Talk:Filtration

message: This page discusses only chemical filtration.  What about using other filters (optical, signal, software, etc?) Is it OK to use "filtration" for them too, or should one use "filtering" instead?  Can we say "filtering" for chemical filtration?Jorge Stolfi 00:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Filtration is the term that scientists and engineers use, but a better disambiguation note would do not harm. However, we are not talking here about chemical filtration, but rather filtration as a physical operation in chemistry in chemical engineering and in industry in general. LouisBB 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, a disambiguation page would be useful, so that Wikipedia users could navigate more readily to the specific kind of filtration they want. This article could be renamed Filtration (solid-fluid) and linked to the disambiguation page.ChemE50 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There is already a good disambiguation page at Filter, that serves almost all of the requirements needed of a new filtration disambiguation page. Wouldn't it be easier to rewrite the first two lines of this article ("... for all other uses of the terms "filtration" and "filter", see Filter") and beef-up the existing disambiguation page? Wikiwayman (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Filtration vs. Filtering

message: I removed the reference to "further" disadvantages, since no other disadvantages had been mentioned.
I also removed the comment about filter efficiency decreasing as solids are trapped.  In fact that increases the filter's efficiency, defined as the percentage of solids removed, by decreasing the average size of a pore.  The disadvantage is that as channels in the filter are plugged, the effective lumen is decreased and the resistance to flow goes up. CarlFink 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filter efficiency and the word "further" 

message: The section on Flow is odd. It only refers to liquids, and says things that aren't true (or at least I don't know of a cite for liquids "mostly" flowing via gravity.  And by its topic it should really be "propulsion" or something.  I was expecting a discussion of crossflow vs. direct flow filtration.
Speaking of which, why is the illustration at the top of the relatively obscure crossflow filtration?
CarlFink 11:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of a cite for liquids "mostly" flowing via gravity. - Capillary action? It mightn't flow far, but technically it still flows. Ferrofluids can flow due to magnetism. So there are some very obscure exceptions to flowing by gravity. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow 

message: More expertise is required on the subject. A new section is required for Filtration equipment or Filters, and a serious re-write to improve its quality standard. There is no need for the restriction to liquid filtration. LouisBB 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filtration is a wide subject

message: Just looking at the history for this article, there has been a lot of garbage text thrown in; thankfully, several reverts have converted the article back into a more readable form.  Does anyone have any insight why this article is such a target?  Dagordon01 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The very opening of this article begins "Filtration is a mechanical or physical operation..."  Is this genuinely true?  This comes from a discussion on the Filter (aquarium) page where we are discussing biological filters.  These use bacterial processes to remove ammonia from the water and are universally known as "filters" in this context.  Most dictionaries I have consulted on this seem to talk vaguely above removing impurities with no indication of mechanisms involved. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A purely mechanical process? 

message: I've had a look at the orphan reference on the page, and identified it as "Yang, S.T., "On the Permeability of Homogeneous Anisotropic Soils", Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Soil. Mechanics, Rotterdam, 2, 1953, pp. 317-320." I haven't been able to read the work directly, but it is referred to in this work: Darcy's coefficient of permeability as symmetric tensor of second rank, Liakopoulos AC, Bulletin of the International Society of Scientific Hydrology (1965) Vol10 #3 pp. 41-48. Although interesting, I don't see what the permeability of soil has to do with filtration (as a process), so I've deleted it from the page. If anyone knows a missing link between the article and the reference, please add it to the page and link the reference appropriately. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: thumb|right|250px|A small-scale fish hatchery with baffle box Baffle box might be mentioned here
91.182.235.144 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Baffle box

message: The way I was taught the meaning of "filter," it works by adsorption. (This was during a Masters degree in water engineering - just to point out it wasn't an amateur thing.) However, here it says "Filtration differs from adsorption..." 
Either there are different usages, or someone is wrong (my teacher or this article). 
I suspect that sand filters in water treatment rely heavily on adsorption - the fact that removal of impurities continues deep into a slow sand filter seems to support this idea. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes , I agree. Similarly in trickling filters in sewage treatment the principle  treatment process is through adsorbtion and not absorption .  Velella  Velella Talk   20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adsorption 

message: This is a huge concept, huge industry.  Very broad in real world.  But we have a really tiny article.  :(  TCO (Reviews needed) 05:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are a lot of "skimpy articles" for "huge concepts," especially for technology.  Few editors here (me included) are conversant in technology, most of us are students or some sort of academic. Many neglected articles end up as accretions of almost trivia motivated by earnest, well intentioned editors who are incapable of contributing what the articles need and what these editors wish they could write.  Rather than trying to write a properly fleshed out articles (in the quest for FA and similar goals), an alternative approach is to identify and address these "huge concepts" to ensure that (1) the big real world app is mentioned prominently (2) with a real reference to a review or a book per WP:SECONDARY.  If we satisfy #1 and #2 for most articles, we render a the most important service to the readership.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  huge concept, skimpy article 

message: (lead sentence at 16:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - Yes, IMHO it should, and I have added sub-sections with some text to encourage a rather more balanced article. The whole article before I added anything read like a poor undergrad assignment although I can't see any evidence of that in the history. It is in dire need of some good references. Please feel free to add, expand, reference or amend.   Velella  Velella Talk   18:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks, I may do that if I feel the inspiration, which mainly means if I run into something from a reliable source that I think should be in this article, and remember to do it. Creating an infrastructure to support expansion will probably encourage it, so may do a bit of that too. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope and lead sentence