Talk:Knudsen flow

	Physics portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Merger needed?

This is the same as Free molecular flow, and the two should be merged 99.240.72.110 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The definitions (in the articles) appear equivalent (though the wordings differ). The terms might be interchangeable. (See wording in Knudsen equation.) Your observation requires some action, but no one has yet acted on it. I am not an expert, and not eager to research this right now to see whether to actually propose a merger. So I have linked the articles by adding a See-also entry in each. (This is the minimum action, surely safe because it is justified by the matching definitions.) -A876 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Knudson flow and Free molecular flow are the same and the articles should be merged. The value of the Knudson number where Knudson flow/free molecular flow occurs included in this article is incorrect: it should say it occurs when Kn is large (Kn > 10). This is also consistent with the Knudsen number article. Yasrena (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To merge or not to merge?

Pinging @Yasrena, A876, DomiBarthi, Poocki, ReyHahn, Ensahequ, Orthabok, and Pbsouthwood: as noted above on this page, the main page (here) was turned into a redirect in 2021. Recently @DomiBarthi reverted that as inappropriate without discussion or apparent consensus. Rather than going to a wider RfC, I am doing a more limited ping here to establish concensus -- this is outside my areas of expertise so I am neutral. Should the redirect remain, be reverted or should both articles be merged elsewhere as they are both short? Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What main page? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text edited to include a link back to what @DomiBarthi reverted to, as it is the same as the premerge version. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is outside my areas of expertise too, but there seem to be conflicting claims between the articles. The topics are very similar, so merging with redirects is likely to be appropriate, but I have no suggestions for a suitable elsewhere. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since DomiBarthi considers the topics to be distinct, they should be able to explain why they are distinct enough to justify separate articles, rather than a merge and redirect to subtopic or section. I look forward with interest to their response. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my domain either. A rationale would be nice.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic argument is that the original merge and redirect looked appropriate, but DomiBarthi decided it was not and reverted without discussion, claiming the topics are different, but without presenting evidence. We are waiting for their response, but as they edited a total of 4 times in 7 years, we are not collectively holding our breaths. Nevertheless, they may have a valid reason, and may present it here, so we assume good faith on their part. In the meanwhile, their edit has been reverted because it seems a reasonable thing to do based on the available evidence. If anyone else has useful information which could affect the decision we would like to hear it, therefore this discussion, so if anyone is aware of a subject matter expert, please feel free to let them know. If no-one has any strong opinions or evidence-based arguments, we can just let things continue as they are now, until someone comes along to improve the article. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of googling, and from what I understand there is a difference, but not necessarily enough to justify two articles at this stage, so I merged the contents and clarified a bit to identify the scope of each. I think this should be OK for now, but feel free to check and edit as necessary. I could not access some of the refs, so have assumed good faith on their validity. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]