Talk:Chemical engineering

message: === The example ===
What is the small, indented text in the midst of the article? If it is excerpted from some source, that should be indicated. Otherwise, it should be made normal size and indentation. - Centrx 00:24, 17 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the article a long time ago as the english previously used was fairly poor. I added the illustration to explain a common misconception of what Chem Eng is actually about. Someone later must have thought it ancillary to the main flow of the article -- Journeyman 06:14, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is too long, convoluted and vague to be of any use. I would like to see an example of a real scale up, and none of this "maybe". --Vuo 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps someone could write about the Haber-Bosch process mentioned? Journeyman 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree with this statement. We, Chem Eng. are also concern about quality. There is not point on optimizing a process to get the most (quantity) out of it if we do not at least keep a minimum level of quality. --Ozzyprv 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with Ozzyprv. Chemical engineers focus production, purity and price. For example, whey protein (WPC) at 20%(w/w) purity sells for a lot less than 90%(w/w) but each has a market. Thus, one company will choose to make lots of 20% WPC for a low price, while another will choose to make smaller amounts of 90% WPC for a higher price. The distinction between quality and quantity is too simplistic. Journeyman 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between chemical engineering and chemistry 

message: What is the small, indented text in the midst of the article? If it is excerpted from some source, that should be indicated. Otherwise, it should be made normal size and indentation. - Centrx 00:24, 17 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the article a long time ago as the english previously used was fairly poor. I added the illustration to explain a common misconception of what Chem Eng is actually about. Someone later must have thought it ancillary to the main flow of the article -- Journeyman 06:14, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is too long, convoluted and vague to be of any use. I would like to see an example of a real scale up, and none of this "maybe". --Vuo 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps someone could write about the Haber-Bosch process mentioned? Journeyman 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example 

message: In the section discussing the differences between chem eng and chem, it should mention simply that chemistry is concerned with quality while chem eng focuses on quantity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.49.102 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree with this statement. We, Chem Eng. are also concern about quality. There is not point on optimizing a process to get the most (quantity) out of it if we do not at least keep a minimum level of quality. --Ozzyprv 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with Ozzyprv. Chemical engineers focus production, purity and price. For example, whey protein (WPC) at 20%(w/w) purity sells for a lot less than 90%(w/w) but each has a market. Thus, one company will choose to make lots of 20% WPC for a low price, while another will choose to make smaller amounts of 90% WPC for a higher price. The distinction between quality and quantity is too simplistic. Journeyman 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality vs Quantity 

message: Should the article "Drug design" be linked ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.100.40.69 (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it should, please be bold and add it yourself (and sign your comments). --Charlesreid1 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug design 

message: Someone has added childish statements and vandalised the begining of the article. Can someone here clean that up or report it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.77.20 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Khetankhare, I note that you added the subject WikiProject tag. Before urging others to join, 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 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical and Bio Engineering WikiProject tag 

message: As a chemical engineering major, I find it odd that this article does not mention chemical engineers in the petrochemical industry, especially since it has been a historic source of employment for ChE's.
shoy 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrochemical Industry 

message: Hey, do you think that we should add information about salary ranges of the chemical engineers?
--Aratarin 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful.  The best source might be Chemical and Engineering News which has a detailed salary survey each year. I, unfortunately, no longer get this publication. ike9898 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of getting the information off of bls.gov, i believe that should be fairly reliable, do you agree? --Aratarin 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. ike9898 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I think that this information is quite irrelevant, because this would at the very least lack standardized resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.215.224 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not too keen on salary information in these types of articles personally. Doesn't really tell you much about what Chem. engers do, or who they are. User A1 (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salaries? 

message: I like the idea of having a PFD on the chemical engineering page, but I just realized the same PFD is used in the PFD article.  Also, because the example cited is for orange juice production, wouldn't a PFD of the orange juice process make more sense?  Brien Clark 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it would be nice to have a PFD for the orange juice production, so what are we waiting for?  Jfreyre — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amine PFD

message: If you are a chemical engineer, please add this to your user page.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ChE user box

message: I am fairly new to Wiki.  Great to find lots of info on various unit operations.  I note there is a lack of entries on chemical plants etc. The Oil refinery‎ article has lists but not much data on each plant.  I am drafting an article on the Huntsman plant in Melbourne Australia since I have some first hand knowledge of it User:Boswell/Huntsman (chemical plant)‎
.  Can you make comment on this and direct me to any similar articles. Boswell 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few months ago, I greatly expanded the article Chemical plant.  You are welcome to take a look at it and even expand it, if you wish.  I started the article Chemical process, which was previously a REDIRECT to Chemical reaction even though Chemical reaction said practically nothing about industrial scale chemical processes.  User:mbeychok wrote the article Natural gas processing.  Offline, I started writing an expansion of Petrochemical.  H Padleckas 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants with Chemical Engineering Operations

message: Is it me, or is that comparison about extracting orange juice really stupid? Comparing chemistry to how to extract a liquid out of a piece of produce...it's immigrant labor that usually does that, not chemists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.208.77 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a few decades of working alongside chemical engineers I think the example is excellent. The chemical reactions that goes on in most plants today are known from the 19th century or earlier. Basic process equipment like tanks and pumps were known since before Hero of Alexandria. Chemical Engineering today is mostly finding the most economical way. Most of the basic machinery today have to do with separation-stages and not with any trivial chemical process, which makes the example twice as good. The Dutch name for chemistry:"Scheikunde" I am told, means separation, which is a much better pciture of what most chemical engineers actually work with than when you look at a picture of Niels Bohr's model of the atom or a Stoichiometry formula. DanielDemaret 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that orange juice maybe was not the best example, however nobody who are involved in chemical enginnering cant deny that this example is related to chemical engineering. The sentence about imigrants was stupid - dont forget that in USA and West Europe not only dirty jobs but science too are very dependent from imigrants (I see it too - because a number of my clasmates from university already are in USA or West Europe). So please - no insults to imigrants or in some day You can sweep your street by Yourself.--Riharcc (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange juice example 

message: If you are a professional engineer, please add this to your user page.  Thanks: --CheMechanical 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PE user box

message: We need some images in this article. So please someone add images related to chemical engineering.Tanvir che (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you be bold and add some yourself? --Charlesreid1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Surely there is a simpler way to explain differences than this screen long page of waffle? I don't mean to offend those who wrote it but it is insufferably dull. Anon, 18.20, 29 March 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.144 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lab synthesis, though unfortunately I don't have the original book, only a photocopy of the page.  It is a relatively inefficient but also relatively safe one because of the water. Acetic anhydride hydrolyses sufficiently slowly for acetylation to occur.  Removal of water is one of the things which would be considered in a more sophisticated scale-up, but I did not want to complicate matters further.  If anyone can think of an A + B = C + D (solvent, catalyst) with a familiar product, then please do. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengthy Example

message: I say this as a chemical engineer: the end of the introduction to this article seems much too positive. "The development of the large-scale processes characteristic of industrialized economies is a feat of chemical engineering, not chemistry. Indeed, chemical engineers are responsible for the availability of the modern high-quality materials that are essential for running an industrial economy."
While I suppose this is true in a sense, it is a bit dishonest to imply that chemical engineering is respondible for all the world's wealth. The passage sounds like cheerleading for chemical engineering, and I don't think it adds any information. I think the passage should be removed.
jsalvati 01:52, 20 August 2009 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.14.46 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find it a bit gung-ho, but I hesitate to delete other people's enthusiasm. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but I think such enthusiasm conflicts with Wikipedias Encyclopedianess jsalvati 11:40, 27 August 2008 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.14.42 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Since no one seems to object, I have removed the passage jsalvati 15:32, 02 September 2008 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.14.42 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Too Positive 

message: This appears to be a largely random collection of books FOR chemical engineers - I would guess someone's collection or possibly a student's reading list.  And why Coulson and Richardson vol 2 only?  Volume 6 (Sinott) is more significant.  Should not an encyclopedia article contain books ABOUT chemical engineering for the outsider, or just possibly a general introduction for first year students? Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: I've been trying to change the introduction as I believe it is far to narrow minded to simply say that chemical engineers are purely intereseted in converting products economically. Modern chemical engineers are interested in a far greater range of topics than this and, although it is mentioned later in the page, I really do think that something should be mentioned about this. After all, isn't the point of an introduction to introduce the points that you are going to develop later. This isn't a major change, it's only a one liner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.64.19 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, thankyou for bringing up this discussion. Whilst it is only a one liner, it does need to be referenced. I have no objections to the change, provided that you say something less vague than "increasingly chemical engineers ...." and provide a reference of sufficient quality. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for a more detailed explanation of why this is important. The importance of minimising qualitative pseudo-information is quite clear in engineering!  User A1 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader Introduction 

message: Should chemical reaction engineering be a stand-alone article, merged into chemical engineering, or deleted? Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep separate. The article Chemical reaction engineering is short, but could be easily expanded to overgrow the size that could fit into the article Chemical engineering. --vuo (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear on the scope of that article. I wouldn't make a decision until it is clear what is to be covered.User A1 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Keep separate.  Chemical reaction engineering is a branch of chemical engineering which has to do with application aspects of chemical reaction kinetics and catalysis, and with chemical reactors, particularly their design.  In addition to chemical reaction engineering, the field of chemical engineering also covers other areas as well, such as separation processes.  Although the Chemical reaction engineering article is presently short, both the Chemical reaction engineering and Chemical engineering articles could be easily expanded to full length articles.  H Padleckas (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chemical reaction engineering]] 

message: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)has claimed that it was the first school in the U. S. to award doctoral degrees in chemical engineering, in 1924.MIT Department of Chemical Engineering, "History of Chemical Engineering at MIT" http://web.mit.edu/cheme/about/history.html Retrieved April 6, 2010 University of Wisconsin awarded a doctoral degree in chemical engineering in 1905 to Oliver Patterson Watts.http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/"Chemical_engineering New World Encyclopedia/Chemical Engineering" Website It appears that University of Wisconsin was actually the first.ChemE50 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting claims about Ph. D. timeline 

message: I'm planning to include such section. I'm currently working on the petroleum engineering subsection. Planning to add process engineering and chemical reaction engineering subsections afterwards. Any suggestions? Pascal Hacutin (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok nevermind. I'm putting petroleum engineering in the related fields section. Any ideas? Pascal Hacutin (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdisciplines of chemical engineering 

message: I'm changing this article's quality to "B" following this page's list of criteria: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria. If you object, please revert this edit and discuss below. Charlesreid1 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Quality

message: In section Process design we read
:The recent book "Chemical Process Technology and Simulation" by Srikumar Koyikkal  
and in section Recent progress we read
:The latest book 'Chemical Process Technology and Simulation' gives a very good comprehensive account of...
But this work is not mentioned in the References or Bibliography.  My suspicion is that someone is just trying to promote a book. 
86.145.59.83 (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in wrong places 

message: In the part
Three years before Davis' lectures, Henry Edward Armstrong taught a degree course in chemical engineering at the City and Guilds of London Institute. Armstrong's course "failed simply because its graduates ... were not especially attractive to employers." Employers of the time would have rather hired chemists and mechanical engineers.[3]
That's can't be verified because in 1887, the statistic about the employment of chemical engineering professionals was non existing, its needed information and testimonies (at least one) that said it.
This part must be removed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelslt (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History