Physics: Fluid Dynamics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

This template was considered for merging with Template:Topics in continuum mechanics on 8 April 2014. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

It is a field that studies substances which are between solids and fluids. it mustn't be in solid mechanics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.Veradi (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we real ly need this equation as the header of this template?? It is applicable to only some of the topics. And it's a distraction. This template is supposed to be a navigation template. The equation does not help a user one whit in finding his/her way to the various articles. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jepp, in a war you're right. But I think a small picture makes the whole template a bit more attractive, as just a plain navigation template, it's some sort of an eye-catcher. And actually the continuity equation is one of the basic formula for all topics in cm. But if you find a better picture/formula feel free to replace it with it.(Sheliak 06:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I'm trying out a "volume conservation in incompressible fluid" diagram. I have also suggested a divergence theorem diagram, image:Divergence theorem.svg. I have left the equation inside of comment-brackets to make it easy to recover if there's no consensus on either of these (or another) image. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 12:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another suggestion: Image:2006-01-14 Surface waves.jpg I actually like this one better, so I'm changing to it. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 12:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Karl, well I'm pretty impressed on the Image:BernoullisLawDerivationDiagram.png image, would you mind if we use this one ? It looks good, it has more to do with physics and give new users an impression about FD, plus reminds the 'old guys' what the learnd from bernoulli. P.S. please use Image = ... instead of Label = ..., this scales the picture to the default size which is also used by Template:Cosmology and others. (Sheliak 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

No problem. I like them both. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(My apologies if I'm not following proper protocol, I am new to editing these boxes but I think it's important to point out this issue)

I find the current image and subtitle on this box misleading/confusing. The current image is a flow visualization and it currently says "Navier Stokes equations" below it. Since this toolbox covers many pages that are only tangentially related to fluids (e.g. solid mechanics page), it is confusing. If you load the wiki page on Solid Mechanics, you see an image of fluid flow and a reference to NS eqns via this toolbox. While I understand the connection via continuum mechanics, I think this would be very misleading/confusing to the casual observer. I suggest eliminating the image and equation. If you want to replace it with something, I would suggest using something that refers to the overall concept of continuum mechanics (relationship btwn characteristic length and mean free path, for example). simpleton100 (T)

This navbox uses valuable screen space at the top of the articles, with a picture that conveys no useful information.
Moreover, Wikipedia is not a textbook, it is a reference work. Few if any readers will want to read several articles of discipline in the sequence presented by a navbox. Readers almost always get to an article by searching for a specific topic, or by following a link embedded in the body of another article. Even readers who want to know about continuum mechanics in general will start from the Continuum mechanics article and surf from there theough embedded links. So, navboxes are mostly useless. Creating and maintaining navboxes and inserting them in articles is essentially a waste of effort that could be used to imprve article contents.
Therefore please consider eliminating this navbox, or at elast turning it into a horizontal navigation bar, to be placed at the end of the article -- like the Physics-footer bar already there. Thank you...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]