User talk:Mbeychok/Archive3

Page move debate opinions needed
Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuous distillation - Industrial application section
The industrial application section of Continuous distillation says:
 * "Continuous distillation is used widely in the chemical process industries where large quantities of liquids have to be distilled.  Such industries are the petroleum processing, petrochemical production, coal tar processing, brewing, liquified air separation, and hydrocarbon solvents production and similar industries, but it finds its widest application in petroleum refineries."

I was going to change "petroleum processing" to "natural gas processing" in the second sentence, but I want to run this by you first to make sure it's ok. H Padleckas 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry, that change is fine by me. I see that you have looked at the "Natural gas processing" article which I am developing in my sandbox at User:Mbeychok/MRB's sandbox ... and thanks for correction about Helium. You should also look at my second sandbox at User:Mbeychok/MRB's sandbox2 to see the flow diagram that I developed for that article ... I would appreciate your comments on it. Regards, - mbeychok 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Waste Heat
I'm sure you'll notice the latest on Talk:Fossil_fuel_power_plant. I have also contributed on Talk:Waste_heat. Perhaps you'd also like to comment there? (I have a bee in my bonnet about waste energy!)

(Well, waste that isn't mine anyway! :-S )--JB001 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Water cooling
Hi Mbeychok

I disagree with you removing the image I added. Yes, I know this is the English wikipedia but we don't have a better image here. Some other articles started off with partial translations of other language content, and I might guess that other language wikis may have a lot of English as well. Wikipedia is work in progress and instead of happily accepting the status quo, the presence of a German-labeled image may give someone inspiration to translate it into English. In any case, the labels are not the gist; everything is explained in the captions. If needed, they can be elaborated. --Rifleman 82 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning about Distillation
Hello; I see you have plonked in Talk:Bill Owens (photographer) a warning that's not about that particular article but is instead about Distillation and was surely intended for User talk:Bill Owens Photography. (It's an understandable mistake and I've done sillier things when sleepy.) I thought of moving it, but instead decided to leave this for you; you may wish to take the opportunity for minor rewording or similar.

No need to reply to me on this. (Though of course you're welcome to do so if you wish. If you do so, I'd prefer that you did so here, as I prefer a discussion to be in one place.) -- Hoary 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoary, thanks for informing me of my mistake. I wasn't sleepy ... just confused. I have now moved my posting. Thanks again. - mbeychok 05:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all.


 * I haven't looked at the edits in question and of course don't suppose there's a relationship between (a) quality of photography (or brewing, or distilling) and (b) good editing. But for what it's worth, Bill Owens has put out some fine photo collections: which is how I came across his article and your message. -- Hoary 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said in my message to him, I greatly respect the fact that he won two Guggenheim awards. None-the-less, the glossary he edited into the already very long Distillation article almost doubled the size of the article and really contributed absolutely nothing of value to the article.  It was also obviously simply copied from a website or a publication and no effort was made to format it for insertion into a Wikipedia article. We were all Wikipedia beginners at one time ... but most of us spent quite a bit of time reading and studying the Help sections before making edits. Regards and thanks again, - mbeychok 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Power plant articles
Merge away. The steam electric power plant was the shortest and weakest of the four, so I redirected it to "thermal power plant". Power station should just mention the types and leave them in articles of their own - Probably best to confine this to processes commercially used to generate electric power, then you don't have to talk about freaky things like radioisotope batteries or mobile power sources. --Wtshymanski 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thermal
 * steam
 * fossil,
 * nuclear
 * MHD
 * geothermal
 * solar
 * OTEC
 * combustion turbine
 * internal combustion engine
 * hydroelectric
 * pumped storage
 * wave
 * ocean currents
 * wind,
 * solar photovoltaic
 * And so on?

Re: Regarding your capitalization of Natural Resource
Well, I fixed it. Sorry about that.  Drahcir my talk get my skin  01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Power plant articles
Hi, Mbeychok. I am opposed to a merge of any of the articles. First, a single article cannot go into the detail necessary to cover all of these topics. Also, they are technically not the same subject, although there is some overlap. For example, steam-electric power plants are not equivalent to fossil fuel power plants. They also include geothermal, nuclear, biomass and some types of solar thermal power plants. Also, while all steam-electric power plants are thermal power plants, not all thermal power plants are steam-electric. They are simply the most common. A solar dish that uses a Stirling engine is an example of a non steam-electric power plant. Binary cycle geothermal plants, closed cycle ocean thermal energy conversion power plants and radioisotope thermoelectric generators are not steam-electric either, but they are all thermal power plants. Also, "power station" or "power plant" is not equivalent to steam-electric power plant, thermal power plant or fossil fuel power plant. Nuclear, geothermal, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and other types of plants are also called "power stations" or "power plants". Nuclear, geothermal, solar, biomass and hydroelectric plants get their own articles, and I do not understand while fossil fuel plants would not get their own article as well. Finally, I like it when identical or virtually identical subjects are covered in the same article, but I hate it when truly dissimilar topics are crammed into the same article. I also hate it you have to read/scan the whole article to find what you are looking for. For example, an article might link to steam-electric power plant, but the fossil fuel power plant and power station articles are not going to cover what they are in the beginning (also, it would be odd for the fossil fuel power plant article to cover it in any amount of detail, since it is just one kind of steam-electric power plant). -- Kjkolb 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have some good points regarding the Thermal power plant and the Steam-electric power plant articles. And I agree wholeheartedly that dissimilar material should not be crammed into an article. But I must say that I still feel quite strongly that the Power station and Fossil fuel power plant are covering the same material and should be merged. The reason I raised this question in the discussion pages rather than tagging the articles with merger tags is that I felt it should first be thoroughly discussed. I have no intention of doing any merging until it has been very thoroughly discussed and a consensus is reached. - mbeychok 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, the fossil fuel power plant (FFPP) and power station connection is the one that I am most confused about. :-) If the content is substantially the same, the articles should be modified so that they do not overlap so much. (I looked at the articles quickly and I did not see much duplication of content. However, I think the FFPP article should be partially rewritten because it seems to describe a particular power plant, which is not very useful unless the information is correct for a wide range of plants. It would be somewhat better if we could at least get some information like the plant's design, age and generating capacity.) In my experience, a power plant/station refers to any type of power plant, not just fossil fuel plants. If that is the case, the power station article should provide an overview of nuclear, fossil fuel, hydroelectric, biomass, solar and geothermal power plants. The individual nuclear, fossil fuel and such articles will go into greater detail. I'm going offline right now. It might be a few days before I am back, but I might be back tomorrow. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need 4 articles on the same subject??
I agree with your views. Better to have only one article. You can combine them with credit to each author. The contents of special nature in each article have to be brought out, which is very important. This will also avoid controversy with other authors.

--Dore chakravarty 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your opinion. Has anybody come up to do it? If not I shall do it; a long drawn affair. I have also to think, read and do. Our luck considering my old age. Shall try once you say OK.
 * --Dore chakravarty 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Cooling Tower
Mbeychok - Thanks for your efforts. Most of the info on the cooling tower subject is on target. However, your discussion around Nuclear Reactor Cooling Towers implies that all Nuclear power plant require natural draft (hyperbolic) cooling towers. After 16+ years working at Marley, I know that the two are unrelated. The decision to design a tower as a natural draft is driven by economic evaluation and ambient conditions. There are many coal power plants in the US with natural draft towers, and nuclear plants with induced (mechanical) draft towers. Natural draft tower don't work well in arid and semi-arid regions, which is why the vast majority of ND towers are in the Eastern half of the US.

Suggest dropping the "Nuclear Reactor" section altogether, and replace it with a discussion of "Power Plant" cooling towers, and then elaborate on a discussion of natural draft versus mechanical draft. The SPX Cooling Technologies web site (www.spxcooling.com) can provide you with some additional details. SPX used to be Marley.

I also suggest using US customary as your primary unit convention. The industry does not talk in "metric". Use GPM, pounds, tons and Fahrenheit and you article will be more useful to your audience.

dbaugher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.219.133.131 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


 * dbaugher: I did not write that section of the Cooling tower article. If you look at the History page for that article, you will find that, like most Wikipedia articles, it evolved as a collaborative effort by many different people. I would strongly suggest that if you feel strongly about the nuclear reactor section of the article, that you re-write it. If you are loath to get involved in that, then email me a revised section on nuclear reactors and I will Wikify it for you and put it into the article. You can email me by going to my User page and scrolling down the left-hand frame until you see "Email this user".


 * As for using US units, I know that the US cooling tower industry does not talk in metric ... but we are the only country in the world still using the US units. Wikipedia frowns upon usage of US units unless they are also duplicated in metric units. There are young engineers worldwide who have never heard of inches, feet, psi, or gallons ... believe that or not, it is true. There are also many university students in our country who no longer use anything but metric. Regards, - mbeychok 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the above image, please go ahead and delete it. It was uploaded simply to illustrate a point being made in a discussion page many months ago. The point that was being discussed was resolved at that time, and I did not know how to get it deleted. You would be doing me a favor if you deleted it.- mbeychok 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I can't delete images. But you can go to Images and media for deletion/2007 February 2 and post your approval of it being deleted if you want.

Just so you know: free images and media that are no longer wanted are listed at Images and media for deletion. There are instructions on that page for how to list images. Fair use images that are no longer used should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} or Image:replacement image name.ext. After being tagged with one of these templates, the fair use image will be deleted after 7 days.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! And thank you for wisely choosing to save your diagrams in the lossless PNG format. —Remember the dot (t) 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy of "Going up in smoke"
Could you tell me where you got a copy of "Going up in smoke"? 75.69.194.89 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)aec


 * You should contact the Victorian Society in England at www.victoriansociety.org.uk. You might also try to find an email address for Jim Douet, who wrote "Going up in smoke". He lives in Spain and a Google search might find him for you. He has a Wikipedia user page at Mrs Mei but he very, very rarely visits Wikipedia. - mbeychok 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

169.244.6.107
Hi, Mbeychok. I blocked the IP address 169.244.6.107 for a week. It is probably from a school, although it might be a library. It's very difficult to get vandalism to stop on school IPs, aside from the breaks caused by blocks, but we will see. In the future, you can report vandalism to Administrator intervention against vandalism, if you want, as I can be gone for days at a time. Thanks, Kjkolb 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: acid/sour gas
Thanks - while I know they're mixed up in normal usage, it felt wrong to leave them lumped together even though the difference was already mentioned on the page. I realise the two are currently (probably a little too) similar but didn't have material yet to distinguish them further. I'm trying to find the CO2 limit for sales gas, since that'll clarify the acid gas article a bit better. Anyway, thanks for letting me know :) --Firi e n § 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Impatience.
Someone will get to your email when they can. We have too few volunteers and too many incoming emails. It may be another week before your email is responded to.

Also, I was out of town for three days. If you have an issue with a non-responsive individual, you should look for someone else to help you rather than harass the original person on his userpage. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bastique, here is a copy of the alleged "harassment" on your Talk page:
 * I really would like to get a response from you regarding the above questions. Please take a few minutes of time to answer. Thanks, - mbeychok 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am surprised to learn that you considered the above request for a response to be "harassment". I thought it was a polite request for help from a knowledgeable Wikipedia administrator. Thanks anyway, - mbeychok 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Link in McCabe-Thiele method
Hello,

I undid your edit to McCabe-Thiele, i think the link is questionable as it points to demo-type software. Do you know of a precedent in wikipedia for either direction? Corporate linking is too easy to go astray, please comment. User A1 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you will look at the History page of the McCabe-Thiele method article, you will see that I wrote almost all of that article.


 * I completely agree with you that most corporate linking is simply spam. I have deleted many such links myself. But in this case, after completely going through all of the article, I found that it had a great deal of useful and relevant content. Especially in the book section and the Content tab. I therefore felt it deserved a link. I would also point out that the consortium offering the software are mostly university academics.


 * However, if you still feel the link is inappropriate, I won't contest it with you. I only ask that you take a good long look at all of that website, as I did. Best regards, - mbeychok 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look at it later this evening, and then comment. However as a side note is there somewhere where i can get a copy of "Algebraic Solution of McCabe-Thiele Diagram?" It's in storage at our library, and getting it is a pain, i am interested in reading this, as all the texts i have seen on the McCabe Thiele diagram fail to outline more than its construction and use, rather than its mathematical origins. Bit like the pinch method in that respect. (I assume you are the author) User A1 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I could fax you a copy of that article if you will give me your fax number. However, it is not what you think. It shows how the Mc-Cabe-Thiele diagram can be used algebraically rather than drawing the diagram.  It does not include the mathematical origins of the method. (If you go to my user page, scroll down the left-hand frame and click on "Email this user", you could send me your fax number.)


 * When you read the Chemsep site, first go to http://www.chemsep.com/book/index.html and then click on the "Content tab". That takes you to http://www.chemsep.com/book/contents.html. Scan the contents briefly to see what it contains. Then click on the first item in the contents, labeled as 1. A Simple Equilibrium Stage Column, which takes you to http://www.chemsep.com/downloads/docs/book2.pdf#page=9. Then scroll down to 1.3.3 The McCabe-Thiele Diagram and you will see why I felt that the website was much more than just advertsing.


 * The other sections in the Contents are just as informative regarding other facets of distillation column design. Regards, - mbeychok 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have sent you my fax number, hope its not too much trouble! -- Regards User A1 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chemical plant, processes, design, etc.
Hi Milt. Spring is almost here. Happy upcoming St. Patrick's Day. :-) Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering. H Padleckas 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Milt, your user name, mbeychok, has been mentioned in responses to remarks in the above link. H Padleckas 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry, I just sent you an email explaining why I have been unresponsive to your recent messages. Regards, - mbeychok 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Milt, thanks for adding links and references to the Vapor-liquid equilibrium article. H Padleckas 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird article?
Milton, check this one Pollution control and maybe add a comment on the discussion page. Why are people left to create useless pages??? Plus that it's awfully structured! The Vindictive 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. It is an awful article. Note the delete tag that I placed on it. We cannot delete it, only Administrators can do that. Let us hope that some Administrator will soon do so. - mbeychok 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for adding the delete tag. Let's do hope an Administrator will do so... The Vindictive 08:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And somebody proposed the Ejector venturi to be merged into Venturi scrubber. I added my comment on the venturi scrubber talk page. Please review it and see if I'm right so we can delete this tag. The Vindictive 08:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest two things. First, go to the Talk page of the user who posted that merger proposal and politely notify him that you have responded to his proposal on the talk page. Second, wait at least another 2-3 weeks to see if any other people respond to his proposal ... before you take any action to delete his merger tag. I am sure that you don't want to start a reverting war.


 * Meanwhile, I will add my own response against his proposal. Regards, - mbeychok 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with tables
Milton, I have troubles centering tables. Although I add either align="center" or if I do it with style="align: center", it won't center it. This is very annoying since I don't always want to make the tables 100% wide and if they're not centered, the result looks weird. Please help. The Vindictive 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The few times that I have centered a table in Wikipedia, I have used just before the table and just after the table. Wikipedia frowns upon the use of HTML, but no one has ever complained about my use of HTML to center a few tables.


 * The place to ask for help on such questions are Village pump (technical) and Help desk. You will usually be helped within a very short time when you post questions there. - mbeychok 16:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pollution control article
Milton, somebody has replaced your deletion tag in the Pollution control article with a cleanup tag. I still believe this article should be deleted, it's useless. Is somebody trying to protect rubbish in Wikipedia??? Can't we do anything about it??? The Vindictive 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That change was done by an Administrator and I have exchanged comments with him on his Talk page at User talk:Uncle G. I don't think we can change his mind.  You might want to read our exchange of comments at his Talk page and offer your comments ... but I don't think it will change his mind. - mbeychok 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a way he's right but he's more wrong than right. I also think the aim is not to punish but to encourage but if some users are so ignorant and in complete darkness, they shouldn't be allowed to create such things. See my comment on his page. The Vindictive 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pollution, pollutants, mergers
Dear Milton, please check the Pollutant article. I think that besides the fact that it is a stub, it should be merged into the Pollution article. Too many articles in Wikipedia talking about the same subject and spreading out the content unnecessarily. Also, what can we do to merge an article? It seems like the merger proposal to the Venturi scrubber is solved, as well as the Pollution control article (we have more favourable comments added there). Thanks. The Vindictive 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dragos: I think we should wait about 3-4 more days to see if more comments on the proposed merger show up at Talk:Pollution control. After that, I will do the actual merger.


 * As for the proposed merger tag that you added on the Pollutant article, that should also be allowed to wait a week or so before proceeding. Also, when you add a merger tag like that, you should go to Talk:Pollutant and add a comment about the merger and why you proposed it ... that's the way to get the ball rolling. Regards, -mbeychok 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Milton, you added a comment on the Pollution talk page referring to my merger proposal. I don't know if you paid attention to what I proposed to be merged into this article. I don't want to upset you, please check out my comment. I think you may have made a mistake. Thanks. The Vindictive 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dragos, don't worry, I am not upset. If you read History page of the Pollution article, you will find that there was a proposal to merge Externality and Pollution back in 2006. It was opposed and later deleted. So I really did not make a mistake when I commented on that merger proposal in 2006. I strongly suggest that you very quickly replace your mistaken comment on the Talk:Pollution page with a new comment (with its own header title) proposing the merge of Pollutant with Pollution. Regards, - mbeychok 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did that, sorry, I hadn't noticed at the time. It was very weird. I should pay more attention to the dates. Regards. The Vindictive 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But now I see that you already did it for me and added a comment as well :) The Vindictive 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

stack emission vertical speed in the gaussian air pollutant dispersion equation
Hi

I was wondering if there is any way to easily introduce a parameter for the vertical speed of the stack in the Gaussian air pollutant dispersion equation. In fact, I don't think that the spatial dispersion will be the same for a vertical emission speed of 1 m.s-1 or 10 m.s-1. Thanks.

fr:User:FredB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.238.76.3 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The Gaussian dispersion equation is completely independent of the vertical emission rate in the stack or at the stack exit. However, the emission rate (in m3/s) at the stack exit does effect the rise of the pollution plume after it leaves the stack. The height to which the plume rises does effect how much the pollutants will disperse before they reach ground-level. Thus, higher emission flow rates result in higher plume rises which, in turn, result in better dispersion and lower ground-level concentrations of pollutants.


 * The Briggs plume rise equations do include that effect. To include all the details of the Briggs or other plume rise equations would turn the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article into a book.  If you want more information, I would strongly suggest that you read either of the two books named in the "Further reading" section of the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article. Regards, - mbeychok 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your explanations, I think I will have a look at these books. fr:User:FredB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.231.94.9 (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Refrigeration project?
Do you suppose there are enough people interested to maintain a wikiproject on refrigeration? Or would it duplicate an existing project? Tom Harrison Talk 01:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, I really don't know how many knowledgeable people are available for such a project. At the moment, I have some serious medical problems and I can no longer spend as much time on Wikipedia as I have done in the past. Regards, - mbeychok 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear it. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Tom Harrison Talk 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Environmental impacts section at FFPP

 * Sorry to hear of your medical issues. I hope you find both the inner and outer resources to deal successfully with them.  I just began new employment, so have less time for Wp now as well. I will try to get the section fixed up so that the difference between settled science and areas of active research is more definite.  --Blainster 14:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent
As I think you may have gathered I meant the sceptics were "incoherent as a group" (i.e. never agreed with each other) rather than incoherent as individuals. It may not cheer you up but I am sympathetic on the health thing too. I collapsed and was resuscitated in Feb this year and the whole thing was a bit scarey... --BozMo talk 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation and good wishes. - mbeychok 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles
Thanks for your honest opinion. What you remarked is right. Whet ever you do will be seen in proper spirit. I only await your further instructions as I am not able to do any more on the drawings or the articles. Hope you will do your best.

--Dore chakravarty 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Milt :-)
 * Please see my remark at Talk:Thermal power station.
 * I have used your idea of combining a calculator pic and a sinusoid graph in the micro-icon/logo for engineering stubs and User tags such as "This user is a chemical engineer." I used this idea to create a possible candidate 150x 150 px logo 1 for the Engineering Wikia.  I also created another possible candidate logo 2 for Engineering Wikia; see [Engineering:Consensus track/Logo change] if you want.
 * H Padleckas 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion timeline at IfD
Further to your note on my talk page, there are various factors in the timeline for an image to be deleted or not at IfD.

In an ideal world (ie no admin backlogs) an image is nominated and appears on the current list for the last 5 days. The 5 day window is the minimum period that is available for discussions. After the 5 days has passed, that day's list of nominations has to be manually added to the old discussions section - that edit you see me doing with the 'add May 23' edit summary.

Due to the lack of active admins working on the deletions of images there has been a substanial delay in have a decision rendered. Most images are deleted without any discussion and as such just appear on the listing as a red link and no note about closing results is left in the section.

Once a day's listing of nomination has been completed actioned, all have been deleted or closed as keeps, the link to that day's list is dropped from the old discussions section.

If there are other question, please drop me a note.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ChE timeline
Please contribute to this new timeline section I just started, if you can. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thermal power station diagrams
Nice job on the Thermal power station diagrams. I'm almost finished with a Turbine-Generator diagram including an oil system for the shaft bearing. By chance, are you also working on a Turbine-Generator diagram, so that we don't duplicate efforts? I'm also thinking of darkening the water pipelines in your deaerator diagram for better visibility some day. H Padleckas 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am am not working on a Turbine-Generator diagram because, in my opinion, the text in the article covers the oil system quite well now that I have done a good bit of re-ordering the various sections and re-wording a number of them ... including the oil system. If you plan to add such a diagram, I would suggest that the title should be "Turbo generator" because that is the existing Wikipedia main article (a stub at the moment) on that subject. I would also suggest that you read the re-worded section on the oil system so that the text and your diagram are consistent with each other.


 * As for darkening the blue water lines in the deaearator diagram, please feel free to do so. Best regards, - mbeychok 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)