This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since people editing here probably know a little a about aerodynamics, it would be nice to have a section on the Bee article to discuss the flight of bees.
In part I'm asking because on Sunday Image:Bee mid air.jpg is due to be the Picture of the day|Picture of the Day. However, at the moment I'm not too happy with the caption as it is a bit too general - it would seem better to mention the common misconceptions about bees not being able to fly. -- Solipsist 09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
My science project seemed different in the begining but later changed, and influenced me to begin this. Birds fly using simple aerodynamics, gravity, lift, drag, and thrust. Gravity is what lets the bird come down if wanted. Lift is what helps the bird to lift off, from the ground allowing it to fly, like a plane. This also ties into thrust. Thrust is the bird moving it's wings to provid power to "lift" it off the ground. Finally drag is how much the bird ways. Weight is what holds it back. So it has to overcome gravity and drag to be able ot take off.
Hello,
As the links to other languages section seems to be beyond the scope of editing, perhaps this is not the best place to bring this up, but I will anyway.
I noticed there is no link to jp for aerodynamics.(空気力学) I thought this was a bit hard to believe, but in fact, there is no 'aerodynamics' page in Japanese. There is a redirect to the Japanese 'hydrodynamics' page.
流体力学 [1]
Until a Japanese 'aerodynamics' page is created, is it possible to request a ja link that also follows the redirect to the ja hydrodynamics page. Perhaps the ja editors feel that aerodynamics is covered sufficiently under hydrodynamics. I can't comment on the reasoning behind their development.
Thank you for your kindness.
- Rockthing 05:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
please correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.3.254.194 ( talk) 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to spend some time expanding this page over the next month or so - I've already started with the history section. If anyone wants to help out or has issues/questions, leave them on my talk page. EMBaero 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)EMBaero
[[ja:<something>]]
Perhaps all the great information in this article should instead appear in the Gas dynamics page. That way all the pages that link to this article from the word "aerodynamic", could instead link to Gas dynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
aerodynamics is bad homework —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.66.65 ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The only equation in the article is an incorrect one. Would it be unreasonable to have basic equations e.g. for lift and drag of a flat sheet, or something similar in the article? Right now, it's pretty devoid of technical content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.191.214 ( talk) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to have a section on aerodynamic friction & aerodynamic heating; and it also need one on computational aerodynamics. It would also be nice to at least mention the Navier-Stokes Equations. 98.81.15.87 ( talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Does this article need to be as long as it is? Stumbled across it in a return to Wikipedia (last time I was active was several years ago) and as an aerospace engineering student, I'm not entirely sure it is useful to a lay person. My thought would be to make sure the following sections/topics are covered, but perhaps move some of the more specialized discussion to their own pages:
My concern is simply that the article organization currently is a bit haphazard. I would like to get some other editors' feedback and thoughts on improving the organization of the article. Corvus coronoides talk 03:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Since I haven't received any feedback at this point, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I'm going to go ahead and continue doing some major overhaul to the article. This will begin with drastically cutting down the History section to being just a few paragraphs. In the meantime I'll move the History section to my sandbox, to be worked into its own article. If at any point other editors would like to weigh in and contribute, please do so! Corvus coronoides talk 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Another request for input. To what extent do other editors feel equations should be included and discussed in the article? I'm specifically looking at conservation laws. I think in order to address the main aspects of the topic it is important to have both integral and differential forms of the conservation laws, but the article as it stands also includes the simplified versions of the laws as applied to steady channel flow. I think these channel flow forms are useful as examples, but may be a little textbooky. What do others think about the following three options?
1. Cut out channel flow examples altogether - unnecessary for an encyclopedia article and adds clunkiness to the article.
2. Move channel flow examples into their own subsection (ie define all three conservation laws, then have a section where these are applied to the channel flow example).
3. Leave channel flow examples where they are, immediately following introduction of the conservation law.
I think my personal preference might be option 2. Corvus coronoides talk 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. The current "Further Reading" section is currently quite a lengthy list of useful reference texts - useful for professionals, but perhaps not for the general reader. What are other editors' thoughts on this section? I'm inclined to cut it out, per WP:NOT - not an indiscriminate collection of information, neither textbook nor teaching site, not a collection of links, but it's a big change so I'm soliciting other thoughts. Corvus coronoides talk 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aerodynamics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
=Aerodynamics&oldid=91577638 version reviewed
Intro is too long, see
Wikipedia:Lead section. No equations or pictures. I think it should have sections on the major aspects with links to there main articles, e.g. Basic Equations, Nozzles Diffusers and Wind Tunnels, Shock Waves, Mach number - Supersonic and Subsonic, Lineralised theory, Numerical Non-linear models (picking some topics from {{
cite book}} : Empty citation (
help)) No sources. |
Last edited at 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aerodynamics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aerodynamics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Under Conservation Laws the article asserts "Additionally, Bernoulli's equation is a solution to the momentum conservation equation of an inviscid flow that neglects gravity."
This is news to me since Bernoulli's equation has a term for gravity. Granted it's sometimes omitted when gravity is not relevant, but it's a stretch to say that it neglects gravity.
I propose saying "Additionally, Bernoulli's equation is a solution to the momentum conservation equation of an inviscid fluid."
Comments? Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The relationship as I understand it is that fluid dynamics is the study of liquids and gases and the changes they undergo due to processes such as heat, movement, and pressure, and gas dynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics.
I think the phrasing that aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics is confusing because fluid dynamics includes the study of gases.
THis is my justification for rewording the lead. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since people editing here probably know a little a about aerodynamics, it would be nice to have a section on the Bee article to discuss the flight of bees.
In part I'm asking because on Sunday Image:Bee mid air.jpg is due to be the Picture of the day|Picture of the Day. However, at the moment I'm not too happy with the caption as it is a bit too general - it would seem better to mention the common misconceptions about bees not being able to fly. -- Solipsist 09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
My science project seemed different in the begining but later changed, and influenced me to begin this. Birds fly using simple aerodynamics, gravity, lift, drag, and thrust. Gravity is what lets the bird come down if wanted. Lift is what helps the bird to lift off, from the ground allowing it to fly, like a plane. This also ties into thrust. Thrust is the bird moving it's wings to provid power to "lift" it off the ground. Finally drag is how much the bird ways. Weight is what holds it back. So it has to overcome gravity and drag to be able ot take off.
Hello,
As the links to other languages section seems to be beyond the scope of editing, perhaps this is not the best place to bring this up, but I will anyway.
I noticed there is no link to jp for aerodynamics.(空気力学) I thought this was a bit hard to believe, but in fact, there is no 'aerodynamics' page in Japanese. There is a redirect to the Japanese 'hydrodynamics' page.
流体力学 [1]
Until a Japanese 'aerodynamics' page is created, is it possible to request a ja link that also follows the redirect to the ja hydrodynamics page. Perhaps the ja editors feel that aerodynamics is covered sufficiently under hydrodynamics. I can't comment on the reasoning behind their development.
Thank you for your kindness.
- Rockthing 05:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
please correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.3.254.194 ( talk) 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to spend some time expanding this page over the next month or so - I've already started with the history section. If anyone wants to help out or has issues/questions, leave them on my talk page. EMBaero 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)EMBaero
[[ja:<something>]]
Perhaps all the great information in this article should instead appear in the Gas dynamics page. That way all the pages that link to this article from the word "aerodynamic", could instead link to Gas dynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 04:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
aerodynamics is bad homework —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.66.65 ( talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The only equation in the article is an incorrect one. Would it be unreasonable to have basic equations e.g. for lift and drag of a flat sheet, or something similar in the article? Right now, it's pretty devoid of technical content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.191.214 ( talk) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to have a section on aerodynamic friction & aerodynamic heating; and it also need one on computational aerodynamics. It would also be nice to at least mention the Navier-Stokes Equations. 98.81.15.87 ( talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Does this article need to be as long as it is? Stumbled across it in a return to Wikipedia (last time I was active was several years ago) and as an aerospace engineering student, I'm not entirely sure it is useful to a lay person. My thought would be to make sure the following sections/topics are covered, but perhaps move some of the more specialized discussion to their own pages:
My concern is simply that the article organization currently is a bit haphazard. I would like to get some other editors' feedback and thoughts on improving the organization of the article. Corvus coronoides talk 03:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Since I haven't received any feedback at this point, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I'm going to go ahead and continue doing some major overhaul to the article. This will begin with drastically cutting down the History section to being just a few paragraphs. In the meantime I'll move the History section to my sandbox, to be worked into its own article. If at any point other editors would like to weigh in and contribute, please do so! Corvus coronoides talk 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Another request for input. To what extent do other editors feel equations should be included and discussed in the article? I'm specifically looking at conservation laws. I think in order to address the main aspects of the topic it is important to have both integral and differential forms of the conservation laws, but the article as it stands also includes the simplified versions of the laws as applied to steady channel flow. I think these channel flow forms are useful as examples, but may be a little textbooky. What do others think about the following three options?
1. Cut out channel flow examples altogether - unnecessary for an encyclopedia article and adds clunkiness to the article.
2. Move channel flow examples into their own subsection (ie define all three conservation laws, then have a section where these are applied to the channel flow example).
3. Leave channel flow examples where they are, immediately following introduction of the conservation law.
I think my personal preference might be option 2. Corvus coronoides talk 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. The current "Further Reading" section is currently quite a lengthy list of useful reference texts - useful for professionals, but perhaps not for the general reader. What are other editors' thoughts on this section? I'm inclined to cut it out, per WP:NOT - not an indiscriminate collection of information, neither textbook nor teaching site, not a collection of links, but it's a big change so I'm soliciting other thoughts. Corvus coronoides talk 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aerodynamics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
=Aerodynamics&oldid=91577638 version reviewed
Intro is too long, see
Wikipedia:Lead section. No equations or pictures. I think it should have sections on the major aspects with links to there main articles, e.g. Basic Equations, Nozzles Diffusers and Wind Tunnels, Shock Waves, Mach number - Supersonic and Subsonic, Lineralised theory, Numerical Non-linear models (picking some topics from {{
cite book}} : Empty citation (
help)) No sources. |
Last edited at 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aerodynamics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aerodynamics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Under Conservation Laws the article asserts "Additionally, Bernoulli's equation is a solution to the momentum conservation equation of an inviscid flow that neglects gravity."
This is news to me since Bernoulli's equation has a term for gravity. Granted it's sometimes omitted when gravity is not relevant, but it's a stretch to say that it neglects gravity.
I propose saying "Additionally, Bernoulli's equation is a solution to the momentum conservation equation of an inviscid fluid."
Comments? Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The relationship as I understand it is that fluid dynamics is the study of liquids and gases and the changes they undergo due to processes such as heat, movement, and pressure, and gas dynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics.
I think the phrasing that aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics is confusing because fluid dynamics includes the study of gases.
THis is my justification for rewording the lead. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)