosphere.
