Talk:Internal combustion engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Internal combustion engine has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
Neutrality: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

|B-Class-6=yes/no

Energy Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy .

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article is on a subject of top importance within energy.

Help with this template

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Additional information:
	This article is an assessed orphan; it has been assessed by Work via WikiProjects, but should be rated by subject experts in a WikiProject. See the FAQ for more info.
	This article is a vital article.

Place new comments at the end.

[edit] 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, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Graph Colours

Hi,

   could the colours on the graph at the bottom of the page be changed? it's rather hard to distinguish the lines.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fuel systems?

Seems to me this article is missing any discussion of carburettors, turbochargers, superchargers, fuel injection and so forth. There's no fuel going into our ICs! WolfKeeper

[edit] 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? Brian j d | 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)

[edit] Removed text

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] edit war

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

[edit] Interesting Observations

Very nice article with lots of information. Whomever owns this article may want to incorporate these two bits of info.

The animated graphic of the cycle demo is really neat, however every automobile engine I've seen rotates clockwise when looking at the front of the engine. This immediately caught my eye as odd from someone who has worked on engines for 30 years. I suppose it could be the 2nd engine in a pair of contra rotating marine engines.
Believe it or not, maximum brake torque occurs when combustion pressure peaks at 12-14 degrees after top dead center, not the 90 degrees stated. At 90 degrees ATDC, the effective chamber volume is increasing too quickly for the gas expansion to have maximum mechanical effect. 90 degrees ATDC is certainly when the crank is in the most advantageous position, but burning that late just wastes the heat energy out the exhaust instead of producing crank torque. A crude analogy is to imagine riding a bicycle, but waiting for the pedal arm to be at 90 degrees before pushing.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] question about compression ratios

I have a question:

When you press on the accelerator pedal of a petrol engine, you open the throttle and allow more fuel/air mixture to enter each cylinder. Therefor the harder the acclerator is pushed, the more volume enters the cylinder; and thus the compression is increased, yes?

The average compression ratio of a petrol engine is about 10, but is that at full throttle. Is the compression much less when the engine is idling?

On the other hand a diesel engine is only controlled by how much fuel is injected , so the compression ratio is always about 20.

However it gets much more confusing when a turbo is added =(

The compression ratio remains the same no matter what the throttle setting is but the compression pressure varies with throttle settings . Usually on petrol engines with 10 to 1 compression ratio the open full throttle cranking start speed (1000RPM) is about 150 to 220 PSI but at part throttle it could be as low as 40 PSI. malbeare 20/5/2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Swashplate Engine?

No mention of the swashplate configuration is listed in the current article (31 July 2007). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_engine Swashplate Engine

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Exhaust energy recovery

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.