User talk:Langbein Rise

Suggestion for your Kraft process diagram

You posted a very helpful graphic on the Kraft process page, but it's almost too small to read. Could you possibly upload an SVG version? bendodge 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendodge (talk • contribs)

Sorry, it is an old file and I have lost the original. Have to redraw it then. --Langbein Rise (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about silica gel

Hi. I see you have quite a bit of knowledge about the formation of silica gel. You wrote this " The formation of a gel stage is avoided by stirring at elevated temperatures." here Precipitated_silica . Does this mean that if i don't stirr it while precipitating, it will form a thick layer ? As a sheet or similiar ? I just want to make silica gel that doesn't turn out to be small beads but a flat sheet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. Just to make it clear. On the wiki page of "silica gel" Silica_gel it says this "A solution of sodium silicate is acidified to produce a gelatinous precipitate that is washed, then dehydrated to produce colorless silica gel". So this is how a silica GEL is made. By precipitation. I hope it's the same precipitation you are talking about on the "Precipitated silica" page so i asked the wright question above.

Silica edits

Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've edited a number of the silica articles, and it looks like you know the subject pretty well. I was just wondering if there is any difference between colloidal silica and fumed silica, or if those two articles may be appropriately merged? Also, do you know of a source that explicitly compares/contrasts fumed silica and silica fume? I'm not surprised they are two different things, since web searches come up with entirely different applications, but I couldn't find any source (online, at least) that explicitly explained the difference. Also, at the moment, both articles state that their subject is "also known as microsilica". Which article is correct? Thanks for your input! -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Good questions! Yes there is differences between colloidal silica and fumed silica. The first is made a bit similar precipitated silica, but have smaller particles and is not porous - so it resembles a fumed silica. A colloidal silica is delivered as a suspension and precipiated silica is delivered as a dry powder. The difference between a fumed silica and silica fume are also not so obvius as they have similar characterisics, but fumed silica is a way to produce silica, while silica fume is an unwanted byproduct that cause health problems.

High shear mixers

I bow to your greater knowledge of the plant. However, I do have evidence that high shear mixers are used in pulp paper production [1] and would like to incorporate that information correctly into one of the set of articles on paper production. Could you offer me advice on how to do so?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see; that mixer is for use in bleaching of wood pulp, mixing the bleaching chemicals with the pulp. The blaching article is very chemistry focused, so it could use some process descriptions as well - that might be a huge work to do properly, but it have to start somewhere... --Langbein Rise (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see now where I put my foot in the wrong place. Let me know how I can best input.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shive, knot

Hi. I was a bit puzzled about these two:

They look very similar: are they actually the same thing or nearly so? If they are, they ought to have one article ("A knot or shive is...").
How is "shive" spelt? The title is "shive", but in the text of the article it's "shieve". Which is right, or can it be either?
Article titles are always singular, unless the article is about plural things (such as Points of sail), or something that has no singular (like Cattle or Trousers).
Do these things really justify their own articles – is what you have written pretty well it, or would they expand into longer articles if someone took the time to write them? If not, might they be better as a para (or two) in Papermaking or another relevant article?

I suspect English is not your first language, but you write it very well. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is written "shives" I'll fix that. Knots and shives have different properties and sizes - I probably did not state that clearly enough. They are normaly talked about in pluralis, so I find it a bit akward to see them in singularis in papermaking. I was thinking in enorporating them in the pulp mill or sulfate process articles, but it seems to me taking focus out of the main articles and they make problems downstream as far as the paper machine or even as spots in the finished paper, espesially the shives.

If you check my user page, you'll see that I'm not a native english speaker. I try to expand the papermaking topic, especially the pulping side. I'm also translating some articles to norwegian when they are missing in the no-wiki.

I've yet to meet a Norwegian who did not speak at least passable English, and often much better than that – you put us Brits to shame. If you'd find it helpful I'd be happy to check over your grammar on the English wiki. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolving pulp question

Hi! I have a question regarding the entry sentence in dissolving pulp; I left it on Talk:dissolving pulp. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

card stock

Yes, you are correct to state that "cardboard" is a generic term. The Wikipedia page on cardboard is currently a disambiguation page to link readers to some of the diverse meanings of the term. There is currenly discussion on that Talk page regarding future direction for that article. You may want to join the discussion. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am currently aware that I put that image on that page. In fact I put it there because I wanted it there. And guess what, you revert worked! But, you revert has been reverted. If you would like to do any other senseless reverting in the future, please use the Sandbox, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.93.68 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is no promotional service for your product. If you wan't to make consesus for changing picture, please use the discussion page of the article.

WTF am I promoting? Tissue boxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.93.68 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already good pictures for those articles. If you want to change, please discuss on the talk pages!

My picture shows an actual tissue box with the lable and whatnot. Its been up for 4 years. Its even been in news articles! See: [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.93.68 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk pages of the actual articles. --Langbein Rise (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polymerization PolyDADMAC.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Polymerization PolyDADMAC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Leyo 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a research survey

Hello Langbein Rise, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]