Talk:Ceramic engineering

Content Added

Added correction to history and use of PSZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.68.87 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding some content, including references. I was disappointed by the shallowness and vagueness of what I read on this page originally, and the internal links. I added a paragraph of key events in ceramic engineering history. It is far from complete, but it does provide links to some important people, materials and processes. I added a paragraph on the history of ceramic education and the foundation of the American Ceramic Society. I added a list of books under Further Reading. I added some company names under Present Day Ceramic Engineering. Now, the interested reader knows where to look for more and deeper information. As far as I know, Alfred Univ is not affiliated with SUNY.His Manliness (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put in information to help anyone who is interested in this discipline either as a future ceramic engineer or just plain interested in this type of material.

The information pertains to the ceramic process. I agree with the above editor that the page is vague and shallow.

By adding the ceramic process, the definition of a ceramic, and types of ceramic materials, I believe it gives a reader a deeper look into this specific material.

--Deekayfry (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued on the ceramic process. Added a few parts of this process notably assembly, packaging, and shipping/logistics.

Also reworded some lines by showing a progression of significant physical changed as the ceramic material goes from grinding to finished product.

I intend to add references, and also break each process into their own sub-category to give better information flow.

I am happy with some addition between my addition as pertaining to schools, and product catagory, and some link ups on sintering and spray drying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deekayfry (talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am rethinking the page lay-out that simplifies the article. Many of the verbiage such as ceramic and milling already have their own article. I believe that creating more articles and linking to them from this page creates a smoother flow.

It will make it an easy read, and follows the Wikipedia of good article writing.

I see great references added to this page. I believe we will need to go further by listing page #'s from which the information came from. Deekayfry (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Farhenheit & Celsius

I'm OK with the recent suggestion of a compromise, however to suggest "industry usually talks in Farhenheit and Academia usually talks in Celsius. There are exceptions, but it is mostly this way" is plainly incorrect. The only area of the world were farhenheit is used in industry, or most walks of life, in the USA. Everywhere else, and hence the overwhelming majority of indusrty, uses metric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.191 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the article

There was a big overlap between this article and Ceramic materials. I have taken all information about ceramic materials out of this article and put it in the other one, and I have taken all the information about ceramic engineering out of that article and put it here. Marshall46 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to 24.113.151.15 for his well-informed improvements to the article. We are now left with two definitions. Could you edit them into one, please? Marshall46 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Drying" section should be split up

The following sequence is described:-

Milling → Batching → Mixing → Forming → Drying → Firing → Assembly.

but inside the "Drying" step the out-of-sequence description of "Spray Drying" is mentioned. Mention of spray-drying should be moved back in the sequence to where it takes place (Batching I expect), and removed from the "drying" section, because it's got nothing to do with the drying of formed parts. 203.45.103.88 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, you are right. Spray drying involves atomising the solution then drying. So, after forming, spray drying is irrelavant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.236 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Materials science tetrahedron

The phrase "The Materials science tetrahedron." is mentioned as a descriptor for the lede image in the article, yet no description or definition of "The Materials science tetrahedron" is in the body of the article, nor is there a wikilink to another article that might describe it. So what is it? How is it useful? Where should it be described? In this article? Or elsewhere? But it does seem that if the article is going to refer to the "Materials science tetrahedron" then there ought to be, at minimum, a verifiably, (secondary) sourced citation for the graphic claim, if not a link to a more complete explanation. N2e (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the original jpg version of the file it is based on the image found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040605055346/www.mse.eng.ohio-state.edu/about/. Wizard191 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what does it mean? What is the meaning of the tetrahedron in this context? What to the seveal axis(?) represent? I question whether we ought to have this image in the article with no explanation as to the meaning of the Materials science tetrahedron. While it really ought to be sourced (per WP:V and WP:RS, a first step would be to link to some description of what it means so any interested WP editor might determine how it could possibly be better integrated into this article. N2e (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed as uncited speculation which is not discussed in the article. Suggestions for a lead image are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with it being removed, because I honestly didn't understand it. I just supplied the link to show that it came from a educational source (which doesn't necessarily means it's a RS). Wizard191 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I think it is probably better to have it out of the article until/unless it is explained and sourced. I agree with the recent edits. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic vests

Has anyone got a better image, perhaps of a vest that fits the person? The one currently shown is almost comical, and certainly suggests the need for an extender section for the stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)