Talk:Hit-and-miss engine

Search problem?

when searching for 'hit and miss' no articles are returned... i found this article by searching again for stationary engine... i think no results are returned due to the underscore in the title of the article - werd678 08-Mar-07

Sometimes the WP search engine just doesn't work. I have had no end of problems this evening. Eventually I did get it to work, and when I entered 'hit and miss', this page was the first hit. There is no underscore in the title – although they do replace space characters in page URLs. -- EdJogg 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why PRODded?

This article is in need of some serious tidying, as highlighted by the plethora of boxes at the top of the page, however I cannot see why it should be regarded as 'non-notable'.

The web page already included (http://www.boydhouse.com/hitandmiss/gov/index.html) is an excellent description of these once-common engines. The relative lack of Google hits ('only' ~800) is probably because the people most interested in these engines are less interested in the Internet! (This does not in itself make the subject non-notable.)

It would be useful to know why the article has been PRODed as 'non-notable', so that the particular concerns may be properly addressed.

EdJogg 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the reason given is too brief to make much sense of, and the article seems to establish prima facie notability in the first place. The only concern I would have is verifiability. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge?

It has been proposed to merge this article with Internal combustion engine (since 30 May 2007).

As no reasons have been given in favour of the merge, I would suggest that the article should NOT be merged, because:

1. Internal combustion engine is already very large, and acts as a summary page for more detailed sub-topics, such as this one -- better to keep the status quo.
2. The article is currently a stub but has plenty of scope for expansion: photos, diagram of operation, examples, etc
3. The article appears to be attracting banners, and the merge banner may result from a malicious editor (hence the lack of merge reasons here.)

EdJogg 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the article should not be merged, because:

1. The development of the hit and miss engine stopped ages ago, so a specialized article with rigourous treatment of the topic makes more sense.
2. The Stutterheim Engine Museum in South Africa has working examples of these engines.

Gregorydavid 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any other discussion in favour of the merge, I have removed the merge tag.

EdJogg 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why obsolete?

Moved from main page:

Can someone please add a paragraph about why these engines were rendered obsolete?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.41.2 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 August 2007

Significant info added on history and obsolescence. Midwestman78 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!! This article was in desperate need of editing by someone who knew what they were talking about!

It is on my list of articles to proof-read/copy-edit when I have time, although a quick read suggests there's not much to amend.

Do you have any references for this material? WP is fairly hot on getting refs these days.

EdJogg 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks EdJogg, appreciate it! Most of the material comes from being in the hobby - some of it undoubtedly is repeated in the numerous texts out there on antique engines - there are a number of other volumes than American Gasoline Engines Since 1872. I will add references as I come across them. Being new to the Wikipedia world, I'm not sure how to address the information boxes at the top of the page on references as well as editing for clarity. How does one make those go away? Whats the criteria I guess is what I'm asking? Thanx! Midwestman78 18:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at your talk page, and follow-up some of the links you'll find there. That should get you started nicely. If you want help on a specific Wikipedia 'thing', try typing the term into the search box on the left and see what results you get. The on-line help is pretty good here.

EdJogg 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At one stage there were four such boxes on this page! Anyway, the two left are asking for References and Cleanup.

The References box is asking for Reliable Sources for the information contained within the article. Without these, no-one can be certain that what is written has any basis in reality. If you have books that describe these engines, then they'll be ideal. The basic idea is that any reader, in theory, could go and look-up the references and confirm the validity of the facts for themselves.

The Clean-up box can apply to a large number of things, and it is common practice to either use more specific boxes, or else mention on the talk page what requires cleaning-up. Whatever it referred to before, now I would suggest that it refers to:

1. a need to copy-edit the text (check for typos, punctuation, clarity of words used, etc)
2. wikify the text -- find terms that might be unfamiliar to the reader and link them to Wikipedia pages.
3. ?

As for removing the boxes, any editor can remove them once the problems have been adddressed.

That's all I can think of for now. But don't worry, this article only really needs polishing, for now -- there are plenty of much-worse articles at WP. Hope that helps.

EdJogg 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hit-and-miss" or "Hit and miss"?

To be grammatically correct, I think that the name should be hyphenated, however this is not necessarily the common usage. Regardless, the article usage (currently, hyphenated) and its title (non-hyphenated) should be consistent.

Opinions anyone? EdJogg (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Flywheel engine

I'm puzzled by the term "Flywheel engine". Surely all piston engines have flywheels. The only exception I can think of is an aircraft engine but, there, the propellor acts as a flywheel. Biscuittin (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The flywheel is such a critical part of these engines. They do not fire on every cycle (or even on every fourth cycle if you consider that they are still 4-cycle engines). At idle, the engine may not fire any more frequently than once every four or five revolutions. Since the engine has to coast for such an extended period it must have a substantial flywheel to keep it going.--gargoyle888 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. "Flywheel engine" was a red link but I made it a redirect to Reciprocating engine. Do you think it would be more appropriate to make it a redirect to Hit and miss engine? Biscuittin (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, flywheel engines encompass a greater number of engines than this. Low speed diesels, sterlings and some steam engines could be included in the category. On the other hand most people would not consider a modern engine to be a flywheel engine despite the fact that it has one. As I understand it that term applies to a majority of the old low speed engines where the flywheel diameter is a significant fraction of the total dimensions of the engine. A good alternative would be to find some sources to add a section on flywheel engines within Reciprocating engine and keep the link going there. Effilcdar (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Name

Locally, we call these "shot engines." In fact, it took me a good twenty minutes to find this article because of that. I was going to add it, but realized that I don't have a source (there needs to be a better way to deal with this sort of domain knowledge). Can anyone find one that isn't from having called them that for years? -Trent Arms (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of that name. Searches on Google and on YouTube turn up a lot of hits for "Hit and miss engine" whereas a search for "shot engine" turns up none (it only turns up results fot engines that are "shot" in the "broken" sense of the word). You could create a redirect from "Shot engine" to here. Since there doesn't seem to be any other use for the term, that should do what you want and not add any confusion. --gargoyle888 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Governor poorly explained.

had to look elsewhere to understand the cycle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.219.51 (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 

Bulged pulley, cupped belt

It says: "The engine was typically belted to the device being powered by a wide flat belt, typically from 2 - 6 inches (5 – 15 cm) wide. The flat belt is driven by a pulley on the engine that attached either to a flywheel or to the crankshaft. The pulley is specially made in that its circumference is slightly tapered from the middle to each edge (like an over-inflated car tyre) so that the middle of the pulley is a slightly larger diameter. This design keeps the flat belt in the centre of the pulley."

How does this work? Wouldn't having a "bulge" in the middle make the belt slide off? Seems like a "dish" would work better, unless the belt is made so the edges are of a slightly smaller diameter when a loop is formed, thus "cupping" the bulged pulley? A clearer description would be nice; I had to stop and think it over, and I'm still unsure. Also, this would mean the belt isn't technically "flat". Thinking back, it does seem that the belts I've seen all had a distinct "curve" to them. Thus the shape of the belt is just as essential to the design as the shape of the pulley. Also seems like it might somehow aid the "traction" as well, to prevent slippage...but I can't quite put my finger on how..45Colt 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to go and tell two hundred years of flat belt engineers that they've been doing it wrong.

If you run a belt on a non-cylindrical pulley it will climb up the slope (I leave this as an exercise in mechanics - think of the friction vectors on the surface of the pulley). Hence a crowned pulley to keep it self-centred. If it's a concave _(sic) surface, the belt will climb up and over the edge.

Vee belts are different. They rely on tension in the belt to keep them centred, not pulley friction. This is why flat belts can run slack and still transmit power (only one side is tight) but a vee belt slack on one side will slip (this is sometimes used as a simple clutch). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Snort POP whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh snort POP"

The Russian translation for this is <<Фыркнуть ПОП свист свист свист свист фыркнуть ПОП>>. --Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)