Talk:Separation process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chemical and Bio Engineering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

comments[edit]

is scooping a method for separating mixtures?? whats Centrifigation?? I might have misunderstood it, the examples of chemical properties used in the article are size, shape and mass. Aren't these properties physical rather than chemical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.73.244.177 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE BE POLITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.91.122 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

This article presents a fine collection of separating processes. However, I was not very happy with its definition, hence the change: A separation process does not necessarily separate substances of different chemical composition. Sieving, sedimentation, centrifugation and elutriation are examples, when the aim is size separation.

Agreed. This ambiguity should be addressed. LeProf

Though I leave this to discussion I am not even certain, that one should include chemistry. Filtration or distillation in chemistry are not really processes, but rather laboratory techniques. I hasten to add, that being a laboratory technique does not decrease any of their importance. LouisBB (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please supply sources for your contentions; as a practicing chemist, I can tell you that chemists routinely refer to filtration and distillation processes. If you are beginning a natural product isolation from a complex mixture produced by an industrial fermentation where a first step to is to filter off biological solids from a batch from a 4M (yes, 4M) liter fermentor, the filtration step is a sub-process in the overall process of natural product isolation, but it is a filtration process none-the-less. Cite your sources that assign these terms as you describe. LeProf

Proposed New Title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Separation processSeparation Science – Current title is a sub-topic of a larger field. Since there is not much content,it is better to have the more general title.Kzl.zawlin (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose – if the contents expand to include topics other than the present topic, then we can consider changing the title. But don't capitalize "science" if you propose that later. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyrighted material[edit]

Some parts of this article seems to have been copied and pasted; do a Google search. I'm not sure which edit added the copy-pasted content, so I added the tag. David1217 What I've done 04:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See new section below. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Demister article[edit]

I would like to clarify that Demister is a brand name of Mist Eliminator. Today, Demister owned by Koch-Glitsch company. The following link will take you to Kock-Glitsch site: http://www.koch-glitsch.com/mistelimination/pages/Products.aspx

Long time in the past, Demister is a very famous mist eliminator upto the point that many people call Mist Eliminator as Demister. This is just like French people call their dictionary as Larousse. It's true that Demister set the industry standard but the name Demister should not be used in place of Mist Eliminator as it would miss leading people to the wrong direction as searching for Demister will send to only Kock-Glitsch products.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.231 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade. The article is plagiarized.[edit]

See plagiarism and WP:Plagiarism. The terms refer to appropriation of ideas/facts that have been reworded, as well as direct appropriation of text. Even if text cannot be traced verbatim to a non-free article, the fact that so much information appears without citation violates the WPs relating to verifiable sources, as well as for plagiarism. One citation for 900 words is a clear signal of either nonscientific prose (fiction), or original research, or plagiarism. The fact that there is direct correspondence between some phrasing in the article and some in the External Links is icing on the cake, but isn't necessary to make the clear case. (This from a university faculty member; see Ch. Lipson's "Doing Honest Work in College," University of Chicago Press, for more.) The whole article should be redacted, if the original contributor of the blocks of text cannot be identified through the History, and contacted through Talk and agrees to make rapid changes. And let's have no talk of forensic referencing; post hoc repairs to large blocks of sloppy unreferenced work are a waste of time and cannot result in attribution of all ideas to their original sources. The person originating this needs to fix it, or it should go. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Does someone wish to start from scratch and write an original article on the subject? If no one else will, I will.RSido (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problems[edit]

@50.179.92.36, Conifer: It appears all the plagiarized material has since been removed, so I'm removing the tag. Thanks to everyone who helped delete the copied material. If anyone sees anything that was missed, feel free to just remove it. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)