Talk:Crystallization (engineering aspects)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merging with Crystallization
As said in the other article, there is a relationship between the two articles, but they treat different subjects. Physics and engineering, to be precise. Whoever put the template, should read the articles first.--UbUb 06:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the translation! I've started a bit of cleanup and will do more. References needed. I'm thinking about the title, maybe rename to engineering crystallization (?) don't know yet.
As to the proposed merge - no. See my comments on the other talk page. --Vsmith 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Vsmith, thanks indeed for the dirty work of checking. A terrible job I hate to do. Particularly for the crystallizer-ation of the first part. For sulPHate, I am maybe biased by my former living in Albion - but you left a diametRE as a logical compromise :o) Thanks again!--UbUb 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
They treat different subjects and are for different publiques ("Crystallizer" is more technical). -- Krauss 29 July 2006 (UTC).
My edit of this article is part of a student project at Cornell's College of Engineering on Downstream Engineering. I added information on nucleation along with some helpful equations. Also, the article does not necessarily have a focus on crystallizers as the name suggests, so I changed it to the (seemingly) more appropriate title Crystallization (Engineering Aspects). Steve Lund 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- There a quite a few articles on aspects of crystals and Crystallization. I wonder to what degree some of these articles could be merged. For example, It seems that crystal growth is quite closely related to this article.
-
- and articles cited therein also!
- I suspect it would take a brave person to try and untangle/merge these articles !! -- Quantockgoblin 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Messages from Gokhan
Hi Steve, I read your article (crystallization dynamics part) which is well organized. It seems to me that you did a good job. You may want to edit the "References" section. The references you used do not seem under "References" section. GBoran 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Babu's Comments
Wassup Steve, I can't really think of too many changed to your articles, especially since there are other people (other than yourself ) writing this article too. The pictures are great asset to understanding the concepts. Babusingh252 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Will's Comments
Hey Steve, this is a really great article. It’s extremely well organized and each section is explained very clearly. In each section, there’s good use of bullets and pictures that make the concepts easy to understand. I really like how this subject is broken down. I don’t think I would change too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwc26 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Elaine's Comments
Hey Steve, I think you did a really great job on the article. I liked how you tied in the Crystallization dynamics very appropriately. It went into really good detail without being too confusing. There's not much more that i would change. One small suggestion is to expand the intoduction to crystallization a little bit.
Emk39 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
