Talk:Particle-size distribution

Modifying link to correct reference

Currently the reference to the term polydispersity is linked to polydispersity. But the current link should be Index of dispersion. The page on index of dispersion is the correct reference to polydispersity. The polydispersity index used in polymer science is not the same as polydispersity or dispersity factor used in particle science.202.20.193.254 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I noticed several articles point to this. Most sections can be greatly expanded, and pictures are sought. Stuff on mathematical PSD models would also be useful . . .LinguisticDemographer 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for editing it so many times.. just couldn't make up my mind. :) Matthew Glennon (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference of quality of the information and the measurement technique have to be mentioned. A Coulter Counter counts the particles for example, whereas sieve analysis gives only a rough idea of particle counts (by knowing the density, the size and relative shape, one can estimate the number of particles), the laser diffractometers do not give any information on it (it gives only a "% of particles in certain size range"), such that it clearly is a different quality of information. Necmon (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does the "Significance..." section exist? This is a page on PSD not dust collection..... And MOST uses of this are to determine percent of particles, uss. by mass, so the above comment re:particle counts really doesn't mean much. PSD is perhaps THE MOST performed construction materials test. Grant..203.9.185.137 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is more in the world than dust analysis, a fact this article fails to convey....Grant..203.9.185.137 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Smallest sieve

The Sieve analysis section incorrectly states that 37 um is the smallest particle size. I have used submicron filters down to 0.1 um, but I don't know what is the smallest size. --SCStrikwerda (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SCStrikwerda. I've removed the problematic claim. Please feel free to be bold and edit as you see fit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Relative amount: of what?

Introduction says "defines the relative amounts of particles present". It is not clear whether relative mass or relative number of particles is meant. This distinction is quite crucial and should be mentioned. 90.177.96.50 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done, but WP:Be bold. Doug (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Added Rosin-Rammler equations

• I added the Rosin-Rammler equations because they don't have a home at the very mathematically oriented Weibull article and would not stand as a distribution on their own. They are very important engineering functions and not well covered on existing sites or at all in existing WP articles. I hope this is okay by the regular editors and if you're going to revert, please mention a reason. Doug (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also re-ordered the ref and external links to the more conventional WP order.Doug (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Added the method of estimating the parameters from data, a non-trivial transformation of the equation and I believe notable addition Doug (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

Ssolbergj I notice that you suggested merging this article with Sieve analysis. Please state your case, at Talk:Sieve analysis#Merge?. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)