Paper detail

Bayesian machine scientist to compare data collapses for the Nikuradse dataset

Ever since Nikuradse's experiments on turbulent friction in 1933, there have been theoretical attempts to describe his measurements by collapsing the data into single-variable functions. However, this approach, which is common in other areas of physics and in other fields, is limited by the lack of rigorous quantitative methods to compare alternative data collapses. Here, we address this limitation by using an unsupervised method to find analytic functions that optimally describe each of the data collapses for the Nikuradse dataset. By descaling these analytic functions, we show that a low dispersion of the scaled data does not guarantee that a data collapse is a good description of the original data. In fact, we find that, out of all the proposed data collapses, the original one proposed by Prandtl and Nikuradse over 80 years ago provides the best description of the data so far, and that it also agrees well with recent experimental data, provided that some model parameters are allowed to vary across experiments.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.