Talk:Dust collector

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the fan, motors, etc. should be included in a new category such as "equipment associated with dust collectors" and created a more specific article.

Also, since the dust collection is a very vast area, I think it's more appropriate to create new articles for each specific collection device, such as particulate wet scrubber (already existent), ESP (already in place), cyclones (already there) and fabric filters. In practice, dust collector and baghouse (fabric filters) terms are interchangeable and this article should be merged with the fabric filters article (upon its creation).

Actually, a better idea is to change the dust collection system article (which is kind of weird) to include this general presentation of dust collection systems. The Vindictive 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vindictive, I agree that this article needs some work. But I would caution you not to create too many new categories. It is fine to create new articles within the Category:Particulate control but don't create new categories for them. For example, there is an existent Category:Air pollution control systems and I think that the two new categories you created for VOC abatement and NOx control are borderline as to whether or not they warranted new categories because the articles you placed in those two new categories could have been accomodated within the Category:Air pollution control systems. Regards, - mbeychok 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but if you check the Air pollution article and especially the control devices section, I created the categories based on that classification (and my experience). Pollution control technologies may refer to soil remediation, wastewater treatment, air pollution control and noise pollution, so it's not very descriptive. Furthermore, air pollution control systems is a vast area and could be further categorized (according to the EPA) into particulate control, acid gas control, NOx control, VOC abatement, mercury control, dioxin and furan control, etc. It is not possible to create any more new categories. Thanks. The Vindictive 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the image description —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.247.61 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is useless and should never be used anywhere. Although not so obviously bad that it warrants deletion from Commons (as nearly all of this author's images do), it is bad enough that is shouldn't be used. If you need to illustrate the flow direction point at interest here, a few minutes with a pencil will give a much better image, and at a size that's actually viewable. There was certainly no need for this image to be copied from another tiny image, then limited in size to such uselessness afterwards.

user:KVDP has a rather dismissive view of the WP project and thinks that images this poor can have a role within it. I do not - I aspire to make something rather better than this rubbish. I see no point in any project where standards this low are accepted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the images here appear to be boook scans from 2006. Now with no prejudice to their uploader, who has tagged them as "Own work PD-self", I suspect that they've suffered a common misunderstanding from these earlier days of the project and they're not the uploader's work to license in this manner. We may need to do some deletion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_March_17#File:Reverse_jet.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the following text be added to the bottom of the section on Cartridge Collectors. Would appreciate guidance/thoughts on this

"Effective Cleaning Regime Due to the ineffective in-built cleaning regimes of both shaker and reverse air type filters and to the ever increasing energy cost of producing high levels of compressed air required for reverse jet filters, linked to the high cost of replacement filter bags, new innovative and effective filter cleaning regimes have been developed. One of the most effective are acoustic cleaners also know as sonic soot blowers. These employ high energy-low frequency sound waves to prevent material building up not only on the fabric filter bags but also on all internal surfaces of the filter such as side walls and hoppers. In the case of both shaker and reverse air filters the in-built, ineffective cleaning systems can be totally eliminated, whilst with reverse jet filters, the employment of the existing cleaning system can be greatly reduced if not totally eliminated. In addition it is claimed that the acoustic cleaners actually refresh the fabric of the filter bags thus significantly increasing bag life"

Collieman (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced and possible COI issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hardly suitable as a useful link from other articles, for these reasons:

• The lack of references ensures this is not an article of encyclopedic quality
• The intro is marred by the mention of a human as the 'father' of a machine. Assuming he was not an early cyborg, what does this actually mean? Inventor?
• Despite the attempt to structure with headings, this article feels unstructured and confusing. It is spread too widely and thinly.
• It may be better if consideration is given to splitting this article apart. Points of general relevance to all dust collectors remain here, details of particular technologies are unpacked on their own pages.
• The terminology 'Dust collector' hints that the origin of this article was interest in consumer home-workshop equipment, rather than industrial equipment. Would it be even better still to not attempt to cover (rather poorly so far) industrial technologies and instead get back to discussing consumer-level equipment.
• There is another (at this stage also low quality) Wikipedia article called 'Dust collection system'. Consideration should be given to merging these articles.
• Consideration should then be given to how articles about technologies to do with industrial exhaust ventilation, dust extraction, gas-particle separation, and particular exhaust system components (hoods, ducting, fans, waste separators and collectors); and perhaps other topics, can fit together with complementarity and without repetition.
• Rather than head off and create such articles all over the place, check first what is on Wikipedia
• Discussion on this talk page may be a useful first step to resolving these quality issues.
  

Stringybark (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these criticism, and I would also have some concerns about copyright violations. Some of the section on wet scrubbers is identical to the text in a book I found on Google books "Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering" By Robert Noyes - see page 326. However, this also seems to match the text in the page which quoted as the main source of the article (link now dead but available from Wayback machine http://web.archive.org/web/20110323045751/http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacrystalline/dust/chapter_4.html. The question is, which is the orginal source?--NHSavage (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs a lot of work, though the technical content seems worth saving. Reify-tech (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust collector. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130426165525/http://www.iac-intl.com/parts-category.php?PageURL=pre-coat-powder to http://www.iac-intl.com/parts-category.php?PageURL=pre-coat-powder

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Baghouse-dust-collector-for-asphalt-plants.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Baghouse-dust-collector-for-asphalt-plants.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]