Talk:Envirofit International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dubious claims on retrofits[edit]

Engineers are bound to be dubious of retro-fits. We're more familiar with, and even more dubious of, claims of miracle economy improvement, especially extreme ones of 30%. as on the MyHero web-site. WP:REDFLAG applies.
With such surprising claims, we need very solid references - and this article has none of them for the two-stroke technology. I propose all that side be taken out, and only the cook-stove work mentioned. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is at least _some_ 3th party verification to their claims in this paper: http://www.skyshorz.com/university/publications/Gitano_SAESETC2007_LPG2T.pdf What's keeping ya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk)
IP user, please be careful with your tone. MalcomMcDonald was bringing it up so it could be discussed before removing. tedder (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tedder, sure thing. It just got a bit to me, he removed stuff from other articles, such as Motorcycle engine, Two-stroke engine and Variable compression ratio with technically incorrect comments for so doing (contradicting patents for this stuff). School done not told me this over a decade ago though. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example that contradicts the VCR edit; quote: "timing of the exhaust port events can be altered during the engine operation, and this permits adjustment of the engine compression ratio" from this one: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5537958/description.html 212.187.71.66 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; fwiw here is the paper they _probably_ got the numbers from (which is from CSU): http://www.envirofit.org/media_docs/publications/SAE%20SETC%20Design%20of%20a%20Direct%20Injection%20Retrofit%20Kit%20for%20Small.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another paper maybe of interest (same authors though) http://www.nciia.net/conf_06/papers/pdf/hudnut.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examining the references produced, the one at Skyhorz.com is a grad paper, funded with "USM short term grant #6035221" (University of Malasia?). On a topic (fuel economy) where $billions are being spent every year, these students tell us "our vehicle was purchased second hand with approximately 20,000 km" and the photograph of the modification shows a regular Calor Gas bottle strapped to the pillion seat with a bungy.
The second reference comes from Environfit's own web-site, a re-print of a paper from "EnviroFit International, Colorado State University" published by "Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Inc.", an announcement that "A prototype kit has been designed for use in retrofitting existing carbureted two-stroke engines to direct injection". After telling us how much pollution there is, they say "Direct injection is a technology that has shown a great ability to reduce these emissions while at the same time improve fuel economy" - which is the very claim that so urgently needs justifying under WP:REDFLAG. The third reference is on social engineering "Technology dissemination is hindered by adherence to a view that an organization must select a for profit or non-profit business model".
It would seem as if my first impression was correct, the bulk of this article contravenes numerous policies, most glaringly WP:ADVERT. It would improve the work of the project if the IP editor cut the two-stroke part from the article him/herself, saving the rest of us putting the entire article up for a speeedy. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you reedit it so it doesn't read like an advert, isn't that what wikipedia is about? Here's a start 'students claim...' Show me even one article/paper that contradicts it? They don't seem to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/HK9V413TN8I76UQYDJO2BML0PCG5WZ
And *no* percentages are claimed in the article _anywhere_ the MyHero website seems referenced for the opening quote, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Indented to this level so as to make it clear what i'm replying to here) IMHO the two-stroke part should be included. If for nothing else, to then show Shell partnering with an Uni-outgrown project http://www.shellfoundation.org/pages/core_lines.php?p=news_content&page=ournews&newsID=298&t=0 that propagates (apparently controversial with wikipedia editors) claims about related subjects. This partnership having hit major news outlets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we have another reference that has nothing to do with the two-stroke "technology" claimed, only emphasising the complete lack of RS available for something that is exceptionally "surprising" and needs exceptionally strong RS. None of the two-stroke "information" belongs. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmn; this is rather interesting to observe a sociallogical perspective, since even a blatantly wrong ignoramus seems to be able and get thier uneducated opinion published on this here website on grounds of them using an acronym, rather then router-address as identifier. Funny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious invariable claims to the contrary[edit]

The two-stroke direct-injection idea/product in this article; removed by a, afaics self-proclaimed 'Engineer (which is a protected academic title in some juristrictions), is implemented in related applications such as: http://www.orbitalcorp.com.au/orbital/aboutOrbital/pressarc/pdf/ob_so.pdf . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article or paper that contradicts it?[edit]

Science is not democratic. One disproving study, would make the notion untrue (however trivial and by whoever it maybe)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.71.66 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged requesting expert help[edit]

As far as I can tell, the sources that cover Envirofit International are either not independent the company at all, or they are semi-independent conduits for press releases. Oh, and Fast Company. Reliable sources? Please?--Dbratland (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Envirofit International. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Envirofit_International&oldid=1217587605"