Talk:Coal: Difference between revisions
imported>Milton Beychok m (→Trying to improve this article: Added two more sections. "Coal mining" section needs review/edit by a mining expert.) |
imported>Paul Wormer (→CO2: new section) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
I just expanded and reformatted the article. Also reworded the intro section and one of the section headers. I will be busy for the next 3 hours but, after that, I will respond (if needed) to any comments concerning my edits. I think that now the article is rounding into better shape.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | I just expanded and reformatted the article. Also reworded the intro section and one of the section headers. I will be busy for the next 3 hours but, after that, I will respond (if needed) to any comments concerning my edits. I think that now the article is rounding into better shape.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
== CO2 == | |||
Milton, I'm reading the article and learning some new (for me) stuff. As a chemistry editor I'm formally allowed to approve the article (and I will), but I'm completely new to its contents, so my approval will in reality not mean much. Anyway, I know that there is a good deal about CO<sub>2</sub> emission in the power station article, yet I miss one sentence in section 4 about the fact that coal burns almost completely to CO<sub>2</sub> and hence that coal is the fossil fuel with the largest "carbon footprint".--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:43, 17 April 2010
Analysis
Can I suggest adding some notes about Proximate and Ultimate Analysis? Graham Proud 08:00, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
Need more work
Ciao Anthony,
good start, good material. But we absolutely need to get rid of those "here we need something"-like notes ASAP! I'm going to OK the points right now. Thanks for contributing to Earth Sciences! --Nereo Preto 11:20, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
- P.S. - links in external link subpage. --Nereo Preto 02:40, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
Coke?
Is it really called "coke"? Spelled as like "Diet Coke"? --Robert W King 14:10, 31 January 2008 (CST)
- Yes, really. Anthony Argyriou 15:48, 31 January 2008 (CST)
funny the stuff one picks up by the time you get older
I am not a mining expert, but I did live 3 years in a coal-mining town, with people who actually mine coal, and while there, I picked up the odd bit of information.Pat Palmer 13:38, 5 July 2008 (CDT)
Surely someone can revise those crude hand-drawn sketches??
The two rather crude handdrawn sketches of mining methods are badly in need of completely re-doing them by using some professional drawing software. Surely someone in CZ can do that!! Milton Beychok 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have now replaced those sketches with a much better diagram form the Kentucky Geological Survey. Milton Beychok 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Trying to improve this article
I have made a number of edits as well as adding photos and a new section (on proven coal reserves and coal production). I hope that they have improved this article and I plan to add other images and new sections in the next few weeks. Milton Beychok 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have now added a section on coal classification and a section on coal analysis. I plan no further work on this article, but I do think that some expert in the field of mining needs to review and edit the section on "coal mining". Milton Beychok 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Expanded and re-formatted the sarticle ... also some rewording.
I just expanded and reformatted the article. Also reworded the intro section and one of the section headers. I will be busy for the next 3 hours but, after that, I will respond (if needed) to any comments concerning my edits. I think that now the article is rounding into better shape.Milton Beychok 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
CO2
Milton, I'm reading the article and learning some new (for me) stuff. As a chemistry editor I'm formally allowed to approve the article (and I will), but I'm completely new to its contents, so my approval will in reality not mean much. Anyway, I know that there is a good deal about CO2 emission in the power station article, yet I miss one sentence in section 4 about the fact that coal burns almost completely to CO2 and hence that coal is the fossil fuel with the largest "carbon footprint".--Paul Wormer 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Earth Sciences Developing Articles
- Earth Sciences Nonstub Articles
- Earth Sciences Internal Articles
- Chemistry Developing Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Engineering Developing Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles