User talk:E8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Contributions

[edit] Biodiesel

Very germain, I mention only a small part of the process to lend credence to the article without turning it into something over most readers heads or interest. With this small amount of data, they can move deeper into these areas of chemistry (if interested). I extracted this part of the transesterification definition from Wiki's, again to speak to issue. I will add "an example" good point. Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to write to you here, in case you dislike my comments: Congrats to your formulae in the Reaction section which are really beautiful. They only need a minor mod as you have put the R numbers in the index, not in the power. However, that is nothing, and I'll leave it to you. Apart from that it is 100% correct according to the latest organic chemistry notations. Perhaps we ought to change the introductory sentence to ...an example of transesterification...

My questions is: Is being complicated more useful for the average reader? Unless they are up to date in chemistry you would have to explain to them what the breaks mean in a line formula etc otherwise it will be double Dutch. However, a prominent note referring them to Organic chemistry might help. LouisBB (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,
Thanks for your reply. I fully agree with your comments on redundancies etc. See my comments and suggestion on Rifleman's talkpage. Please help if you can LouisBB (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know the answer to your question about the Biodiesel page history -- sorry. Try Wikipedia:Help desk. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm online right now, if you want to talk about biodiesel, it could be a good time. Write something in my user talk !!! Mike Young (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


  • For the sake of civility, I have removed the template comments from Treekids page.--E8 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What you did is not civility, it is misrepresentation. Wikipedia can have conflict, and we should work toward civility, but not at the expense of openness and honesty. --Treekids (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the civility guidelines specifically state that offensive comments should be removed from Talk pages. As you took offense to the templates I placed on your Talk, I removed them. I was attempting to following published Wikipedia guidelines. I've removed comments from my Talk for the same reason; I'm trying to be a good and productive member.--E8 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OTOH I would not object if you wanted to archive that whole discussion. Putting something away, both sides, is not historical revisionism. --Treekids (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the biting language. I understand that your motives were good. Let's put this behind us. --Treekids (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. I'll reciprocate by not place templates on established editors pages and replace the obfuscating items like WP:CV with a link instead.--E8 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much CO2 does normal diesel produce?

The UK government on Page 130 here says diesel has an emissions factor of 0.086 kgCO2e/MJ fuel.

Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

The US government says on page 19(or 45 according to acrobat reader) that normal diesel produces 633.28 g CO2/bhp-h

Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus

Now my unit converter [1] says there are 2.68452 MJ in a horsepower hour.

so the UK government says 0.086*1000*2.68452 = 230 g Co2/bhp-h and the US says 633

So the US and the UK don't agree on the NORMAL diesel Co2 footprint, yet alone the biodiesel.

Help!!! Which of these is right?

This is the reason the UK thinks that Biodiesels have about 70% the footprint of normal diesel and the US thinks it's 17%. They disagree on the footprint of normal diesel !!

Answers on my user page please! Mike Young (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)on

[edit] SN2

Regarding the reversal of my Edit, an SN2 reaction is a one-step, bimolecular displacement at an sp3 carbon, as is described in any Organic Chemistry textbook. See for example Morrison and Boyd, 3rd edition, p.461. Transesterifications take place via a tetrahedral intermediate, which is a different mechanism altogether. --CTfrog (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please scan and email me the text page(s) you mentioned. Doing a Google search using the keywords "sn2" and "biodiesel" will net a number of sources that indicate biodiesel transesterification does proceed through the SN2 pathway. In fact Wayne Davies, a PhD chemical engineer and (former?) [teacher at the University of Sydney] named his [Biodiesel consulting firm - SN2]. According to his page, "[t]he company name SN2 was derived from chemist's shorthand for "bimolecular nucleophilic substitution" this being one of the reaction pathways that occur in transesterification for making biodiesel." Thus, given the differing claims, I'm left more confused. This is outside my area of expertise, but I would like know definitively how this reaction works.--E8 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia discussion

[edit] Advice requested

Hi E8, I am fairly new here, and would welcome some advice on an issue. I have been doing some work on supercritical fluid articles, and just noticed a new Super critical carbon dioxide. There is already a Supercritical carbon dioxide and a supercritical fluid. this new addition basically takes a chunk of the Supercritical fluid article, and prefaces it with CO2 in carbon capture and storage. Now whilst CCS is important, this new article fragments the coverage too far, IMO. I had in mind replacing the Supercritical CO2 with a re-direct to supercritical fluids anyway. How do I go about raising this for attention? Thanks for any assistance you can give. Stainless316 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All sorted out - just left a message for the poster and they re-directed to existing articles. So there was no issue after all!Stainless316 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A7

Hello, I'm afraid Greasestock is ineligible under A7, seeing as I've referenced it with the New York Times and The Daily News. Also, it is a bit inappropriate to tag something so soon after its creation, as well as template a veteran editor (a personal note would have been nicer), as I am still developing it. If you would like to remove the tag, go ahead, otherwise I'll have to spend time expounding in detail on the Talk: page. Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I commented the Talk page.--E8 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)