Talk:Ceramic engineering

message: Added correction to history and use of PSZ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.68.87 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Added 

message: I'm OK with the recent suggestion of a compromise, however to suggest "industry usually talks in Farhenheit and Academia usually talks in Celsius. There are exceptions, but it is mostly this way" is plainly incorrect. The only area of the world were farhenheit is used in industry, or most walks of life, in the USA. Everywhere else, and hence the overwhelming majority of indusrty, uses metric.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.191 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Farhenheit & Celsius

message: There was a big overlap between this article and Ceramic materials.  I have taken all information about ceramic materials out of this article and put it in the other one, and I have taken all the information about ceramic engineering out of that article and put it here. Marshall46 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to 24.113.151.15 for his well-informed improvements to the article.  We are now left with two definitions. Could you edit them into one, please?  Marshall46 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation of the article

message: The following sequence is described:-
Milling → Batching → Mixing → Forming → Drying → Firing → Assembly.
but inside the "Drying" step the out-of-sequence description of "Spray Drying" is mentioned.  Mention of spray-drying should be moved back in the sequence to where it takes place (Batching I expect), and removed from the "drying" section, because it's got nothing to do with the drying of formed parts. 203.45.103.88 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Drying" section should be split up

message: The phrase "The Materials science tetrahedron." is mentioned as a descriptor for the lede image in the article, yet no description or definition of "The Materials science tetrahedron" is in the body of the article, nor is there a wikilink to another article that might describe it.  So what is it?  How is it useful?  Where should it be described?  In this article?  Or elsewhere?  But it does seem that if the article is going to refer to the "Materials science tetrahedron" then there ought to be, at minimum, a verifiably, (secondary) sourced citation for the graphic claim, if not a link to a more complete explanation.  N2e (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the original jpg version of the file it is based on the image found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040605055346/www.mse.eng.ohio-state.edu/about/. Wizard191 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does it mean?  What is the meaning of the tetrahedron in this context?  What to the seveal axis(?) represent?  I question whether we ought to have this image in the article with no explanation as to the meaning of the Materials science tetrahedron.  While it really ought to be sourced (per WP:V and WP:RS, a first step would be to link to some description of what it means so any interested WP editor might determine how it could possibly be better integrated into this article.  N2e (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as uncited speculation which is not discussed in the article. Suggestions for a lead image are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with it being removed, because I honestly didn't understand it. I just supplied the link to show that it came from a educational source (which doesn't necessarily means it's a RS). Wizard191 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone.  I think it is probably better to have it out of the article until/unless it is explained and sourced.  I agree with the recent edits.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Materials science tetrahedron 

message: Has anyone got a better image, perhaps of a vest that fits the person? The one currently shown is almost comical, and certainly suggests the need for an extender section for the stomach.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballistic vests