![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Picture of a submarine The picture of the submarine shows not laminar flow as stated in the description of the picture. The flow is only laminar for the first few centimeter from the leading edge of the submarine, assuming a critical Reynoldsnumber of 10000, and normal viscosity of water.
I am under the impression that inviscid flow is non-laminar. I think the point about inviscid flow should be changed to a point about creeping motion (Stokes flow) which is the exact opposite of inviscid flow - viscous effects are much greater than inertial effects. Any thoughts? Easyl 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and make the change Easyl 11:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This article says Laminar flow occurs when the Reynolds number is < 2040, but the Reynolds number article says Laminar flow occurs when Re < 2300. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungeh ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the diagrams; however, I wonder if you can please provide a picture of what a laminar jet of water looks like also? 69.243.26.39 ( talk) 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a history section to describe the chronological development of our understanding of laminar flow and the people responsible. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
the article made it sound like laminar/turbulent flow depended only on velocity but according to this it also depends on viscocity:
http://www.mit.edu/course/1/1.061/OldFiles/www/dream/SEVEN/SEVENTHEORY.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.18.32 ( talk) 06:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laminar flow. 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) 08:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
is this statement from the intro true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.13.86 ( talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence, defining laminar flow as one with "parallel flow" is attributed to Bachelor, but looking through his book, I cannot find this stated anywhere. Does anyone have a page or section number to match this, as neither 'laminar' nor 'turbulent' appear in the index or contents? Section 4.2, where he discusses some laminar flows, seems to explicitly limit itself to flows which are both laminar and parallel (because those flows are linear, and therefore have closed-form solutions, which are interesting to Bachelor as a mathematician). This doesn't seem to me to define laminar flows as parallel flows, but rather just seems to be a limiting the scope of the work? Pope, similarly, appears to introduce laminar flows by example, in his case Reynolds' pipe flow experiment. This, too, doesn't appear to be a rigorous definition, but rather his example happens to be parallel, and the reader is not told explicitly if this is a general statement or not. Unfortunately, it also seems like a more rigorous definition that does not rely on specific flow topology (eg: through energy dissipation) might not help introduce such a seemingly basic concept, so I cannot offer a resolution at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.60.90 ( talk) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Flow in rivers is almost never laminar. The distinction shown in a waterfall is between subcritical and supercritical flow.The picture of a waterfall should be removed. Mwikimeditr ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Picture of a submarine The picture of the submarine shows not laminar flow as stated in the description of the picture. The flow is only laminar for the first few centimeter from the leading edge of the submarine, assuming a critical Reynoldsnumber of 10000, and normal viscosity of water.
I am under the impression that inviscid flow is non-laminar. I think the point about inviscid flow should be changed to a point about creeping motion (Stokes flow) which is the exact opposite of inviscid flow - viscous effects are much greater than inertial effects. Any thoughts? Easyl 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and make the change Easyl 11:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This article says Laminar flow occurs when the Reynolds number is < 2040, but the Reynolds number article says Laminar flow occurs when Re < 2300. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungeh ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the diagrams; however, I wonder if you can please provide a picture of what a laminar jet of water looks like also? 69.243.26.39 ( talk) 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a history section to describe the chronological development of our understanding of laminar flow and the people responsible. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
the article made it sound like laminar/turbulent flow depended only on velocity but according to this it also depends on viscocity:
http://www.mit.edu/course/1/1.061/OldFiles/www/dream/SEVEN/SEVENTHEORY.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.18.32 ( talk) 06:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laminar flow. 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) 08:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
is this statement from the intro true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.13.86 ( talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence, defining laminar flow as one with "parallel flow" is attributed to Bachelor, but looking through his book, I cannot find this stated anywhere. Does anyone have a page or section number to match this, as neither 'laminar' nor 'turbulent' appear in the index or contents? Section 4.2, where he discusses some laminar flows, seems to explicitly limit itself to flows which are both laminar and parallel (because those flows are linear, and therefore have closed-form solutions, which are interesting to Bachelor as a mathematician). This doesn't seem to me to define laminar flows as parallel flows, but rather just seems to be a limiting the scope of the work? Pope, similarly, appears to introduce laminar flows by example, in his case Reynolds' pipe flow experiment. This, too, doesn't appear to be a rigorous definition, but rather his example happens to be parallel, and the reader is not told explicitly if this is a general statement or not. Unfortunately, it also seems like a more rigorous definition that does not rely on specific flow topology (eg: through energy dissipation) might not help introduce such a seemingly basic concept, so I cannot offer a resolution at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.60.90 ( talk) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Flow in rivers is almost never laminar. The distinction shown in a waterfall is between subcritical and supercritical flow.The picture of a waterfall should be removed. Mwikimeditr ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)