User talk:Milton Beychok/Archive 2

Milton Beychok

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

Milton Beychok

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

 Where Milt lives it is approximately: 07:18

Compressibility factor

Milton, I started to read your sandbox article. It looks very good. I tried to enlarge fig 1, but it didn't work. This nice figure deserves at least 50% more space, now it is hard to read for an old man like myself.--Paul Wormer 11:35, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Paul, I am 85 years old. If I could draw Fig. 1 (as I did), then a youngster like you should certainly be able to read it.(:>) - Milton Beychok 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

When I read along I place some odd comments here (--Paul Wormer 11:54, 4 April 2008 (CDT)).

1. I wouldn't call the Van der Waals law of corresponding states a "theorem", i.e., something that can be proved. I see it more as a fitting procedure—suggested by the physics of the problem—that usually (but not always) gives surprisingly good results.

I revised it to the principle of corresponding states as per your Van der Waals equation article. - Milton Beychok 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

1. I wouldn't say molecular properties depend on intermolecular forces, rather the properties of the gas depend on these forces. The way I see it, Z is a bulk property of which the value is indirectly determined by the properties of the molecules, namely through the intermolecular forces as intermediary. Thus, molecular properties → intermolecular forces → thermodynamic properties (such as Z). The way backwards (from thermodynamic to molecular properties) is orders of magnitude more difficult.

I revised that sentence per your suggestion. - Milton Beychok 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

1. You forgot to define P_c and T_c.

I did indeed forget. They are now defined.

1. Could you give an indication how the generalized compressibility factor is determined from a number (10) of gases? What kind of averaging is involved and how far do the curves for the individual molecular gases deviate from the average? I'm especially interested in steam, as water is strongly polar and the other 9 molecules are non-polar.

Gouq-Jen Sec's original graph published in 1946 had hundreds of experimental data points plotted on it. I was not capable of presenting it in a smaller size and also including the actual data points, so I elected to draw it in a smaller size without showing the data points. If you are interested in seeing the full size graph including the data points, click on Reference 8 and read Professor Kadem's online lecture. It is also available in many of the books used for the other references. I do not have a copy of his 1946 publication nor do I have precise knowledge of how Gouq-Jen Sen fitted the data points to his graph. However, I suspect that he simply drew his isotherms as the best curves that fitted the data points. That is the sort of thing we engineers did back in the slide rule era before we had computers.

Thanks very much for your review comments. I have moved the material in my sandbox to the Compressibility factor (gases) article. If you have more comments, please let me know via that article's Talk page. - Milton Beychok 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Milton, I'm not finished yet, I had to go some place with my wife (we are sort of on holiday). Tomorrow I'll continue reading. All kidding aside (I'm 65), your first figure deserves more space, is it difficult to enlarge it? --Paul Wormer 22:03, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

There is no way that I could enlarge Fig. 1 other than to redraw it. That would take me about 4-5 hours using the only drawing program that I have (Microsoft's Paint program that came with Windows). Personally, I really don't think it needs to be larger ... but if you feel strongly that it should be larger, then I will do it some time in the next week or so. - Milton Beychok 00:37, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

I enlarged your figure 1 by 120%, but that didn't look good. That is the disadvantage of pixel format. So let the picture be as is.

Probably I will continue reading your article later today. Do you want me to approve it? --Paul Wormer 11:24, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

I think it is a bit early to nominate it for approval. I would rather wait a week or more to give other editors a chance to offer comments. Thanks for your offer.

I do think that further dialogue between us on this article should be on the talk page of Compressibility factor (gases) so others can see it. - Milton Beychok 11:32, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Minor edits

Did you by any chance turn on your 'mark all edits as minor' flag? I ask because this edit to Talk:Mole (unit) was flagged as minor, which might have caused some people who'd be interested in it to miss it. J. Noel Chiappa 09:35, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

FCC image

Milton, I can't get to that for a day or so. Is there anything specific that would like changed? That image seems pretty good to me as it now stands. David E. Volk 10:34, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

David, since it seemed pretty good to you as it was and since my primary goal was to somehow make it smaller without losing legibility, I revised the drawing by enlarging the text. Now I can display it at a reduced width of 300px and it is still quite legible. So I think that I will leave it at that. Thanks anyway, Milton Beychok 11:36, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

Compressibility factor (gases)

You did it again! COngratualtions - and thanks for the reminder once again ;-) Keep them coming, --D. Matt Innis 19:11, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

Physical Properties Templates

Hi Milton,

I posted this on Talk:Cadmium, but wanted to get some feedback from Chem Editors so figured I'd just ask...

I had this kooky idea of trying to store materials physical properties data in templates so we can call it up from multiple locations and keep it current. That way we can do things like this:

Selected Electronegativities:<br />
{{Selected Electronegativities|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead}}

Selected Electronegativities:
Template:Selected Electronegativities

and...

Selected Melting Points:<br />
{{Selected melting points|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead|Cobalt(II) oxide}}

Selected Melting Points:
Template:Selected melting points

and also....

{{PTofE
|cellWidth=35px
|colorscheme=Metal
}}

.0 H 1 2.1

.0 He 2 n/a

.0 Li 3 1.0

.0 Be 4 1.6

.0 B 5 2.0

.0 C 6 2.6

.0 N 7 3.0

.0 O 8 3.4

.0 F 9 4.0

.0 Ne 10 n/a

.0 Na 11 0.9

.0 Mg 12 1.3

.0 Al 13 1.6

.0 Si 14 1.9

.0 P 15 2.2

.0 S 16 2.6

.0 Cl 17 3.2

.0 Ar 18 n/a

.0 K 19 0.8

.0 Ca 20 1.0

.0 Sc 21 1.4

.0 Ti 22 1.5

.0 V 23 1.6

.0 Cr 24 1.6

.0 Mn 25 1.6

.0 Fe 26 1.8

.0 Co 27 1.9

.0 Ni 28 1.9

.0 Cu 29 1.9

.0 Zn 30 1.7

.0 Ga 31 1.8

.0 Ge 32 2.0

.0 As 33 2.2

.0 Se 34 2.6

.0 Br 35 3.0

.0 Kr 36 3.0

.0 Rb 37 0.8

.0 Sr 38 1.0

.0 Y 39 1.2

.0 Zr 40 1.3

.0 Nb 41 1.6

.0 Mo 42 2.2

98.9 Tc 43 1.9

.0 Ru 44 2.2

.0 Rh 45 2.3

.0 Pd 46 2.2

.0 Ag 47 1.9

.0 Cd 48 1.7

.0 In 49 1.8

.0 Sn 50 2.0

.0 Sb 51 2.1

.0 Te 52 2.1

.0 I 53 2.7

.0 Xe 54 2.6

.0 Cs 55 0.8

.0 Ba 56 0.9

.0 Hf 72 1.3

.0 Ta 73 1.5

.0 W 74 2.4

.0 Re 75 1.9

.0 Os 76 2.2

.0 Ir 77 2.2

.0 Pt 78 2.3

.0 Au 79 2.5

.0 Hg 80 2.0

.0 Tl 81 1.6

.0 Pb 82 2.3

.0 Bi 83 2.0

209.0 Po 84 2.0

210.0 At 85 2.2

222.0 Rn 86 n/a

223.0 Fr 87 0.7

226.0 Ra 88 0.9

265.0 Rf 104

268.0 Db 105

271.0 Sg 106

272.0 Bh 107

270.0 Hs 108

276.0 Mt 109

281.0 Ds 110

280.0 Rg 111

285.0 Cn 112

.0 La 57 1.1

.0 Ce 58 1.1

.0 Pr 59 1.1

.0 Nd 60 1.1

145.0 Pm 61

.0 Sm 62 1.2

.0 Eu 63

.0 Gd 64 1.2

.0 Tb 65

.0 Dy 66 1.2

.0 Ho 67 1.2

.0 Er 68 1.2

.0 Tm 69 1.3

.0 Yb 70 1.1

.0 Lu 71 1.3

227.0 Ac 89 1.1

.0 Th 90 1.3

.0 Pa 91 1.5

.0 U 92 1.4

237.0 Np 93 1.4

244.0 Pu 94 1.3

243.0 Am 95 1.3

247.0 Cm 96 1.3

247.0 Bk 97 1.3

251.0 Cf 98 1.3

252.0 Es 99 1.3

257.0 Fm 100 1.3

258.0 Md 101 1.3

259.0 No 102 1.3

262.0 Lr 103

...pretty easily.

Also, I've started the {{Physical properties}} template to display the info in the articles (please see Lead or Cadmium/MSDS for examples). I have (I believe) left open the option of using the system for any material, not just the chemical elements. Any objections? Reasons it won't work? Things I should change? Feedback is welcome....--David Yamakuchi 10:43, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Wanted to try and keep this thing updated...guess I could have done a little better.

For new developments see {{Unit}}.--David Yamakuchi 17:19, 26 June 2008 (CDT)

P.S. Thanks for the help with Gas Densities...your input is most welcome...--David Yamakuchi 17:19, 26 June 2008 (CDT)

Moving a cluster

Hi, there are some rudimentary instructions at: CZ:Using the Subpages template#Moving an article with subpages. (Yes, I know it's not exactly an intuitive place to find that! I'm about to make it a separate page, improve it, etc.) If you could read that, and provide me with some feedback on how it can/should be improved, that would be great. I will start a thread on the forums about those instructions, you can chime in there. (You know about Recent Posts, right?) J. Noel Chiappa 20:51, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Move the article's main page and its talk page together, as the last step (there's a "Move associated talk page" box which you should make sure is checked; that will move both). J. Noel Chiappa 09:45, 27 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, the directions must not have been perfect, because it seemed like you missed one step; moving the Metadata from Template:<old-name>/Metadata to Template:<new-name>/Metadata. I have fixed that for you.

I will update the documentation (again - I already worked on it some, in an attempt to make it clearer about Talk: pages in general, and in particular that the main page and the main talk: page go in the same operation, and last) and try and make this part clearer too. J. Noel Chiappa 13:43, 27 April 2008 (CDT)

Noel, you are right. I did not use the move tab for the Metadata. Instead I changed the article names within the Metadate page. That was my mistake ... but perhaps your documentation should warn against doing that. - Milton Beychok 13:51, 27 April 2008 (CDT)

No, you needed to do that too! So you were OK, you just left out a step. I think when I rework the document, I'll put it in the form of a numbered list, and make editing and moving the Metadata separate steps. (And I'll take out the bit about 'you can edit it before or after moving it' - giving people that choice is probably more likely to confuse them, than be helpful.)

Thanks for being a guinea-pig: this is how I find out how to improve the instructions! J. Noel Chiappa 17:37, 27 April 2008 (CDT)

Mole again

Milton per your request I looked at mole (unit) again. I made a few changes that I consider minor, but the article has become for some reason a stone of contention, so maybe I opened a can of worms. I reinserted the pedagogical definition of the mole, that I still remember from 1957 (I know I'm a youngster) and that Anthony removed for the reason that he didn't like the verb "to weigh". However, this verb is used in the article at several places, so why not in the informal definition? As I read the article now, it is an example of pedagogical clarity, but we'll hold our breadth.--Paul Wormer 09:56, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

The formal (SI) definition of the mole includes implicitly a definition of Avogadro's number N_A (number of carbon atoms in 12 gram). I believe that one must explain that one mole of any compound contains N_A molecules and therefore weighs (has mass) N_A times the weight of one molecule of this compound. If one apple weighs 100 gram then 12 apples weigh 12×100 = 1200 gram . That is all that I was trying to do. I don't see the problem that you guys have with this and I don't see at all that it scares away students from chemistry. However, if it does, it is good that it happens at this early stage (in Holland this stuff is taught to 15 year-olds). What is so difficult about saying (and explaining) that 4 gram H₂ plus 32 gram O₂ yields 36 gram water? I really don't see it.--Paul Wormer 12:07, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with saying that 4 grams H₂ plus 32 grams O₂ yields 36 grams water and it could easily be added to my rewrite of the Examples section. But it is wording and usage like this that leads to confusion:

• "Recalling that 1 u = 1/NA gram" ... in reality, not everyone does recall that. Frankly, I did not.
• Not everyone knows that M(B) denotes the atomic weight of the pure substance B expressed in u. I did not know that until you pointed it out to me.
• Not everyone knows that that u denotes unified atomic mass units.
• Not everyone knows that 1 u = 1/NA gram by definition.

The above items are undoubtedly very elementary to an eminent physicist such as yourself, but they are not elementary to others ... they need to be explained and that is what I tried to do in my rewrite of the Examples section.

There is nothing wrong with the discussion of 2 A + 6 B → 2 AB3, but it is my opinion that it belongs in an article on chemical stoichiometry rather than in the article defining the mole.

If after this explanation, you are still not convinced that the Examples section simply needs to be more explanatory, then I will stop badgering you and I will unconditionally surrender. Regards, Milton Beychok 13:07, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

• So your major problem is with the unified atomic mass unit? Instead of saying "Recalling" we can say the following: By definition N_A carbon atoms weigh 12 gram, so that (i) 1 carbon atom has mass 12/N_A gram. [If 17 identical apples weigh 2300 gram then 1 apple has the mass 2300/17 gram]. Let us then point out that 1 u used to be the mass of a single hydrogen atom, later it was 1/16 of an oxygen atom, but that now (ii) 1 u is 1/12 of the mass of 1 carbon atom. From (i) and (ii) follows that 1 u = 1/12 × (12/N_A) = 1/N_A gram (approximately 1.661 10⁻²⁴ gram).
• I cannot help the notation M(B), but it is standard and people better get used to it. It is explained and not difficult to understand. I do not object against M_B if that is more pedagogical.
• The name of u is explained in another article plus wikilink (physicists and chemists finally unified their definition in 1961). I know that lots of people still write amu, but that is obsolete.
• Your first objection is the same as your last.
• I put this model reaction there instead of a titration application, as was suggested on the forum. The people on the forum strongly believed that there should be a simple example of a calculation that uses moles. (As I said before, I'm rusty on titration and as far a I remember one shoots through an equilibrium, which to me seems more complicated). Off-hand I couldn't think of a real life illustrative example, which is why I made up this little model reaction. If you can think of an easier or more illustrative calculation that uses moles then please replace this example.
• All this stuff is not a matter of eminence in physics, but plain and simple high-school chemistry, in my country taught to 15-year olds.

--Paul Wormer 14:49, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Paul, I surrender. - Milton Beychok 15:02, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Milton, we are not at war, there is no need to surrender. I really don't grasp your objections. What exactly is bothering you about the article? The fact that NA is introduced? Or the model reaction with compounds A and B? The latter could be replaced by something more physical. Or do you disagree with the forum discussion that there should be an example of a chemical computation with moles? --Paul Wormer 08:36, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Large displays on talk page

I agree with you that they are better hidden (my reasoning being that one usually isn't interested in the info, and that it's a fast [local] click to unhide it). Chris Day made the change after a suggestion from Larry - you should let Chris know you prefer the old way. J. Noel Chiappa 12:32, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Alas, I don't know anything about the TeX equation stuff, so I have no idea how {{us}}, etc interact with it. Sorry.... J. Noel Chiappa 13:41, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

FYI, i too prefer the old way. Larry wanted them to be visible so I responded that request. i am happy to start a forum discussion on this where all opinions can be aired. I believe Larry will change his mind if most people prefer it the other way. Chris Day 11:25, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

Chris, I'm certainly with you if you start a forum discussion about the Talk pages and hiding the Metadate and Checklist pages.

By the way, any progress on starting a resolution about the subject of subworkgroups? That interests me even more than the Talk page stuff. Best regards, Milton Beychok 12:08, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

Progress in my brain. I have not forgotten :) Chris Day 12:31, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

fluid cracking

Milton, I will look at it asap, but don't expect too much from me. I took a fairly heavy course in chemical engineering processes around 1966 or 1967 (had an A-minus as far as I remember), but that is all the experience I have (except for Haber-Bosch plus ammonia/nitrate factory where I did an internship in 1967). I will be able to see if the article is understandable, though, but I cannot judge whether your choice of topics has relevance. --Paul Wormer 06:43, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Possible biodiesel article?

With some trepidation, since my last general organic chemistry was 40 years or so ago, I'm getting involved in a sustainable biodiesel operation, where we plan a rather elegant cycle: diesel-powered fishing boats catch seafood, which gets fried at local restaurants, whose waste oil comes back to us for conversion into biodiesel (well, mixed with petrodiesel) for the fishing boats.

Is this an area of interest for an article? I'm probably somewhere intermediate in the scale of people trying such things, although there are a good many design tradeoffs. Not the least of these, I suppose, is accepting that a gas chromatograph need not fill a small lab.

I can draft the article and do some of the graphics, but I definitely would want someone checking me. Part of the frustration is that most of the general literature assumes no knowledge of theory, or more than the most trivial quality control analysis.

Howard C. Berkowitz 15:36, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Howard, my candid opinion is that the article you propose would have a very narrow audience and very little appeal outside of that audience. After all, how many commercial fishermen are going to visit an online encyclopedia?

I would suggest that an article devoted to biodiesel in general (what it is, how it is produced, where it can be used, some history, some usage statistics, etc.) would have a much wider audience. In that article, your idea about fishing boats and restaurants might be included in the section on where biodiesl can be used. Regards, - Milton Beychok 17:25, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Oh, I agree this is a very specialized niche; I mentioned it more as an example of having to look at the lower-end systems as well as the large systems intended to run on purpose-grown biomass. In some areas of the world, that works very well, although the economics are not compelling everywhere. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:49, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

copyright question

Hi Milton, just wanted to make sure you saw the response to your copyright question [1] --D. Matt Innis 21:57, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Definition

I noticed in your delayed coking defintion you started it with the words "Delayed coking". But remember in the context of the {{R}} template on related pages that it will result in a repitition. See what i mean below.

Using {{r|Delayed coking}} will be seen as:

• Delayed coking [r]: A petroleum refining process that converts heavy residual oils into petroleum coke and other byproducts. ^[e].

Chris Day 22:52, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Does that mean that the article titles must not be used in the definitions? If so, I will have to redo all of the definitions I have added so far. Perhaps you should broadcast that fact. - Milton Beychok 23:50, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, we should broadcast this. It could be made more clear in the preloaded instructions that are included when a new definitions page is started. Howard was also wondering about this and a relevant response to is query is on his talk page here. Chris Day 12:10, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Fluid catalytic cracking

Milton, I will take a serious look at the catalytic cracking article in a day or so. Gotta practice with my band tonight. A quick read of the intro suggests the second sentence needs editing. I think you need remove the first word of the sentence (catalytic) for it to be correct. David E. Volk 09:49, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

You are right. That sentence needed fixing which I have done. - Milton Beychok 11:57, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

{{Pressure}}

Is this ({{pressure}}) what you were looking for?

Now, I'm also working on some other (kind of) related things like this: {{units}}, and your idea makes me wonder....What if there were a template that converted between different units for authors? How might we want something like that to work?

Maybe to ask the same question another way: I have a really neat freeware application that converts between all sorts of units of measure feet to inches, pounds to kg, etc...how would a wiki version of that functionality be used to make scientific units easier for authors and readers?...--David Yamakuchi 10:39, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

David, thanks a bunch for making that {{pressure}} template for me ... I really appreciate that. As for a units converter, there are dozens of such converters on the Internet and I am not sure that a Wiki version is needed. What bothers me about such converters is that it would take hours and hours to verify whether or not they contain errors. I don't like using "black boxes" blindly. For that reason, I am not sure that a Wiki version would be useful. Perhaps you could start a thread on the forums about your idea? In any event, thanks again for making the template. - Milton Beychok 12:13, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi, sorry I missed that request (I was offline most of the weekend - my wife's computer died, and I've been struggling with it) but it looks like David has got you all fixed up. Let us know if you need any changes to it, or...

'Simple' templates are pretty easy. This page offers some reasonable instructions for starting out with them. You can look at some simple ones (e.g. Template:Pressure, which takes no arguments, or Template:US, which takes one) to see how they work.

Also, the {{ }} operator can include any page, not just ones from the Template: Mediawiki namespace, so saying {{User:Milton Beychok/TemplateTest}} would include the contents of User:Milton Beychok/TemplateTest on whatever page you wrote that on. J. Noel Chiappa 11:20, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

I would say that if you placed it in the first few places where you looked and said "hey, we need a {{pressure}} table here", that would be a good start. Folks who notice it there can then copy it easily.--David Yamakuchi 15:34, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Merox

Milton, it appears that you need to write the Definition for Merox. The article is scheduled for approval. Could you go to the page, click the Def tab and write it today? David E. Volk 10:45, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

I just added the definition. Thanks for reminding me. Milton Beychok 11:14, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Amine gas treating

Hi Milton, everything looks good for approval - however, the approving editor needs to be the one to change the date on the template (or at least leave a note on the talk page that he agrees). So just have David verify that he is still okay with the new version date and all will be set to go tonight. --D. Matt Innis 13:19, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Matt, all changes are ok, and the article can be approved. But, I would like to lose the capital letters on the phrases "Acid gas removal" and "Gas sweetening". I have updated the Approval page with todays date David E. Volk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Matt, I can easily remove the capital letters that Dave would like removed. Is that okay if I do it? Or will Dave have to update the Metadata page again? - Milton Beychok 14:17, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Since these are only considered copyedits then either Milton or David (i.e. anyone) can change them to lower case (in other words approving editors are allowed to make copyedits when using the individual editor approval method). As long as content changes (those that change meaning) are not made, I can approve it without David having to agree. If a content edit *is* made by Milton then we need David's agreement again. Make sense? --D. Matt Innis 16:35, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Okay, I changed the 2 capital letters to lower case. - Milton Beychok 17:05, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for making the suggested changes, are you are welcome (perhaps for the second time!) David E. Volk 11:42, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

My mistake

I misremembered, I looked back at the history of the template {{pl}} and I now realise it was Joe Quick who invented that template, although Robert has done many good ones too. Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase. Chris Day 14:21, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Embarrassed?

Personally, I am amazed at how fast you have caught on to the scheme not to mention pushing for sub-workgroups (which I have not forgotten). As you noted, very few have appreciated the real role of the related articles page, you might even be the first. Being early the project this is not a disaster but I like your idea of having the preload give information at the top. You're right that the question mark links are subtle, to say the least. Chris Day 00:38, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Chris, thanks ... you've made me feel less embarassed. Milton Beychok 11:27, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Your contribution to WP

Milton, you are a free person and when you want to contribute to WP nobody has the right to try to stop you. Personally, I'm frustrated enough by WP not to contribute anymore. At this point I wanted to write: and I cannot contribute because I'm declared a sockpuppet, but I checked and saw that you removed that template. Anyway, back to your catalytic cracking contribution, you will agree that it is not very elegant that WP has now two articles on it, one--as you write yourself--is "poorly done" and yours. --Paul Wormer 02:53, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Paul, actually there are not two fluid catalytic cracking articles on Wikipedia. There is an article entitled "Cracking (chemistry)" which has brief sections devoted to "Hydrocracking", "Steam cracking", "Thermal cracking" and "Fluid catalytic cracking" which are all distinctly different chemical engineering processes. After I uploaded my article on fluid catalytic cracking, I also went to the "Fluid catalytic cracking" section of the Wikipedia "Cracking (chemistry)" article ... which is the section I thought was poorly done ... and I added this link to my article: Main article: Fluid catalytic cracking.

Leaving that point aside, I was a disappointed that you felt the need to "report" that I had uploaded my article into Wikipedia. Milton Beychok 11:23, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

I'm sorry that I disappointed you, although I don't quite understand your disappointment. You asked Matt's advise, who in turn asked Larry Sanger. This was all open for anybody to read. You rightly didn't make a secret of your intention to put the article on WP and hence I saw absolutely no harm in confirming that you went ahead and actually did what you announced all along that you would do. --Paul Wormer 12:02, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

I still contribute to wikipedia now and then. This should never be about us and them. Chris Day 12:21, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Definition length

It was Larry who brought that 100 character limit in. I'd take it up at CZ Talk:Definitions; I agree 100 characters is a little short (although it is 1.5 lines of text, we wouldn't want to go much over 2.5 or so, I think). J. Noel Chiappa 12:40, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Definition for sub-subpages

Please excuse the fact I deleted that definition, I had thought it was a mistake since it is quite unorthodox. On the other hand i see no reason why you can't do it. I'll put it back but we should probably have a discussion about it on the forums before we open the flood gates. Chris Day 13:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

I just set up an example for you, using the R template. It will not work as it is currently written since the the [r] link wrong. I could write a catalog specific template. I assume your goal here to cross reference all the relevant sub-subpages from different clusters? Chris Day 13:38, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

You will not be able to us the R template. The next best thing would be to have a sub-subpage specific template. I'll put one together for you to test on Related Articles subpages. Chris Day 13:49, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Chris, I had two reasons for what I did: (1) The catalogue article is a valid "Related links" article for my other articles on air pollution dispersion modeling and (2) To make that catalogue article more visible. Otherwise readers would not know it existed unless they happened to stumble upon catalogue subpage. Milton Beychok 13:57, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, it sounds like a good idea. The problem with the R template is that it is not designed to link to sub-subpages. I could try and re-engineer it. Let me think about it. Chris Day 14:02, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Chris, it works pretty well now. Take a look here. The [e] part works perfectly. Only the [r] part doesn't work. If that could be fixed, all is well. Milton Beychok 14:05, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Might be easier said than done. I'll let you know. Chris Day 14:08, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

{{pl}}

I enjoy this template also; but alas I did not create it! (I wish I had, it's strikingly clever) --Robert W King 09:12, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Ideal gas law

Check out ideal gas law. Is that good enough? If not, feel free to change it as you wish. David E. Volk 09:45, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Energy Conversion Analysis

Is there a reason you created and then blanked this article? If there is no need for it anymore, let me know and I will tag it with the speedydelete template. Thanks. -- Todd Coles 12:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Todd: At this point, I would not like to discuss the specifics of the current status of the article. However, you observation is correct. As far as I am concerned, please do what you have to do with the page. If you are getting ready to delete the page, I would suggest to first check with Milton Beychok since he is the last person who contributed to the page. Thanks, Gordan Feric

Todd: I have no intention of working on Energy Conversion Analysis. The page and/or article is of no use to anyone at Citizendium. Therefore, when you get a chance, would you please drop the page! Thanks, Gordan Feric

Matt: Can you help me with my request to drop the Energy Conversion Analysis page from active Citizendium pages? Thanks, Gordan Feric

Milton: Just to let you know that I have made an official request to Citizendium to bring down whatever is left of the original Energy Conversion Analysis page. Thanks, Gordan Feric

Milton: I have a request for you. Since you are one of the Editors at Citizendium and you have edited the Energy Conversion Analysis article started by me some time ago, I would like to ask you to make a request to Citizendium to bring down the article page becuase I do not agree with your edits and I do not want to be associated with the article anymore in anyway. I have been told by Citizendium that I do not have the authority for making such a request -- only the Editor can make such a request. If you would like to take over the development of the article, please go ahead but drop any reference to me and my input to the article. I do expect you to take some action with respect to my request. Milton, please live up to your role as a respectful and honorable Citizendium Editor and professional engineer. Again, in my opinion, Citizendium is above any personal disputes and disagreements. I fully respect you in spite of our disagreements. In the end, I do apologize to you and Citizendium for the nature of my request. Thanks, Gordan Feric

Gordan, the correct terminology is to ask for "speedy deletion" rather than "taking down" an article. There really is no harm to just leaving the article as is ... someone in the future may want to expand upoon it. Therefore, I am loath to request "speedy deletion" of the Energy conversion article. If you really have strong feelings about this, then I suggest that you ask one of the Constables to do the "speedy deletion" ... or perhaps you could ask Matt Innis again. I suggest that you sign all of your talk postings with four tildes (~~~~) so that they are dated ... that may help you get peoples attention. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:17, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Milton: Thank you very much for your positive reply to my request. To make it quick and easy on everybody, I will take action by myself -- I will blank out the article now. Again, thank you very much on how it needs to be said, on what I should be working on and how I should be doing it. It has been my pleasure working and dealing with you. Thanks, Gordan

subworkgroup page

The lists were just put there as food for thought. Certainly that is not the page format I would recommend. Also bear in mind that the category page does not have to be the subworkgroup page, it could/should be at CZ:Chemical Engineering Subgroup or CZ:Chemical Engineering Subworkgroup. I'm not sure that each subgroup needs to be a cookie cutter format and each groups should be encouraged to do their own thing. Chris Day 07:02, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Alas, I'm not an editor in either the Engineering or Politics workgroups, so I can't do the Approval for you. Anthony's a good guy, I'm sure he'd be willing to take it on - not sure how much he's been around recently, though. J. Noel Chiappa 12:02, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Can you point me to the right page or procedure for nominating it? We can go ahead.

I agree that this is a reasonable version. There is a much more complex framework for incident/emergency management, of which EPA is only part. Thinking about it, before there is a section on EPA's role in what is now called the National Response Framework (formerly the National Response Plan), there needs to be an article on the framework. Before there is an article on EPA's role in the National Incident Management System, there need to be several articles, essentially bottom-up with the Incident Command System (pretty much North American, and increasingly worldwide) standard, and then moving into the National Incident Management System. There are some legal aspects that I need to review; I believe some Federal resources can start immediately (or at least decide on their own), but for a major response, there needs to be Presidential or Secretary of Homeland Security invocation of the Stafford Act.

Howard C. Berkowitz 08:41, 13 June 2008 (CDT)

OK, while I haven't heard from Noel, I think I have the "to approve" done. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:39, 13 June 2008 (CDT)

Thanks very much, Howard. - Milton Beychok 15:10, 13 June 2008 (CDT)

Yes, Milton, at this point there is nothing that would keep you from adding or changing a workgroup anytime you please. --D. Matt Innis 07:33, 16 June 2008 (CDT)

Milton, I just saw this post from Larry that might interest you. --D. Matt Innis 08:00, 16 June 2008 (CDT)