{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025454545454545455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007272727272727273, 'mean_word_length': 5.43859649122807, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Difference in Critical Reynolds Number Between Hagen-Poiseuille and Plane Poiseuille Flows


 For plane Poiseuille flow, results of previous investigations were studied, focusing on experimental data on the critical Reynolds number, the entrance length, and the transition length. Consequently, concerning the natural transition, it was confirmed from the experimental data that (i) the transition occurs in the entrance region, (ii) the critical Reynolds number increases as the contraction ratio in the inlet section increases, and (iii) the minimum critical Reynolds number is obtained when the contraction ratio is the smallest or one, and there is no-shaped entrance or straight parallel plates. Its value exists in the neighborhood of 1300, based on the channel height and the average velocity. Although, for Hagen-Poiseuille flow, the minimum critical Reynolds number is approximately 2000, based on the pipe diameter and the average velocity, there seems to be no significant difference in the transition from laminar to turbulent flow between Hagen-Poiseuille flow and plane Poiseuille flow.