Talk:Smoke

Latest comment: 8 months ago by 2600:1700:6801:C10:71F3:20F7:6AEF:1882 in topic 'Medicinal'

Possible picture for article edit

Someone should put this pic up. I would do it but I don't know how.

http://usgsprobe.cr.usgs.gov/images/mosaic.gif

It's volcano smoke particles under an electron microscope.


Video has cooling towers edit

The large hyperbolic cylinders in the front are not smokestacks, but cooling towers, which emit plain water vapor. --Vuo (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) -- Agreed. They have been removed Daler (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Etymology of the term edit

Could we have the etymology of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faro0485 (talkcontribs) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Todays Edits edit

No idea how to revert 3 edits so I will rely on someone else's ability. The latest 3 edits damage the article randomly inserting the name of some jpg file. Looks accidental. --91.84.51.237 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the section "Measurement of smoke", subsection "optical", the text correctly states that the optical detector can be at different angles with respect to the source. In some cases, more smoke results in less light; in other cases it is the opposite. In the case cited, 90 degrees, more smoke results in more light. Feel free to email me: mcnaught at unm dot edu 68.35.150.245 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Isn't smoke a colloid? edit

If it is, it should probably be mentioned. If it isn't, it seems to have enough colloid properties to explain why it isn't. Shiggity (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge with Health effects of wood smoke edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge, recognizing that there is potential for a separate article in the future. Klbrain (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The page is essentially a duplicate of the paragraph-length section in this article with the same name. Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, at the moment they're identical. I think a better option would be to reduce the length of the paragraph there and expand this article over time, but if merging eventually turns out to be a better option we can do that. Alec Gargett (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Smoke just isn't about wood smoke and features from other ways of combustion and also including the health effect of those BUT the Health Effects Of Wood Smoke article is basically just wood smoke and its' health effects. I agree with this merge unless there's consensus to do a merge-split into Smoke and Health effects of smoke which could also could be an option, but I guess we should just merge if not. Dawn Lim (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think having a stand-alone article on Health effects of wood smoke or Health effects of smoke would be great but does anyone have time to set it up? If not, then I guess Health effects of smoke should for now become a redirect to Smoke#Health effects of wood smoke. Not there is also quite a bit of content on this topic at wildfire. This could be tidied up as well. EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Medicinal' edit

How could you allow a section made by the source cited to persist for a decade and a half? Some people have probably died because you allowed this nonsense to go unchallenged! Explain to me again why editable information is so great? 2600:1700:6801:C10:71F3:20F7:6AEF:1882 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply