This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the Flow through nozzles page were merged into De Laval nozzle and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I notice that jet, the gem, is completely absent from Wikipedia! There's a bit about it here. It's the source of the term "jet black". — Hippietrail 00:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
This article should at least note the fact that most chemical and mechanical engineers as well as many thermodynamicists more commonly define the parameter z as being (k − 1) / k, where the isentropic expansion factor k = cp/cv, rather than (cp − cv) / cp. In fact, in my entire career 45+ years as a chemical engineer, I have never seen before seen z defined as it is in this article.
I think the definition of z should be changed to the more common usage that I noted above. What do others think? - mbeychok 05:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this very incorrect equation has now been spread all over the world as evidenced by how many hits it get when searching for "gas jet" on Google. I have decided to rewrite this stub completely. - mbeychok 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just finished redoing this article completely and expanding it as well. - mbeychok 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has a strange title. I think this could be solved by merging into nozzle which is a bit weak atm. -- MarSch 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has just been merged into a new article, Rocket engine nozzles, along with de Laval nozzle, Nozzle, and Exhaust velocity. - mbeychok 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What the? You do know they aren't only used on rockets? They're used on jet engines, and they're also used on various chemical and fluid processing systems. Don't you think you should have discussed this? WolfKeeper 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the mergers and I'm happy that flow through nozzle and exhaust velocity were merged into a bigger article. I don't think it was a good idea to redirect nozzle to rocket engine nozzle even though a large part of the text was about rocket engines. Mbeychok has already stated that he thinks there should also be a nozzle article for non-rocket engine uses so we are in agreement on that. According to the jet engine article, a rocket engine is an example of a jet engine, one which happens to be propelling a rocket. The jet engine article is also much further down the featured article path at a quick glance. It even discusses (engine) nozzles! I think it would be a good idea to consider jet engine as the main article and to try to use wikipedia:summary style to make everything which is too large a separate article, but also to make everything which is too small not a separate article. I have the feeling that rocket engine duplicates much of jet engine. Anyway... please comment. -- MarSch 15:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
MarSch: I must say that I am surprised at your saying: I don't think it was a good idea to redirect nozzle to rocket engine nozzle even though a large part of the text was about rocket engines. Especially since it was your original idea to merge nozzle with Flow through nozzles. Here is your original idea:
I think this article has a strange title. I think this could be solved by merging into nozzle which is a bit weak atm. --MarSch 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you changed your mind? - mbeychok 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the Flow through nozzles page were merged into De Laval nozzle and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I notice that jet, the gem, is completely absent from Wikipedia! There's a bit about it here. It's the source of the term "jet black". — Hippietrail 00:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
This article should at least note the fact that most chemical and mechanical engineers as well as many thermodynamicists more commonly define the parameter z as being (k − 1) / k, where the isentropic expansion factor k = cp/cv, rather than (cp − cv) / cp. In fact, in my entire career 45+ years as a chemical engineer, I have never seen before seen z defined as it is in this article.
I think the definition of z should be changed to the more common usage that I noted above. What do others think? - mbeychok 05:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this very incorrect equation has now been spread all over the world as evidenced by how many hits it get when searching for "gas jet" on Google. I have decided to rewrite this stub completely. - mbeychok 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just finished redoing this article completely and expanding it as well. - mbeychok 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has a strange title. I think this could be solved by merging into nozzle which is a bit weak atm. -- MarSch 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has just been merged into a new article, Rocket engine nozzles, along with de Laval nozzle, Nozzle, and Exhaust velocity. - mbeychok 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What the? You do know they aren't only used on rockets? They're used on jet engines, and they're also used on various chemical and fluid processing systems. Don't you think you should have discussed this? WolfKeeper 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the mergers and I'm happy that flow through nozzle and exhaust velocity were merged into a bigger article. I don't think it was a good idea to redirect nozzle to rocket engine nozzle even though a large part of the text was about rocket engines. Mbeychok has already stated that he thinks there should also be a nozzle article for non-rocket engine uses so we are in agreement on that. According to the jet engine article, a rocket engine is an example of a jet engine, one which happens to be propelling a rocket. The jet engine article is also much further down the featured article path at a quick glance. It even discusses (engine) nozzles! I think it would be a good idea to consider jet engine as the main article and to try to use wikipedia:summary style to make everything which is too large a separate article, but also to make everything which is too small not a separate article. I have the feeling that rocket engine duplicates much of jet engine. Anyway... please comment. -- MarSch 15:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
MarSch: I must say that I am surprised at your saying: I don't think it was a good idea to redirect nozzle to rocket engine nozzle even though a large part of the text was about rocket engines. Especially since it was your original idea to merge nozzle with Flow through nozzles. Here is your original idea:
I think this article has a strange title. I think this could be solved by merging into nozzle which is a bit weak atm. --MarSch 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you changed your mind? - mbeychok 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)