Talk:Oblique shock

message: after spending an hour trying to make the equation match the chart at gamma=5/3.SMesser (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  noted gamma in the chart 

message: Shock wave a side to fact that it contain banch of nonsense has only reference to oblique shock. In fact, the term shock wave should be broken into several terms like moving shock waves, shock wave with chemical reactions etc. 
Have only reference to  NASA Glenn Research Center information on: Oblique Shocks is not enough.
Yet, there is a need for several drawing and experimental pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Genick (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this orinal matherial which not appear in shock wave 

message: Oblique shocks are important gas dynamics phenomenon and are covered in all undergrad level gas dynamics courses. All the references mentioned in the gas dynamics article has a separate chapter on this topic. However none of those references mention the results (i.e. Bar-Meir's solution) discussed here.
There are reasons to believe that the results mentioned here are not according to WP:NOR guidelines. 
: No reputable references are provided to support the results presented in the article.
: The link to naca 1135 report is/may not be accessible to general public (esp. non-US citizens).
The article can be further expanded and is an important link between normal shocks and expansion fans. As such it needs attention of an expert in this subject. -Myth (Talk) 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for adding various templates 

message: The article now says The first to discover this shock was Ernst Mach in his original picture showing a bullet in  a supersonic flow that cause the oblique shock. 
Is this talking about this picture?
I think this is a picture of a bullet fired into stationary air, while the sentence above seems to say that it's being fired into air that was already moving at supersonic speeds.  I suggest discussing this at Talk:shock wave#Mach's picture of a bullet since there is already discussion there, although I suspect a change in wording in this article is required. --Coppertwig 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach's picture of a bullet 

message: This bullet was not fired. This bullet was attached into arm and was rotated.
It  moveed into air with known speed. Is this clarify  this point. 
potto 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it an important difference whether the bullet was fired from a weapon, or an "acceleration device"?AKAF 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the  bullet 

message: The previous oblique shock information was terrible, so I deleted it and will finish a new page soon.  I have already divided the page into some sections that I will expand upon. EMBaero 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Oblique Shock Page 

message: Someone remove all the equations that I inserted to this article.
Why to insert so many mistakes.
First, Oblique shock has three solutions and not two.
Second, when there is detached shock (why remove this term?) it is 
a normal shock and not curved shock.
Why one remove the the equations showing the solution?
--potto 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Oblique Shock Page 

message: Since shock waves are primarily caused by supersonic flow over aircraft, would it be possible to have a diagram/explanation showing how the waves change direction over an aerofoil? I mean a picture showing a wedge-shaped aerofoil and how the waves are affected when they go over the upper and lower surfaces. Maybe something like this:  And maybe one with the wedge at a positive angle of attack?
Jez 006 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocks over a wedge shape 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oblique shock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021100737/http://www.aerostudents.com/files/aerodynamicsC/obliqueShockWaves.pdf to http://www.aerostudents.com/files/aerodynamicsC/obliqueShockWaves.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There seems to be an error in the caption to the figure showing a θ-β-M diagram. It says "The red line separates the strong and weak solutions. The blue line represents the point when the downstream Mach number becomes sonic". But according to the previous paragraph "M2 can be supersonic (weak shock wave) or subsonic (strong shock wave)" so the point when the downstream Mach number becomes sonic is the boundary between strong and weak solutions. In fact the diagram itself suggests that the red line indicates θMAX where the oblique shock detaches and becomes a bow shock as described in the following paragraph.
130.246.148.101 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in figure caption