Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid entropy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Repeated input from IP addresses hailing from the same general region were discounted, so there is a clear consensus that this article doesn't meet community standards. — Scientizzle 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid entropy

Fluid entropy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Incoherent ramblings Ϙ 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to mention something in particular? Then I can try to explain. You can also provide us some sources to valid your opinion. I mentioned my sources and bibliography, where is yours?! --LidiaFourdraine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User Q - I would suggest you to improve the article. Your remarks are too general ("ramblings") so they do not really help me to verify the article.

Please notice also: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations 0with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD". --LidiaFourdraine 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Keep. Gets a ton of hits on Google Scholar, seems to be a valid term. It is kinda rambling however, and may need to be tagged with {{expert}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to keep per User:Mandsford. I have no doubt of the term's notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • :::^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Those google hits are referring to the entropy of a fluid, not the pseudoscience on the fluid entropy page. "solid entropy" and "gas entropy" return similar numbers of hits. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way: User Q has made 19 editions since 28 June 2006, 7 of them consider "Fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Just because neither I nor the nominator understand this, doesn't make it incoherent. It's cited, TenPound has verified that it's notable, and there is some attempt to put it into plain English. I get the idea that it's about loss of energy efficiency in a liquid. The author cites to an article called "Entropy issues in aviation," but misses the obvious next step... which is to give us an example of why we should care about "fluid entropy". How about it, Lidia F.? Mandsford 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fluid entropy or maybe even better "the entropy of fluids" describes the behaviour of fluids using the concepts of entropy, chaos, dissipation and quantum mechanics. The behaviour of fluids is fascinating and still unknown - laboratories are working to solve the mysteries - see page: [1]. The macroscopic effects (one can see with his eyes) are well known (bubbles, cavitation, damage) and the sources mention websites where one can see it: [2] and [3]. The microscopic effects (one can not see with his eyes) are connected with quantum mechanics and the mystery of bubbles (see Nature vol.409, nr.6822, the article "Quantum physics: count them all" and "Cavitation science: Is there a simple theory of sonoluminescence?" The articles are available on the website: [4] paragraph Research Highlights) - both are still an open book, the last word is not said yet ... If we put energy to fluids (by heating, filtration, pumping) we increase their entropy (state of chaos), the temperature rises, bubbles are formed and even nucleate boiling can take place. Just think about cooking some water. It is important to take the increase of entropy in a fluid into consideration, because it can have unpredictable(?) effects like described in article "Entropy issue in aviation". To reduce the risks US Transportation Board (FAA Federal Aviation Administration is the right name)ordered to fill the space above fuel in fuel tanks with nitrogen after a few unexplained fuel tanks raptures. I think this case illustrates why we should care about "fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations are random. They don't actually have anything to do with the content of the page. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read "Entropy and the Second Law, Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer Simulation", Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, vol. 17, no.3, July-September 2003, authors: G.F. Naterer - University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada and J.A. Camberos - U.S.Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. It refers to fluid entropy (entropy of fuel).

• Merge with Entropy (order and disorder) --- in all honesty, I am sceptical how much of this article's text is usable; however. I am no longer sceptical of how much of the text is usable, upon reviewing it more closely and reading the creator's essentially random remarks (and outrageous suspected sockpuppetry) here, I am quite sure none of it is. Strongest Possible Delete and SALT, there are a number of wiki articles dealing with entropy and this adds nothing but weird post-modern pseudo-science. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier to understand for everybody (with and without knowledge of advanced physics) we can change the title to "Entropy of Fluids" because it describes entropy issue in fluids. Entropy issue in fluids is still not well-known among the public but it can be interesting for everyone interested in entropy, exergy and efficient energy production to save the environment and that is something important for all of us! Let me cite the two authors mentioned above (G.F.Naterer and J.A.Camberos) : "Entropy serves as a key parameter in achieving the theoretical limits of performance and quality in many engineering applications. Together with exergy, it can shed new light on various processes: from optimized flow configurations in an aircraft engine ...

Minimizing entropy production is equivalent to minimizing exergy destruction...." End of citation.

Now it is up to you to decide about the future of the article. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete As a physicist and a co-author of some of the articles regarding entropy, I must say it's terrible incoherent nonsense. Even if it were not nonsense, it should have been deleted, becuase there is nothing particular in fluid entropy, at least not in this article. Why not having articles about "toothbrush entropy", "car entropy", "toilet paper entropy" and so on? Dan Gluck 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept of entropy is interdisciplinary and touches almost every aspect of our daily lives (transportation, biology, energy, environment, industry) and is strongly connected with open thermodynamic systems, toilet paper is not an open thermodynamic system, a moving car yes. But the arrow of time has impact on everything even on your toilet paper. After years it will turn into dust. --LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, you wouldn't make an article about "entropy in toilet papers!", would you? by the way, toilet paper is an open thermodynamic system, as is almost everything in our world. Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Example for incoherence: the section Fluid_entropy#The_development_of_fluid_entropy. 1) How and why should a fluid of bosons be turned over in time to a fluid of fermions?? 2) stating that a "low entropy state" becomes a "high entropy state" as the entropy grows is a triviality. Dan Gluck 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Because both states are possible and probable according to quantum mechanics. See link: [5]

Thank you for teaching me physics, but you may notice that I am finishing my PhD in physics. Unfortunately this is obviously not your field of expertise. Bosons cannot be turned into fermions, except for some bizarre solitonic phenomena which I don't want to get into right now.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The distinction between bosons and fermions is basic. There are two possible kinds of things in the universe. The two types are known as "bosons" and "fermions," and the dialectic between them describes all physical form. The whole scheme of quantum field theory, for example, is that fermions interact by exchanging bosons. "The electons belong to the class of elementary particles called leptons. The leptons and quarks together constitute the class called fermions. According to the Standard Model all mass consists of fermions. Whether the fermions combine to form a table, a star, a human body, a flower or do not combine at all depend on the elementary forces - the electromagnetic, the gravitational, the weak and the strong forces. According to the Standard Model all force is mediated by exchange of (gauge) bosons. The electromagnetic force is mediated by exchange of photons, the strong force by exchange of gluons while the weak force is mediated by exchange of W and Z bosons.""written by Steen Ingemann-physic [6] --LidiaFourdraine 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

2. It is not a triviality. It is in an agreement to the second law of thermodynamics.

--LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. What the table states is in fact pure logic: if we start with a state of low X, and X gets higher, then we end up with a state of high X. X can be anything. It is true that the second law of thermodynamics states that if X is entropy then the above sentence correctly describes reality.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep as I would like to take a crack at fixing the language and adding sources. The author seems to be stating a lot of what's in the c. 1980 pop science text, Order From Chaos, which I have at home (not here at work). For starters, I'd excise the first dependent clause of the first sentence, which would clarify much grammatical nonsense. I've had some great articles rejected by the finest physicists for peer reviewed journals, which is why I now teach business law and legal writing. :-) Bearian 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You didn't give a reason for keeping the articleDan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the language is the problem here. The article lacks useful content and deals with subject matter about which other (coherant) articles exist. 65.241.15.131 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on notability: the following get more hits in google than "fluid entropy": "paper entopy", "Michael entropy", "google entropy", "car entropy" and many more... (unfortunately "toilet paper entropy" don't get so much...) so that's not a sign of notability.Dan Gluck 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article doesn't seem to be much more than vague ramblings about fluids and thermodynamics. There are clearly many interesting things to say in this regard but they do not appear in this article. Also, I'm very worried about the correctness of numerous sdtatements, particularly the "bosons go to fermions" line that other editors have mentioned. Joshua Davis 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I found on your personal page Joshua: "Article needing your attention Hi, can you please look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid entropy and vote? I think more physicists should participate in that particular vote. Thanks. Dan Gluck 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)" --LidiaFourdraine 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about asking more physicists to vote on a physics-related debate. I did not ask anyone to vote according to my opinion. Unlike sockpuppetry, this is a legitimate action. Dan Gluck 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lidia, I'm not sure if you are trying to impugn myself, Dan Gluck, or both of us. In any case, it does not matter, since there is nothing wrong with asking others to chime in on a debate. You'll notice that Dan did not even ask me to vote in any particular way but just suggested my expertise would be of use. I came over to take a look at the article and I happen to agree with him and most of the non-anonymous editors who have commented. Joshua Davis 05:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: First of all, when "fluid entropy" is typed into Google, this article appears at the top of the heap. Which this is not too unusual for Wikipedia articles, it normally does not happen with new Wikipedia articles unless little else exists on the topic. So immediately we have evidence on non-notability in the Google search. Furthermore, examination of the other Google hits found shows that the term "fluid entropy" is used in the context "the entropy of a fluid", which makes this term quite trival. To make matters worse, the article offers no mathematical definition of this "fluid entropy", which is not in accord with the other existing entropy articles. Overall, this is a rambling article which does not add anything useful to this encyclopedia. As a description this term is trivial and non-notable. As a field of study it is a neologism and therefore inadmissible under WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Any author attempting to break the taboo on entropy paid a drastic price for her impertinence. --83.5.131.170 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.131.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note in interest of transparency anon. ip address 83.5.131.170 has made one edit to wikipedia, the above cyptic comment. I suspect sockpupperty is afoot. Bigdaddy1981 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the possibility of sockpuppetry(which doesn't seem small, by the way), this comment doesn't really add to the discussion. What is the "entropy taboo"? There are dozens of wiki articles on entropy. The problem here is that this article doesn't seem to add anything to those and has troubling issues of its own: it is not encyclopedic, it seems inaccurate and might violate WP:NOR. Joshua Davis 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Just about the entire article is either false or too vague to be comprehensible. An embarrassment to the wikipedia.PhysPhD 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment editors familiar with the amusing random postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) might be forgiven for mistaking this article as its product. If the author did not seem so earnest in her comments here, I would suspect this whole thing to be a hoax. Bigdaddy1981 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The entropy concept has rarefy been studied in biology and powerengineering, althought entropy is as significant as energy, because entropy is the only concept in the physical sciences having directionality with lifetime. Application of the entropy concept to biology would lead to a deeper understanding of living systems. There are still conceptual and methodological difficulties in the measurement and estimation of the entropy content of living systems. --83.5.131.170 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet (see above) Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The reasons given may be relevant for articles discussing entropy in biological systems, not fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The consideration of entropy transfer of self-organizing systems will require careful experimental and further theoretical studies, which ask questions different from those which were asked before. This may be an opportunity to LEARN MORE about extraordinary efficiency of biological energy conversion systems which are basically of entropic nature. --83.5.153.45 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.153.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I suspect widespread sockpuppetry is afoot - a number of anonymous IPs are making similar-sounding pseudi-scientific arguments in favour of keeping this article. Bigdaddy1981 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Bigdaddy1981 - Article not found. No comment.--83.5.153.45 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what this suspected sockpuppet's comment means Bigdaddy1981 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: again this suspected sockpuppet is making an almost identical claim to the previous one, which has no relation to the article itself, since it the article is unrelated to biology.Dan Gluck 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here a link confirming the high temperature and pressure in a collapsing bubble:

"Cavitation and bubble dynamics" by Ch.E.Brennen, Oxford University Press 1995

[7] see Online Books

And here two links about the bosons and fermions: 1."When bosons behave like fermions" and :::2."Metallic phase for bosons implies a new state of matter". See News and then Physics on page:

[8] I hope the texts give an answer to your questions. I do not want sockpuppets!!! --LidiaFourdraine 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:This is exactly what I warned you about, Lidia. Reading an article or two doesn't mean that you understand the subject. As I have already wrote, there are some bizarre situations where bosons behave like fermions and vice versa, and your link is simply one example of such a bizarre situation - bosons in one dimension under certain circumstances. But this has nothing to do with entropy or fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. "All particles in nature are either bosons or fermions" . See here [9] and also here: [10]. Are they all wrong at the Chicago University and the Manchester University??? Some other Wikipedians have pointed this controversy and other ones to you on talk page about bosons and fermions. --LidiaFourdraine 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am really tired by your irrelevant remarks. All fundamental particles in nature are indeed either bosons or fermions, but one cannot become another (except for in exteremely odd circumstances where a system of bosons is better interpreted as a system of fermions or vice versa, but these cases are irrelevant here). There is no debate regarding this issue in the talk pages you have linked to. I was hoping you were really willing to accept the opinions of the other Wikipedians, more educated on the subject than you, as you have promised, instead of making poor attempts to revive the discussion. Dan Gluck 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Why bosons and fermions have nothing to do with (fluid) entropy according to you, Dan? And what about this: from Wikipedia: "Entropy in quantum mechanics (von Neumann entropy) In quantum statistical mechanics, the concept of entropy was developed by John von Neumann and is generally referred to as "von Neumann entropy". Von Neumann established the correct mathematical framework for quantum mechanics with his work Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. He provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement). Using this concept, in conjunction with the density matrix he extended the classical concept of entropy into the quantum domain". Sorry, but I stop discussing the subject and "to be or not to be" of the fluid entropy article. I leave the decision to others. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this has nothing to do with your article. Bigdaddy1981 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: To prevent fuel tank explosions in aviation we have to change our relation to the entropy issue. But the consensus of hier expressed opinion is still against any solution of the entropy problem in aviation and space. Thus currently in the aviation sectors prevailing the non-sustainable trends, for example entropy – terrorism. Mankind versus Mother Nature. --83.5.153.45 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This alleged sockpuppet has already vote - See above. Moreover, the argument is uninteligible. Dan Gluck 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, strong keep: To this day, NTSB investigators cannot explain the source of ignition that caused the presumably accidental explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. 11 years after the TWA 800 broke up into pieces off the Long Island coast, the consensus is that the airplane's fuel tank exploded after the fuel ignited from an unknown (i.e. taboo) source (i.e. entropy). The source of ignition of the explosion is belived to be within the fuel, however no conclusive ignition source has been found by accident investigators (i.e. entropy remain taboo). That the world is becoming unethical is evidenced by the few of people who are continuously increasing their and others' entropy by playing the Game of Pleasure in Destruction. --83.5.133.222 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.133.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this AFD is turning into a sock and or meatpuppet fiasco with numerous Amsterdam-based anonymous URLs (all single purpose accounts designed to disrupt this AFD and add links to the fluid entropy article in other articles) making bizaarre rambling arguments. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The subject appears to be worth a separate article. Dan Gluck's Google counts for "fluid entropy", "paper entopy" [sic], "Michael entropy", "google entropy" and "car entropy" are entirely bogus ("fluid entropy" actually wins, he should have used Google Scholar to begin with, and reading the contexts of each hit is important). Also, anyone can ask Google Scholar and find many legit references to fluid entropy as a separate concept. – However, I share Dan's doubts about the quality of the text. We need an expert or we're likely to be embarrassed by the article, sooner or later. Rl 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have reported the suspected sockpuppets and the user whom I suspect to be their puppeteer. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The origin of the transformer explosion in Germany (June 28, near Hamburg) is internal rather than external. Entropy is imperceptible, therefore it is impossible to determine what caused the transformer explosions. But a survey of current literature shows that a consistent and accepted methodology of research of issue of fluid entropy has well yet to be developed. Transformers do not have an indeterminate life (arrow of time). Transformer design engineers tell us that a transformer can be expected to last 30 to 40 years under "ideal conditions." But, that is clearly not the case. In the 1975 study, it was found that the average age at the time of failure was 9.4 years. In 1985 study, the average age was 11.4 years. In 2003 study, the average age at failure was 14.9 years. Several transformer explosions have happened in recent years, some of them giving extremely strong explosion development. --83.5.133.222 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The cause of such explosion is almost certainly due to hotspots within the insulation, possibly caused by latent manufacturing defects. Such type faults on transformer models are common. The extremely energetic explosions arise from the fact that there is a lot of energy in transit through a large distribution transformer. There is no link to the subject matter here. — BillC ^talk 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to the subject matter here (entropy as a rootcause of a transformer-explosion). "Transformer explosion versus Arrow of Time" http://www.firedirect.net/_pdfs/_technical/tech_2405_0001.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.136.130 (talk • contribs)

The link is totally unrelated to this debate Dan Gluck 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolt! --83.5.136.130 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in response to that uncivil outburst, and speaking as one who for years worked as a scientist at a major research laboratory investigating failure mechanisms of, and lifetime strategies for, high-voltage transformers in the 600MVA+ range, I will say that that linked article is unrelenting nonsense. — BillC ^talk 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Pseudo-scientific nonsense is the stock in trade of the article's creator and her sock/meatpuppets. I have reported them all. Bigdaddy1981 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I know that credentials don't count for much, but I am a recently graduated chemistry major, so I know a little about entropy and thermodynamics. This article makes no sense to me. Entropy, fundamentally, has nothing to do with bosons and fermions, but rather with the work losses of the Carnot engine and the equilibrating pattern of the Boltzmann distribution. At best, this article is original research; at worst, it's just wrong. I'm completely on board with Dan Gluck's opinion, and I'm unimpressed by the author's desperate attempt to rescue this article using sock puppets. Shalom ^Hello 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep On aircraft entropy. Strict attention should be focused on ensuring that fuel entropy in a tank is minimal at the initiation of takeoff. The detection of entropy in fuel, sufficient to cause engine thrust power problems, is difficult and may not be possible. Strange as it may seem, entropy will have a tremendous effect on reducing the performance of a airplane. Despite the accident and research evidence indicating that small imperceptible amounts of entropy can cause the same penalties as ice accumulations. Recent accidents indicate that the pilot community still may not appreciate the potential consequences of small amounts entropy of the fuel.--83.5.159.69 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.159.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Dan Gluck 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this as another sockpuppet. Moreover, this user is refering to a non-existing article about aircraft entropy, so its vote is irrelevant. Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article does not make sense. Some attempts have been made to bolster its credibility and/or notability through edits to unrelated topics. — BillC ^talk 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Mumbo-Jumbo. Some facts may be true but irrelevant, most are just wrong. Ofer (A Physics PhD Student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.68.141 (talk) date

• Delete — EMS summed up my reasons pretty well. Anville 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody ask you to vote? Because this is what I found on your personal page: "This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical". --LidiaFourdraine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Looks impressive at the first glance, but woe betide anyone that actually tries to read it. My physics isn't that good but I'm dubious from reading it. "The arrow of time"? Nothing there worth keeping, as it is, and I don't see any improvement coming over the actual article on entropy. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

FINAL REMARK: why do the opponents doubt so much about the scientific value of my main source T. Sitek "Entropy issue in aviation"? His articles are being published in the USA and the EC. --LidiaFourdraine 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The problem is not with the source (at least not only with the source), but rather with your lack of understanding of it. You have quoted sentences out of context thus making them false (such as the "bosons" turning into "fermions") or stated very specific processes as very general ones, while in fact these processes are specific to the systems analyzed by the source. Besides that, the author itself states his findings as a "new thermodynamical theory" and thus these cannnot be widely accepted (yet?), but in any case are very specific and do not refer to fluid dynamics in general. Finally, there is no point in making a seperate article for fluid entropy, just as there is no point in making a seperate article for solid entropy. Dan Gluck 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dan! Although I don`t agree with everything you said, this is a quite reasonable statement. Quarrelling is not my nature. I am also tired of it. I propose to delete the article immediately and get back to normal life. There are worse things happening in life than that. "Gaudeamus igitur, iuvenes dum sumus ...". Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.