Talk:Turbulent Prandtl number

Removed context tag since introduction was added. Thank you. --Luffle 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3-D turbulence is not a "special case"

I am wondering, since when the commonly experienced three-dimensional chaotic movement of fluids became a "some special case"? I would assert that the whole article emphasis is misplaced - the two-dimensional flat theory is an approximation of more general three-dimensional case, not the opposite. Presenting the case in inverted way may create a confusion in users of this model, who are notably a group of climate modelers. Forgetting that the concepts as "mixing length", "eddy viscosity", "the law of wall", etc., are crude approximations of 3-D reality may lead to over-confidence in computer models that rely on "effective turbulent viscosity" and other similar concepts derived from flat approximations. Also, the reference misspels the name of author, it should be "W.M.Kays". I am correcting this. Alexei123 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]