User talk:Milton Beychok

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: 11:27

I just archived the last batch of postings.

That is why this page looks so empty and desolate at the moment. Milton Beychok 22:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

Heating things up - if it didn't have a 'WP' tag

Hi Milt,

I've just read Specific heat ratio and liked it. I would nominate it for 'new draft of the week' but it's got a from WP tag. Did you originate it over there? If so, I'd feel comfortable nominating it.

Also, small thing but, since it's something of an advanced concept, I wonder if the first paragraph could indicate that, since it can't be 'dumbed down' and remain true to the subject. Then again, maybe all chem. engineering stuff is like that? What was I talking about again?

Aleta Curry 19:27, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Aleta, I was only a minor contributor to the WP article. However, I completely rewrote and reformatted it (as well as deleted sections that I thought were useless), renamed it and added references. Regards, Milton Beychok 20:11, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Archiving

Hi, I've been mostly offline recently (a bit worn down from trying to do to much online and offline at the same time), and I just saw your message about the archive, so my apologies for the lack of response. Glad you got it fixed! J. Noel Chiappa 10:48, 4 July 2008 (CDT)

Second opinion (energy)

Dear Milton, quite some time ago I made a start with writing about the extremely important topic energy. Last January I sollicited some comments, see here, about the article, because I'm eager to improve it. Today I found that Anthony Argyriou made some comments. I will answer him later today in some detail, because of the importance of the subject, but after a quick scan of his comments, I got the impression that he didn't read the text of the article carefully enough. So, it is important that a knowledgeable third person will participate in this debate that hopefully leads to an excellent article on this topic. Therefore, I like to invite you to read the article, to give your opinion, and to take part in the discussion, and in the spirit of a Wiki make improvements (and in the spirit of CZ explain why you believe that they are indeed improvements. The latter statement is in fact superfluous because I know that you're in the habit of explaining your changes). --Paul Wormer 03:11, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Paul, at the moment, I am quite tied up. I will try to review the article carefully within the next week or so. In a quick scan of the article's Talk page, I read through the exchanges between you and Larry about the title. Personally, I see no reason why the title could not be "Energy (physics)" and still be multi-disciplinary. It would not ruffle my feathers as an engineer to have that title and I don't think any chemists, biologists, or other would be bothered that title. I agree with you that psychology is not a "science" any more than is economics even though practitioners of those two fields may think otherwise. Milton Beychok 03:46, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

Milton, there is no rush, I wrote the bulk of the article last December, so I can wait another few weeks. My concern is not so much the title of the article, (which I find -- as always -- unimportant because redirects can fix it) but the intro. Anthony admitted that he did not read the article; he read only the intro. He has some criticism on it, and I would appreciate your opinion as well. --Paul Wormer 06:00, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

recruiting

do you have any interest in becoming a recruiter for CZ? (it's not an actual position) I like your idea on the forum on target populations to reach out to. Tom Kelly 18:33, 15 July 2008 (CDT)

ammonia production article

Milton, I commented on the Intro on the article's Talk page. Will review remainder of article soon. Thanks for asking for my thoughts. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:10, 23 July 2008 (CDT)