User talk:Mbeychok/Archive2

who are you
would be nice to know who you are, seems you know a little on legionella--Noigel2000 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is read my User:Mbeychok page. - mbeychok 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Legionella, etc
I've commented to you before and am well aware of your excellent contributions here. I will watch list the articles and I did mention to Noigel2000 to examine a few guideline and policy pages. If his information is gleaned from NIH and other scientific websites, then we prefer those as sources rather than his summary of their evidence that he has on his own webpages.--MONGO 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Air conditioning
Air conditioning does need work. People have collected some good information, but it needs to be put in order. I agree with your specific observations. I'd also like to merge Portable air conditioner into Air conditioning, though I'm open to other possibilities as well. Discussion at Talk:Portable air conditioner. Tom Harrison Talk 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1 E2 K
As I had stated in the article talk page, my removal of the deletion request was primarily procedural, as the article does not fit any of the categories required for speedy deletion. If you feel the article is not necessary to Wikipedia then I would not be against anyone nominating it for deletion through the normal votes for deletion process, however as it did not meet the speedy requirements I removed the speedy tag. I am pretty certain that the votes would be to keep the article, but again I would be more than willing to see it go up for a vote. I apologize if I did not make this clear, and I certainly did not mean to step on your toes as far as the edit goes. Arkyan 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't step on my toes at all. I honestly don't care one way or the other if 1 E2 K is deleted or not. I am just honestly intrigued to learn why you think a deletion request would be voted down. As I said before, I can see absolutely no useful purpose served by those 240 articles about magnitudes of numbers. So I was really interested (and still am) to hear your reasoning as to why anyone would not vote to delete all of them ... much less one with such a childishly "cute" title as 1 E2 K. - mbeychok 05:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit it's slightly a cynical response on my part - looking through many of the articles that are listed for deletion yet enjoy a large number of people voting to keep them for what seem extremely vague and arbitrary reasons has led me to believe that certain things will be kept in spite of their lack of usefulness or notability. It's been my observation that they tend to overwhelmingly keep things that are of a factual, scientific nature, regardless of how useful they actually are. Arkyan 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cooling tower comments and suggestions
Thanks for the added comments about my additions. I see you cropped the photo you mentioned. It looks good to me.

As for the reminder of the images (my diagrams in cooling tower) as conforming to the Wikipedia policies: The photos, I've taken myself and the diagrams were drawn from scratch by me for this article alone. Do I need to do anything special/other than what I have? Edreher 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message
I commented on his usertalk to not make threats that indicate he may wish to see personal harm come to you. Let me know if this escalates or of any other changes.--MONGO 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Refrigeration world
While WP:EL states that blogs should normally be avoided, this one looks to me like it falls under the "particularly high standard" provision. Its content also seems to satisfy most criteria for what can be linked to. Circeus 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Legionella
I will look into it. -- Samir   धर्म  01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Incineration
Hi mbeychok I have now restructured and combined the articles for incineration and waste-to-energy plant. The temporary edits I made have been adjusted to allow me time to restructure the links to and from waste-to-energy and differentiation with waste-to-energy plant. Please take a minute to look at my work and give any feedback and comments. Cheers --Alex 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments! --Alex 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Newport/Costa Mesa/etc. user group
I work in Newport Beach (commute from Long Beach) and would be interested in a user group. What did you have in mind? Epolk 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only preliminary thought I had was to meet perhaps once a month in our community clubhouse (very close to Fashion Island). But so far, you have been the only responder to my announcement ... and I think we should have at least 5-6 people to start with. If I get enough  responders to make it worthwhile, I will contact you at that time. Thanks for taking the time to make contact. - mbeychok 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Do you think Refrigeration cycle might go better as part of refrigeration, or should we make it a summary article for some topics like Absorptive refrigeration, Vapor-compression refrigeration, Air cycle machine? or some third option? Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mentioned a reply; have you not gotten to it yet (if you haven't, no rush) or am I overlooking it? Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, it was here yesterday but it seems to have been lost in cyberspace somehow. In any event, I think merging it into refrigeration is the best choice. - mbeychok

Survey
The correct title is User:Mbeychok/Archived survey. I have moved it there. -- RHaworth 05:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - mbeychok 06:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fractionator Overhead System.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Fractionator Overhead System.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Converting JPEG to PNG
Please don't do it. The JPEG artifacts (haze, ringing) remain and bloat the size of the PNG. Please read the text of Template:BadJPEG carefully and follow the instructions, specifically "derived from a non-JPEG source". —Keenan Pepper 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kennan, thanks very much for alerting me to not simply convert the jpg image to a png img ... but by the time I read your message, the deed was already done. Thank you even more for removing the jpg artifacts from the converted png image. I really do appreciate your taking the time to do so.


 * I feel that some explanation is due on my part. First of all, I am a retired engineer and I am no computer software guru ... altho I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of veteran Wikipedia editors are very competent computer gurus.  I haven't the faintest notion what XML is or how to write a script to clean up a jpg image. I am sure there are other Wikipedians like myself whose expertise does not include computer software. So please excuse us when we make a mistake as I did.


 * With that said, I would appreciate your helping me a bit more. The article Vapor-compression refrigeration, which I wrote, has two more simple line jpg drawings that I devloped for use in that article. Would you please convert them to png format and clean them of artifacts as well? Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a shot. One of them looks like it has a little region that's supposed to be gray, so my simple algorithm of "if it's dark, make it black; if it's light, make it white" will have to be modified, but it shouldn't be too hard. —Keenan Pepper 01:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Point source
Hi. Avoid linking directly to disambiguation pages, as you did here. Ideally, nothing should ever link to a dab page. By definition, any link that points to a dab page is a link that should point somewhere else. Watch for cases where what is really needed is a link to a dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedia article. These can be handled with the wikt tag: point source.--Srleffler 06:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Srleffler, the old "Point source" article was a disambiguation page. I created a new primary article Point source which is not a disambiguation page and discusses only the various types of point source pollution (air, water, noise, and light). At the same time, I moved the old "Point source" disambiguation page to a new page named Point source (disambiguation).


 * The Fraunhofer article originally linked to that old "Point source" disambiguation page, which is now named Point source (disambiguation). So when I changed the link on the Faunhofer article, it linked to exactly the same page as it always had done.


 * By reverting my change, the Fraunhofer article now links to the new Point source article rather than to the same page it had always pointed to. I don't think that is what you want, do you?


 * I did the same thing for all the non-pollution related articles that linked to the old "Point source" disambiguation page so that they all now link to the new Point source (disambiguation) which contains exactly the same content that they had always linked to.


 * I hope this explains why I corrected the link in the Fraunhofer article. Regards, - mbeychok 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the link in the Fraunhofer diffraction article. It doesn't point where you think it points, and you may find the wikicode behind it useful for future editing. After you try it, reread what I wrote above; it will make more sense then. Regards, --Srleffler 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to wait a week or so and, if Point source ends up as hopelessly complicated as I think it will, then I will create a new article that addresses the subject I intended for Point source. But this time I will make sure that the title does not include the words "point source". Once again, thanks for your help. - mbeychok 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've still got Point source (pollution). That seems like a good title for your article. Why not work there?--Srleffler 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and I will work with Point source (pollution). Michael Hardy did a good job of sorting out the mess that the controversy was turning into. - mbeychok 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not sure I really understand why pollution point sources need a different page from optical point sources, gas point sources, wave point sources or any other type of point sources -- the definition is surely the same for all of these. I put a comment on the talk page to see what other people think. Rnt20 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * hello again. i answered your query on that talk page on sept 6 at 12:23 UTC. i didnt want to add to the turmoil, so i just said deletion of those stubs seems like a good idea.  we seem to have too many stubs floating around here and who knows when or whether some of them will ever turn into articles. what do you think? by the way i shall write the area source article at some point.  i just finished line source. sincerely Anlace 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i am really missing the question being asked by you. i didnt want to stir up an argument about anyone's past edits, so i didnt comment on Michael Hardy's "re-organization". now that you seem to belabour the matter i have tried to study his edits and dont find them to have a great impact. i m more interested in where we are going here than trying to criticise anyone's past edits. i think point source should be as unified as possible.  if the concensus is to have a separate point source (pollution) article, then so be it.  i really would like to get rid of the multiplicity of stubs. most of our readers are interested in the concept of point source and all this fragmentation doesnt help them. if im still missing your question, kindly rephrase it. im not trying to dodge any question. frankly i cant make much sense of much of the talk page on point source regards Anlace 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Attracting subject matter experts
Saw your message about attracting qualified editors. This is a problem all over WP. See Expert Retention. Welcome your comments. Dbuckner 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * congratulations on the Line source main page listing. i nominated this article and credited you as a creator of the article.  best regards. Anlace 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it's not really bad form to nominate oneself, but the courteous action is to recognize the creator. best regards. Anlace 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Orifice Plate
Nice work cleaning up what I tried to lay down regarding the derivation of the Bernouli Eq for an Orifice.

I'd like to see some clarification on the conversion of "standard" vs "actual". There appears to be a bit of confusion on when to use the square root form vs using a simple PV = znRT conversion of the volumetric flow. I myself have been unable to find a background on why each is used after reviewing AGA 3 and other sources.

Care to discuss and educate? Kdcarver 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kdcarver, I don't fully understand your question. Most of the equations derived in Orifice plate give the mass flow rate (i.e., kg/s) rather than volumetric flow rate. To convert mass flow to volume flow (or vice versa), you need the gas density which is obtained by using PV = znRT and changing it to PV = z(w/M)RT, where w is the gas mass and M is the gas molecular weight. Thus, we have    (w / V) = density = PM / (zRT). See.


 * If you want to convert a volume flow rate from one set of temperature (T) and pressure (P) conditions to a standard set of T and P, you must first decide what standard set to use because there is no longer any universally accepted standard. I urge you to carefully read Standard conditions of temperature and pressure to understand why there is no single, universally accepted standard gas condition.


 * Having decided upon your standard T and P conditions, then the conversion can be made by using V1 / V2 = (T1 / T2) × (P2 / P1) × (z1 / z2).


 * Since you are a control engineer, I will guess that you are perhaps talking about a volume flow rate obtained from a flow meter using an orifice calibrated at some specific T and P. If you simply want to convert the flow meter's volume flow rate reading to a standard T and P (or any other T and P), then you use the procedure explained above.


 * However, if you want to change the flow meter so that the meter provides flow rates at standard T and P (or any other T and P), then there are other more complicated equations to use (which I believe do indeed involve a square root) with which I am not familiar enough to advise you. In such a case, I would suggest that you contact one of the major flow meter manufacturers for guidance.


 * Does the above answer your question? Please let me know and please sign your response with four tildes at the end of your response, thus ~ . That will automatically sign your response with your user ID and the date. - mbeychok 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbeychok, Thank you for replying. I am presently working on a project in VZ and do not have frequent access to the site, thus the delay in response.  I do have further background information to add.  Give me some time please -- I need more than just two to three days to respond. - Kdcarver 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbeychok, the issue arises out of the confusion between two equations (noted in AGA 3) for use in converting dp flowmeter rates a "base", a "standard", and those used to compensate a "flowing" set of conditions.


 * AGA 3 Sect 3.3.3 provides the basic volumetric flow rate equation (at "base" conditions and Imperial units) as:
 * Qb = [359.072*Cd*Ev*Y*d^2*SQRT(rhof*hw)]/[rhob]


 * combining the constants for simplicity:
 * (1) Qb = [K*d^2*SQRT(rhof*hw)]/[rhob]
 * where:
 * d = bore diameter in inches
 * hw = dp head in inches of water (60 deg F)
 * rho = density of fluid at flow conditions (P, T and Z) in lbs-mass/ft^3
 * rhob = density of fluid at base conditions (P, T and Z) in lbs-mass/ft^3


 * The text then goes on to show that you can substitute standard conditions for the base conditions in the above equation and get
 * (2) Qv = [K*d^2*SQRT(rhof*hw)]/[rhos]
 * where:
 * rhos = density of fluid at standard conditions (P, T and Z) in lbs-mass/ft^3


 * However, sect 3.3.4 gives the following equation for converting between the "standard" to another "base":


 * (3) Qb = Qv*[Ps/Pb]*[Tb/Ts]*[Zb/Zs]
 * or:
 * Qb/Qv = [Ps/Pb]*[Tb/Ts]*[Zb/Zs]
 * = {[K*d^2*SQRT(rhof*hw)]/[rhob]}/{[K*d^2*SQRT(rhof*hw)]/[rhos]}
 * = rhos/rhob
 * and since:
 * rhos = Ps/[R*Ts*Zs]
 * rhob = Pb/[R*Tb*Zb]
 * dividing we get:
 * rhos/rhob = [Ps*R*Tb*Zb]/[Pb*R*Ts*Zs] = [Ps/Pb]*[Tb/Ts]*[Zb/Zs]


 * Thus the algebra works, and it seems straight forward to convert between "standards" by simply using (3) above.


 * What appears to be implied (and it may just be poor presentation) is that:


 * (Option A) you use equation (3) to convert between flowing conditions as well as base conditions. If you can convert from one "volume" to another "volume" by simply using (3), why can't you use this relationship to modify the results of (1) for different flowing conditions?  If the conditions change, no square root is needed, simply apply (3).


 * Or, (Option B) if the flow conditions change, do you replace rhof in (1) or (2) above to come up with the new flow rate at "base" or "standard" conditions, respectively? A square root is involved here ( and from an instrumentation standpoint, rhof = Pf/[R*Tf*Zf] and  the T and P are sensed and used to vary flow )


 * What concepts tell someone that you have to use (B) and not (A) to adjust for different flowing conditions? The manufacturers, by the way, that I have contact with seem a bit confused on this issue and cannot give me a satisfactory answer as to why and when you use each equation when presented with AGA 3 and comparing it to (B) (which they use in their computer equations).


 * Any help in aligning my thoughts in this area are appreciated, as I seem to be missing a hook. Kdcarver 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kdcarver, I have no acess to nor do I have any familiarity with the AGA equations you refer to. That makes too difficult for me to really study and respond to your questions.  What I can say, is that your Equation (3) is identical with the equation I gave you in my first response above, namely:


 * V1 / V2 = (T1 / T2) × (P2 / P1) × (z1 / z2).


 * The only further comment I can offer is that this equation or your equivalent Equation (3) can be used to convert a gas volume from any set of Temperature and Pressure to any other set of Temperature and Pressure (just as I said in my first response above). It doesn't matter if one set or both sets are called base or standard or anything else. That equation is simply a re-statement of the gas laws.


 * As I also said before, if you want to change the read-out from a flow meter that uses an orifice, so that it uses a different set of Temperature and Pressure than the set it was designed for, then a much more complicated approach is needed. That approach is something you should discuss with the flow meter manufacturer.


 * Sorry that I can't completely answer your questions. Can you contact someone at AGA (the American Gas Association) or some one of their members working on the appropriate committee that probably derived the equations that you are questioning? That may be your best approach ... although it may be quite difficult to do. - mbeychok 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Join new WikiProject
I am a Final year Chemical Engineering from MUICT (Mumbai University Institute of Chemical Technology). I am very new at wikipedia and I find that the coverage of Chemical Engineering articles rather poor. Please join WikiProject: Chemical and Bio Engineering. A link is there at the talk page of Chemical Engineering. Ketankhare 17:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Ketankhare


 * Thanks for your inviting me. The first thing you should do is to create a User page and a Discussion page so that people can communicate with you. As for the coverage of chemical engineering, the only way it will greatly improve is by attracting graduate engineers with at least 5-6 years of real world experience. The coverage will not be improved if the only participants are university students with no real world experience. I apologise for being so blunt but that is the reality of the situation. - mbeychok 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response. I agree with you. I will try my bit, but experienced people are indeed required (like yourself). And believe me, if I had a nickel for everytime I heard about real world experience bit (faculty and during industrial training)...Ketankhare 19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your speedy nomination of 1 E2 K
A few months ago, you nominated 1 E2 K for speedy deletion, and I've just moved that nomination to WP:AFD at this page. I thought I should mention that db-reason should almost never be used, since articles that don't fall into the other categories of speedy-able articles should generally be deleted normally. In this case, it would have been much more appropriate to prod the article, then move it to AfD (as I did above).

Just so you know, even if it was ages ago. :) Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Linkless
Well, there's no an easy way to change it, but it's very rare that it finds an article that fast... usually it's more like 24-96 hours. Anyway, what's it really matter? The links need to be created eventually, the tag takes 5 seconds to remove, links have been created, the article is ever so slightly improved for it. Everyone wins. Actually, the faster the tag appears the more likely it is that links will ever be created... some creators don't stick around for very long. --W.marsh 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Piping category addition
Hi, Please can you tell me how to add 'Flange' to the Piping category that you created - I don't know how to edit categories yet. Thanks, Paul --PP-W 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul, if you want to add the Flange article to the Category:Piping, then go to the Edit page of the Flange article and scroll down nearly to the bottom where you will see . On the next line, enter exactly this:  and then scroll the Edit box down to see the Submit button and click on it.


 * If you want to add a link in the Piping article (as differentiated from the Category:Piping) to the Flange article, then go to the Edit page of the Piping article. Scroll down to the section headed ==See also== and at the bottom of the list there, add exactly this: *Flange ... and be sure to include the * . Then scroll the Edit box down to see the Submit button and click on it.


 * You really should study the various help and editing tutorial articles to learn more about editing. I know it is overwhelming at first (it was for me also when I first started), but a few months down the road and it will be second nature. By the way, I did not create the piping category nor the piping article, altho I did contribute quite a bit to the Piping article. Regards, - mbeychok 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:207.127.74.2
Thanks for bringing the situation with this user to my attention. We very rarely indefinitely block IP addresses because they can be reassigned to another user at any time. However for particularly persistent vandals who appear not to be using dynamic IPs, it is sometimes appropriate to block for significant lengths of time. This IP appears to be a fairly persistent vandalizer. I've put a 1 week block on the IP for the latest round of attacks. If after this, we continue to see vandalism, I would be willing to go to 1 month long blocks. Eventually these users tend to get bored and go away. Feel free to contact me again if this one causes problems in the future. Again, thanks for the heads up, Gwernol 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:62.255.252.74
Thanks for the heads up on the vandalism from User:62.255.252.74. I've put a month long block on that address. In general we do no block IP addresses indefinitely. In this case the IP is a school, so the actual users on that address change often. Thanks, Gwernol 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the Energy Portal icon?
Hi mbeychok. Re your question about the portal-icons, as it's both an interesting question and one that others might wonder about too, I've answered at some length (here and on my talk page)...

It's suggested that appropriate articles are linked to their corresponding portal using these icons at 'step 4' of Portal/Instructions. In fact, this page suggests using the icon , however on the portalpar talk page this is now depricated in favor of.

As to the positioning, I had a look at what others were doing before starting, and found that there was a wide variation. I've just taken a quick random look again through some of the links to some of the featured portals, and found:


 * Some pages have the icons at the top: June 2005 in Australia and New Zealand, Ritualist movement, Church of Ireland, List of cricket topics, Scouting in Tennessee, Category:Restaurants_in_Scotland Category:2006 Commonwealth Games  Category:Invasions
 * These have only a link in the infobox, Greater London Authority, Great Fire of London, Order of the Arrow, Evolution, Modern evolutionary synthesis
 * These are using text links at the head of the article: Downing Street, Googly
 * The Biology and trains portals are keen on including them on their WikipProject boxes on talk pages: Talk:Augusto Pinochet, Talk:Adolf Hitler, Talk:Containerization, Talk:Pullman Strike
 * And others are including them in the 'see also' section, (some as icons, some as text links), particularly those linked to the 'tropical cyclone' portal: Thomas Aquinas, Lincos (language), Brian Lara, Anticyclone, Hurricane Alicia, Hurricane Hunters

Since the idea behind portals is to 'showcase' the best of the subject matter and provide an easy way of finding other related content, (and links to the key portals are right at the top of the Wikipedia main page, though in text-only format) it seemed to me that locating the links in a reasonable prominent location was appropriate. So long, that is, as they aren't detracting from the content on the page. That's why, if there is an infobox or prominent photograph on a page, I've located the portal-icon below in a less conspicuous position – such as on Energy development and Hydroelectricity. However it's clear from the sample above that there are varied views on this.

I guess when portals become more common, this will become a bigger issue, since I don't think it would be a good idea to have a whole stack of portal links at the head of an articles that fall within the scope of several portals. I've tried to anticipate this by not adding links to any energy-related biographies, nor on any 'national' energy pages (except on 'category' pages), since it seems to me that the biography portal and the future national portals ought to take precedence on these articles.

Gralo 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I first came across Wikipedia searching for a small fact on the Holy Roman Empire. Instead of taking a few minutes, I spent several hours online. That was not because of the quality of the article (though even in 2003 it provided my answer), but because the page had links to other interesting articles. Since then the introduction of categories has made it easier to find information, and portals are now adding to this.


 * So, for me, a page in Wikipedia has 2 elements; the article containing the facts on the topic, and the user interface that links it to other appropriate pages. The article should provide high quality information. The interface should help the user find other things of interest. To answer your question directly, adding a portal-icon is an improvement because it enhances the user interface. It does this by adding a clearly labeled link to a portal, from where a user can navigate through the entire topic area. Gralo 13:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Doing good
Hi Mbeychok, sorry for getting back to you later than usual. I think your approach to the article is just right. Remove the speculation and bias, and keep it to the facts like you have. Even though I started it, you're much more experienced in this area. Thanks for the note. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hanson tank image
Hello. I left this note on my talk page, just in case you didn't see it - "My understanding of GFDL is that, even though it usually applies more to text, it is still permissible to alter images as well. And in this case, removing the name/number does not fundamentally alter the image." --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cholmes75, thanks very much for your cooperation and understanding. - mbeychok 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You are welcome, I looked up your name to see how many times you had submitted reference papers for Wikipedia and I was quite surprised!--Alex 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

user:68.230.24.148
Good catch. I've blocked the IP and rolled back all the fact tag additions, since this seems to be a user randomly adding tags to articles. Gwernol 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuous distillation
See Talk:Continuous distillation. H Padleckas 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Continuous distillation again. H Padleckas 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tray distillation tower pic
I am working on a pic to be called Image:Tray Distillation Tower.PNG, which will be a magnification of the column in the Image:Continuous Binary Fractional Distillation.PNG pic. It will have bubble caps in it. I was thinking of placing it in the Fractionating column article. Are you working on the Fractionating column article or any pics? H Padleckas 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me. I just looked at that Fractionating column article. It is completely devoted to laboratory glassware apparatus ... and I am getting weary of trying to insert industrial applications into articles written by laboratory chemists who don't have a clue about the real world of industrial distillation.  For example, that section entitled "Principle" added by someone into  your new Continuous distillation article is absolutely puerile.  All of that nonsense about the ratio of A to B is a waste of time.  The only thing that is needed is to point out that a continuous distillation tower obeys the law of conservation of mass and all of the tower inputs must equal all of the tower outputs.


 * I strongly suggest that the bubble cap tray image you propose to develop should be placed in a new article entitled "Industrial fractionating columns", in which case I would be pleased to work on it. Since valve trays are used as often as bubble cap trays, it be even more useful to show both types of trays.


 * By the way, I think that all of your sketches are excellent. Keep up the good work. - mbeychok 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Piping and instrumentation diagram
The article Piping and instrumentation diagram has a pic saying "Diagram needed". I was thinking maybe the Image:Continuous Binary Fractional Distillation.PNG diagram could be expanded into an example Piping and instrumentation diagram. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? H Padleckas 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a very good idea if it includes: piping, valving, relief valves, a water withrawal "boot" from the overhead reflux drum, control valves and control systems, all block valves, pump check valves, spare pumps and other spare equipment where needed, piping sizes and specifications on each section of piping, etc., etc.


 * By the way, I am in Newport Beach, California on Pacific Standard Time. Where are you located and in which time zone? Regards, - mbeychok 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not start the Continuous distillation article. I just put in the pictures.  It would take a while to make the P&ID and it would be a somewhat longer term project.


 * I just sent you an e-mail through Wikipedia with above info. At some point you mentioned a possible reboiler pic.  In case you're interested, I made the 3 pics in Shell and tube heat exchanger.  Here is a partial gallery of pics I made: User:H Padleckas/Gallery.  There's a couple extra pics in a similar gallery in the Engineering Wiki.  H Padleckas 03:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Environment
Hi Milton, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia, with the ability to contribute on a technical level. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page --Alex 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alex, thanks for the invitation. I am having some health problems at the moment, so I will decline your offer at this time. Perhaps in a month or so, I will join. - mbeychok 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

mole fractions
Hi Mbeychok, I have changed the notation for mole fraction back to x, simply because that is the most usual (and recommended) notation. The notation c is pretty confusing, in part thanks to (IUPAC? and) NIST. Originally it denoted a general concentration without specifying its units (so it could be molarity, molynity, mole fraction, weight fraction, onces per gallon or whatever). However now (IUPAC? and) NIST reserve it for molarity (for crying out loud..). As the story was about mole fractions (that's what works best in thermo..) the notation x is therefore much less ambiguous. nl:Gebruiker:Sokpopje


 * nl:Gebruiker:Sokpopje, I personally agree with you about using mole fractions. However, there are probably many others who prefer to use molarity.  For that reason, your parenthetical "and more convenient" might be considered to be a personal Point Of View (POV) which should perhaps be deleted.  But I left it for now. Regards, - mbeychok 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What drawing program do I use?
I have sent you a private e-mail discussing what drawing program do I use. I forgot to mention my pic file of tiny numbers I use for numbering atoms in chemical structures and a few other uses. Thank you for awarding me the technology barn star; it is much appreciated. I have revised your mini-reboiler pic and revised my tray dist. tower pic as you recommended, which I plan to send out to you by private e-mail hopefully sometime today. H Padleckas 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the revised Image:Kettle reboiler.PNG mini-pic into WikiCommons and inserted it into Reboiler and added a little more explanation. Your Image:Kettle Reboiler.png remains so far so it can be seen in your image gallery.  I have also uploaded Image:Tray Distillation Tower.PNG and inserted it into Fractionating column.  You can insert it into any article you see fit.  H Padleckas 08:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dependence of vapor pressure on temperature
Dependence of vapor pressure of each pure component on temperature is not emphasized when Raoult's law is mentioned in a couple of articles, including Distillation and Raoult's Law. It seems to me to be a significant concept in the development of boiling point diagrams and thus VLE diagrams. H Padleckas 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Henry, I agree that the vapor pressure of pure components is a function of the temperature. That is also true of multi-component mixtures such as say gasoline. I also agree it should at least be mentioned as you suggested. At the moment, I have just finished 3-4 days of expanding Continuous distillation, Fractionating column and Batch distillation (where the I also re-did the drawings as well). So for the moment, I'm not ready to tackle anything else for a little while. Regards, mbeychok 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done. Take a break.  I'm going to bed myself soon.  H Padleckas 06:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Is there an article on Vapor-liquid equilibrium anywhere? I was unable to find one, so I started writing something here: User:H Padleckas/Temp (Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium) as a rough draft until I can get some diagrams. If you know of such an article, please let me know so I can abandon this project. Otherwise it may be nice to have some data or diagrams from somewhere. If I had data or diagrams from somewhere, I could use that to make my own diagrams. Otherwise, I would make "hypothetical" diagrams. Also, if you see any major errors on that temp page, you can go ahead and fix them. H Padleckas 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Henry, as far as I know (and I have looked pretty thoroughly), there is no VLE article and it would be nice to have one. mbeychok 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Henry, as for VLE diagrams, there is always Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook if you have a copy. You might also try this Internet article: Vapor Liquid Equilibria.  A Google search might probably find some more such articles. mbeychok 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at my draft of a new VLE article. H Padleckas 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced circulation reboiler pic
Nice job on the forced circulation reboiler pic (and all the other pics you've made). I can tell a few parts of that pic came from my revised version of your kettle reboiler pic. I can also tell the pump came from a pic which was once a *.jpg file; see fuzzy artifacts around pump upon zoom in. ;-) H Padleckas 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to revise a few things on the forced circulation boiler and I will redo that pump. Thanks for pointing it out.  Is there any way to revise a drawing and keep the same name? Or is it simpler  to just give it a new name?  If there is a way to keep the same name, can you tell me how to do it, step-by-step? mbeychok 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Revised Image:ForcedCirculation.png and I figured out how to overwrite the original. The image no longer has any artifacts. mbeychok 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

'Expert' advice
Thanks for the info. I was 'miffed' a bit that he/she used a program apparently without verification. Relatively speaking I am an expert on these topics, and see great need (and benefit to the public) for cleaning up these articles. I'll likely ask some others to work on them as well at the next ASHRAE meeting in Dallas. 129.237.114.171 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (an ASHRAE Fellow)

Detailed tray diagram
I started work on a three-fold size pic showing the bottom two trays of that distillation tower pic. It will take me a couple days to finish it because I will have other things to do also. The darker blues at the bottom of the tower will be harder to distinguish from the black color I will use for the bubble caps. Is there a reason why you want the bottom two trays instead of higher trays with a lighter blue liquid? So far, I can switch easily to two higher trays. H Padleckas 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No reason why any two trays shouldn't do. The idea is simply to explain what bubble cap trays and their downcomers look like and how they work. Regards, mbeychok 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I finished this pic, uploaded it to WikiCommons, and inserted it as Image 5 at the bottom of the Fractionating column article. You can re-position it if you like.  H Padleckas 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Henry. I have re-arranged and re-worded Fractionating column so as to better accomodate Image 5. As soon as I can, I will also use it in Theoretical plate.  Have you had a chance yet to look at that "Simple analogy" section in Theoretical plate? Regards, mbeychok 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have looked at the "Simple analogy" in Theoretical plate and I started writing a longer e-mail response to you about it, but I have not finished it yet. Sorry, other things in life come up.  H Padleckas 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thermodynamic databases
Looks like you've fixed it yourself - its redirecting correctly now. Good luck, Gwernol 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the HTCW diagram in Gasification
Alex, the HTCW diagram in the Gasification article section, that you added, was uploaded by User:Gingerland and has been tagged by someone with an alert that it will be deleted unless an acceptable copyright or license is provided. You would do well to look into that before it is deleted. Regards, mbeychok 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Milton, this text and picture were placed by the same person in the waste management article however it was a bit too detailed and I think fits better in the gasification area. As there is clear indication that the picture has been released I will put the correct image tag on it as you indicate.--Alex 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag now added--Alex 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How to use Discussion pages
Hi Mbeychok

I notice you've been laboriously adding these boxes to the top of talk pages. May I suggest you start a template, like perhaps HowtoTalk, copy the contents there, and simply add the template tag to the top of each talk page using perhaps WP:AWB? The advantage of transcluding the notice is that it can be tweaked once, and reflected througout wikipedia. Also, it's much less labor intensive. Hope this helps? --Rifleman 82 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rifleman, thanks for your comment. I have been doing it only for those articles with which I have become involved. I had thought the same thing myself, namely that a template would be a good idea. Problem is that I am not a computer guru and I just don't how to do it or how to use WP:AWB.  Perhaps, if you would be so kind and if you agree with my wording, would you be willing to create the template? Regards, mbeychok 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can check out HowtoTalk by clicking on it, or taking a look at Talk:Reflux, which is I have changed as the first example. Which pages do you intend to change in particular? If you can give me a list, I can run it with AWB. I don't suggest putting it on all of wikipedia. It might step on some toes. --Rifleman 82 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out Talk:Distillation, Talk:Raoult's Law, and Talk:Distilled water. I've added the boxes using AWB. I don't feel strongly about the wording, so you can edit it if you like. I just thought this is much easier than doing it manually like you have! --Rifleman 82 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rifleman 82, thanks very much!! As for providing you with a list of pages where I would like to use this template, I've already done about 90% of them and I can handle the remainder by using the template you created. Thanks again, mbeychok 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed a template talkheader which seems to fulfill the same function as yours. Perhaps they can be merged? --Rifleman 82 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding biased or immodest, I think that HowtoTalk is fine as is. Most newbies get a Welcome message when they first register. So I see no point in adding a Welcome section to HowtoTalk which will be read by everyone ... veterans as well as newbies. Also if it becomes any longer, it will tend to turn people off. mbeychok 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heat pump
Thanks. It was reverted immediately by someone, but hopefully I convinced him/her to let it ride. 129.237.114.171 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Annual fuel utilization efficiency
Feel free to add to the article. It has to start somewhere, and nothing to something is an infinite change! :-) FactsAndFigures 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

theoretical plate, a.o.
Dear Mbeychok. I have responded to the reactions on theoretical plate, and also to user:v8riks answer on his talkpage. Why is it, that when chemical engineers are editing an article, contributions of other chemists are described as 'comic strips' and 'cracking jokes'? Until now I have not seen any of these remarks on any of the 3500 pages on my watchlist (except when made by first-time editors). Could we please get into an open discussion, and try to write an encyclopedia readable for the normal public. If a subject cannot be explained to the normal public (say, a high-school student, though a target person with a lower education is preferable), it may be worth considering to not put it into the wikipedia, but into specialised mediawiki projects. Or otherwise, please tone the subject and the discussions down to give it an entrypoint suitable for the above described public. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * --Dirk Beetstra, when or where have I characterized anyone's edit of Theoretical plate as "cracking jokes" or any such derogatory remarks? As for the discussion on the Distillation page, all I did was ask V8rik if he did not consider the "Simple analogy" section to be non-encyclopedic?


 * Your remarks indicate to me a dislike of chemical engineers, so you have stereotyped me as someone you don't like. And you have reverted the edit by Ketankhare purely on the basis of that dislike rather than on the merits of the "Simple analogy" section involved. mbeychok 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was posting here, since you have earlier used similar, though less strong, words about my edits. Your question on theoretical plate was indeed a normal post, but I found it prudent to inform you about the further development of the matter.  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I do ask for an open discussion, instead of critisism. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a quote from your first "prudent" comment above: Why is it, that when chemical engineers are editing an article, contributions of other chemists are described as 'comic strips' and 'cracking jokes'? Is that your definition of open discussion instead of criticism? It certainly is not my definition. mbeychok 21:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I will follow v8rik's example. At least I did not start with calling others contributions comic strips.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

excuses, and an open question
Dear Milton, my excuses if I insulted you in the tone of my posts. I am also sorry that I did use the '50 years', it was indeed not totally pulled out of nothing. I just saw a similarity between this and an earlier case, where there was an overlap in persons involved. And reading v8riks response did not really make it better. Again, sorry.

I hope we can put this aside and try to get to a better solution. I do firmly believe that articles should, and can, be written in such a way that the men in the street does not immediately stop reading after a first sentence, and simple analogies and simple cartoons do help in those discussions. Chemistry (in all forms) has a bad name, and making these articles unintelligable for the public does not help in removing that barrier. Showing that the technology that we use can be used also to explain other things, or an explanation that the chemical industry does all it can to make sure that the world does not pollute any further, but performs e.g. hydrodesulfurisation so that it is not the car that expells the SO2, but that is isolated as elementary sulfur that can either be stored, or be used for further processes. I understand that certain subjects will, in the end, be too difficult for people to understand, but hitting them immediately with difficult terminology is not going to help. The example (in the form of an analogy) as on theoretical plate does bring the understanding to the broader public, although I do see that in this way it is a bit .. demeaning (is that the right word?). But the analogy can be explained in many, many ways. The same things goes for many (more or less) 'binary' systems. I was hoping that after our first encounter on wikipedia we could work together to get articles up to a good level. I am sorry to see that we again meet under these circumstances. Again, my apologies, and I hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dirk, thanks for your apologies. I would like to follow up on this and I will do so by email. I don't like carrying on somewhat confrontational discussions in public.  At the moment, I have to take care of other matters, but I will be in touch via email within the next day or so. If you want it, my email is mbeychok@cox.net and my name is Milt Beychok. Regards and thanks again. mbeychok 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemical and Bio Engineering Wikiproject
I wanted to invite you to the Chemical and Bio Engineering Wikiproject. We are just getting started, but I wanted to make you aware of the project since you identified yourself as a Chemical Engineer. Biomedeng 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation. I will give it some thought. mbeychok 04:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator?
Hi Mbeychok. Are you interested in administrative duties? I think you'd do a very good job as an administrator. If interested, let me know and we can discuss -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Samir, thanks for honoring me by even considering me for that position ... I really do appreciate it!! But I will be 84 years old next month (January) and I don't think I could take on that job and do it justice.  So I regretfully decline.  However, I would like to think that I can still call on you from time to time for help. Best of regards, - mbeychok 08:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My talk page and e-mail are always open! Let me know if you ever change you mind; I think some of us younger admins could benefit from your wisdom -- Samir धर्म  08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up
Milton:

I have heard about Wikipedia before. However, I have never had a chance to check it out and try to contribute/upload and post some of my own e-material. Well, you have noticed that a few days ago I had a chance to upload some of my plots for the first time on a few engineering subject matters.

Yes, you are right about the format that the plots are in and their current limitations when loaded up and posted in the Wikipedia environment. I am kind of new to the Wikipedia environment and still learning how to get around.

Milton, I do appreciate your demo and touches on how the plots need to be formated. I will try to catch up with the rest of the plots in the near future. I do believe that for the time being I can have th plots stay out there in its current format. I did some preliminary testing and with the software on my computer I can create PNG files and edit the existing plots in gif format.

Milton, let me get back to your opening remark in your e-mail/message to me. Over the years, I have seen your name and comments at various engineering web sites -- eFunda.com, CheResources.com etc. Milton, we have even exchanged a few e-mails. Some time ago, I did receive a piece of advice from you and made corresponding changes and improvements to my work. At this point, I do feel that I am coming to an end with the development work and that I can settle on how it looks like. The next step for me is to try to share my work with places like Wikipedia, CheResources.com etc.

Milton, it is good to have you around and count on your help on how to get it right, which is not easy with engineering issues. Milton, I do appreciate your positive feedback on my initial input and your editing efforts. It does make it much easier on me knowing that you are an active Wikipedia participant and that you are here to help me and others in a postive way instead of just pointing out what the shortcomings are.

Milton, if you have any ideas on how to incorporate my e-material, I would like to hear from you. It is my pleasure to know you and count on your positive feedback! Thanks, Gordan (Engware 06:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)engware)

The recently added "Analysis section" in the Combustion article
I agree with your proposed changes. The article is on my watchlist, but I have not contributed to it. So I was not quite happy with the special message sent to my talk page. Best. -- MGTom 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuous distillation
Hi Milton,

I read your credentials, and I am extremely impressed. My chemical engineering experience is much inferior to yours, and I feel I have to bow to you in respect.

However, on the change you have made to my editing of the above article on the point of pumping, as indicated on my user page I strongly disagree with you.

I wish to avoid an editors' war at all costs, so I shall NOT revert your last edit, but I ask you to change it. Forget about pumping, if you like, but do not miss out the fact that you need to provide some energy to drive the material through the equipment, unlike batch distillation, in which you pour the stuff in and get heating. To provide a continuous driving force is general, not specific, and the reader has to know it!

I was proposing to do a separate section on special cases, where a pump is not necessary, and you are more qualified to do that section than me, but I would have thought that using a pump is more common, than not: you can tell me if during your time you found this a rarity.

OK, I agree, that the feed does not necessarily boil on entry, but the consequence of the expansion is immediate vaporisation, and vice versa, and I think that it is essential that we say that. The way you've written it first, that the liquid starts to descend the tower, it makes it sound as if vaporisation was secondary.

I've noticed what you say, that there are several other entries on various distillation subjects, and I am rather surprised that there is so much detail given here on other special cases, as examples, where what we say can be link-ed to other articles. Why are there so many examples from petroleum refining? Your naphtha debutaniser is one case in point. However, I shall be polite enough not to remove it. I have made my coment on the sandbox where, I've noticed, most people seem to write, on points that, in my view, need to be added, and those which ought to go elsewhere, but I don't wish to force my views on everybody. We are all here to make the article a great article.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that you don't write an article on your own; let others contribute, BUT you have a team of editors, who can take your writing to pieces as you go along. (Sometimes too much of this is done, I agree)

Speak to you again, I hope, all the best, 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Louis, I know it is morning in the UK but it is 11:00 PM here in California, and that means bedtime at my age. So excuse me if I am brief in my responses. First, I shall change the wording in the Continuous distillation article so that it makes known that pumps are indeed needed some of the time. Is pumping a rarity? No, it is not. I would say that pumping and no pumping between distillation columns in series is about 60-40 in favor of no pumping. Any good process designer of a series of distillation columns is going to arrange them with the highest pressure one first and the lowest pressure one last so as to save on the cost of pumps (unless there is some special reason to do otherwise).


 * As for pressure as a driving force, of course it takes driving force to get process streams to travel through pipes, fittings, filters, control valves, etc. But the continuous distillation article is not about fluid dynamics and frictional pressure losses.  It is about continuous distillation columns. The pressure of an industrial continuous distillation  is determined primarily by two factors: the overhead product composition and the available coolant for the overhead condenser.  Let us sat that the available cooling water or other coolant is at 35 deg C and therefore the condenser can cool the overhead down to about 40 deg C.  Therefore, the overhead pressure in the reflux drum will be the saturation pressure for the overhead composition at that temperature. The column pressure at the top will be a small bit higher than that to allow for the frictional pressure drop through the overhead piping and through the condenser. Thus if the overhead is mostly propane it will have a rather high saturation pressure at 40 deg C.  If the overhead is mostly butane or pentane, then the overhead saturation pressure at 40 deg C will be much lower than for propane. So a debutanizer or depentanizer will operate at a much lower pressure than a depropanizer. To repeat myself, the distillation column pressure is almost always determined by the overhead composition and the available coolant temperature. It is not determined by feed pumps. If the feed pressure is insufficient to drive the feed into the column, then a feed pump is required (or a compressor if the feed is a gas, which occurs in some cases).


 * Now trying to say all of that in the distillation article would be writing a process design textbook, not an article on distillation. We should focus on the distillation column itself and how it works.


 * Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on different types of distillation? Again, because trying to cover the whole spectrum in one article would result in a textbook length ... and the potential readers are probably only interested in some one type of distillation. Perhaps he/she is only interested in batch distillation or only in azeotropic distillation or only in laboratory glassware distillation.  If a reader wants to learn everything there is to know about distillation in one place, then he/she could do no better than to visit a good library and read a textbook on the subject ... or take a university course in the subject. That is why Wikipedia has a host of different distillation articles and uses links (called Wiki links) to direct readers to them.


 * Why so many petroleum refinery articles? Personally, I don't think there are that many. Probably because I would hazard a guess that perhaps 80 percent of the chemical engineers working in the real world of industry are employed in petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing plants and in engineering companies who design and construct such industrial facilities. Also because there too many redundant articles.  This evening I found three articles covering exactly the subject: catalytic reforming of petroleum naphthas into a high-octane gasoline component.  In fact, I just finished recommending they be merged into one article.  The same thing happens in all of Wikipedia, not just in petroleum refining.


 * I think I answered your primary questions and I will alter my wording about pumps tomorrow. I really must get to bed now.


 * One other unrelated subject. You really should learn how to automatically sign your name and date stamp at the end of a comment on a Discussion page like this. See the grey box at top of the page for instructions on how to do that.  It is quite easy. Cheers and good night. - mbeychok 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Milton,


 * I think I've found a match with you, as you seem to like a good argument, so do I.


 * Good morning. It is Sunday morning here. Louis, you are not correct. I do not enjoy an "argument" ... they only reinforce the pre-held opinions of both parties. I do like to have reasoned dialogue with anyone who knows what he is talking about. I have designed three complete refineries, two complete chemical plants,and many other process units including more than 100 continuous distillation columns back in the years between 1950 and 1980 ... all of which are still in operation in plants located in over 10 different countries. The first distillation column I designed had a diameter of 21 feet (about 6 meters) and a height of 100 feet (about 30 meters) some 50 years ago in Venezuela. I must know what I am talking about, would you not agree? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is far being from me to start an argument about the principles of how to do a chemical engineering design of a distillation column, or if top product vapour pressure is a starting point or not. As I said before I read these comments, providing we state that pressure has to be provided by some means as a driving force, which is different from batch operation, and it is typical characterising property of the continuous operation that is fine by me. You might say it is obvious, but not to the reader!


 * As I said last night, I will revise the article in question to to the effect that the feed may be either pumped or pressured into the column. However, pressure is not a characteristic "driving force" for distillation. The heat input to a column via the reboiler or via preheating the feed or both is the only "driving force" that causes the vaporization needed in distillation. I am sorry that you don't seem to understand that. I don't know how to state it more clearly. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot but congratulate to this latest version: it is to the point, informative, tells the reader evrything, nothing superfluous. Once again: congrats. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your second and third para seems to tell me that you misunderstood my remarks. What I said that because there are artcles on the subject we do not need to give so much detail here, if the essential characteristics are conveyed. The same thing applies to petroleum. I fully agree with you on the rarity of petroleum refining and related articles, but the subject ought to be detailed there, not here. A debutaniser is specific to petroleum processing, why put it here? Refer the reader to it by all means and put it with refining.


 * I have already agreed yesterday that the naphtha debutanizer could easily be removed and that it was Dirk Beetstra who included it because he felt the article needed examples ... and a debutanizer is an example. It is not used only in a refinery.  It also finds much use in natural gas processing plants for recovery of natural gas liquids (NGL). Did you not read at Talk:Continuous distillation that I had agreed to removing it if you so desired? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, I must admit that, if you wanted to take me off a peg or two you have succeded, by telling me what to read and how to sign my name. If it was not sined properly it was probably that my keyboard did not respond to all the wavy lines that I put down and I have not spotted this. Well done for spotting it. All the best to you, I hope I have not given you a sleepless night. LouisBB 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to "take you off a peg" at all. You had not signed your posting last night and I was merely pointing that out. I apologise if that offended you. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Milton, I am here again, to annoy you, as you seem to take my comments as irritation....and tell me not to do any editing before I consulted you. This is not a proper procedure on Wikipedia, but I shall not take umbrage and comply with your wishes (many others might not)


 * Please point out to me exactly where where I said that your comments were an "irritation" ... I don't think I said that at any time. Also, please point out where I said you should "consult me" before editing. What I did say, to the best of my memory, was to please discuss major or extensive changes on the the Talk:Continuous distillation page before making them. That is considered good form on Wikipedia. Look at the list on my User page of the some 90 or more articles to which I have contributed. Do you think that many articles were either written or extensively contributed to without my learning about the give-and-take collaboration that Wiki is all about? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a note of ãll that, and contrary to your adverse comments on the following item I shall try to expand the section on design slightly (according to what I said in my e-mail), which will not be set in stone, but I hope will not be completely reverted. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am changing the subject to the section on Design and Operation which ought really be two separate sections. These sections should be filled out a bit. It is surprising to me that the article on Distillation devotes so much time on Dalton's and Raoult's law, and equilibria, when the use of data on vapour-liquid equilibria is not just most useful, but indispensable for any computation for the design of continuous distillation columns.


 * In our Design section therefore we ought to, at least, mention the laborious task of the research chemist, whoose work in measuring vapour pressures of pure liquids and examining the vapour-liquid equilibria of binary (and more complex) mixtures, without which neither McCabe-Thiele, nor Fenske would get very far. Apart from Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (if it is still in existence) there are lots of journals which are full of the data resulting from this sort of work.


 * Are you not aware that Henry Padleckas is currently writing a very extensive and excellent article on vapor-liquid equilibria explaining what that term means and how such dats is derived? You can read his work in progress at User:H Padleckas/Temp (Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium). There is no point duplicating his work in the Continuous distillation article. As I said before, the article is not intended to cover the full spectrum of every aspect of distillation ... we cannot or should not try to write a textbook on the subject. That has already been done in Kister's book, Seader's book and Perry's handbook all of which are in fact included in the reference section of the of Continuous distillation article.  Have you not seen that section of the article or where they are referenced in the text of the article? The Continuous distillation article was meant to cover just that one type of the many types of distillation covered in other Wikipedia articles. I don't agree that we should expand it to cover every aspect of distillation. After all, Dirk Beetstra wanted this article simplified more rather than complicated more. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was to be simplified and extended, extension meaning briefly explained and/or link-ed. Readers are more likely to click on a link if they want to learn (more) about an item quickly than trying to get the reference book. For some getting the refences is not practicable. You in the US are better off than most. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Louis, in your first revisions when you burst on the scene and started making changes willy-nilly, you did not a include a single link. In fact, in effect, you asked others to add the links for you. To be frank, you didn't have enough knowledge of the subject or experience with writing in Wikipedia to do your own linking and, I might add, you still don't have the required knowledge. - 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So far I have not seen much about operation, but if there are no articles on the instrumentation and computer control of the varables of distillation plants, then that is an omission, and it ought to be amended. This is exactly in your line of experience. Once designed the operator often uses the distillation equipment for other mixtures than what it was designed for. In petroleum refining, of course, crude composition can vary widely and operating variables have to change. All these ought to be included. Do you think to the contrary? LouisBB 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I most definitely do "think to the contrary". Once more ... we are writing an article about how continuous distillation columns work, the principles of the applicable theory, and what they look like inside. Delving into instrumentation and computer control is a fit subject for another article. We are not trying to write a thesis encompassing all aspects of distillation, process design of complete plants or instrumenting and computer controlling a process. Please tell me, how can I say that more clearly? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let us not carry on this discussion any further here on my Talk page. I dislike airing "dirty linen" in public. If you want to discuss this any more, than please use e-mail. Thanks, mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox ...
Milton:

Thanks for the link. I am reworking my initial contribution to the Combustion area. I will go with tables instead of plots. It takes less time and it will look OK with no major complaints about the formatting issues.

I have to add text. As soon as I get it populated, I will ask you to take a look before I try to move it to the production area. I do believe that with your help and input from other members, I can end up with a decent addition to the Combustion area.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)engware

Update ...
Milton:

Thanks for the post and some encouraging words with respect to my problem. Even though I had good intentions, I do believe that I may have rushed with my initial submission without fully realizing the obstacles and issues. To be honest, the way it was initally released was not acceptable according to the engineering and Wikipedia standards. I do appreciate the way how the subject matter has been handled.

The sandbox area is a good way of launching projects without getting crushed and killed. I do appreciate your support and help to get me going. As they say, it is good to get second and third chances in life. I have no problem that my input to Wikipedia gets reviewed and corrected by knowledgeable and respected members like you. It becomes a win-win scenario for everybody.

Milton, I do appreciate your piece of advice and will to what you suggest to me in order to get it done correctly and successfully released. Yes, I am aware of the white space in one of the plots. I will take care of it. At this point, it is still work in progress looking much better -- knowing where I was. Milton, feel free to drop a few comments, thoughts and maybe additional input while I am getting it done. Eventually, the final work it is not for me and it is not mine. It belongs to the Wikipedia members and I am just providing my part or making my contribution. It is good to have you helping me and others.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

Combustion Analysis Update ...
Milton:

It is me again. To make it short, I have been able to wrap it up for the time being. At this point, I would like to ask you to go over it when you get a chance. I am ready to take your advice on how to proceed. Once I get your input, I should get closer to releasing my input. I guess that this is what I should have turned in more or less initially.

I gave a try to upload PNG files, but they did not look right. I had to go with JPG files. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gordan, I will try to take a look and offer a critique in the next day or two. JPG drawings tend to lose their clarity after a while and to develop what are called "artifacts" and many of the editors and administrators don't like them at all. There are many shareware programs for converting JPG files to PNG files. I use one called "Neomesh Image Converter".


 * But it is even better to start with a blank page in your drawing program and designate that blank page as a .png file ... then draw your images or re-draw them. Simply converting a .jpg file to a .png file using Neomesh does not remove any arifacts that have already been formed in the .jpg files.


 * There is an editor Keenan Pepper who is quite a guru on this subject. He wrote a small program that he used to convert some of my earlier drawings from .jpg to .png and to simultaneously remove the artifacts from them. Since then, I've always started out with drawing .png files. Why don't you visit his Discussion page and ask for his help? You can point him to your drawings in your sandbox and ask him to convert them. Regards, Milt. - mbeychok 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry to butt in here, but the Paint software which automatically comes with Microsoft Windows XP can interconvert between various types of image files. Lossless picture files formats such as bmp (24-bit), png, tif can be interconverted back and forth losslessly (without losing any clarity or color data).  Conversion of jpg or gif or lower quality bmp files to any of the above 3 file types can be done losslessly by Windows XP paint, but a reverse conversion results in data losses.  Conversion of bmp (24-bit), png, tif files to a jpg file irreversibly loses somes data and a fuzziness is introduced into a diagram that way.  Conversion of any of the above 3 lossless file types to a gif or lower quality bmp file irreversibly loses some color information.  Saving any diagram into jpg format, including one made by Paint, irreversibly introduces the fuzziness artifacts.  Although, the same is true for photographs saved as jpg files, the fuzziness is usually not noticeable in photos.  Lossless file formats for photos take up a lot more memory than equivalent jpg photo files, so jpg format is best used for photos.  Windows XP is a very common modern personal computer operating system.  Previous versions of Windows - Paint are not as versatile in making all these interconversions.  H Padleckas 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Henry, I had uploaded some jpg drawings I made using Paint some months ago. Some users objected to their fuzziness, so I took them back into Paint and then filed them on my computer as as png format. When I uploaded them back into Wikipedia, the artifacts could still be seen especially when they were zoomed to larger sizes.  That was when Keenen Pepper used a program of his to remove the artifacts.  Since then I always start my drawings as png and I have had no more artifact problems. I am using Windows 2002 ... does it have that interconvertability you speak of? If so, can you give me details on how to use that capability? Thanks, - mbeychok 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Milt, I have Windows XP on my older computer and Windows 2000 on my newer computer. I know about those two Windows versions but I don't know about Windows 2002.  Try this: open up your version of Paint, open up the file you want to convert, then click "File-Open" and "Save As".  A "Save As" window will appear.  At the bottom of that window, there will be a "Save as Type" line and to the right of this line, a small square with a tiny up-side-down triangle in it.  When you click on this small square, your choices of file types will appear.  You can choose your file type to be saved as by clicking on one of those.  The 24-bit bitmap file type is the lossless bmp file type.  Paint does not make SVG files.  I use Inkscape to make those. H Padleckas 05:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Successful PNG Format Compatibilty ...
Milton:

It is me again. Somehow, by using MS PowerPoint I was able to find out that when saving original MS PowerPoint work that one of the output format options is "PNG". As of now, I can successfully create PNG files out from my original work. I am OK in meeting the Wikipedia image/art file requirements.

With your help and from other Wikipedia members, I should be able to present the majority of efforts put in over a number of years.

Milton, this is good news for me.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

Status Update
Milton:

I have noticed that you have gone over my input. It is looking good. I do appreciate your effort and expertise. However, I have not heard from you yet? I would like to know what my next step is?

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

Update ...
Milton:

I have made a few changes as you suggested. It is now live. I do appreciate your help, effort and time. If I am more successful this time, I will get ready some more material to post. I do believe that I can ask you for some help. Thanks a lot, Gordan -- Engware 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)engware

Continuous distillation
Dear Milton, I have copied the article back to the main namespace, and gave a short explanation of the current setup and the intentions of that. Thanks again for the cooperation on the edit! Kind regards, --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:GFImg16.gif added to article on Thermodynamic Databases . . etc.
A new chart was added to this article. The new chart is not helpful to the article, and should be removed. It purports to show the "enthalpy" of some combustion products, but it does not define "enthalpy" according to the rigorous classification of the different types of enthalpy discussed in the main article (which I wrote). My specific objections to the new chart are: 1. The Y axis legends are so small that the values are virtually unreadable. 2. The article is on databases, not data. The original charts were included to show generally how certain functions change with temperature, and not to provide data to readers. Readers can/should consult the various references to obtain data. 3. The new chart does not properly define what enthalpy the person is referring to. Enthalpy of formation? Heat content enthalpy above 298.15 K? Enthalpy at the standard state of 1 atm pressure? Enthalpy of some undefined combustion reaction? I see that you have been otherwise involved with the person who changed this article, and perhaps you can contact him (I tried but did not succeed on his talk page) to remove the chart, or I will. Thermbal 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to trade journal
Hi, Mbeychok: For what it's worth, I thought the link to the publication "water and wastewater International" provided a beneficial resource. Perhaps adding it along with a few other industry publications would also be beneficial to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.177.200 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Duly noted and thanks. Please sign your messages on Talk pages and provide a subject heading (which I did for you just above). - mbeychok 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but ...
Mbeychok, sorry. Although I am experienced with HDS, I dont know much about reforming. I will try to contribute bits, but you have set a high standard with your "upgrading" of the previously "crude" article. You are providing a terrific service to the readers of WE.--Smokefoot 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mbeychok, sorry again. But my ability to participate in WE-chem fluctuates, and I strive to keep my WE-hobby apart from my real world (which is intense now) - hence I dont take email from the WE universe.  It is not my intention to appear aloof.  I will take a look at your refining thing when I get a chance.  In terms of catalysts, my instinct was to check Sinfelt's book.  Cheers and keep up the good work.--Smokefoot 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs
I started off correcting ISBNs that were written "ISBN:" - the colon breaks wikimagic. Then I noticed that many numbers were written with spaces "1 223 32333 X" - same problem (but now fixed) the more I looked the more I found wrong. So now I format correctly all ISBN numbers which I can, and flag up any invalid numbers - currently 2600 + and people have already corrected some 800. What are the benfits?
 * Wikimagic will now work
 * The ISBN is correctly formatted (according to the ISBN standard)
 * language area and publisher can be told from the ISBN together with other hints.
 * WP looks more uniform and consistant.
 * (Most) invalid numbers are caught and eventually fixed.

How to do it: the rules published by the International ISBN Agency. (THe first 12 lines cover most English language books).

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 12:12 20 December 2006 (GMT).

Wet scrubber article
Thanks a lot, I am also surprised by the drawings. They're actually not my creation, but I must admit they're fantastic. I'd like to keep in touch with you since I am in the same field (air) pollution control. Have you checked my other contributions in the air pollution control field? Also, updated the FGD article today. The Vindictive 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
Hello Mbeychok! I noticed that you created Template:HowtoTalk and have been adding it to the talk pages of articles. Thanks for helping to educate users on how to properly leave comments on talk pages. However, I have some reservations about some of the pages you have chosen to put this template on. Template:talkheader, which is somewhat analogous to this in general function, says that "This template should be used only when needed. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone.  If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced."

I believe this principle applies here, too. For example: Talk:Relief valve, Talk:Useful conversions and formulas for air dispersion modeling, and Talk:Thermodynamic databases for pure substances all had no previous discussion before the addition of this template, and have had none since then. It seems to me, then, that it might be better to not have the template on these pages since it is educating no one and weakening its own impact by appearing on pages where it is unnecessary. Please let me know what you think about all this. Cheerio, Dar-Ape 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dar-Ape, if you feel that the subject template has been used where it may be inappropriate, feel free to delete it. My feelings won't be hurt. Just for the record, I haven't kept count but I don't believe that I used that template on more than a few dozen articles ... if that many ... so it is very far from being on every talk page.


 * However, I would like to explain that my thinking is that: it is easier to start a discussion page off on the right foot than it is to reform it after the page has become a jumbled mess. I joined Wikipedia in Jan. 2006 and I remember how badly I used discussion pages because no one bothered to instruct me on the correct methods.


 * Once again, please feel free to delete it where you think it should be deleted. Happy Holidays and regards, - mbeychok 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the belated reply; I have been away for a couple days. I see your point about starting off on the right foot, and I omitted to mention before that I think your message is quite well written.  However, I think I will remove the tag from talk pages with no previous discussion per my original line of thought, but feel free to reinclude it on any of those pages at your own discretion.  Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply and I hope you are having a relaxing and enjoyable holiday season, Dar-Ape 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Air pollution article
I don't know who included heat exchangers in the air pollution control technologies category (air pollution article)? It should be removed. What do you think? The Vindictive 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dragos, I agree with you. Go ahead and delete it. Make sure that your Edit Summary says something like "Don't understand relevance of the Heat exchanger category". Regards, - mbeychok 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Milton, I placed the gas flares and biofilters in the VOC abatement category, but I don't know why the category is listed in red. I thought it should be blue since it contains 2 articles. Same for NOx control and other categories I intend to place existing articles in. Could you please help? The Vindictive 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is red because there is no category named "VOC abatement" as yet. You have to create it thus: (1) List a new category name at the bottom of an article to be placed in that category (as you have already done). (2) Then click on the resulting red category link and it will take you to a Preview page for that uncreated category. (3) Scroll down to the bottom part of the Preview page until you see "Edit summary". Write in Creating new category and then click on "Save page" ... and that creates the category. I could do it for you, but it is better if you learn how.


 * Follow same procedure for NOx control category if you want to create one. - mbeychok 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops!! Forgot to tell you that as you scroll down through the Edit box on the Preview page, write in something like this: This category is for articles related to VOC control.. Then scroll on to "Edit Summary" and to "Save page" - mbeychok 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Milton, thought you would like to take a look at the dust collector article. It needs a serious cleanup. I added a first comment on the talk page. I would welcome your ideas. The Vindictive 20:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Managed to create the categories (finally) :) Thanks a lot. The Vindictive 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
Milton, I would appreciate if you use 3 instead of ³. It is way more legible. Thanks. The Vindictive 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "PLEASE use the above + tab to enter a new comment."? Which "the above"? I want to use it on my talk page as well. Could you take a look at the Venturi scrubber page? It looks OK in 800 x 600 screen resolution, but not so well in 1024 x 768, and I'm sure it's even worse in higher resolutions. What can we do? The Vindictive 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing :) The Scrubbers is not intended to be a subcategory of the Air pollution control systems category, although scrubbers are air pollution control systems. Instead, subcategories of Air pollution control systems category should be NOx control, Particulate control, VOC abatement, Acid gas control and so on. All articles related to scrubbers should be included in the specific category (particulate control, acid gas control, etc.) and not as a subcategory of the Air pollution control systems category. All scrubbers should be included in a category but this category should not be included as a subcategory of Air pollution control systems category. Could you help with this please? Or did I confuse you even more? The Vindictive 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the above items:
 * Scroll down on every Edit page to below the "Save page" and "Preview page" and you will see a box full of symbols, Greek and Cyrillic language characters, etc. That box contains for example: ↔ ↑ ↓ •  # ¹ ² ³ ½ ⅓ ⅔ . Wikipedia policy is to use those characters in the text of articles whenever possible (except in equations written in Wiki's math markup which uses LaTex). If you use 3 instead of ³, some Administrator will change it sooner or later just as I did.
 * At the top of every Discussion page (as well as the top of every Discussion Edit page, you will see a row of tabs that read: user page, discussion, edit, +, history, move, unwatch. Whenever, you are writing a new comment or new question on a discussion page, just click on that + tab and that will automatically provide you a form in which to first enter a Subject and then enter the new Comment which will automatically be entered beneath the last comment on the Discussion (Talk) page.
 * I keep my display at 800 by 600 and the Venturi scrubber article looks fine except that the drawings need to be larger to make them more legible. I changed Image 1 to 250px and that looks fine. Change all the other images to a range of 250px to 300px. Otherwise, the text in the images is illegible. As for other display resolutions, you can do nothing about that. Readers using other resolutions will either need better eyes than mine or they will have to adjust their resolution.
 * If you want to create subcategories to the Category:Air pollution control systems, simply go to that category and, on its Edit page, add the subcategories that you want at the bottom. Is that what you were asking?
 * Finally, we must all learn that we don't own an article simply because we wrote it. Once written, it is owned by Wikipedia and anyone is free to revise it. If we disagree with a revision, then that disagreement should be discussed on the Talk page. Of course, if it is simply vandalism or mis-spelling or grammar, just change it with a very brief explanation in the Edit Summary. But for major revisions, discussing it first is the best idea.


 * I know that Christmas is not celebrated in Iran, but it is here and Christmas is the day after tomorrow ... so I am quite busy for the next few days. If you need further help, I may or may not be available to help you for the next few days. Regards, - mbeychok 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ISBN13
Hi, see discssion on AN/I. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 24 December 2006 (GMT).

Exergoecology
Hello. I see you're interested in the Exergoecology article, and have put in a bit of work on the article. Unfortunately, the original version was a copyright violation and the current version is not significantly different -- meaning it is still a copyright problem. If you would like to rewrite the article, please do so. The instructions are on the notice I've placed on the page. Please remember that the re-write must be in your own words so that we avoid copyright issues. Since there were no clean versions in the article history, it technically qualified as a speedy delete. Since you and another editor have shown interest in it, however, I thought it best to list it at Copyright problems where it will remain for seven days before the original is deleted. This will give you time to work on the replacement article if you so wish. SWAdair | Talk 10:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SWAdair, thanks for alerting me to the copyright problem with Exergoecology. I am really not interested in the subject.  I just saw it as an article that needed Wikifying. I have no intention of working on it any further. - mbeychok 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I saw the article discussed above, and poking arond led me to the article on Exergy, which smells a bit of pseudoscience, and a bit of buzzword - I've never heard the term before, even though I've had a little thermodynamics. It appears that "exergy" is a real concept, but that perhaps the name is new. Would it be possible for you to take a look at Exergy, and figure out whether it's a real thing with a fancy new name, or something else? Thanks! Argyriou (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Esoteric, arcane and badly written? Yes, indeed! See my comments on Talk:Exergoecology. - mbeychok 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)