Talk:Blood flow

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This redirect has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Quantified blood flow analysis by VasSol, Inc. [www.vassolinc.com]

Is the last paragraph completely necessary?

blood does not flow. -martin rouser

Untitled

I feel the need to point out that this article is essentially useless to anyone attempting to look up the right of blood flow, and that this is something that should probably be rectified.

Seriously, why the hell is an article on blood flow essentially just a copypasta of a paper on something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.204.161 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I came here looking for gereral information on the rate of flow and found nothing. Terrible article. Blood moves. Blood is a connective tissue. Blood takes HOW long to get from extremities to heart? TO lungs? Very disappointing article.71.31.146.16 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article under complete rearrangement

Shortly: The structure is/was void of sense. There are out of place informations and missing essential informations

Problems:

Blood flow is about the circulation of the blood. The composition of the blood is worth to mentioning, but not in 5 different sections.

There are too many paragraphs about pure physics not connected to biological phenomenons. Some of these sections: "The basics of motion", "Position", "Acceleration", "Newton's Laws of Motion", "Momentum", "Stress", "Hydrostatic pressure" etc... This facts and laws are well described in other articles. Therefore I recommend to shorten and fuse them in one paragraph: "Hydrodynamics", because it is completely unnecessary to write about Newton's Laws of Motion like it would be also unnecessary to talk about quantum physics. An encyclopedia contains interconnecting articles, and not books.

Other problem that physics paragraphs are about Newton's Laws of Motion and Newtonian fluids, but blood is NOT NEWTONIAN FLUID and blood vessels are NOT RIGID TUBES. The adequate science to explain the physics of blood flow is hemodynamics.

And of course blood flow is more than pure hemodynamics, for example it has neuroendocrin regulation and this article contains nothing about it.

The article is quiet huge, but lacks essential biological information, but is contains trivial facts, like "We have the gastrointestinal system which aids the digestion and the absorption of food. We also have the respiratory system which is responsible..." If someone look up "blood flow", She/He must know about such basic things.

Example: There is a section about hydrostatic pressure. It is a basic pure describing model without any relation of the biological reality. A blood vessel is not a rigid tube, and blood is a non-Newtonian fluid. Nowadays there are much more adequate models to describe hemodynamics.

Other recent/formal mistakes:

"Blood is the viscous fluid composed of plasma and cells." The Blood is composed of plasma and formed elements, and formed elements are not only cells. Think about platelets.

Attila v m (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila v m (talk • contribs) 12:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]