Talk:Nitrogen generator

This article was supplied by a Russian company called Grasys. Grasys lack technology to be able to compete with Pressure Swing Absorbers (PSA), or Distillation units, and so would like to tell the world that these are obsolete. Nothing could be further from the truth, since PSA can achieve higher purity, and Distillation is certainly more economic for larger quantities. The only applications where membrane units are not challenged, is for mobile units (e.g. Truck mounted), and for low purity, low volume uses.

So my recommendation would be to delete the article. It is incorrect and deliberately misleading.

The claim was: "In advanced economies, membrane nitrogen plants have almost entirely ousted alternative processes of nitrogen generation in all cases where nitrogen is not required in commercial volumes."...it's been marked as "Dubious" since 2012 and nobody came up with a reference.

I don't see a need for deleting the entire article. I have, however removed the claim from the introduction. Looking around on the web, it's very clear that both kinds of plant are being bought and sold (both new and used) all around the world and in sizes from a few CFM to hundreds of CFM...so this is at best a highly dubious claim.

Here on Wikipedia, any statement of fact that's open for debate (as this one surely is) has to be backed up with references. Since that line is both disputed and unreferenced - it has to go.

Please don't replace it without providing a reference for it.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

=Distillation

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of nitrogen is produced by cryogenic distillation plants, whereas the lead section claims they have been "ousted" by membrane plants. Maybe you could argue that "plants" are big and "generators" are small, that most small generators use membranes, and that there are a lot more small membrane generators than big distillation plants. But I don't think membrane units making a dent in the overall nitrogen market. Mentioning "commercial volumes" doesn't help - who on earth would use "personal volumes" of nitrogen? I have no cites for any of this any more than the existing text does; I just think there's a problem to look at here.--Yannick (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Poor explanation?

"At the adsorption stage oxygen, H2O and CO2 molecules diffuse into the pore structure of the adsorbent whilst the nitrogen molecules are allowed to travel through the adsorber–adsorbent-containing vessel."

This doesn't say anything about what happens to the O2 in the input air? -- Dough34 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"At the adsorption stage oxygen, H20 - MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)