Talk:International Standard Atmosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Some of the info which was in this article before it was mangled into a redirect could usefully be brought back. However, those earlier articles omitted the key feature (IMHO) namely that the ISA is a tabulation of variation with altitude. Linuxlad 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "mangled into a redirect." The article, although a stub, is not a redirect. Ah ... you mean the version from July 2005. I think that this version has issues too (such as discussing "1 atm pressure" rather than offering a link. Feel free to improve the stub! MFago 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some comments on your talk page. Basically there should be a clear route to the International Standard Atmosphere and/or Standard Atmosphere as a tabulation of the key thermodynamic variables with altitude. This was a bit lost in earlier versions (though there was some info implied by the lapse rate); then totally lost, in the redirect to STP!. Additionally, I don't think many non-US workers would go to US Standard Atmosphere first, nor to the rather cryptic NRLMSISE-00 reference (despite the fact that, at the last, this might be the most complete article.) But happy (or, at least, content) as long as punters can get there in at most 2 steps (which they couldn't before). Linuxlad 12:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, and think the disambiguation page Standard atmosphere along with Atmospheric models helps with this. Note that NRLMSISE-00 is a completely different but related model. MFago 14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Actually, (blush) I've rather assumed the UoS model is 1976, because some others listed were (but the UoS web page doesn't appear to say) . But it _could_ be 1993 (3rd edition?). I think the principal difference is how high they're defined to. The Batchelor tab would appear to be 1958, and he refers to it as 'The Standard Atmosphere:..., accepted by international agreement'. Linuxlad

Later - I think it's OK (phew) - there is a stanford uni calculator also on that link which is explicitly referred to as 1976 model. Bob aka Linuxlad

[edit] Proposal to merge "ICAO Standard Atmosphere" into "International Standard Atmosphere"

I propose to merge the current ICAO Standard Atmosphere article into this one, International Standard Atmosphere. I believe they refer to the same thing -- the standard atmosphere defined by ICAO is called the ISA. They have the same content. The resulting article should be ISA, because: a) it has more, and better-written, content; b) it has more links to it; and c) I think it's the more correct name. The ICAO Standard Atmosphere article would become a redirect to ISA. Although the merge instructions say I can be bold and just do it, I'll let discussion happen for a few days before I act. I've tagged the articles to indicate the proposed merge. Your comments? --Jdlh | Talk 03:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are identical standards issued by different standards organizations (ISO vs. ICAO). I've updated this article to clarify this with references. Dhaluza 09:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, great information! So it looks like the topics Wikipedia should cover are: 1. characteristics of the physical model "Standard Atmosphere"; 2. the ISO 2533 standard, its history and publication; 3. the ICAO standard, its history and publication; 4. other standards (e.g. US standard for atmosphere), their history and publication. The question is, should that be done in one article, or multiple? I now believe this article should contain at least #1 and #2. I am leaning towards it also having an ICAO section to cover #3, but I can also see the merits of having a separate article on just #3, pointing here for #1. --Jdlh | Talk 18:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think international standard atmosphere is probably the most well known. The others could be merged into separate sections here just highlighting differences. Dhaluza 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As it was indicated before the right name for the ICAO Standard Atmosphere is Internationa Standard Atmosphere. it has not relationship with ISO despite the similarities in their names... I agree to merge both references in the last one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.120.252 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Icao standards relate to the aircraft operating and maintenance industry, there are many ICAO standards. To merge this standard with the ISO would take it out of it's exclusiveness to the aircraft world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.32.250 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment. Yes, there are many ICAO standards. We are talking about only one, the "standard atmosphere" standard, as described in ICAO, Manual of the ICAO Standard Atmosphere (extended to 80 kilometres (262 500 feet)), Doc 7488-CD, Third Edition, 1993, ISBN 92-9194-004-6. Are saying that the International Standard Atmosphere is not "exclusive to the aircraft world"? --Jdlh | Talk 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies in article

The ISA model divides the atmosphere into layers with linear temperature distributions......The tabulation continues to 11 km where the pressure has fallen to 7.5 kPa and the temperature to −56.5 °C.

This doesn't tie up to the detail in the table for 11km, 22,632 Pa At first glance the table data appears to be correct, see the formula and table at Pressure altitude and the entry for (36,090ft - circa 11km)

You are right, good catch! Can you figure out which is correct, and make the correction? It might help to look back in the history of this article. Maybe somebody garbled the numbers in the process of making some other change. --Jdlh | Talk 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going with the figures at Barometric formula for now. Some work needs doing across a number of these articles involving the ISA, barometric and pressure altitude as there are minor inconsistencies in figures between each (not as bad as the error referred to above). I know the ones in the pressure altitude article differ from those at http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/aero/atmosphere/ because I derived the figures entered in the table from the standard formula on the Pressure altitude page. M100 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The online reference number 3 http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/aero/atmos/atmtab.html quoted as a source gives a 404 error. M100 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the site has a redirect with a bug in it. I corrected the reference to use a better URL at the same site. --Jdlh | Talk 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)