Talk:Hydraulics: Difference between revisions
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
==Hanging Gardens of Babylon== |
|||
How about you mention the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Iraq, arent those the first ones to develop the hydraulic engineering? |
How about you mention the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Iraq, arent those the first ones to develop the hydraulic engineering? |
Revision as of 22:59, 22 April 2009
Engineering Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Physics: Fluid Dynamics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Come help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics moink 23:10, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Fluid Power -> Hydraulics and Pneumatics
Both hydraulics and Pneumatics are sub-categories of Fluid Power. The discussion of the general principles should be in a new page Fluid Power with hydraulic and pneumatic covering specifics and referring back to Fluid Power. I'm willing to tackle Fluid Power. -RatOmeter
- Not sure that you're right. Surely things like sewer engineering and water transport are part of hydraulics.Cutler 18:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. The fact remains that fluid power deals with liquids and/or gases; hydraulics and pneumatics are specific to liquids and gases, respectively. Reference: http://www.nfpa.com/default.asp?pid=11 -User:RatOmeter
- I'll be interested to see what you come up with but I fear that there is a danger of some stuff getting lost. Cutler 18:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is desirable to add some explannation about how hydraulics actually works with some examples...
Car Hydraulics
Im looking for hydraulics like the ones on a car, can anyone redirect me?--72.79.126.240 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
One who works with hydraulics (and pneumatics too)
What do you call someone who works with pneumatics as a "as"? I.e. electrician is a trade job name for those that do wiring. A friend of mine says the trade job is "pipefitter". Any other insights? ~Gertlex 16:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) lol the person on top of my article didn't know how to spell degree and shes talking about pneumatics and hydraulics ffs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.194.83 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to fix many "hydraulics" links to "hydraulic cylinder"
Many (probably most) of the articles that link to "hydaulics" or "hydraulic" are really referring to technologies based on the hydraulic cylinder or hydraulic motor, and not to the general physical science of the properties of fluids. At the very least we need to fix those links to point straight to hydraulic cylinder. Arriving from articles like backhoe and getting an article that's not immediately pertinent and doesn't even link to one that is is very unhelpful; it's like clicking microprocessor and arriving at electricity. I've added a (rather badly worded, I confess) dab link at the top of this article - I think it's really necessary given how many bad links there are to this. I've also taken a todo to fix these, but I'm rather time-poor right now, so any help is appreciated. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- A very good point. Hydraulics can have two meanings:
- applied fluid dynamics, on one side of open water flows like rivers, canals, estuaries and seas, but also of pipe flows
- technology of actuators operated by (high-pressure) fluids
- So perhaps it is an idea to have two hydraulics articles, one for each field. And change this page into a disambiguation page. But I also do not have the time to do this myself. Crowsnest (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hydraulic machinery is more general than hydraulic cylinder and gives a good overview of the technology. Crowsnest (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is hydraulics a dead science?
This article is just a description of the history of hydraulics, which also seems to stop somewhere halfway the 19th century. This cannot be true: where is the description of the scientific methods used in hydraulics, what happened in the present computer era, etc.? As it is, the article is highly unbalanced, and the main part of the article should be moved to a new article "History of hydraulics". Crowsnest (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Confusion between religion and culture
The Muslim innovation section incorrectly represents Arabic innovations as being linked to religion rather than culture. While the section mentions Muslims and Islam again and again, the actual accomplishments listed are those of Arabic scientists and engineers. Arabs are generally Muslim, but there are many Muslims who are not Arabs. Since Roman accomplishments are listed by culture rather than religion, the same should be done for Arab accomplishments. The paragraph appears to be proselytizing for a specific religion even though religion had nothing to do with the advances described. Agateller (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would also prefer a non-religious related terminology. On the other hand, terms like Christian culture are also often used in a loose sense to denote cultural manifestations which are not necessarily religious. Maybe there are other articles (or sections in them) which have been named more neutral. Also some claims seem not very reliable: the water organ for instance seems more likely to have been invented in ancient Greece. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hanging Gardens of Babylon
How about you mention the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Iraq, arent those the first ones to develop the hydraulic engineering?