Talk:Coal: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→APPROVED Version 1.0: added link, saved) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Pat Palmer moved page Talk:Coal/Draft to Talk:Coal over redirect: unapproving) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
==APPROVED Version 1.0== | ==APPROVED Version 1.0== | ||
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Coal&oldid= | <div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Coal&oldid=100664742 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div> | ||
== Error in Analysis Table == | |||
Well, it's great to see someone took up my suggestion for ultimate and proximate analyses, but I think we might have an error in the figure for Sub-bituminous Moisture - should be 10.5, not 110.5! | |||
--[[User:Graham Proud|Graham Proud]] 12:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:46, 24 January 2023
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)
- Good comment, Paul. I have added a brief discussion about CO2 emissions and "carbon footprint". Brief because I don't want to repeat the information in Conventional coal-fired power plant. Milton Beychok 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
necessary sentence?
Is the following not out of place in an article about coal?
- Severe snowstorms in late January 2008 seriously disrupted the rail and electrical systems, at a time when some 200 million city workers were attempting to visit their home villages during the Lunar New Year holiday.[15] (More references needed)
I would remove the sentence. --Paul Wormer 16:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done, the sentence has been deleted. Milton Beychok 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
smelting of iron
The article states:
- Coke is used in making steel, smelting of iron,
Historically the reduction of iron ore (iron oxide) to pig iron is a very important application of coal. These 9 words are a very brief description of it. Furthermore, I seem to remember that steel is iron with a low carbon content, so I don't see how one can make steel (out of iron) by use of coal. I would write something like:
Coke is applied in blast furnaces to reduce iron ore (iron oxide) to molten pig iron, a form of iron with high carbon content. Removal of (most of) the carbon from the pig iron yields steel that is used for making cans, automobiles, tools, etc.
--Paul Wormer 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
PS I saw by steel being blue that we have a good article on it. --Paul Wormer 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Paul, I have now re-written the "Other uses of coal section" so that it addresses the point you raised about the use of coke. I also added some references as well as somewhat more information about coal gasification. Thanks again for your comments.Milton Beychok 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- As for the Steel article, that is an article ported from WP some years ago ... it has a lot of good information but it still needs a lot of formatting and editing, in my opinion, to turn it into a good CZ article.Milton Beychok 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
APPROVED Version 1.0
Error in Analysis Table
Well, it's great to see someone took up my suggestion for ultimate and proximate analyses, but I think we might have an error in the figure for Sub-bituminous Moisture - should be 10.5, not 110.5! --Graham Proud 12:26, 5 August 2012 (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