Independent Inc is out of business - removed from "major companies" list. Source: http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/appl/msg1219561818711.html?1 + Nevada Business License Commission.
Removed the line about hood invention. There are conflicting sources - Vent-A-Hood, Faber, other companies. Even the About.com article on when kitchen appliances were invented doesn't mention range hoods. Unless someone can cite an actual patent, I think it's best to stay away from this topic altogether.
Page has been reverted to last version before the introduction of content that was outside the scope of the page (as well as superfluous in volume and depth).
Content added by user "Veryunstable" was removed via reversion, for the following reasons:
1.) Content added by user "Veryunstable" has caused FOUR editorial warnings to appear on an article that has not had any warnings or editorial recommendations for over 8 months. Good job.
2.) The main purpose of this article is to provide information on the RESIDENTIAL ventilation appliance, the sales of which constitute the majority of ventilation hoods sold. Content contributed by user "Veryunstable" is largely irrelevant to residential kitchen ventilation systems, and deals primarily with concepts and objects found only in commercial ventilation solutions, as well as highly specialized applications that do not represent a significant portion of the extractor hood market. Therefore, the majority of this content is completely outside the scope of the potential reader's interest, and will be useful only to a minority of readers.
Examples of content completely unrelated to residential extractor hoods: "Electronically commutated motors (ECM) are occasionally encountered." ... "Some larger fans utilize a pillow block bearing" ...
Suggested resolution: moving the vast majority of recent contributions to a separate article on "Commercial Ventilation" or a similar "home" (HVAC, for example).
3.) Content includes overly detailed explanations, which should have been posted in their own articles, and referenced via links.
For example, a 349-word (2,180-character) explanation of potential bearing failure in certain types of bearings is completely outside the scope of this topic. (See the "Don'ts" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting for tips. Personal advice from a professional copywriter to user "Veryunstable": if you have to write over 100 words to explain 1 term - do it on another page.)
4.) The complexity of content added by User "Veryunstable" is significantly above the average education level, and requires specialized technical knowledge to understand.
5.) The sheer volume of this content completely overwhelms the original text, also contributing to the average reader being unable to comprehend the scope of the article.
6.) Content was inserted without any regard to article structure or flow, becoming disruptive.
- I apologise for causing the four editorial warnings. I am inexperienced at Wiki editing so when I started adding info to this article I did raise a help flag and get advice from two admins on what the page required to make it compliant. The advice I received was Wikify, add citations and organise the structure of the page.
The comments you made regarding residential hoods being the focus of the page; this was not evident from the title of the page. Residential and commercial hoods vary only by the physical scale. The method and equipment involved is to all intents and purposes identical. Commercial hoods are as common as the restaurants, hospitals, hotels, cafes and fast food franchise shops that they are found in. I'm not sure if residential hoods constitute the majority of hoods sold or not, this may be the case in the USA but is not in the RSA. I appreciate the suggestions you made and have read and digested the 'help reverting' page. The article was way too long winded and over technical in several places as you pointed out and I agree that a lot of the more detailed information would have been more at home on its own page. I have done some work on wikifying, citations and a table of contents with headings. Should I carry on with this or am I wasting time on an article that is fine 'as is'?
Things that may/should be added:
Coverage of alternative filtering / airflow generation methods - VAH "Magic Lung", baffle filters, tangential blowers, etc. More manufacturers to balance the list.
Seems a bit US oriented at the end.
Commercial vs. Residential Hoods
A commercial hood must have special features such as extinguishers and meet permitting regulations.
- New York Fire Department, USA:
Chapter 7 of NFPA 96-1984
- Euless Texas, USA:
"One type of permit is applicable only to the commercial cooking hood and duct system and the other is applicable to the hood and ducts fire extinguishing equipment. The contractor of record will be the one applying for the permit and will be the responsible party for installation standards. There will be no exceptions to this provision unless otherwise indicated in writing by the Fire Marshal."
each city/county/state in the US will have slightly different rules for commercial range hoods, one of the main differences that indicate it's use for commercial applications is the requirement of a Fire Suppression System. Most residential range hoods do not feature a Fire Suppression System.
Not "most" - "none". I've never even heard of a residential range hood with a fire suppression system of any type. The most the residential hood manufacturers go for is a thermal-overload system - if the temperature at the blower exceeds a certain limit (i.e. from a stovetop fire OR bearing failure/foreign object in blower), the electronics will turn off the unit in order to stop the flame from being drawn into the duct. However, this is a bit of a moot point, since most residential hoods are equipped with metal mesh filters, which are basically spark arrestors in themselves, and even if a flame jet somehow burns through those, it's not likely to penetrate past the blower motor itself, which is even less likely.