Talk:Rheometer

Merger Proposal with Rheometry

These two pages seem to have been written in mutual ignorance but cover the same subject. How about joining them? Under which title? Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably makes more sense to merge an application (Rheometer) into the theory (Rheometry), rather than the other way around, and only then when the application is not sufficiently described to be its own article. Merging rheometry into rheology may be more appropriate. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 04:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Merging Rheometry into Rheology may be more appropriate". This is because the two studies are interdependent: rheology needs to be able to explain the results of rheometry, and rheometry is the experimental method of rheology. Keeping them in separate articles would be akin to separating Physics from Experimental methods in physics. Further, the current short Rheometry article doesn't even describe it as well as Rheology does! The only grounds I can envisage for keeping a separate Rheometry article would be if there were substantial theoretical considerations (e.g. from the theory of measurement) that were peculiar to the design, construction and use of rheometers, but not directly relevant to the theoretical principles of rheology. In fine, I think we need only the article on Rheology, with its explanation of rheometry and its link to this separate Rheometer article. yoyo (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with moving Rheometry into Rheology while keeping Rheometer as a separate article. It would be a fairly straightforward merge, since there isn't much in rheometry that isn't already in rheology. While we could eventually write a rheometry article (which as yoyo says, would discuss design/construction/use of rheometers), we don't have one now, so we may as well merge it into rheology. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Copy/Paste Mistake

The last sentence in the Types of shear rheometer - Rotational cylinder paragraph reads "We should keep in mind during the experiment that the line at the measuring head should be in the line marked on the cylinder also." Maybe I am just missing something, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of that paragraph. I think it looks like someone copy/pasted that paragraph from a lab procedure and forgot to take out that last sentence. I feel like I don't know enough about the subject to actually remove that sentence myself. Someone please confirm that I'm not going crazy and that sentence makes no sense. Kthompson6 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That sentence poses a problem of interpretation: what does it mean for one line to be in another line?; and reads like an instruction for use, which would require clear identification of the lines it mentions. It also adds nothing to the explanation of the instrument type. Therefore, I will remove it forthwith.

yoyo (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stromuhr

It's a rheometer for blood and should be mentioned somehow. Soyseñorsnibbles^Dígame 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)