User talk:Sowilo

Welcome!

Hello, Sowilo, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Atkinson cycle engine[edit]

Since you not only ignored the citation request, but removed it, I have removed the uncited section from the Atkinson cycle article. I have seached for information on rotary Atkinson cycle engines, and I can find no verification other than stuff that you have written in Wikipedia, and various mirrors thereof. scot 15:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oak Ridge National Labs report on prime movers (http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106982.pdf) makes no mention of a rotary Atkinson cycle engine, just the typical modified Otto cycle engines currently appearing in hybrids, and a couple of turbine types, a pulse detonation type and a newer type by Wilson, 1999. The only mention of rotary engines is production Otto cycle and prototype Diesel cycle versions. Who's the inventor, when was the design first published, what's the patent number or application number? scot 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the patent and I'm happy with that reference. My concern was that I couldn't find any data anywhere online to support the fact that that is a real engine design, and not somefly-by-night concept in the same vein as the "100 mpg carburetor" or negative energy machines. I would be interested in any information on prototypes built; it looks like it might be on the borderline of practical, due to the sliding connections and the issues with sealing the sides of the rotors. If they can build one that compares favorably to the Mazda Wankel in terms of reliability, but addresses the issues of efficiency and hydrocarbon emissions (as an Atkinson cycle engine certainly should) then it may be a design with a good future. I noticed there's a stub to an article on the design, I'd be interested in seeing that article developed, maybe with the inventor's name in the title (since the delayed intake valve closing could conceivably be applied to a Wankel, making another variant of a rotary Atkinson cycle engine). I'd also like to see an analysis of the geometry, and what provisions there are for altering the compression and power strokes, as that would be important for adapting the engine for different fuels. For that matter, if you know of any sources that cover Wankel geometry, I'd be interested in that as well; I never did get the geometry enough to be able to envision how you could alter the compression ratio without messing up the sealing along the edges of the rotor to the point that induction would fail. scot 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non helpful editing[edit]

A message to Van Helsing: Please do not remove entries on the R.A.C.E. engine without reasonable grounds. Your edit removed a stub that other people were interested in expanding, as well as a link to the Atkinson cycle which is an important advantage in some rotary engine designs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowilo (talk • contribs)

Though the engine may be fantastic (we don’t know, it doesn’t exist yet), promoting or mentioning the idea on every engine or car related article is not something you should do. Having a paragraph of the hypothetical engine is appropriate on Atkinson cycle, but not in Hydrogen vehicle, Exhaust gas recirculation, Pistonless rotary engine etc. Please limit yourself there to a "see also" or external link, and even then it would be better to wait till the results are known of "The rotary engine technologies are currently undergoing independent computer simulated appraisals and assessments" as it says in the link you provided, before claiming engine properties.

Note that a Google search for "Rotary Atkinson Cycle Engine" returns nothing except your entries in wikipedia and copies of them by wiki clones. So claims of notability are also too far fetched [1].

Since you already found the "The five pillars of Wikipedia" [2] I would like to encourage you to also read them, and if you’re at it, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest could be useful to. I’m also very curious where I removed a stub, didn’t know I could do that. --Van helsing 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Rotary_Engine_Photo_Sequence_01.gif[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Rotary_Engine_Photo_Sequence_01.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]