Talk:Rheology: Difference between revisions
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The article says: |
The article says: |
||
<...> rheology is principally concerned with extending the "classical" disciplines of ELASTICITY and Newtonian fluid mechanics <...> |
<...> rheology is principally concerned with extending the "classical" disciplines of ELASTICITY and Newtonian fluid mechanics <...> |
||
: Modified. --[[User:Kijacob|Kijacob]] ([[User talk:Kijacob|talk]]) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
but in the diagram we see that it is related with PLASTICITY and Newtoniam fuild mechanics. Which is the correct? |
but in the diagram we see that it is related with PLASTICITY and Newtoniam fuild mechanics. Which is the correct? |
||
nopes read it again <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.164.33.194|202.164.33.194]] ([[User talk:202.164.33.194|talk]]) 07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
nopes read it again <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.164.33.194|202.164.33.194]] ([[User talk:202.164.33.194|talk]]) 07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
This will take a little more work to address in a coherent way, I will work on it. --[[User:Kijacob|Kijacob]] ([[User talk:Kijacob|talk]]) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The article also claims that engineering is not considered part of rheology. This is inaccurate. The current president of the Society of Rheology is a chemical engineer. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.112.34.254|128.112.34.254]] ([[User talk:128.112.34.254|talk]]) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The article also claims that engineering is not considered part of rheology. This is inaccurate. The current president of the Society of Rheology is a chemical engineer. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.112.34.254|128.112.34.254]] ([[User talk:128.112.34.254|talk]]) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: Modified. --[[User:Kijacob|Kijacob]] ([[User talk:Kijacob|talk]]) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Something is missing/wrong in this sentence: "One of the tasks of rheology is to empirically establish the relationships between deformations and stresses, respectively their derivatives by adequate measurements." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.97.51.232|93.97.51.232]] ([[User talk:93.97.51.232|talk]]) 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Something is missing/wrong in this sentence: "One of the tasks of rheology is to empirically establish the relationships between deformations and stresses, respectively their derivatives by adequate measurements." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.97.51.232|93.97.51.232]] ([[User talk:93.97.51.232|talk]]) 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
: modified |
|||
--[[User:Kijacob|Kijacob]] ([[User talk:Kijacob|talk]]) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Rheological Additives == |
== Rheological Additives == |
Revision as of 16:43, 11 September 2011
Physics: Fluid Dynamics C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Rheology vs Fluid Dynamics?
The relation between rheolohy and fluid dynamics?
- Rheology is a subset of Fluid Dynamics. Still 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Deborah Number
There is a note in the section of the Deborah number that it does not apply for the Voigt-model solids. Though in the book 'Contact Mechanics' by K.L. Johnson (and other literature referred to) the Deborah number is used as a dimensionless measure of perceived viscosity of viscoelastic media. Since the Voigt model describes viscoelastic media, I do not understand why this note is included. It remains dimensionless measure of viscosity in both cases. Anyone any thought? Otherwise my suggestion is to remove it here and on the page of the Deborah number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.16.57 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are several inaccuracies in this article. One is the limitation on Deborah number, the other one was pointed out below, related to the statement "In practice, rheology is principally concerned with extending the "classical" disciplines of elasticity and (Newtonian) fluid mechanics to materials whose mechanical behaviour cannot be described with the classical theories". I don't understand what they mean by extending to behavior that cannot be described by classical theories - almost everything about continuum rheology is classical. There are few others. I am not sure whether Wikipedia got this article from http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Rheology.html or they got it from here. In any case there are few other miss-statements that needs to be addressed. --Kijacob (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to comment out this line: "Note that the Deborah number is relevant for materials that flow on long time scales (like a Maxwell fluid) but not for the reverse kind of materials (Kelvin–Voigt materials) that are viscous on short time scales but solid on the long term". From what I understand, this is not really true. But if anyone disagrees, please let me know. In the ideal cases, for a Maxwell material, the relaxation time is shorter, a Kelvin material will show a larger relaxation time, and a pure elastic solid (without any viscosity) will have a very very large but probably finite relaxation time, depending on the temperature. For a fixed observation time (thus, keeping the denominator a constant), the Deborah numbers only say that the elastic material is more solid than the Kelvin material, which has more solid like behavior than Maxwell material, and a purely viscous fluid is the least solid like. Also this book ([1] Rheological methods in food process engineering by James Freeman Steffe, page 333, Eq. 5.65 )clearly uses Deborah number for a Kelvin material. --Kijacob (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Error?
The article says: <...> rheology is principally concerned with extending the "classical" disciplines of ELASTICITY and Newtonian fluid mechanics <...>
- Modified. --Kijacob (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
but in the diagram we see that it is related with PLASTICITY and Newtoniam fuild mechanics. Which is the correct? nopes read it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.33.194 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC) This will take a little more work to address in a coherent way, I will work on it. --Kijacob (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The article also claims that engineering is not considered part of rheology. This is inaccurate. The current president of the Society of Rheology is a chemical engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.34.254 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Modified. --Kijacob (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Something is missing/wrong in this sentence: "One of the tasks of rheology is to empirically establish the relationships between deformations and stresses, respectively their derivatives by adequate measurements." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.51.232 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- modified
--Kijacob (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Rheological Additives
This site has a great, easy to read explanation of rheology: http://www.specialchem4coatings.com
- ^ [http://books.google.com/books?id=LrrdONuST9kC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=kelvin+solid+deborah+number&source=bl&ots=kYRNnBbea4&sig=WpYzVGdqJNAigfeo4r-Xg7E3nZk&hl=en&ei=cPxrTp-VIdS4twfuqMTcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kelvin%20solid%20deborah%20number&f=false Rheological methods in food process engineering by James Freeman Steffe, page 333, Eq. 5.65