Talk:Nomenclature: Difference between revisions
From Atomix
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
2021-12-01, Rolf added the mixing efficiency \Gamma right after the flux Richardson number R_f. I then noticed that \Gamma clashes with the use of \Gamma for the adiabatic lapse rate. So, I changed the adiabatic lapse rate to \Gamma_a. Also, salinity was defined as S_P, but was denoted S_a in the formula for the buoyancy frequency. It is now S_P in the formula. | 2021-12-01, Rolf added the mixing efficiency \Gamma right after the flux Richardson number R_f. I then noticed that \Gamma clashes with the use of \Gamma for the adiabatic lapse rate. So, I changed the adiabatic lapse rate to \Gamma_a. Also, salinity was defined as S_P, but was denoted S_a in the formula for the buoyancy frequency. It is now S_P in the formula. | ||
Also, we have both L_K and \eta for the Kolmogorov scale. Do we want both? | |||
Revision as of 19:44, 1 December 2021
CynthiaBluteau (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2021 (CEST) Add accelerometer data within background
--Ilker (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2021 (CEST) I suggest we swap the cyclic and radian wavenumber notations. Figures are mostly shown in cyclic units and it is easier to label with k (cpm).
2021-12-01, Rolf added the mixing efficiency \Gamma right after the flux Richardson number R_f. I then noticed that \Gamma clashes with the use of \Gamma for the adiabatic lapse rate. So, I changed the adiabatic lapse rate to \Gamma_a. Also, salinity was defined as S_P, but was denoted S_a in the formula for the buoyancy frequency. It is now S_P in the formula.
Also, we have both L_K and \eta for the Kolmogorov scale. Do we want both?
