Talk:Bingham plastic

Friction factor expression presented for turbulent-flow regime results unacceptable values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gornya (talk • contribs) 05:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it nessacary to have two figures for the same information?

It might be just me but i dont think that it is nessacary to have two identical graphs with only the X-Y axes reversed. This seems to only cloud the important information. I don't feel strongly enough about this to take it down but if more people agree with me then we might. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusyoder (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same axes. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensionless form or the Buckingham-Reiner equation does not have an appropriate citation

The citation that is given is for the original Buckingham equation, which has a dramatically different form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.152 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friction factor formulae

There's a formula for laminar flow ( $f$ _L), and another for turbulent flow ( $f$ _T). Whereas $f$ _T is defined, the reader has to infer that $f$ _L is for laminar flow, because it's not defined - although the first bullet is " $f$ is the laminar flow Darcy friction factor (SI units: dimensionless)" ... but $f$ is actually the Darcy friction factor from the first equation! I think the _L is missing from the definition of $f$ _L, so I've added it. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]