Talk:Rheometry

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Untitled[edit]

I think it would be helpful to expand this article to include rheometry methods and what kind of characterizations can be gained from different rheometer designs (parallel plate, capillary, etc). Any thoughts?

Yes! great plan!, my thought: try to introduce the sort of mathematics when needed that a wide audience can understand. V8rik 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@First writer:We do need a discussion of the different rheometry methods, but isn't that best explained using the actual measuring devices, Rheometers?

@User:V8rik: It would be good to expand the discussion of the different measurement capabilities of the various types of Rheometer with the most relevant basic maths. Please see the "Proposal to merge with Rheology" section below for another way to organise this material. - yoyo (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CherryToy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge with Rheology[edit]

Please see the Talk page for Rheometer for arguments for merging this Rheometry page with Rheology, whilst retaining the thorough discussion of measuring devices and their capabilities already available on the Rheometer page. - yoyo (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]