Talk:Relative volatility
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Relative volatility article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Relative volatility appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fixing "format" in variable definitions
editMilt,
Under the initial formula for alpha in the section "Definition", I realize you used an "invisible box" (data table with invisible cells) to make the variables and definitions line up nicely around a column of = signs. I use America OnLine (AOL) as my internet service provider (web browser or whatever), still a reasonably common service. AOL opens up Wikipedia page windows to a certain width on my monitor screen, which is likely to be equal to the width used by some web browser services, but other web browsers may open up wider windows for Wikipedia pages. You may have one of these web browser services opening wider Wikipedia pages and not realize the problem.
When I first saw the (y/x) definition, it lined poorly with the = sign after it and it was confusing. That was because the (y/x) definition was too wide for one line in that cell in the data table, and the last word "component" was automatically moved to a second line, creating two lines in that cell. Because (y/x) is one line long and the cell contents are automatically vertically centered in each cell, (y/x) did not line up well with the = sign in the next cell. Maybe on your web browser, the windows may open up wider, everything be on one line, and everything look fine. To eliminate this problem, I deleted an extra "the" from the definition to shorten it into one line. That fixes the problem, and both sides line up well around the = sign now. H Padleckas 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Henry, you are correct. I do use a table to line up the = signs and I did not realize that might cause a problem with some browsers. I have used that table many times in many other articles and no one has yet brought any problems to my attention. Thanks for catching it. -mbeychok 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
changed "product" to "fraction" in several places
editMilt,
In this article when discussing distillation ouput, I changed "product" to "fraction" in several places to sound more specific. My understanding is that fractions include bottoms as well as distillates. If you don't like it, you can change it back. H Padleckas 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Henry, no problem. That's fine with me. - mbeychok 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
i dont understand
edithave something that normal humans can understand
pls
toooo scientific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.123.163 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarify "bottoms fraction"
editWhen I first read "bottoms fraction", I thought it was a mistake, so edited it out, but have since realised that it seems to be legitimate terminology. Is there a clean and simple way to convey to the reader that this is the case? A footnote? Quotation marks? A link to another article dedicated to "bottoms fraction" describing what it is? 124.169.153.233 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC) -- citation #5 link is broken, but I can't edit it out for some reason if someone more capable could do that -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.184.10 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)