Talk:Compressor characteristic: Difference between revisions
{{WikiProject Engineering}} |
Agreed with commenter, and added that the article is badly written and needs to be re-written. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[User:Martin.sneesby|Martin.sneesby]] ([[User talk:Martin.sneesby|talk]]) 10:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:Martin.sneesby|Martin.sneesby]] ([[User talk:Martin.sneesby|talk]]) 10:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
ME TOO. |
|||
The usual and convenient form of presenting dynamic compressor performance is with Actual Volumetric Flow vs Head. |
|||
The whole article need re-writing, as it fails to properly describe the differences among the very different geometries of Centrifugal and Axial compressors, so Surge phenomena is badly described. Surge is a complex phenomena, and its control is necessarily a complex subject, that the article misses almost entirely. Amclaussen. |
|||
Revision as of 16:17, 6 September 2017
 | Engineering Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
I disagree that compressors maps are usually presented in dimensionless co-ordinates. IMO, actual volumetric flow vs polytropic head remains the industry standard.
The Buckingham Pi method might be mathematically elegant but it rarely captures the actual movement of compressor curves when the gas molecular weight changes. This is borne out by analysis of actual compressor performance data. I'd like to see some further evidence of the effectiveness of the dimensionless approach before claiming it as the preferred or standard approach.
Martin.sneesby (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
ME TOO. The usual and convenient form of presenting dynamic compressor performance is with Actual Volumetric Flow vs Head.
The whole article need re-writing, as it fails to properly describe the differences among the very different geometries of Centrifugal and Axial compressors, so Surge phenomena is badly described. Surge is a complex phenomena, and its control is necessarily a complex subject, that the article misses almost entirely. Amclaussen.