Talk:Water aeration

message: I have deleted the following paragraph from the fine bubble aeraton section:
:However, almost all of the oxygen dissolved into the water from an air bubble occurs when the bubble is being formed. Only a negligible amount occurs during the bubbles transit to the surface of the water. This is why an aeration process that makes many small bubbles is better than one that makes fewer larger ones. The breaking up of larger bubbles into smaller ones also repeats this formation and transfer process.Meck, Norm (1996) Dissolved Oxygen.
The source is the blog of a Mr. Norm Meck, (as far as I can tell) a well respected member of the San Diego Koi Club. However, other than this particular source, I could not find any peer reviewed paper that supports his theory. On the other hand, there are plenty of papers stating that the residence time of air bubbles (i.e. how long it takes for the bubble to reach the water surface) strongly affects the rate of oxygenation, which would contradict Mr. Meck's theory of oxygenation during bubble formation. Therefore, until proven otherwise, I am afraid Mr. Meck's theory should not be stated as fact in the article.202.73.1.98 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted entry about oxygen dissolution during formation of bubble

message: There seems little in the new article which is not more thoroughly covered in this one. PamD (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one??? Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you mean oxygenation (environmental), there's a much better one for that to merge with:  oxygen saturation. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The subject "water aeration" is used extensively (Google,scholar) - while the title "water oxygenation" is almost unused in comparison (Google,Scholar). Was there any discussion on this, which didn't survive the move? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut all the speculative (and i do mean speculative here, since it seems to be based on very limited references) geoengineering stuff, for both being WP:OR and extremely undue weight to a few (very few (<10)) researchers work - which AJL just seems to have reinserted here, since Hydraulic geoengineering was to be (and now is) AfD'd. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Water oxygenation would encompass processes that don't involve air insertion.  However, if aeration is the more common term I suggest moving it back. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this moved? 

message: Pond aeration has recently been greatly expanded , mostly by a single editor. Despite the sterling work put in, it would seem much more logical to have a single article on water aeration since Pond aeration, Lake aeration, Lagoon aeration, Swamp aeration and any variety that can be thought of are all basically the same thing - getting air (and thus Oxygen) into water. As it stands , Pond aeration looks very much like a content fork of this article and should be merged according to WP policies on content forks. I see no problem with using much of the new stuff at Pond aeration in this article which will conserve the recent good work of the principal editor of Pond aeration.
I therefore Support a merge.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any dissension or any comment whatsoever over 3 weeks, I have merged relevant paragraphs and converted Pond aeration  into a redirect to here.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Pond aeration

message: In the section about different aeration types, it seems like there are three main headings, "Natural aeration", "Surface aeration" and "Subsurface aeration", which each have sub-headings that are more emphasised than the main headings. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it's wrong at the moment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezzamon (talk • contribs) 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   10:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines seem somewhat backwards 

message: The article says: "The common power is going from 1 up to 250kw per unit with an efficiency (SOE) around 2 kgO2/kw."  This makes no sense.  Over what period of time is the 2 kgO2 produced?  A second?  An hour?  Moreover, there is no reference for this statement. 173.76.107.169 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense units