Talk:Air well (condenser)

Links

• COMPARATIVE DEW YIELDS FROM TWO LARGE PLANAR DEW CONDENSERS M. Muselli1, D. Beysens, I. Milimouk
• Dew formation and water vapor adsorption in semi-arid environments—A review N. Agama, P.R. Berliner
• Comment on ‘‘The moisture from the air as water resource in arid region: Hopes, doubt and facts’’ by Kogan and Trahtman
• Comparison of Dew Yields in Four Mediterranean Sites: Similarities and Differences M. Mileta, M. Muselli, D. Beysens, I. Milimouk S. Berkowicz,

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 

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

An interesting, well illustrated and well-referenced article. In general, it appears to be at or about GA-level.

I'll now review this section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.

• Moisture -  DonePyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first and third paragraphs appear to be OK.
• The second paragraph is unreferenced. I've slightly modified the first statement; and I would suggest that we need, as a minimum, WP:verification for the "fog claim" and the "latent heat claim" - if you could produced one to verify the claim that dew is different from fog that would be even better, but I'm not insisting on this one.

I have added a reference to the Beysens/Milimouk article which discusses fog and dew at some length.

I have added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which discusses the mathematics of high mass condensers at length including discussing latent heat. This article may be difficult to find without paying. I would not have thought that the point was controversial.

• High mass collectors

• The Zibold’s collector section appears to be confirmed by ref 9. However, ref 9 states that the stones were discovered by Zibold, whereas the first paragraph does not make it clear that Zibold was the discoverer.

I think I have clarified that matter. I have also added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which has a bit more detail on the matter.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Klaphake’s collectors - a number of claims are made that don't appear to be verified by refs 15 & 16. Unless I've missed it - there is no verification of speculation about German Secret police, the Cook railway, a meeting in London with the Premier of South Australia.

The reference to the Uncommon Lives site actually has several pages and it is necessary to go through them. I have now provided more specific links.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• International Organization for Dew Utilization
• First paragraph - Ref 26, Youtube, cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but there is no reason why it can't go into the External links section.

Point taken. I have moved the link to the External links section.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Second paragraph - this is unreferenced.

Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fifth paragaph is unreferenced.

Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seventh paragaph is unreferenced.

Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Active collectors -

.... to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it will be next weekend before I finish this review. The article will pass, but there are a few minor fixes needed first; and I see that you are actively working on them.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This section appears to be satisfactory.

• WP:Lead -

Satisfactory.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A interesting, wide-ranging article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quaity of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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:10.1.1.6.2585. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); 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)

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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".) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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? --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg is misleading

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.