Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Bourke engine

Bourke engine
I have been working on the Bourke engine page and have had the help of another person who is familiar with automobile engines...he has been helping and correcting any errors I have made. We have reached an impasse on how to correctly explain the expansive cooling that occurs in the bourke engine...it can be seen on the discussion page of the engine and on this talk page under comment. Request any comments and expertise you can provide....thank you very much.....sno2Sno2 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To save time, this is my understanding of the expansion phase of an IC. If you hear an echo of JB Heywood's explanation, well, that is scarcely surprising: In the ideal otto cycle the expansion stroke is the one where work is extracted from the working gas. In the ideal otto cycle this expansion is assumed to be adiabatic, which means that no HEAT transfer takes place. In the real world, heat transfer takes place, so the expansion is not adiabatic. If you look at data from real engines you can compare the pressure/temperaure vs stroke, with what the ideal Otto cycle would predict. The agreement is not too bad, usually because the expansion is rapid and so there is not enough time for significant heat transfer to take place, but is not perfect. The Bourke engine is by no means unique in having an expansion cycle that is near-adiabatic, but it is not adiabatic precisely because heat transfer takes place. Greglocock 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article could do with a once-over as well, a lot of it is fan-boy cruft. Greglocock 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also transcluded this into WP:PR so discussions there, as well as at {{WP:SPR]], are together. --Bduke 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SpecialWindler
Version Edited:133541537

A few pointers to make it a better article
 * Template:Reqedit is up the top of the article, get rid of this

Went to help chat and was told to put it there..and someone would be by to edit it..will check again to find where it should be...maybe is why no one has been here to edit..because is in wrong place...as you suggest...??


 * The lead is too long for an article this size, see WP:LEAD
 * In the section "Simplified Explanation", the wordings need to be in paragraphs, rather than in just sentences which are all seperated.
 * The image in "Simplified Explanation", get rid of the "click to enlarge bit"
 * Categories should be in alphebetical order (numbers then letters)
 * Videos section should be moved to "External Links" and there is no need for (large files, will take time to download on low speed connections).

A number of people are aware of bourke but do not know/believe that it is a running engine...video section with those two videos are to point out immediately that their are running engines...other videos are available at the more video link if they are interested in seeing them...along with link at bottom of page...realize they are long...have compressed versions that I have made am trying to get permission to put those two here...am concerned that site where they are at may go down and they would be lost.


 * The section "Simplified Explanation" should be moved to section one after the LEAD because it explains what it is.

Have debated with myself where that should be..thank you for your very good reason...and reminding me to think about it some more


 * If you want this article to have any chance of becoming B, GA, A or FA, you need citations (basically every major statement needs a citation).
 * see WP:CITE
 * Does the template on the right up the top (the Thermodynamic cycles one) does it have to be there. What does Bourke engine have to do with Thermodynamic cycles, this should be explained in the article.

This a common chart on all engine sites, all engines are heat engines and thermo cycle applies to them. Reason is there is that it shows other engines that are avail on wiki, plus some that are not, so people can compare different ones..I think that is the reason...at least that is what have used for.

Thats a simple peer review (my first actually) thanks. SpecialWindler 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this article needs copy editing for stuff like spelling, punctiation and grammer.
 * SEE WP:COPYEDIT
 * the design features and claimed / measured performance sections have dot points, they should be integrated into paragraphs.

Special...thank you much for making us the first special peer review...have put a couple of answers to a few of your suggestions...will start working on rest as I get time....thank you again....sno2Sno2 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)