Talk:Standard cubic centimetres per minute

This page states:

"SCCM is a measure of molar flow rate (e.g., kmol/s) and in spite of its name it must not be confused with a measure of volumetric flow rate, q ˙ {\displaystyle {\dot {q}}} {\displaystyle {\dot {q}}}"

But then it later uses the standard formula for converting mass and volume flowrates, which would imply that SCCM is a volumetric flowrate, despite what the original author seems to have said.

Either way this page is a mess.

There are no sub-headings, none of the references work, and per my original complaint, the content seems to disagree with the common consensus.

I would attempt to rectify, but my current understanding of SCCM would indicate this page needs to be nuked and started over from scratch, but my confidence in the matter is not up to the task.

Concerns were addressed in Feb-24-22
The edit of Feb-24-22 addressed these concerns.

Please note that sccm is a confusing unit. It looks like volumetric flowrate, but it is used in the semiconductor industry as molar flowrate, and in other industries as mass flowrate. This is why I've taken the time to prepare this article.

In particular, the conversion of sccm to SI units or equivalent can be confusing, which is why I've provided various examples for conversion. Hence, the article is useful.

Being useful, the deletion of almost the whole article by Mbrennwa is unfair to people who could benefit from the article. Furthermore, the edit by Mbrennwa practically corresponds to a deletion of the article, something only Wikipedia can do. Lastly, Mbrennwa simply deleted things. He/she/they did not add anything!

Now, let me address the comments by Mbrennwa one by one.

"(1) The unit applies to fluids, not only gases." This has been corrected for. However, sccm is used mainly for gases since density is constant in liquids (away from transition regions).

"(2) Removed confusion of between different standards (the current STP definition applies, but the pre-1982 definition of STP was given as an example)." It was just an example.

"(3) Removed conversion examples, which were chosen rather arbitrarily and caused confusion (see talk page)." This is the most useful part of the article. The conversion is difficult, but I did not create this unit. However, the conversion was enhanced as response to the concerns of this talk page in the Feb-24-22 edit. Furthermore, the examples were representative of how calculations are conducted, they are not comprehensive, since Wikipedia is not a book about fluid mechanics.

"(4) Removed links to other/related flow units, which, however, do not seem to exist." The links do exist. And the bibliography was corrected for. Estebandgj (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)