Talk:Theoretical plate

Reason for my deletion of the chromatography equation

V8rik, I apologise for not having explained the reasoning behind my revision of the article you started. The basic reason was that it seemed to be oriented only toward the usage of the term "plate count" in the field of chromatography.

The concept and usage of "theoretical plates" or "theoretical trays" in distillation where physical plates and trays are actually used, or "height of a theoretical plate (HETP)" in packed beds where physical trays or plates are not used, and of "equibrium stages" ... all of which were not included in the original article ... are commonly and widely used throughout their respective fields. Therefore, I expanded the original article. After all, it is part and parcel of Wikipedia to expand and to edit new short articles where needed.

As for deleting the equation which you put back into the lead paragraph ... it is included in the section devoted to chromatography. I simply used somewhat different notation than used in your equation to be more consistent with the other sections. Otherwise, my version is identical to your equation. I see no reason to have it in the lead paragraph as well as in the chromatography section. Even the reference you provided to the IUPAC Goldbook (reference # 4 in the article) defines the plant count as a term used in chromatography. Regards, mbeychok 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks mbeychok for your reply, we agree that the article should be about the universal concept otherwise we end up with several theoretical plate articles one for distillation, one for chromatography etc. It was my impression HETP was strictly an engineering term in distillation. I also applaud any new edit to an article but I was somewhat surprised to an article almost completely replaced by another article. V8rik 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

V8rik, I am very pleased that we agree. Whenever I want to make a very extensive edit to any article, I find it very useful to first do it in my personal sandbox. When I have completely finished (I hope), then I replace the original article text with my edit in one fell swoop. Now, I see how that may cause some consternation ... so, in the future, I will make sure to explain on the Discussion page what I've done and why. Regards, mbeychok 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The section "Simple analogy"

V8rik:

Do you really believe that an analogy about male and female shoppers on a shopping street is an appropriate analogy for the efficiency of distillation plates? Don't you think that it is non-encyclopedic? Regards, mbeychok 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, V8rik:

Though I appreciate your contribution to this article, this is hardly a forum for cracking jokes. I am deleting this section, please REFRAIN FROM REVERTING UNLESS YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY THIS SECTION MERITS TO REMAIN HERE. Further, I would encourage you to draw more appropriate analogies from real life that all readers would appreciate in the correct context. Analogies are a fantastic tool for understanding and dispersing knowledge, however, this analogy does not serve to that end. If you disagree with me, we can discuss this here. For the time being do not revert. Stuff like this is far more appropriate during a lecture to keep the audience interested. Ketankhare 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This reaction is out of proportion. V8rik is a good and active editor on all chemical subjects. The analogy may not have been chosen perfectly, but the aim of a wikipedia should be cooperation, so please either improve the analogy, or discuss the subject in a civilized way on the talk-page of the page or of the contributor. I don't know what it is, but the articles that get edited by some of the chemical engineers seem to have a tendency to dry, and specialistic text, and things are reorganized from a industrial point of view. Other parts of the subject are being deminished as 'cracking jokes' or 'comic strips' .. We are writing an encyclopedia for all public, not only chemical engineers and people with 50 years of experience in a subject. Please keep that in mind! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted, please improve the page, do not blatantly delete the text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for appearing blatant. And out of proportion, I guess thats how my words sounded, again I apologize. The difficulty of written text is that it cannot truly communicate ones opinion, mood or feeling at times. Fine, let me atleast put a tag on the section, if you don't mind. And this time I hope the article is not blatantly reverted ;-). As far as writing an article for all is concerned, is the only way to explain a important chemical engineering concept to everyone is to derive an analogy about shopping experiences and their differences between males and females? Is there no better analogy that this universe provides that the common man would understand but shopping? If I may add, as I mentioned before, this informal humour is fine in lectures, conversations, etc, not I believe in wikipedia. Lets just think, in which featured article have you read such an understanding aid. I believe that when any article is written, it should be with the aim that it might be a featured one ONE DAY maybe after decades or whatever. I do not want any critics of wikipedia to get any substance to find flaws with our system. AND I THANK EVERYONE, READERS, EDITORS, REVERTERS, DELTETERS, VANDALS, etc at wikipedia, it makes wikipedia more colorful to participate in. And unless otherwise indicated in all talk pages, I thank and appreciate all. In case, anyone here feels that my contributions are not required at this page, please let me know, many sections merit my attention. And just for the record, I hardly have any experience in this subject but I still agree with someone who has quiet a lot of experience. And, I believe that the response to my "out-of-proportion"/"out-of-line" opinion has itself been out-of-proportion and out-of-line. Ketankhare 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I accept the apology, all I want to say is that there are two editors who have reacted to this in pretty similar ways to the tone of the remark, so I don't know if the reaction is too much out of line. As I stated, the analogy is maybe not chosen perfectly, but in basis there is nothing wrong with using an analogy, even in Wikipedia (rules of thumb do appear in articles, they are also meant to be comic). One might have to dig up references, but I would not be in the least surprised, that scientific studies have not already used this principle, and that malls are optimised to a Van Deemter-type equation, optimising the separation of customers to distinct targets. Or making sure that different groups of shoppers (not only men and women, but also by age etc) do not separate. I'll have a look around, and will try to do some optimisations (to the article) myself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All's well that ends well, or in this case, all will be well that will end well. I have removed the rewrite tag but still feel, though not as strongly as before, that maybe a more better analogy might evolve soon. I hope Mbeychok will join us. I had made a rather lame attempt to start a WikiProject: Chemical and Bio Engineering, but being new at wikipedia, I have limited skills here. So far the project seems to be doomed. Ketankhare 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone looking in from the outside, the simple analogy looks superfluous. It didn't really enhance my understanding of the theoretical plate, and really confuses the issue. The best way to make an article more understandable to the lay person is to explain terms and concepts as you go along, to use jargon sparingly, and to call on those unfamiliar to a subject area to read through the text to see if they understand it. Analogy may be useful if apt, but this particular analogy seems to be more confusing than beneficial. I've removed it for now, and recommend bolstering explanation in the lead as a better way to make the article more accessible to all readers -- Samir धर्म 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Samir for your advice. I have expanded the lead-in section as you suggested. In particular, the expansion explains that having more theoretical equilibrium stages increases the efficiency of the pertinent separation processes. - mbeychok 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad the simple analogy on male and female shoppers was removed. It just wasn't that good. I was going to write something saying that it would be better to remove it, but I became busy with other things over the Thanksgiving Day weekend.
H Padleckas 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

In-line reference citations should be provided for each section, and preferably for each paragraph, to improve WikiProject Engineering quality classification.Thewellman (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)