Talk:Shock wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon


I don't see how a shock wave can be electromagnetic, or otherwise propagate in free space. I think the defining difference between a sound wave and a shock wave is that non-linear effects are important in shock waves. David R. Ingham (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not didactic about it. Must be corrected/improved. About "electromagnetic shock waves" see Shock waves in astrophysics... Well, suggestions for re-writing fragments of the article? --Krauss (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

People's interest shock wave![edit]

The Meteor entering event at 2013-02-15 caused a peak in page views (pictured): the page views rose from 700 to 7000 in one day (!), the day of the Russian Meteor... When people not understand WHY stone fragments or explosion not caused damage (by heat or crash)... The unique damage was by this strange concept, the "meteor's shock wave".

  • First day: ~10 times more than average visitations (~7000 = 10 * ~700).
  • Second day (people reading about the event in the day after): ~18 times more than average visitations (~12500 = 18 * ~700).

This is a pulse wave phenomena, propagating "energy of interest" through the "Web medium"  :-)

--Krauss (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: not only Wikipedia links, but links of sites of news and Google searchs (ranking after Adobe Shockwave promotion) pointed Wikipedia Shock Wave page.

If you take as reference Saturdays only, the ratio at the 2nd day is about 27 instead of 18. --Rainald62 (talk)

Limit on density?[edit]

A colleage of mine remembers a calculation combining three basic laws of physics with the astonishing result that the density ratio before/after a schock in gases may not be larger than six. If this is true,

  • what are these laws?
  • are there limits of applicability? (dissociation, ionization)

--Rainald62 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He found the source. The answer is conservation of energy and mass, and the ideal diatomic gas. Obviously, this is not applicable to the bow shock in front of the meteor but only hundreds of meters away from its track.
--Rainald62 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"A shock wave travels through most media at a higher speed than an ordinary wave."[edit]

can this be cited or clarified? it suggests to me [FTL] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative spelling "shockwave"[edit]

Is “shockwave” really an alternate spelling for “shock”? I have half a dozen fluid mechanics and aerodynamics books at hand, and none of them use that spelling. Every time, it is introduced as “shock wave” and from there on just designated as “shock”. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are quite a few hits in Google Scholar. It's true that initially they seem to be dominated by therapeutic uses rather than articles on mechanics. I admit to being surprised by this; it may not be as common a spelling as I thought. --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You are correct! I found 1 and 2 which use that spelling in the domain of fluid mechanics. I think that is sufficient to keep it in the lead sentence without having to add a citation. Thank you Trovatore. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In supersonic flows ...[edit]

The section on supersonic flows contains the sentence "Shock waves form when the speed of a fluid changes by more than the speed of sound" which can't be right because it compares a change in speed with a speed. I assume what is meant is "speed of a fluid IS more than the speed of sound" but I don't want to edit an article on a subject I don't understand. oldrider (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "shock of type 1"[edit]

is used but not defined. oldrider (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)