![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
I think the generalised alkane combustion equation should read:
CxHy + (x+(y/2))02 --> xC02 + (y/2)H20
-- 81.136.105.66 15:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For some reason "Complete combustion" page cannot be edited by clicking on "edit" button ... the phrase that says that Iron (III) is an isotope is wrong ... it should refer to an oxidation state of iron.
Combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen obviously cannot produce any compounds of nitrogen. I think "air" should replace "oxygen".
On an unrelated point, the combustion of CH2S in fluroine is very cute (and should be retained) but probably should not be the first example. Hydrogen burning in oxygen might be more appropriate.
All of the above are significant oversights and should be taken into consideration to improve the science of this article. After all, we should not just define the word "combustion" as if it were an abstraction. We should also focus on the real world uses and applications of combustion. Please excuse me if I sound as if I am preaching. - mbeychok 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Re. the whole of the above section.
- Re. technical terms: I'm not entirely confident with the English specialised terms. In particular I wasnt aware that heat of combustion and heating value are the same thing (which explains some previous irritation). Also, if adiabatic flame temperature is the only correct term, we should remove reference to adiabatic combustion temperature. Feel free to correct.
- Re. flue gases: I'm not statisfied with the mention of warming fuel and flue gas in this context. We should either concentrate on heating up the input side of the process (fuel and combustion gas be it air or oxygen) or the output side (combustion products i.e. flue gas plus uncombusted plus ash etc.) but not both. Right now, it's mixed reference (to fuel and flue gas) and just confuses (since flue gas contains combusted fuel). I think it's more straightforward to say "is used entirely for heating the fuel and combustion gases". Of course in this analysis the combustion gas (e.g. air) is only warmed up after combustion has taken place (i.e. when a certain part of it is no longer what it used to be e.g. air). But what is really meant is that the heat capacity equivalent of the input air has been taken out of that released during the combustion process. That's why I think it's fair to say that the combustion heat is used to heat fuel and cobustin gases. Comments?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
I deleted the images for these reasons:
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
I think the generalised alkane combustion equation should read:
CxHy + (x+(y/2))02 --> xC02 + (y/2)H20
-- 81.136.105.66 15:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For some reason "Complete combustion" page cannot be edited by clicking on "edit" button ... the phrase that says that Iron (III) is an isotope is wrong ... it should refer to an oxidation state of iron.
Combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen obviously cannot produce any compounds of nitrogen. I think "air" should replace "oxygen".
On an unrelated point, the combustion of CH2S in fluroine is very cute (and should be retained) but probably should not be the first example. Hydrogen burning in oxygen might be more appropriate.
All of the above are significant oversights and should be taken into consideration to improve the science of this article. After all, we should not just define the word "combustion" as if it were an abstraction. We should also focus on the real world uses and applications of combustion. Please excuse me if I sound as if I am preaching. - mbeychok 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Re. the whole of the above section.
- Re. technical terms: I'm not entirely confident with the English specialised terms. In particular I wasnt aware that heat of combustion and heating value are the same thing (which explains some previous irritation). Also, if adiabatic flame temperature is the only correct term, we should remove reference to adiabatic combustion temperature. Feel free to correct.
- Re. flue gases: I'm not statisfied with the mention of warming fuel and flue gas in this context. We should either concentrate on heating up the input side of the process (fuel and combustion gas be it air or oxygen) or the output side (combustion products i.e. flue gas plus uncombusted plus ash etc.) but not both. Right now, it's mixed reference (to fuel and flue gas) and just confuses (since flue gas contains combusted fuel). I think it's more straightforward to say "is used entirely for heating the fuel and combustion gases". Of course in this analysis the combustion gas (e.g. air) is only warmed up after combustion has taken place (i.e. when a certain part of it is no longer what it used to be e.g. air). But what is really meant is that the heat capacity equivalent of the input air has been taken out of that released during the combustion process. That's why I think it's fair to say that the combustion heat is used to heat fuel and cobustin gases. Comments?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
I deleted the images for these reasons:
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)
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)
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)