Flow is laminar for a Newtonian fluid if the Re is less than 2000 to 4000 approximately. I think. I’m better with concepts than exact figures.[/quote]
This may be a function of the actual geometry of the object the fluid is flowing through or over. I dont know, I hate the Chem. E stuff (Im an ME), but for fluid flow over a single plate, laminar is if Re < 500,000. Maybe its different for fluid flow through a pipe, or between multiple plates or something of a different geometry.
Flow is laminar for a Newtonian fluid if the Re is less than 2000 to 4000 approximately. I think. I’m better with concepts than exact figures.[/quote]
This may be a function of the actual geometry of the object the fluid is flowing through or over. I dont know, I hate the Chem. E stuff (Im an ME), but for fluid flow over a single plate, laminar is if Re < 500,000. Maybe its different for fluid flow through a pipe, or between multiple plates or something of a different geometry.
Time to add something useful to this post. [/quote]
See, now I feel all nervous and lost… First off, is all this shit you guys are talkin bout legit math?
Cuz dayuum, I haven’t even heard of Laminars?!?
So…umm here’s a joke, I think… I dont get this either but maybe all the einstein’s in here will.
Kinda regreting bunkin off from school so much now lol
See, now I feel all nervous and lost… First off, is all this shit you guys are talkin bout legit math?
Cuz dayuum, I haven’t even heard of Laminars?!?
So…umm here’s a joke, I think… I dont get this either but maybe all the einstein’s in here will.
Kinda regreting bunkin off from school so much now lol
[/quote]
i is a symbol that represents an imaginary number, such as the negative square root of 1 (which is impossible to describe as a real number). So, instead of saying the square root of -2, you would say (i) * (the square root of 2).
Pi is an irrational number. It goes on and on and on, without repeating itself or having any sort of pattern. However, it is a real number. I like to think of irrational numbers as numbers that continue without repeating any pattern, or a number that cannot be expressed as a whole number or fraction. Whole numbers or fractions would be rational numbers.
Not exactly the proper way to describe it, but you get the point.
BTW, we are talking about some thermo/fluid dynamics type stuff. Laminar describes the type of flow of a newtonian fluid.
See, now I feel all nervous and lost… First off, is all this shit you guys are talkin bout legit math?
Cuz dayuum, I haven’t even heard of Laminars?!?
So…umm here’s a joke, I think… I dont get this either but maybe all the einstein’s in here will.
Kinda regreting bunkin off from school so much now lol
[/quote]
i is s symoble that represents an imaginary number, such as the negative square root of 1 (which is impossible to describe as a real number). So, instead of saying the square root of -2, you wuold say i * the square root of 2.
Pi is an irrational number. It goes on and on and on, without repeating itself or having any sort of pattern. However, it is a real number. I like to think of irrational numbers as numbers that continue without repeating any pattern, or a number that cannot be expressed as a whole number or fraction. Whole numbers or fractions would be rational numbers.
Not exactly the proper way to describe it, but you get the point.
BTW, we are talking about some thermo/fluid dynamics type stuff. Laminar describes the type of flow of a newtonian fluid.
Flow is laminar for a Newtonian fluid if the Re is less than 2000 to 4000 approximately. I think. I’m better with concepts than exact figures.[/quote]
This may be a function of the actual geometry of the object the fluid is flowing through or over. I dont know, I hate the Chem. E stuff (Im an ME), but for fluid flow over a single plate, laminar is if Re < 500,000. Maybe its different for fluid flow through a pipe, or between multiple plates or something of a different geometry.
Time to add something useful to this post. [/quote]
Yes, the Re laminar level does change with the geometry. For a flat plate, Laminar flow is at Re < 500,000. For a circular pipe laminar flow is at Re < some number btwn 2000 and 4000 (i dont remember)
Flow is laminar for a Newtonian fluid if the Re is less than 2000 to 4000 approximately. I think. I’m better with concepts than exact figures.[/quote]
This may be a function of the actual geometry of the object the fluid is flowing through or over. I dont know, I hate the Chem. E stuff (Im an ME), but for fluid flow over a single plate, laminar is if Re < 500,000. Maybe its different for fluid flow through a pipe, or between multiple plates or something of a different geometry.
Time to add something useful to this post. [/quote]
Yes, the Re laminar level does change with the geometry. For a flat plate, Laminar flow is at Re < 500,000. For a circular pipe laminar flow is at Re < some number btwn 2000 and 4000 (i dont remember)
[/quote]
My mistake, I should have thought about it a bit more before jumping in. All of my fluid flow study was concerned with circular or closed pipes, so I didn’t even think to consider the geometry of the flow. But I do remember that dynamic viscosity is defined as the ratio of the fluid’s shear stress to its velocity gradient!
[quote]smithers584 wrote:
Me and my buddy have been arguing about this for days (he is the idiot by the way):
Water at 15*C flows at 0.15m/s over a flat plate 1m long in the direction of the flow and 0.3cm wide. If the energy is transferred from the top and bottom surfaces of the plate to the flowing stream at a steady rate of 3500 Watts, what is the temperature of the plate surface?
The real question is, by the time we figure this out, who will have a bigger bench?[/quote]
First of all, you need to specify the material that the “plate” is made out of and its thermal conductivity in terms of watts/meter*kelven because watts alone is not a rate. 1m X 0.3cm is barely a plate, more a strip, almost a wire. With the numbers you gave, im getting a small reynolds number, we’ll assume its laminar. And I assume you mean that this is in a controlled envinronment with steady-state conditions? you’re also going to have to specify where along the “plate” the temperature is to be determined, unless you want the temperature gradient expressed as a function of the length(meters) along the plate.[/quote]
I haven’t read the whole thing, but I don’t care. The person who trains halfway reps will be better at halfway reps. The guy who does halfway reps is also a jackass, but that’s neither here nor there.
If Clone A raced Clones B through G in order to see who could drop Grade 11 physics faster, which clone (or clones) would have a F*ING clue whats going on in here?
