Talk:Combustion/Archive 1

message: I'm removing the sentence that says that corrosion does not produce heat, as I recall my textbook said that it does, it just takes such a long time to produce a single joule it's neglegible.Kr5t 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrosion

message: I am removing the edit made by 24.109.226.234 on this date wherein the balanced equation for methane combustion was added to the section on Turbulent Combustion because it was out-of-context with that section and there was no explanation as to why it was added there.  Besides, that equation appears in the lead-in section of the article anyway. - mbeychok 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing edit by 24.109.226.234 

message: I am repeating my final response made above in the section entitled "Factual Error" because I want to make sure that all future readers of this Discussion page read what I said:
68.68.224.129, I give up!  You and Cyanocry are intent on writing a theoretical chemistry article rather than an article that would be useful to all Wikipedia readers and I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. You say "I just thought it was indeed a chemistry article."  I would like to point that it really is a Wikipedia article ... not a chemistry article to the exclusion of everything else. Who elected the two of you to decide that this article was about "the specific chemical process known as 'Combustion' " to the exclusion of anything else useful and pertinent to the real world use of combustion? 
You might as well delete the entire section on "Combustion temperature"  because it has numerous references to combustion air, to stoichiometric air to fuel ratios, to excess combustion air, etc. And you should also delete the two sections on "Complete combustion" and "Incomplete combustion" because they talk about nitrogen oxides being formed when a fuel burns in air. And don't forget to delete the section on "Combustion instabilities" because it talks about running ground-based gas turbines at lean air to fuel conditions to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. (May I assume that you know what a gas turbine is?). And, oh yes, a number of deletions should be made in the "See also" section such as the links to Fire, Air-fuel ratio, External combustion engines, Internal combustion engines, Industrial furnaces, Flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, Cooking and Immolation.  After all, we can't have any mention of those real-world items in "a chemistry article", can we? 
When you have finished gutting the article of all those sections and links, it will have little interest to anyone but chemistry students. Silly me, I thought Wikipedia was about including information rather than excluding it. If I sound angry, it is because I am indeed angry at what you two think should be done to this article. - mbeychok 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat of my above response to comments and deletions of [[User:68.68.224.129|68.68.224.129]] and [[User:Cyanocry|Cyanocry]]

message: Neither User:Cyanocry or User:68.68.224.129 have responded to my above comments on the deletions and changes made by User:Cyanocry. Nor has either of them responded to a copy of my above comments posted to their Talk pages two days ago. I am therefore deleting the changes made by Cyanocry and reverting back to the last version by User:AntiVandalBot.  - mbeychok 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting changes made by [[User:Cyanocry]] 

message: Someone added a tag at the top of this Combustion article that says "See also: Combustion (software)". When I went there, I found an article that seemed to me to be purely an advertisement for some software that creates pictures of fires for use in composing video graphics.
Do any of you agree with me that such software has nothing of value relative to the Combustion article? Please let me know so that I don't act too hastily in removing the tag. - mbeychok 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody seems to have an opinion one way or the other, I am taking the bold step of removing the tag. - mbeychok 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove tag to "See also combustion (software) 

message: Hello all:
I feel that the entire new "Analyis section" is just a jumble of data graphs with no explanations and no references. I think it should be deleted until the editor-author:
*Reduces all the white space in each of the images and frames them so that at least some of them could be placed two abreast.
*Uses a more easily legible text in the images.. Some of the text is so small, that it is difficult to read.
*Converts the images from .gif format to .png format.
*Adds some discussion of and explanation of the various images, as well as references to the source of the data.
Much of that data (for example, the enthalpy versus temperature graph and the two heating value plots) is readily available it the NIST online website as well as in many textbooks and handbooks.
What do all of you think? Please comment. - mbeychok 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all of the above. I've moved the section to a user work page User:Engware/work to be refined and cleaned up. As is there is too much image and too little analysis. Please view and comment on the user's work page. Vsmith 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Engware has reworked his "Analysis" section completely and it now reads quite well and is well organized. I no longer have any objection to his contibuting it for everyone's  review here, which he has now done. - mbeychok 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recently added "Analysis section" 

message: I deleted the images for these reasons:
*They were very poor choices.  The first one (ethanol combustion) was almost completely black with just a smear of blue. Without a title, you wouldn't know it was a flame. I don't believe that an technical article on combustion needs photos at all, and especially photos that depict alcoholic cocktails and cigarette smoking.
*There is a Wikipedia article called Fire and the three photos would added by User:Donarreiskoffer would be more appropriuate there. In fact, one of them is already in that article.
*If photos are used (and I repeat that I don't believe they are needed) then Wikimedia Commons has a good many better choices. Just search Commons with the keyword "fire" and you will find them.
Please don't revert those photos back in again without first having some thorough discussion here on this Talk page. - mbeychok 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for removing photos added by [[User:Donarreiskoffer]] 

message: The www.survivaltopics.com/fire/fire-tetrahedron/ The Fire Tetrahedron external link recently added by User:69.205.8.94 is about building a fire for survival when lost in a wilderness. I don't think it is appropriately relevant to this article.  There is a Wikipedia article named Fire and it would probably be more approprate there. What do others think? Let's here from some of you!
- mbeychok 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldent think this would be appropriate. Seems to be adsense spammed site by 69.205.8.94, I'm sure there are better reliable sites that the content origionated from--Hu12 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the www.survivaltopics.com/fire/fire-tetrahedron/ The Fire Tetrahedron external link appropriate here? 

message: I think this discussion page is getting a bit too bloated for its own good to have a meaningful discussion about the future of the Combustion article.  I would like to purge this page of resolved disputes and old arguments if there are no objections. 
BlatantHeroics 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purging or deleting of Discussion pages is seriously frowned upon. What you can do is to simply create a Discussion Archive page and provide a Wiki link to that page at the top of this page. Then you could cut and paste old discussion items into that archive page. Please try not to archive resolved disputes which might arise again because people don't bother to read the archived pages. - mbeychok 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point about the archives, however the majority of the clutter is from the resolved disputes since they span 5-8 paragraphs and some of it is just bickering.  I suggest the following compromise, these long discussion are moved to the archives and replaced with a short summary on the discussion page concerning what the dispute was about, its resolution, and where to find the details. BlatantHeroics 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me. Regards, - mbeychok 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Cleanup