Talk:Venturi scrubber

Copyright problems?
This article was created in rather high quality by a single user in a single edit. This makes me suspect it may have been a wholesale ripoff from a copyrighted source. It is also possible that this was taken from some public-domain source. This article either needs to show its source or be deleted as a copyright violation. --Dgies 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially as it refers to several figures that are missing. Djfeldman 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, listing above... --Dgies 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people also have jobs and they work till very late in the evening, what's so wrong with that? If I can't find the time to finish my edit, does that mean I infringed a copyright? The pictures are already uploaded, they just need to be included in the article. Besides, I'm an air pollution control expert (in scrubber operation and design). When I created my first article, I just uploaded a small portion of it, then it was deleted. Now, I edited it using an external editor and I uploaded all the content at once. What's wrong with this too? The Vindictive 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant as an attack. The article looks very good.  It looks so good that we're a little concerned that it could be copyright infringement.  If you have published this before, could you please send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org saying who you are, where this work is from, and that you grant permission to use this work either under the GFDL license or as public domain.  If this is your original work and has not been published elsewhere before, that's OK too.  I just suspected this might be copyright infringement and wanted a little clarification.  I appreciate your contributions. --Dgies 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Help
Please help in wikifying this article if you have more spare time than I do, it takes a long time since it's very long. The Vindictive 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help if you could just say where this text comes from. Is it new work by you, something previously published by you, or taken from a free source? --Dgies 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright
It is from a free source, EPA Air Pollution Training Institute and it is deemed as free domain see. I also have confirmation and official permittance from NCSU (which the material was developed in collaboration with). Is that OK now? The Vindictive 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, that's all I wanted to hear. Works of the US government are public domain.  Please continue. --Dgies 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
Do you think that if we center and make the pictures bigger it will look better? With the thumbnails reduced to 100 px, it doesn't look so nice with so many pics. The Vindictive 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for my revisions of December 23, 2006
The Vindictive, the first line of any article should contain the article's title in bold font. That is why I re-arranged the first few sentences.

Your use of the word "exhaust" was very confusing. You mostly used it to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber. I know that you meant the exhaust for a furnace flue gas stack or some other process device ... but other readers will not understand that. So I changed most of your "exhaust"s to "inlet"s ... meaning the gas that enters the scrubber inlet.

In some few other cases, you used "exhaust" to specify the scrubbed gas leaving the scrubber ... which added the confusion of readers. In those cases, I changed you "exhaust"s to "outlet"s ... meaning the gas that leaves the scrubber outlet.

You must keep in mind the many readers who are not engineers and you must strive to clarify things for them as much as possible without sacrificing technical integrity. To most people, using "exhaust" to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber will be very, very confusing.

One other point, your lead-in section is much, much too long. I would advise you to break it up into more sections with section titles.

Another point that bothers me in all of your articles is the link to, the USA EPA's APTI training courses. When I click on it, I don't get to see the actual course content unless I sign up to take the courses, so the link is really of very little value. Is there any way around that? Do you actually have the course contents and is there any way to make that content available without violating copyrights? Happy New Year and regards, - mbeychok 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless otherwise specified, works of the US government are public domain. Just because they are public domain does not mean they have to be made available to the public. --Dgies 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dgies is right. We had this discussion before. Yes, I do have the courses but they're in PDF format. Actually, you don't need to sign up. You can download them very easily by clicking on the links located in the left side of the page (courses by format). I also have the official consent from North Carolina State University to use the materials in Wikipedia. It's in my e-mail box. How can I make my e-mail box available to the public?
 * NCSU developed these courses as part of a project funded by EPA. Is that OK or do I need to explain more? The Vindictive 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing to merge Ejector venturi scrubber with Venturi scrubber. As far as I can tell, both articles talk about the same subject. Since all the action seems to be on this article I think Ejector venturi scrubber should be injected here (pun intended). ʍαμ$ʏ5043 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your proposition is not founded. Ejector venturis and venturi scrubbers may be similar but if you really think the articles talk about the same subject, you should've noticed that ejector venturis DO NOT have a fan. Plus that ejector venturis are part of the category liquid-phase contacting scrubbers, which means that they use the liquid energy (through a nozzle) to remove the pollutants, while venturi scrubbers, although they have nozzles, these are used to wet the surfaces only. Venturi scrubbers use the exhaust gas stream to provide the energy for gas-liquid contact. So they're quite different. The Vindictive 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a chemical engineer who is quite familar with this subject, I agree with The Vindictive that the two articles should not be merged. - mbeychok 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a chemical engineer too, but many other readers may not be. Reading both articles I found that a lot of information is duplicated in the articles right down to the layout and the references (the deja-vu feeling was tremendous ;-) ). Also the basic shape of both devices is the same. To the none-initiated both articles, and therefore both devices, show a high degree of similarity. As a result it is easy to confuse them. Especially the ejector venturi scrubber article is relatively short when compared to the venturi scrubber article. If you remove the duplicated information from the ejector venturi scrubber article there is not much of an article left. Therefore, my proposal is still to merge both articles. I might be a challenge. However, as far as the duplicate information is concerned there should be no discussion. Then, adding a chapter discussing different uses and (most importantly, because that information is not supplied in either article right now) clarifying how and why they differ should be helpful and complete the merger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mausy5043 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Chemical engineering has little in common with air pollution control (as Mbeychok said). I am an air pollution control specialist and having also created the articles, I am sure there can be no such merger. No offense intended, I am waiting for more opinions from experts in air pollution control systems and scrubbers in special. The Vindictive 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense intended here aswell. I appreciate you being the original author of both articles and that you may have emotional attachments to them. But, I hope you can take a step back and look at both articles. Not to see how they differ, but please try to objectively judge their similarity. Then, as I mentioned above I hope you see that merging them is possible. I'm willing to share my ideas if you're interested. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 10:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any emotional attachments to these articles. It's about the substance. We can discuss the matter further, I have my e-mail activated on my user page. The Vindictive 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I recently proposed this merger from the Ejector Venturi page without seeing that there had been discussion of the subject here. I am a nonspecialist and not intimately familiar with Wikipedia article merge procedure.  I see that there are differences in the principles employed; however, both technologies create small liquid droplets onto which particles are adsorbed as they pass through a Venturi constriction, as a method for particle removal.  It does seem to me as though one is a subset of the other.

Audiosqueegee (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Years later, I have fallen into the same pit. These are so closely allied that they may benefit from a merger. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In July 2020, User:MasterTriangle12 proposed this again with the operating principle is reversed but similar enough that they could be integrated. I suggest continuing discussion here. Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had not checked the discussion here at that time. There are some good points raised about the differences, but think that is still outweighed by the similarities in purpose and the simplicity of integrating them as two sections of the same article. As I see it the primary difference is just in the source of the mixing energy (water spray or gas flow), and consequently the ability of one to act as a pump for the process gas. I think the other differences are relatively minor compared to the similarities. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)