Talk:Gas porosity

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Proposed deletion

The article has problem with NPOV, but I disagree with presented reasons for deletion, If this information is a copy of published information, it can't be OR. Also, gas porosity is quite notable thing to have its own article. This article is about gas porosity and not about the Patent 5684299 solely. There fore I remove the deletion tag. Beagel 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A patent has to be OR - by definition it can't be anything else or the patent wouldn't be awarded. Also this IS an article about the patent because it's a copy of the patent. andy 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Of course it should be original for the patent, but when the patent is published and same information cited (well, copied is more correct in this case) in Wikipedia, it is NOT original research. Please see what WP:OR is. And this article is about gas porosity and NOT about the patent even if the information is copied from the patent description.Beagel 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only distinction between this and what WP:OR usually applies to is that this wasn't published first on Wikipedia. Functionally, it makes no difference, as the only source is the original, primary source. Someguy1221 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, then renamed. Gas Porosity is a term that applies to the metals industry (bubbles if you like in cast metals). This article (more like an advertisement for the cited patent) is about "Formation porosity evaluation" as it applies to "gas reservoirs" Softwarestorage (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Propose to merge Formation Evaluation Neutron Porosity into this article. Beagel 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Merge Proposal

While the Gas Porosity page uses a single patent as a reference, that does not mean there are not many other sources and far more that could be written on this topic. The majority of the material covered on this page could be found in any number of industry publications, with only the last few sentences being unique to this patent. Even the patented method is hardly unique. Nor is it necessarily correct.

Please, do not make the mistake of adding even more confusion to the Formation Evaluation pages by merging Formation Evaluation Neutron Porosity into this article. If anything, the material on this page should be merged into a broader discussion of porosity under Petrophysics. Neutron Porosity is vastly different from Gas Porosity.

In the most general sense Porosity describes the void space within a solid matrix. It is independent of the fluid contained within the voids. Combined with a description of the measurement technology used, Porosity describes a measurement of the void space. For example, Neutron Porosity describes the measurement of porosity using a Neutron log.

Gas Porosity is really a misnomer since gas does not contain porosity, nor is it a measurement of porosity. The method described in this page is one interpreter's preferred method to predict the actual, or Total Porosity within a matrix when the measured porosity (Density Porosity and Neutron Porosity,) include errors due to the presence of gas within the void spaces. These errors are called Gas effect. Kenneth Heslop (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 16:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gas porosity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"The density tool, on the other hand, measures the total number of formation electrons. Like the neutron tool, water-filled formations are used in its calibration process. Under these conditions, a lower number of electrons is equivalent to a lower formation density, or a higher formation porosity." There appears to be a weak link from electrons to density to porosity in the above statement. Perhaps it would simplify matters to say that porosity is calculated from a bulk density measurement generally assuming that any pore space present is filled with water. Therefore, if gas is present, then porosity will be overestimated because of the very low fluid density of gas compared to that of water. StonedogTX 03:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)