Talk:Compressed air

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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 quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system.
WikiProject Scuba diving (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Scuba diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Canned Compressed Air: Writing style[edit]

I think someone should restructure the content written about compressed air in cans. It is written in a style that I have never seen on wikipedia, e.g. uses exclamation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Cooling of gas[edit]

Why does a can of dust destroyer - compressed gas duster get so cold when you use it?

Explained in Gas duster#Cooling. DS (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Compressed air is in gas canassters and in deoderant bottles — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


This article could use a history section explaining when and how air compression was developed and improvements that have been made over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Nothing about it's use as an intoxicating inhalant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's as much in the article about its use as an intoxicating inhalant as exists in reliable sources about that claim. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Export air[edit]

From Preikestolen:

  • Compressed air from Lysefjorden/Preikestolen is being sold in cans, mostly to China.[1]

Could something be written about canned air sold as novelties? --Error (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Why not add that sentence (linking Preikestolen), complete with reference, as another bullet point in the Uses section? I don't think there's much more that could be be said. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. Maybe someone can add other examples and the reasons for this use. --Error (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've slightly amended your reference as it's more common to include the |language=no parameter inside the template, because it makes it a little more portable and opens up the possibility of tracking across all articles by a single change to the template itself. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not fuel[edit]

Compressed air is not a "fuel" - this is not an article about propane or butane. Compressed air has a long and vital history as an energy transport medium in its own right and should not be subsumed in an ill-advised attempt to sneak in "carbon dioxide" in the same category. Mountains have been levelled by compressed air, CO2 is for pellet guns and seltzer bottles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that KVDP (talk · contribs) fails WP:COMPETENCE for making substantive changes to any technical article and has been demonstrating this regularly for some years. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason I initially renamed the "Compressed air" page to compressed gas as a fuel (and then to compressed gas) was that CO2 was not included on the page, but it could be used for similar applications. Unlike compressed air, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and (temporary) storage in tanks thus reduces the greenhouse effect (a tiny bit per vehicle, but it would probably still be significant if done by a huge amount of vehicles). See here Moreover, there seem to be many pneumatic motors made in the past specifically for CO2, which haven't been mentioned at any page at wikipedia (i.e. Gasparin, CÉTONIA, IDEAL, and various Bill Brown Motors and RADIGUET-MASSIOT models. It's also unclear whether most modern pneumatic motors can't run on CO2 as well (besides being able to run on compressed air), and whether there are practical benefits if done so (for instance more power per liter of gas, and whether there are disadvantages, ie economical ones -not sure for instance whether CO2 can be produced at home from the air and stored in tanks or whether these always need to be bought-). Calling CO2 something usable only for pellet guns and seltzer bottles is in any way incorrect. Regarding the "fuel"; I renamed the page temporarily "compressed gas as a fuel" because that's how it is used for transport purposes (as a fuel). I never meant compressed air was itself a fuel, just that (the compressing of a gas) gives it the ability of a fuel (compressed gases have energy inside them, due to the compression).

KVDP (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it time for a massive topic ban on KVDP? And what would its scope be? Or would it just be an indef? I'm tired of clearing up your mess, you contribute nothing, as you don't have the understanding to write about seemingly any topic without getting it completely upside down.
I remember once suggesting that you limited yourself to Appropedia and the world of tinfoil-hat-patterns. But even they seem to have slung you out now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok. I will refrain on adding anything regarding this issue to wikipedia's article pages. I'll leave it to the other wikipedians to add or not add any info on this issue.

KVDP (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Compressed gasCompressed air – restore long standing page title and subject of article after undiscussed, hasty, move Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
These are late additions to what was an article about compressed air. Something weird about the edit history, here as I seem to recall adding the stuff about Westinghouse, etc. - must trace back and see what has happened here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Here it is[1]] - then someone confused the issue by rename compressed air to something with fuel in title, and after a further murkification, here were at "compressed gas". --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator's claim "restore long standing page title" is simply untrue. For 10 years, this has been a redirect to compressed fluid, the slightly broader term.
Compressed air would be a far narrower scope, excluding a vast range of non-air gases. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to the state before KVDP's usual clueless and incompetent meddling. Compressed gas redirects to a (sadly thin) article at compressed fluid, compressed air is an article on compressed air. We should then split compressed air into breathable compressed air, and compressed air as a power transmission medium. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and then maybe do a split for a separate article on various compressed gases as needed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree I might have been a bit too hasty in getting this topic covered at wikipedia. I agree on the split proposed, main thing would just be that the info gets added somewhere on wikipedia. KVDP (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compressed air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Canned Air[edit]

@RexxS:, @Wtshymanski: I fail to see the issue with including this in the lead? See also is a part of the page most readers will not see, and I see little downside adding a quick mention into the lead section. "Compressed Air Dusters" seems to be a pretty common usage, with the top results in Google Search for "compressed air" all returning canned air results. Shaded0 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles are about their subjects. This article is about compressed air, the gas that you breathe. The "dusters" don't have compressed air in them, it's a volatile liquid such as difluoroethane (see or any other MSDS for a "canned air" product). It is out of place to talk about a very minor product in the introduction to an article about another topic altogether. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Shaded0: The lead section is, by definition, "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Considering that gas dusters aka "canned air" are normally fluorocarbons, not air, I don't see how they can be considered one of the most important points for an article on compressed air, which all the sources in the article agree has no meaning other than air that has been compressed. The cans of gas are not even mentioned in this article, so I content it's hard to argue that they deserve to be part of the summary in the lead. Given that 10 percent of all industrial electricity in Europe is consumed in the production of compressed air, I seriously doubt that cans of compressed air used to blow dust out of computer keyboards make up more than an infinitesimal amount of usage of compressed air.
Of course, so-called "canned air" is common enough in a Google searches, but the ghits on my search are to Amazon selling a product, Wikipedia and then BOC. I'm the UK, so I probably get different results. And that's the problem with trying to use Google to determine usage. In any case, we have a perfectly good article on Gas dusters, which is a far more suitable location for a discussion of products normally containing fluorocarbons. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that it's as straightforward as you both are arguing. The issue is a question of the article title. If the title (which it appears Wtshymanski was involved with the re-name) is as it is, I am of the opinion it meets notability worth mention. Canned air is frequently used in electronics and computer repair, so I'd probably dispute your argument that it's a "minor product" -- whatever that means. "Air" is itself ambiguous in the usage. There probably is a policy on common use that I am not finding, but I personally find it odd to argue its without merit or UNDUE per RexxS point. I understand the issue now is the regional usage of the term, but I still find it reasonable to mention in the lead per WP:COMMON sense. Shaded0 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Look, it's simple: if the article discussed canned air, then you could summarise it in the lead. It doesn't, and you can't.
It's not the article title, it's the article content that determines what goes in the lead. if you feel gas duster is the same thing as compressed air, propose a merger. But it's not common sense to summarise the contents of a different article in the lead of this one. --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who breathes only what comes out of a gas duster will learn an unforgettable lesson in the difference between that and compressed air. Or their survivors will, anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)