User talk:Engware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE use the above + tab to enter a new comment. That provides you a form in which to first enter a Subject and then enter the new comment. Please sign the comment with four tildes like this ~~~~. That automatically signs it with your user name, the date and the time. The form automatically provides subject headings like those below and enters them in the table of contents which will appear below after four comments are posted.

The first responder to someone's new comment should enter the response just beneath the new comment (instead of using the above + tab) and indent the response by starting with a colon like this :. Any second responder, indent further by starting with two colons like this :: and any third responder, start with three colons like this ::: and so forth. If we don't follow these practices, the result is jumbled mess.


Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Engware! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Had to revise your images placed in the Rocket engine nozzles article.

Hello, Gordan:

We have met before on the Internet, I believe. I had to revise the 3 images that you placed in the Rocket engine nozzles article because:

  • They needed larger fonts to make them legible. Your smaller fonts were very difficult to read.
  • The needed to be cropped or made smaller because they had too much white space and used up too much of the page.
  • Wikipedia prefers .png images because .jpg images are lossy and .gif images may have the same problem. So I changed them to .png images.

I did not change any of your substantive content at all.

Please take a look at the finished, framed images in the Rocket engine nozzles article after I revised them. That should give you a good idea of how to produce good images for use in Wikipedia.

I would like to point out that the images you added to the Combustion article need the same type of improvements. Please revise them at your earliest opportunity. Best of regards and welcome to Wikipedia, - mbeychok 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your posting in my User Talk:mbeychok

Gordan, I will be glad to give you some advice on getting started:

  • I can't stress enough how helpful it is put at least a short bio on your what is called your User Page. Also, click on the my preferences link at the top of your User Page ... choose your preferences, and if you don't understand some of the choices, then don't make a choice ... stick with the default. You can always change them later.
  • Create your own personal Sandbox which is a page where you can experiment or write new articles or new sections for existing articles ... and play around with them until you are satisfied with them. Then you can cut and paste the finished products into the existing articles or publish them as a new article. After that, you can delete (erase) everything on your Sandbox and start over with a new piece of work.
  • If you wish, I can make your Sandbox for you if you ask me to.
  • Then spend at least 40-50 hours (yes, I mean that) reading all of the various Help sections and Help Tutorials. I can tell you right now, from my personal experience, you are going to be completely at a loss for the first 4-8 weeks ... and you will get at all sorts of criticisms and abrupt comments. You will also get a few nice, helpful comments. But you had better grow a very, very thick skin. I felt like quitting a dozen times in my first month or so ... and so will you. But just persevere, there is a light at the end of the tunnel!!
  • Learn the Wiki mark-up language as quickly as you can. HTML can be used, most Wikipedians do not like it and will let you know vociferously and will change your HTML to Wiki mark-up almost as soon as they see it. Look at the Edit pages of articles to see how others have done things ... that is a good way to learn Wiki markup ... and practice, practice, practice on your Sandbox page.
  • Study the grey box I will put at the top of this page on how to use Discussion (i.e., Talk) pages properly and how to sign comments you post on a Talk page. Study it well.
  • When you do begin to edit or expand or revise an existing article, you will see at the bottom of the Edit page, a link that is named "Show preview" and another link named "Save page". ALWAYS click on "Show preview" first and proof read your work thoroughly before clicking on "Save page". ALWAYS.
  • When you do an edit/revision/expansion, at the bottom of the Edit page you will see a small input box called "Summary". Always enter a very brief one or two sentence summary of your edit/revision/expansion.

That's about enough for now and it is 11:30 PM here, so I've got to get to bed. Good luck, and welcome. - mbeychok 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

Hi, I've moved the analysis section from the combustion article to a user subpage User:Engware/work for you to work on and clean-up. As it is there is way too many large images with no analysis. Please follow User:mbeychok suggestions and improve it. Others can assist and/or comment on a talkpage there. When you are satisfied with it simply copy it back into the combustion article and delete from your workpage. You can then use your workpage for future projects.
Glad to have your expertise aboard. Cheers, Vsmith 13:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gas turbine

I removed your images from Gas Turbine. The first two didn't have any useful information and the group as a whole was unformatted. There is a good page on image formating at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. If you have any questions, I'm happy to help. --Duk 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. ditto Vsmith, Glad to have your expertise aboard --Duk 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again from Milt Beychok

Gordan, I see you now have your sandbox called User:Engware/work. I added a link to it at the top of your User page. That makes it easier for you or anyone else to access that page when you need help. Regards, - mbeychok 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just took a brief look at your work in progress in your sandbox. It looks much, much better and more presentable now. Just one point, there is still too much white space in that first plot. About 1/4 inch of white space on all four sides is all you need. Then when the image is placed on the right hand side of a Wiki page, that leaves more room on the left hand side for the text explaining the image and your analysis. From now on, if I comment on your sandbox page, I will do so on the sandbox Discussion page ... so check it once in a while. Keep up the good work, you are a fast learner to have gotten on to using Wiki tables so quickly. Regards, - mbeychok 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
See my response to your latest posting on my Discussion page. Regards, - mbeychok 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My revisions are now explained on the sandbox Discussion page

Gordan, it took me a while, but I have now explained my revisions. See the sandbox discussion page. You can also use the sandbox History page to see all changes made by anyone. You still need to:

  • Make Image 2 more legible. See my explanation of how.
  • Change BTU/lb to kJ/kg in both images and in Table 5.
  • Explain "stoichiometric ratio". Spell out ratio of what to what and include the units. If not in Table 5 itself ... then at least in a footnote.

There may be people who will still object to the Analysis section, but at least it won't be on the basis of format or how it looks.

Best regards and now I've got to get back to my own work. - mbeychok 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You asked me: what is the next step? First, make the few remaining changes that I listed above. When you think it is completely ready, you copy it (don't cut it, in case of an accident) by highlighting it and pressing "Control c". Then go to the Combustion article's Edit page and paste it into where you think it is suitable by pressing "Control v". Then "preview" it to see if it was added correctly. IF it was, then click "submit". Then you can go back to your sandbox and empty it if you wish. - mbeychok 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Gordan it looks quite good now. I think that you're ready to leave the nest and fly on your own now. You might now concentrate on making the same sort of fixes in the other articles where you entered stuff. In particular, your drawings in Rocket engine nozzles, which I had to re-draw, need some explanatory text along with the drawings. Please make that your next sandbox project. -mbeychok 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Milton, I do understand that I need to fly on my own. I thought to have you provide less help and input in the future, but just provide some remarks and hints on my future sandbox projects before I go public. As they say just to have a good and knowledgeable source take a quick look. Wikipedia is a good place for me and a good fit with respect to what I have and what I can share with other members. Thanks a lot, Gordan Engware 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Engware
Dear Somebody: Regarding Image:GFImg16.gif added to the article on Thermodynamic Databases, the image does not match the quality of the existing images, and adds nothing substantive to the article. First, the article is on databases, not specific data, and so no new charts of data are needed. Second, the chart y axis has such a small font that it is difficult to read the numbers. It will be virtually impossible for a reader to obtain any valid data from the chart. Third, the chart has no explanatory description, and fails to conform to the basics of the article, in that the most common databases express the high temperature heat content of pure substances relative to a reference temperature of 298.15 K, and is zero at that temperature. There is no explanation connected to the chart that tells us why some substances have a negative enthalpy at 298.15 K. Is enthalpy here the enthalpy of formation or the enthalpy of heat content? It is critically important for any person adding anything to the article to be absolutely clear on what the values mean, what the reference temperature is, and what useful information the added material has. The chart should be removed. 71.137.5.191 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added enthalpy chart on Thermodynamic Databases article.

Dear Engware: I respectfully disapprove of the enthalpy chart that you have inserted into the abovementioned article. I offer the following reasons:

  1. The chart has a different look and format than the existing charts. If you want to modify an article, you should do so consistent with the existing format.
  2. The added chart does not enhance the article. The article is about databases, not a forum for displaying data. The existing charts were there simply to show the typical trends in the heat content, heat capacity, etc. of some selected substances. The curvature of these lines indicates that a database equation may need several parameters to satisfactorily mimic the tabular data. Once you start inserting data for substances, where do you stop? If you want to add your chart to an article on combustion, fine.
  3. The added chart gives enthalpy of substances in kJ/kg, and references JANAF, 1970 edition. That edition is obsolete (see the references to databases at the end of the article). In any event, JANAF does not list enthalpy in units of kJ/kg, but in kJ/mol. So the data must have actually come from some other source, which may in turn have been derived from JANAF/1970.
  4. The article explains that there are several "types" of enthalpy. Only one type should be displayed on a single chart. The line for H2 is clearly the type of enthalpy called "high temperature heta content", or "sensible heat", designated in JANAF as H°-H°(Tr), which is the heat (enthalpy) in a substance above the reference temperature of 298.15 K. In fact, looking at the latest JANAF, for every substance in its standard state, the sensible heat enthalpy is zero at 298.15 K. Thus if you are referring to H°-H°(Tr), for every substance on your chart, the enthalpy value should be 0 kJ/kg at 298.15 K. This is clearly not the case.
  5. Possibly some of the species on your chart refer to the enthalpy of formation from the elements, or ΔH of formation. Alternatively, they may refer to the heat of combustion or some heat of reaction. In either case, they should not be on the chart with H°-H°(Tr) values. That's why I kept the different types of enthalpy on separate charts in the original article.

I also disagree with the text you have used in connection with the added chart. It repeats material already stated in the article, and refers to combustion applications, which are not part of this article. It does not clarify which type of enthalpy the chart data refers to. Readers interested in combustion will go to the appropriate article, and will no doubt be interested in the enthalpy of various combustion species and reactions that are in that article. However, the Databases article is, and should be, confined to the intended content: what data are found in thermodynamic databases, where does the data come from, how is it tabulated, what are the different ways of tabulating data, the use of equations vs. tables to store and display data, and references to thermodynamic databases. It is not appropriate to include the use of data for any one process (such as combustion), no matter how important or common that process is. If you include combustion data, why not iron ore reduction data, or sulfuric acid formation data, or anything else? Where do you stop? Each of these processes has an article in WP, and if you want to insert data charts there that are appropriate to the subject, go ahead. Thermbal 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thermbal: I have no choice but to throw in a white towel/flag. I have withdrawn my contribution. I do apologize for my attempt of making a contribution. Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Engware
Dear Engware: Don't be discouraged about contributing. You need to read the to-be-changed article very carefully, and be sure the contribution fills an unmet need, or corrects an error. If you want to look at a free thermo database, download FREED from the referenced web page (thermart.net), and see if you can use it.Thermbal 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thermbal: I do appreciate your kind words. In the future, I will have to spend more time reading and evaluating the already provided articles when contributing my own input to such. The best thing I can do is to contribute my own articles such as Combustion -- Analysis. Thanks, Gordan -- Engware 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Engware

[edit] Page move debate opinion needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GFImg28.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GFImg28.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/User_talk%7EEngware_2d5f.html"