Talk:Oblique shock

noted gamma in the chart

after spending an hour trying to make the equation match the chart at gamma=5/3.SMesser (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

this material is better than in shock wave

I am attempting to provide some figures and to explain this physical phenomena in simple terms. genick bar-meir

this orinal matherial which not appear in shock wave

Shock wave a side to fact that it contain banch of nonsense has only reference to oblique shock. In fact, the term shock wave should be broken into several terms like moving shock waves, shock wave with chemical reactions etc. Have only reference to NASA Glenn Research Center information on: Oblique Shocks is not enough.

Yet, there is a need for several drawing and experimental pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Genick (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Reasons for adding various templates

Oblique shocks are important gas dynamics phenomenon and are covered in all undergrad level gas dynamics courses. All the references mentioned in the gas dynamics article has a separate chapter on this topic. However none of those references mention the results (i.e. Bar-Meir's solution) discussed here. There are reasons to believe that the results mentioned here are not according to WP:NOR guidelines.

No reputable references are provided to support the results presented in the article.

The link to naca 1135 report is/may not be accessible to general public (esp. non-US citizens).

The article can be further expanded and is an important link between normal shocks and expansion fans. As such it needs attention of an expert in this subject. -Myth (Talk) 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mach's picture of a bullet

The article now says The first to discover this shock was Ernst Mach in his original picture showing a bullet in a supersonic flow that cause the oblique shock.

Is this talking about this picture?

Photograph of a bullet in supersonic flight, published by Ernst Mach in 1887

I think this is a picture of a bullet fired into stationary air, while the sentence above seems to say that it's being fired into air that was already moving at supersonic speeds. I suggest discussing this at Talk:shock wave#Mach's picture of a bullet since there is already discussion there, although I suspect a change in wording in this article is required. --Coppertwig 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

the bullet

This bullet was not fired. This bullet was attached into arm and was rotated. It moveed into air with known speed. Is this clarify this point.

potto 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) genick

Is it an important difference whether the bullet was fired from a weapon, or an "acceleration device"?AKAF 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Oblique Shock Page

The previous oblique shock information was terrible, so I deleted it and will finish a new page soon. I have already divided the page into some sections that I will expand upon. EMBaero 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)EMBaero

New Oblique Shock Page

Someone remove all the equations that I inserted to this article. Why to insert so many mistakes. First, Oblique shock has three solutions and not two. Second, when there is detached shock (why remove this term?) it is a normal shock and not curved shock. Why one remove the the equations showing the solution? --potto 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because they are non-nonsensical and are inappropriate for this topic. Everything incorporated into the new article is correct, and there are only two oblique shock solutions as shown in every compressible aerodynamics textbook ever printed. Your addition of material related to the supposed solutions of Dr. Genick Bar-Meir is apparently self-promotion and I consider it to be vandalism. If these solutions are true, then I would be interested in seeing something like an AIAA conference paper about them. I looked up the Ph.D. dissertation titled: "On gas/air porosity in pressure die casting" by Dr. Bar-Meir, and it has nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics. Additionally, the open source compressible flow text online lacks any appropriate information for it to be shown as a link on any Wikipedia page dealing with aerodynamics.EMBaero 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero

Shocks over a wedge shape

Since shock waves are primarily caused by supersonic flow over aircraft, would it be possible to have a diagram/explanation showing how the waves change direction over an aerofoil? I mean a picture showing a wedge-shaped aerofoil and how the waves are affected when they go over the upper and lower surfaces. Maybe something like this: [1] And maybe one with the wedge at a positive angle of attack?

Jez 006 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oblique shock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021100737/http://www.aerostudents.com/files/aerodynamicsC/obliqueShockWaves.pdf to http://www.aerostudents.com/files/aerodynamicsC/obliqueShockWaves.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Error in figure caption

There seems to be an error in the caption to the figure showing a θ-β-M diagram. It says "The red line separates the strong and weak solutions. The blue line represents the point when the downstream Mach number becomes sonic". But according to the previous paragraph "M₂ can be supersonic (weak shock wave) or subsonic (strong shock wave)" so the point when the downstream Mach number becomes sonic is the boundary between strong and weak solutions. In fact the diagram itself suggests that the red line indicates θ_MAX where the oblique shock detaches and becomes a bow shock as described in the following paragraph. 130.246.148.101 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)