Talk:Petroleum naphtha/Draft

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition An intermediate hydrocarbon liquid stream derived from the refining of petroleum crude oil and which may be further processed to obtain a gasoline blending component. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Engineering and Chemistry [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Chemical Engineering
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Would appreciate reviews and comments

No article is ever perfect. I would appreciate any reviews, comments or constructive criticisms of this article. - Milton Beychok 23:27, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks for a nagging clarification

I'd always wondered about the relationship between petroleum ether I used in the biochem lab and the petroleum naptha in the ChemE textbook. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Howard, petroleum naphtha has many uses as a solvent other than being a catalytic reformer feedstock for producing high-octane gasoline. And it has a number of more-or-less synonyms, namely petroleum ether, petroleum spirits, mineral spirits, paraffin, benzine, hexanes, ligroin, white oil or white gas, painters naphtha, refined solvent naphtha and Varnish makers' & painters' naphtha (VM&P). I say more-or-less synonyms because some of those naphtha solvents have slightly different boiling ranges and other characteristics than does the naphtha used as a catalytic reformer feedstock. See here. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I really should get to reviewing and editing.
Copy nits: second paragraph, second sentence is missing an "of". I thought I saw a missing "the", but I think it ran under the bed.
Found the missing "of " and added it in. Can't find a missing "the". If you find it, just add it in. Such a minor copy edit would not affect your ability to nominate the article. Milton Beychok 07:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've reread it a few times, and I really wonder if "petroleum naphthas" would be a better title, which you do use in some subheads. The plural, to me, better implies the variability of the product. Is there, perhaps, more standardization in laboratory grades, or should I have grabbed a few bottles, from one batch from one manufacturer, and used that for all my extractions? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There are many different grades of naphtha, but I thought the article explained that quite well. I have no objection to renaming the article altho I really don't think it necessary. If you feel it is absolutely necessary, let me know and I will do it tomorrow. Bed time now in California. Milton Beychok 07:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not adamant about the renaming, and will nominate the article. Perhaps during the nomination period, others can comment on the name, both laymen and people exposed to other uses.

After doing some preliminary research, "petroleum ether" seems to be the type used in analytical chemistry; suppliers do sell a high-performance liquid chromatography grade. I think the article does explain how different formulations might be standardized for applications, and perhaps that covers it. There's a point at which "sounds right to primary author" is a factor. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


References 8 and 13 are broken. --Peter Schmitt 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. They are now replaced with new links that are working. Milton Beychok 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Congratulations again! D. Matt Innis 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.1

A Constable discovered that all of the footnote references were missing from the Approved Version 1.0. Upon the advice of two Editors, he then deleted all of the text from the Approved article and replaced it with all of the text from the Draft article, which, for some reason, retained the missing footnotes. Version 1.1, therefore, is now how the Approved version should have looked after the initial Approval. Why the footnotes disappeared during the Approval operation is a problem to be solved. Hayford Peirce 20:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, I am pretty sure that it has something to do with the WikiEd extension that I added to my tools. Others might want to be aware, too, that copying and pasting may lose the refs? D. Matt Innis 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)