AdrianAbel
I've removed "All of the pistons moved in the same direction at the same time thus yielding a perfect balance", Irving p.284/285 because it appears not to make sense. If (as sometimes happens) the sentence in the book is unclear could you tell us what it actually says? (If there's a lot of it, you could photograph pages and share them) Regards, MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The exact words of the author Phil Irving are: "Many years ago, Dr. Lancaster propounded the theory that a reciprocating weight could be balanced by two weights rotating in opposite directions, and this system was used for some time in the "Valveless" car, which has two crankshafts geared together and operating pistons which moved in unison." Further quotations from the same book: "With the shafts rotating in opposite directions, it becomes possible to counterweight each shaft by 100 per cent. of the reciprocating weight, because at the mid-points the unwanted horizontal force which makes this amount of counterweighting impracticable with a single is exactly balanced by a similar force from the other shaft. Consequently, the running is extremely smooth, although the effort is achieved at the expense of increasing the average main-bearing loading somewhat."
- "Sketch on the left shows the basic layout of the Brough Superior "Golden Dream", with four h.o. pistons coupled to two single-throw geared crankshafts."
- Didn't you have a chance to check the first reference? Try looking up Brough Superior Golden Dream in the literature or in Wikipedia. To exclude this revolutionary motor from Wikipedia would be a big loss. AdrianAbel (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Other Engineers also have trouble understanding this motor at least at first. (One never managed it.) But it is an engineering masterpiece. The last world war is one reason given for its not succeeding. But I think the designer, George Brough, just wasn't interested in pursuing it on a large scale. He built motorcycles practically by hand for a handful of his elite customers. He never attempted to establish it in the USA, for instance.
- However, it deserves its place in Wikipedia. To help make it easier to understand I would be happy to contribute a drawing, though I'm not sure exactly where it should best appear. A further reference is "Classic Motorcycles" by Vic Willoughby page 96. ISBN: 0863630057. Amazon still offers a few, a used one for under 10 euros. AdrianAbel (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- This machine undoubtedly deserves documenting within the project, but it degrades the article to include what was virtually a prototype. There must be dozens of flat engine designs that never got far past the drawing board. If it is widely regarded as a flat engine (is it? I'd not have thought so) then it needs mention as a "See Also". This enables visitors to do a search on "Brough" and be led to its own article (and/or a section within an article on alternative flat? engine designs). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- It adheres to the current definition of a flat engine. Perhaps the definition should be revised. George Brough himself described it a "flat vertical" engine. According to reports five had been manufactured before production was interrupted by the war. I've moved my contribution to the article over the Brough Superior Golden Dream. AdrianAbel (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see WP:RS on the current definition of a flat engine, I'm pretty sure it should read "multiple pistons that all move in the same horizontal plane" (I'm almost tempted to change the definition without further discussion). Few people would immediately recognise an "H" engine as flat (even if George liked the marketing cachet of calling it "flat vertical") and I'm surprised anyone really wants it subsumed into that article, where it tends to confuse and look out of place. George Brough is one of the truly great names of motorcycles, his reputation is not enhanced by a comparison with Volkswagen. Lastly, I think it's a dangerous precedent to say that a run of 5 units is "production". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a unique definition. In Internet I found the requirement "pistons parallel to the ground." This also includes the H-engine. I think I would leave the definition the way it is and just add the comment "Although an H engine fits this definition they are treated at length elsewhere in Wikipedia. AdrianAbel (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- My check of the internet reveals "flat engines have a low centre of gravity" and other statements that do not seem to apply to the H-engine (which I didn't see mentioned). The fact that some people think the H-engine is flat probably is good enough reason to provide links to the articles. But I don't think it's good enough reason to include them in the same article as "real" flat engines, and I'm very tempted to change the definition. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Malcolm: Changing the definition could lead to more problems than it cures. A definition is like a fundament on which we build. In some areas like mathematics it’s utmost crucial. Even a minor change could cause the building to collapse.
- In the area of engines a change of definition could lead to dire consequences. The term “Flat Engine”, for instance, has been used in patent disclosures for a long time and in some disclosures it is used in the claims. If a dispute should occur Wikipedia could be held responsible. A similar situation occurred to me two years ago when the definition of a piston was changed. Relying on the old definition I had used this term in a disclosure. Complaints to the author brought nothing. Luckily I had the opportunity to revise it before submission.
- I doubt that anyone would complain by just supplementing the existing definition with the sentence I suggested or something similar. AdrianAbel (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll go with that. Add "Although an H engine fits this definition they are treated at length elsewhere in Wikipedia." MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- My check of the internet reveals "flat engines have a low centre of gravity" and other statements that do not seem to apply to the H-engine (which I didn't see mentioned). The fact that some people think the H-engine is flat probably is good enough reason to provide links to the articles. But I don't think it's good enough reason to include them in the same article as "real" flat engines, and I'm very tempted to change the definition. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a unique definition. In Internet I found the requirement "pistons parallel to the ground." This also includes the H-engine. I think I would leave the definition the way it is and just add the comment "Although an H engine fits this definition they are treated at length elsewhere in Wikipedia. AdrianAbel (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see WP:RS on the current definition of a flat engine, I'm pretty sure it should read "multiple pistons that all move in the same horizontal plane" (I'm almost tempted to change the definition without further discussion). Few people would immediately recognise an "H" engine as flat (even if George liked the marketing cachet of calling it "flat vertical") and I'm surprised anyone really wants it subsumed into that article, where it tends to confuse and look out of place. George Brough is one of the truly great names of motorcycles, his reputation is not enhanced by a comparison with Volkswagen. Lastly, I think it's a dangerous precedent to say that a run of 5 units is "production". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- It adheres to the current definition of a flat engine. Perhaps the definition should be revised. George Brough himself described it a "flat vertical" engine. According to reports five had been manufactured before production was interrupted by the war. I've moved my contribution to the article over the Brough Superior Golden Dream. AdrianAbel (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- This machine undoubtedly deserves documenting within the project, but it degrades the article to include what was virtually a prototype. There must be dozens of flat engine designs that never got far past the drawing board. If it is widely regarded as a flat engine (is it? I'd not have thought so) then it needs mention as a "See Also". This enables visitors to do a search on "Brough" and be led to its own article (and/or a section within an article on alternative flat? engine designs). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
editI invite you to read my comment (No. 48) to "Faraday's Law of Induction." Mike La Moreaux (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The file File:Brough0.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused static GIF. Essentially a drawing of File:H-engine.gif, which can be used to explain the engine more comprehensively.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Brough45.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused static GIF. Essentially a drawing of File:H-engine.gif, which can be used to explain the engine more comprehensively.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Brough90.GIF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused static GIF. Essentially a drawing of File:H-engine.gif, which can be used to explain the engine more comprehensively.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
