Talk:Pipe insulation

Problems

• the page embeds links to external pages instead of collecting them in a list at the end. Does that meet wikipedia standards?
• The formulae used are not referenced.
• the page says "The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association provides free software for calculating heat loss" but that isn't true. The software requires me to buy a Microsoft operating system to run it, so it isn't free software in either the "free beer" or "free speech" sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.116.39 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009

I fixed the issue of external links. Is that any better?

The issue of the software being free is one of perception. The software itself is free to download as in "free beer" (I'm not so sure it is free as in "free speech"). However, the software is only compatible with Microsoft operating systems and it is entirely reasonable to assume that 80% (approx Microsoft's share of the OS market) of downloaders will be able to use it immediately. If you are still unsure, consider this example: Suppose I give you $1000 worth of free tools to fit pipe insulation (screwdrivers, wrenches etc.), would you really claim they are not really free because you need to buy a toolbox to keep them in? - it is reasonable to expect you already have a tool box. Astronaut (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Curious why my edit was reverted. Are inline links really better here? Astronaut (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

oops, so sorry. I wrote a careful comment about why I did that but then pushed preview and not save. Basically I read the guidance in manual of style and it seems to allow it--no clear guidance against it. WP:External_links seems to be against it, but without much detail, and that article is mainly focused on other issues. I tried to ask what to substitute, wanting to preserve the value in the links while following the guideline, but got little response. That left me thinking that if nobody can articulate the proper style for this kind of thing, or the reason to avoid it, we ought to focus on what works best for this article in this context, and I think those are more useful in the article. If a consensus emerges on a better way to do it, I think we make the change at that point. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Request

Where is time in the equation for heat loss in a pipe through insulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.123.73.179 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) However, when looking at the SI units it will be seen that there appears to be no unit of time. So what has happened? In the SI the units *joule/second* are equal to (are the definition of) a watt (which is a measure of power) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.123.73.179 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The k value can be expressed in meters, feet, or inches for example. This is in regards to depth of insulation I think. But the insulation depth shakes out in the logrithm. So is the unit relevant to the lenght of the pipe? I am asking questions that anyone might have I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.123.73.179 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, W reflects heat per second so that's likely the time you were looking for. Yes, the length unit in the k value will need to be consistent with the length unit used for the length of the pipe.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)