Talk:Air well (condenser)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAir well (condenser) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 18, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an air well (pictured) collects water by promoting the condensation of moisture from air?
Current status: Good article

Links[edit]

B.G. Heusinkveld and A.F.G. Jacobs

  • US patent 3270515, Maria Telkes, "Dew Collecting Method and Apparatus", issued 1966-09-01 
  • US patent 3318107, John E Riley and Robert W Smith, "Dew Collecting Method and Apparatus", issued 1967-05-01 


Admissibility of Large Scale Dew Collection as a Source of Fresh Water Supply as a reference[edit]

There has been some disagreement as to the admissibility of the following reference:

  • Rajvanshi, Anil K. (1981). "Large Scale Dew Collection as a Source of Fresh Water Supply". Desalination. 36 (3): 299–306. doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(00)88647-6. 10.1.1.6.2585. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, |day=, |laysource=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I am starting this discussion section with the aim of reaching a consensus on its removal from the article. I originally added this reference because I thought it was appropriate, but I am entirely willing to hear reasons why it should not be used.

Given the friction that apparently surrounds this issue I remind editors of the high standard of civility expected on Wikipedia. Keep discussion to the point and refrain from ad hominem arguments. In the interests of a fair exchange of views I ask User:Ckatz to remove protection from this article and for all editors to refrain from removing or adding the reference in question. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To restate what [ I've posted at your talk page], this material can be sourced to the document's author, Anil Rajvanshi. Rajvanshi has for years now been using Wikipedia as a means of promoting his own work. Initially using the account Akraj (self-admitted, and now banned), he continues to use an extensive series of rotating IPs and single-purpose sockpuppet accounts (as verified through Checkuser requests) to restore links to his essays and publications. The "citations" he adds are links to self-written opinion pieces and essays; while some may appear as opinion pieces in formal publications, there are no third-party reviews of his work. Editors who remove his links are hounded and insulted, even to the point of his attempting to disrupt formal Wikipedia procedures. Even today, he is still using IPs to watch articles and attempt to restore his material.
With respect to the citation in question, I researched the article history. The link appears to trace back to the article dew, which has been repeatedly edited by known socks of Rajvanshi in order to add the identical link to his own proposal. These IPs and socks were also responsible for repeatedly adding non-encyclopedic text promoting the proposal (such as "An interesting concept of large scale dew condensation near the sea shore was made by scientists in University of Florida in 1980s"). Again, based on article history, it appears that the text and citation may have made their way to this article from dew. The article history shows that on the day GC added text about the sea water idea, the self-promotional citation was in fact present in "dew" having been added by a known IP sock of Akraj a few weeks previously in this edit. Note also that the abstract in question (I've seen it used by Rajvanshi himself before) outlines a proposed concept, not an actual method, and even states that the idea is not cost-effective. Even if we factor out the Rajvanshi-Wikipedia spam problem, the concept itself may not even be notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Ckatzchatspy 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who has linked to this paper in the past is irrelevant. Please explain what it is that is wrong with the paper that makes it an unsuitable citation. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the original contributor is directly relevant to this discussion, as the link is part of a clear pattern of attempts to use Wikipedia for personal promotional purposes. Given that the article in question outlines a thirty-year-old proposal that has apparently never been put into use (Google searches indicate the only mentions are from Rajvanshi's own writings), it would seem to fail the notability test at any rate. Factor in the reality that Rajvanshi placed the text and link for the express purpose of promoting his own proposal, and you have a clear-cut case for not using it. If you like, I can point you to similar discussions on other pages where Rajvanshi (through Akraj and the related sock accounts) has tried to add his own material to articles including dew, dream, solar energy, death and sweet sorghum among many others. (One of the most telling comments was from Themfromspace, who - in response to Sunray's question about material added by an Akraj sock - said "By all means no! This guy is clearly a POV spammer".) --Ckatzchatspy 05:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked if I wished comment on this discussion as I carried out the WP:GAN review in August 2009. The "disputed text" (marked in red), currently removed from the article, forms part of the subsection Active collectors:

"There are a number of designs that minimise the energy requirements of active condensers:" ......... "* Another method is to use cold seawater pumped up from a depth of about 500 metres (1,600 ft) where the water temperature may be as low as about 4 °C (39 °F).[52] Cold seawater is also used in the Seawater Greenhouse to both cool and humidify the interior of greenhouse-like structure. The cooling can be so effective that not only do the plants inside benefit from reduced transpiration, but dew collects on the outside of the structure and can easily be collected by gutters.[5]"

  • The reference is available from a server hosted by The Pennsylvania State University, so I read it. The proposal dates back to 1981 and was to provide a source of water, based on dew formation from the ambient air, on land in localities of Mid[dle?] East countries sited no more 5 km from deep sea water (500 m, or more depth) using pumps powered by wind power; and using the "waste" sea water for mariculture crops. At that time, the system was less economically viable than RO. On this basis, I don't think that the statement as written, i.e. " Another method is to use cold seawater pumped up from a depth of about 500 metres (1,600 ft) where the water temperature may be as low as about 4 °C (39 °F)", is valid. However, I don't see any reasons against inserting a statement saying that a system was proposed in the early 1980s, using inexpensive components but at that time was not economically viable, e.g. "....Another scheme dating back to the early 1980s proposed to use cold seawater pumped up from a depth of about 500 metres (1,600 ft), where the water temperature may be as low as about 4 °C (39 °F), to produce dew; and to use the waste sea water for food production. At the time it was not as economically feasible compared to Reverse osmosis. [52] ......". Such a statement makes it clear that it was only a proposal, it does not appear to have been implemented, and was not economically viable at the time of its proposal. Pyrotec (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would ask you this: the proposal - concept, really - seems only to have been put forth by Rajvanshi, and there does not appear to be any independent support for, development of, or commentary on the idea other than that by Rajvanshi himself. Given that he has clearly demonstrated a desire to use this site to promote himself, why would we assist in promoting what otherwise appears to be a non-notable idea? Are we then going to list every proposed idea for such collecting? --Ckatzchatspy 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular subsection (active collectors) currently has three examples; it had four before you removed one for reasons that appear above. I don't see an increase from three examples to four as being excessive. The paper (dated March 1981) stated that it was, to use my words, a solution that was apparently technically feasible but not economically viable. Your statement about lack of progress might be due to its continuing lack of economic viability (but there could be other reasons). I don't think it aught to be there as an example of a workable system, but I see no good reason, apart from your argument about self-promotion, why it can't be used as an example of a system that was regarded in the early 1980s as being economically non-viable compared with other usable technologies, especially RO. I do not use the word non-notable, I use the phrase economically non-viable. Arguably it was notable in that considerable effort seems to have been given to keeping costs low by using plastics instead of corrosion-resistant metals; and despite that it was a failure on economic grounds. I have no exposure to Rajvanshi, so I have to rely on your experience; however, let me put a question to you, would you have the same objections if the paper had been produced by someone other than Rajvanshi himself? I'm not looking for an answer, by the way. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a consensus to remove the citation and the usefullness of the information stands on its own merits. I will add in the text proposed by Pyrotec. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and have removed it yet again. There is nothing to establish the notability of the proposal, and the only mention of it is in a paper written by the individual who proposed it. Furthermore, said individual - banned from the site for such behaviour - has yet again shown he is still looking for ways to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, as demonstrated by the IP edit that tweaked the URL. (Same IP range, same single-purpose edits.) We do not validate such abuse of the site, so unless there is third-party coverage to suggest any notability to this concept it does not belong here. Pyrotec's argument might apply if there had been any form of the concept put into real-world operation - but that is not the case here. We are talking about a proposal that never saw the light of day, and that was never considered by anyone other than its inventor. --Ckatzchatspy 06:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg is misleading[edit]

The image for the "Global mean atmospheric water vapor", and especially its corresponding description shows a single daily mean for January 30th, 2005, but is portrayed as a general global annual average for water vapor.

This is highly misleading, as the northern hemisphere winter and associated cooler temperatures mean much less water vapor, while the southern hemisphere is portrayed as having more than its actual annual mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.143.2 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legend has been changed. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Comments[edit]

My concerns, in order of severity:

  • This article has information about the history of the technology, the different types, and the applications all jumbled together, making it impossible for the reader to find desired pieces of information. My preferred organization: History for information about how the technology was developed, High-mass collectors/Radiative collectors/Active collectors to describe the current state of each of those technologies and how they differ from each other, and Applications for information about how the technologies are put to use.
  • As per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of important information about an article. The lead should not introduce new material that is not present in the body of the article. As such, the second paragraph should probably not exist, as dew ponds are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I suggest relocating this information to the "See Also" section.
  • The hidden subsection International Organization for Dew Utilization should either be merged into a history section or a new major section Organizations should be developed. Perhaps a combination of both, considering that some of the information here relates to Zibold's condenser.
  • I do not understand why there are subsection headings that are set off by semi-colons rather than being the usual continuation of section headers. These are much harder to find than generic section headers because they are not in the TOC and they are smaller.

I will also be conducting a line-by-line prose review, but I will wait until the above comments are addressed and the article is in a more stable state. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganised much of the text much in the way suggested.
I have added an "Operation" section where general principles are elucidated; I have moved the information about dew ponds to here because I feel that it is important to be clear what an air well is not - there is at least some possibility of confusion between "pond" and "well" - and it is important to understand that a dew pond does not actually collect dew as popularly supposed. For similar reasons, I have kept the paragraph on stone mulches.
The OPUR is important, but does not really need its own section.
A picture has been added to the "Active collectors" section. It is taken from an advertisement – I have put in a request for verification of its OTRS ticket.

I request verification of File:Yeti AC-12 atmospheric water generator.jpg. Thanks in advance. 83.244.157.210 13:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. VRTS ticket # 2009102510023054 on 2009-10-25 is consistent with the license shown and from a credible source. Fæ (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
From Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I dare say there is a lot more to do, but one step at a time. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your input so far. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. I don't know anything about OTRS tickets or image copyright, so if you're looking for help in that regard, I would suggest seeking input from a user with more experience in that regard.
As to the prose, there's one more bit of reorganization that needs to be done. Consider the following situations, both of which I consider to be highly plausible: A reader visits this article with a general idea of how air wells work, but wants more information about their evolution over time. He navigates to the History section and finds only one sentence ("Early in the twentieth century, there was interest in high-mass air wells, but despite much experimentation including the construction of massive structures, this approach proved to be a failure.") about his topic of interest. He is a sad clam. A second user comes along, this time interested in the current state of affairs of the various types of air wells. He navigates down to the High-mass collectors section and is disappointed to find it filled with largely archaic information. Both readers are disappointed despite the existence of the information they desired.
My suggestion would be to take all of the historical examples and weave them into the History section, probably as subsections thereof. Each section on a specific type of air well (high-mass, active, radiative) should provide the following information: how the type is distinct from the others, what their advantages/drawbacks are, what they are used for (or why they are not used). Some of the material in the currently-existing Conclusions subsection can definitely be used for the High-mass section. I am, of course, just one editor. If you strongly believe that the current organization is optimal, I'm more than willing to hear your arguments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for some very good points. I will get round to them in due course, but it will take a while. I find that I need to let an article rest for a while - having read something many, many times it is a while before I can see the wood for the trees. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure, mate. Take all the time you need. Heck, if you want to work on another article, I'll help with that too! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62 (again)[edit]

Upon looking through the article once more, it still seems that there may need to be some reorganization or new material. The Operation section provides sufficient details (perhaps too many) regarding humidity, but very little regarding how air wells actually operate. This in itself is not a major problem, as the section could simply be renamed Background to more adequately inform the reader as to what material it contains. In any case, I had hoped that this gap in information would be covered by the Types section, but only the Radiative subsection seems to provide adequate coverage of how it all works. High mass is mostly historical information, and Active provides (as far as I can tell) only one sentence on design; the rest is full of modern examples (which the article definitely needs).

So the question remains: Where does the reader go to get a solid overview of how air wells work? It is certainly possible to gain some technical insight by reading through the various historical examples, but that definitely won't be the reader's first guess (or first choice) as to where to find such information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some of the text around a little and added a bit so that the types section has a brief explanation of how that type of condenser works. The ideas involved are so simple that little explanation is really required. Let me know what you think. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few one- and two-sentence paragraphs that should either be expanded, merged, or deleted. Once that's done, I think it would not be unreasonable for you to submit the article to FAC. At the very least, you'll get feedback from several other editors on how to improve the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I will resubmit the article very soon. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Air well (condenser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air well (condenser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the information for most of this article should be moved atmospheric water generation[edit]

Most of the article is discussing modern techniques for atmospheric water generation, which is typically called "dew collection" in the scientific literature, but is never referred to as an "air well." Meanwhile, the atmospheric water generation page is lacking in updated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewoman27 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_well_(condenser)&oldid=1204627090"