imported>David E. Volk |
imported>Pat Palmer |
| (980 intermediate revisions by 65 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{archive box|auto=long|box-width=15em}} | | {{Archive box|auto=long|box-width=30em}} |
| {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-7}} | | {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-8 }}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> |
| | ==Milt== |
| | Milt was a great contributor to our project who invested a lot of his own knowledge and time in it; Citizendium is much poorer without him. He was highly trusted and respected, previously serving as the project's Treasurer and on the elected Management and Editorial Councils. However, we were a small part of a long life: Milt completed his degree in 1944, but his graduation was delayed while he saw action in Europe during the Second World War. Decades of experience in both chemical and environmental engineering followed, and he would become a well-published authority on various aspects of these fields, as recognized by his Fellowship of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. His daughter also tells me he liked to apply his engineering approach to everyday life by collecting recipes and carefully replicating dishes he'd enjoyed. Milt stood firm against pseudoscience and other nonsense, as we at Citizendium can attest, and was a strong proponent of the science and the facts. I am sure I speak for those who knew him here when I say that we will miss him. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. He was a nice gent. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] ([[User talk:Ro Thorpe|talk]]) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. [[User:JeromeDelacroix|Jérôme Delacroix]] ([[User talk:JeromeDelacroix|talk]]) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC+1) |
| | :RIP Milt. You embodied the true spirit of Citizendium at its best.[[User:Roger A. Lohmann|Roger A. Lohmann]] ([[User talk:Roger A. Lohmann|talk]]) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP MIlt. As a collaborator and colleague, he will be missed. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] ([[User talk:Russell D. Jones|talk]]) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| | Milt had an abundance of wisdom, passion and knowledge. He was with Citizendium from the early days, and embraced fully the spirit and idealism with which Citizendium was launched. He made an enormous contribution to the project. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] ([[User talk:Gareth Leng|talk]]) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Compressibility factor ==
| | I have missed Milt ever since he needed to leave the project, and I will always remember him fondly.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| 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.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:35, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
| | == Milt's productivity as chemical engineer == |
|
| |
|
| ::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.(:>) - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
| | Let us temper our sadness in the passing of our esteemed colleague with a celebration of his achievements in his field of endeavor. Google Scholar has tabulated 111 articles he published between 1951 and 2005, with links to them and to all the articles that cited them. |
|
| |
|
| When I read along I place some odd comments here (--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:54, 4 April 2008 (CDT)).
| | See: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kBHMSC4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra MR Beychok] |
|
| |
|
| #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.
| | [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | |
| ::I revised it to ''the principle of corresponding states'' as per your [[Van der Waals equation]] article. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| #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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| #You forgot to define P_c and T_c.
| |
|
| |
| ::I did indeed forget. They are now defined.
| |
| | |
| #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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|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? --[[User:Paul Wormer|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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|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? --[[User:Paul Wormer|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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|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 [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Mole_%28unit%29&curid=100022946&diff=100304956&oldid=100304940 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. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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. [[User:David E. Volk|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, [[User:Milton Beychok|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, --[[User:D. Matt Innis|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:
| |
| | |
| <pre>Selected Electronegativities:<br />
| |
| {{Selected Electronegativities|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead}}</pre>
| |
| Selected Electronegativities:<br />
| |
| {{Selected Electronegativities|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead}}
| |
| | |
| and...
| |
| <pre>Selected Melting Points:<br />
| |
| {{Selected melting points|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead|Cobalt(II) oxide}}</pre>
| |
| | |
| Selected Melting Points:<br />
| |
| {{Selected melting points|Hydrogen|Beryllium|Iron|Helium|Uranium|Neptunium|Lead|Cobalt(II) oxide}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| and also....
| |
| | |
| <pre>
| |
| {{Resizable Periodic Table of Elements
| |
| |cellWidth=50px
| |
| |cellHeight=67px
| |
| |colorscheme=Metal
| |
| }}
| |
| </pre>{{Resizable Periodic Table of Elements
| |
| |cellWidth=50px
| |
| |cellHeight=67px
| |
| |colorscheme=Metal
| |
| }}
| |
| ...pretty easily.
| |
| | |
| Also, I've started the {{tl|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....--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 10:43, 25 April 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 [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php?action=recent Recent Posts], right?) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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). [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|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! [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:56, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| The formal (SI) definition of the mole includes implicitly a definition of Avogadro's number ''N''<sub>A</sub> (number of carbon atoms in 12 gram). I believe that one must explain that one mole of '''any''' compound contains ''N''<sub>A</sub> molecules and therefore weighs (has mass) ''N''<sub>A</sub> 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 H<sub>2</sub> plus 32 gram O<sub>2</sub> yields 36 gram water? I really don't see it.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 12:07, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I agree that there is nothing wrong with saying that 4 grams H<sub>2</sub> plus 32 grams O<sub>2</sub> 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, [[User:Milton Beychok|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''<sub>A</sub> carbon atoms weigh 12 gram, so that (i) 1 carbon atom has mass 12/''N''<sub>A</sub> 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''<sub>A</sub>) = 1/''N''<sub>A</sub> gram (approximately 1.661 10<sup>−24</sup> 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''<sub>B</sub> 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.
| |
| :--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 14:49, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Paul, I surrender. - [[User:Milton Beychok|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? --[[User:Paul Wormer|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. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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 {{tl|us}}, etc interact with it. Sorry.... [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|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. [[User:Chris Day|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, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 12:08, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Progress in my brain. I have not forgotten :) [[User:Chris Day|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. --[[User:Paul Wormer|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.
| |
| | |
| [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|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, - [[User:Milton Beychok|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. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|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 [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Larry_Sanger#What_is_the_policy_on_porting_a_CZ_article_to_Wikipedia.3F] --[[User:D. Matt Innis|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 {{tl|R}} template on related pages that it will result in a repitition. See what i mean below.
| |
| | |
| Using<nowiki> {{r|Delayed coking}}</nowiki> will be seen as:{{r|Delayed coking}}.
| |
| [[User:Chris Day|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. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:50, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| 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. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:49, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 04:42