Talk:Internal combustion engine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Definitions

Guys, I just made a big edit to the top of the page on the definition of an Internal Combustion Engine - before you make any edits read what I wrote carefully. It may look strange, but it's accurate, heat does all the work.
UrbanTerrorist
PS: I work in the industry.

Somebody had completely removed the definition of an internal combustion engine. Given this is an encyclopedia, we really do need to define what it is we are talking about I think.

I've given a reasonably formal definition, it doesn't read briliantly, but it is accurate.

I certainly don't mind people editing it, provided they don't make it less accurate.WolfKeeper 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. There is a bit of a contradiction in the definition. 'The defining feature of an internal combustion engine is that useful work is performed by the expanding hot gases acting directly to cause movement of solid parts of the engine...' and 'However, continuous combustion engines, such as jet engines,BOOBS most rockets and many gas turbines are also internal combustion engines.' (and, no, spinning the turbine blades doesn't count as useful work) Jimbowley (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spinning the turbines does useful work by powering the compressor that is pushing air into the jet engine, which generates the thrust.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the definiton "The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the combustion of fuel and an oxidizer (typically air) occurs in a confined space called a combustion chamber...." is correct because even in an external combustion engine like a steam engine the combustion takes place in a closed space (combustion chamber). I would better define an internal combustion engine as "the engine in which the working fluid and the heat source are the same..." --pR@tz (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The working fluid is the combustion products. The heat source is the combustion. They are not the same.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Working fluid, shmurking fluid - do you suppose that an internal combustion engine is one where the combustion that drives the engine takes place within, whereas an external combustion engine is one where the combustion that drives the engine takes place, er, without, i.e., requiring some sort of heat exchanger to transfer the thermal energy from the combustion process to the engine itself...of course, Stirling and steam engines aren't necessarily external COMBUSTION engines as they can be driven by any reasonably good heat source (solar, nuclear, etc.). jmdeur 12:00 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stirling and (very nearly all) steam engines are heat engines where the source heats the working fluid that does work via some kind of heat exchanger. An external combustion engine is a special case of a heat engine where the heat is supplied to the working fluid from a combustion chamber via a heat exchanger.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Power units

Hi, Not sure if I'm using the 'talk' feature correctly, but I saw this in the page:

P = Tω where P is the engine's power in kilowatts, T is the engine's torque in Newton metres and ω is the speed of the engine in radians per second.

It says P is in kilowatts, but isn't the SI unit for power just Watts? P should be Newton * meters * radians / seconds , I'm too lazy to look up what that comes out to, but is it a possible mistake?

If T is in Newton*meter, and w is in rads/sec, then P is in Newton*meter/sec=Jules/sec=Watt

A kilowatt is 1000 watts. seano1 Jan 11th 2005, 3:24 PM

Power is measured in Watts, Kilowatts ,Megawatts, Gigawatts ect.So it isn't a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.84.60 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1911

What's so special about 1911? -- stewacide 04:47, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't make a lot of sense. Wonder whether it refers to something later elided? It would seem that it was talking about the invention of the modern spark plug EXCEPT that way preceded 1911. --Morven 04:55, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was the year that the edition of the Encycopedia Britannica which is cited in wikipedia was published. Maybe?

Ah! Then it's definitely something to remove, given we're not publishing in 1911! --Morven 07:43, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually it was the date of the book "Gas, Gasoline, and Oil-Engines including Producer-Gas Plants" by Gardner D. Hiscox, M.E., that I got the information from, not the Encycopedia Britannica. I wanted some sense of when each went obsolete, and that was all I had. The replacement is fine, although it would be nice to know when the mechanical system was abandoned (the book seemed to indicate that some older equipment still in use at the time might use it, but was unclear except that nothing being made at the time of publication did). -- RTC 22:26, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Renamed

Renamed to 'Internal combustion engine' to follow standard usage in English. It is MUCH rarer to find the dash. Google isn't an easy help with this since dashes are a space character in Google searches, but it's notable that of the top 40 or so results for such a search, the only ones with dashes are Wikipedia and its mirrors. —Morven 19:40, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

am working on this assignment and am trying to find how vibration in an engine could affect it's life span. am expected to build a mathematical model.do u have an leads that can help.

Efficiency

I had a little trouble with the following statement and I removed it (Sep. 9 2004). I'm not sure of its accuracy. Heat, energy (kinetic, potential, chemical), efficiency an work are all tricky, so I may just misunderstand the statement.

"An ideal, 100% efficient engine would run and remain at ambient temperature and convert all the energy in the fuel to kinetic energy - not into heat."

The statement which preceded it (heat in the cooling system is waste) is accurate and sufficient (if not comprehesive).

Mechanical efficiency in an engine is defined as the indicated mean effective pressure over the mean brake effective pressure. The lack of efficiency comes from friction.

That's not correct. *A* source of inefficiency is friction- but the combustion creates heat, and that heat cannot be converted 100% into work- the Carnot efficiency cannot be improved upon. The Carnot efficiency depends on the highest combustion temperature reached and the temperature the exhaust/radiator reach. It cannot be improved upon; otherwise a perpetual motion machine can be made.

Describing efficiency from checmical to work is difficult and the assumptions need to be clear. For a example, the statement that I removed does not say anything about the temperature of the gas coming out of the engine. It could be cooler than ambient.

No, it can't. Well, not unless you are heating the air through a radiator- the heat has to go somewhere.

Thus, the engine could be tranfering heat from the gas to the engine block during combustion, but expansion cools the gas below ambient.

That would *take* energy. Where are you going to get the energy to do that?

The work could be the same as the claimed 'ideal' engine, but, there would be some energy transfered to heat. Or, you could be more than 100% efficient.

No, that's a perpetual motion machine! That's not physically possible! Many, many, many, many... people have tried. All have failed.

Also, kinetic energy of a gas is sensible as temperature. See the "Heat as kinetic energy" section of the kinetic energy entry. So, to which kinetic energy does the statement refer, gas, shaft, car?

The reactant gases have both chemical and sensible energy - since a chemical conversion occurs during combustion, the same sensible energy of the products may occur at a different temperature than the reactants.

See also carnot cycle and fuel efficiency.

With respect to hydrogen injection giving increases in fuel efficiency of up to 50% - This claim is made by Dennis Lee, a man who also has gotten in trouble with the Attorneys General in several states over his marketing of a "free electricity machine." He also claims to have a device which will make your engine run on pickle juice, steak sauce or any other liquid. And to have invented a silent jackhammer.

You can go here-

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis17.html

to start researching Dennis Lee and the credibility of his claims.

There is an inherent fallacy in claims that any device or modification can produce a 50% improvement in efficiency through improving the combustion process, and that fallacy is that in order for that to be true, the combustion process to be improved would have to be at least 50% inefficient. That is not the case with modern internal combustion engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKibitzer (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless the use of hydrogen to improve the combustion process is credible, do a google search for Harry Watson and hydrogen. Greglocock (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No currently accepted model of an internal combustion engine or, for that matter, any heat engine, provides an accurate estimate of efficiency. This appears to be solved, however, in a recent paper that you can find here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1312 where a single heat engine model accurately predicts efficiencies of Otto, Brayton, and Stirling cycle engines. Just thought it might be of use to you.

What's the short name for that bit of the engine between the front pulley and the flywheel? Greg Locock (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to suggest, or ask, could you consider there are more 'energys' involved in the process than conventional science explains.. There were many experiments over the years that were never disproven regarding zero point energy, and an ICE can become a harmonic generator which has always been linked to the access and utilization of zero point energy. ---- JeremiahChong

Pollution

The pollution section mostly only deals with pollution generated directly by the engine, but also mentions CO2 emissions in the production of H2. Should other emissions in the production and disposal of engines, fuels, lubricants, radiator coolants, etc be mentioned? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 03:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Definately. I'm going to try and get at that sometime soon - should mention that I work in emissions control, design and sell catalytic converters for a living. UrbanTerrorist 02:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, information on those emissions belongs in other articles. I moved the hydrogen information to Hydrogen economy. Brian Jason Drake 11:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide - fossil fuel vs biomass

According to the article, fossil fuels result in a net CO₂ emission, but biomass doesn't, because when the biomass was growing it absorbed at least as much CO₂.

But don't those fossil fuels come partly from plants that absorbed CO₂ while growing, so that although there is still a net emission (some fossil fuels come from animals) there is a signifcant reduction in the net emission? Brian Jason Drake 11:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [edited Brian Jason Drake 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)]

Biomass is carbon neutral - all Carbon Dioxide which is produced by complete combustion is taken back in by the new plants which are grown, namely rapeseed or sugar cane. Biomass is definitely the fuel of the future.

It doesn't matter, if fossil fuels come from animals or plants. The use of biomass fuel has a closed CO2 circle, but burning fossil fuels not: Fossil fuel was created by biomass (plants, animals) that was buried by sediments and then transformed to lime, coal, oil or gas (this is the most accepted theorie). This is probably also happening right now, but at a much, much slower rate than we burn fossil fuel. Unless we reduce our consumption to the rate of production, there's a positive net CO2 emission. - Alureiter 12:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article implies that the only reason there is no net CO₂ production is that the same plants, when they were growing before, absorbed the CO₂, i.e. there is no CO₂ production in the long run. I don't see how fossil fuels from plants have a net emission in the long run, but I can see how fossil fuels from animals have a net emission in the long run. Brian Jason Drake 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if a plant grows, it absorbs CO2 and builds biomass. If you burn that plant (or eat it or it rots, which means its eaten by smaller animals and fungi), all the CO2 goes back to the athmosphere, no change in CO2 levels by this. Therefore, if you cultivate plants and use them as fuel you have a net CO2 production of exactly 0. The first part is important, since it makes the process a circle.

If a plant is buried and can't rot and becomes coal, there was a CO2 reduction. This has happend millions of years ago. Ok, you can now say, on a term of 1 billion years and after we've burnt up all the fossil fuels, there was net CO2 production of 0 by this prozess (there are others as well). But even in the long run of human mankind (a few 100,000 years) this is not true, and of course not of our generation now. That would be like saying, if your father was a millionaire and you spend the money you inherited from him without earning anything you have a net spending of zero because all the money you spend had been earned by someone else before. There's no closed circle, that's the problem.

And now for animals: It really doesn't matter, if the plant is buried or eaten by an animal and the animal than buried and turned into fossil fuels. If an animal dies and rots, it returns all the CO2 that was absorbed from the atmosphere by creating its biomass from eaten plants (or animals that have eaten animals that have eaten animals... that have eaten plants) to the atmosphere. If it can't rot, there was a CO2 reduction. - Alureiter 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Angular moving piston

Hello. I've heard of a motorcycle engine where the pistons moves in angular motion (rather than straight motion), because their heads are fixed to a side shaft. This is supposed to produced less friction with the chamber, and low temperatures.

I think an article or at least an hyperlink to this subject would enrich Wikipedia.

This can be done. --Excaliburo 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging Articles - Internal Combustion Engine & Car Engine

They definitely should be merged, a "Car Engine" is a subset of the Internal Combustion Engine. Possibly we should check the listing for automobile as well, and see what is listed there under engines.
UrbanTerrorist 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. They are the most important examples of each-other, but there have been electric and steam cars and many other uses of internal combustion engines. The first IC engines were used as we now use electric motors. There are motorcycles, airplanes (not so much any more), airships and blimps, models, water pumps, ships and boats (including submarines), maybe torpedoes, electric generators, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, farm machinery, hedge trimmers, tanks and other military ground vehicles. David R. Ingham 05:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don;t think so too. As states they are the most important. It is better to have a separate article. There is a lot of information so it isn't good to merge it with another article. Elfalem 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically electric cars have motors, not engines. Steam cars do have engines of course, however they are external combustion. BTW, I was for making "Internal Combustion Engine" the main page, and deleting "Car Engine" UrbanTerrorist 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the idea of a merge. In the near furture we will begin to see different types of engines used in cars, such as the fuel cell. Soon the internal combustion engine will not be the only method of powering an automobile.

I say 'car engine' just be a page with options to click on different types.

OK, where to start. 1) A fuel cell is not an engine. 2) An electric motor is not an engine. 3) While a Steam engine is an engine, it should be listed under External Combustion Engine Yes, there are many uses of [[Internal Combustion Engine}}s beyond automobiles, however all internal combustion engines no matter what they are used in have common characteristics, and should be considered the same. UrbanTerrorist 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cylinders

I've made a tentative change to the number of cylinders used in an engine as being "up to 30". I say "tentative" as this is based on the Chrysler petrol engine as used by the Sherman tank (nicknamed the "egg beater", I believe), which I guess may be a controversial choice depending on whether one views it as being one five-bank engine or five straight-six lorry engines bolted together!

I would like to say on this point, so far I know there are 56 cyl on star engine ( 7 x 8 cyl in line) From K. Sritharan (Singapore) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.164.43 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

edit war

We seem to have an insistant non-contributor or possible two. David R. Ingham 03:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Massive yet Tiny

I have been sent a reference to the "massive yet tiny" engine. Does anyone here know anything about how bogus this is? --Slashme 09:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done some googling on the topic. See Toroidal engine. --Slashme 09:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this looks like a scam - the claims are somewhat grandoise, and he is happy about being featured in American Antigravity Magazine? I'd be very skeptical about this. UrbanTerrorist 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Charge

I was working on disambig projects and came across a link to charge in the section here. Since charge is a disambig page, I needed to change it, but there was no article on that type of charge. So, I created Charge (engine) and linked to that. If anyone has any issues, please respond. Aguerriero (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency figures?

Hi. I’m completely unfamiliar with this article but would like to add this request. It would be helpful if the article could quantify the effiency of a typical contemporary internal combustion engine in use. I say this because in the solar power article an editor wants to compare the efficiency of battery-powered vehicles to those powered by ICEs. He cites this reference [1] for the ICE efficiency. However, this is just teaching material from one university course. I’m sure that contributors here must have access to more encylopedic sources for such figures. And efficiency figures could be useful to many encylopedia users for various reasons, not just for comparison with battery-powered vehicles. I looked at the Fuel efficiency article (which you currently don’t link to) but did not find anything like the percentage figures that the above webpage uses. Itsmejudith 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

image

This is one of my recent uploads Image:Avondale ag museum gnangarra 09.jpg it may be of use to the article Gnangarra 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Citations in History Section

OK - so we have this Wonderfull history section - but guess what - no facts to back it up. Numerous assertions of patents granted, but no Patent number, jurisdiction the patent was granted in, or link to the patent on the web. Several inventors are mentioned who I've never heard of (not that I'm claiming to be an expert on inventors), with no information about them other than they did something in this year, and not a lot of detail on that.

We need to buld up this section - and possible consider hiving it off into several parts, where there's enough information. Possibly the history section should have it's own page - the history of the ICE is a fascinating thing. UrbanTerrorist 01:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen

I was surprised to see this text: "Some can run on Hydrogen; however, this can be dangerous." This is clearly a statement of opinion and has no citations to back it up. The same statements could be made about racing fuels that often burn colorless. And, this statement could be made about gasoline: "Some can run on gasoline; however, this can be dangerous. Plumbing of gasoline around hot engines can lead to leaks and fires." Any flamable substance can be dangerous if it leaks. --68.77.111.88 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline since it so easily escapes to the upper atmosphere, whereas gasoline vapors can creep along the ground, being denser than air. Hu 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that there should be any text on the safety of the various fuels in this article. It is supposed to be about the engines, not the fuels. Mentioning (with links) the use of autogas (LPG), gasoline (petrol), hydrogen, natural gas and anything else as fuels used in internal combustion engines is about all that belongs in this article. If someone wants to read about the various fuels, they should follow the links to read about them in separate articles. The safety or otherwise of hydrogen versus petrol is not relevant to this article. --Athol Mullen 05:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Hydrogen fuel is not relevant here because the more efficient (commercially viable) Hydrogen engines are fuel cells and not internal combustion. Ion Negru 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a factual statement to say that internal combustion engines can run on hydrogen. BMW have been running prototypes on hydrogen for years. Facts are what an encyclopedia is about. As above, I believe that a simple list of fuels that can be used belongs in this article. I also believe that factual information such as hydrogen embrittlement of metals requiring different metallury to that found in most engines might be appropriate here but certainly not any form of scaremongering POV or technically incorrect statements. --Athol Mullen 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry I meant the scare stories about hydrogen safety since as a fuel it works most efficiently in fuel cells which does not burn it. Ion Negru 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume the Water-fuelled_car article summarises the urban legends that adding hydrogen can vastly increase IC engine efficiency to the point it breaks rules of thermodynamics. As such, HHO and water comments have been deleted from the article --121.44.76.102 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen cycle engine

The idea is to run completely without air, thus on the inert Nitrogen existing In the Air which forms Nitrogen Oxides with the combustion. An additional oxygen tank would by necessery with substancial costs in particular from the saftey aspect to burn pure oxigen

A Conversion of exhaust gases is intendet ( Exhaust gas recirculation ). This is made possible by replasing the air intake completely with hydrogen. The flow resistance minimises its higher fluidity (diffusion characteristic) and optimises the volumetric efficiency ( no Nitrogen ) . the achievment is adjusted totally over the quantity of the injectet oxygen ( higher power density ) The surpuls unburned hydrogen water Vapour can condense in the exhaust- intake system, whereby the negative pressure with fresh hydrogen results in mole contraction becoming balanced. Because of such a Rich mix the oxidizer (Oxigen ) is fully converted. Also there is decrease in the combustion temperature. A further characteristic is that there is a Oxyhydrogen chain reaction, branched out strongly to a greater fragmentation ( Less binding energy ) in the combustion chamber. With modern rocket propulsion one uses likewise this effect, which results from a hydrogen surplus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.129.225.87 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

History

I restored the history section, which had been deleted several days ago by a vandal. Between now and then, there have been several vandalizations of that same area and no one reverting them noticed that the history was missing. Please keep an eye on this. --Tysto 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Wikipedia's entered the stage where most organizations fail, where the strutcture that worked well when it was a small bunch of dedicated and reliable individuals can't cope with the maintenance required of a big organization where the average contributor is, by definition, average, and half of them are below average, and you have to alter the structure of the organization to carry the weight formerly carried by the individuals or collapse. Well, it was fun for a while. Gzuckier 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

James Atkinson

The James Atkinson referred to in the article is cross referenced/linked to a different James Atkinson.216.198.74.114 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"James Atkinson (inventor), inventor of the Single-Stroke combustion engine in 1882". There is apparently no article on him yet. James Atkinson leads to a disambiguation page, which for now is the only thing we have on him. --Van helsing 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

durr, in the efficiency section....

talk of "even with turbochargers....advance tec....no further fuel efficiencies can be made" (strong paraphrasing here) just an fyi, turbochargers _cannot_ by definition increase fuel efficiency. They run off of the engines power, thus reducing it, to drive the air into the engine! They do boost the RATE at which fuel can be consumed, and the rate at which heat need be removed from the engine.

imo it should be removed as it is factually bunk! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.50.164 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Can you explain, in simple language, why adding a turbo to an NA diesel engine often improves the efficiency? Because it does. Greglocock 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful work done by the engine comes from the crankshaft. Other work is done by the exhaust, which comes out hot and under pressure and expands in the atmosphere. This is, however, wasted work, in general, unless you are using the engine as a noisemaker.

The engine also has to do work, however, inhaling the ambient air to fill the cylinders. This is done by the pistons, and therefore in the end, by the crankshaft; as such, it must therefore be subtracted from the work available at the crankshaft when accounting for the useful work available, by conservation of energy.

However, if you can use the wasted work done by the exhaust to pump the air, rather than the crankshaft, that frees up that much more work from the crankshaft.

Despite what the original poster believes. Gzuckier 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article entries

I've added a few main article links to sections that seemed to warrant them. If anyone disagrees that these are helpful, please revert. Smalljim 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beare Head

See also Talk:Six stroke engine regarding the edits of Malbeare (talk · contribs) about his technology at Internal combustion engine and Six stroke engine. Femto 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to post some artikles

http://www.sixstroke.com/docs/six_of_the_best.pdf }author Sir Allan Cathcart. { http://www.sixstroke.com/docs/swept_volume.pdf } I am the author of this. M J BEARE this describes thechange in volume during the cycle and makes refference to the miller cycle and atkins cycle and includes graphs

maybe it would be best to start an article and only post a link under beare head so as to not clutter the internal combustion engine page.

Watdayethink?

Beare Head" The term "Six Stroke" was coined by the inventor of the Beare Head, Malcolm Beare. The Beare technology combines a four stroke engine bottom end with a ported cylinder closely resembling that of a two stroke, thus 4+2= Six Stroke. The device involves a second overhead short stroke crankshaft and an overhead smaller diameter opposing piston/cylinder arrangement, which acts in unison with auxiliary low pressure reed and rotary valves, allowing variable compression and a range of tuning options. The Beare Dual Opposed Piston Dual Crankshaft Engine Invention greatly increases both the torque and power output of the traditional Internal Combustion Four Stroke Engine (40% torque increase at certain RPM). The Beare Dual Opposed Crank/Piston Engine delivers its generated torque and power in a locomotive or diesel likened manner, achieves greatly improved fuel economy (35% improvement recorded under moderate everyday driving load conditions), and primarily due to its greater expansion stroke and higher air to fuel ratio consumption, the Beare Six Stroke Engine burns fuel more thoroughly and completely, greatly reduced exhaust gas temperatures have been recorded (under maximum engine load) , notably lower cylinder head and block casting temperatures remained cooler throughout the grilling burnout test, the Beare Engines higher air ratio preference means more efficient & cleaner burning of fuels, resulting in the reduction of engine exhaust pollutant emissions and reduction of harmful green house gasses produced. The reduced amount of reciprocation and parasitic components involved in the composition of the Beare Engine, demonstrably serve to reduce internal reciprocating friction and parasitic loads, the Beare Technology Crank/Piston/Port Cylinder Head becomes a net contributor of usable additional torque/power (valuable propulsion energy), the inherent greater thermal efficiency of the Beare Head, provides the sought alternative of smaller capacity engines becoming employed to carry out the task at hand, the Beare Engine rock solid (maximum engine load) torque/power delivery throughout its rev range and even at low idle 750rpm. The Beare Six Stroke Engine provides an engine alternative perfectly suited for use in constant power demands of HEV and CVT applications. The Simple-Clean- Powerful Beare Engine allows for longer periods between service intervals, considerably reduced tooling in manufacture (one piece block/head casting a possibility), and reduced manufacturing/production costs by way of reduced components and simplicity of design, The Beare Engine Technology is indeed an Extraordinary Technological Breakthrough, and a great leap forwards when compared with the standing conventional OHC Four-Stroke Engine design. Sir Alan Cathcart rode an early version of the Beare Ducati Twin. See Article

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malbeare (talk • contribs).

In this form, sorry, no. Wikipedia's articles cannot be based primarily on self-published sources (see Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources). This starts with the simple but unsourced claim that the term "Six Stroke" was coined by you. The rest is full of unsourced claims and technical details, and most of all, it reads like a sales brochure, not like an article in an encyclopedic tone.

Notability seems to exist, but it needs to be asserted by independent sources. External news references, reviews in engineering journals and such (the website statistics that you mailed are not an appropriate source). If a Beare Head article is created it should start as a stub with two or three sentences explaining the basics, and then be slowly expanded from there. I'll have to leave the decision to people who regularly edit these topics. Femto 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sixstroke.com/docs/border_november_1994.pdf The term sixstroke was coined by Malbeare in 1994 well before the current crop of users Malbeare 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I take your point I guess I will have to wait a few more years until someone writes about it. http://www.sixstroke.com/docs/bikeSA_march_1995.pdf Malbeare 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would this be OK as a stub

[edit] "Beare Head"

The technology combines a four stroke engine bottom end with a ported cylinder head closely resembling that of a two stroke, thus 4+2= Six Stroke. It has a half speed smaller opposing piston in the head that acts in unison with auxiliary low pressure reed and rotary valves, allowing intake and exhaust. Malbeare 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, fine with me: Beare Head, encyclopedically appropriate enough. Since these topics are beyond my expertise, any help from the regular editors will be appreciated to expand/maintain it and to integrate it with the other articles. Femto 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignition

There seem to be serious problems here. I will have a try, but others please have a look. David R. Ingham 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that. I had a couple of digs, but everybody, jump in. Gzuckier 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I find the first sentence in the "Classification" section misleading. I disagree, which may be arguable, but the article seems to come into line with my thinking further on.

The fundamental difference between an engine and a motor is that a motor converts electricity into mechanical energy, whereas an engine converts thermal energy into mechanical energy.

I think that's the difference between an engine and an electric motor. The article agrees...

A "motor" (from Latin motor, "mover") is any machine that produces mechanical power. Traditionally, electric motors are not referred to as "engines," but combustion engines are often referred to as "motors."

I would suggest the first line could be removed which leaves the section reading...

At one time, the word "engine" (from Latin, via Old French, ingenium, "ability") meant any piece of machinery — a sense the persists in expressions such as siege engine. A "motor" (from Latin motor, "mover") is any machine that produces mechanical power. Traditionally, electric motors are not referred to as "engines," but combustion engines are often referred to as "motors." (An electric engine refers to locomotive operated by electricity).

77.97.229.8 06:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above points about the first sentence being confusing. Furthermore, it says "an engine converts thermal energy into mechanical energy" which is not true for the internal combustion engine where chemical energy is converted into mechanical and thermal energy. I am being bold and removing the sentence. Jlenthe (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need for a "small engine" section or new page

"small engines" seems to be a fairly common and recognized term that is not yet covered in Wikipedia. e.g. use by EPA: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/0cb7669b182b145d852572c0005e415a!OpenDocument

In this section could be info on relatively high emissions, surprising lack of existence of emission controls (EFI, catalytics etc.) and controversy over implementing regs.

Anyone with the expertise to start this?

If not I might try to hack away at it. Drgrit (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Boost (automotive engineering)

I propose we merge the content of Boost (automotive engineering) into this article Internal combustion engine. The boost article does not contain any content that meets the Verifiability policy, but overall I think developing an independent article on this topic is going to be difficult to do. I look to the wisdom of fellow editors for thoughts on this proposal. Alan.ca (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no excuse for having an unreferenced boost article, there's plenty of books around. The whole IC engine article is a mess, I'd be loathe to see it grow even bigger. Can't we do this via a cat? Greg Locock (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps merge boost into forced induction? Obey (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better idea, or even just a redirect to that article. Greg Locock (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag

Whoever placed the NPOV tag on a section needs to explain the issue; the section as I see it is not really NPOV although citations would help. Without a justification, this tag is subject to removal. Tynetrekker (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

the inturnal combustion was a compleate falure and in the 1860's the engine's gears flung out and hit a little lady named mrs tompatra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.199.251 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ic engine a beautifl concept

IC engine is one of the best thing i have ever seen in my life.I have worked on different ic engines may be in competition or in project.Bascialy we cannot replace ic engines with any kind of motor because we will not be able to get same power torque fro same configured motor as compared to ic engines.So bottom line is that we should try to increase the efficiency of an engine or to get an alternative fuel to gasoline.I am trying for this any one interested is always welcome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.218.19 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Exhaust energy recovery

this is of general interest: Electricity from the exhaust pipe--Billymac00 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockets

I thought I'd kick off a section on this so we can discuss whether rockets belong here. My gut feeling is that if someone wants to look up rockets, they'll find them quickly enough under rockets. If someone reads an article on internal combustion engines, they are probably thinking of car engines and the like. So, by that rather crude measure rockets don't belong here. On the other hand they certainly use internal combustion, and are referred to as rocket engines in some milieu. On balance, no, then.Greg Locock (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of definition, does the definition of internal combustion engine cover most rockets? The answers yes, very definitely. Thus it must be in the article. This article is the article on internal combustion engines in the wikipedia. It needs to be comprehensive. This is not an article on piston engines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gas turbine engines are a more difficult case. They use internal combustion, they use gas forces impinging on a mechanism to create work, and can be analysed in a very similar fashion to a normal IC engine. Perhaps a short discussion of those points is in order?

Greg Locock (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Internal combustion engines are called "internal" because the combustion is contained internally. Rockets are "external" combustion engine because they direct the combustion of fuel outward from the rocket even if the combustion starts inside the rocket.--OMCV (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wrong, but I'll leave this up there so other folks don't make the same mistake in external combustion engine the fuel is outside the piston or equivalent part. I still believe an engine (as understood in the vernacular) must contain its combustion one way or another. I stand by this even if I'm ostensible wrong.--OMCV (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockets do contain their combustion. They combust their fuel before it reaches the throat of the nozzle. If they didn't do that, then they would be very inefficient.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This frequently causes problems for people. The defining feature of an internal combustion engine is that the combustion products press on the solid parts of the engine so as to create mechanical energy ("work"). In the case of the piston engine type of internal combustion engine it turns a crank, which ultimately turns the wheels and generates kinetic energy of the vehicle. In the case of jet and rocket engines the combustion products presses on the nozzle and that moves the vehicle directly. In effect, the nozzle is a piston. Actually, rocket engines are highly efficient internal combustion engines, but only at high speeds (Mach 10 or so).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all rocket engines are internal combustion engines (for example water rocket), but the firework type that were invented by the chinese definitely are.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When I say an engine contains combustion I also meant the subsequent expansion of gas. There is a solid part of the engine and a moving part in the expansion chamber. I definite agree that the variations on rotary engines are engines. I can even even see how a ram or scram jet is internal combustion and I guess a rocket is no different. I still don't care for you single piston single stroke analogue especially since the nozzle would more likely be the "block" and the outside world is equivalent to the piston.--OMCV (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you said OMCV, "the lines of the spectrum must be drawn". This apparent lack of a piston is that line, I believe. InternetHero (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you were right it would be in the definition. It's not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the rocket a machine or a device?

The real question is whether or not the engine can constitute a mechanized motion and a concept of physics like thrust at the same level and lineage:

• Device: I don't think a rocket can be similar to al-Jazari's engine. The components can be altered to preform a linear motion, but it is hardly a controlled machine as is the piston pumps of al-Jazari. InternetHero (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So, are you seriously claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong on such a basic point, and that a rocket is not an internal combustion engine???[2] Hey, here's an idea, how about you don't engage in Original Research?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com:internal combustion engine[3]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Inventors.about.com/Columbia Encyclopedia: [4]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoplease [5]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad news. I just checked Heywood "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals", and Fayette Taylor "The Internal Combustion Engine". These are the primary texts in the field, as opposed to your secondary sources. Neither mention rockets. Greg Locock (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention it, then you really haven't proved it either way. The scope of the book is clearly not including rocket engines, but does it mention gas turbines or jet engines? I think at the very least most people consider gas turbines and jet engines to be internal combustion engines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They're in a different category, my friend: continuous combustion engine. That's probably what EB means when they say it is a "type" of IC-engine. InternetHero (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced sources

These two sources aren't GFDL compatible:Encyclopedia Britannica Internal combustion engine:NASA: A timeline of rocket history, Rockets in Ancient Times (100 B.C. to 17th Century).

[6]

"You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit any of the content included in the Services, in whole or in part. You may download copyrighted material for your personal use only."

[7]

"The contents of the Service are intended for your personal, noncommercial use. You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes."

[8]

Uploading of Intellectual Property: Visitor shall not upload, post or otherwise make available on any FEN Site any material protected by copyright, trademark, or other proprietary right, without the express written permission of the owner of the copyright, trademark, or other proprietary right, and the burden of determining that any material is not protected by copyright rests with Visitor.

You're going to jail, buddy. Just kidding. I made the same mistake a while ago. See: [9] . Basically, I don't think the rocket had anything to do with the forming of the internal combustion engine. That isn't original research because you don't provide any primary sources explaining a unestablished idea. You have to add viable citations that are GFDL compatible.InternetHero (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider that to be remotely funny.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the unlikely even that you're serious, there's absolutely no rule, law or policy against linking to copyright works (except on file sharing networks or websites, which these aren't.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you say that, read: GFDL: [10]. InternetHero (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet hero you are wrong. References do not have to be compatible with any license. Otherwise we couldn't use most textbooks or published scientific papers as references. Personally I would take a recognised authority such as (say) the McGraw Hill technical dictionary, which I have at home, and use that. There is a slippery slope here - your car's piston engine is an ICE, everyone agrees, so is a Wankel (so much for the reciprocating part of the deifinition), so would a wankel with say 20 rotors, which is a continuously combusting rotary engine, so is gas turbine connected to a generator, so is a gas turbine not connected to a generator, so is a gt jet engine, so is a ramjet with no moving parts, so take away the air and add an oxidiser and you have a firework rocket.

Mind you in the blue corner I could point out that fayette taylor, and heywood, do not include rockets in their books with the obvious names. Greg Locock (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely nothing wrong with linking to copyright works. We're just not allowed to copy them. The "jail" comment may have been meant in jest, but really isn't funny. I'd stay well clear of making comments like that. They can be taken the wrong way, which could land you in hot water around here. -- Mark Chovain 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still going to challenge the edit because the timeline is formulated in respect to the contributions of the ICEngine. I seriously haven't read any author state that the rocket had a contribution to the development of the ICE. Good day, fellow Internet Heros. InternetHero (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably didn't, you seem to be assuming that piston engines are the pinnacle of engine sophistication or something. They're not, and that's not the point. The point is that a rocket is an internal combustion engine. Read the definition in the article, it's not there for a laugh; a rocket meets the definition, so does a ramjet, so does a turbojet, and so does a piston engine.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the timeline is already an established idea and the most contributive editor has a say until we can preform a consensus. I don't see how it has anything to do with the timeline of the IC engine. Besides the fuel aspect, there's a huge gap between Al-Jazari and Da Vinci: out of the three of their descriptions, only two of them have the same components. Perhaps the rocket should be in the continuous combustion engine [11] section. What does everyone else think? InternetHero (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

It seems to me that the scope of this article is internal combustion engines in all forms, not just piston engines. Does anyone have a problem with that?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I do. The mechanical process of an internal combustion engine requires a number of mechanical devices such as the cam, piston, spark plug, cylinder, camshaft, crankshaft, and the connecting rod. A rocket engine of these times simply do not show enough similarities between an internal combustion engine, so I think your edit would be better situated in the jet engine article. We're talking about a mechanical engine here. InternetHero (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mechanical is to do with machines and mechanisms. Both rocket engines and jet engines are mechanical. If you only want to discuss the subset of internal combustion engines that are reciprocating engines then there's an article for that, go do.- ([[User:Wo lfkeeper|User]]) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to add more continous combustion internal combustion engine material. For example, gas turbines, jet engines, bipropellant rockets, ramjets, scramjets are all notable inventions and need to go in the history section. As has been noted by others, they all have their own articles, but they need to be noted as they are still milestones for ICEs.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Machines normally require some energy source ("input") and always accomplish some sort of work ("output"). Devices with no rigid moving parts can be considered tools."

A rocket is not a machine that preformes a continuous mechanized action in reciprocation. It does not have a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism—nor does it have a piston-cylinder mechanism. It is internally combustable, but it is far from being an engine. InternetHero (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocket engines perform the work of accelerating the payload up to high speed. Reciprocation is not a necessary feature of internal combustion engines, for example, gas turbines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gas turbines aren't rockets. A rocket does not preform a mechanized action with rigid moving parts in continuous reciprocation. Other than fuel, doesn't have anything to do with reciprocating engines. InternetHero (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer the question: are gas turbines internal combustion engines?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We're just going to have to for a consensus. InternetHero (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just answer the question.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also potato cannons are as well. But I don't think we'll add it to the article ;-) see: [12]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gas turbines are gas turbines and rockets are rockets. The Chinese rockets were a military engine that didn't have a controlled device working with a machine to preform a controlled action. They're not closely related enough to fit with our Italian and Muslim friends. I know we can't reference Wikipedia, but look at the darn articles' definition: "the defining feature of an internal combustion engine is that useful work is performed by the expanding hot gases acting directly to cause movement of solid parts of the engine, by acting on pistons, rotors, or even by pressing on and moving the entire engine itself. I don't see an arguement here.InternetHero (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that rocket nozzle is considered to be part of a rocket engine. So any combustion-based rocket engine easily meets the definition, as the hot gases press on the inside of the nozzle and move the engine/vehicle, as well as pressing on the inside of the combustion chamber as well to create thrust there also. That's also essentially the technique used by ramjets and turbojets.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only emphasise that we need to stick to reliable sources and not try to engage in Original Research as to what things are and aren't. It's pretty clear that continuous combustion engines like these are considered internal combustion engines in the technical, rather than everyday, sense of the phrase. But all the encyclopedias I have found use the technical sense.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But the two technical references for the subject matter ignore rockets completely. My opinion is that the break is at gas turbines, since they can produce shaft horsepower. Encyclopaedias are not more authoritative than primary sources for those working in the field of interest. That's why encyclopaedias reference primary sources, not vice versa. Greg Locock (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're claiming that a Rolls Royce Olympus powering a ship is an internal combustion engine, but essentially the same engine installed in Concorde suddenly stops being that?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I said can, not always. The fact that gts are used as sources of suckage and blowage does not preclude them from being engines. See my slippery slope comment further up. Also, while Taylor does discuss gas turbines, he does not discuss ram jets or rockets. I realise that any line in the sand is arbitrary, but that is why it is an opinion not a fact. Hmm, I'll have a look at my thermo textbooks as well, they may have a better definition of internal combustion engine (I think engine is the sticking point in most people's minds), my IC books take common-sense as read.Greg Locock (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Without having read those books it seems likely to me that those particular books are probably limited in scope to intermittent combustion engines; the question is whether it's a good idea to limit the scope of this article in the same way. Given that this is the only article on 'internal combustion engines' in the wikipedia, and that there are others, or can be others on intermittent combustion engines, it seems to me to be a good idea to take the general definition.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are limited books. Limited to the field of interest.Greg Locock (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing isn't it? Encyclopedias try to encompass all knowledge, whereas books try to cover just a small piece. That's why encyclopedias frequently use more general definitions.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other articles such as 'jet engine' and 'steam engine' have taken quite broad definitions, and spun off the subarticles to cover the subsets; and that seems to be the choice taken by most other encyclopedias also; very notably the EB.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The references you used like the link to the Britannica website say that rockets are a type of internal combustion engine. I agree that it is a type of IC-engine, but it should belong to it's main category: the continuous combustion engine: [13]: [14]. Just because a rocket is similar to a gas turbine which "is" similar to an IC-engine, does not make a rocket similar to a IC-engine. There is two huge of a gap to fit in the category at hand. InternetHero (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Greg has a point if technical reviews ignore rockets that's a big deal. Wolf I think your point about potato cannons also is very important. After all any common fire arm meets the current definition of an internal combustion engine since there is nothing that precludes the oxidizer being chemically bound to the fuel as is the case with gun powder. If rockets are included then guns should logically be included. There certainly overlap in technology and development of ICE and the gun.

I'm actually not opposed, although I don't agree with your rocket logic, but I doubt you'll find many good references to guns being ICEs anyway, so it would probably violate NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is a spectrum that runs from a piston engine to a ramjet to a rocket but that doesn't mean lines don't get drawn someplace. While I differ to technical papers I think ICE implies some form of reciprocation and the related shaft comments. Wolf the same engine powering a ship or jet is still capable of producing shaft horsepower. In fact the shaft horsepower is very important to the concord otherwise it would be powered by a ramjet. A commercial ramjet would be pretty cool.

Ramjets can generate shaft horsepower as well, for example, they're used as tipjets on helicopters, which are normally done by gas turbines (shaft engine). Small turbojets have been used for that as well. Jets are not normally quoted for horsepower because the horsepower depends greatly on airspeed, but it is calculable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica definition referenced "thermodynamic cycle". What "cycle" governs rockets? With this information the ramjet, scram jet, and rocket are another beast since they never cycle. But wait the Britannica scripture also mentions nozzles.--OMCV (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramjet scramjet most definitely do cycle- they do the same cycle as turbojets which do the same cycle as gas turbines. Rankine cycle.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the definition we should be seeking here is in respect to the classifications of an industrial engine. I would agree that a ramjet is a mechanical engine, but I think a rocket is a military engine. The mechanics in both the rotary motion of the gas turbines and the reciprocation of the piston engines have to come into play here. I don't think the EB intended their readers to view rockets—or even turbines—in direct correlation to an IC-engine. I think a flow-chart would go like this: reciprocating: rotary: continuous combustion. The timeline might have to be severly expanded, removed, or even divised. InternetHero (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The use or application of a tool does not change a tools nature. The HUMMER is the same basic machine as a HMMWV. A spy satellite and weather satellite perform many of the same function might even be the same satellite. A rocket is not by definition a military engine, that would depend on its payload.--OMCV (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedian way is to 'embrace the controversy'. We clearly have multiple definitions of 'internal combustion engine', and they seem to be fairly major definitions, so we just have to include all of them in the article. That's the way it works here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sold. I don't think all of Wolf's arguments are up to snuff (neither are mine) but I think he's right that Rockets deserves some space. More importantly the "spectrum of engines" must have been discussed before in some text. If someone could find a reference of that discusses it would be great to add to the article. It would help people see the connection between a piston, wankel, turbine, ramjet...rocket.--OMCV (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been off researchng. Neither of my thermo books (Rogers and Mayhew, Spalding and Cole) states an opinion as to whether a rocket is an internal combustion engine. R&M discusses the thermodynamics of rockets, but, understandably from an engineers pov does not bother with a cycle definition. S&C doesn't discuss them at all. These are not definitive texts, they are university textbooks. In my opinion we have a taxonomical problem. The set "Internal Combustion Engines" as defined broadly also includes the subset "Internal Combustion Engines"... as used by those of us who design the things, which should more accurately be referred to as "internal combustion, with external sourced gaseous oxidiser, engine thingo which produces shaft power". I doubt the the latter terminology will catch on.Greg Locock (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't have an article for that (we don't have to call it that, but we can disambiguate it in the introduction, actually I think that's what Reciprocating engine is or could be (I think it currently includes steam pistons, that could be separated out if necessary.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar taxonomical problem with electric vehicles, the resolution of which has resulted in some snarkiness. So as a practical compromise how about a sentence like "Rockets that use fuels are also, strictly speaking, internal combustion engines, but their mode of operation, and history of development, is so far removed from that of conventional ICEs that they are treated under this heading". The latter linking to the rockets article? Greg Locock (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ghastly, and not accurate anyway. The first rockets were powered by gunpowder just like the first piston engines. And there's a common heritage between jet engines and ICEs via turbochargers, and from jet engines to rockets via turbopumps and nozzles and it's virtually the same theory of operation behind them. What are you going to do about all the other jet engines, ramjets, scramjets etc.??? There seems to be this attitude that *this* is the right article that is to talk only about piston engines. Where is that coming from? No, this should be the most general article, and the article specifically on piston engines elsewhere, the article on wankel engine elsewhere, the article on jet engine elsewhere, the article on gas turbine elsewhere etc. etc.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference with a turbine is that it has mechanical properties which produce a controlled action. A rocket is too innefficient and inaccurate to preform a controlled actoin that classifies the definition of a machine. I think we feel that the rocket is a device, and thats the problem here. InternetHero (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep talking such utter twaddle Interneters. You say it's not a 'controlled action'. Try telling that to the NASA guys that built and run the space shuttle, that thing takes off on rockets, and is controlled entirely by the rockets, the roll, pitch and yaw control is due to the rocket gimballing (those wings do almost nothing during takeoff), and they've got total control of everything. You say that the Space Shuttle Main Engine is not a machine? That's crazy talk!!!! You say that it's inefficient? What does that mean? If you look at Fuel efficiency in transportation there's a worked example showing that the Space Shuttle has an overall efficiency of 15% when it reaches orbit. That's not actually totally horrible. And it achieves that because at some parts of the flight it's net efficiency is about 60+%; in turn because rocket engines' cycle efficiency is actually twice as Carnot energy efficient as your car engine because they can use very high temperatures.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that you're the only one here that thinks it should be directly correlated to this article. Sorry, but I'm going to revert your citations now. Find some citations that have an author decribe the rocket as an inherent part of the IC-engine. InternetHero (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What matters is that I have 4 good references and those were just the ones I found in about 5 minutes with google. There's doubtless plenty more where they came from, and you've got none actually saying the opposite, there's some books that don't mention them at all, but that's all. The wikipedia works on reliable sources, and you haven't got any.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that you're the only one here that thinks it should be directly correlated to this article. Sorry, but I'm going to revert your citations now. Find some citations that have an author decribe the rocket as an inherent part of the IC-engine. InternetHero (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually support Wolf at this point and I think it was Greg who brought up the slippery slop that draws the spectrrum from piston to rocket. I think its very important to discuss that rockets are an extreme example of an ICE but they are an example. Like I said this section should be added and wolf should add it. The biggest problems with these timelines is that they assume a linear development when the reality is anything but. The timelines often include and suggest heredity when there is little, for example I don't buy there being much of a connection between alchemy and early chemistry an import distinctions made by Boyle. "Chemists" tossed most of the alchemists work and started from scratch. In addition while the role of Samuel Morland gun powder engine is an ICE its role in the development of ICEs is meaningless when compared to Thomas Newcomen's External Combustion Engine and other adavnces in external combustion engines.--OMCV (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in that Wolf should write a section in the use of rockets as an extreme example of the IC-engine, but the fact that I'm standing against is that the rocket doesn't have a placeholder for its "piston". In a rocket, there is no connecting rod, crankshaft, or cams to speak of. There is just a massive spark pug, and I think that it is too far removed from the timeline. Add the rocket it to the article or make sections for the timeline concept, but I think it's too far fetched to be read in correlation to Al-Jazari and Da Vinci's machines. InternetHero (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As Wolf has mentioned this article is not about piston engines only. How do you feel about a jet turbine engine or even the Wankel engine? The Mazda RX-7 has no connecting rods or cams. What sort of engine moves it? Al-Jazari never invented an ICE he only invent components that where further developed in External Combustion Engines (ECE) long before any working ICE was developed. Why is there nothing on ECEs in the timeline? The rocket has as much relevance to the ICE as any of the other items up to and including Alessandro Volta's toy pistol.--OMCV (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the rocket being involved in the timeline is for the fact that it doesn't have enough of a comparison to directly correlated with the article on equal terms. They are no primary sources connecting the two on this level, but rather a website that states the rocket as a "type" of IC-engine. Volta's mechanism pistol provides an example of an early type of piston-cylinder motion with the advent of a chemical reaction. A rocket is purely a chemical reaction that drives the device. There are no placeholders for the pistons, cylinders, or cranks of any kind; it has almost nothing to do with an IC-engine, but rather, its supporting category the continuous combustion engine does. InternetHero (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd just like to point out that people are using some weird terminology for references here. To clarify, we're unlikely to find primary references relating to the development of rockets in china in the 13th century. There are plenty of secondary sources covering it. EB is not a secondary source; it's a tertiary source. (See WP:PSTS)

With that out of the way, we should always prefer secondary sources. We can use primary sources for basic facts if we have to. We can use tertiary sources if secondary sources are lacking. We should always use secondary sources for synthesised claims.

Can we say rockets are a kind of ICE? Well, yes, they are. We have two good tertiary references for this basic (non-synthesised) claim, and others can be found with a quick Google search. Can we say (or imply) that early development of the rocket played a role in the development of the reciprocating ICE? Not without a secondary reference: that's a synthesised claim.

I suspect the solution to this dispute may be more complex than deciding if rockets are ICEs, or if their development should be included in the timeline. I'm going to start a new section below to discuss a rather drastic proposal in a few minutes. -- Mark Chovain 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Should the timeline be?

1) Removed.

2) Divided into a three sections: Re, Ro, and Cont Comb.

3) Unedited.

4) Expanded to encompass rockets, jets, or possibly military projectiles.

• Unedited: I feel the rocket should be edited in the Jet engines article. InternetHero (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I find your suggestion 2 intriguing, but wrong. We need a multidimensional taxonomy. Classifications in this matrix would include creates shaft horsepower vs thrust, external gaseous oxidiser vs internal, intermittent combustion at a given location vs continuous, piston vs rotation vs nozzle (plus gray area). And so on - any attempt to render this down to a linear hierarchy is doomed (well unless you just do it by date which imposes no useful structure). The actual family tree is pretty obvious to the non zealots, rockets had an independent timeline to the rest of the field. Greg Locock (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just not true, rockets and jet power are intimately related, most liquid rockets have gas turbine engines in them to pump the propellant into the chamber, and that pump is actually the hardest bit of the whole rocket. Engines like the NK-33 were made by the same companies that made the turbojet and turbofan engines in Russia, and Pratt and Whitney and Boeing are the equivalent in America. And turbochargers tie the whole lot together, the first jet engines were turbocharged piston engines. There really is a common heritage centered at the gas turbine.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename

What's with the rename? Not many people seem to use the hyphen.[15] I'm going to move it back in a couple of hours if there's no reasonable explanation. -- Mark Chovain 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is a compound adjective. ("Internal" describes "combustion", and together they describe "engine". Otherwise, without the hyphen, "internal" describes "engine", which is incorrect.) Most people don't use it, but that's just poor grammar (or punctuation, depending how you look at it).  –radiojon (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a compund adjective, but I think a clear definition to the readers would be just as helpful—if not more. Especially when they're using the search function.InternetHero (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well one way or another everyone concerned with this article appears to have gone temporarily insane. Find a single reference to Internaldashcombustion engines in the literature and I would concede that you have a point, but the terminology as used by those of us who design them is Internal Combustion Engine. here is a website, as used by people who design them.

http://www.sae.org/servlets/SiteSearch?charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=&col=portal&qs=&sae_qt1=&qc=&pw=100%2525&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=25&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=1&ql=&jsp_name=simplesearch.jsp&qt=internal+bustion&ofType=ALL

Not a hyphen to be seen. Well I'm going to unwatch this page for the time being, and get drunk.Greg Locock (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:UCN, which asks, "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Clearly, people designing them use the (albeit, poor punctualtion/syntax) non-hyphenated version, as do academics, and laypersons. Language changes in time. I'm moving it back. -- Mark Chovain 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Novel proposal: Split the page

Could we resolve the rocket, jet, RICE problem by splitting the article?

Definitions of the ICE seem to include jets and rockets (Where an ICE is a device with a combustion chamber, where mechanical work is performed by gases expanding as a direct result of combustion). Most of this article applies to a specific kind of engine: the Reciprocating internal combustion engine. This may require some merging with bits of Reciprocating engine and Pistonless rotary engine, but we've got major duplication with Reciprocating engine here already.

We could include common stuff in here, such as a definition, efficiency, pollution, some information on classification, and links to the sub articles. History and timelines would belong in the sub-articles. What are people's thoughts? -- Mark Chovain 06:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's actually a good idea. I think the article has that now as it is unofficially divided into those 3 sections by the classification tab, but if you guys can find the extra information to expand the limited editions found here, I would try and help with my citys' library. InternetHero (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was doing anyway. In practice it means that this article ends up with perhaps a bit more jet and turbine stuff, and some of the intermittent combustion stuff will probably get sucked out into piston engine or whatever. But the piston/rotary engine should still be most of the article for notability reasons. The article isn't all that big at the moment anyway.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another way to split the page, which differs from the proposal above only in article naming, would be to create . The implication of this name is that there are several concepts for which the phrase "internal combustion engine" are used (rightly or wrongly). The main Internal combustion engine article would cover the primary (usually most technically accurate) use of the phrase, and provide a link early on to the other article, which would cover the meaning which is frequently but less precisely used.... (sdsds - talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we already have that page at .- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So would it make sense for Internal combustion engine (reciprocating) to be a redirect to Reciprocating engine? Not really, because a Stirling engine is an external combustion reciprocating engine, isn't it? (sdsds - talk) 05:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but ultimately, so what? It doesn't stop you putting anything you want in that article on reciprocating engines. Only if it doesn't all fit should you divide it down, and that article is pretty small right now. You can think of the wikipedia as being like a bunch of Venn Diagrams, each article encircles a particular part of knowledge space. If the circle is too full, then you have to produce a subarticle.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition and scope

There's always a million different definitions on anything, and we have to chose one, and the article has to cover that definition. So the scope and defintion are ever so intimately related.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the result of the scope section was that rockets/ramjets/turbojets/gas turbines/wankel engines/internal combustion piston engines are all classed as internal combustion engines.

The definition therefore has to cover those, without having any extra features that not all internal combustion engines have, while being as precise as possible and thus not mentioning features that non internal combustion engines have as well.

Given that, for example, gas turbine or Wankel engines don't have cranks, I don't think that that should be in the definition at all (particularly since most steam engines *do* have cranks); so these features can't be any significant part of the definition. Sure, numerically, a lot or even most, IC engines have them, but that's not what makes it an IC engine or not, it's an important, but not key feature.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply stated, you're wrong my friend. This must be a joke... WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary:

"Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well."

This is why I'm copy/pasting my arguements. You simply present simple arguements that have no wide scope of worth and when I refute them, you proceed with the other contingencies. I am NOT going to post this sentence again. I hope you don't revert my edit, but if you do so I hope you don't violate the rules. Sincerely, InternetHero. InternetHero (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no excuse for your behaviour.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The writings below represent my argument. I have nothing else I can say. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary:

Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well.

[16]:

Definitions are too narrow if they exclude some things that they should apply to; they fail to describe some members of the word's extension. Here is an example of a narrow definition: 'piece of furniture' means 'object used to sit on'. Of course, some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for example, we put objects on them (like tables) or in them (like a chest of drawers) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth. So even though some pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not all furniture is. We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like 'used to put feet up on' or 'used to put household objects on', for example. That would make the extension of the definition bigger — that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word 'furniture' to describe. We might also choose to entirely rewrite the definition, since "laundry lists" of seemingly disparate characteristics strung together by 'or' are probably not truly describing a single concept.

I have a life away from Wikipedia so the ip address used was from my friends house. Why do I keep pasting? Because you keep changing your stance when I refute your arguements. You have no sources to back your position, and the sources in the article disagree with you. - WolfK

Your own reference states it:

The most common internal-combustion engine is the four-stroke, gasoline-powered, homogeneous-charge, spark-ignition engine. This is because of its outstanding performance as a prime mover in the ground transportation industry.

[17] InternetHero (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well 'InternetHero' (sic) if what you are saying was correct, you wouldn't have to copy-paste the same thing multiple times; and it doesn't even mean what you think it means. This is what 5th or 6th time? We're not stupid. You're the one edit warring, not me, and this is just further evidence. I didn't revert the article, UB65 did. I certainly didn't ask him to. I personally think that your edit is as substandard as your manners on the talk page, and in your subject lines, but I'm perfectly preferred to leave it to others to revert or leave as they want.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add the crank, connecting rod, and cam to the summary. Anyway, I have an established secondary reference.

"He added several mechanical and hydraulic devices. The impact of these inventions can be seen in the later designing of steam engines and internal combustion engines, paving the way for automatic control and other modern machinery."

^^^ --- Donald Routledge Hill (1998). Studies in Medieval Islamic Technology II, (1st paragraph) p. 232

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. --- Wikipedia

Anyway, I can't see how he would not be talking about the crank, con rod, and cam. There is no other possible applications to be analysed. What do you guys think? I seriously just think those mechanisms should be added to the summary. InternetHero (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is purely and simply undue weight. Why are you including crankshafts? It didn't even have a section of its own until I added it well after all this started- so you clearly weren't summarising the article. Why not carburettor? Why not flywheel? Why not engine control unit? Why not ignition system? Why not starter systems? Why not the valves themselves? Why mention that the motion of these is important (sic) when the turning of the drive shaft, which is the whole purpose of a shaft engine such as a piston engine is clearly the most important point of all?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The source you have provided talks about inventions that were made hundreds of years before it was used on internal combustion engines, is not present on a large number of combustion engines and is not even particularly well described in the article, and is not part of the definition of an internal combustion engine.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In short, your edit is bad, you're being offensive in subject lines, you're making obscene numbers of substantive edits with the minor flag, and you are simply edit warring, here, as elsewhere.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why are you following me to the telescope article? I'm not edit-warring since the last time you reverted my edit, 2 other editors reverted yours. Then all of a sudden you change it in mid-sequence of another series of edit (that were very valuable). I am merely trying to add some information, but down the line people take offence of my superior grammar or arguements (indeed, most of the time I have a reference which makes it easy)... Why do you hate me? I did NOTHING to you. InternetHero (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One last time, this particular edit is poor. I am removing it because it is inconsistent, illogical and unncecessary. It might be perfectly acceptable elsewhere in the article, but it summarises the article very poorly.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Look here (1st paragraph).

The lead section, lead, or introduction (also lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the articles' topic.

I could say the same for your edit seeing that it is completely unreferenced. Regardless of that undue course, I offer this course. We shouldn't disreagard peoples' contributions. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic here is internal combustion engine, not piston engine. In any case, I helped write precisely that exact bit of the guideline, but perhaps you should paste it here a few more times in case somebody thinks your paste is broken, you haven't done that in a few days now.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who owns this article?

Why is a much-cleaned up version created by me and supported by Discospinster and Epbr123 being reverted by Wolfkeeper - have I stepped on someone's toes, does he own this article? Why's he fighting to include clumsy wording about "exothermic reaction" and "oxidiser" (ie air - are there any internal combustion engines not using air?)? If I understand the rules correctly, we're both entitled, on a first offense, to carry out 3 reverts - in which case, I have one in hand over him - am I being challenged to months of edit-warring, simply to discover which of us is the most determined? Do I have to play this game or do some people have a lot more time to waste than me? TomRawlinson (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't. And actually, no, there is no entitlement to 3, that's just what you normally get away with, they can block you on the first edit. I don't claim or own anything. You're the one that's claiming that you have the one-true definition, and asking why aren't we glad you're here at last??? ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I observe that you appear to be trying to edit war right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

gunpowder starters

• Black or smokeless gunpowder has been used in diesel engine starters to deploy or jettison equipment remotely, and by Alphonse Pénaud in pioneering model aircraft.
  

never seen after huygens in 1600. it did not work Wdl1961 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In 1673,Huygens carried out experiments with internal combustion. Although he designed a basic form of internal combustion engine, fueled by gunpowder, he never successfully built one.Wdl1961 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

80% energy loss

It should be noted in the article that a IC engine has 80% energy loss due to heat loss. potentially, this 80% could be recovered by - a stirling engine is incorporated alongside the engine (in a hybrid system); the whole would be bit like a Micro combined heat and power system with the exeption that it would use a high energy fuel (eg butanol, or hydrogen peroxide (68%) mixed with ethanol, ... and that it would only generate electricity (no heat) as an endproduct. This combination is especially useful for vehicles requiring allot of power in a small package (eg personal air vehicles). The ICE-engine used would be a quasiturbine (less primary energy losses) or another (special) engine which is focused on burning the liquid and not exploding it (as the energy from the explosion alone would no longer be used) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.136.125 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Five Stroke Cycle?

There seems to be a section in the article about a "five stroke cycle" that adds "refrigeration" to the four stroke cycle... the citation is a book that doesnt seem to involve engines at all... i couldnt find anything online about this "five stroke cycle"... does anyone have any knowledge about this? delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30mph (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - there are millions of variations of engine types, alone, we add only confusion by trying to include exceptionally rare and/or useless ideas like this one. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ICE fuel conversion

I suggest making an article about ICE fuel conversions. Especially ethanol and hydrogen internal combustion conversions should be discussed. The energy output (range) with Hydrogen ICE can probably be increased with the energy recovery (Stirling idea) above (80% energy loss)

I suggest linking the page with a {{See| tag under "Fuels" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.45 (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1962 PLYMOUTH ENGINES

I AM INTERESTED INKNOWING WHEN THE 383 CUBIC ENGINE BECAME AVAILABLE IN THE PLYMOUTH FURY - I OWNED A 1962 PLYMOUTH SPORT FURY AND THERE WAS NOT THE OPTIONOF THE 383 WHEN I OWNED THE CAR - I HAVE LATER SEEN SOME 1962 PLYMOUTHS WITH THE 383, BUT NOT DURING THE YEARS 1962 TO 1964 IN A 1962 PLYMOUTH. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CLARIFY THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.239.230 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IC Engines & EC engines - comparison

After nominating this for prod, the user agreed to it and was wondering if it would be possible (and hence if it is even suitable) to include the table present on that page somewhere within this article (or the external combustion engine article). Any thoughts would be appreciated.Calaka (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. The table is incomplete . needs comparison in fuel usage and more. Wdl1961 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening image

The caption for the first image in this article read 'An automobile engine partly opened and colored to show components' but it shows the front of an engine with some colored parts in their normal color except for the anodized TRD block-off-plate/cover, there is nothing opened at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.160.207 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

two stroke direct injection is commercially available and should not be labeled as a research subject

I mean research always continues, but right now the text make it sound like direct injection is some high in the clouds technology. It seems to me that more 2 strokes are equipped with direct injection than 4 strokes because of synergy. Source: Mariner Outboard engines. -- Arnero (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References please. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

there are two ways to increase an engines' capacity.

quote removed text "Apart from designing an engine with more cylinders, there are two ways to increase an engines' capacity. The first is to lengthen the stroke: the second is to increase the pistons' diameter (See also: Stroke ratio). In either case, it may be necessary to make further adjustments to the fuel intake of the engine to ensure optimum performance."

increase of stroke will not increase power due to limit on piston speed lubrication of 33 ft /sec.Wdl1961 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Header image

Perhaps a 3D image similar to the image at http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=105706&v=discovery&ecid=PRF-TV1-100281&pa=PRF-TV1-100281 could be placed at the top of the article ? Perhaps that a 3D cad-file could be linked in the image description aswell. 91.180.227.45 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

5-Stroke engine

Images of actual ILMOR engine and of the related and preceding patents can be seen by searching in Google or entering the patent offices databases, but I don't know how to make a link or download images, even more whose copyright I'm not fully sure that is free

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Internal combustion engine/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.

* article is uneven needs more information on valves needs more information on air inlets, manifolds and forced induction needs more information on exhausts mufflers and catalytic converters probably needs a bit more generality all round - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)