Talk:History of the internal combustion engine

Needs to be edited from list form
The article as it stands is a series of bullet points. It needs to be edited so that it reads like an article. LK (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

what does irst iron rockets against the British Army and wins the first war. have to do with combustion engines? Maybe rocket engines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.30.3 (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC) --
 * introduction art

not suitable for prose

all blue names are entries to prose articles

Wdl1961 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

13th century "rocket engines" (basically canons and fireworks) do not seem much like "internal combustion engines" in the sense that they would have been employed to produce complex mechanical energy. That would be in the history of combustion, in general, but not combustion engines. I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 January 2010


 * I've removed the first reference to Christiaan Huygens work, and substituted his name for that of an english inventor, as the book by Takashi Suzuki, Ph D, SAE 1997,The Romance of Engines, indicates in the references (1-1) Lelievre J.M, and J.R. Dulier, Conquete de la Vitesse, Fd P Couty (1969); (1-2) Sass, F, Geschichte Des Deutschen Verbrenungsmotoren Bau, Springer Verlag, Berlin (1962); (1-3) Hardenberg, H.O. The Antiquity of the Internal Combustion Engine, SAE, SP-977 (1993), and (1-4) Hirata, H, A Nation of Lost Power (Japanese), Inawami Books (1976), that the right attribution of idea is this and not the one previously existing in the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 April 2010

Starter engine
Nowhere it is mentioned that: In 1914, starter engines appeared commonly, and were powered by car batteries. Car batteries first appeared in 1905 for automobile lightning, but weren't used until now for starting the main internal combustion engine via a (electrical) starter engine. (reference: VARTA Technische leergang:Startbatterijen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.144.189 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on starters. Biscuittin (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article
There seems to be some confusion about the scope of the article.

Is it:

a) internal combustion engines (as defined in the internal combustion engine article: diesel engines, petrol engines, gas turbines, turbojets, ramjets, rockets)

b) reciprocating internal combustion engines (usually including Wankel engines)

c) piston engines (including steam engines)

At the moment the bit at the top of the article says a). If you want to change it to something else, go right ahead; although be aware that there doesn't seem to be an article covering just reciprocating internal combustion engines, and the internal combustion engine article seems to think that this is its history, and covers rockets, gas turbines and jet engines.Rememberway (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article now covers reciprocating engines, gas turbines, jet engines, rockets, etc., so its scope is clearly (a). So, I think that it's reasonable to mention medieval rocketry here. Spacepotato (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just that one little entry in "Prior to modern era" is silly. It made sense before, when there were 3 entries (1206: Al-Jazari of Mesopotamia described a double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism; 13th century: The rocket engine, an internal-combustion engine, was developed by the Chinese, Mongols and Arabs; 1509: Leonardo da Vinci described a compressionless engine.) but the Al-J stuff was silly too, and the LdV fails verification (though for all I know its true) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rocket engines are definitely considered internal combustion engines, and this was the first type of rocket and lead directly to the current Space Shuttle via Goddard. You don't have a leg to stand on with this removal, it's on scope, not off topic, nor is it gratuitous, and it's highly notable. The fact that there was only one entry in the section is irrelevant; there is no policy against that at all. I intend to get you blocked for edit warring; because that's what you clearly are doing, and I don't think any sensible person will disagree with me on that.Rememberway (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's less about the absolutist definition of what an ICE is and more about the explanatory value of such a statement in this context, most particularly about the poor quality of the particular paragraph added here. If you spent less time worrying about how to get other editors blocked and more about how to write better content, it would be a lot more helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't improve content by deleting it. The material is referenced, on topic, and pertinent. If you want to improve the article please do so. In the meantime, rockets are mentioned at at least in 3 other places in the history, and there's maybe one or two other things that are missing.Rememberway (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Morland
I removed:


 * English polymath Samuel Morland experimented with the use of gunpowder to create a vacuum that would suck in water (in effect the first internal combustion engine) and worked on ideas for a steam engine.

That seems rather stretched William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems to meet most or all of the criteria of an IC engine; and gunpowder does combust, not detonate. For an early attempt it's probably notable, it seems to have worked, but using gunpowder it would probably be rather expensive to run, so (presumably) that's why it never really caught on. And I have heard of other very similar water pumps in the 19th and 20th century being more successful, using other fuels.Rememberway (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Otto
The entry for 1862 for the Otto engine is incorrect in at least two different aspects. Otto in 1862 attempted to build a compressed charge engine directly as a result of his work on the Lenoir engine. He had no knowledge of the Rochas "patent." Otto was attempting to improve on the Lenoir engine due to it's poor efficiency and lack of reliability. Otto's 186s engine was a failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krontach (talk • contribs) 08:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lenoir Engine
The Lenoir engine in now way resembles a steam beam engine. It does however resemble the cylinder on a steam locomotive with it's sliding valve.Krontach (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Beau De Rochas
Beau De Rochas's patent date was 1862 not 1861. He never built an engine. He was a prolific developer of various technologies. But he NEVER built and engine and there is no evidence that he ever tried to. His concept would not have worked.Krontach (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes
"1900: Wilhelm Maybach designed an engine built at Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft—following the specifications of Emil Jellinek—who required the engine to be named Daimler-Mercedes after his daughter. In 1902 automobiles with that engine were put into production by DMG".

Why did anyone think this event was worthy of listing on here! ? Eddaido (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Huygen's gunpowder engine
I believe the gunpowder engine was never successful because the cylinder could not withstand repeated explosions even when it was basically a cannon barrel. I don't have time right now to research it to verify that, so for now I'll just leave this insufficiently helpful note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbickner (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

T Suzuki said it worked
The book by T Suzuki "The Romance of Engines", SAE 1997, states that the Huygens' device worked properly, and succeeded in its task of sending water to the Versailles gardens, a water needed, not for taking care of the plants, but for sanitary reasons. No toilets existed then, and those visiting the palace, mainly for political purposes or for obtaining an state position, thrown their dejections in the gardens, the flowers were there to mask the smell. When soap was invented, the people in the courts become happy, "Not to smell other's own smell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a history
This is not a "history" of the ICE, it is a "timeline". Two very different things. It appears Wikipedia does not have a history of the ICE! How did that happen? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I am graduated in History of technics (| MASTER II in Paris at the EHESS/Centre Koyré) I fully agree with you.
 * In the article I am writing about Arthur Constantin KREBS (1850-1935), I try to give materials to historians. See my sandbox page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rbmn/sandbox
 * Give me your feeling about that big work ... Rbmn (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Carnot
Carnot developed an idealized cycle that is important in thermodynamics. Nevertheless the Carnot cycle specifies nothing about compression ratio (heat can and is added through the burning fuel) and IC engines are not limited by carnot efficiency, as internal combustion engines are 'open' cycles and not 'closed'/ideal cycles, as the Carnot cycle is.

Carnot should probably be removed completely as irrelevant; the comment about the carnot efficiency 'scientifically proving' the need for a high compression ratio is wrong on a few levels.

If further explanation is required, please see "Defining engine efficiency limits" By K. Dean Edwards, et al, given at the 17th DEER conference by employees at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A pdf copy is available online if you search for it.

I quote from it - "IC engines are not Carnot heat engines and therefore are not limited by Carnot efficiency "

Eljamoquio (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Carnot proved that any heat engine operating between two reservoirs: a hot reservoir, in this case the highest temperature obtained in the combustion chamber (which is determined by compression ratio.) and a low temperature reservoir, in our case the temperature of the exhaust gasses, is limited to the efficiency of a carnot cycle engine. Any heat engine, any cycle, flow or not. So I am forced to conclude that the paper and K, Dean Edwards are wrong. He is wrong when he says: No thermodynamic requirement for heat rejection to thermal reservoir for open cycle" When the cold reservoir is the atmosphere (where else can the exhaust go?) and as stated the exhaust temperature is the relevant heat rejection temperature. Anyone claiming a theoretical efficiency for a heat engine "In theory,η max ≅ 100%" is fundamentally wrong. This is but one paper amongst a plethora of others stating the validity of Carnot to IC engines. ~ ~ ~ ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donsayers (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the internal combustion engine
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the internal combustion engine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Crank": From Al-Jazari: Ahmad Y Hassan, The Crank-Connecting Rod System in a Continuously Rotating Machine From Crankshaft: Ahmad Y Hassan. The Crank-Connecting Rod System in a Continuously Rotating Machine. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is the advent of iron rockets relevant?
I guess rocketry is tangentially related to internal combustion engines, but if rockets are truly relevant, than there were earlier rockets and I don't know why their being composed of iron is significant.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lenoir: fuel consumption and nationality
Hello. I have made some further tweaks to the Lenoir engine entry, please feel free to revise this as you see fit. Also, do you mind if the following text is moved to Lenoir engine? The reason for this is that this level of detail is better suited to the engine's article rather than the overall history of IC engines IMHO.

"German engineer H. Boetius describes in an 1861 essay that the Lenoir engine's fuel consumption was falsely advertised. Instead of the promised 0.5 m3/PSh (0.68 m3/kWh), the fuel consumption (in a Kuhn-built Lenoir engine) was rather in the 1.2–5.4 m3/PSh (1.63–7.34 m3/kWh) range."

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The fuel consumption part is actually quite extensive and I also though of ways to reduce it. I reckon that it may be moved over to the Lenoir engine article. Friedrich Sass describes Lenoir as an engineer who was from Luxembourg. In fact, Lenoir was born in 1822 in Mussy-la-Ville, which, since 1839, has been part of Belgium. Lenoir lived in France and held a French citizenship. This is possibly why some describe Lenoir as Belgian-French. German-language sources often use a person's date of birth year as a fixed point in time to describe geopolitical aspectes. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, that would explain why the source I added (from Étienne Lenoir) describes him as Belgian-French. I am not certain about the Belgian part (since I am not familiar with the political history of the area during that time), but since he moved to France at the age of 16, I think that "French" should be included. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving somewhere doesn't necessarily grant someone that country's citizenship. Lenoir has actually received the French citizenship, and he was also a native French speaker. That's why one could argue that he was French. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lenoir only received French citizenship in 1870, so about 10 years after he created his engine. His birthplace Mussy-la-Ville was, at the time of his birth, part of Luxembourg. Mussy-la-Ville transferred to Belgium in 1839, so when he built his engine around 1860 he must have been a Belgian citizen. I can't find anything on his citizenships (apart from his French one) so labelling him as Belgian-French (as found in most reliable sources) would do. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johannes and Eem dik doun in toen. I don't have any strong opinions on the issue and am happy to go with what others think is best.
 * Just for future reference, do you know of any Wikipedia guidelines about how to describe a person's national identity in articles? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ETHNICITY covers it. MOS:IDENTITY also covers slightly (not very detailed but basically says to follow the sources).  Stepho  talk 00:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Diesel essay
Hello all. Do we think that Diesel's 1893 essay is historically significant enough to be included? I am doubtful, due to the differences between this theory and the eventual diesel engine (which is covered separately). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it is covered by many important books on the topic. Sass's book is literally called "History of the German internal combustion engine making from 1860 to 1918", and this book has an entire chapter covering that essay. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. I will try to add some context to the entry, please feel free to revise as you see fit. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fire arrow
How the hell is a fire arrow an engine? - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if one reads the article on the fire arrow, the word engine doesn't even appear there. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)