User talk:Mbeychok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a   Chemical Engineer

/Archive1 Jan/March 2006
/Archive2 April 2006
/Archive3 May 2006
/Archive4 June 2006
/Archive5 July, August, September, October, November 2006

On June 24, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flue gas stack, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Administrator?

Hi Mbeychok. Are you interested in administrative duties? I think you'd do a very good job as an administrator. If interested, let me know and we can discuss -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Samir, thanks for honoring me by even considering me for that position ... I really do appreciate it!! But I will be 84 years old next month (January) and I don't think I could take on that job and do it justice. So I regretfully decline. However, I would like to think that I can still call on you from time to time for help. Best of regards, - mbeychok 08:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page and e-mail are always open! Let me know if you ever change you mind; I think some of us younger admins could benefit from your wisdom -- Samir धर्म 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Up

Milton:

I have heard about Wikipedia before. However, I have never had a chance to check it out and try to contribute/upload and post some of my own e-material. Well, you have noticed that a few days ago I had a chance to upload some of my plots for the first time on a few engineering subject matters.

Yes, you are right about the format that the plots are in and their current limitations when loaded up and posted in the Wikipedia environment. I am kind of new to the Wikipedia environment and still learning how to get around.

Milton, I do appreciate your demo and touches on how the plots need to be formated. I will try to catch up with the rest of the plots in the near future. I do believe that for the time being I can have th plots stay out there in its current format. I did some preliminary testing and with the software on my computer I can create PNG files and edit the existing plots in gif format.

Milton, let me get back to your opening remark in your e-mail/message to me. Over the years, I have seen your name and comments at various engineering web sites -- eFunda.com, CheResources.com etc. Milton, we have even exchanged a few e-mails. Some time ago, I did receive a piece of advice from you and made corresponding changes and improvements to my work. At this point, I do feel that I am coming to an end with the development work and that I can settle on how it looks like. The next step for me is to try to share my work with places like Wikipedia, CheResources.com etc.

Milton, it is good to have you around and count on your help on how to get it right, which is not easy with engineering issues. Milton, I do appreciate your positive feedback on my initial input and your editing efforts. It does make it much easier on me knowing that you are an active Wikipedia participant and that you are here to help me and others in a postive way instead of just pointing out what the shortcomings are.

Milton, if you have any ideas on how to incorporate my e-material, I would like to hear from you. It is my pleasure to know you and count on your positive feedback! Thanks, Gordan (Engware 06:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)engware)

[edit] The recently added "Analysis section" in the Combustion article

I agree with your proposed changes. The article is on my watchlist, but I have not contributed to it. So I was not quite happy with the special message sent to my talk page. Best. -- MGTom 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous distillation

Hi Milton,

I read your credentials, and I am extremely impressed. My chemical engineering experience is much inferior to yours, and I feel I have to bow to you in respect.

However, on the change you have made to my editing of the above article on the point of pumping, as indicated on my user page I strongly disagree with you.

I wish to avoid an editors' war at all costs, so I shall NOT revert your last edit, but I ask you to change it. Forget about pumping, if you like, but do not miss out the fact that you need to provide some energy to drive the material through the equipment, unlike batch distillation, in which you pour the stuff in and get heating. To provide a continuous driving force is general, not specific, and the reader has to know it!

I was proposing to do a separate section on special cases, where a pump is not necessary, and you are more qualified to do that section than me, but I would have thought that using a pump is more common, than not: you can tell me if during your time you found this a rarity.

OK, I agree, that the feed does not necessarily boil on entry, but the consequence of the expansion is immediate vaporisation, and vice versa, and I think that it is essential that we say that. The way you've written it first, that the liquid starts to descend the tower, it makes it sound as if vaporisation was secondary.

I've noticed what you say, that there are several other entries on various distillation subjects, and I am rather surprised that there is so much detail given here on other special cases, as examples, where what we say can be link-ed to other articles. Why are there so many examples from petroleum refining? Your naphtha debutaniser is one case in point. However, I shall be polite enough not to remove it. I have made my coment on the sandbox where, I've noticed, most people seem to write, on points that, in my view, need to be added, and those which ought to go elsewhere, but I don't wish to force my views on everybody. We are all here to make the article a great article.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that you don't write an article on your own; let others contribute, BUT you have a team of editors, who can take your writing to pieces as you go along. (Sometimes too much of this is done, I agree)

Speak to you again, I hope, all the best, 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Louis, I know it is morning in the UK but it is 11:00 PM here in California, and that means bedtime at my age. So excuse me if I am brief in my responses. First, I shall change the wording in the Continuous distillation article so that it makes known that pumps are indeed needed some of the time. Is pumping a rarity? No, it is not. I would say that pumping and no pumping between distillation columns in series is about 60-40 in favor of no pumping. Any good process designer of a series of distillation columns is going to arrange them with the highest pressure one first and the lowest pressure one last so as to save on the cost of pumps (unless there is some special reason to do otherwise).

As for pressure as a driving force, of course it takes driving force to get process streams to travel through pipes, fittings, filters, control valves, etc. But the continuous distillation article is not about fluid dynamics and frictional pressure losses. It is about continuous distillation columns. The pressure of an industrial continuous distillation is determined primarily by two factors: the overhead product composition and the available coolant for the overhead condenser. Let us sat that the available cooling water or other coolant is at 35 deg C and therefore the condenser can cool the overhead down to about 40 deg C. Therefore, the overhead pressure in the reflux drum will be the saturation pressure for the overhead composition at that temperature. The column pressure at the top will be a small bit higher than that to allow for the frictional pressure drop through the overhead piping and through the condenser. Thus if the overhead is mostly propane it will have a rather high saturation pressure at 40 deg C. If the overhead is mostly butane or pentane, then the overhead saturation pressure at 40 deg C will be much lower than for propane. So a debutanizer or depentanizer will operate at a much lower pressure than a depropanizer. To repeat myself, the distillation column pressure is almost always determined by the overhead composition and the available coolant temperature. It is not determined by feed pumps. If the feed pressure is insufficient to drive the feed into the column, then a feed pump is required (or a compressor if the feed is a gas, which occurs in some cases).

Now trying to say all of that in the distillation article would be writing a process design textbook, not an article on distillation. We should focus on the distillation column itself and how it works.

Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on different types of distillation? Again, because trying to cover the whole spectrum in one article would result in a textbook length ... and the potential readers are probably only interested in some one type of distillation. Perhaps he/she is only interested in batch distillation or only in azeotropic distillation or only in laboratory glassware distillation. If a reader wants to learn everything there is to know about distillation in one place, then he/she could do no better than to visit a good library and read a textbook on the subject ... or take a university course in the subject. That is why Wikipedia has a host of different distillation articles and uses links (called Wiki links) to direct readers to them.

Why so many petroleum refinery articles? Personally, I don't think there are that many. Probably because I would hazard a guess that perhaps 80 percent of the chemical engineers working in the real world of industry are employed in petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing plants and in engineering companies who design and construct such industrial facilities. Also because there too many redundant articles. This evening I found three articles covering exactly the subject: catalytic reforming of petroleum naphthas into a high-octane gasoline component. In fact, I just finished recommending they be merged into one article. The same thing happens in all of Wikipedia, not just in petroleum refining.

I think I answered your primary questions and I will alter my wording about pumps tomorrow. I really must get to bed now.

One other unrelated subject. You really should learn how to automatically sign your name and date stamp at the end of a comment on a Discussion page like this. See the grey box at top of the page for instructions on how to do that. It is quite easy. Cheers and good night. - mbeychok 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Milton,

I think I've found a match with you, as you seem to like a good argument, so do I.

Good morning. It is Sunday morning here. Louis, you are not correct. I do not enjoy an "argument" ... they only reinforce the pre-held opinions of both parties. I do like to have reasoned dialogue with anyone who knows what he is talking about. I have designed three complete refineries, two complete chemical plants,and many other process units including more than 100 continuous distillation columns back in the years between 1950 and 1980 ... all of which are still in operation in plants located in over 10 different countries. The first distillation column I designed had a diameter of 21 feet (about 6 meters) and a height of 100 feet (about 30 meters) some 50 years ago in Venezuela. I must know what I am talking about, would you not agree? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is far being from me to start an argument about the principles of how to do a chemical engineering design of a distillation column, or if top product vapour pressure is a starting point or not. As I said before I read these comments, providing we state that pressure has to be provided by some means as a driving force, which is different from batch operation, and it is typical characterising property of the continuous operation that is fine by me. You might say it is obvious, but not to the reader!

As I said last night, I will revise the article in question to to the effect that the feed may be either pumped or pressured into the column. However, pressure is not a characteristic "driving force" for distillation. The heat input to a column via the reboiler or via preheating the feed or both is the only "driving force" that causes the vaporization needed in distillation. I am sorry that you don't seem to understand that. I don't know how to state it more clearly. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot but congratulate to this latest version: it is to the point, informative, tells the reader evrything, nothing superfluous. Once again: congrats. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your second and third para seems to tell me that you misunderstood my remarks. What I said that because there are artcles on the subject we do not need to give so much detail here, if the essential characteristics are conveyed. The same thing applies to petroleum. I fully agree with you on the rarity of petroleum refining and related articles, but the subject ought to be detailed there, not here. A debutaniser is specific to petroleum processing, why put it here? Refer the reader to it by all means and put it with refining.

I have already agreed yesterday that the naphtha debutanizer could easily be removed and that it was Dirk Beetstra who included it because he felt the article needed examples ... and a debutanizer is an example. It is not used only in a refinery. It also finds much use in natural gas processing plants for recovery of natural gas liquids (NGL). Did you not read at Talk:Continuous distillation that I had agreed to removing it if you so desired? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I must admit that, if you wanted to take me off a peg or two you have succeded, by telling me what to read and how to sign my name. If it was not sined properly it was probably that my keyboard did not respond to all the wavy lines that I put down and I have not spotted this. Well done for spotting it. All the best to you, I hope I have not given you a sleepless night. LouisBB 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to "take you off a peg" at all. You had not signed your posting last night and I was merely pointing that out. I apologise if that offended you. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Milton, I am here again, to annoy you, as you seem to take my comments as irritation....and tell me not to do any editing before I consulted you. This is not a proper procedure on Wikipedia, but I shall not take umbrage and comply with your wishes (many others might not)

Please point out to me exactly where where I said that your comments were an "irritation" ... I don't think I said that at any time. Also, please point out where I said you should "consult me" before editing. What I did say, to the best of my memory, was to please discuss major or extensive changes on the the Talk:Continuous distillation page before making them. That is considered good form on Wikipedia. Look at the list on my User page of the some 90 or more articles to which I have contributed. Do you think that many articles were either written or extensively contributed to without my learning about the give-and-take collaboration that Wiki is all about? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a note of ãll that, and contrary to your adverse comments on the following item I shall try to expand the section on design slightly (according to what I said in my e-mail), which will not be set in stone, but I hope will not be completely reverted. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the subject to the section on Design and Operation which ought really be two separate sections. These sections should be filled out a bit. It is surprising to me that the article on Distillation devotes so much time on Dalton's and Raoult's law, and equilibria, when the use of data on vapour-liquid equilibria is not just most useful, but indispensable for any computation for the design of continuous distillation columns.

In our Design section therefore we ought to, at least, mention the laborious task of the research chemist, whoose work in measuring vapour pressures of pure liquids and examining the vapour-liquid equilibria of binary (and more complex) mixtures, without which neither McCabe-Thiele, nor Fenske would get very far. Apart from Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (if it is still in existence) there are lots of journals which are full of the data resulting from this sort of work.

Are you not aware that Henry Padleckas is currently writing a very extensive and excellent article on vapor-liquid equilibria explaining what that term means and how such dats is derived? You can read his work in progress at User:H Padleckas/Temp (Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium). There is no point duplicating his work in the Continuous distillation article. As I said before, the article is not intended to cover the full spectrum of every aspect of distillation ... we cannot or should not try to write a textbook on the subject. That has already been done in Kister's book, Seader's book and Perry's handbook all of which are in fact included in the reference section of the of Continuous distillation article. Have you not seen that section of the article or where they are referenced in the text of the article? The Continuous distillation article was meant to cover just that one type of the many types of distillation covered in other Wikipedia articles. I don't agree that we should expand it to cover every aspect of distillation. After all, Dirk Beetstra wanted this article simplified more rather than complicated more. mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was to be simplified and extended, extension meaning briefly explained and/or link-ed. Readers are more likely to click on a link if they want to learn (more) about an item quickly than trying to get the reference book. For some getting the refences is not practicable. You in the US are better off than most. LouisBB 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Louis, in your first revisions when you burst on the scene and started making changes willy-nilly, you did not a include a single link. In fact, in effect, you asked others to add the links for you. To be frank, you didn't have enough knowledge of the subject or experience with writing in Wikipedia to do your own linking and, I might add, you still don't have the required knowledge. - 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So far I have not seen much about operation, but if there are no articles on the instrumentation and computer control of the varables of distillation plants, then that is an omission, and it ought to be amended. This is exactly in your line of experience. Once designed the operator often uses the distillation equipment for other mixtures than what it was designed for. In petroleum refining, of course, crude composition can vary widely and operating variables have to change. All these ought to be included. Do you think to the contrary? LouisBB 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I most definitely do "think to the contrary". Once more ... we are writing an article about how continuous distillation columns work, the principles of the applicable theory, and what they look like inside. Delving into instrumentation and computer control is a fit subject for another article. We are not trying to write a thesis encompassing all aspects of distillation, process design of complete plants or instrumenting and computer controlling a process. Please tell me, how can I say that more clearly? mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, let us not carry on this discussion any further here on my Talk page. I dislike airing "dirty linen" in public. If you want to discuss this any more, than please use e-mail. Thanks, mbeychok 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox ...

Milton:

Thanks for the link. I am reworking my initial contribution to the Combustion area. I will go with tables instead of plots. It takes less time and it will look OK with no major complaints about the formatting issues.

I have to add text. As soon as I get it populated, I will ask you to take a look before I try to move it to the production area. I do believe that with your help and input from other members, I can end up with a decent addition to the Combustion area.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)engware

[edit] Update ...

Milton:

Thanks for the post and some encouraging words with respect to my problem. Even though I had good intentions, I do believe that I may have rushed with my initial submission without fully realizing the obstacles and issues. To be honest, the way it was initally released was not acceptable according to the engineering and Wikipedia standards. I do appreciate the way how the subject matter has been handled.

The sandbox area is a good way of launching projects without getting crushed and killed. I do appreciate your support and help to get me going. As they say, it is good to get second and third chances in life. I have no problem that my input to Wikipedia gets reviewed and corrected by knowledgeable and respected members like you. It becomes a win-win scenario for everybody.

Milton, I do appreciate your piece of advice and will to what you suggest to me in order to get it done correctly and successfully released. Yes, I am aware of the white space in one of the plots. I will take care of it. At this point, it is still work in progress looking much better -- knowing where I was. Milton, feel free to drop a few comments, thoughts and maybe additional input while I am getting it done. Eventually, the final work it is not for me and it is not mine. It belongs to the Wikipedia members and I am just providing my part or making my contribution. It is good to have you helping me and others.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

[edit] Combustion Analysis Update ...

Milton:

It is me again. To make it short, I have been able to wrap it up for the time being. At this point, I would like to ask you to go over it when you get a chance. I am ready to take your advice on how to proceed. Once I get your input, I should get closer to releasing my input. I guess that this is what I should have turned in more or less initially.

I gave a try to upload PNG files, but they did not look right. I had to go with JPG files.

I am looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Gordan, I will try to take a look and offer a critique in the next day or two. JPG drawings tend to lose their clarity after a while and to develop what are called "artifacts" and many of the editors and administrators don't like them at all. There are many shareware programs for converting JPG files to PNG files. I use one called "Neomesh Image Converter".

But it is even better to start with a blank page in your drawing program and designate that blank page as a .png file ... then draw your images or re-draw them. Simply converting a .jpg file to a .png file using Neomesh does not remove any arifacts that have already been formed in the .jpg files.

There is an editor Keenan Pepper who is quite a guru on this subject. He wrote a small program that he used to convert some of my earlier drawings from .jpg to .png and to simultaneously remove the artifacts from them. Since then, I've always started out with drawing .png files. Why don't you visit his Discussion page and ask for his help? You can point him to your drawings in your sandbox and ask him to convert them. Regards, Milt. - mbeychok 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to butt in here, but the Paint software which automatically comes with Microsoft Windows XP can interconvert between various types of image files. Lossless picture files formats such as bmp (24-bit), png, tif can be interconverted back and forth losslessly (without losing any clarity or color data). Conversion of jpg or gif or lower quality bmp files to any of the above 3 file types can be done losslessly by Windows XP paint, but a reverse conversion results in data losses. Conversion of bmp (24-bit), png, tif files to a jpg file irreversibly loses somes data and a fuzziness is introduced into a diagram that way. Conversion of any of the above 3 lossless file types to a gif or lower quality bmp file irreversibly loses some color information. Saving any diagram into jpg format, including one made by Paint, irreversibly introduces the fuzziness artifacts. Although, the same is true for photographs saved as jpg files, the fuzziness is usually not noticeable in photos. Lossless file formats for photos take up a lot more memory than equivalent jpg photo files, so jpg format is best used for photos. Windows XP is a very common modern personal computer operating system. Previous versions of Windows - Paint are not as versatile in making all these interconversions.
H Padleckas 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Henry, I had uploaded some jpg drawings I made using Paint some months ago. Some users objected to their fuzziness, so I took them back into Paint and then filed them on my computer as as png format. When I uploaded them back into Wikipedia, the artifacts could still be seen especially when they were zoomed to larger sizes. That was when Keenen Pepper used a program of his to remove the artifacts. Since then I always start my drawings as png and I have had no more artifact problems. I am using Windows 2002 ... does it have that interconvertability you speak of? If so, can you give me details on how to use that capability? Thanks, - mbeychok 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Milt, I have Windows XP on my older computer and Windows 2000 on my newer computer. I know about those two Windows versions but I don't know about Windows 2002. Try this: open up your version of Paint, open up the file you want to convert, then click "File-Open" and "Save As". A "Save As" window will appear. At the bottom of that window, there will be a "Save as Type" line and to the right of this line, a small square with a tiny up-side-down triangle in it. When you click on this small square, your choices of file types will appear. You can choose your file type to be saved as by clicking on one of those. The 24-bit bitmap file type is the lossless bmp file type. Paint does not make SVG files. I use Inkscape to make those. H Padleckas 05:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successful PNG Format Compatibilty ...

Milton:

It is me again. Somehow, by using MS PowerPoint I was able to find out that when saving original MS PowerPoint work that one of the output format options is "PNG". As of now, I can successfully create PNG files out from my original work. I am OK in meeting the Wikipedia image/art file requirements.

With your help and from other Wikipedia members, I should be able to present the majority of efforts put in over a number of years.

Milton, this is good news for me.

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

[edit] Status Update

Milton:

I have noticed that you have gone over my input. It is looking good. I do appreciate your effort and expertise. However, I have not heard from you yet? I would like to know what my next step is?

Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

[edit] Update ...

Milton:

I have made a few changes as you suggested. It is now live. I do appreciate your help, effort and time. If I am more successful this time, I will get ready some more material to post. I do believe that I can ask you for some help. Thanks a lot, Gordan -- Engware 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)engware

[edit] Continuous distillation

Dear Milton, I have copied the article back to the main namespace, and gave a short explanation of the current setup and the intentions of that. Thanks again for the cooperation on the edit! Kind regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GFImg16.gif added to article on Thermodynamic Databases . . etc.

A new chart was added to this article. The new chart is not helpful to the article, and should be removed. It purports to show the "enthalpy" of some combustion products, but it does not define "enthalpy" according to the rigorous classification of the different types of enthalpy discussed in the main article (which I wrote). My specific objections to the new chart are: 1. The Y axis legends are so small that the values are virtually unreadable. 2. The article is on databases, not data. The original charts were included to show generally how certain functions change with temperature, and not to provide data to readers. Readers can/should consult the various references to obtain data. 3. The new chart does not properly define what enthalpy the person is referring to. Enthalpy of formation? Heat content enthalpy above 298.15 K? Enthalpy at the standard state of 1 atm pressure? Enthalpy of some undefined combustion reaction? I see that you have been otherwise involved with the person who changed this article, and perhaps you can contact him (I tried but did not succeed on his talk page) to remove the chart, or I will. Thermbal 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to trade journal

Hi, Mbeychok: For what it's worth, I thought the link to the publication "water and wastewater International" provided a beneficial resource. Perhaps adding it along with a few other industry publications would also be beneficial to others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.157.177.200 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Duly noted and thanks. Please sign your messages on Talk pages and provide a subject heading (which I did for you just above). - mbeychok 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)