![]() | The contents of the Ejector venturi scrubber page were merged into Venturi scrubber on 6 September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | A fact from Venturi scrubber appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | Chemical and Bio Engineering Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
This article was created in rather high quality by a single user in a single edit. This makes me suspect it may have been a wholesale ripoff from a copyrighted source. It is also possible that this was taken from some public-domain source. This article either needs to show its source or be deleted as a copyright violation. -- Dgies 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, especially as it refers to several figures that are missing. Djfeldman 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people also have jobs and they work till very late in the evening, what's so wrong with that? If I can't find the time to finish my edit, does that mean I infringed a copyright? The pictures are already uploaded, they just need to be included in the article. Besides, I'm an air pollution control expert (in scrubber operation and design). When I created my first article, I just uploaded a small portion of it, then it was deleted. Now, I edited it using an external editor and I uploaded all the content at once. What's wrong with this too? The Vindictive 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please help in wikifying this article if you have more spare time than I do, it takes a long time since it's very long. The Vindictive 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is from a free source, EPA Air Pollution Training Institute and it is deemed as free domain see [1]. I also have confirmation and official permittance from NCSU (which the material was developed in collaboration with). Is that OK now? The Vindictive 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that if we center and make the pictures bigger it will look better? With the thumbnails reduced to 100 px, it doesn't look so nice with so many pics. The Vindictive 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The Vindictive, the first line of any article should contain the article's title in bold font. That is why I re-arranged the first few sentences.
Your use of the word "exhaust" was very confusing. You mostly used it to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber. I know that you meant the exhaust for a furnace flue gas stack or some other process device ... but other readers will not understand that. So I changed most of your "exhaust"s to "inlet"s ... meaning the gas that enters the scrubber inlet.
In some few other cases, you used "exhaust" to specify the scrubbed gas leaving the scrubber ... which added the confusion of readers. In those cases, I changed you "exhaust"s to "outlet"s ... meaning the gas that leaves the scrubber outlet.
You must keep in mind the many readers who are not engineers and you must strive to clarify things for them as much as possible without sacrificing technical integrity. To most people, using "exhaust" to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber will be very, very confusing.
One other point, your lead-in section is much, much too long. I would advise you to break it up into more sections with section titles.
Another point that bothers me in all of your articles is the link to [2], the USA EPA's APTI training courses. When I click on it, I don't get to see the actual course content unless I sign up to take the courses, so the link is really of very little value. Is there any way around that? Do you actually have the course contents and is there any way to make that content available without violating copyrights? Happy New Year and regards, - mbeychok 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm proposing to merge Ejector venturi scrubber with Venturi scrubber. As far as I can tell, both articles talk about the same subject. Since all the action seems to be on this article I think Ejector venturi scrubber should be injected here (pun intended). ʍαμ$ʏ5043 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Audiosqueegee ( talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
the operating principle is reversed but similar enough that they could be integrated. I suggest continuing discussion here. Klbrain ( talk) 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Ejector venturi scrubber page were merged into Venturi scrubber on 6 September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | A fact from Venturi scrubber appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | Chemical and Bio Engineering Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
This article was created in rather high quality by a single user in a single edit. This makes me suspect it may have been a wholesale ripoff from a copyrighted source. It is also possible that this was taken from some public-domain source. This article either needs to show its source or be deleted as a copyright violation. -- Dgies 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, especially as it refers to several figures that are missing. Djfeldman 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people also have jobs and they work till very late in the evening, what's so wrong with that? If I can't find the time to finish my edit, does that mean I infringed a copyright? The pictures are already uploaded, they just need to be included in the article. Besides, I'm an air pollution control expert (in scrubber operation and design). When I created my first article, I just uploaded a small portion of it, then it was deleted. Now, I edited it using an external editor and I uploaded all the content at once. What's wrong with this too? The Vindictive 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please help in wikifying this article if you have more spare time than I do, it takes a long time since it's very long. The Vindictive 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is from a free source, EPA Air Pollution Training Institute and it is deemed as free domain see [1]. I also have confirmation and official permittance from NCSU (which the material was developed in collaboration with). Is that OK now? The Vindictive 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that if we center and make the pictures bigger it will look better? With the thumbnails reduced to 100 px, it doesn't look so nice with so many pics. The Vindictive 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The Vindictive, the first line of any article should contain the article's title in bold font. That is why I re-arranged the first few sentences.
Your use of the word "exhaust" was very confusing. You mostly used it to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber. I know that you meant the exhaust for a furnace flue gas stack or some other process device ... but other readers will not understand that. So I changed most of your "exhaust"s to "inlet"s ... meaning the gas that enters the scrubber inlet.
In some few other cases, you used "exhaust" to specify the scrubbed gas leaving the scrubber ... which added the confusion of readers. In those cases, I changed you "exhaust"s to "outlet"s ... meaning the gas that leaves the scrubber outlet.
You must keep in mind the many readers who are not engineers and you must strive to clarify things for them as much as possible without sacrificing technical integrity. To most people, using "exhaust" to specify the inlet gas to the scrubber will be very, very confusing.
One other point, your lead-in section is much, much too long. I would advise you to break it up into more sections with section titles.
Another point that bothers me in all of your articles is the link to [2], the USA EPA's APTI training courses. When I click on it, I don't get to see the actual course content unless I sign up to take the courses, so the link is really of very little value. Is there any way around that? Do you actually have the course contents and is there any way to make that content available without violating copyrights? Happy New Year and regards, - mbeychok 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm proposing to merge Ejector venturi scrubber with Venturi scrubber. As far as I can tell, both articles talk about the same subject. Since all the action seems to be on this article I think Ejector venturi scrubber should be injected here (pun intended). ʍαμ$ʏ5043 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Audiosqueegee ( talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
the operating principle is reversed but similar enough that they could be integrated. I suggest continuing discussion here. Klbrain ( talk) 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)