![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Reciprocating engine received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The following was inserted into the article on May 30, 2006 by an annonymous user (IP: 196.1.52.222) I'm not sure what it's referring to, but it doesn't appear to belong in the article (and certainly needs cleanup, and conversion to an NPOV version written in the third person):
In the first chapter that introduces the piston engine the conclusion is drawn that the more cylinders the more powerful the engine will be. Im am not sure this is correct, in fact it can in certain cirumstances be incorrect. For example a 2000cc 4 cylinder engine may in teory be capable of producing more power then a six cylinder engine of the same capacity, because the six cylinder engine (due to more moving parts) will produce more drag from internal parts then the four cylinder engine. I would argue that the capacity of the engine is the determining factor rather then the number of pistons.
I have, therefore, removed it. Cbvt 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Al-Jazari built the first reciprocating engine is not supported by the article on him and seems excessive and unbalanced when no other inventors' names are mentioned here. Lumos3 08:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This description is incorrect for the atmospheric steam engines of Newcomen and Watt. In that case, cooling of the hot gases produces low pressure inside the cylinder, pulling the piston to the top. The piston moves back down by action of some flywheel or counter weight etc. AxelBoldt ( talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed File:BetaStirlingTG4web.jpg from this article, because it seems to be a joke. The device looks like a set of male genitalia, and it's not clear how it would work as an efficient reciprocating engine. -- S Larctia ( talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wasp Major radial engine is called one of the most advanced reciprocating engine. Apart from maritme applications it certainly is (was) one of the largest engines in regard to piston displacement and number of cylinders. The "most advanced" reciprocating engines are modern engines and not an outdated design like the Wasp Major. Should the wording be changed? 93.134.189.93 ( talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the use of advanced is vague in this context. I've changed the article to more neutral wording. If you want to add something about displacement or cylinder count, feel free. Dialectric ( talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Engine Capacity section, someone has added "plus the volume of the combustion chambers". Is this correct? I always thought that the capacity was defined as the swept volume and that is how it is normally calculated. -- Roly ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pease engine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by
Wikipedia Ambassadors through the
India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Reciprocating engine received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The following was inserted into the article on May 30, 2006 by an annonymous user (IP: 196.1.52.222) I'm not sure what it's referring to, but it doesn't appear to belong in the article (and certainly needs cleanup, and conversion to an NPOV version written in the third person):
In the first chapter that introduces the piston engine the conclusion is drawn that the more cylinders the more powerful the engine will be. Im am not sure this is correct, in fact it can in certain cirumstances be incorrect. For example a 2000cc 4 cylinder engine may in teory be capable of producing more power then a six cylinder engine of the same capacity, because the six cylinder engine (due to more moving parts) will produce more drag from internal parts then the four cylinder engine. I would argue that the capacity of the engine is the determining factor rather then the number of pistons.
I have, therefore, removed it. Cbvt 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Al-Jazari built the first reciprocating engine is not supported by the article on him and seems excessive and unbalanced when no other inventors' names are mentioned here. Lumos3 08:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This description is incorrect for the atmospheric steam engines of Newcomen and Watt. In that case, cooling of the hot gases produces low pressure inside the cylinder, pulling the piston to the top. The piston moves back down by action of some flywheel or counter weight etc. AxelBoldt ( talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed File:BetaStirlingTG4web.jpg from this article, because it seems to be a joke. The device looks like a set of male genitalia, and it's not clear how it would work as an efficient reciprocating engine. -- S Larctia ( talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wasp Major radial engine is called one of the most advanced reciprocating engine. Apart from maritme applications it certainly is (was) one of the largest engines in regard to piston displacement and number of cylinders. The "most advanced" reciprocating engines are modern engines and not an outdated design like the Wasp Major. Should the wording be changed? 93.134.189.93 ( talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the use of advanced is vague in this context. I've changed the article to more neutral wording. If you want to add something about displacement or cylinder count, feel free. Dialectric ( talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Engine Capacity section, someone has added "plus the volume of the combustion chambers". Is this correct? I always thought that the capacity was defined as the swept volume and that is how it is normally calculated. -- Roly ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pease engine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by
Wikipedia Ambassadors through the
India Education Program.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)