Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics/Archive/2004-2006

Science collaboration of the week
Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. --Fenice 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviving the project
I've worked a bit on the Aeroelasticity article. And I think this WikiProject sounds very good... let's make it active again? Milena 13:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's try and get this project running again Brendanfox 00:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created and the relevant categories. Can anyone come up with an image to use and can we start tagging articles. I think this will (hopefully) mean that if people move into this section (or away from it) it will be easier to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done. Is this a good idea, have you any feedback? Rex the first talk 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

May have trodden on some toes
I didn't see this project existed, I would have consulted you guys first if I had.

Anyway, I have split the Navier-Stokes article in two, removing the main article from the Millennium Problems category and infobox. (The new article specific to the Millennium prize is at: Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness). --cfp 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To make up for the abscence of an infobox now, I've added a Continuum mechanics one, which you can see at Template:Continuum mechanics.

(The reason it is Continuum mechanics rather than fluid dynamics say is that Template:Physics-footer has Continuum mechanics as a broad field, so a box to unite everything within the field made sense.)

So far I've only added the template to the articles it actually links to, I'll delay doing any more (or someone else can volunteer to...) until I get some feedback.

--cfp 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure
I created this wikiproject because I think that we need to reorganize all the fluid dynamics topics, determine what goes where, determine what we're missing, and fill it in. In particular, I was writing aerodynamics and having a hard time with it. Much of what I wanted to put there was already (rightly) contained in fluid dynamics. I followed the outline that someone had left there, and wrote about subsonic, transonic, and supersonic aerodynamics only to later find that there are already transonic and supersonic articles. The article shock waves doesn't seem to understand that it's applicable outside of explosions. Anyway, I don't want to do it by myself both because it's too much work and because I'd like to build some kind of consensus first on what belongs where.

Suggested structure?

Some questions:
 * Does the history of aerodynamics etc. belong in aerodynamics or should we have separate articles: History of aerodynamics, History of hydrodynamics, History of fluid dynamics etc.
 * Wiki style seems to be for separate history as in England and History of EnglandCutler 11:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do we put equations in articles like aerodynamics? Repeated there and on their own pages?
 * Keep equations in detail articles, not in top viewCutler 11:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do specific concepts like Prandtl-lifting line theory, thin-airfoil theory, Harris wave-drag calculations get mentioned? In their own article or in the big articles?
 * I like lots of small articles to modularise material (then you don't have to edit 10 articles to make a change) with top level articles to guide readers through the materialCutler 11:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moink 22:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * What major concepts are we missing and where should they go?

Moink (and others interested in fluid dynamics): There is discussion (in Talk:Continuum mechanics) on working on a even broader reorganization of all materials science/mechanical engineering topics. Please visit Talk:Continuum mechanics to participate! -- hike395 05:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The division into 'Laminar Flow' and 'Turbulence' looks positively strange. I'd prefer 'Turbulent Flow' to have its own article, but anyway... Where laminar flows occur (rarely) velocities are in the order of mm/s or less, so concepts such as supersonics have nothing to do with laminar flow. Similarly Navier-Stokes equations, CFD, vorticity... are concepts applied to turbulent flows. Dougalc 22:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Moink. Good start. No offense, Dougalc, but your rule regarding speeds in laminar vs turbulent flows is only true in an extremely restricted set of circumstances. High Mach-number laminar or quasi-laminar flows most certainly exist. On a more productive note, though, my one significant quibble is that it doesn't make sense to put CFD under viscous laminar flows. CFD certainly applies to laminar flows, turbulent flows, incompressible and compressible flows, Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows, etc. Just depends what you wrote the code to do! This just goes to show that the idea of a hierarchy necessarily breaks down at some point. As for what's missing, where do we put magnetohydrodynamics, combustion hydro, or radiation hydrodynamics (hydro coupled with rad transport)? Take MHD, for example. Sometimes the inviscid approximation is useful; other times it it not. Sometimes MHD flows are laminar, sometimes they are turbulent. Sometimes plasmas are well-approximated as continua so MHD is applicable, other times one must use other approaches in plasma physics and/or kinetic theory. Some CFD codes are written with magnetic fields included, although most are not. As well, one could just as well regard MHD as a subcategory of E&M rather than a subcategory of FD. We need a structure different from a simple tree. Petwil 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Break (structure)
Would like to get involved here. I agree organisation is needed. As with hike395, I think that we should get some alignment on continuum mechanics to kick off. Then, I think that the first task is to reinstate Fluid mechanics as an article in its own right, perhaps this structure works:

I think that there are three strands in this project:
 * 1) The constitutive (for want of a better word) above which is really about solving equations
 * 2) The phenomena: Taylor columns, Ekman spiral, Capilliary waves
 * 3) The applications: oceanography, meteorology, aerodynamics ...

Comments?Cutler 00:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought of fluid mechanics and fluid dynamics as being synonyms, but I guess you're right, there's statics in there somewhere. And I like your division... instead of constituitive how about "underlying theory" or something. This is a hard one to divide. moink 01:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that fluid mechanics is a set including dynamics & statics. Now about Pascal's law, what is it? As I understood it was 'exert a force on an enclosed fluid and pressure transmitted throughout the fluid' eg how my hydraulic brakes/clutch work. Someone's already written an article under Pascal's Law (with a big L) which basically just says something about hydrostatic pressure. Dougalc 02:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Draft
I have posted a proposed article for Fluid mechanics at WikiProject Fluid dynamics/Top_draft. Please contribute. I will try to work on Fluid statics in the coming week. Cutler 12:59, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * So, the stub for fluid statics is there. Cleverer people than me will complete the detail. Next step is to do fluid mechanics as per my suggestion WikiProject Fluid dynamics/Top_draft. Comments please? Cutler 00:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved this draft to the Fluid mechanics article. It's better to have it there than here, so that people can edit it in its natural habitat. CO GDEN  03:05, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ TWO YEARS OF MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Suggested structure?
That was a really neat looking flow diagram, have you thought about including it into a suitable wikipedia article? Would be a handy tool for the readers to see. Mathmo Talk 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)