Talk:Steady state

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to merge. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current disambiguation list does not really disambiguate between different uses, as they all boil down to the concept of a steady state as used in dynamic systems theory. Hence, the concept should perhaps be explained in detail on Steady state, with a brief listing of applications in different fields (perhaps with links to a corresponding main article), and with see also links to Steady state theory, Engine test stand and Homeostasis. -- Mietchen (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the links mentioned above (plus a few more). Good starting points for realizing the merger might be Dynamic equilibrium or Steady state (chemistry). -- Mietchen (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree -- I think the use in special fields is distinctive, and I suggest that they in general remain, certain the ones for biochemistry and chemistry:

• Steady state (biochemistry), a central term in osmosis
• Steady state (chemistry), a central term in chemical kinetics
• Steady state (electronics), a state existing in a circuit or network when all transients have died away
• Steady state (macroeconomics), where a time series variable reaches when its growth rate in time remains constant
• Steady state (chemical engineering), a central term in the execution of unit operations
• Steady state (physiology)

They all have independent literature, and are part of different subjects, even though they are based upon the same systems approach. I note the use of some of these long antedated formal systems theory.

even more so Steady state theory, a non-standard cosmological view developed in 1949 by Fred Hoyle and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, is certainly a very distinctive concept quite different in implication from the others,and must have a separate article. DGG (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article and the Steady state (disambiguation) could and should be merged. The term "Steady state" is basically a formal term without any specific meaning. Adding a listing and references to the specific meanings to this article should be a good thing.

Further more I think two of the smaller articles Steady state (macroeconomics) and Steady state (biochemistry) could be merged in here, as long there is not more to say about these subjects.

-- Mdd (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, Steady state (chemistry) is integral part of chemistry cannot possibly merged. V8rik (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: these are all very different in each field. Since Mietchen hasn't even defended the idea for over 3 months, I'm going to edit boldly and remove the merge proposal from this page.--Hraefen ^Talk 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some or all properties unchanging?

"This implies that for any property p of the system, the partial derivative with respect to time is zero"

In the cosmological Steady State Theory, the amount of matter in the universe and the size of the universe are known to be changing.

So something seems to be wrong. Some properties don't change, but maybe others do. Or am I wrong? CountMacula (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but seven months after my remark above, the intro is still crap.

"A system in a steady state has numerous properties that are unchanging in time." Numerous implies more than one. Are there no steady-state systems with exactly one unchanging property? "This implies that for any property p of the system, the partial derivative with respect to time is zero". I see no such implication. "Numerous" does not imply "all".

"for any property p of the system, the partial derivative with respect to time is zero" So if "properties" are the only things observable, then no change whatsoever is observable.

If the speed of a particle is unchanging and non-zero, then its position is changing. So if "speed" in general is a property, then "position" is not a property.

Therefore it seems like crap.

Somebody who knows what they are talking about please fix this. Thank you.

CountMacula (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur; if I take the point of view of a specified geometric or geographic point in a system, say fluid flow through a pipe, then if the fluid flow at that point is fully developed, the properties of the system at that point are unchanging; however, if I take the point of view of a particle in the system (even in fully developed flow and nothing else is changing), my position is changing, therefore _not_ steady state (per the definition provided so far). Michael Hodgson (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Dubious-Discuss tag

The example of the bathtub is clearly an example about Physics, not Chemical engineering. Grausvictor (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A chemical engineering system is only marginally more complicated, and I would argue that the added complexity is uneeded in a simple example. In a chemical engineering probelm, considering a mixed bath with steady state in-flow and outflow is a normal problem. Would it be more clear that it is chemical engineering if we instead look at how a bath withtwo inlet flows with different components and one outlet flow eventually cause a steady state composition of the bath (see: Continuous_stirred-tank_reactor)? EpicScizor (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Physics

Explain the term of steady state 42.111.97.5 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)