Talk:Internal combustion engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Insertion of Links (Template)[edit]

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)

Graph Colours[edit]

Hi,

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

Fuel systems?[edit]

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

question about compression ratios[edit]

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

Swashplate Engine?[edit]

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

Sentence fragment in introduction[edit]

Hello, I am not a regular contributor to wikipedia, so forgive any buffoonish errors I make in the following.

In revision 413119031, user Twexcom removed the clause "the ICE delivers an excellent power-to-weight ratio with few disadvantages" from the sentence "Powered by an energy-dense fuel (which is very frequently petrol, a liquid derived from fossil fuels), the ICE delivers an excellent power-to-weight ratio with few disadvantages."

It seems clear that this was an attempt to remove the potentially controversial claim that internal combustion engines have "few disadvantages," but what remains is the fragment "Powered by an energy dense fuel."

I considered simply adding "...the ICE delivers an excellent power-to-weight ratio," but given that this error has persisted for nearly two years, and that even this reduced version of the sentence contains the value-laden word "excellent," I decided to post to the talk page and let the wiki natives decide how to proceed.

Thanks for all y'all do.

Series of edits that include mass merging of paragraphs[edit]

To OnBeyondZebrax: Hello. I reverted your recent changes for 2 reasons:

  • I do not see an improvement in the mass merging of paragraphs. I think that there was a better correspondence between paragraphs and ideas before your edit.
  • Unless there is a very good reason for the contrary, the “History” section should remain empty. We already have an article for that. There is little to nothing to be gained by duplicating a section of that article there. It is preferable to simply let users who are interested into history go to the main article rather than to give a scant discussion here.

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,

History section should remain empty

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:

  • "Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the main parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. " [bolding added by me for emphasis]

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.

Merging of paragraphs

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.

Copyediting should only be done to eliminate redundant text or make obvious improvements

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. :)OnBeyondZebraxTALK 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect picture caption?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Barsanti-Matteuci engine[edit]

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)

See here
Barsanti-Matteucci engine
109.145.107.191 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to add it to the 'History' section. Don't forget to add references.  Stepho  talk  04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ICEV?[edit]

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)

I'm guessing it means Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, as compared to EV for Electric Vehicle or PHEV for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. But I've never heard ICEV used anywhere in the real world.  Stepho  talk  12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)