Talk:Fluid dynamics

message: The Hebrew page https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%99%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94 links to the English page but not vice versa. 147.236.176.90 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Doesn't Link to Hebrew Page

message: Michael Hardy suggested: The material at fluidics should be incorporated into this article, and then that page should be redirected to this one.
About incorporation of Fluidics into Fluid dynamics: it is hardly advisable IMO. Modern usage of the term fluidics indicates that it differs from Fluid dynamics like, say electronics from Electromagnetism: fluidics is about control devices based on fluid dynamics. Mikkalai 19:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  A more appropriate solution is to expand the stub entry on fluidics into a complete standalone article. Kaszeta 20:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluidics 

message: It's much better now. Thanks. Roger Jeurissen.
:I read "where D / Dt is the substantial derivative, which is the sum of local and convective derivatives" but Material derivative page states "substantial derivative" = "convective derivative."  Personally, I like "total derivative" (as opposed to a partial derivative) but perhaps this is too mathematically oriented.  Lots of legacy language to sort thru on first reading.  IDave2 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressible vs incompressible flow 

message: I tried to sort out the iw links in fluid dynamics and fluid mechanics. It's very confusing because some wikipedias have only one article for both concepts, while others have separate articles. Someone could clear this up... -Easlak 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: iw links

message: Is there any page regarding governing equations of fluid dynamics (continuity, momentum, energy)? I would love to add some basic definitions if there is none. Cheers, MrMo 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section on the governing equations, which points to Navier-Stokes equations -- Kaszeta 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the Navier-Stokes equations are what most people will be looking for, but they only provide the three momentum equations.  There is a page for the continuity equation in fluid dynamics (conservation of mass) that should probably be linked to somewhere on this page as well. I have been unable to find a page for the energy equation for fluid dynamics, but it should probably be included in this article somehow. 134.117.72.229 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the governing equations? 

message: Could someone who knows the reference matieral please properly cite this source. I can't find any materials published by (I'm assuming Alan) Pope in 2000. The closest I can find is "Low-speed wind tunnel testing" from 1999. --Ig0r 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of "Pope, 2000" 

message: Why is there a separate section for Fluid dynamics#Other fundamental engineering topics? It would be better to make a template for those topics. -- Myth (Talk) 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other fundamental engineering topics 

message: Pretty much everything in this section seems to be factually inaccurate, so I think it could do with a complete rewrite.
* Streamline definition http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Streamline.html
* Oscillating Poiseuille flow in a circular pipe is not steady, but particle trajectories follow the (axial) streamlines.
* Flow is potential flow iff there's a velocity potential iff it's irrotational.
* Classical stagnation point flow and a 2D vortex are both potential flow, but neither have have uniform velocity over any 'cross-section'.
I'm not sure this is the place to discuss streamlines. Is there somewhere better to define them and also the related concepts of steaklines and pathlines? Also, it would probably be better to separate the issues of time-dependence and irrotationality too. The significance of irrotationality (i.e. following from irrotational initial conditions) should probably be explained with reference to Kelvin's circulation theorem.
: -- Rjw62 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better :-). Streamlines, streaklines and pathlines are already covered in their own article and linked from this one at the bottom. A new section for potential / irrotational flow would probably be worthwhile though (at the same level as the steady/unsteady section). -- Rjw62 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steady vs unsteady flow 

message: There also exists the article Hydromechanics, seemingly mainly a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) article. In those days, fluid mechanics was called hydromechanics. It gives a nice background on the history of fluid dynamics until 1900. Any suggestions what to do with this? Leave as it is, or transform into an article on the History of fluid dynamics, merge into a History section over here, delete and change into a redirect? Crowsnest (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with Hydromechanics? 

message: Perhaps some chemical engineer should put that in. Commutator (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know about single-phase vs poly-phase flows? 

message: I am in the middle of a gedanken experiment and need to find an article about fluid behaviour i came across earlier once. 
But alas for the life of me, i can't remember the name of the principle involved. I thought this would be the perfect place to look but no luck. 
It involved the behaviour of a small stream water, say coming from a restricted tap, following the contours of the back of a spoon when held in it's path. As you can see, i can't for the life of me work out how the heck to phrase that into a question the wiki search engine would recognise. I do remember though that the principle had a name associated with it's discoverer.
As i said before. Sorry to bother everyone, especially as this is a talk page, but i didn't know where else to go.   
As a princess with Danish for hair once said " ...you're my only hope!"
Outofthewoods (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find the information you want at Coanda effect.  Dolphin51 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Just need some advice please

message: I undid someone's edit that deleted a section that is scientifically accurate, but contains an example (a bong) that is somewhat distracting from the overall mood of the page. In the edit summary for the undo, I ask for a different image that illustrates the same principle.
I don't with to hassle with providing fair-use justification for a borrowed image, and have not yet had the chance to create a replacement of my own, but if someone knows of a free or GPL'd example of more or less the exact same thing (gas purification by bubbling through a liquid column) used in industry, the petroleum industry comes to mind, that would be ideal for the article, I think. Thanks! 70.162.59.107 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the image of bong spoils the overall mood of the page. More than that, it is inappropriate to include an image, which illustrates only a multiphase flow situation, in a section on "Compressible vs incompressible flow". In fluid dynamics, compressible flow has only one meaning that is always defined in terms of Mach number of the flow. Considering these factors I feel it is better to remove the image of bong from the article. Salih (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not exactly true overall, although I can see how you could make this point for specific applications that do not involve any liquid interface. Here is an example of what I am talking about.. An understanding of both the fluid dynamics of both compressible and incompressible flows is necessary to model the interaction between hydrogen gas under pressure being bubbled through a heated unsaturated hydrocarbon for the purposes of conversion of it to a saturated hydrocarbon. Fluid dynamics will play a direct role in modeling this because the surface area of hydrogen gas exposed to the fluid has a direct relationship with the reaction speed achieved in the reactor. (I presume surface area exposed also has an effect on water filtration as well.) What I would like to see replace the current image (a bong used to filter smoke) is a free image that illustrates this at least as graphically. I've been looking for one, but haven't found it yet. Zaphraud (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but my point is that the image does not go well with the content of the section in which the image is displayed. Salih (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace bong with more "academic" example 

message: There's a great graphic showing an aerodynamic shape and explaing how it works.  However it doesn't say, simply, WHAT that shape is optimal.  The article doesn't state simply and early why a pointy bit at the front isn't the best shape.  Can anyone help explain this?  LookingGlass (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical too quick 

message: I find the use of  confusing because, being a volume integral, there's no higher dimensional volume which it could "wrap around" and enclose, unless time were considered that higher dimension (even then, this would not be a "closed volume", since there's no four-dimensional volume enclosed by that volume). The continuity equation article uses the normal \iiint anyways, so I'd think it would be a good idea to use the loop-less sign here as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the loop symbol is unnecessary here. We can get rid of it and have only loop-less integral sign. Salih (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly carried out the replacement because of the lack of objection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of closed-volume integral signs for continuity equations 

message: In the section "Inviscid vs Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids," a sentence reads "These Newtonian fluids are modelled by a constant viscosity, depending only on the specific fluid."  Would it not be more accurate to say that the viscosity of a Newtonian fluid is merely independent of strain rate?  Even for Newtonian fluids, viscosity is often a strong function of temperature for example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.15 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. While it is common, in my experience, to model Newtonian fluids with a constant viscosity, this is always done under the assumption of small temperature changes.  I suspect this is where the confusion comes from. I've gone ahead and made the change, although I tried to maintain the idea that the viscosity primarily depends on the fluid. 209.87.255.222 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Constant" viscosity for Newtonian fluids 

message: Substituted at 15:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I cleaned up the part of this section dealing with compressible fluids a bit, but it occurs to me that this whole section is focused on stagnation and static properties.  I think that it would be appropriate to turn the whole section as it is into a single discussion on stagnation, dynamic, and static properties, rather than repeating essentially the same thing for incompressible and compressible flows.  Additionally, more terminology could be added - several of the sections above would be more appropriate for a "Terminology" section than for an "Equations" section.  In fact, the last six sections of the "Equations of Fluid Dynamics" don't have a single equation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.255.222 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology in Fluid Dynamics 

message: There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest fluid dynamics editors. Attic Salt (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: [[Plasma (physics)]] 

message: * [ ] Can someone please add proper citation for this heading "Flows according to Mach regimes"i couldnt find any proper results outside wikipedia 🔎classification on the basis of mach number - The tutorialspoint article saying "the various regimes are" is most suitable i found, but aint sure about if it is a good cite. Also, the tutorialspoint . com is blocked on wiki. Yashpalgoyal1304 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: There used to be a section titled "About" which looked like an outline, so I propose to split it as per Wikipedia:Outlines#How_to_create_an_outline_page. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying this article, Fluid dynamics, used to contain a section titled “About”? I haven’t been able to find it. Are you able to nominate a date on which “About” existed as a Section in the article? Dolphin (t) 03:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: See Outline of fluid dynamics.    — The Transhumanist    04:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Outline of fluid dynamics]]