Talk:Convection (heat transfer)

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Equation variables

I agree with the comment below. It would be nice to have some formulas for estimating convective heat transfer. Drswenson (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives equations without explaining what the variables refer to. Also, it would be helpful to add an explanation of the equations beyond giving the meanings of the variables. Finally, the article doesn't explain how pumping a fluid results in cooling. Erik Zoltan 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta

Would anyone object to a small addition mentioning simple estimations of beta? I'll add it tomorrow if not. Chng3802B (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

The opener didn't quite get the meaning or process of convection across to me (the "what it is"). I see that the article convection defines it more clearly so I'll add a little (see convection after the first definition). Seems that this page deals with more complex equations involved in the process than the other page. Maybe this page should be split in three? (don't know the wikipedia guidline for this case)... 1 page refering to Convective heat transfer as the adj: "of or partaining to convective heat" or something, and 1 page for each of the two types of convective heat types (although I can see the benafit of keeping the two mathmatical properties on the same page, but seperate from the other). I'm no expert on the subject so maybe I'm way off base here.Xetxo (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be apropriate to name the page Convection (maths) to destiguish the pages purpose (if I even have the purpose right).Xetxo (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Convection.

Hi I am presently taking a class in heat transfer.

Perhaps this gives me a "to technical" view of convection, but when a fluid moves heat from one place to another that is called Advection.

Convection is heat transfer from a surface to a moving fluid. Well at least in the context of my heat transfer text book.

The distinction between convection and advection is discussed on the article on advection, but not in this article. However perhaps I am taking to narrow of a view here. I could however provide a citation from a current engineering text book on the definition of convection within the mechanical engineering field of heat transfer. StressTensor (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the surface-->fluid transfer used as part of the definition. Generally, texts say that convection consists of heat advection + heat diffusion (i.e. conduction) in a fluid. After all, many mass-type things can be advected by a fluid other than heat, and not all of them "diffuse" as well (large particles of mass do not diffuse well, for example).

However, that said, perhaps the definition your texts give and the one here end up functionally being the same definition, as note that it takes diffusion to get heat back and forth through the boundary layer between a solid and a moving fluid, so BOTH mechanisms of heat transfer in "convection" (heat diffusion = conduction AND heat advection) are needed in the case of solid<->fluid heat transfer. So defining convection in those terms (the ones your text gives) explicitly means that some process other than pure heat-advection (ie, diffusion/conduction, also) must be involved. See the point? S B H arris 22:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having a very careful look at how convection is defined in my text, I have to agree that the existence of a bounding surface is not required in the definition of convection. Rather heat transfer from a bounding surface to a fluid is an important type of convection which is of great interest to mechanical engineers. In fact this special type of convection (from bounding surface to fluid) is that type I have been studying. To quote from my text.

Thus far we have focused on heat transfer by conduction and have considered convection only to the extent that it provides a possible boundary condition for conduction problems. In section 1.2.2 we used the term convection to describe energy transfer between a surface and a fluid moving over the surface. Convection includes energy transfer by both the bulk fluid motion (advection) and random motion of fluid molecules (conduction).

(the quite below is from page 6 of Introduction to heat transfer, Incropera DeWitt VBergham Lavine 2007 ISBN-13 978-471-45727-5 The quote above is from the same text, pg 348 the first paragraph of chapter 6 introduction to convection)

The convection heat transfer mode is comprised to two mechanisms. In addition to energy transfer due to random molecular motion (diffusion), energy is also transferred by bulk, or macroscopic, motion of the fluid. This motion is associated with the fact that, at any instant, large numbers of molecules are moving collectively or as aggregates. Such motion, in the presence of a temperature gradient, contributes to heat transfer. Because the molecules in aggregate retain their random motion, the total heat transfer is then due to the superposition of energy transport by random motion of the molecules and by the bulk motion of the fluid. It is customary to use the term convection when referring to this cumulative transport and the term advection when referring to the transport due to bulk fluid motion. We are especially interested in convection heat transfer, which occurs between a fluid in motion and a bounding surface when the two are at different temperatures.

StressTensor (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There you go, then. The article already has it exactly right. If you would, perhaps you can add your quotes there as cites. S B H arris 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey added the quote from Dewitt as you suggested. I like that the article is becoming more well sources, but now the introduction has a certain degree of redundant text. Maybe someone with more knowledge could help to trim it down a bit? In any case, I am happy that it now makes clear the distinction between advection and convection very clearly.

StressTensor (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prandtl number?

I think many of your readers would be interested in knowing more about the role that the Prandtl_number and Nusselt_number play in convective heat transfer. The present article does not even mention these and maybe it would be better if it did? StressTensor (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be better, and please do. The Prandtl and Nusselt numbers are the major reason why the effective heat transfer coefficient h in convective heat transfer is NOT linearly dependent on temperature. This article actually implies the opposite, by analyzing a case of convective cooling which has a Newton's law behavior (transfer proportional = linearly dependent on T gradient). Of course that is ONLY is seen when h is independent of delta-T. I'll fix it with a caveat and qualification that this is the case only across short temperature-intervals in convection (or in the steady state where delta-T is constant), but otherwise (particularly for many configurations in free convection) is not generally the case.S B H arris 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they misnomers, Heat reservoir and heat content?

Stated in [[1]], there appear the names "heat reservoir" and "heat content".

Being heat, by definition, transient energy, I think that this phrasing is misleading. Don't you agree?

It's easy enough to change all the "heat content" stuff to "thermal energy content" to avoid that. The newest definitions all demand that heat be used only to refer to transient energy flow across boundaries, but it wasn't always that way, you know. Once upon a time, objects had "heat content" rather than thermal energy content. As still implied by the idea that they have "heat capacity." Which once upon a time actually was meant to imply that the heat was (in some sense) still IN them, even after it had been absorbed and used to heat them. NOW we're politically correct and say that once the heat is in, it must be called "thermal energy." Politics. S B H arris 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian section a misnomer

It seems to me that the Newtonian section here assumes that the convective transfer is close to 0, and is therefore not a representation of convective transfer (and more closely related to conductive transfer). Am I misinterpreting this in any way? Techhead7890 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later experiments to correct this law were conducted in a vacuum, so I suspect you're onto something, but I'm not going to bruise my high-school physics trying to puzzle this out. — MaxEnt 10:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's law of cooling

I would certainly support this becoming a separate page if an editor came along with decent reference works concerning the historical context of Newton's investigations. I didn't find a lot in a quick search. I did find one PPT which claimed that Newton used a modern-style thin tube thermometer filled with linseed oil, marked in a "Celsius" scale (perhaps centigrade would be the more correct term). It also pointed out that Newton's law is correct even though his own experiment disagreed, due to experimental effects such as convection within the thermometer itself. It wasn't up to cite-worthy standards, though. It seems Newton himself only regarded his law as valid for temperature differences up to 10 degrees C.— MaxEnt 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's law of cooling happens in many circumstances, some convective, some conductive. It deserves its own article as a mechanistic phenomenon, even absent a history section, and it used to have one. Then some lumper-editor person stuck it here. I'll give everybody a few days to comment, and then assume that silence implies consent, start a Newton's Law of Cooling article, then spin this section off per WP:SS, leaving a small summary section behind. That needs be done also, referencing this "law" in several other heat transfer articles. S B H arris 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of information

I have just cleaned up the article on Convection and removed a lot of good information on convective heat transfer. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Convection&oldid=1014775282 A lot of the removed information should be recovered to this article.

Requested move 7 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Convection (heat transfer) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convective heat transfer → Convection (Heat Transfer) – To help eliminate confusion between the different physical phenomena which are described by the same name in different contexts. 60.242.168.210 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). OCouch (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Convection (Heat transfer) now exists and redirects to Convective heat transfer. Maybe this one should stay, but the fluid dynamics Convection should move to Convection (Fluid dynamics)?

Copied from Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests:
- Improper use of caps, not providing WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Or move to Convection (heat transfer)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, Convection (Heat transfer) now exists and redirects to Convective heat transfer. Maybe this one should stay, but the fluid dynamics Convection should still move to Convection (Fluid dynamics) or Convection (Fluid mechanics)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by OCouch (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct WP:QUALIFIER would be Convection (heat transfer). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 15:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Convection (heat transfer) Convection is the primary topic, that should stay where it is. Convective heat transfer is the transportation of heat via convective flow of a fluid, so is an example of Convection in action. But since it is commonly simply termed Convection the suggested disambiguation is appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Convection (heat transfer), NOT the originally proposed capitalisation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heat tranfer

Convetion 69.160.112.122 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]