Talk:Internal combustion engine/Archive 2

Reverted edit
My edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_combustion_engine&oldid=375532492 was reverted. Although it's perhaps indeed best not to use the "ICE term" too much, the article is still quite unclear without the edit. This as "Four stroke configuration" is not different enough from engine configuration, and it also seems to be a subsection under engine configuration, which is totally incorrect (they are 2 different things). I also think that, since we have "Four stroke configuration" and "Two stroke configuration" and again 2 similar sections called "Two-stroke" and "Four-stroke" under engine cycle, 2 sections are best removed entirely. Instead divide the information of these sections over the article, and other (seperate) articles. I'll leave it to you to fix it on the manner you seem fit. KVDP (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

harley
i have a 1991 harley ,the probleme is when you throttle it it dies does anyone know what could be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.245.57 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TEJJ CONSTANT TORQUE IC ENGINE
TEJJ IC ENGINE (CONSTANT TORQUE RECEPROCATING IC ENGINE)

In all IC engines built so far, the reciprocating motion of the connecting rod is converted in to rotary motion for wheel through crankshaft. This was most appropriate technology when the engine was invented. However, with continuously rising fuel prices around the world, many attempts are being made for improving engine efficiency.

I have studied existing technology in detail & have found out following disadvantages with existing system.

DISADVANTAGES IN EXISTING SYSTEM

1.	The torque generated is always in a sine wave form.

2.	Although, fuel combustion exerts tremendous force on piston from TDC to BDC (can be considered constant for any particular power stroke); all of it is never converted in to desired torque. When piston is near TDC or BDC, the force is wasted in compressing / stretching crankshaft radial arms towards / away from crankshaft bearings. Due to this repetitive cyclic force, crankcase is required to be designed adequately strong & robust for bearing non converted force from Pistons.

3.	Due to sine wave nature of torque conversion, maximum torque is available ONLY AT CRANKSHAFT ROTATION AT MULTIPLES OF 90 degree. For all other times, the torque available is LESS THAN MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.

4.	For a 4 cylinder engine with cranks placed at 90 degree apart & firing order 1,3,2,4; cylinder 1 (say) has power stroke from 0 degree to 180 degree of crankshaft rotation; then other cylinders will fire as under (ALL NUMBERS REFER TO DEGREES OF ROTATION OF CRANKSHAFT FROM DEAD START 0 POSITION)

•	Cylinder 1: 0 to 180. •	Cylinder 3: 180 to 360. •	Cylinder 2: 270 to 450. •	Cylinder 4: 450 to 630.

For cylinder 1, next power stroke starts at 720 degree only & hence it can be seen that from 630 deg. to 720 deg., there is no power available in any of the cylinders. Engine has to cross this zone only by means of inertia of the over all system.

Considering all these disadvantages, I have developed a new concept in IC Engine, which WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF ABOVE DISADVANTAGES.

I have named it TEJJ IC ENGINE having following advantages:

ADVANTAGES OF TEJJ IC ENGINE

1.	This Engine WILL PRODUCE CONSTANT TORQUE OVER ALL POSITIONS OF CRANKSHAFT ROTATION. Torque wave will be a rectangular one. 2.	The torque will be comparable to that of ELECTRIC MOTOR. 3.	As no force from piston will be wasted in exerting undue force on crankshaft bearings, crankcase design can be made relatively lighter. 4.	Torque available will be EQUAL TO MAXIMUM POSSIBLE TORQUE of existing sine wave torque at 90 degree multiples. 5.	This engine can be easily made in existing plants since It is only addition / modification of components & rearrangement of existing engine using ALREADY PROVEN COMPONENTS ELSE WHERE. 6.	No new technology yet to be tasted is used for this invention. 7.	Work done PER POWER STROKE of ENGINE WILL BE ALMOST 55% HIGHER THAN THAT IN AN EXISTING SINE WAVE IC ENGINE. 8.	This will lead to TREMENDOUS INCREASE OF ENGINE EFFICIENCY / MILAGE FROM VEHICLE. 9.	This Engine can be used for all IC engine applications as at present.

IN CASE ANY INDIVIDUAL / INSTITUTE / MANUFACTURER IS READY FOR SPONCERING DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTOTYPE OF THIS NEW ENGINE; KINDLY CONTACT ME ON MOBILE NUMBER 919424140739 OR E-MAIL rp_naik@in.com. I assure that concept is fully ready with drawings, animated presentations etc & only shop floor designing / manufacturing is remaining.

PLEASE SEE http://www.scribd.com/doc/49011286/TEJJ-IC-ENGINE-Constant-Torque-IC-Engine FOR MORE INFORMATION. Rajeev naik123 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Rajeev naik123 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Rajeev, I'm afraid I must point out that this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and for article talk pages. This is discussion about a possible future engine. That is outside Wikipedia's scope - we record things that have happened, and are already discussed by reliable third parties. New inventions remain outside this until they've achieved some notability beyond their creators.
 * Yes, this is terribly limiting and excludes much valuable research from Wikipedia. However we aren't a research project, we're an encyclopedia. It's a good way to build an encyclopedia.
 * I must point out that pasting this sort of content more widely on Wikipedia is likely to be taken badly and seen as self-promotion or 'spam', if not outright vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andy:Every man made reality in this world was at one time in the form of IDEA only. If as an encyclopedia, you can not include this type of contents, then can we not start a new section named "IDEAS" in wikipedia? The main point here is that with wide acceptability of wikipedia; the interested users will get good & relevant ideas from "wiki". Due to its easy searchability on any topic in the world; this site is really very good reference point. We are already carrying out discussions on "EVERY THING IN THE WORLD" THEN WHY CAN IT NOT BE EXTENDED TO IDEAS? My writing may be seen as self propogation if viewed accordingly; however, the main point here is that RIGHT SINCE IC ENGINES INVENTION; NO ONE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE LIMITATIONS WHICH I HAVE RESEARCHED & have almost achieved a feat considered IMPOSSIBLE for generations. I only want that through this site, if this idea gets some momentum; we shall proceed towards healthy environment & LOTS OF CARBON CREDITS ALSO CAN BE GOT BY INTERESTED MANUFACTURERS. Rajeev naik123 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are more wikis than just Wikipedia. You might find Appropedia a more suitable host for your ideas? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Integrate the mentioning of the quasiturbine; it isn't an idea, working prototypes of 2, 12 and 100kW allready exist, see http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/

Also mention the Di Pietro motor; this can also work as a internal combustion engine, although it's mostly a compressed air engine.

81.242.234.248 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war about the the first internal combustion engine
The article had "The first internal combustion engine was created by Étienne Lenoir" and was backed up by a reference in the Encyclopaedia Britianica. IIIraute removed it (twice) with the edit comment "we do not use the content of another encyclopedia for reference". In the interest of avoiding an edit war that continuously toggles between two opposing viewpoints, I invite a discussion here.  Stepho  talk 04:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopaedia Britianica doesn't state once Étienne Lenoir ...so what's your problem? maybe you should check the reference first.--IIIraute (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * edit warring??? you are making a fool of yourself... Encyclopaedia Britianica: - do you know why it doesn't mention his name.... because it's a stupid claim to say that one person created it! (see: History of the internal combustion engine) --IIIraute (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I love it when editors start throwing around "???", "fool" and "stupid". Makes it so much easier to spot their edits.
 * Britannica (and the OED). Don't confuse the lead paper or pay-per-view versions with the free online versions.
 * Lenoir built the first production IC piston engines. Word this how you like, reference it how you like, but it's worth keeping in there. This was the first time that anyone in search of an IC power source could simply buy one and use it.
 * I would agree though that about.com refs are pretty worthless. I don't even reckon much to the Britannica, but it's accepted on WP
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore it, as per Stepho and Andy. Support the removal of any about.com references.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy, I don't really care what you love, but the Britannica reference accessible doesn't mention him once - and that's a fact. Lenoir didn't invent the engine, he's the first to successfully produce and commercialize it in sufficient quantities. The first internal combustion engine to be applied industrially was patented by Samuel Brown in 1823.--IIIraute (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Brown's vacuum engine was just a development of an earlier idea from the Reverend Cecil, nor is it clear that it was ever applied industrially with any success. The engines were small, their bmep is limited by atmospheric pressure, consequently some of the claims made for the output power are quite dubious and references for their real use (rather than vague claims) are sketchy. Lenoir though built engines that others demonstrably used and did business upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockets?
''Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[8] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[9]''

Is that last sentence really relevant in an article about ICEs?Ordinary Person (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rockets are internal combustion engines too. Even though there has been some biased editing recently by a rocketphile editor, it's still reasonable to keep it here at this level. Mind you, rocket efficiency is very rarely 70%, because such high ratios are only achievable for comparably fast vehicles.
 * Editorially, the main point is to clarify article scope. This is on internal combustion engines, considered broadly. If you're really after IC piston engines, that's a different article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

To make things clear before mindless blanking occurs.
When it comes to inventions, single objects with multiple aspects that each can rightfully claim being invented by a person of a single country are being credited for it. For example the telephone, which has the tags : [Category:American inventions] [Category:Canadian inventions] [Category:Italian inventions] [Category:Scottish inventions] If unclear go visit the entry for it. 83.101.79.45 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Belgian Invention category was removed per village pump consensus re inventions by country. Sandcherry (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

5 stroke engine
I took out the 5-stroke engine section because it seemed to be advertising, and because it was unreferenced to any reliable sources.Teapeat (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

fuel ratio assumption
There is an unmentioned assumption that a tiny amount of fuel (expensive) is used with a large amount of air (normally free). Something ought to be said about this. It's also interesting to note that the situation would be flipped around for a motor boat travelling in the Lakes_of_Titan, which are mostly Ethane. 208.118.25.22 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraphs says "The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the combustion of a fuel (normally a fossil fuel) occurs with an oxidizer (usually air) in a combustion chamber that is an integral part of the working fluid flow circuit." This seems to sum it up nicely. Details of where the fuel and oxidiser come from and their cost would be relevant in a detailed article on a specific engine rather than this overview article.  Stepho  talk 11:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Add More
I would like for the reactants and products to be added, along with the initial and ending form of energy. Thanks! - Meapyeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.123.108 (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Source size in '5-Stroke engine'
Sorry, I've been unable to reduce the size of letters in the heading of 'five stroke engines' to a size equalling the rest in the article, hope somebody's knowing the way to do this, and willing to give a helping hand. Thanks. Salut †--Jgrosay (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ Each '=' in the section title takes it down a level. Also affects numbering and the table of contents.  Stepho  talk 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Efficiency internal combustion engine
Hello Andy.

I just changed some lines in the page "Internal combustion engine". According to my own calculations and a refference website, the efficiency of a diesel engine can be over 60%. Why is there written on the page that is is only 20%?

My calculation: I have a 1 kW diesel generator that uses 0,35 liter/hour. In other units, it uses 0,35 liter/hour to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. With an energy value of diesel of 17,447 MJ/liter, 6,106 MJ of diesel is needed to produce 3,6 MJ of electricity. This makes an efficiency of 59%.

The website: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/goldenstein2/

Ruudburger (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This belongs at Talk:internal combustion engine, not on a user page
 * You're citing an undergraduate course paper as WP:RS. It's not reliable, it's certainly not well written.
 * That paper confuses Carnot's idealised heat engine with a practical internal combustion engine. It's an inappropriate comparison to then take that and present it as if "a competently efficient IC engine ought to be approaching the Carnot figure". At the very most, only the work-doing expansion part of the IC engine cycle might approach this (ignoring mechanical losses). As the IC cycle also has to include combustion, gas flow and compression processes, before even reaching the start point of any comparable Carnot cycle, then this is unrealistic. Also citing Carnot's efficiency limit as being a magical 83% figure is to misunderstand it. That's only the limit for a combustion temperature of 1723K. If the combustion process gives a lower temperature, then this gives a lower Carnot limit. Yet engine efficiency as an engineering proceeds in both directions: hotter engines with better Carnot limits (and more difficult engineering) and also lower burn temperatures that achieve more efficient combustion to achieve a greater proportion of what's a lower Carnot limit. Modern engines are chasing both these goals. Yet to present Carnot as a simple limit on IC engines is a gross over-simplification, especially at this point in the article.
 * This article needs improvement certainly. Thermodynamics on WP is generally OK in pure science articles, falling apart when it comes to engineering applications. Such improvement needs a better basis than a lazy student paper though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Finnish Wikipedia article the efficiency of Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C is only 51,8% and that is probably the world record of all commercially produced Diesel engines. So, it seems that achieving 60% would be extremely difficult if not impossible. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 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.


 * There are a few automotive engines which rotate "the other way"; my increasingly shaky memory-branes tell me that the Chevrolet flat six was one such, from a magazine article concerning substitute engines in the NSU Ro80. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.


 * Hello and thanks you very much for your interest Mr Larrington. Please note that nobody owns Wikipedia articles. If you want to have something change in an article you can edit, you're encouraged to be bold and make the changes yourself. There are some articles which are protected for which you would have to make an WP:edit request instead.


 * Regarding your specific points:


 * All animations show the crankshaft rotating clockwise. Did you mean to say “counterclockwise” instead?.
 * I was unable to find any claim in the article for the statement that you mentioned regarding maximum torque and 90° after TDC.


 * When starting new sections in a talk page, please add them at the bottom of the page. That's what the “New section” link defaults to, and is the widely accepted convention. It would also be much more clear who made which comment if you stick to the convention of adding your signature to the end of the message. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

Something peculiar here. I didn't start this section, just added the observation about engines which rotate widdershins. Which I signed. I have no idea who put it the original section or when. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. The user who posted the original message didn't sign it, causing this confusion. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC).

Operation section: Clearer explanation needed about the mechanics of the motion
Basically, this is a good article but for non-expert readers the explanations are not very clear. Particularly confusing is the compression stroke.

I think it's obvious that when the spark ignites the gases expand and the piston moves down, but it's not at all obvious what makes the piston move up. Could some explain this clearly? Macgroover (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends a little on the engine. It's always pushed up by the rotating crankshaft, via the connecting rod.  In multiple cylinder engines, this is done by other cylinders whose firing is spaced out so that one cylinder is driving the crankshaft with its power stroke whilst another is being compressed by the crankshaft.  In single cylinder engines, and four strokes with few cylinders, there's no other cylinder to do this and so instead they rely on mechanical inertia stored in the rotation of the flywheel. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Internal combustion engine or internal combustion piston engine?
I note some recent work by Mario Castelán Castro (here and elsewhere), and thanks for that.

Should the main push to "explain the car engine" (clearly a vital topic for engineering in any technical encyclopedia) be made here, or at internal combustion piston engine? (currently a redirect here). We need a vital article on such engines: not the obscure outliers, but a straightforward answer to the question, "How does a car engine work?" Yet we also have the accuracy and scope problem of encylopedias. Such an article under that title needs to cover jets, rockets and the Brayton cycle too. Yet to be clear on the car engine article, we should keep it focussed. We have to mention and link to other forms of IC engine, but we shouldn't spend time explaining them there, or even cover them visibly such that readers looking for "car engine" might be confused.

Do we even need a simple article at car engine that describes how car engines work and is narrowly focussed on answering that specific question? It wouldn't be huge effort to write, as most of it could be culled from pre-existing material, and the hardest part would be defining the editorial scope and maintaining that.

Suggestions? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Andy Dingley. Thanks for your comment and your contributions to Wikipedia too. I enjoy contributing because it's free as in freedom. I will add references to the material I added once I consider that no major changes will be required.


 * I agree that Wikipedia needs to explain how a land vehicle engine works. I have noticed that Wikipedia covers reciprocating ICE several times through these articles:


 * Two-stroke engine
 * Four-stroke engine
 * Small engine
 * Petrol engine
 * Diesel engine
 * Reciprocating engine
 * Internal combustion engine
 * Component parts of internal combustion engines


 * And maybe even more that I'm not aware of. These articles are partially overlapping, which is not bad by itself but I agree that there must be a central location for describing reciprocating ICEs and the rest must refer to it as the main article/section. This article seems like a good place for that and that's why I have been adding content here. It seems like a good idea to create a separate article “reciprocating internal combustion engine” or “internal combustion piston engine”, as it would be mostly not overlapping with other types of ICE. Doing so would turn the scope of this article (internal combustion engine) into a summary of all ICE types, in the way it already summarizes combustion turbines and Wankel engines. The more important problem with that proposal is that we would have yet another article on the topic of engines covering what is already covered by other articles. Also, most links to internal combustion engine assume that the article talks about reciprocating ICEs, because that's the most common meaning of the term, and that's why I added content here rather than for instance, in reciprocating engine.


 * The most part of explaining how a car/land vehicle engine works is the same as explaining how a reciprocating ICE works. Ideally in my view, the small part of the structure and operation of car engines specific to car engines should be explained in a boarder article about the operation of land vehicles in general, something like “structure and operation of powered land vehicles”, which also talks about suspension, transmission, steering, etc..., includes the specific aspects of cars, trucks and motorcycles and mentions the respective articles (on suspension, transmission, steering, etc...) as the “main article” or the “see also” article.


 * To summarize: My idea is to talk about all kinds of ICEs in this article, or maybe in a separate reciprocating/piston ICE article, and have a different article not only about car engines but all the structure and operation of cars and the other types of land vehicles. The question of how a car engine works would be answered by both this article and the article about structure and operation of land vehicles.


 * Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

Internal Combustion Steam Engine
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.

Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832

Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.

A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.

This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Internal Combustion Steam Engine
I posted a public disclosure to the named invention of mine in sci.military.naval. Here is another public disclosure.

Douglas Eagleson 217 East Deer Park DR Gaithersburg,MD 20877 301-977-0832

Invention: Internal Combustion Steam engine.

A mixture of water and alcohol at a level will cause exothermic oxidation while in a super critical water oxidation reaction chamber. Both water and alcohol oxidize inside a water volume such as a tube or chamber volume system. A flame literally stabilizes inside a cavity bubble in a water mass. A 50% alcohol and 50% water mixture is exothermic and will cause steam. Combustion is internal therefor. Flames in liquid stabilize in the supercritical temperature and pressure levels of water.

This invention eliminates oxidizers as input gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.227.217 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified style change
Bender235: Regarding your recent edit and insistence, I must note that:
 * Your edit summary of your first edit is incorrect. It does not mention that you removed the non-breaking space, instead it only notes the change of “http” to “https”. When another users sees your edit summary in his watchlist, recent changes, or similar, he will be misled by your summary into thinking that that is the only change; therefore, given that the “&amp;nbsp;” is more important given that it occupies a bigger proportion of changed characters (or at the very least just as important), the edit summary is defective in that it fails to summarize the edit.
 * Your edit summary of your first edit, “"nbsp" is HTML code for non-breaking space. Please inform before revert.”, is incorrect and inappropriate, in several ways:
 * You are presuming that I do not know what “&amp;nbsp;” is; in fact, I do, and I added these non-breaking spaces when I reworked and expanded this article from a chaotic collection of information lacking a well defined structure to the current version (with minor modifications since then).
 * A consequence of the former point is that you are accusing me for something that I did not do, namely: acting erroneously because of ignorance.
 * Your comment “Please inform before revert.” applies to you and not me. If you had informed yourself, you would have seen that I added “&amp;nbsp;”, and I use it routinely in other pages, therefore I know what it means contrary to what you claimed. While I do not hold that you most necessarily check the edit history from more than a year ago if you are going to revert (just revert, without making an accusation in the edit summary), I hold that it is a common sense requirement to make sure that accusations are correct before making them.
 * Reverting as you did, without making any explanation of why you insist in your proposed version of the article is against the recommended (and under some conditions, regulated) behavior within Wikipedia. I am not giving an exhaustive list, since I know that you are aware of the relevant documents. I will just name BRD as an example.
 * Regarding the topic of the non-breaking space itself: A quantity expressed in the form “Q U” where U is an unit and Q is the numerical value of the quantity when expressed in unit U, requires a non breaking space in the middle. This space stands for a multiplication operation and therefore it is not optional. In this case, the unit is 0.01, which is represented by the percent symbol (“%”).
 * References:
 * (not officially published online).
 * (not officially published online).
 * (not officially published online).

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See MOS:PERCENT. No space. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is what it recommends (the MOS is a guideline and not policy as its header says), giving as the rationale that “that is what most people do” (phrased in the typical austere tone of Wikipedia).
 * Should a technical article like internal combustion engine follow the taste of the editors with no special qualification or relevance that write the MOS, instead of the relevant standard that is written for consistency when expressing the value of quantities and with a logical rationale?. How would this make Wikipedia better?. I do not see how.
 * The reason for space has been given: it stands for the multiplication that is necessary to multiply the numerical value of the quantity and the unit; for more details see the referenced documents, especially the NIST one.
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC).


 * I am honestly amazed by how meticulous people can be about these trivial edits. So here's what AutoWikiBrowser does automatically: if there's a number followed by a percentage sign, such as, it adds a non-breaking space in between, i.e.  . All this does is preventing an accidental line break with   on one line and   on the next one. The fact that you reverted this change referring to an "international standard" according to which there has to be a space between the number and the percentage sign signaled to me that you clearly did not understand what   does. It does not remove a space, it only makes it "non-breakable". And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow. --bender235 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If you care about these “trivial edits” enough to make them in the first place, and to insist when you are reverted, then common sense says that some people will also care as much as you do (and of course, some will care less, and some will care more). You appear to be judging me for being “meticulous” about “trivial edits”; your phrasing does not makes it completely clear whether that is the case, but if it is, note that exactly the same judgment would apply to you. Again  (this is the second time), your accusation to me of acting in ignorance is false, and it applies to you instead. If you had checked your edit, as you are supposed to do, you would have realized that your tool did not perform the transformation you claimed it does ( to  ), but instead it changed   to. Maybe (just maybe) the problem arose because it does what you said in other cases, but not in this one; however, if that is the case, you still bear full responsibility for it. I am abiding by WP:3RR and BRD, therefore I am not edit warring. As further evidence, note that I was the one to bring the discussion from live edits to discussion in the talk page, and I have explained with arguments why you are wrong for the points in which you are wrong (That is: an argumentative “you are wrong in X because of Y”). You on the other hand, are making false accusations and have failed to provide a single argument in favor of your proposed version. If somebody is edit warring here, that is you.
 * Your critique is unfounded. Let me address your complaints one by one:
 * “I am honestly amazed by how meticulous people can be about these trivial edits.”
 * “So here's what AutoWikiBrowser does automatically: [...]”:The first thing in the page you linked says that you bear full responsibility for those edits, and it is repeated in the first section. You emphasized the word “automatic” as if it was something of importance, while in fact the page you linked establishes that it is irrelevant that it is automatic by virtue of the convention about the responsibility assumed when using AWB.
 * “if there's a number followed by a percentage sign, such as, it adds a non-breaking space in between, i.e.  .”
 * “And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow.”
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Ok, this is clearly absurd. Here are my final words on this: by "automatic" I meant that AWB makes certain style changes (which all are in line with WP:MOS, no exception) in the background even if the original purpose of your edit was something else. The purpose of my edits was to transform HTTP→HTTPS. --bender235 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:PERCENT says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Which I interpret as "don't change unless there is agreement". There is no agreement here (yet), so there should be no changes. Ie, it should remain as spaced (which, in this case, includes no-break-space) until there is agreement to change it.

Personally I don't care which way it goes but flipping back and forth cheeses me off.  Stepho  talk 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Most Efficient ICE?
There is a paragraph under types of 2-stroke engines, specifically blower scavenged, that makes a grandiose claim which I can't find any supporting documentation for within the citations, and I suggest the claim be deleted. For one, isn't the most fuel/thermal efficient ICE above 80%? Here's the paragraph with the claim with questionable supporting citations inline on the article: "An example of this type of engine is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged 2-stroke Diesel, used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with a thermal efficiency over 50%.[7][8][9][10] For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke engines are around 43% thermally-efficient (SAE 900648);[citation needed] size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area." Typenolies (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't make good sense of what you've written here.
 * The most efficient engine, and engine type, at present are these large ship Diesels that are some of the very few engines to use the Diesel cycle. Something has to be most efficient, it happens to be these.
 * This isn't the same thing as saying that mechanically-scavenged uniflow two-strokes are the most efficient: that's a broad group, not all of them are efficient like this. The Wärtsilä types are actually quite rare, and quite distinct from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing I'm noting is that the "most efficient internal combustion in the world" is a contentious claim which needs to be directly attributed with a citation. The second is the nature of the claim.  Since the engine is likely using various methods to achieve this efficiency, the question needs to be addressed is that are these techniques technically distinct (specifically are they derived solely from mechanical torque in the exhaust stream) from a combined cycle plant, which is usually the standard for greatest heat efficiency in power production.  So what I'm suggesting is that either the claim not be made or may it be addressed thoroughly with citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typenolies (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gas turbines
The text says, 'Notably, the combustion takes place at constant pressure, rather than with the Otto cycle, constant volume." But the piston engine does not operate with constant volume (moving piston changes the size of the combustion space) and the gas turbine does not operate at constant pressure (the compressor raises the pressure and the burning fuel further increases the pressure). Perhaps an expert can reword this so that it does not appear to be contradictory. CPES (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Otto cycle, combustion is assumed to be so rapid (compared to physical piston movement) that it takes place as a sudden rise in pressure at constant volume.
 * In the Brayton cycle gas turbine, the pressure at each location is considered constant. In effect the cycle takes place spread out over the axial dimension, rather than spread out over time as in the piston cycles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * < the burning fuel further increases the pressure > No. In the ideal cycle combustion takes place without pressure change - as shown in the diagram in the article. In real engines the pressure falls by a few per cent. (See, for example, Cumpsty, 'Jet Propulsion') 109.145.109.85 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Further regarding the Brayton Cycle, is it appropriate to apply the effects of thrust as output of the exhaust stage, given that it wasn't initially designed for such? Typenolies (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thrust in a turbojet engine has to be calculated separately for each section, as either drag or thrust, then summed overall. It's not obvious just where the main thrust will come from - it's certainly not all from a nozzle. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting of changes by Digitallymade
Digitallymade: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed some problems with the changes you made (Special:Diff/728194728/728986205) and I further edited the article to address them. A description of my changes follows.


 * I moved the image of an historical 2-stroke engine to “history of the internal combustion engine”. It was misleading in this article because you added it in a section describing modern engines, which do not use that design.
 * You deleted the explanation of crankcase scavenged 2-stroked engines and replaced it with a section “Design”, reusing some of the text. I wrote the section “Crankcase scavenged” around October 2014 (see the article's history for details) and although others have done minor editing, it remains mostly as I wrote it. Here I think that my section “Crankcase scavenged” is more clear than your section “Design”; more so because your section “Design” pĺaces too much emphasis on historical development. I restored my section “Crankcase scavenged”, moved your section “Design” to a more suitable place in this article and deleted the text that would have been duplicated among both sections.
 * I deleted this text (quoted below) that you added to the lead section, because those physical laws aren't the whole operating principle of internal combustion engines, therefore there is no point in mentioning them in the lead section (the lead section is supposed to be a summary):
 * “The operating principles in Physics are those described by Boyles, and Charles laws which describe how the pressure exerted by a gas will rise when it's temperature is increased. The ideal cycle was described by Sadi Carnot in his work titled Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, published on June 12, 1824. ”
 * I requested a reference (with “ ”) for a fragment of you added (quoted below). Please provide it if possible.
 * “In the USA two stroke motorcycle and automobile engines were banned due to the pollution, although many thousands of lawn maintenance engines are in use.”
 * You renamed and rewrote the section “Gasoline Ignition Process”. I only took a quick look at your changes. Overall it seems an improvement. I left your changes as-is.

Note that I am not a “reviewer” or similar. I am an editor who is interested in this topic and I am interested in keeping this article readable. This article assumed its current form when I reorganized and partially rewrote it around October 2014.

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC).

Series of edits that include mass merging of paragraphs
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, 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:
 * History section should remain empty


 * "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.

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.
 * Merging of paragraphs

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. :) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyediting should only be done to eliminate redundant text or make obvious improvements

Insertion of Links (Template)
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)

Incorrect picture caption?
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
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?
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uL1CfKfv?url=http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf to http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201210444/http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2003/news-goddard.asp to http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2003/news-goddard.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322224814/http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/2_Item%205.6.pdf to http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/2_Item%205.6.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720090822/http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Projects/index.html to http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Projects/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf
 * Added tag to http://195.99.1.70/si/si2002/20021808.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627061021/http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html?series=19 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html?series=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Pyréolophore
Hello y'all, just wandering through noticed that there is no reference to the Pyréolophore invented by the Niépce brothers. The Pyréolophore and Joseph Niépce articles claim that it is the 'world's first internal combustion engine.' I have also seen reference to it as the first actually constructed internal combustion engine. Wanted to see if anyone has references to rectify the discrepancy in these articles. I amnotted (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it should be added in some form. However, the competition for the first engine seems to be around 1794 (Thomas Mead vs Robert Street), as opposed to 1807 for the Pyréolophore.  Stepho  talk 22:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's older than that - 1791 and John Barber's gas turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is fine now but the Pyréolophore article still claims it was the first internal combustion engine. I have raised it at Talk:Pyréolophore.  Stepho  talk 07:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Acronyms used without being defined first
While doing my initial read through the article, I noted that the acronyms "SI" and "CI" (Spark and Compression Ignition respectively) are used several times before they are defined in the ignition subsection. It confused me, but I am familiar with the terms and guessed it and used a search to find them defined in the article. The issue is apparent when considering other readers less/not familiar with the terms and those who are not as computer savvy. I will put this on the talk for a little bit while I do some research because the MoS page for acronyms didn't cover a situation like this exactly. However, the MoS states that anytime a non-widely used acronym is used in a page, it should be written out and put in parenthesis the first time it is used. My confusion is that the MoS covers that an acronym should be defined in its first use, however in this article the terms are not defined fully until the ignition subsection. The MoS mentioned for uses with small space (like tables) that using an acronym without defining it is fine and you can use wikilinks to the section where they are defined, however it specified that for small space usages. If anyone knows of the proper way to do it, I'd appreciate it, it's bugging me. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have just added definitions for CI and Si in the lead.  Stepho  talk 22:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)