Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

WikiProject Physics v t e
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Shortcuts

WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics articles by quality Refresh
FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
4	0	12	93	294	658	346	1	10	117	1	0	17	0	3	81	5	0	1	1,643

Archives

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Center of pressure

I posted a query relating to a problem regarding our Center of pressure article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Center of pressure - it hasn't been answered yet, and I later realised that this would be better asked here - though ideally we need to keep discussion centralised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure. Basically, it seems to me that we are covering two different subjects in the same article. :( AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed

A recently created article, Flow through cascades, presents an academic exercise of analyzing the fluid flow through a cascade of turbine blades. The article relies on simplifying assumptions such as one would find in an undergraduate engineering textbook, but because of this, it does not present a true and realistic picture of the phenomenon.

I have suggested that the article might be appropriate for WikiVersity, but not really for Wikipedia.

I'd like some input from the experts in this project to weigh in, please. -- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will have a look at the article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC) It will take a few days, though. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article at AfD

Can someone make sense of Vortex core line? It seems involved in visualization algorithms for fluid dynamics. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits (incl. references) to Vortex core line and related flow-visualisation pages. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic center

Aerodynamic center article is full of syntax errors pertaining to math formulae. Can anybody fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Help requested for new article

Hello - I just wrote a new article, Peniche (fluid dynamics). It has a couple of sources, but I would greatly appreciate someone with an understanding a aerodynamics taking a look and checking the accuracy. Feel free to add, subtract, or change whatever seems needed. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: Splitter plate (aircraft)

I thought I knew how aircraft splitter plates work, otherwise I wouldn't have started the article, but looking for citations on the net has led me to doubt my understanding of the topic, I've now reduced the article to what I can be sure off, I would appreciate any help in correcting and expanding it.--KTo288 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visualization

It would be good to get a little visualization consultation. I started to edit Streamlines because stream tubes redirects there. There is flow visualization and stream surfaces, which are pretty esoteric, but nothing about streamlines as a visualization tool or stream tubes or stream ribbons. If this is interesting to anyone I could help. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Aerodynamics article organization

Hi all. I started a Talk section on the organization of the Aerodynamics article here. I'm concerned that the article currently is not very accessible/sensibly organized for a lay person (or indeed, for me either as a not-so-lay person), and it would be great to have some feedback. Corvus coronoides _talk 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Place for an interactive ideal gas simulation?

I have a very nice ideal gas simulation (in Java) available here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wayne/Gas . I'm totally new to editing Wikipedia articles and don't know if it would have a place or if so where to put it. If anybody thinks there is a place for such a simulation please contact me at whayes@uci.edu (Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine). Note that since I'm new to this I can't guarantee I'll be coming back here too often to watch the discussion, so email is best. Waynehayes (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken formulas

Hey, I'm not part of this taskforce, but I was cleaning up an article on Isentropic nozzle flow and there are a ton of broken math formulas that need to be fixed. It looks like a worthwhile article otherwise. Anyone familiar with isentropic equations and displaying them on Wikipedia? -Iamozy (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for improving Lift(Force)

Over at the Lift_(force) page we (the active editors) seem to have come to an impasse over inclusion of the following sentence describing the lift on an airfoil:

"The resulting force upwards is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air deflected downwards."

Much discussion has ensued; one side wants to include it (there are four reliable sources that support the assertion) and the other side claims it is untrue (citing sources that don't exactly say it's false, but provide equations that can be interpreted to say it is false.) Much more detail is at the Talk page. I'd like to see some more opinions and see if we can come to a consensus about including or excluding that sentence. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Fluid dynamics articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to commplex

I just looked at two articles about stress and strain the intros were written at way to high a level; use of words like torque, normal, vector etc should not be in the intro of a general encyclopedia article (unless the article is about torque or normal or vectors) You need to realize that showing off is not what wiki is about; if your mom or dad or sibling with a BA can't understand the intro, it is NOT a good intro

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Inertial focusing

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Inertial focusing? --TKK! bark with me! 04:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention - Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still

Can anyone write the topic of this article Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still? An editor or editors has added some essay like articles on CFD topics. They may speak English as a second language and are not able to clearly describe the topic, or even find it. I cannot tell what they are trying to write about even while I understand the components. I don't think this one can be saved. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC over at Lift(force)

Should we keep the current quantitative statement on momentum transfer in the second section or replace it with a qualitative version?

Link to RFC.

Comments welcome. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC assistance

Greetings. If someone has a moment, there's an article over at AfC which needs some expert advice on whether or not it's notable. Assistance would be greatly appreciated: Draft:GBT - Generalised Beam Theory. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the word "onflow"

Hi! I am currently translating the D'Alembert's Paradox article from English to French. The French version is a shame to the memory of Jean Le Rond d'Alembert! I have a problem to translate the word onflow that you can find in the legend of the picture at this section. The legend is: Streamlines for the potential flow around a circular cylinder in a uniform onflow. The rest of the sentence is ok, but I'm stuck on this uniform onflow. I never saw the world onflow in any publications and I hardly find information with Google. What is the difference with the word flow? Can someone help me on this? Thanks! Nalou (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onflow means to 'a flow onto'. Then a way to rewrite your sentence would be Streamlines for the potential flow for a uniform flow onto a circular cylinder. --Mark viking (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer! The meaning is then very close from what I thought in the first place. To be sure, aren't the two words flow redundant? Can I say Streamlines for the uniform potential flow onto a circular cylinder.? The meaning seems to be the same, at least for me. --Nalou (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your version, combining the potential and uniform adjectives, sounds better. --Mark viking (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks. I learned something new today! And by the way, this Fluid dynamics Taskforce is an excellent idea. I may come and visit again soon. --Nalou (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on Rogue Waves

In reference to extreme events, rogue waves and soliton theory

These are considered to be the most important discoveries in the twentieth and twenty first centuries mathematical and experimental physics.

Optical sciences group, Australian National University https://physics.anu.edu.au/theophys/osg/

Hello, I have put a lot of effort recently into the article on Rogue waves. I think that most of the article now reads well with appropriate content and context but the more technical bits relating to physics / fluid dynamics need review. I have tagged it asking for expert review.

As an engineer I understand the basics but it needs technical review. It is quite a popular page with an average of 8-900 views per day so it deserves some attention.

Reading the references there is a lot of research going on in this field around the world as well. I liked this quote and added it to the page to give it some context. Perhaps it is higher than mid importance? I have quoted the ANU research team considers this field to be the most important discoveries in the twentieth and twenty first centuries mathematical and experimental physics? My interest is personal rather than technical, I witnessed a 20m rogue wave on a scientific expedition to Antarctica in 1988.AWHS (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessment

Hi, I've improved the article Pulsatile flow. Could someone reassess it's quality score? Thanks, Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Subcooling into Compressed fluid

I have suggested merging two articles covering essentially the same subject. Please discuss on the relevant talk page. Disclaimer: if the community decides to perform the merge, I'm not enough of an expert to execute it. — JFG ^talk 12:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Physics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Physics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Resonant interaction

I am putting together an article on Draft:Resonant interaction, and from what I can tell, the theory finds broad applications in fluid dynamics (my own interest comes from a different direction). I invite anyone who reads this, presumably well-versed in fluid dynamics, to make critical comments, corrections, or even better -- to participate in it's writing. I'm finding it to be a rather interesting topic, even if the current draft says almost nothing at all, so far. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power

Wind power has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page input needed

For members of this project: there is a discussion at Talk:Lift-to-drag ratio that could use some additional input. The article itself is temporarily full-protected because of edit warring. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]