![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
How does the water get "caught" after it has cut? If this device can cut through almost anything, what's to stop the water jet? (Perhaps it lands in a pool of water?) —Ben FrantzDale 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Are the waterjets in this article the same is the ones used in food manufacturing? (For slicing cakes, bread, sandwiches...) I know some manufacturers use them because they don't have to worry about sanitation/contamination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.29.130 ( talk) 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
and what is it doing in the article? I couldn't figure it out. 132.68.56.153 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Inches and PSI are not internationally accepted measurements and generally mean little to people outside north america. LennyValentin 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
are jet cutters really used in wood working? It seems like they would do more harm than good by exposing the wood to the abrasive medium an well as saturating the part with water. Boatman666 ( talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a new article titled Waterjet cuttinghead. It's quite short. I'd like to suggest that the material, if deemed useful, be merged into the main article here rather than being maintained as a separate article.
"Materials that cannot be cut with waterjet are tempered glass, diamonds and certain ceramics"
Is it worth stating why these materials cannot be cut with a waterjet? If anyone knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez 006 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The cited sources are from the manufacturers web pages. I would trust that most of the technical details are correct, but assertions such as "waterjet is a green technology" should be supported by a more authoritative source. -- Wilhkar ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar
"... An abrasive water-jet cutter puts the final cuts on a special tool ... ". A "special tool"? Please! It's a spanner !!! (wrench?). What was that previous comment about needing a more authoritative source? Looks like we need that here. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If the water is at high enough pressures to cut through basically anything, what prevents the jet from eroding the nozzle? 124.149.178.14 ( talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the refimprove tag from Feb 2009 because 24 additional references have been added to the article since that tag was added, and almost every statement in the article now includes a reference. -- Burnishe ( talk) 23:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think a disadvantages sections is needed. Abrasive Waterjets are self destructive, frequently needing maintenance. It's worthwhile to note that methinks. -- 64.4.68.234 ( talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the article states "Meatcutting using waterjet technology eliminates the risk of cross contamination . . .", but I imagine the aerosol generated might result in bacterial and prion contamination. Are there any sources referring to this potential disadvantage, either in the context of food processing or other applications? Plantsurfer ( talk) 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
While making other corrections I think I may have removed a few too many double quotes in the references while cleaning up. The document was littered with opening quotes, double quotes, smart quotes, inverted commas and what not. The usage in the references was especially erratic so I deleted a bunch. Perhaps they could all be robot corrected back to the correct type if there is a standard for references. I noticed the reference I placed got quotes when using the cite web template tool.
Please do not revert the other changes, they were much needed.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
How does the water get "caught" after it has cut? If this device can cut through almost anything, what's to stop the water jet? (Perhaps it lands in a pool of water?) —Ben FrantzDale 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Are the waterjets in this article the same is the ones used in food manufacturing? (For slicing cakes, bread, sandwiches...) I know some manufacturers use them because they don't have to worry about sanitation/contamination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.29.130 ( talk) 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
and what is it doing in the article? I couldn't figure it out. 132.68.56.153 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Inches and PSI are not internationally accepted measurements and generally mean little to people outside north america. LennyValentin 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
are jet cutters really used in wood working? It seems like they would do more harm than good by exposing the wood to the abrasive medium an well as saturating the part with water. Boatman666 ( talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a new article titled Waterjet cuttinghead. It's quite short. I'd like to suggest that the material, if deemed useful, be merged into the main article here rather than being maintained as a separate article.
"Materials that cannot be cut with waterjet are tempered glass, diamonds and certain ceramics"
Is it worth stating why these materials cannot be cut with a waterjet? If anyone knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez 006 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The cited sources are from the manufacturers web pages. I would trust that most of the technical details are correct, but assertions such as "waterjet is a green technology" should be supported by a more authoritative source. -- Wilhkar ( talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)wilhkar
"... An abrasive water-jet cutter puts the final cuts on a special tool ... ". A "special tool"? Please! It's a spanner !!! (wrench?). What was that previous comment about needing a more authoritative source? Looks like we need that here. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If the water is at high enough pressures to cut through basically anything, what prevents the jet from eroding the nozzle? 124.149.178.14 ( talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the refimprove tag from Feb 2009 because 24 additional references have been added to the article since that tag was added, and almost every statement in the article now includes a reference. -- Burnishe ( talk) 23:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think a disadvantages sections is needed. Abrasive Waterjets are self destructive, frequently needing maintenance. It's worthwhile to note that methinks. -- 64.4.68.234 ( talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the article states "Meatcutting using waterjet technology eliminates the risk of cross contamination . . .", but I imagine the aerosol generated might result in bacterial and prion contamination. Are there any sources referring to this potential disadvantage, either in the context of food processing or other applications? Plantsurfer ( talk) 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
While making other corrections I think I may have removed a few too many double quotes in the references while cleaning up. The document was littered with opening quotes, double quotes, smart quotes, inverted commas and what not. The usage in the references was especially erratic so I deleted a bunch. Perhaps they could all be robot corrected back to the correct type if there is a standard for references. I noticed the reference I placed got quotes when using the cite web template tool.
Please do not revert the other changes, they were much needed.