Talk:Laminar flamelet model
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Formulas Section
[edit]In the section containing formulas, the terms need to be defined explicitly. Even scientifically-literate readers have no way of knowing what these symbols mean unless they are already familiar with such methods. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Article is poorly written
[edit]By the way, aside from the spacing issues and odd reference locations, this article is very poorly written from a basic grammar POV. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- User Wikinetic wrote this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sakura_emad#Flamelet_Modelling
- Regarding the source: these are all assumptions/limitations associated with ANSYS Fluent, which is a comercial software employing a very specific, basic and old dated version of a flamelet model (from the 90s, indeed). The limitations mentioned there are not general for flamelet theory or flamelet based models and there are actually several advanced and sophisticated formulations which can do what ANSYS cannot. These are typically not included in comercial software, but implemented by scientists in very messy codes developed by themself. A theory/model typically needs several decades before it can be properly understood and validated so that it can be included in comercial software and used by the general public.
- Based on this, I think we need to minimize any attributions to ANSYS, since as commercial software, it has a self-serving bias (I don't mean that it's evil but it clearly wants potential customers to keep patronizing it). Plus, that "information" is no longer hosted by UC Davis. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Assumptions and Disadvantages
[edit]Wikinetic removed some text. His action was reverted by Sakura emad (who doesn't really edit but just goes around reverting other people's edits).
Just trying to develop some consensus that the removals are legit. (I'm inclined to agree with Wikinetic based on the poor quality of the "sources", they're rather outdated.) 136.49.32.166 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- My Answer this case was a head ache for me i rather say (Case Closed) you can re-open it whenever you want to argue about it, but it was closed with friendly talk at the end, best regards.--—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the study of all the flamelet models:[1]
1. While modelling only a single mixture fraction are allowed. Modelling of two-mixture-fraction flamelet models is not possible.
2. It is assumed that the mixture fraction follow the β-function PDF, and scalar dissipation fluctuations are not considered.
3. Empirically-based streams cannot be used.
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of Steady Laminar Flamelet model due to above mentioned reason are:[2]
1.It does not account for the curvature effects which can change the flame structure and is more detrimental while the structure hasn’t reached the quasi-steady state.
2.Such transient effects also arise in turbulent flow, the scalar dissipation experience a sudden change. As the flame structure take time to get stabilize.
To improve the above SLFM models, few more models has been proposed like Transient laminar flamelet model ( TLFM) by Ferreira .
References
- ^ ANSYS, FLUENT. "Assumptions". Aerojet.eng. ANSYS. Archived from the original on 6 November 2014. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
- ^ Pitsch, H.; Peters, N. (1998). "Unsteady Flamelet Modelling Of Turbulent Hydrogen-Air Diffusion Flames". Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion/The Combustion Institute. pp. 1057–1064.