Talk:Wingtip vortices

message: The article states that: "Fluids naturally flow from low to high pressure and the relatively high pressure air below the wing has a natural tendancy to flow to the top of the wing." Isn't the one sentence contrary to the other? I was wondering which is true! Does air flow from low to high pressure or the opposite?
:Thanks for finding that mistake! I've changed the article with the correct info (they flow from high to low pressure). -Lommer | talk 03:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: article inconsistancy

message: Wingtip vortices and wake turbulence are distinct enough phenomena in my (currently winding down an advanced fluid mechanics course) opinion that they deserve discrete articles.
:I agree, the reason I put up the merge tag is that theres a lot of info in wake turbulence that is duplicated here, and there's a lot that belongs here and not there. The wake tubulence article should still exist, but it doesn't need to cover wingtip vortices in detail; that's what this article is for. -Lommer | talk 23:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone a poor attempt at a merge that resulted in something even worse. I've maintained the wake turb-only aspects at that page, and removed duplicated information and wintip-vortex-specific info to here. -Lommer | talk 23:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The description for the F15E picture is rather misleading, the picture more accurately depict aerodynamic condensation trails.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.58.173 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Title Picture 

message: On 20 August 2008, De728631 proposed merging Wingtip vortices and Starting vortex.  I am opposed to such a merger - the two articles have little in common and rely on separate references.  Wingtip vortices are a real phenomenon, contributing to wake turbulence and regularly visible as streams of condensed moisture.  On the contrary, the concepts of Starting vortex and Horseshoe vortex are important elements in the Circulation theory of lift.  Starting vortices can rarely, if ever, be observed without the aid of special equipment.  The horseshoe vortex never exists as an observable phenomenon - it is a mathematical simplification to assist in application of Helmholtz's theorems and the Circulation theory of lift.  Leave the existing articles as they are.  Dolphin51 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. On the first look, the two topics seemed related to me, but your explanation convinced me. Let's leave the two articles separated. De728631 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Starting vortex]] 

message: On 12 October 2008, Atmoz deleted the photo gallery from Wingtip vortices, saying there were too many photographs, and only one of them actually showed wingtip vortices.
I reverted the edit to restore the photo gallery.  Whether there are too many photographs in the gallery, or not enough, or just the right number, is something best determined by Users who read and contribute to Wingtip vortices.  I would appreciate others adding their comments.
My view is that whether a photograph adds value to the article depends on the quality and relevance of the photograph.  I see no case for saying there is an ideal number of photographs; and therefore no case for saying there are too many.
It is true that one or two of the photographs show visible cores trailing from points on the wing other than the wingtip.  The expression trailing vortices is commonly used in aviation literature and some of the photographs show the cores of trailing vortices (for example, from the outboard end of the wing flap) rather than wingtip vortices.  In Wikipedia, the expression trailing vortices redirects to wingtip vortices.
Do other Users feel there are too many photographs?  Dolphin51 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Most of them show condensation trails anyway, and not vortices, as you note. - Atmoz (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo gallery 

message: Just out of curiosity, was the A380 wingtip designed to prevent vortices and increase lift from a smaller wing plan. On each of their profile sides they seem to have a mini 'winglet' for this. Just a thought that might be worth investigating. Does anyone know what effect it would have on proceeding aircraft, if any? 77.100.16.146 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wingtip vortices - Prevention. 

message: The third paragraph in the  section states two contradicting things. the first statement says that the melting point of water decreases with rising pressure while the next statement apparently states the opposite. Please rectify.
--Sungolf (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; I hope it's O.K. now. Reuqr (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement 

message: Increase in flaps results in increase in wing surface  and decrease in load /surface ratio  lbs/sqft.  This decreases the Max
Pressure gradient on any edge and therefore decreases Max turbulence anywhere on the wing .Wdl1961 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  decreases Max turbulence anywhere on the wing  

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) seems to indicate that the article title Wingtip vortices should properly be Wingtip vortex. However, Wingtip vortex already exists as a redirect to Wingtip vortices. WP:PLURAL suggests the relationship should be the other way around: Wingtip vortices should be a redirect to Wingtip vortex. Only an administrator can correct this problem since the existing redirect is blocking the required move. --Teratornis (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural title should be singular, per WP:PLURAL 

message: There’s a long section now titled Discussion of the physics of aerodynamic condensation and freezing that I believe should be deleted. It certainly is an interesting read (it sounds like an exciting, enthusiastic lecture transcript) but I see two problems:
# The tone is not that of an encyclopedia article (it makes me think of a textbook or physics magazine article)
# It is off-topic, i.e. it would be better suited to an article on "Aerodynamic condensation and freezing" (once re-written for tone).
For these reasons I believe it should be deleted. Can anyone think of a place where it could be moved, such as the Wikiversity or a wikibook? Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been added by User:Reuqr.  Wizzy…☎ 08:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing it out! (I have pinged him/her). Out of curiosity, do you have a specific method for attributing pieces of articles, or do you browse large chunks of history until the edit appears/disappears? Ariadacapo (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'large chunk' thing - I go back until its not there and then bisect chunks of history. Wizzy…☎ 23:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you Ariadacapo for alerting me to this proposed change. I'm certainly OK with any stylistic rewrites that do not substantially reduce content or clarity. I'm also certainly OK with moving the section to any other appropriate WP article, as long as the wingtip vortices article links, at the appropriate place (and not, say, under "See also"), to the appropriate section of that new article, with some explanation of why the link is there (i.e. what is the topic of the text to which the link points). Reuqr (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if any rewrites have occurred, as the section still reads 'textbooky'. I have however renamed the section from "Discussion of the physics of aerodynamic condensation and freezing" to the shorter "Aerodynamic condensation and freezing". And the NASA source is a deadlink, fortunately only used once. --220 of Borg 07:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No rewrites have taken place. I still am convinced that most of the text there should be deleted. If anyone gets started, I’ll happily chip in. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the visibility of vortices through water condensation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wingtip vortices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605135736/http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov:80/GLOBE/science.html to http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know about the rest of the content that was removed, but the text I originally contributed in 2009 (which concerned thermodynamics of condensation within a vortex) was entirely my own, with references to reputable sources. What appears on https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/vortex/ (I'll be linking to a 2016 snapshot of that page) is an (almost) blanket copy of at least that part of the text, without attribution to this Wikipedia page. (The text does acknowledge en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortices, but not the present page.) 
Yes, the date on https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/vortex/ page claims to be 2008, so before my 2009 edit, but all I can say is that this is not correct. 
Unfortunately, the snapshots on the Internet Archive don't go back far enough to enable any simple comparison that would clearly show that what I'm saying is true. 
However, here is one dead giveaway that supports my claim. If you look at this snapshot of the Wikipedia page from Nov 2009, you will see that the part of the text that the concerns thermodynamics says, right before the first equation, 
:Here we follow the discussion in Ref. [2]. 
That reference is Green, S. I. "Wing tip vortices" in Fluid vortices, S. I. Green, ed. (Kluwer, Amsterdam, 1995) pp. 427-470. ISBN 978-0792333760. 
If you look at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/vortex/, that sentence has been removed, and the reference in question is not mentioned anywhere.
But if you have any doubt that the discussion in fact did come from that book, take a look at this page from that book. When I was writing the Wikipedia text, I slightly changed the temperature of the environment, from 290 K in the book to 20 °C = 68 °F = 293.15 K, because it's a familiar round number in both degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit.
In short, at least as far as the section on thermodynamics, it is https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/vortex/ that has plagiarized Wikipedia! 
--Reuqr (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed a backwards copy - one of the very few cases where the date on the source is misleading and the tone of the inserted text is suspicious. I've restored the contentMER-C 16:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, MER-C. --Reuqr (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'copyrighted' content