![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
My edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Internal_combustion_engine&oldid=375532492 was reverted. Although it's perhaps indeed best not to use the "ICE term" too much, the article is still quite unclear without the edit. This as "Four stroke configuration" is not different enough from engine configuration, and it also seems to be a subsection under engine configuration, which is totally incorrect (they are 2 different things). I also think that, since we have "Four stroke configuration" and "Two stroke configuration" and again 2 similar sections called "Two-stroke" and "Four-stroke" under engine cycle, 2 sections are best removed entirely. Instead divide the information of these sections over the article, and other (seperate) articles. I'll leave it to you to fix it on the manner you seem fit. KVDP ( talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
i have a 1991 harley ,the probleme is when you throttle it it dies does anyone know what could be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.245.57 ( talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
TEJJ IC ENGINE (CONSTANT TORQUE RECEPROCATING IC ENGINE)
In all IC engines built so far, the reciprocating motion of the connecting rod is converted in to rotary motion for wheel through crankshaft. This was most appropriate technology when the engine was invented. However, with continuously rising fuel prices around the world, many attempts are being made for improving engine efficiency.
I have studied existing technology in detail & have found out following disadvantages with existing system.
DISADVANTAGES IN EXISTING SYSTEM
1. The torque generated is always in a sine wave form.
2. Although, fuel combustion exerts tremendous force on piston from TDC to BDC (can be considered constant for any particular power stroke); all of it is never converted in to desired torque. When piston is near TDC or BDC, the force is wasted in compressing / stretching crankshaft radial arms towards / away from crankshaft bearings. Due to this repetitive cyclic force, crankcase is required to be designed adequately strong & robust for bearing non converted force from Pistons.
3. Due to sine wave nature of torque conversion, maximum torque is available ONLY AT CRANKSHAFT ROTATION AT MULTIPLES OF 90 degree. For all other times, the torque available is LESS THAN MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.
4. For a 4 cylinder engine with cranks placed at 90 degree apart & firing order 1,3,2,4; cylinder 1 (say) has power stroke from 0 degree to 180 degree of crankshaft rotation; then other cylinders will fire as under (ALL NUMBERS REFER TO DEGREES OF ROTATION OF CRANKSHAFT FROM DEAD START 0 POSITION)
• Cylinder 1: 0 to 180. • Cylinder 3: 180 to 360. • Cylinder 2: 270 to 450. • Cylinder 4: 450 to 630.
For cylinder 1, next power stroke starts at 720 degree only & hence it can be seen that from 630 deg. to 720 deg., there is no power available in any of the cylinders. Engine has to cross this zone only by means of inertia of the over all system.
Considering all these disadvantages, I have developed a new concept in IC Engine, which WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF ABOVE DISADVANTAGES.
I have named it TEJJ IC ENGINE having following advantages:
ADVANTAGES OF TEJJ IC ENGINE
1. This Engine WILL PRODUCE CONSTANT TORQUE OVER ALL POSITIONS OF CRANKSHAFT ROTATION. Torque wave will be a rectangular one. 2. The torque will be comparable to that of ELECTRIC MOTOR. 3. As no force from piston will be wasted in exerting undue force on crankshaft bearings, crankcase design can be made relatively lighter. 4. Torque available will be EQUAL TO MAXIMUM POSSIBLE TORQUE of existing sine wave torque at 90 degree multiples. 5. This engine can be easily made in existing plants since It is only addition / modification of components & rearrangement of existing engine using ALREADY PROVEN COMPONENTS ELSE WHERE. 6. No new technology yet to be tasted is used for this invention. 7. Work done PER POWER STROKE of ENGINE WILL BE ALMOST 55% HIGHER THAN THAT IN AN EXISTING SINE WAVE IC ENGINE. 8. This will lead to TREMENDOUS INCREASE OF ENGINE EFFICIENCY / MILAGE FROM VEHICLE. 9. This Engine can be used for all IC engine applications as at present.
IN CASE ANY INDIVIDUAL / INSTITUTE / MANUFACTURER IS READY FOR SPONCERING DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTOTYPE OF THIS NEW ENGINE; KINDLY CONTACT ME ON MOBILE NUMBER 919424140739 OR E-MAIL rp_naik@in.com. I assure that concept is fully ready with drawings, animated presentations etc & only shop floor designing / manufacturing is remaining.
PLEASE SEE http://www.scribd.com/doc/49011286/TEJJ-IC-ENGINE-Constant-Torque-IC-Engine FOR MORE INFORMATION. Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 11:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Andy:Every man made reality in this world was at one time in the form of IDEA only. If as an encyclopedia, you can not include this type of contents, then can we not start a new section named "IDEAS" in wikipedia? The main point here is that with wide acceptability of wikipedia; the interested users will get good & relevant ideas from "wiki". Due to its easy searchability on any topic in the world; this site is really very good reference point. We are already carrying out discussions on "EVERY THING IN THE WORLD" THEN WHY CAN IT NOT BE EXTENDED TO IDEAS? My writing may be seen as self propogation if viewed accordingly; however, the main point here is that RIGHT SINCE IC ENGINES INVENTION; NO ONE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE LIMITATIONS WHICH I HAVE RESEARCHED & have almost achieved a feat considered IMPOSSIBLE for generations. I only want that through this site, if this idea gets some momentum; we shall proceed towards healthy environment & LOTS OF CARBON CREDITS ALSO CAN BE GOT BY INTERESTED MANUFACTURERS. Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 07:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A Quasiturbine has a four face articulated rotor that rotates inside a quasi-oval shaped chamber, as with the wankel the four phases take place in separate locations but differs in that a complete revolution of the output shaft is a complete four stroke cycle.
It may well have these, if it's ever built. It's just an idea at present, and doesn't belong in this article. Andrewa 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Also mention the Di Pietro motor; this can also work as a internal combustion engine, although it's mostly a compressed air engine.
81.242.234.248 ( talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Capture2.JPG, has been deleted from
Wikimedia Commons by
Jcb for the following reason: Per
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capture2.JPG
|
A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to
search for new images to replace the old one.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotification ( talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
The article had "The first internal combustion engine was created by Étienne Lenoir" and was backed up by a reference in the Encyclopaedia Britianica. IIIraute removed it (twice) with the edit comment "we do not use the content of another encyclopedia for reference". In the interest of avoiding an edit war that continuously toggles between two opposing viewpoints, I invite a discussion here. Stepho talk 04:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[8] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[9]
Is that last sentence really relevant in an article about ICEs? Ordinary Person ( talk) 13:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to inventions , single objects with multiple aspects that each can rightfully claim being invented by a person of a single country are being credited for it. For example the telephone , which has the tags : [Category:American inventions] [Category:Canadian inventions] [Category:Italian inventions] [Category:Scottish inventions] If unclear go visit the entry for it. 83.101.79.45 ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I took out the 5-stroke engine section because it seemed to be advertising, and because it was unreferenced to any reliable sources. Teapeat ( talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an unmentioned assumption that a tiny amount of fuel (expensive) is used with a large amount of air (normally free). Something ought to be said about this. It's also interesting to note that the situation would be flipped around for a motor boat travelling in the Lakes_of_Titan, which are mostly Ethane. 208.118.25.22 ( talk) 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like for the reactants and products to be added, along with the initial and ending form of energy. Thanks! - Meapyeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.123.108 ( talk) 04:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been unable to reduce the size of letters in the heading of 'five stroke engines' to a size equalling the rest in the article, hope somebody's knowing the way to do this, and willing to give a helping hand. Thanks. Salut †-- Jgrosay ( talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Each '=' in the section title takes it down a level. Also affects numbering and the table of contents.
Stepho
talk
19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Andy.
I just changed some lines in the page "Internal combustion engine". According to my own calculations and a refference website, the efficiency of a diesel engine can be over 60%. Why is there written on the page that is is only 20%?
My calculation: I have a 1 kW diesel generator that uses 0,35 liter/hour. In other units, it uses 0,35 liter/hour to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. With an energy value of diesel of 17,447 MJ/liter, 6,106 MJ of diesel is needed to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. This makes an efficiency of 59%.
The website: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/goldenstein2/
Ruudburger ( talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice article with lots of information. Whomever owns this article may want to incorporate these two bits of info.
Something peculiar here. I didn't start this section, just added the observation about engines which rotate widdershins. Which I signed. I have no idea who put it the original section or when. Mr Larrington ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Basically, this is a good article but for non-expert readers the explanations are not very clear. Particularly confusing is the compression stroke.
I think it's obvious that when the spark ignites the gases expand and the piston moves down, but it's not at all obvious what makes the piston move up. Could some explain this clearly? Macgroover ( talk) 02:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I note some recent work by Mario Castelán Castro (here and elsewhere), and thanks for that.
Should the main push to "explain the car engine" (clearly a vital topic for engineering in any technical encyclopedia) be made here, or at internal combustion piston engine? (currently a redirect here). We need a vital article on such engines: not the obscure outliers, but a straightforward answer to the question, "How does a car engine work?" Yet we also have the accuracy and scope problem of encylopedias. Such an article under that title needs to cover jets, rockets and the Brayton cycle too. Yet to be clear on the car engine article, we should keep it focussed. We have to mention and link to other forms of IC engine, but we shouldn't spend time explaining them there, or even cover them visibly such that readers looking for "car engine" might be confused.
Do we even need a simple article at car engine that describes how car engines work and is narrowly focussed on answering that specific question? It wouldn't be huge effort to write, as most of it could be culled from pre-existing material, and the hardest part would be defining the editorial scope and maintaining that.
Suggestions? Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.
Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832
Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.
A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.
This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 ( talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.
Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832
Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.
A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.
This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 ( talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Bender235: Regarding your recent edit and insistence, I must note that:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)Regards. Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
50 %
, it adds a
non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %
. All this does is preventing an accidental line break with 50
on one line and %
on the next one. The fact that you reverted this change referring to an "international standard" according to which there has to be a space between the number and the percentage sign signaled to me that you clearly did not understand what
does. It does not remove a space, it only makes it "non-breakable". And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow. --
bender235 (
talk)
16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)50 %
, it adds a
non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %
.”50 %
to 50 %
), but instead it changed 50 %
to 50%
. Maybe (just maybe) the problem arose because it does what you said in other cases, but not in this one; however, if that is the case, you still bear full responsibility for it.MOS:PERCENT says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
Which I interpret as "don't change unless there is agreement". There is no agreement here (yet), so there should be no changes. Ie, it should remain as spaced (which, in this case, includes no-break-space) until there is agreement to change it.
Personally I don't care which way it goes but flipping back and forth cheeses me off. Stepho talk 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a paragraph under types of 2-stroke engines, specifically blower scavenged, that makes a grandiose claim which I can't find any supporting documentation for within the citations, and I suggest the claim be deleted. For one, isn't the most fuel/thermal efficient ICE above 80%? Here's the paragraph with the claim with questionable supporting citations inline on the article: "An example of this type of engine is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged 2-stroke Diesel, used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with a thermal efficiency over 50%.[7][8][9][10] For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke engines are around 43% thermally-efficient (SAE 900648);[citation needed] size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area." Typenolies ( talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The text says, 'Notably, the combustion takes place at constant pressure, rather than with the Otto cycle, constant volume." But the piston engine does not operate with constant volume (moving piston changes the size of the combustion space) and the gas turbine does not operate at constant pressure (the compressor raises the pressure and the burning fuel further increases the pressure). Perhaps an expert can reword this so that it does not appear to be contradictory. CPES ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Further regarding the Brayton Cycle, is it appropriate to apply the effects of thrust as output of the exhaust stage, given that it wasn't initially designed for such? Typenolies ( talk) 06:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Digitallymade: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed some problems with the changes you made ( Special:Diff/728194728/728986205) and I further edited the article to address them. A description of my changes follows.
Note that I am not a “reviewer” or similar. I am an editor who is interested in this topic and I am interested in keeping this article readable. This article assumed its current form when I reorganized and partially rewrote it around October 2014.
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 02:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC).
To OnBeyondZebrax: Hello. I reverted your recent changes for 2 reasons:
I discourage editing under the label of “copyediting” that merely shuffles words plus a minor rewording without either providing more factual information or arranging it in a way that is an obvious improvement (e.g.: it is evidently much more clear or deletes obviously redundant statements). In other words, I discourage rephrasing done only for the taste the editor that does it.
I noticed that you added some information apart from the “copyediting” (e.g.: the part that goes “Most countries and jurisdictions require that vehicle engines be fitted with mufflers [...]”). Free feel to add information to the article, subject to consensus and WP:BRD. But please try to include appropriate references and avoid vague language like “Most countries require” (which countries require that?).
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC). Hi,
Your statement that the "History" section should remain empty appears to be contrary to the editing guideline set out at WP:Summary style. This editing guideline states that:
Wikipedia's editing guidelines state that an article should contain "summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections", even if this leads to duplication between the two articles.
Many articles have one and two sentence paragraphs. This occurs because many editors are working on articles, and people add a sentence, and they may not link the sentence into a paragraph. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." (see MOS:Paragraphs. To cite just one university website on paragraph length, Purdue University states that writers shoud "[a]im for three to five or more sentences per paragraph." Of course there are differing views on how many sentences a paragraphs should contain. But I agree with the Purdue University recommendation.
Under WP:BRD, if I make a change to an article by copyediting, and the change is accepted by other editors, then it seems that the other editors agree that the change was OK. Feel free to point me to a policy page or guideline which sets out a restrictive policy on copyediting. I will be happy to read it and change my ways if such a policy exists. Thanks for your ideas and suggestions. :) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe we should consider the integration of clickable names to article pages using the following template: Template:Annotated image 4
See the Piston, Spark plug, and additional integrated links below, which can be done for all the rest!
Code:
![]() |
Twillisjr ( talk) 17:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=File:Thermal_power_plant_of_Shazand.JPG
I'm 99% certain that this is not a combined cycle power plant.
The white buildings on the left of the picture are four gas- or oil-fired boilers. They supply steam to four 325 MW turbines.
See, for example, http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006evia/papers/516-199.pdf
If Shazand is a Rankine-cycle plant, the picture does not belong in this article.
109.145.107.191 ( talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my English but this page completely miss the Barsanti-Matteuci engine the first modern ICE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.233.42 ( talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a hatnote at the top of the page stating that "ICEV" redirects here, but nowhere on the page can I find an explanation for what it means, or why it redirects here. What is it? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://195.99.1.70/si/si2002/20021808.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello y'all, just wandering through noticed that there is no reference to the Pyréolophore invented by the Niépce brothers. The Pyréolophore and Joseph Niépce articles claim that it is the 'world's first internal combustion engine.' I have also seen reference to it as the first actually constructed internal combustion engine. Wanted to see if anyone has references to rectify the discrepancy in these articles. I amnotted ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
While doing my initial read through the article, I noted that the acronyms "SI" and "CI" (Spark and Compression Ignition respectively) are used several times before they are defined in the ignition subsection. It confused me, but I am familiar with the terms and guessed it and used a search to find them defined in the article. The issue is apparent when considering other readers less/not familiar with the terms and those who are not as computer savvy. I will put this on the talk for a little bit while I do some research because the MoS page for acronyms didn't cover a situation like this exactly. However, the MoS states that anytime a non-widely used acronym is used in a page, it should be written out and put in parenthesis the first time it is used. My confusion is that the MoS covers that an acronym should be defined in its first use, however in this article the terms are not defined fully until the ignition subsection. The MoS mentioned for uses with small space (like tables) that using an acronym without defining it is fine and you can use wikilinks to the section where they are defined, however it specified that for small space usages. If anyone knows of the proper way to do it, I'd appreciate it, it's bugging me. Aaron mcd ( talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
My edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Internal_combustion_engine&oldid=375532492 was reverted. Although it's perhaps indeed best not to use the "ICE term" too much, the article is still quite unclear without the edit. This as "Four stroke configuration" is not different enough from engine configuration, and it also seems to be a subsection under engine configuration, which is totally incorrect (they are 2 different things). I also think that, since we have "Four stroke configuration" and "Two stroke configuration" and again 2 similar sections called "Two-stroke" and "Four-stroke" under engine cycle, 2 sections are best removed entirely. Instead divide the information of these sections over the article, and other (seperate) articles. I'll leave it to you to fix it on the manner you seem fit. KVDP ( talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
i have a 1991 harley ,the probleme is when you throttle it it dies does anyone know what could be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.245.57 ( talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
TEJJ IC ENGINE (CONSTANT TORQUE RECEPROCATING IC ENGINE)
In all IC engines built so far, the reciprocating motion of the connecting rod is converted in to rotary motion for wheel through crankshaft. This was most appropriate technology when the engine was invented. However, with continuously rising fuel prices around the world, many attempts are being made for improving engine efficiency.
I have studied existing technology in detail & have found out following disadvantages with existing system.
DISADVANTAGES IN EXISTING SYSTEM
1. The torque generated is always in a sine wave form.
2. Although, fuel combustion exerts tremendous force on piston from TDC to BDC (can be considered constant for any particular power stroke); all of it is never converted in to desired torque. When piston is near TDC or BDC, the force is wasted in compressing / stretching crankshaft radial arms towards / away from crankshaft bearings. Due to this repetitive cyclic force, crankcase is required to be designed adequately strong & robust for bearing non converted force from Pistons.
3. Due to sine wave nature of torque conversion, maximum torque is available ONLY AT CRANKSHAFT ROTATION AT MULTIPLES OF 90 degree. For all other times, the torque available is LESS THAN MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.
4. For a 4 cylinder engine with cranks placed at 90 degree apart & firing order 1,3,2,4; cylinder 1 (say) has power stroke from 0 degree to 180 degree of crankshaft rotation; then other cylinders will fire as under (ALL NUMBERS REFER TO DEGREES OF ROTATION OF CRANKSHAFT FROM DEAD START 0 POSITION)
• Cylinder 1: 0 to 180. • Cylinder 3: 180 to 360. • Cylinder 2: 270 to 450. • Cylinder 4: 450 to 630.
For cylinder 1, next power stroke starts at 720 degree only & hence it can be seen that from 630 deg. to 720 deg., there is no power available in any of the cylinders. Engine has to cross this zone only by means of inertia of the over all system.
Considering all these disadvantages, I have developed a new concept in IC Engine, which WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF ABOVE DISADVANTAGES.
I have named it TEJJ IC ENGINE having following advantages:
ADVANTAGES OF TEJJ IC ENGINE
1. This Engine WILL PRODUCE CONSTANT TORQUE OVER ALL POSITIONS OF CRANKSHAFT ROTATION. Torque wave will be a rectangular one. 2. The torque will be comparable to that of ELECTRIC MOTOR. 3. As no force from piston will be wasted in exerting undue force on crankshaft bearings, crankcase design can be made relatively lighter. 4. Torque available will be EQUAL TO MAXIMUM POSSIBLE TORQUE of existing sine wave torque at 90 degree multiples. 5. This engine can be easily made in existing plants since It is only addition / modification of components & rearrangement of existing engine using ALREADY PROVEN COMPONENTS ELSE WHERE. 6. No new technology yet to be tasted is used for this invention. 7. Work done PER POWER STROKE of ENGINE WILL BE ALMOST 55% HIGHER THAN THAT IN AN EXISTING SINE WAVE IC ENGINE. 8. This will lead to TREMENDOUS INCREASE OF ENGINE EFFICIENCY / MILAGE FROM VEHICLE. 9. This Engine can be used for all IC engine applications as at present.
IN CASE ANY INDIVIDUAL / INSTITUTE / MANUFACTURER IS READY FOR SPONCERING DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTOTYPE OF THIS NEW ENGINE; KINDLY CONTACT ME ON MOBILE NUMBER 919424140739 OR E-MAIL rp_naik@in.com. I assure that concept is fully ready with drawings, animated presentations etc & only shop floor designing / manufacturing is remaining.
PLEASE SEE http://www.scribd.com/doc/49011286/TEJJ-IC-ENGINE-Constant-Torque-IC-Engine FOR MORE INFORMATION. Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 11:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Andy:Every man made reality in this world was at one time in the form of IDEA only. If as an encyclopedia, you can not include this type of contents, then can we not start a new section named "IDEAS" in wikipedia? The main point here is that with wide acceptability of wikipedia; the interested users will get good & relevant ideas from "wiki". Due to its easy searchability on any topic in the world; this site is really very good reference point. We are already carrying out discussions on "EVERY THING IN THE WORLD" THEN WHY CAN IT NOT BE EXTENDED TO IDEAS? My writing may be seen as self propogation if viewed accordingly; however, the main point here is that RIGHT SINCE IC ENGINES INVENTION; NO ONE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE LIMITATIONS WHICH I HAVE RESEARCHED & have almost achieved a feat considered IMPOSSIBLE for generations. I only want that through this site, if this idea gets some momentum; we shall proceed towards healthy environment & LOTS OF CARBON CREDITS ALSO CAN BE GOT BY INTERESTED MANUFACTURERS. Rajeev naik123 ( talk) 07:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A Quasiturbine has a four face articulated rotor that rotates inside a quasi-oval shaped chamber, as with the wankel the four phases take place in separate locations but differs in that a complete revolution of the output shaft is a complete four stroke cycle.
It may well have these, if it's ever built. It's just an idea at present, and doesn't belong in this article. Andrewa 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Also mention the Di Pietro motor; this can also work as a internal combustion engine, although it's mostly a compressed air engine.
81.242.234.248 ( talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Capture2.JPG, has been deleted from
Wikimedia Commons by
Jcb for the following reason: Per
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capture2.JPG
|
A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to
search for new images to replace the old one.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotification ( talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
The article had "The first internal combustion engine was created by Étienne Lenoir" and was backed up by a reference in the Encyclopaedia Britianica. IIIraute removed it (twice) with the edit comment "we do not use the content of another encyclopedia for reference". In the interest of avoiding an edit war that continuously toggles between two opposing viewpoints, I invite a discussion here. Stepho talk 04:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[8] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[9]
Is that last sentence really relevant in an article about ICEs? Ordinary Person ( talk) 13:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to inventions , single objects with multiple aspects that each can rightfully claim being invented by a person of a single country are being credited for it. For example the telephone , which has the tags : [Category:American inventions] [Category:Canadian inventions] [Category:Italian inventions] [Category:Scottish inventions] If unclear go visit the entry for it. 83.101.79.45 ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I took out the 5-stroke engine section because it seemed to be advertising, and because it was unreferenced to any reliable sources. Teapeat ( talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an unmentioned assumption that a tiny amount of fuel (expensive) is used with a large amount of air (normally free). Something ought to be said about this. It's also interesting to note that the situation would be flipped around for a motor boat travelling in the Lakes_of_Titan, which are mostly Ethane. 208.118.25.22 ( talk) 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like for the reactants and products to be added, along with the initial and ending form of energy. Thanks! - Meapyeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.123.108 ( talk) 04:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been unable to reduce the size of letters in the heading of 'five stroke engines' to a size equalling the rest in the article, hope somebody's knowing the way to do this, and willing to give a helping hand. Thanks. Salut †-- Jgrosay ( talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Each '=' in the section title takes it down a level. Also affects numbering and the table of contents.
Stepho
talk
19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Andy.
I just changed some lines in the page "Internal combustion engine". According to my own calculations and a refference website, the efficiency of a diesel engine can be over 60%. Why is there written on the page that is is only 20%?
My calculation: I have a 1 kW diesel generator that uses 0,35 liter/hour. In other units, it uses 0,35 liter/hour to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. With an energy value of diesel of 17,447 MJ/liter, 6,106 MJ of diesel is needed to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. This makes an efficiency of 59%.
The website: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/goldenstein2/
Ruudburger ( talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice article with lots of information. Whomever owns this article may want to incorporate these two bits of info.
Something peculiar here. I didn't start this section, just added the observation about engines which rotate widdershins. Which I signed. I have no idea who put it the original section or when. Mr Larrington ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Basically, this is a good article but for non-expert readers the explanations are not very clear. Particularly confusing is the compression stroke.
I think it's obvious that when the spark ignites the gases expand and the piston moves down, but it's not at all obvious what makes the piston move up. Could some explain this clearly? Macgroover ( talk) 02:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I note some recent work by Mario Castelán Castro (here and elsewhere), and thanks for that.
Should the main push to "explain the car engine" (clearly a vital topic for engineering in any technical encyclopedia) be made here, or at internal combustion piston engine? (currently a redirect here). We need a vital article on such engines: not the obscure outliers, but a straightforward answer to the question, "How does a car engine work?" Yet we also have the accuracy and scope problem of encylopedias. Such an article under that title needs to cover jets, rockets and the Brayton cycle too. Yet to be clear on the car engine article, we should keep it focussed. We have to mention and link to other forms of IC engine, but we shouldn't spend time explaining them there, or even cover them visibly such that readers looking for "car engine" might be confused.
Do we even need a simple article at car engine that describes how car engines work and is narrowly focussed on answering that specific question? It wouldn't be huge effort to write, as most of it could be culled from pre-existing material, and the hardest part would be defining the editorial scope and maintaining that.
Suggestions? Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.
Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832
Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.
A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.
This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 ( talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.
Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832
Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.
A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.
This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 ( talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Bender235: Regarding your recent edit and insistence, I must note that:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)Regards. Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
50 %
, it adds a
non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %
. All this does is preventing an accidental line break with 50
on one line and %
on the next one. The fact that you reverted this change referring to an "international standard" according to which there has to be a space between the number and the percentage sign signaled to me that you clearly did not understand what
does. It does not remove a space, it only makes it "non-breakable". And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow. --
bender235 (
talk)
16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)50 %
, it adds a
non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %
.”50 %
to 50 %
), but instead it changed 50 %
to 50%
. Maybe (just maybe) the problem arose because it does what you said in other cases, but not in this one; however, if that is the case, you still bear full responsibility for it.MOS:PERCENT says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
Which I interpret as "don't change unless there is agreement". There is no agreement here (yet), so there should be no changes. Ie, it should remain as spaced (which, in this case, includes no-break-space) until there is agreement to change it.
Personally I don't care which way it goes but flipping back and forth cheeses me off. Stepho talk 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a paragraph under types of 2-stroke engines, specifically blower scavenged, that makes a grandiose claim which I can't find any supporting documentation for within the citations, and I suggest the claim be deleted. For one, isn't the most fuel/thermal efficient ICE above 80%? Here's the paragraph with the claim with questionable supporting citations inline on the article: "An example of this type of engine is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged 2-stroke Diesel, used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with a thermal efficiency over 50%.[7][8][9][10] For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke engines are around 43% thermally-efficient (SAE 900648);[citation needed] size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area." Typenolies ( talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The text says, 'Notably, the combustion takes place at constant pressure, rather than with the Otto cycle, constant volume." But the piston engine does not operate with constant volume (moving piston changes the size of the combustion space) and the gas turbine does not operate at constant pressure (the compressor raises the pressure and the burning fuel further increases the pressure). Perhaps an expert can reword this so that it does not appear to be contradictory. CPES ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Further regarding the Brayton Cycle, is it appropriate to apply the effects of thrust as output of the exhaust stage, given that it wasn't initially designed for such? Typenolies ( talk) 06:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Digitallymade: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed some problems with the changes you made ( Special:Diff/728194728/728986205) and I further edited the article to address them. A description of my changes follows.
Note that I am not a “reviewer” or similar. I am an editor who is interested in this topic and I am interested in keeping this article readable. This article assumed its current form when I reorganized and partially rewrote it around October 2014.
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 02:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC).
To OnBeyondZebrax: Hello. I reverted your recent changes for 2 reasons:
I discourage editing under the label of “copyediting” that merely shuffles words plus a minor rewording without either providing more factual information or arranging it in a way that is an obvious improvement (e.g.: it is evidently much more clear or deletes obviously redundant statements). In other words, I discourage rephrasing done only for the taste the editor that does it.
I noticed that you added some information apart from the “copyediting” (e.g.: the part that goes “Most countries and jurisdictions require that vehicle engines be fitted with mufflers [...]”). Free feel to add information to the article, subject to consensus and WP:BRD. But please try to include appropriate references and avoid vague language like “Most countries require” (which countries require that?).
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC). Hi,
Your statement that the "History" section should remain empty appears to be contrary to the editing guideline set out at WP:Summary style. This editing guideline states that:
Wikipedia's editing guidelines state that an article should contain "summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections", even if this leads to duplication between the two articles.
Many articles have one and two sentence paragraphs. This occurs because many editors are working on articles, and people add a sentence, and they may not link the sentence into a paragraph. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." (see MOS:Paragraphs. To cite just one university website on paragraph length, Purdue University states that writers shoud "[a]im for three to five or more sentences per paragraph." Of course there are differing views on how many sentences a paragraphs should contain. But I agree with the Purdue University recommendation.
Under WP:BRD, if I make a change to an article by copyediting, and the change is accepted by other editors, then it seems that the other editors agree that the change was OK. Feel free to point me to a policy page or guideline which sets out a restrictive policy on copyediting. I will be happy to read it and change my ways if such a policy exists. Thanks for your ideas and suggestions. :) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe we should consider the integration of clickable names to article pages using the following template: Template:Annotated image 4
See the Piston, Spark plug, and additional integrated links below, which can be done for all the rest!
Code:
![]() |
Twillisjr ( talk) 17:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=File:Thermal_power_plant_of_Shazand.JPG
I'm 99% certain that this is not a combined cycle power plant.
The white buildings on the left of the picture are four gas- or oil-fired boilers. They supply steam to four 325 MW turbines.
See, for example, http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006evia/papers/516-199.pdf
If Shazand is a Rankine-cycle plant, the picture does not belong in this article.
109.145.107.191 ( talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my English but this page completely miss the Barsanti-Matteuci engine the first modern ICE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.233.42 ( talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a hatnote at the top of the page stating that "ICEV" redirects here, but nowhere on the page can I find an explanation for what it means, or why it redirects here. What is it? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://195.99.1.70/si/si2002/20021808.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello y'all, just wandering through noticed that there is no reference to the Pyréolophore invented by the Niépce brothers. The Pyréolophore and Joseph Niépce articles claim that it is the 'world's first internal combustion engine.' I have also seen reference to it as the first actually constructed internal combustion engine. Wanted to see if anyone has references to rectify the discrepancy in these articles. I amnotted ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
While doing my initial read through the article, I noted that the acronyms "SI" and "CI" (Spark and Compression Ignition respectively) are used several times before they are defined in the ignition subsection. It confused me, but I am familiar with the terms and guessed it and used a search to find them defined in the article. The issue is apparent when considering other readers less/not familiar with the terms and those who are not as computer savvy. I will put this on the talk for a little bit while I do some research because the MoS page for acronyms didn't cover a situation like this exactly. However, the MoS states that anytime a non-widely used acronym is used in a page, it should be written out and put in parenthesis the first time it is used. My confusion is that the MoS covers that an acronym should be defined in its first use, however in this article the terms are not defined fully until the ignition subsection. The MoS mentioned for uses with small space (like tables) that using an acronym without defining it is fine and you can use wikilinks to the section where they are defined, however it specified that for small space usages. If anyone knows of the proper way to do it, I'd appreciate it, it's bugging me. Aaron mcd ( talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)