Talk:Centrifugal compressor

message: That image is HUGE. dq 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page needs an illustration. Telling from the history, it looks like it used to have one, but it was copyrighted and thus removed. It needs something like this to get the real feel of what's going on. Novous 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: "centrifugal not a real word"? It has a real wikipedia entry ... (which quite clearly explains about reactive and fictitious forces, and the rotating frames of reference).  Can this aside be deleted? Daniel Barlow 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that paranthetical statement should be removed as it's not relevant to compressors. I'll take it out. (Besides, centrifugal forces do exist just as much as imaginary numbers exist...) dq 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove discussion of "centrifugal force" 

message: Agree:
*1) Centrifugal compressors are used throughout industry because they have fewer rubbing parts, are relatively energy efficient, and give higher airflow than a similarly sized reciprocating/positive-displacement compressor.
*2) Centrifugal fan/blowers are more suited to continuous-duty applications such as ventilation fans, air movers, cooling units, and other uses that require high volume but fairly low pressures. Multi-stage centrifugal compressors often achieve discharge pressures of 8,000 to 10,000 psi injecting nitrogen into oil fields to increase oil production
Disagreements:
*1) Professionally, I know of no one in the HVAC industry that would ever refer to a squirrel cage blower/fan as a compressor. The squirrel cage impeller discharge flow within the scroll is not circumferentially uniform. 
*2) Centrifugal compressors DO NOT operate by using the centrifugal force applied to an air mass to achieve compression. Centrifugal is a misnomer.
*3) It is almost irrelevant that centrifugal blowers can operate in reverse and act as a turbine.
*4) Also, pipeline compressors are not really referred to as jets, most often they are driven by gas-turbines, thus use of the term jet.
--Mkoronowski 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI and for Discussion only 

message: This is the current text to be I propose to replace:
A centrifugal compressor, also called a radial blower, squirrel cage, or squirrel wheel compressor, consists of a cylindrical assembly of compressor blades mounted on an axle. The compressor operates by using the centrifugal force applied to an air mass to achieve compression. Centrifugal compressors are used throughout industry because they have few moving parts, are very energy efficient, and give higher airflow than a similarly sized reciprocating compressor. Their primary drawback is that they cannot achieve the high compression ratio of reciprocating compressors without multiple stages. Centrifugal compressors are more suited to continuous-duty applications such as ventilation fans, air movers, cooling units, and other uses that require high volume but fairly low pressures. While technically centrifugal blowers can operate in reverse, due to blade design and other factors their efficiency is greatly reduced. When centrifugal blowers are used in pipelines they are sometimes called jets.
This is the proposed text to replace the above text:
Centrifugal compressors, (sometimes referred to as radial compressors) are a special class of radial-flow work-absorbing turbomachinery (ref Turbomachinery, Euler) that include pumps, fans, blowers and compressors Dixon S.L., (1978) Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery Third Edition, Pergamon Press, NY,NY, .
 
The earliest forms of these dynamic-devices Aungier Ronald H. (2000) Centrifugal Compressors A Strategy for Aerodynamic design and Analysis, ASME, NY,NY,  were pumps, fans and blowers.  What differentiates these devices from compressors is that the working fluid can be considered incompressible thus permitting accurate analysis through Bernoulli’s Energy equation (ref Daniel Bernoulli).  In contrast, modern centrifugal compressor analysis must deal with compressible flow.
For purposes of definition, centrifugal compressors often have density increases greater than 5-percent.  Also, they often experience relative fluid velocities above Mach 0.3 when the working is air or nitrogen (ref Ernst Mach, Mach Number).  In contrast fans or blowers are often considered to have density increases of less than 5-perent and peak relative fluid velocities below Mach 0.3
In an idealized sense, the dynamic compressor achieves a pressure rise by adding kinetic-energy/velocity to a continuous flow of fluid through the rotor or impeller.  This kinetic energy is then converted to an increase in static pressure by slowing the flow through a diffuser [2]. --Mkoronowski 10:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I propose the following replacement of the current text

message: You have greatly improved this article on centrifugal compressors and I know that you are new to Wikipedia. But I think you need help in learning how to use a Discussion page such as this one.
First of all, always sign your discussion comments. And new comments always go beneath the older comments (not above them).
Also, it is not allowed to delete any discussion comments from a discussion page, as you did.  I will try to straighten that out and replace the comments you deleted when I get time to do so.
Please read the boxed instructions at the very top of this page carefully. Those instructions explain how to automatically sign and date your discussions and how to indent your responses to someone else's discussion. Again, please study the above instructions.
Finally, you do not need to use HTML to get double spacing. Just skip a line in your text and Wikipedia will automatically give you a double space.  And don't use HTML to list items ... instead, just use asterisks (*} as I did for one of your above discussions. They will automatically give you a bulleted list. HTML is frowned upon in Wikipedia, so try to learn the Wiki markup language ... it is quite simple.
I hope this helps you and welcome to Wikipedia. - mbeychok 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mkoronowski|Mkoronowski]], please read this help on how to use this page 

message: Someone who know knows this subject well should clean up this article.  It appears to have been partially edited many times, and there are many unfinished fragments, etc.  I cannot as I don't know much about this subject so I wouldn't know which fragments to complete, which to delete, etc.  I'll add a CLEANUP tag.  Srajan01 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Mkoronowski (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be included??? 

message: Quote: "For purposes of definition, centrifugal compressors often have density increases greater than 5 percent". What does this mean? Does it mean compressing the gas by 5% (a very small compression ratio) or to 5% of its original volume (a very large compression ratio)? Biscuittin (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: if you look under either aerodynamics, fluid dynamics or ideal gas you might be able to find out that density in units of mas per volume and is calculated for a gas by the ratio of pressure divided by tempereture time the gas constant. all i was trying to say is that when the machine increases the pressure (and temperature) so that the density increases 5percent it is likely the dynamics of the machine may qualify it to be called a compressor. do you remember dalton's gas law from high school chemistry or physics? Mkoronowski (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density increase 

message: Two sections that potentially could be incorporated into centrifugal compressor are:
Design methodology
and
Coordinate systems
 
Within design methodology is important to understand that design and analysis are opposites.  In fact design is sometimes referred to as inverse analysis.  The general process is as follows:
Design begets
Design analysis begets
Testing begets
Testing analysis begets
New design begets
New design analysis and so on and so on.
The end result of this four step process is that it continues on several different layers.  One-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional.
it is at specific critical junctures that the Aero-thermodynamic analysis waits while mechanical/stress/migration analysis occur.  Even to the most experience this is one nice bowl of spaghetti. this is the point where neutral point of view needs to stop discussion.  The devil is in the details of the one-dimensional and two-dimensional and three-dimensional analysis.
Within coordinate systems there is virtually four points of view.  There is the Cartesian coordinate system looking downstream which is seldom used in anything other than CFD.  Then there is the Cartesian coordinate system looking upstream which is again seldom used in anything other than CFD.  then there are the polar coordinate systems which either look upstream or downstream.  in all cases a right hand rule is applied to establish the positive sense of rotation(which is sometimes the opposite of the right hand rule).
At this point in time I don't see any value in discussing design methodology on anything other than the coarsest level for the very few that might be interested.
Additionally I don't see any value in all in discussing coordinate systems.  Those that need to establish coordinate system already have a preferred favorite and those we don't need a coordinate system probably have no interest.
does anybody have any comments or thoughts that they would like to share on this topic?
Martin mkoronowski Mkoronowski (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to sound rude, but this reads as if it someone had fed some engineering jargon into a random sentence generator. The article has the same problem. I'm sure the maths are fine - you've been an engineer for 35 years - but it's often borderline-incomprehensible, with long unexplained lists of names and unintroduced concepts. As if it was the notes for a slide presentation given half-way though an engineering degree course. You have a lot of knowledge inside that head of yours, if only there was a way to extract it in a form that other people could understand. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  design methodology & coordinate systems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Centrifugal compressor. 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/20110413221508/http://pontyak.com:80/index.html to http://pontyak.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Centrifugal compressor. 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/20090115221252/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/february99/features/crystal/crystal.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/february99/features/crystal/crystal.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pontyak.com/index.html
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) 04:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reviewing “centrifugal compressors” revision history, I find editors “simplifying jargon”.
Articles throughout Wikipedia, the arts, mathematics, science, and applied sciences are filled with jargon (terminology) specific to that field. I can give a great example; How often have you met individuals needing to understand the differences between surge and stall? I often read Wikipedia articles specifically looking for the correct terminology.
The field of centrifugal compressors is an advanced applied science and naturally filled with scientific terminology. This article herein Wikipedia appears to be written in two parts. 
The first introduces the topic of centrifugal compressors by describing, their key components, the variety of components, where and how compressors are used, how they are similar and different, and how they are similar and different from other turbomachinery. Added to this is a summary of their history and development and a philosophical overview.
Casual readers should find this interesting and filled with a minimum of jargon. 
Hopefully understood is the vast variety of centrifugal compressors mostly due to the vast range of applications. 
The second part of this article is more detailed. It introduces the applied mathematical foundation used in their aero-thermo design and development. 
I expect readers in these sections will be looking for terminology to research centrifugal compressors in more depth. The reader may need to write a paper, attend a meeting, have a technical discussion, find a manufacturer, order parts, go to an interview, perform a Google search.
I need to ask, where is the line between too much and too little jargon?
Thank you for helping!
Mkoronowski (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon or terminology  

message: The footnotes of many citations are textbooks covering a full scientific discussion of centrifugal compressors.
Rather than assign a citation to a specific sentence is there any benefit to assigning the citations with the topic's title?
For example, Most modern high-efficiency impellers use "backsweep" in the blade shape.[2][3][4], is the only sentence supported with a citation.
Thus, none of the other statements supported. Actually, [2][3][4] support the entirety of (1.2)"impeller".
Please, what method does Wikipedia prefer to support this kind of material?
Thank you,
Mkoronowski (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Footnotes