User talk:Mariasman1

Welcome!

Hello, Mariasman1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Cyclone
There are several problems with this addition:
 * Firstly the content added was uncited. There was no evidence of 3rd party coverage to indicate any notability.
 * Secondly the content was dull, boring and unencyclopedic. Some company claims to have a new product - big deal. Why should we care? What does it do, how does it do it, does it do it any better than previous attempts? A figure was quoted that made it fairly mundane amongst steam car power units for power/weight and very low against contemporary IC engines.
 * Finally, Steam engine is the top-level article for the whole technology. Something has to be remarkably important before it warrants coverage in there.

If this company have anything exciting for a potential steam car, then it could come back (although probably not to steam engine). However it needs to show why it's important (some content) and it needs to show why it's notable (some 3rd party sourcing). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, you may apply whatever standards you wish. But it does seem strange to me that a modern steam system currently under development is not mentioned in your article. I don't know what sort of "third party coverage" will satisfy you. But James Crank has written a lengthy white paper in support of the Cyclone automotive system. This paper is available online. It should be easy for you to find. Again, the absence of any mention of the Cyclone engines in your steam power related articles seems very strange to me. Perhaps if you took some time to learn about the technology, then you might decide that the Cyclone engines are worth some note in your articles.Mariasman1 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's strange. Welcome to Wikipedia. Not my rules, just the way stuff is done round here. Stuff doesn't get here because it's important, it's because it has to be WP:NOTABLE. For objective reasons, this notability is defined as having received 3rd party coverage by WP:RELIABLE sources.
 * Cyclone has been around for about five years, AIUI, so they ought to have picked up some external coverage by now. That needs to be referenced from the addition.
 * Is it an interesting technology? Well 100hp / 350 pounds isn't great, but that's including the condenser too. The cyclone combustion is unusual at this size, the rest is fairly well established, if not in this combination. I don't know what the "spider bearing" is and why it's patentable, presumably it's not just the regular radial engine master rod. The interesting aspect would be the high pressure / low temperature approach. Great for heat recovery purposes, but it makes the piston engine part a sod to design.
 * Can it go in steam engine? Not a hope. If we're all driving them in a few years, then certainly. Otherwise WP:NOTCRYSTAL is a problem, as is WP:UNDUE. Now steam engine is a poor article (locomotive is even worse) with no coherent editorial structure, but it's the lead article for a big topic and space is limited - so new innovations don't get to go in it, until they're demonstrated to be of quite major significance.
 * Advanced steam technology? Now that's a better location. The topic certainly fits. However it still needs external references, a ref to the Cyclone site itself (WP:SPS - so not trusted to prove independent evidence of notability, but still the best source for supplementary information). Most of all though, it needs content. "New power unit", "3.5 lb/hp" and "no transmission" could all refer to steam cars of the '20s - something that short just isn't enough. There needs to be a solid descriptive para or two on the Schoell cycle, and where Cyclone have got to with making saleable engines.


 * Incidentally, Schoell cycle has previously been added to AST, and there is a draft article at User:Accesschris. Of course it was later removed, but that's Wikiclueless for you...  Incidentally, don't worry about deletions like this - they're still in the page history, work of moments to re-add it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy, thank you for the reply. Your descriptions and arguments are very clear. It must be equally clear that I have no experience with the Wikipedia format. Let me explain only that I am very knowledgeable on the Cyclone engines, and that I admire the design. It just seemed a shame to see not one mention of it in your article. But I now know why. BTW, I'm not aware of any fully condensing piston steam system that achieves a rated power/weight higher than the Cyclone system. Please let me know what these are. Also, there is a good chance that I can answer some questions that you may have on the Cyclone engines in case you're interested. Cheers mate! Mariasman1 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thermodynamics is easy compared to WP's arcana. At least there are textbooks on it.
 * I would suggest that the best starting point would be a decent article as a separate article, probably under Schoell cycle (this is a more "reputable" sounding name than Cyclone engine, so it's more robust against nit-picking. The article can easily cover both cycle, technologies and the completed engines. A paragraph can then be added to AST, and even a link from steam engine.
 * This is (by far) best written "in userspace" first, then moved. Start it under User:Mariasman1/Schoell cycle. It would also be useful to flag its existence to user:EdJogg and a few others, by posting links on either mine or his talk: pages. He's a good copyeditor and second set of eyes for steam articles.
 * If you want to use any of the content from User:Accesschris (it's posted under GFDL, it's OK), it should be done carefully. Post a note in his talk page first and see if he's still active, although I doubt he'll reply. Then move that userpage to your userspace, and edit the old userspace with a note as to what you've done. Don't just copy and paste chunks of it from page to page - that would lose the edit history and accreditation, something we're supposed to be a bit careful about.
 * You're probably right about power/weight, at the system level. It's not hard to get below this weight with flash steam, but water weight has to be factored in. Even the better "condensing" systems don't get to this 100% sealed-system level, so we ought to account for the weight of the makeup tank. One of my projects, which I'll never get time for, is to have a new CNC mill busy churning out a car- or launch-sized uniflow V4 for me. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)