Talk:Fluid dynamics

This article very badly needs some attention by an expert

This article needs to be formatted into coherent sections ... as it now stands, it is just one very long section.

I split the very long list of "major subfields" into 3 columns and also culled out 2-3 of the list. I find it very difficult to believe that all of the listed items are truly "major subfields" of fluid dynamics. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that many of them really belong in the "Related Articles" subpage. Someone who is an expert in this field should pick out the truly "major subfields" to be left in the main article and re-locate the other items to the "Related Articles" subpage.

The article also needs the "Bibliography" subpage to be created and populated. Milton Beychok 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plan to reduce list of 43 subfields to 13 subfields

Since no one has come forth to shorten the current list of 43 subfields, I plan to reduce that list to 13 as follows unless there is a consensus not to do do:

Acoustics Aerodynamics Computation Fluid Dynamics Electrohydrodynamics Flow control Flow measurement Hydraulics

Hydrodynamics Hydrostatics Magnetohydrodynamics Rheology Quantum hydrodynamics Vortex dynamics

Let me hear from you. Milton Beychok 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about this stuff but to be readable we definitely do not need to focus on so many subsets. Even 13 is a lot for an article. I think there is a place for the specific articles but that does not mean they all have to be discussed in detail, or even at all, in this parent article. They can be in the related article page, where the definitions will give some context. Chris Day 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, the plan would be to include the other 30 subfields in the Related Articles subpage. Milton Beychok 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear, but I think you are on the right track. And could be even more draconian. Chris Day 16:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I had to find out what Rheology was. Cut even farther. Flow control, which may need to be disambiguated, flow measurement, and perhaps hydraulics are, to me, more engineering disciplines that make use of fluid dynamics than being subsets of fluid dynamics. "Computation Fluid Dynamics" should be computational fluid dynamics, which I think is close enough.

There could well be a separate section of engineering usages, which also would pick up a number of critical nuclear weapons technologies such as hydrodynamic and hydronuclear testing. I'm also not sure that acoustics is part of the science, although oceanographic data is extremely important in applications — not just military, but my more current work in commercial fishing and marine electronics. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)