Talk:Coke (fuel)

message: If the legal limit by OSHA is .150  mg/mmm, how can NIOSH say .2 is recommended? Wouldn't the legal limit being smaller prevent .2 from ever being legally reached? Or do I just not understand this measure correctly? ~ RETheUgly (sorry, not logged in)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.134.10 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article for Recommended exposure limit; it's essentially a recommendation for OSHA to consider when establishing PELs. In this case, they apparently didn't consider it strict enough (assuming the article information is correct... I didn't check). --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSHA vs NIOSH levels 

message: Intro -- can't just say "upper photograph" and "lower photograph" -- the text needs to be readable independent of illustrations, and editing of article may change orientation of photos versus flow of text.
If images are essential to text description, can do:
' (See illustration 1.1.) '
Or:
' ... as shown in illustration "Coke production" at upper left ... ' 
(with photos labeled accordingly).
But normally for Wikipedia, an essential image would be in the main text column (a chart for example), and images in the right column serve as non-essential illustrations, explained independently by their captions./ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.244.7 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to photos 

message: whats the basis for the history section? 
i have a strong source that contends that coke was first used in postclassical china.
Snail Doom 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins? 

message: This article gets too technical too quickly.  The information needs to be put in a more sensible order, with the less technical stuff at the beginning of the article, or of individual sections.  Maybe I'll get round to doing this myself.--Publunch (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: This and other related articles mention that coke is "used as a fuel." But there are absolutely no details given.  WHAT is it used to fuel?  When is it used as a fuel instead of other types of coal?  How much is used per year?  What industries and which countries use the most coke for fuel?  These and all other details seem to be omitted.  In an article entitled "coke(fuel)," one would hope to read about how and when coke is used as a fuel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree there should be more on the brief (at least in the UK) domestic importance of coke. My parent's first house, a new bungalow built about 1937, was heated by the usual open coal fires but the hot water was supplied by a coke-fired boiler. The coal bunker was a brick-built part of the house but low external bunkers, with hinged lids, held the coke. When I was very small (mid-1940s) our garden path was formed from burnt coke, later replaced by concrete.TSRL (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor details on coke as "fuel" 

message: A citation is needed for the claim that coke was used to make malt in 1642. And frankly, I'd be surprised (though delighted) if one can be found. Zythophile (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily pleased, then! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History  

message: You can tell this was written by an expert, that is, someone who will get nothing across to a novice.  And who is looking up coke? Not an expert! The content in the body is fine, but 
the intro would intimidate a novice. "derived from"!, how about "made from"? You can derive it later in the body of the article. I have a degree in engineering (mechanical), and it blew me away. I started trying to simplify, but gave up. 
The intro should  mention that it's made from coal and it's primary use, which is iron smelting (I think).
Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify intro 

message: The Other processes section references petroleum coke having use in the manufacture of dry cells and electrodes which are not substantiated on the pages referenced. Can the author provide reference to disambiguate the contribution? I would question whether the contribution is appropriate on the Carbon Coke page as it would be more appropriate on the petroleum coke page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzytek (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other processes 

message: I've removed the much repeated myth that it was 'dwindling forests' caused by their conversion to charcoal that started the move to coal. The coppicing of woodland for charcoal and other purposes is a totally sustainable method of woodland management. The truth is that most of the woodland in England was already under rotation coppice, and the supply of cut material simply couldn't meet the increased demand, because of the time it takes for the wood to regrow. No wood was ever destroyed by coppicing or felling - it will just grow back, unless steps are taken (such as grazing it) to stop the regeneration. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true, but it's also true that increasing demand for iron put pressure on charcoal production - it was becoming difficult to produce charcoal in the quantities required. This encouraged ironmasters to search for and adopt alternative techniques. --Ef80 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwindling Forests 

message: I wanted to look up the term "metallurgical coal" in Wikipedia. The coal article suggests either that coke is a derivative of metallurgical coal or that it is the same thing (not clear on the interpretation).
Question is if a metallurgical coal redirect page were to be created, where should it point? JanCeuleers (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To a section within coal. Metallurgical coal is coal, as dug, but it's a particular grade from particular locations. Mostly this is about being low in sulphur. For some uses it's used as-is, for others it's coked first. The Coalbrookdale era is where this distinction starts to be important. There's a notee in Resolution (beam engine) about the Darbys switching to buying two grades of coal, metallurgical and general boiler coal, to save 600 tons of the good stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallurgical coal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coke (fuel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523122125/http://fayette.psu.edu/Information/Community/31281.htm to http://fayette.psu.edu/Information/Community/31281.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Discovered by accident to have superior heat shielding properties ..."
I don't believe that the part about coal coke being used in Apollo ablator material is true. At the very least it's unsupported. I've checked the references and none mention using coal coke in the ablative material. The most detailed description of NASA TN D-7564, which says, "The ablative material selected for the TPS is designated Avco 5026-39G and consists of an epoxy-novalac resin reinforced with quartz fibers and phenolic microballoons. "
I therefore conclude that the assertion contained in the article is incorrect, and I am removing this false fact. If someone has evidence the the contrary please provide it and reverse my deletion.
Pgramsey (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Coke" is the core of most ablative heatshields since the 1950s. Although it's not the same thing as that coked from coal. It was developed by the British (see the Black Knight program) as a lighter weight heatshield for ICBM RVs, based on phenolic resins around carbon fibres. When heated, this forms a coke layer which has low thermal conductivity, is highly refractory and acts as an ablative heatshield.  Many versions of this have been produced since, Avcoat here being one of them, but using glass fibres and a cheaper manufaturing process that's more easily applied to large areas. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it's still coke. This is a term in materials science, with a recognised meaning, and the material here falls under it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coke in heat shield ... not true 

message: The "Uses" section supplies the chemical reaction for the reduction of iron oxide by carbon monoxide in a blast furnace as:
2Fe2O3 + 3C -> 4Fe + 3CO2 
While this equation is correctly balanced and is the correct chemical reaction for the reduction of iron oxide via charcoal in a bloom oven it is not the right reaction for the reduction of iron oxide in a blast furnace, which relies on carbon monoxide for reduction not carbon proper.
The correct reaction should be:
Fe2O3 + 3CO -> 2Fe + 3CO2 
 199.94.1.205 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although I'd prefer to see it as a two stage reaction and shown in full. Carbon and oxygen are supplied to the blast furnace as inputs, only a little carbon monoxide is recirculated. Most (almost all) of it comes from combustion and that takes place within the blast furnace, even if it's a separate reaction. The reader's understanding would be better if we clarified that two reactions are taking place (and it would be useful to show the energy released from the burning of the coke too). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uses" Section has an incorrect chemical reaction 

message: In the History of British coke production, the paragraph that begins "In 1802, a battery of beehives..." a series of output estimates is stated in long tons, then parenthetically converted to the nearly equal figures in short tons and tons/tonnes. I think that those conversions should all be deleted. The figures are nearly equal to each other, are not necessary and impede the flow of the text. An historical figure of 7 million tons is quite rough, I expect accurate to no more than two significant figures. To give parenthetically the equivalent in short tons introduces false precision, like saying a shark may range 50 km from its customary feeding ground, then adding parenthetically the distance 31.07 miles. In a different part of the History section, American coke output is expressed in tens of thousands of tons, with no unit conversion. I think that's the way the article should read. Does anyone agree?Cieljaune (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.TSRL (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree. Done. --MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of units in rough estimates 

message: In the first paragraph of the history section under the Britain label, this claim: "In 1589, a patent was granted to Thomas Proctor and William Peterson for making iron and steel and melting lead with "earth-coal, sea-coal, turf, and peat". The patent contains a distinct allusion to the preparation of coal by "cooking". In 1590, a patent was granted to the Dean of York to "purify pit-coal and free it from its offensive smell"." is associated with this citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20130523122125/http://fayette.psu.edu/Information/Community/31281.htm
This information is strictly about the origins of coal in the coke region of PA in the US. Nowhere is England mentioned. A book is referenced on the page linked, but the book is not cited, the web page is. This sentence has very specific claims about the original patents which may lead insight into the origins of coke in the England/Europe/the US, but they are not cited here. I am going to attempt to find the proper patents and cite them as such, but I wanted to bring attention to this issue. 
Thank you :) Iamyoursheppard (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not providing proper context.  

message: Define the following terms. Coke. Mould.casting. Smelting  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.177.50 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic technology