Talk:Six-stroke engine

This article was nominated for deletion on November 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Six Stroke engine[edit]

It appears that an American, Crower, and an Indian team, have both developed and patented different versions of the six-stroke engine - one that involves an injection of air and one that involves an injection of water. Because the article was initially written about the Indian team, it currently gives more weight to that engine than the Crower engine. I'm not sure at this point which one is more notable. I'm also not sure whether the two engines should be covered in the same article or separate articles. Thoughts? --Hyperbole 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other six stroke engine designs known as Beare Head and Bajulaz Six Stroke engine. I have added informations regarding them too in this article. I feel that this article " six stroke engine " should be written such that, it describes the various six stroke engine designs. --Drakefroster 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to visualise most of these. I can accept the water injection and air injection as six-stroke engines and imagine how hey work ( like a four-stroke but with a 'fuel cycle' and a 'non-fuel' cycle). (Imagine the wonders of the eight-stroke or ten-stroke that uses a succession of different vaporised fluids and compression ratios to recover more and more of the original heat!!). I might try and do some drawings to illustrate these. Egmason (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually crowers engine was the exact copy of the Leonard Dyer's six stroke engine patended in 1915. So Crowers patent was denied.. There cant be two patent for the same technology.

The NIYKADO six stroke engine by Chanayil cleetus anil is now a running engine and the video has been attached. The Engine technology was patented on 25th may 2012 and was hounoured by Chief minister of kerala Oomen Chandy during a function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binesheb (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beare Head[edit]

Aparently the Beare Head was first patented in US by M.W. Hall in 1917 - See patent US 1,284,190

Good find but there is a crucial difference in that the secondry intake and exhaust valving is subject to full cylinder pressure and not so in the Beare Head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbeare (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 109.103.77.201 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/872.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1096.html

Malbeare (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Six Stroke"[edit]

For the claim of who coined it, Mr. Beare provided [ http://www.sixstroke.com/images/history/border_november_1994.pdf] from 1994 showing his use of the term. Femto 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the downside?[edit]

Based on the information in this article, it would be crazy not to use these engines, yet the article does not report their commercial adoption. This suggests that either some claims are false or major negative characteristics are omitted. Harold f (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With such a huge investment in the 4 stroke concept it will take at least 10 years for a good new radical concept to have much of an impact on an industry like motor car manufacture. Lumos3 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M 4+2[edit]

Invented by S.B. Brown in 1930, patent US 1,805,540 109.103.77.201 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph is exceptionally badly written. Incomplete sentences, missing articles, incorrect verb forms are a few of its "features". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.18.179 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to clean up the grammar and structure of this section and others, but some of it is so poorly written I can't figure it out. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of references and content[edit]

This article has a long history of contributions from persons with a conflict of interest and so tends to give undue prominence to patent claims. Many sources are self-published and so unreliable (note that per WP:SPS this includes patents). Some of the news references amount to little more than "local person granted patent" and are not credible sources for technical claims such as efficiency improvements (although there may be an argument they are evidence of a particular design's notability). The only references I think might meet wikipedia guidelines as technical sources are the Knight book and maybe the autoweek article. The smokstak thread is probably next most reliable but clearly does not meet wikipedia criteria. TuxLibNit (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following criteria to try to clean up the current undue weight on unreliable and self-published sources:

Unsourced designs, and designs sourced only from self published sources should not appear at all.
Designs sourced only from patents should not get their own section, the patent(s) can be listed in the "Related patents" section with a one-line summary per patent.
Designs sourced from news and magazine sources can have a section. The section needs to stick closely to the available sources. Technical claims by the inventor can be included only if they are backed by the news source and the text is clear that we are only documenting that the claims were made (eg explicitly state who made the claim and use scare quotes for the claim itself).
Obviously designs with more reliable sources can have their own section too.
Self published websites should appear only if the related design merited its own section. They'll normally go in external references rather than be used as sources.
The lead section definitely shouldn't include unverified claims relating to specific designs. Designs supported only by news sources probably should not be mentioned by name in the lead either, otherwise the lead will just grow every time someone adds a new design.

As a first step towards using these criteria I've taken everything that seems like undue weight out of the lead, cleaned up the referencing for the (often self published or unreliable) sources that exist and put tags on the problem sections. I suggest that the sections I've tagged as unsourced or self-published should be deleted in 30 days if the sourcing does not improve and the sections I've tagged as unreliably sourced should be similarly reduced to an entry in the patents section. TuxLibNit (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the M4+2 section can be updated to meet the criteria above using news or magazine articles from the two- and four-stroke engines article.

The Knight, Patrick book is not as reliable as it sounds. Based on [[1]], it is "Compiled from the pages of Stationary Engine magazine", so probably only as reliable as the [magazine]. Not bad, and no worse than other sources currently used this article, just not the scholarly engineering history work I hoped for. TuxLibNit (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Six-stroke engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070513071644/http://staff.bath.ac.uk:80/ensegb/griffin2.htm to http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensegb/griffin2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work[edit]

Hello all, What is up with the "work" subtitle? It reads like a complete mess, speaking of temperatures that are not even possible.

Six-stroke engine is generally are under cold temperature (not hot and not cold) but similar like sublimate ice temperature (under cold) Six-stroke engine how to work: Intake

Compression

Combustion (similar like four-stroke combustion temperature)

First under cold temperature from -800°C to -1.000°C for expansion temperature

Second under cold temperature from -100.000°C to -1.000.000°C for second expansion temperature

Exhaust

Can this be deleted? 94.107.224.82 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken English, impossible temperatures, no citations, and the editor's talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yois_Yoit#March_2022 ) says "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing."

I'd say it's safe to remove. 2001:56A:F1C0:9200:EAFB:1CFF:FE43:C249 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That "work" section has been added (and removed) 4 times now. First added by Yois Yoit, then by 3 different addresses starting with 2001:448a:10c (which is in Indonesia, apparently).

The most recent edit now was to add part of it again, but it was placed at the very bottom of the page, after the References and External Links...

If this continues, I'd suggest making the page protected or something. 2001:56A:F9FF:5D00:AAA7:D4E6:BBEC:51EE (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for protecting the page and removing the "Swap from four stroke" part. I'm fairly certain it's the same person Phjoma (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since removed this section. As an aside the most recent offending IP is also from Indonesia. Phjoma (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken English[edit]

The subsections are filled with incomprehensible broken English. Someone needs to fix it 2603:9008:1900:3E5E:F76B:6BDB:A434:7C1A (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work section makes little sense[edit]

As noted by prior posters, (and looking at the edit logs). The "Work" and "Sound" sections appear to be poorly sourced and with grammar errors that make little sense. As an outside observer (and not a regular Wikipedia contributor), it appears these sections are being edited by the same person. Phjoma (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be rolled back to before User:2001:448A:10CA:2C86:7D78:28A8:A154:619D made the aforementioned edits. Though other contributors have tried to clean up the grammar, that section is still unsourced and incomprehensible Phjoma (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]