[Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time

[Randy O. Wayne]

Dear Olivier,
Thanks for the question and the chance for me to correct another mistake.
The physicsl diameter of the tubes were 1.27 cm = ½ inch.

Why I used 2.54 cm to calculate the Reynolds Number, I do not know. It could be that I usually calculate the charcateristic length of cellular structures from the radius and usually double the radius to get a characteristic length...and here I most likely mindlessly doubled the "diameter" which of course is wrong. It seems to me that the Reynolds numbers I calculated are twice as large as they should be: 12,700 should actually be 6,350, which is greater than 2,300 and thus still indicative of turbulent flow.
Thanks,
Randy




From: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] On Behalf Of O. Serret
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:31 PM
To: physics at tuks.nl
Subject: Re: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time

Dear Randy,

Thank you for your explanation. I will be very interested to know the result if you can do the experience with another fluid.

And I have a question on the experiment you did. You write :
> page 298 : copper tubes ½ inch (= 1.27 cm)
> page 298 : the tubes were five feet long with an internal diameter of 1.27 cm.
> page 301 :  the characteristic length or diameter of the pipe X = 2.54 × 10-2 m

Which internal diameter did you use ? 2.54 or 1.27 cm ?

Thank you, and best regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161110/c351746d/attachment.html>