Talk:Fluidics

Merge article?

Michael Hardy suggested: This material should be incorporated into the article titled fluid dynamics, after which this page should be redirected to that one.

About incorporation in Fluid dynamics: it is hardly advisable IMO. Modern usage of the term fluidics indicates that it differs from Fluid dynamics like, say electronics from Electromagnetism: fluidics is about control devices based on fluid dynamics. Mikkalai 19:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From R. Goodwell: Both comments have merit. Among interested laypeople there is confusion over fluidics and its relationship to the field of fluid dynamics. An acknowledgement of this confusion, brief clarification and cross-reference belong in both articles.

Fluidics is an application of fluid dynamics. So are wing design, plumbing, and hydraulics. The fluidics article already has a link to fluid dynamics, and is in Category:Fluid dynamics, so the basic links are in place. The first line of the Fluidics article seems to cover the definition. Is there a real problem here? --John Nagle 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Murray O. Meetze, Jr.

The article makes a claim that Meetze "invented" the fluidic triode in 1962 and asserts that this was reported in an issue of Scientific American in 1962. I'm having this claim checked this week by my son, who is at university and has access to back issues of SA. I'm doubting the claim, however, even if SA did report it. This article was brought to my attention...

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/03/fluid-transistor-circuits/?Qwd=./ScienceAndMechanics/6-1960/fluid_circuits&Qif=fluid_circuits_0.jpg&Qiv=thumbs&Qis=XL#qdig

Which has scanned pages of the June, 1960 issue of Science and Mechanics. You can see clearly a fluidic triode illustrated in the article. The author attributes it to scientists at the Army's Diamond Ordinance Fuze lab in Washington, DC.

I should know more about all this in a few days, but it would appear on the face of it that the claim that a high school student invented the fluidic triode is an urban legend. Plaasjaapie (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This article: http://www.noah.org/science/sci_am_digital_logic/1962-08/index.html Seems to be a much longer excerpt from the past and states that military scientists had invented a fluidic triode, the work was classified. If that's true, then at the very least, this high-school kid independently discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.111 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AND/XOR function image

Can someone please explain this image? First of all, I don't understand how it can function as an XOR gate, since it seems to me that fluid will flow out the bottom if either or both of A or B are flowing. Second, and more importantly, this image is discussed nowhere on the page, nor is it attributed to any verifiable source. Is the shape of this gate from some published source, or is it original research? — Sam 63.138.152.219 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This shape is apparently a redrawing of the shape used by Prof. Paulo Blikstein[1]. Blikstein has an extremely brief explanation of how it works -- if both inputs are "on", the left and right jets collide, then fall straight down to the "U" piece, which collects the water. There is a hose (clearly shown on Blikstein's page, but not clearly shown in this picture) that drains the water collected by the "U" piece out the front of the device. Once you figure it out, update this article to clarify things for the next person, OK? --DavidCary (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone could make this explanation more wikipedia-compliant:

1. Two streams entering a chamber with one exit creates an OR gate - if at least one stream is active, the output will be.

2. Putting the bucket in the middle will obstruct the central stream that results when both inputs are active, but any single stream will miss the bucket and reach the chamber output.

3. Hence, the bucket is an AND gate.

4. The chamber output for inputs named (x, y) becomes (x OR y) - (x AND y) or more formally: (x OR y) AND NOT (x AND y); a XOR gate (until the bucket overflows...).

194.150.65.251 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Modified. – Xing (XYZtSpace: talk  |  contribs) – 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluidics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126042311/http://web.media.mit.edu/~manup/research/bubble-logic/ to http://web.media.mit.edu/~manup/research/bubble-logic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recursion in "see also" section

Not super familiar with this, but most of the "see also" links redirect to... this page. Would it not be better to leave the names of notable fluid based computers as an interesting name list without it looping back to the start of the article?75.141.249.157 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Uses section

At one point, fluidic computers were being considered as a backup to electronic computers in aircraft in the event of an EMP strike, according to an article I once read. I don't recall the source, but someone may be able to add this. Landroo (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)