Talk:Minor losses in pipe flow

Peer review edits complete

-Added introduction title

-changed language to third person

-edited language like "big"

-added head loss chart

-split up friction losses and total losses.

Responses to Peer Reviews

Amanda-

-I will definitely title the introduction. I like the suggestion of replacing the word big. And thanks for catching the first person usage.

-I plan to add a chart for the common head losses, I am just waiting on feedback from the source.

-I also like the idea of and example and ties to the real world.

William:

-Thanks for the suggestion on spplitting up the total head loss into two sections. I think that is a great idea and I agree it will help with the white space. Llavecch (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Llavecch. Peer reviewers: AmandaLevenson, Ebeginnings.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer review from Ebeginnings

Please put a header section on introduction. The first sentence could be reworded to omit the "big" in it. Please refrain from using first person in this article, it distracts from the main subject matter.

I like you explanation of kinetic energy factor. It may be beneficial to provide a physical chart of common head loss factors and their values.

Example calculations and a history section may make this article more inviting.

The addition of a real life application would also benefit the article greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeginnings (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

Overall, you did a good job at explaining the subject matter. Your grammar was good.
However, I think the part of Total Head Losses can be separated into 2 parts or friction losses can be placed as a subheading. The article will have more white space for audience to make some distinguishes. Huywilliam (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

(I accidentally added this to the student editor's personal talk page when I initially posted these comments)

Things that were done well:

1. I think the introduction sets up the paper well. It briefly describes what minor losses are, where they occur and why they’re important to understand. It's great because if I just wanted a quick overview, I could get it from that paragraph, but if I wanted more, I can get more in-depth descriptions!

2. The report is unbiased and easy to follow. I like that it gives the equations for people who want to know them, but is simple enough for people who don’t know anything to get a general sense of what’s going on.

3. Good use of sources – there are a variety throughout the paper and multiple to support certain statements.

4. Overall I think you did a good job encompassing what minor losses in pipe flow are (at various levels) and how you can calculate them! I think the chart you're planning on adding with the kinetic factors will be a really good addition to the article, too.

Things to improve: (Not as bad as this list looks! Most of the text is just describing my suggestions!)

1. “Minor losses are…” should continue with either a “big part OF” or “play a big part IN”

2. In the intro when you say “friction and minor losses in pipes...” I would just add in that together they equal total head loss. I know you describe this in the Total Head Losses section, but because it’s its own section, I think a brief reference to it in the beginning would be helpful to unfamiliar readers.

3. Do Wikipedia articles use “we”? I like the way you discuss what the article will cover, but I don’t think I’ve seen articles that use first person.

4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, I think you should add another sentence or two about the significance of minor losses beyond equations and in applications, so what kind of systems are you designing that would require Bernoulli analysis (e.g. oil refining or water purification systems)? Maybe this could lead to a brief Applications section?

5. I would move “The kinetic energy factor is used to calculate…” after the first sentence of the “Minor Losses” and before the chart you’re going to add. If I didn’t know what Ev is, I think my first instinct would be, what’s that? And then I would be looking at meaningless numbers. I would also explicitly say that with a bigger Ev, the lead loss is greater so then the flow of the fluid goes down (it’s probably intuitive by the equations, but I think it would help clarify what people are calculating).

6. “Before being able to use the minor head losses in an equation…” I’d either link to the Bernoulli Wikipedia page, or add a quick section of how losses are used in Bernoulli to make it more clear why you can’t use the minor head losses alone. Or just say that once we have the minor head losses, we can calculate total head loss (which will be described briefly in the intro) to account for all energy losses, etc. in pipes (so more general).

7. This is probably only something that I’ll notice, but make sure the spaces between all the equal signs are the same when defining the variables!

8. The last sentence about Bernoulli is a little vague—again, maybe mention something about how this applies to a real-life situation, or just give a short list of what those unknown values are (pump outlet pressure, height of the system, etc.)

Takeaways for my article:

1. I definitely need to add more sources to support statements I’ve made in my article, so that’s something I’ve taken away from this!

2. I think I could probably make my article a little more understandable to people who have less of a fluids background than we do in ChemE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaLevenson (talk • contribs) 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

205.175.97.144 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)