Talk:Mass flow rate

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SVClarke94, Lingzilong. Peer reviewers: Sara J Mahmoud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass 'flux'

Both this article and the Mass flux article start with a definition of mass flux.

Mass flow rate: 'In Physics and Engineering, mass flux is the rate of mass flow. ' Mass flux: 'In Physics and Engineering, mass flux is the rate of mass flow per unit area.'

From my understanding of the definition of flux, the one on the Mass flux page is correct? This should be per unit area. --Hiltonj (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General question

Why is mass flow the preferred flow rate in fluid mechanics? (69.156.39.48 16:42, 26 October 2006)

Upper or lower case

Why is capital 'V' used for the velocity. Normally a small 'v' is used for velocity, and in this field of study I personally take capitalized 'V' as the volume. -(130.225.50.23 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article is now using a lower case 'v' - Ac44ck (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal

Should mention, perhaps, that this only applies when the velocity is normal to the surface (kind of implied when te article says "cross sectional"). Otherwise, it's the surface intergral of the velocity times the unit vector normal to the surface. -(203.10.224.59 05:11, 27 July 2007)

Newton's notation

Would it be helpful to mention that the m(dot) notation is Newton's notation for a derivative? The apparent quantities 'dm' and 'dt' are not defined in the article. I suspect that purist mathematicians would not want them perceived as separate quantities. It may not be obvious to some that this is a derivative, which is an instantaneous value — not an average value, as may be inferred from the description in the article.

~~The article may be more accessible if the first formula was written as:~~

${\dot {m}}$ = ${\frac {\Delta m}{\Delta t}}$ .

~~But would it be accurate to use the m(dot) symbol in this form? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article was rearranged and link added to article on Newton's notation. -Ac44ck (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

It seems the mass flow rate article is primarily discussing mass flow per unit area, which is mass flux, no? So doesn't this content belong there, and is there any reason for this as a stand alone article separate and apart from mass flow? Dhaluza (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The mass flow rate article does not discuss "mass flow per unit area" — primarily or otherwise. So, no; this content doesn't belong in the mass flux article. If you want to merge the mass flow article with something else, place a tag on that talk page for discussion of that issue. - Ac44ck (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a definite difference between mass flux: mass/(area*time), mass flow-rate: mass/time, and volumetric flow-rate: volume/time. Lcolson (talk)

OK, true enough, mass flux is mass flow rate per unit area. Still, both are closely related topics, and would best be described in a single article, so the similarities and distinctions could be fully explained by comparing and contrasting. But probably it would be best to merge both into mass flow. Dhaluza (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to do this comparing and contrasting to fully explain the similarities and distinctions? Do you have a draft of what it would look like? An outline? It seems to me that the mass flow article has too much focus on specific applications. I don't see anything to be gained by combining this article with one that is less general in focus. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all very short articles. It's probably best to keep them together until one is expanded to the point where it can stand alone. Dhaluza (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care that much (provided the redirects were set-up right), but I don't think they should just be pasted together without a proper vetting of similarities and distinctions as the other commenter mentioned. The way I usually use this article (or at least have in the past), is just to look up the form of the equation for converting between mass flow, and volume flow; something that is readily done with it in its current state. I think a reader might get confused between terms without a proper vetting or a figure showing the differences. Lcolson (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]