![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Kort nozzle page were merged into Ducted propeller on March 17, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
See Ducted Fan: Am I understanding correctly that "ducted propeller" is the in-water type, while the in-air operating object is called Ducted Fan ? Or what is the difference?
Problem comes from german wikipedia: Article "
de:Mantelpropeller" translates to "
Ducted propeller", but is linked to "
Ducted fan".
People are arguing about
"a fan (
Turbofan) (blade ) is not a propeller because a propeller bases on generating
Aerodynamic force/
Lift (force) (
Airfoil), while a
Turbofan blade works mainly with
impulse and bare
Acceleration of the air (no frontward ≈aerodynamic lift≈)".
--
129.247.247.239 (
talk)
09:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I merged Kort nozzle here, and that article had an aerodynamics diagram that appeared to mostly duplicate the one here. I've included it here for reference.
![]() | |
dT = Thrust |
pu: Negative pressure |
D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I still believe the physics explanation is incorrect. One purpose of the duct is to reduce circulation. Circulation is a loss in efficiency, not an advantage. The duct allows the fan (propeller) to see cruise-like conditions even at zero velocity. This reduces tip losses. There are always many different explanations for the physics of lift/thrust, but I believe the circulation explanation is obviously flawed. Drawn from Ducted Fan Design Volume 1 Millenial Year Edition - 2001 by F Marc de Piolenc & George Wright Jr. Dude6935 ( talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ducted propeller. 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) 11:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Under the heading "Advantages and disadvantages", the fourth paragraph states "...ice or any other floating object can become jammed between the wheel and nozzle, locking up the wheel. Fouled wheels in Kort nozzles are much more difficult to clear than open wheels". (emphases added) What is meant by "wheels"? The subject is "propellors". Could this be the result of a translation error? Bricology ( talk) 19:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently says: "a marine propeller fitted with a non-rotating nozzle".
So what's a rotating nozzle then? Do those even exist? I feel what is trying to be conveyed here, is the fact that the shroud surrounding the propeller is fixed to the housing that bears the propeller. (I can't find a good way to put it succinctly either.) The problem I see is that Kort nozzle assemblies are often mounted so they can pivot - as the article states, to act as the primary steering mechanism instead of a conventional rudder. Could this not be described as "a rotating nozzle"? Therefore I feel a wording is necessary that doesn't confuse the layman right in the very first sentence of the article. --
BjKa (
talk)
13:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Kort nozzle page were merged into Ducted propeller on March 17, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
See Ducted Fan: Am I understanding correctly that "ducted propeller" is the in-water type, while the in-air operating object is called Ducted Fan ? Or what is the difference?
Problem comes from german wikipedia: Article "
de:Mantelpropeller" translates to "
Ducted propeller", but is linked to "
Ducted fan".
People are arguing about
"a fan (
Turbofan) (blade ) is not a propeller because a propeller bases on generating
Aerodynamic force/
Lift (force) (
Airfoil), while a
Turbofan blade works mainly with
impulse and bare
Acceleration of the air (no frontward ≈aerodynamic lift≈)".
--
129.247.247.239 (
talk)
09:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I merged Kort nozzle here, and that article had an aerodynamics diagram that appeared to mostly duplicate the one here. I've included it here for reference.
![]() | |
dT = Thrust |
pu: Negative pressure |
D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I still believe the physics explanation is incorrect. One purpose of the duct is to reduce circulation. Circulation is a loss in efficiency, not an advantage. The duct allows the fan (propeller) to see cruise-like conditions even at zero velocity. This reduces tip losses. There are always many different explanations for the physics of lift/thrust, but I believe the circulation explanation is obviously flawed. Drawn from Ducted Fan Design Volume 1 Millenial Year Edition - 2001 by F Marc de Piolenc & George Wright Jr. Dude6935 ( talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ducted propeller. 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) 11:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Under the heading "Advantages and disadvantages", the fourth paragraph states "...ice or any other floating object can become jammed between the wheel and nozzle, locking up the wheel. Fouled wheels in Kort nozzles are much more difficult to clear than open wheels". (emphases added) What is meant by "wheels"? The subject is "propellors". Could this be the result of a translation error? Bricology ( talk) 19:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently says: "a marine propeller fitted with a non-rotating nozzle".
So what's a rotating nozzle then? Do those even exist? I feel what is trying to be conveyed here, is the fact that the shroud surrounding the propeller is fixed to the housing that bears the propeller. (I can't find a good way to put it succinctly either.) The problem I see is that Kort nozzle assemblies are often mounted so they can pivot - as the article states, to act as the primary steering mechanism instead of a conventional rudder. Could this not be described as "a rotating nozzle"? Therefore I feel a wording is necessary that doesn't confuse the layman right in the very first sentence of the article. --
BjKa (
talk)
13:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)