User talk:Rifleman 82/Archive 1 (End Oct 2006)

Welcome!

Hello, Rifleman 82/Archive 1 (End Oct 2006), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I noticed you quickly. When you edit articles, there is a checkbox to choose to "Watch this page." Then you can click on "My watchlist" at the top of the page anytime you like. This gives you a list of recent edits on articles on your watchlist. You made edits to benzoic acid, which happens to be on my watchlist. I make an effort to welcome new editors that I notice working on articles on my watchlist (mostly chemistry-related articles).

I think the edits you made to the benzoic acid are fine. I think a good article will have an introduction and basic information that is understandable to almost anyone, and then goes into details that might be only of interest to someone with a chemistry background.

If you are interested, there is a coordinated effort to improve chemistry-related articles at WikiProject Chemistry. There are also other wikiprojects for almost any other topic you might be interested in.

Happy editing! --Ed (Edgar181) 23:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD[edit]

On 04-May, you nominated the redirects Bio-diesel, BioDeisel, BioDiesel, & Vegoil for deletion. Unfortunately, you did not do it correctly. The rfd2 tag is supposed to be placed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (WP:RFD) and not on the article page. This is to allow the nomination to be discussed and a consensus reached. I have listed these redirects, along with your rationale, at WP:RFD. You may wish to participate in any debate that occurs there. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks a lot. -- Rifleman 82 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol fuel energy balance[edit]

I noticed you added the afd to the page I just spun off from Ethanol fuel. I am quite surprised why you did that, especially since I am still working on it. Perhaps it was an automated procedure, but the page is hardly a personal essay. It just hasn't been wikified into a full article of its own. This was properly noted in the comments.

If it were an automated action, perhaps you would like to look into your code. If it were a conscious action, perhaps you would like to look around before jumping to conclusions. --Rifleman 82 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair comment. The article does read as an essay at the moment and it would benefit from some attention, as you say it is currently receiving. I wouldn't take offence as to my opinion on the content as-it-stands. Now that I know it is to be improved rather than left alone my concerns are allayed. The {{prod}} tag can be removed, if required. (aeropagitica) (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Hi!

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your great copyediting of Battle of Königsberg. It really is better now :)

Second, impressed by your work, I have a favor to ask :) Can your spare a few minutes of your time and have a look at Aleksandr Vasilevsky. This article is currently FAC but some style issue were pointed out and I would like an external point of view to fix some things. Can you please do that?

Thanks in advance, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grafikm_fr

I'm sorry for the late response. I've looked through the article several times and I actually do not see any deficiencies. I'm not sure exactly of what style issues were pointed out. I think it is a good article. --Rifleman 82 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastics[edit]

Hi. I noted your comment in your edit to Polybutadiene. Polybutadiene is definitely an elastomer or a rubber. It certainly does not resemble many of the other plastics listed. However, "plastic" is not well defined in the first place. A better term would be "polymer" but that wikipedia article does not focus on hydrocarbon based synthetic polymers. That said, how does polybutadiene not fit the definition of Plastic?

Plastic covers a range of synthetic or semisynthetic polymerization products. They are composed of organic condensation or addition polymers and may contain other substances to improve performance or economics. There are few natural polymers generally considered to be "plastics". Plastics can be formed into objects or films or fibers. Their name is derived from the fact that many are malleable, having the property of plasticity. Plastics are designed with immense variation in properties such as heat tolerance, hardness, resiliency and many others. Combined with this adaptability, the general uniformity of composition and light weight of plastics ensures their use in almost all industrial segments.

--Rifleman 82 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rifleman. You raise a good point: what is the exact definition of plastic and why do elastomers not fit into it?

For me, the concept with physical reality is not "plastic" but "material with plastic behavior": a material that changes its shape under stress and retains the new shape; whereas a "material with elastic behavior" is one that changes its shape under stress and goes back to the original shape once the stress stops, dissipating energy in the process.

No material is purely plastic or purely elastic. Steel, for instance, behaves quite elastically for small deformations but is definitely plastic for big ones.

When people try to classify polymers, there are many possible ways to do it. One possibility is to look at the stress-deformation behavior of the material. This lets us differentiate between "plastic polymers" (i.e. plastics) and "elastic polymers" (i.e. elastomers). People also distinguish polymers that become liquid when heated and can be reshaped again ("thermoplastics") and those which simply decompose when heated ("thermosets").

In my opinion, these definitions are far from clear-cut and many ambiguities exist so we often have to refer to "usual practice". Polybutadiene, for instance, is an elastomer if it is properly vulcanized but if vulcanization goes too far it becomes hard and rigid, thus a plastic. In both cases it is a thermoset, i.e. it will decompose when heated. To complicate things even more, when it is not vulcanized at all we should rather look at polybutadiene as a liquid! So, how should we classify polybutadiene? The usual practice is to look at its behavior in its most widespread applications. For polybutadiene the main property of use is actually its elasticity and so it should be considered above all as an elastomer, a thermoset elastomer to be precise (there are thermoplastic elastomers, like SBS).

As you can see, there is a lot of work to do to properly define all these concepts in Wikipedia and then to set up categories so as to classify the different polymers in the most suitable ones. I have started that work in es: and if we ever find a consensus there I will propose the category structure for use in en:

--Hispalois 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, which do help me understand your point of view. I do agree that the usual form of polybutadiene does not qualify as a "plastic" per se. It is hard to differentiate polymers as either "plastic" or "elastomer" and nothing in between. There certainly is a continuum and there really is no big difference in terms of synthesis, and modification of properties. Because of the great number of similarities other than the application, I fear we are introducing a false dichotomy. Should we expand the category further? "Polymer" will be the best category but it might be overly broad. --Rifleman 82 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Castle[edit]

Hi Rifleman!

I've just tracked you down as the person who made some edits and rearranged pics to Ediburgh Castle.

I've had nothing to do with the article previously, but I'm just about to do some serious fixing.

OK! The effects of your editting were as follows-

1. The previous editor had written things like "In the painting to the right, you will see blahdeblah and blahdeblah...." Where is the painting that this editor has referred to a couple of times? Not there any more! You have put in its place some photos, which do not tie up with the text, but you haven't altered the text, so that it matches the photos.

2. The text goes on something like, "In the painting, you can see the Half Moon Battery. When you go around this battery you get to bladeblah..." But you have moved the first reference to the Half Moon Battery, so that now the sentence that begins "when you go round this battery....." is left hanging! It is now totally meaningless!

3. You put up a picture of "HQ XYZ9953 episode 5" (or something). Don't presume that everyone that reads this site will understand what a string of initials and numbers mean. They don't. Please write the title of your pic in full, and also go back to the picture page you created and write a title under that too, so people actually know what they're looking at.

4. A basic rule of editting anything is to READ what people have written, inwardly digest and try to understand how sentences (and possibly even pictures) are connected to each other before you shove them some different place! That way, you avoid making total nonsense out of someone's perfectly good article!

5. I'm about to put back what you moved, sort out the grammar, put the picture in a place where it relates to the previous editor's comments and leave a more-or-less empty box where someone (possibly you) can write all that they know about the Military Tatoo. If you know anything about the regimental stuff, why don't you do that a bit more fully?

--Amandajm 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edits in good faith. At least, that's the assumption you (and every other editor) is expected to make. If it bothers you that much, you can either revert it or edit it yourself. Why take it up with me now, 2 or 3 months later, after more than a dozen edits by other editors?

I'm sorry that shifting pictures around breaks links with the text. Bearing in mind that the relative positions between the text and the images are not fixed (not everyone uses the same browser; not every browser renders the same way), perhaps the text should refer to the pictures explicitly rather than implicitly.

I added a picture of Headquarters, 52nd Infantry Brigade. Using standardized, international abbreviations, it translates to HQ 52 Inf Bde. That's a standardized, international abbreviation. I apologize for assuming that this would be understandable to all, but let's not trivialize it as "HQ XYZ9953 episode 5" (or something) like you did. --Rifleman 82 13:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rifleman,

I'm sorry if I was unnecessarily hard on you about the use of abreviations. But if you are going to presume that HQ 52 Inf Bde is understandable to all, then an old lady like me has to be able to presume that you can also follow the abbreviations of a knitting pattern or a game of bridge. I have been offended lately by a number of well-intentioned young people who rush in with some program or another that makes global changes to different articles, and then rush off to wreck yet another one, without actually LOOKING at the result! And people who correct subjects that they know absolutely nothing about! ? I simply want to encourage you to read really carefully and with understanding before you edit. And check it again, after you edit, to make sure that what you change, makes sense. I make typos and spelling errors, all the time. I keep on revising and correcting what I've written. But what I really need is someone who can spell- English, not US, to follow me around and tidy up! I'm going back to sort out my typos in that article. I've put the full name under the pic, thank you!

Regimental Sergeant Major[edit]

Any better? Or did you have something different in mind? --SigPig 19:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. The main thing was the line at the end of the UK paragraph. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water of crystallization[edit]

Are your example dessicants examples of hydration? Does CaCl₂ form CaCl₂(H₂O)_n crystals on exposure to moisture? Argyriou 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my examples, but the examples that were there when I added the header "Desiccation". In any case, calcium chloride does indeed form the di, tetra, and hexahydrate on reaction with water. --Rifleman 82 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning glassware[edit]

Sorry, but I beg to differ on that! I've worked as an organic chemist since I got my BSc in 1981, I did 12 years in industry (UK and US) then a PhD in the US (5 years) followed by 8 years teaching in a US college. I can honestly say that I have never used any of the things you mention except chromic acid - which I've used a few times a year as a "last resort." I can also honestly say that in my career I have seen people smoking and drinking a beer in the lab, all sorts of bad things, but never seen anyone actually using any of the other techniques you describe.

In industry in the UK, a LONG time ago, one of my colleagues (PhD chemist) was sacked for cleaning glassware with acetone in the sink - so these things are taken seriously. Seriously, I can't imagine my old company allowing people to use 30% hydrogen peroxide to clean glassware (in fact, that's the same stuff that destroyed the factory where I originally worked, with a massive explosion in 1986). In my experience I would always:

Use celite/filteraid when filtering charcoal, Pd/C and the like. I'd never use a frit alone with such things.
Use a pipe cleaner to get those troublesome stains out of NMR tubes, and an NMR tube cleaner helps too.

Remember, in industry you can't clean a 2000 gallon reactor or a 20' x 6' open filter with aqua regia, and you need to get viable methods in lab before you scale up!

What I don't do but should

Clean the NMR tubes out shortly after use.

I can accept that a knowledgable worker can probably use the methods you describe reasonably safely, but many people reading the article will not have your skill & experience (that's why they're reading the article!). If I really believed that the more dangerous methods were still the norm in most places, I would have left the article as it was, even though I would be unhappy at apparently condoning such things. But since 1978 when I began my BSc at Bristol, I've never even seen any of them in use except chromic acid, so it seemed reasonable to make the changes I did - and this has the additional benefit that it doesn't encourage such practices among amateurs.

Thanks for all your work on the chemistry articles, by the way, it is much appreciated. I saw the desiccant info being added to some pages I worked on like sodium sulfate. All the best, Walkerma 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits to Distillation[edit]

Rifleman, thanks for your edits to Distillation. I think they have improved the article quite a bit. I have one bit of advice and that is to use the edit Preview to slowly and carefully proofread your edits before submitting them. That would reduce the number of typos you have made ... although you have not made a great many. Regards, - mbeychok 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. I should know better but there's always the temptation to just assume everything's fine, and just submit rather than preview. --Rifleman 82 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

This edit was a mistake, I assume. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the parabens article.[edit]

The parabens article is in great shape now. I have added some sentences and rephrased others. It is a well balanced article explaining different viewpoints including the long term safety as well as the recent conerns. Chemistry and commentary are both important. --63.17.74.76 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol red again[edit]

It seems the phenol red structure story is more complicated. I found this article which appears to claim that, at least in the crystalline form, it's a zwitterion, but I don't understand all the details. This article also seems relevant, but unfortunately it's in Japanes and I don't understand the abstract. Cheers, AxelBoldt 21:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got to the bottom of this. I have the Japanese article, and fortunately all the pictures have English captions. The full story is this: in crystalline form, and in aquaeous solution at very low pH, the substance exists in a zwitterionic form (sulfate negatively charged, and the oxygen double bonded to the ring carrying an additional H+, for a total charge of 0). At higher pH, the double-bonded oxygen loses the proton, for a total charge of -1 and a yellow color. At higher pH still, the phenol group loses its proton, and we end up with a charge of -2 and red color. The structure with the sulfur forming part of a cycle never shows up (but such a cyclic structure does exist for phenolphthalein, another structure they resolve in the paper). I'll send you the article via email, maybe you can produce a structure image if you have the time. The structures are on top of page 7. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Seems like you went to some length to solve this bit. =) Thanks for the article, thanks for the effort. I'll do it over the weekend. --Rifleman 82 03:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on the Distillation discussion page[edit]

Rifleman, as you noted, it is virtually impossible to cater to every one's display screen and I agree. What I did was try to cater to the vast majority, like myself, who use Windows XP as their operating system and Internet Explorer as their browser. It is my belief that majority of Wikipedia users are not using Firefox browsers or using UNIX or other advanced operating systems ... and PDA or cellphone users are certainly only a very, very small percentage.

As for your other point about industrial distillation. In the 7 to 8 months that I've been active on Wikipedia, I have created over 40 new technical, engineering article and made major contributions to another such 40 articles. During that time, I have learned that large majority of devoted and very active Wikipedians are university undergraduates or post graduates, and the number of young chemists and young physicists (with no real world experience) far outnumber the very, very few experienced engineers who contribute to Wikipedia. I am not trying to denigrate the students ... I am merely stating the factual situation that currently exists. This distillation article and most of the ten or so other distillation articles (listed in the "See also" section of this article) are quite obviously heavily oriented toward laboratory distillation as evidenced by all of the images of glassware setups in the ten or so articles. As one pertinent example, in my 50 year career as a chemical engineer (during which I designed half a dozen oil refinery vacuum distillation towers with diameters exceeding 4 meters as well as a great many other fractionation distillation towers), neither I nor anyone I worked with ever heard of a laboratory Perkins Triangle or Rotary Evaporator vacuum distillation setup. In other words, I and the young chemistry students who wrote those ten articles just don't live on the same planet. If you will look on the History page of this article, back in about the last week of March, I wrote the section on Industrial Distillation which has since been relegated to the last sub-section in the article. It would be a losing battle for me to try and re-orient this article to truly represent the tens of thousands of large industrial applications of all types of distillation that exist in the real world outside of university and research institute laboratories. So I've turned my efforts, as much as I can, into areas not dominated by young chemists, physicists and mathematicians. Please don't interpret this as a complaint or a rant ... I enjoy working on Wikipedia and this is only a realistic, pragmatic statement of the facts as they now exist in Wikipedia. - mbeychok 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbeychok

What I meant to say was that, if you did not set an image width for each thumbnail, the image width will be set either at a default value, or at an appropriate size chosen by the user (in the settings). By forcing an image width, the thumbnails will no longer resize according to the user preferences. Having the image conform to the user preferences, I would expect, would fit even more of the users most of the time.

As for industrial distillation - I see your point of view on the uphill task. Reading your contributions I felt that is your forte, and it would be nice to have some balance, and make the distillation article even more complete. Thanks for your comments all the same. --Rifleman 82 08:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rifleman, explaining the large-scale, continuous fractionation distillation towers used in industry just cannot be done in a few paragraghs or even a few pages. It takes a textbook to do a thorough job. It would require explaining what is meant: by the vapor-liquid equilibrium data (VLE) of multi-component feedstocks; what is meant by equilibrium stages; what is meant by bubble-cap distillation trays or valve trays or grid packing used in place of trays; what is meant by side-draws for simultaneously and continuously withdrawing fractionation products at various points along the height of a fractionation tower (i.e., not all products are withdrawn from the top of the tower); what is meant by external refluxing; what is meant by reboilers (i.e., the heat input sources such as fired furnace reboilers, horizontal kettle reboilers, vertical thermosyphon reboilers, etc.); what is meant by pump-around reflux; and dozens of other items for which Wikipedia has no existing articles that can be linked to for explanations. If you have access to a good library, read the book described in Distillation Design or the pertinent sections in Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. - mbeychok 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry[edit]

Hi! I just decided to spam some people directly, who I know are very active on chemicals. There is now a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also wikipedia:chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia, though I feel some resistance there). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since you added yourself freshly to the participants of the chemicals wikiproject, welcome to the chemicals wikiproject! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you added the article benzylmagnesium bromide, and I decided to help you with some data from some suppliers (CAS, etc.). I was disappointed I could not find anything on my searchpage .. but .. Acros and Aldrich do sell benzylmagnesium chloride (CAS 6921-34-2), no benzylmagnesium bromide. So I don't know if the bromide is available anyway. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks for the last few comments. I've checked out poolspares, though not in detail, and I think some of the features there are great! I will look at it when i have a bit more time and comment on it in due course. I can imagine the resistance; Wikipedia isn't devoted to Chemists etc. That said, I think it's a wonderful resource and I've actually followed up the literature references on some reactions (notably the reduction of the azide on the Staudinger reaction page). Thanks for the help on Phenylmagnesium bromide too. I was going to find those data eventually but thought of starting the article first and thinking of it later.

While we're at it, do take a look at Raney nickel. I know it's a FA already and you shouldn't mess with it unless you know it's really a positive change, but I added the Chembox yesterday, deleting a lot of categories which are not relevant. Tell me what you think - should it stay or go? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Environment[edit]

Hi there, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page --Alex 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]