Talk:Continuous distillation

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium

Current revision

	Main Article	Talk	Related Articles  [?]	Bibliography  [?]	External Links  [?]
	To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.  Definition:  An ongoing separation process in which a liquid mixture of two or more miscible components is continuously fed into the process and physically separated into two or more products by preferentially boiling the more volatile (i.e., lower boiling point) components out of the mixture. [d] [e] Checklist and Archives  Workgroup category:  Engineering [Categories OK]  Subgroup category:  Chemical Engineering  Talk Archive:  none (start Archive 1)  English language variant:  American English  Test Unused subpages  Unused subpages:  - Works - Discography - Filmography - Catalogs - Timelines - Gallery - Audio - Video - Code - Tutorials - Student Level - Signed Articles - Function - Addendum - Debate Guide - Advanced - Recipes

Wikipedia has article of the same name

I was one of the major contributors to the WP article. Before transferring it here into CZ, I have completely reformatted it, drawn some new diagrams and revised it to get rid of the usual Wikipedia revisions that, after time, degrade a WP article. Milton Beychok 19:08, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

comments

Hi Milt, sorry for the delay. As one who is pretty familiar with the ideas behind alcohol distillation (because I thought I might try building a still after I got into home brewing) but unfamiliar with the distillation of any other substances or the equipment used to accomplish it, I find the article very clear on most points. I made one small style edit that you might want to check but otherwise I only have a few comments:

1. I didn't recognize the word "miscible" when I saw it in the first paragraph, though I figured it out further down. I think I would make it a wikilink, but I'm not sure where to point the link.
2. The references to FRI and its fields of research in the body of the article come off as somewhat off-topic. They might belong in footnotes or maybe the external links page.
3. The history section seems out of order. I'm not sure if I would put it at the top, but it doesn't seem to fit at the bottom.

I hope this is helpful, Joe Quick 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

All good suggestions and I have implemented all of them. Thanks much. Milton Beychok 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)