User talk:Cyanocry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] My response on Talk:Combustion to comments and deletions of 68.68.224.129 and Cyanocry

68.68.224.129, I give up! You and Cyanocry are intent on writing a theoretical chemistry article rather than an article that would be useful to all Wikipedia readers and I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. You say "I just thought it was indeed a chemistry article." I would like to point that it really is a Wikipedia article about a process that occurs widely in industry, in kitchens and barbecues, and in forest fires ... not a chemistry article to the exclusion of everything else. Who elected the two of you to decide that this article is only about "the specific chemical process known as 'Combustion' " to the exclusion of anything else useful and pertinent to the real world use of combustion?

You might as well delete the entire section on "Combustion temperature" because it has numerous references to combustion air, to stoichiometric air to fuel ratios, to excess combustion air, etc. And you should also delete the two sections on "Complete combustion" and "Incomplete combustion" because they talk about nitrogen oxides being formed when a fuel burns in air. And don't forget to delete the section on "Combustion instabilities" because it talks about running ground-based gas turbines at lean air to fuel conditions to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. (May I assume that you know what a gas turbine is?). And, oh yes, a number of deletions should be made in the "See also" section such as the links to Fire, Air-fuel ratio, External combustion engines, Internal combustion engines, Industrial furnaces, Flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, Cooking and Immolation. After all, we can't have any mention of those real-world items in "a chemistry article", can we?

When you have finished gutting the article of all those sections and links, it will have little interest to anyone but chemistry students. Silly me, I thought Wikipedia was about including information rather than excluding it. If I sound angry, it is because I am indeed angry at what you two think should be done to this article. - mbeychok 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)