|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Separation process article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
is scooping a method for separatingm chocoooooooo CALAMAAAR 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- PLEASE BE POLITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
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
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Let's call a spade a spade. The article is plagiarized.
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@184.108.40.206 and 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)