Talk:Diesel engine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two quibbles

Diesel fuel may have a lower flash point, however the autoignition temperature (energy) is lower. Cigarette butts tossed into gasoline and diesel are much more likely to create a conflagaration with diesel fuel. Second omission is that a much higher proportion of the energy of diesel fuel is carbon, therefore not as green a fuel. (Of Carbon burning in Oxygen: 85% of energy from burning to Carbon Monoxide and only 15% burning CO to Carbon Dioxide.) Also, Diesel engines run at high compression and high pressure which forms significant Nitrogen Oxide pollution. The comment about "some form of air injection" is poorly researched and undocumented: NOx is reduced in gasoline engines by running the mixture fuel rich, not air rich. The resultant carbon monoxide rich mixture is reacted with injected air in the catalytic converter. Diesel engines generate Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) by virtue of their higher pressure and higher temperature of combustion. Note that the equilibrium of 2 CO = CO2 + C is 1400 degrees at the higher limits of gasoline engines, but below diesel combustion temps. Reduction of NOx in diesel combustion is by adding Ammonia or other low valent Nitrogen compounds during the combustion , or exhaust gas recycling (EGR) . Shjacks45 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Diesel No 1 vs Diesel No 2 fuel. Biodiesel wrong.

• Didn't see a link to Diesel fuels etc. like Cetane number or reference to other C-20 type fuels (Kerosene, Jet Fuel, ...).

Lawsuit that can be googled about older fishing boat fueling an dock ran out of #1 diesel so they used #2 diesel because it was the more expensive (higher grade) fuel, narrower distillation range. However the older engine depended on the waxy components in the #1 Diesel for lubrication and the engine failed, was damaged, using #2 Diesel.

• Most waste cooking oil is treated with small ammounts of methanolic sodium hydroxide to removed acidity from decomposed fats. Hydroxide does not catalyze transesterification and not enough methanol to react. Modern gas engines use fuel injection just like diesel engines and can burn the junk mixture that is now called gasoline (isooctane and n-heptane co-distill; octane rating was % octane; current gasoline ranges from propane to cetane and includes toluene and benzene et al). Foolish listing of alcohol since ethyl alcohol boils at 80 degrees which is higher than most engine compartments; engine fluid handling equipment doesn't handle vapor successfully. Vegetable oil is admixed with diesel oil because of poor startup characteristics at cold temperatures (many oils congeal at cold temperatures) as well as much higher Autoignition temperature and flash point of vegetable oil compared to diesel oil (Cetane).

Shjacks45 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proper noun

The term "Diesel" is a proper noun, and should, therefore, always be capitalised, the uninformed opinions of certain "authorities" notwithstanding. The engine is named after its inventor, Rudolf Diesel. There are editors on Wikipedia who have been extensively using lowercase for the name, and even reverting corrections from capitalised to uncapitalised. To continuously insist that it should be uncapitalised is as absurd as referring to vehicles from Ford Motor Company as "fords" or vehicles from General Motors as "chevrolets", etc. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Diesel didn't invent the diesel engine, as we know it today. He invented the Diesel cycle and the original low-speed air blast injection Diesel engine. These bear little relation to the engine we use today, at least not at the car and truck scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, as I understand it. The *name* "Diesel" is a proper noun. The *term* "diesel" is a common noun. It's not absurd, because it's *not* a brand name or any other precisely registered body of intellectual property, but rather, of fairly common or genericized (if those are the correct terms) technology. AFAIK. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a noun adjunct (a noun acting as an adjective), in this case a diesel (fuel) engine. Diesel fuel is a common noun, as mentioned, not a trade mark, and is why this is lower case, as contrasted with Diesel cycle (or Diesel's cycle to think of it a different way). Hence lower case is correct here. Mauls (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand you folks correctly, we should be writing all automotive-related names exclusively in lowercase from now one. Perhaps you'd be happy with others writing your surnames in lowercase, too. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Dingley Act is capitalised, the dingley tin isn't. Dingley tins are the key-opened tins traditionally used for sardines and the root of our family fortune, in the Band-aid industry.

In credible sources, Diesel cycle is capitalised as a proper noun, diesel engine (outside Wikipedia) very rarely so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quicksilver, although your concern on this is entirely good-faith, it's also misplaced. Despite your impression that lowercasing certain eponymous terms is (to paraphrase) "a Wikipedia thing" or "an unreliable-so-called authority thing", it is in reality done by all major dictionaries on various eponymous terms, although the individual dictionaries differ in which terms they choose to lowercase. Take a look at eponym > orthographic conventions. Read the section Capitalized versus lowercase. Look at the refs in it. Read the table at Comparison table of eponym orthographic styling. Look at the ref citations in that table, click on them, and look at which dictionaries they are from. In short, the list of "uninformed" "authorities" (in your air quotes) that you are going up against includes Merriam-Webster, Oxford University Press's Oxford Dictionaries (try it yourself: type "diesel" at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ and press enter), The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, The Chicago Manual of Style, Dorland's medical reference works, American Medical Association style, American Psychological Association style, and all other major dictionaries and style guides. Once you have changed the minds of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionaries, you could expect Wikipedia to follow suit, per WP:RS. — ¾-10 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The article needs improvement

Hello. I think that currently the article is lacking in that it talks about Diesel engines, but describes neither their structure nor operation. There's no description of what a Diesel engine actually is (Ie. it's a machine which consists of an engine block in which there are cylinders and a crankcase, which has pistons, bearings etc) nor how it works (The 4 stroke and 2 stroke cycle).

For instance, currently at the beginning of the “Operating principle” section we can find the following text:

In the true diesel engine, only air is initially introduced into the combustion chamber. The air is then compressed with a compression ratio typically between 15:1 and 22:1 resulting in 40-bar (4.0 MPa; 580 psi) pressure compared to 8 to 14 bars (0.80 to 1.40 MPa; 120 to 200 psi) in the petrol engine. This high compression heats the air to 550 °C (1,022 °F).

But there's however, no mention of where the air is introduced and then how it's compressed. Basically, the reader has to already know how a Diesel engine is and have an idea how it works to make sense of this.

I'd like to fix this problem by changing the “Operating principle“ section into a “Structure and operation” section which contains a description of the structure of a diesel engine interleaved with a description its operation. I have access to the book “Light and Heavy Vehicle Technology” by Malcolm Nunney which I plan on using as a source.

Please comment on this and let me know in this talk page if you'd like to participate on this change as well.

QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

I forgot to say: the elements of the structure of a gasoline and Diesel engine are almost identical, though the proportions differ. The operation of a 4 stroke Diesel engine and gasoline engine are also very similar. I'm considering to make a page operation of Diesel and gasoline engines and include only a summary and a pointer from the articles Diesel engine and gasoline engine. Again, comments are requested on this proposal. QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Capable of self-aspiration in the Supercharging section

Two-cycle chainsaws, model airplane, and motorcycles don't need blowers. They are self-aspirated because they are gasoline fueled and they use the crankcase in the cycle. (The model airplane uses a glow plug for ignition. The chainsaw and motorcycle use spark plugs.) I think the previous editor meant to say that "Diesel" two-cycles need a blower. Questions or comments?66.81.132.81 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that crankcase compression is equivalent to a blower. See also Kadenacy effect. Biscuittin (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Egr vs scr

See Talk:Egr vs scr. Biscuittin (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a merger with Diesel exhaust rather than Diesel engine because the latter article is very large already. Biscuittin (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Diesel engine/Archive 2. Biscuittin (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Engine starting

Some indirect injection engines of the 1950s did not have glowplugs for starting. Instead, there was provision for injecting a small amount of lubricating oil into the upper cylinder. This reduced the clearance volume and gave a temporary increase in compression ratio. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference for this. Biscuittin (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a misunderstanding of the CAV Thermostart system, and it's '60s rather than '50s. I've only seen it applied to direct injection, not indirect injection, and that matters an awful lot to a diesel. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It was used on some Paxman-Ricardo engines. The Paxman history page does not describe the starting system in detail but the reference to a "hot plug" refers to the throat of the combustion chamber, not to a glow plug. Biscuittin (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Which engines? (I've a fairly large library on Paxman and Ricardo).

Cold starting combustion chamber engines is described as both "harder" and "easier". They're difficult to start except when there's a glowplug system, which there always is; with working glowplugs, they're easier to start very cold than anything until very recent common rail engines.

The Comet system is well known for the loose plug, which acts a little like a hot bulb engine, but that's a running feature, not a cold start feature. It was also used as a similar loose ring with several earlier combustion chamber designs, although not with the same flow patterns as the Comet. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The RW engine is the one I am familiar with. Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean ?

"Turbocharging is particularly suited to DI engines since the low compression ratio facilitates meaningful forced induction, and the increase in airflow allows capturing additional fuel efficiency not only from more complete combustion, but also from lowering parasitic efficiency losses when properly operated, by widening both power and efficiency curves. " This is pure technobabble ! I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and it is meaningless to me. Also this: "The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency... due to...inherent lean burn which enables heat dissipation by the excess air" How are Diesel engines "inherent lean burn" and why should heat dissipation give greater efficiency ? More nonsense, I suspect. "lean burn under low load" might be defensible.

This paper states that the stroke of the 1893 engine was 400mm (not 10 feet !), while the efficiency of the 1897 engine was 26.2%. https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/diesel_history.php#diesel

The quoted 75% efficiency figure is totally spurious; good modern engines achieve 50% max for "shaft efficiency", the product of thermodynamic (or indicated) efficiency & mechanical efficiency: http://www.wartsila.com/en/sustainability/environmental-responsibility/products-environmental-aspects/engine-efficiency.

Clearly references are need in the "history" section. The article as a whole seems to be highly unreliable, and in need of radical revision. I have added a section describing the indicator diagram, but note that the figure is wrongly labelled with the horizontal axis said to be specific volume, whereas simple 'Volume' is appropriate if cyclic integral (area enclosed by the loop)is to be related to work. I am not going to tangle with the absurd wikki restrictions on pictures in an attempt to correct this; some-one else can edit out the word "specific". g4oep

Diesel engines run on the Dual Cycle

It is a common misconception that Diesel (Compression Ignition) engines run on the Diesel cycle, whereas in reality they operate closer to the dual cycle. When the fuel is injected at top-dead-centre, the fuel combusts which results in an initial pressure rise before the piston is moved due to the expansion of the air, this is consistent with the dual cycle. The 'Operating principle' should therefore be rewritten in accordance with the dual cycle operation of a diesel engine, rather than the misnomer diesel cycle.Aron Pye (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Whar's the "dual cycle" of which you speak? I agree that high-speed diesel engines (which is the majority of them, since the 1930s) use something much closer to the constant-volume Otto cycle than the constant-pressure Diesel cycle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The dual cycle is where heat is added under separate constant volume (isochoric) and constant pressure (isobaric) processes, it is essentially an idealised model of what occurs during combustion in CI / Diesel engines. The Diesel cycle was envisaged by Rudolph Diesel as a process by which engines could run, where the fuel is combusted under constant pressure conditions; this requires that the piston immediately move at a rate which expands the volume of gas inside the cylinder which permits constant pressure combustion (i.e. heat addition). In reality there is a pressure rise as the fuel combusts as the piston does not instantaneously move, it is also highly beneficial for the heat addition processes to occur under constant pressure and constant volume regimes as this expands the area under the indicator (PV diagram) resulting in more work and higher thermal efficiencies. Aron Pye (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A true Diesel cycle operates more on the Carnot principal. Ideally the engine would not require any form of external cooling because the expansion of gasses would extract all the heat in the form of work. The original Brayton oil engine of 1874 was the first constant pressure oil engine. Later Brayton would develop the Direct injection 4 stroke engine of 1887 which was the first lean burn engine in which speed was regulated by fuel alone also more of a dual cycle than a constant pressure cycle. Also Brayton's air blast engine of 1890 was more of a constant pressure version of the lean burn cycle. Diesel studied Brayton's engines and without a doubt Brayton's engines played a role in the development of the Diesel cycle and his engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Diesel studied Brayton's engines "

OK, that's a really interesting point. What evidence do you have that Diesel did this? As noted before, I've never read anything which suggests such a link from Brayton to Diesel. Nor were Brayton's engines particularly commonplace. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, A Brayton 4 stroke air blast engine was displayed at the Feb 1892 Warwick show. Diesel didn’t even start thinking about internal combustion engines until around March 1892. Also a write up of the engine and it's performance was published in "Engineering" July 1892 It's fairly inconcievable to suggest that Diesel was not aware of Brayton's air blast engine.

More on Diesel and Brayton Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Minority viewpoint

Sources for :

• Willard W. Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine, p. 1
• Doug Woodyard Marine Diesel engines and gas turbines', p. 63
• Charles Fayette Taylor The Internal-Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice, p. 1

The viewpoint of Heywood is a minority viewpoint. Free feel to mention it, but removing a template because it conflicts with a minority viewpoint is not justified. This is not a personal attack, I just want to keep the quality of the article. Thanks for contributing as well. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diesel engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121105211235/http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/about_audi_ag/news/AUDI_REVEALS_WORLD_S_MOST_POWERFUL_DIESEL_PASSENGER_CAR.html to http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/about_audi_ag/news/AUDI_REVEALS_WORLD_S_MOST_POWERFUL_DIESEL_PASSENGER_CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100107145120/http://www.analog.com:80/en/technical-library/faqs/design-center/faqs/CU_faq_MEMs/resources/fca.html to http://www.analog.com/en/technical-library/faqs/design-center/faqs/CU_faq_MEMs/resources/fca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of already substantiated claim based on a misunderstanding

GliderMaven: You quoted 2 reasons for your removal of the following claim:

The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine due to its very high compression ratio and inherent lean burn which enables heat dissipation by the excess air.

It is fine if you are checking the article for factual accuracy. However, that requires technical knowledge of the field and to read carefully both the article and the sources.

Your first complaint “graph in Mitsubishi reference says gas turbines have both higher efficiency and power” is incorrect. See the graph carefully. The graph has “Gas turbine” below “Large, slow-speed marine diesel engine” in both power and efficiency. You probably confused yourself with the label “Gas turbine combined engine” which is not the same. I elaborate on the difference below.

Your second complaint “second source says combined cycle engines are higher efficiency” shows where the misunderstanding comes from. You are confusing combined cycle systems with engines. Combined cycles are by definition, assemblies of heat engines, and an assembly is not the same as its elements. In this case, the relevant combination is gas turbine/steam engine; neither of which has an higher efficiency than a modern Diesel engine comparable in power.

Free feel to add a clarification to the article regarding this distinction, possibly as a note. However, removing valid content because you have misread the sources and confused the concepts is not justified. I have restored the valid claim. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine, and a combined cycle engine is not, specifically a diesel engine. Further the claim that you're making that: The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine is not found in either reference, nor is it likely to be found in any other reputable reference; nor is it actually true.

The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.

Even if this were to be true in some specifiable narrow sense, unless you specify what narrow sense this is true, then it should still be removed, because it isn't generally true, and you're saying that it is; which is, a lie.GliderMaven (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the efficiencies of the large Diesel cycle Diesel engines used for ships, such as those by Wartsila. They're the highest efficiency engines yet constructed. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference I have found for that is that Guinness said in April 2015 that a specific Wartsila engine is the most efficient diesel 4 stroke engine of all time at 52%. Sure, I'll buy that. They might even be the most efficient 4 stroke engine of all, but it doesn't even say that. That doesn't mean that they're the most efficient engine of all. There's rather a difference.GliderMaven (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet constructed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not what our Wikipedia article is claiming; it's claiming that diesel engines are necessarily the highest efficiency engine of all. And that isn't true. The efficiency of all heat engines is limited mainly by Carnot, which in turn is limited by the temperature ratio.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? In theory, make the hottest possible simple Stirling engine, then make it out of unobtainium instead and run it even hotter. This is not an interesting game to discuss outside an article on the Carnot limit itself.

In practice, the limit is materials, not design, and all materials are considered available to all. So the practical limit becomes pressure ratios, not temperatures. Diesels get to use higher pressure ratios.

In everyday economics, the overall economy of a diesel is also because its part-power efficiency remains quite good, unlike the petrol engine or gas turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's certainly pretty good; but the article that is being revert warred to, is saying that it's better than all other engines; which it isn't. Actually all heat engines seem to top out at about the same, and combined cycle engines do a bit better than single cycle engines like diesel cycle because they're better able to fill the PV graph. But that's not what is being repeatedly written here.GliderMaven (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: You are using terminology in a way that introduces what you want to prove as a premise; that is circular reasoning and therefore a fallacy. Indeed it is true that “a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine”; it is a tautology. However, you are implicitly assuming that we are talking about “combined cycle engines” to begin with, which is an implicit premise and it is false. The literature refers to these systems as just “combined cycles” or “combined cycle power plants”, not “combined cycle engines”. See for instance Jeffs, Eric (2008). Generating power at high efficiency. Here you can find plenty of mentions of “combined cycle” and none of “combined cycle engine”.

You say “The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.” which is false. It does not talks about “combined cycle engines” either.

You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.

Both papers support the claim: the first paper in page 6, first paragraph of that page; the second paper in page numbered 22 (actually 2), second column, third paragraph of that column (counting the incomplete one as the first paragraph).

I repeat: free feel to add a note if you think that there is a chance of confusion, clarifying that despite the fact that some combined cycles achieve an higher efficiency than some comparable Diesel engines, neither the gas turbine nor the steam turbine achieve an higher efficiency.

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but the first reference says it is 'unrivalled' but then qualifies it by only comparing it with two rather specific examples, and then the graph on the same page shows that a diesel running combined cycle with another cycle is still more efficient at 55%. But the references we have elsewhere in Wikipedia say that gas turbines running combined cycle can achieve 60%!

The second reference says that it is higher than 'in other engines and turbines' it doesn't which other, and it doesn't say all other.

And neither reference is a WP:RELIABLE source; these are self published sources by a manufacturer stating how "very" good their own engines are. They have not gone through peer review, and they are not published in reliable, independent, journals!!!

These statements are wishful thinking by a self interested party. Diesel engines are good, but not that good. These "references" are both marketing bullshit.GliderMaven (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

These "referenced" statements don't pass the smell test.GliderMaven (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: I am noticing a pattern: You make several argument in succession, none of which is a valid reason to remove the text; and when you are refuted in one of them, you move to the next one, without acknowledging that the argument you just abandoned is invalid.

1. “graph in Mitsubishi reference says gas turbines have both higher efficiency and power” Simply reading the document reveals that it does not says that.
2. “The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.” Again, simply reading the article reveals that it does not says that because to begin with, it does not mentions “combined cycle engines“ at all.
3. “a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine” Indeed, but it is a tautology and it is a fallacy in this context, because again, the literature does not talks about “combined cycle engines”.
4. “the graph on the same page shows that a diesel running combined cycle with another cycle is still more efficient” It does not provides a counterexample to the text you removed. Like you said, it talks about combined cycles; it does not says “combined cycle engines”.
5. “The second reference says that it is higher than 'in other engines and turbines' it doesn't which other, and it doesn't say all other.” Indeed. We can't be completely sure that it means “all other engines”, but it likely means that; that interpretation is consistent with the rest of the article. In this case one must use reading ability. Note that it does not mentions any single engine type that performs better. It mentions combined cycles, which I already addressed.
6. “And neither reference is a WP:RELIABLE source” The guideline you quoted (note that it is not a policy) regards mostly self published and extremist sources. The Mitsubishi paper is not self published, nor a sales brochure; it is published in a Mitsubishi journal (this is mentioned in the paper itself). You can search for the name of the journal using any reasonable search engine and find it. The other paper clearly has a more commercial intent, but is not a sales brochure either nor makes exceptional claims like claiming somebody has built a perpetual motion machine (which WP:RELIABLE warns about). The relevant policy, WP:Verifiability says “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.” (emphasis added). Note that it says that those are the most reliable sources, not that they are the only sources that may be used in Wikipedia articles.

Your behavior does not seems to correspond to a reasonable effort of checking and ensuring the factual accuracy of the article. You seem interesting in simply removing the claim, regardless of whether it is factually correct.

You have insisted many times on removing the text based on a false premise. I mentioned the mistake since my first edit summary, so you are aware of it: “Combined cycle systems are not engines (the engine is the gas turbine _only_), so they are not a counterexample.”. I have already mentioned that your premise is inconsistent with the majority of the literature on that matter (possibly all, but obviously I can't check all of the relevant literature). I have asked you to give a source, with no response: “You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.”.

It is not productive to discuss if you refuse to back up your arguments and are not willing to listen for the counterarguments. This insistence on removing the text based on a false premise (without providing anything to back it up) is a sign of disruptive editing. Please reconsider your course of action.

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

I'm sure you find that people pointing out that this part of the article is based on unreliable sources disruptive to your agenda, whatever that may be. In the meantime I'm trying to help write an unbiased, truthful, referenced, encyclopedia article, and that requires WP:RELIABLE sources, but these are commercial sources that have not been through a reliable publication process.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So I'm removing both the claim and the 'references' because they're unreliable. If you can actually back up these or other statements with reliable sources, then feel free to reintroduce them, at that point, and not before.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: You have again edited to your proposed version without consensus. You just restated what you said previously with an added personal attack. This is disruptive editing.

“I'm sure you find that people pointing out that this part of the article is based on unreliable sources disruptive to your agenda, whatever that may be.” This is an unsubstantiated personal accusation (namely that I have an “agenda” that involves adding an untrue claim). There are guidelines and policies against this that you should be aware of, including dispute resolution § Discuss with the other party, no personal attacks and assume good intention.

The text you removed is sourced. You disagree with the sources, the relevant policy says (emphasis added) “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.”. You yet to explain any specific problems. I already asked for a source above (“You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.”).

You removed the references themselves based on your statement “They have not gone through peer review, and they are not published in reliable, independent, journals!!!”. Again, it is not required that sources are like that. Read the guideline you invoked (WP:RELIABLE), it says: “The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.”. I am restoring these sources.

Like Andy Dingley already explained to you, the point of the text is that Diesel engines are the most efficient practical engines or engines commercially produced (as you want to see it). Any editor including you can change the wording so that it is more clear, subject to consensus of course. However, it already addresses this: “any practical internal or external combustion engine”.

You can not impose unilaterally your preferred version of an article. Edits are subject to consensus. You do not have consensus on removing the text; you must work on establising consensus to your proposed version before restoring it. You must abide by the policy, and since a source has been provided already, you must (verbatim quote, emphasis added) “articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC). Regards.

Sorry, in Wikipedia but I don't have to disprove non reliable sources, I only have to remove them. You have to prove what is written using reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to reintroduce the material only if and when you can support it using reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: The policy says exactly the contrary (here is the quote again, for the third time): “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. In this case you removed the material, so you have the obligation. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

No problem, there were a couple of reliable sources there already.

I for one am completely fed up of GliderMaven's technical ignorance across a wide range of articles. This is the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, so it's hardly surprising, but you appear to have a greater ratio of self-confidence to actual understanding than almost any other editor I can think of. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE SOURCES ARE:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers

GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

THESE ARE NONE OF THESE THINGS- THESE ARE UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND NO STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE USING THEM IN WIKIPEDIA!!!GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the contention that diesel engines have the absolute highest efficiency of ALL engines is actually false. It might be the highest 4 stroke engine but IT IS FALSE THAT DIESEL ENGINES ARE AUTOMATICALLY THE MOST EFFICIENT OF ALL ENGINES.GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

“THESE ARE UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND NO STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE USING THEM IN WIKIPEDIA!!!”. I already addressed this concern 2 times: 1, 2. You have yet to quote a policy or guideline that says that the 2 sources in question (1) are unreliable, and (2) that no statements may be made using them. The quote you included does not says either of (1) or (2) and I gave a quote against (2).

“In addition, the contention that diesel engines have the absolute highest efficiency of ALL engines is actually false.” We already addressed this concern.

GliderMaven: you are just repeating yourself with no arguments to support the removal of the text. Please be civil and restore it yourself. Thanks.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

I came late to this thread and did not read the whole volume (so please excuse if someone else already said this), but GliderMaven, couldn't your concerns be addressed if the article simply said something about "highest engine efficiency of any practical transportation engine, even though not the highest theoretically possible efficiency"? Or something along those lines but worded better? That way both aspects of it could be covered. A link to Carnot cycle or other appropriate articles would then round out the full coverage (reader goes there if cares for more). Reader would still get the practical upshot here either way (layperson-friendly net result). Regards, — ¾-10 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If they can find a decent reference for something like that by all means. I'm not asking for much, just reference a book or something. Commercial, self published reports and articles are not reliable for what are some pretty grandiose claims.GliderMaven (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet again are just repeating yourself. If you actually read the discussion above, you will see that your concerns have already been addressed while you have failed to justify removal based on policy. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Hi Mario. Apparently you're new here, and you haven't heard that sources have to be WP:RELIABLE in Wikipedia. Follow that policy, and then you can keep material in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What utter patronising crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, you say that?: "I for one am completely fed up of GliderMaven's technical ignorance across a wide range of articles. This is the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, so it's hardly surprising, but you appear to have a greater ratio of self-confidence to actual understanding than almost any other editor I can think of. " Andy Dingley

Look just get reliable references to something, anything, and STFU. If you can't, don't write what you can't back up. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm fed up with you spamming the article with crap that is obviously not correct. If it was correct you would be able to quote something that said exactly that, but you cannot because it isn't actually true. You wishing it doesn't make it true. Diesel engines have no magic sauce that automatically makes them more efficient than all other engines. If it was true, it would be in all major textbooks, and it would be easy to prove. But it isn't true. The best reference you've found said that some diesel engine has been certified by Guinness to be the most efficient, four stroke, diesel engine. That's not the most efficient engine of any internal or external combustion engine.GliderMaven (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate more than a modicum of technical competence on any topic. You screwed up the 3D printing article. It would be a waste to let you screw this one up too. Your approach to sourcing is simple: "I disagree with that, therefore MAN engines are Not Reliable, for I Have Spoken." You have provided nothing from any objective source to back this up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I added properly referenced material, and you removed it. I also notice you're attacking me personally, and not addressing any of my technical points. Your claims do not appear in any of the referenced material, actually not even in the unreliable references. I also found reliable references that disagreed with the unreliable references you added, you removed them also. You're a total, total disgrace.GliderMaven (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your patronizing comment: I already pointed that WP:RELIABLE doesn't supports the removal nor says what you pretend it says, so you are aware that I know about WP:RELIABLE and you checked (or if not, you should have checked before making that statement) Special:contributions/Mario Castelán Castro, so you know I am not new.

“Diesel engines have no magic sauce that automatically makes them more efficient than all other engines.” It is already clear that the text you removed says practical engines. It is clear from the text itself, and I directly pointed that; likewise I pointed that you can improve the wording subject to consensus in case is not clear enough and another editor pointed the same thing.

Policy does not supports the removal of the text but that it stays. If you want it to have more sources, you can add them yourself.

Removing does not improves the article; if you are interested in improving it, then expand it or change it for good. There are several editors telling you that in different ways. You will notice that all of us will stop objecting as soon as you stop removing and instead work on improving the article (or just do not edit at all); I hope that the outcome of this discussion is that, but given your current course of action, the outcome may be that you end banned or otherwise sanctioned; I do not want that you get banned; so please reconsider your course of action. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

I've given up, I've reported you both at WP:ANB, when you make claims that are not backed up by the references and revert war to maintain that, and remove tags, your editing becomes disruptive.GliderMaven (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

George Brayton should get credit for his contributions to the development of the Diesel engine

Okay, to start off with, I will admit I know very little about Diesel engines, but the recent edits by unregistered user 2602:304:791C:CEC0:C4A1:6D99:4C18:2AF3 seem like some kind of axe-grinding. The IP address has only been used to edit this article, with nothing but patents for citations and the George Brayton article says nothing about Diesel engines.Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"What's a diesel engine?"

Yet again, it comes down to the interpretation of terms and specifying the scope of articles. Diesel invented an operating cycle and engine where neither are now widely used, in favour of evolutionary developments from them which have moved away from Diesel's original defining factors. There are still Diesel engines being built, they're on large ships, nowhere else. The other "diesel engines" though, quite a bit different.

So what's the defining aspect of "Diesel" then? "Slower combustion continued over time by ongoing fuel injection, with a PV cycle that has the duration of its pressure peak widened and limited by fuel supply rather than combustion processes"? That's quite long, but I think it covers both early and late diesel engines.

In which case, Brayton is certainly relevant here. He developed constant pressure cycle engines two decades before Diesel did. He understood their thermodynamics and their advantages. He had no input to Diesel's high pressure injection work (a necessary condition for making a useful constant pressure piston engine). The mechanical aspect of his engine went nowhere.

Brayton's engine is a gas turbine engine without the turbine. Think of it that way, using piston-based components as compressor and turbine, rather than rotating or continuous devices. As a result, Brayton's engine isn't a success - and it works particularly badly with single cylinders, where I don't think he ever made a multi-cylinder engine in his time. However Brayton did recognise the advantages of constant pressure combustion, he did it before Diesel and this was surely an influence over Diesel. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a book called 'The Middle Ages of the Internal Combustion Engine' by Horst O. Hardenberg and while he mentions Brayton he doesn't describe him as the originator of the diesel engine and goes so far as to state that his engine 'had no lingering effect on other inventors'. Furthermore, Brayton didn't invent the so-called 'Brayton cycle'. He was preceded by both John Barber and James Prescott Joule by a significant margin. The guy who made the original edits claiming that Brayton deserves to be called the inventor of the diesel engine seems to base a large part of his claim on the fact that diesel engines used fuel injection, despite the fact fuel injection had been used over fifty years before by Nicephore Niepce. The book I mentioned goes into quite a bit of detail on this topic, with the only serious error I've found in it being the exclusion of any mention of Thomas Mead's engine of 1794.SQMeaner (talk)

That's quite a sloppy book, as I recall, although I haven't read it since it came out. Not unusually for US books it misses out a lot of Europe. I don't think there's a single Russian in it. It misses out a lot of UK oil engines, which were significant in this period. I think Griffin and the engine builders around Bath were missing altogether. For a pretty thick book it was a disappointment.

No-one is credibly claiming that Brayton invented the Diesel engine. He did however invent the Brayton engine and (as noted above) he had recognised the virtues of a constant pressure combustion cycle - he just didn't do it in the cylinder, as Diesel did. I'd also question why your recent edits are removing Akroyd-Stuart as "Complete nonsense." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I only meant to remove the parts on Brayton. I also thought Hardenberg was German? I'd also like to point out that Brayton's engine still needed a carburettor while the diesel's doesn't. SQMeaner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the author (except he has an earlier book in similar vein), but I thought it was US-published? Can't find it tonight and it's a long time since I read it.

Brayton invented injection for it, but I think he had trouble with it and so used carburation instead. The advantage of the Brayton engine is that, unlike the Diesel, he can do that. It's hardly that he "needed" a carburettor, it's that Diesel needed to use the much more complex air blast injection - he would have used the much simpler carburettor if he could. 1900 Sulzer Diesels were really quite complicated beasts and were pushing the limits of what was manufacturable at the time. I'd be interested to know how much use of grinding they were making, if it was centreless grinding, and if they were doing it before Norton and Cadillac were. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose Brayton does deserve to be mentioned in the history section, along with John Barber, John Ericsson and James Prescott Joule, as they were the first to come up with the constant pressure principle. I leave the filling in up to you. SQMeaner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in when I made the above edit. I'd like to add that Nicephore Niepce probably deserves a mention as well, due to his invention of fuel injection. Also it seems I made a mistake. The first to use constant pressure combustion in an ICE was actually Christian Huygens, according to the same book I mentioned before. Furthermore, a William Cecil made an ICE with constant pressure combustion around the 1820s. Both of these engines worked at atmospheric pressure though.SQMeaner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"constant pressure combustion in an ICE was actually Christian Huygens" That's not even wrong, on a whole bunch of levels. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what the book states on page 7. Also, what about Cecil's engine?SQMeaner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have the book handy, maybe some quotes? I don't usually trust p7 of anything, as that's still the foreword, not accurate detail. To my mind. a "constant pressure cycle" can be defined thus: "an IC engine using initial compression, then the controlled combustion of fuel such that the pressure remains constant as the working fluid expands." Diesel's and Brayton's cycles and engines both meet this. Huygens gunpowder engine and Cecil's hydrogen engine do not. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here goes, from page 7, second paragraph: 'The development work of the Antiquity of the I-C engine had yielded two essential results: the atmospheric cycle with constant-pressure combustion, and the cycle with constant-volume combustion. The former was first described by LEONARDO DA VINCE and was reinvented by HUYGENS. In LEONARDO's cylinder, a fire was lit which was extinguished by closing a disc-shaped cover at the top. With the combustion gases cooling down, the atmospheric pressure caused the piston to move upward and raise a load. In HUYGEN's engine, gunpowder was ignited, causing its combustion gases to remove a maximum of residual air from the cylinder through self-closing valves. The fundamental working process of these indirect-acting engines may be termed the "Leonardo cycle".' There's more over the next four pages but no way am I writing all that out.

Page 85, third paragraph: 'Apparently, CECIL was the very first to measure the pressure resulting from the constant-volume combustion of a hydrogen-air mixture (in an ingenious device not to be described here). The results were entirely irrelevant for the atmospheric engine that he finally built and carefully tested because in this case, the combustion took place at constant pressure, that is, with no pressure increase beyond atmospheric.' Again, there's more, but if you really want to find out about it you'll have to buy the book.SQMeaner (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's much as I guessed it would mean. Neither of these engines have initial compression and if they're at "constant pressure" that's only by the pressure not supposedly rising above atmospheric (which of course makes them unworkable as engines). A "constant atmospheric pressure" cycle just isn't the same thing as a constant pressure combustion cycle with prior compression: it's (by definition - how does it do work against a piston?) useless as an engine and considering is as a Carnot cycle should make the necessity for compression obvious.

This sort of bad writing is what I do remember about this book and why it has been in a crate at the back of the workshop for ten years, rather than on the bookshelves. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You tell me it's useless as an engine yet William Cecil's engine did work. How do you explain that?SQMeaner (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

By what definition do you mean "work"? Turn itself round, or deliver useful mechanical output as well? As far as I recall, Cecil never built a credible engine, he mostly described it in one paper. There was / may have been something that he showed to his College (Magdalen?) He kept doing so for some years. Maybe the engine even "worked", in that it moved itself under power, but it never did useful (i.e. external shaft power) work.

Nor is his description of its operation quite accurate. What he describes is more like the "flame licker" engine than anything else, an "atmospheric engine" comparable to Newcomen's, but for internal combustion. His view was that by using hydrogen's ability to expand on combustion it could then produce a large quantity of vacuum, which could be used to do mechanical work. It's not the pressure of the expanding gas that powers the engine, it's the outside atmospheric pressure acting against this vacuum. The trouble is that Cecil's description ignores the cycle (hardly surprising, he's pre-Carnot) and assumes in his analysis some convenient start and end points that don't join up to make a repeatable cycle (he ignores the work the expanding hydrogen has to do).

If a piston engine is to do useful work then it needs to have a pressure difference across that piston. No force, no work. Most engines go higher and work on the difference between that and atmospheric. Cecil's vacuum-generating engine could work too, but it still needs a pressure difference. A constant pressure cycle works because it maintains an elevated constant pressure owing to combustion, and this pressure is above atmospheric, allowing it to do useful mechanical work on the piston. If an engine only meets some tenuous "constant pressure" definition because it's assumed not to vary from atmospheric, then that same assumption also means that it would be incapable of doing work. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, all this engineering talk is going way over my head. I won't make any changes to any edits you make on the main article, but I would still like a third party to give their opinion on whether or not William Cecil's engine could be called a constant-pressure engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

First you would need a definition of "constant-pressure engine". It's not a term in any sort of use. Constant pressure cycle is, with a clear meaning. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, My name is John Lucas and I'm the one who added the information about Brayton. Most people are a little familiar with Brayton's constant pressure engine of 1874 but not with his later 4 stroke oil engines of 1887 and 1890. The 1887 engine used a solid fuel injection system and a spring loaded injector to vaporize the fuel as it entered the combustion area / cylinder, this engine operated on more of a dual cycle as most modern Diesel engines do. Brayton's 1890 engine used an air blast system that was very similar to the system Diesel adopted. Keep in mind that Brayton died in 1893 the same year Diesel announced his invention. If Brayton had lived longer I believe history would have given him more credit for his contributions to the Diesel engine. As for Brayton's invention of engines like the Barber of 1791 these were the first true constant pressure cycles. Barber did not pass the compressed air through the fire so really his was more of a Ericsson cycle (externally heated) . However many engines were built in which compressed airpasses through a combustable area where heat was added and then the volume of air was expanded in a larger piston Buckett, Roper, Trewella and (Barber / Ericsson) indirect heat engines all fit this description. For the record Ericsson's engines used a regenrator or recouperator. All of the engines I just described were very low power density. Brayton did something very different, his engines were intermittent combustion which occurred as the compressed air entered the expander cylinder. This produce a much higher power density which is evident by the fact that Brayton engines were used to provide useful motive power for 2 submarines, several boats, a rail car and a bus. Later I will provide references for these claims I'm making.

I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with the navigation or edit process here. I have studied the development of both the Brayton engine and Diesel engine and can provide sources for why Brayton should be included. Not only did Brayton develop the constant pressure cycle but also the air blast and solid fuel systems which would be used to power the Diesel engine. Brayton was the first to control an engine output by fuel delivery alone (lean burn concept)

Just before his death in 1913, Diesel himself wrote that “Frequently by laymen & also in scientific circles it will be mentioned that the chief characteristics of the Diesel process is the self-ignition of the fuel, the purpose of the high compression being that at top dead center the injected fuel ignites itself, and that the degree of compression required is for reliable self-ignition. Nothing is more incorrect than this superficial view that is directly contrary to the facts and especially the historic development. Motors with self-ignition of the fuel already existed. In my patents I have never denied self-ignition nor in my writings mentioned it as a desirable goal.” 

Imotorhead64 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Brayton's 4 stroke air blast Imotorhead64 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)engine described at the 1892 Warwick show description starts on page 89  Please read the third paragraph which states "This method of ignition is entirely novel" Certainly it's likely that Diesel or someone that Diesel knew visited the exposition and described the operation of the Brayton air blast engine. Note that Diesel didn’t even start thinking about internal combustion engines until around March 1892. Diesel’s first engine was tried (it fired once) in August 1893 & it wasn’t improved enough to run on its own power (not belted) until February 1894. Literature says that the first time Diesel’s engine ran it “idled on gasoline at 88 rpm under its own power for an entire minute before it had to be shut down because of a sticking exhaust valve.” Also note that Diesel is sometimes credited with the invention of air-injection because of a notebook entry of his outlining it in September 1893. 

Roots, one of the sharpest authors at the time, wrote in 1899 about Diesels engine “This engine has created considerable interest, and it is advisable to correct some little misapprehension which possibly has existed owing to greater claims being made for it than were warranted. As has been said, there is not anything novel in it except the exceedingly high compression. There is no new theory – no new system.”

Please read pages 78-87

Diesel originally proposed an engine did not require cooling

please read page #418 Brayton is the inventor of the oil engine page #302-303

please read Diesel's original 1892 patent (constant temperature cycle)

Please read Diesel's second (revised) patent in which he converts to the constant pressure cycle. Also take note the nozzles depicted in figures 7, 11,12 and 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Diesel's own words describing his engine "The Diesel motor is the engine which develops power from the fuel directly in the cylinder without any previous transformatory process" 

Brayton did this in 1887 and in 1890 Please read starting page #1

The Gas engine June 1914 mentions that Diesel used the concepts of the Brayton engine

Sinclair's Magazine Feb 1919 discusses the Brayton and Diesel engine starts on page 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The heat engine problem ASME Vol 23 1902 Much discussion about the Brayton and Diesel cycles starts on page 261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to address some comments that were made:

"He had no input to Diesel's high pressure injection work (a necessary condition for making a useful constant pressure piston engine). The mechanical aspect of his engine went nowhere." 

Brayton's air blast injection engine of 1890 was basically the same engine as the first Diesel without the high compression. Brayton's 1887 engine used a solid fuel injection system nearly identical to what has been used on all Diesel engines for the last 100 years. Brayton was the first to used fuel alone to regulate the engine speed in 1887 (lean burn concept same as Diesel)

"where I don't think he ever made a multi-cylinder engine in his time." 

Brayton made several successful double acting engines. This most certainly qualifies as multi-cylinder.

"Brayton's engine is a gas turbine engine without the turbine. Think of it that way, using piston-based components as compressor and turbine, rather than rotating or continuous devices."

This is not true, All of Brayton's early engines burned fuel after the admission valve as it entered the expansion cylinder. Other engines such as the Buckett, Roper, and Trewella operate on the same principal as the gas turbine, Brayton's engines do not. Brayton's later 4 stroke engines operated on more of a dual cycle and were not strictly constant pressure.

"However Brayton did recognise the advantages of constant pressure combustion, he did it before Diesel and this was surely an influence over Diesel." 

Yes both Otto and Diesel obtained Bryaton engines to study their operation. It's unclear if Diesel had possession of Brayton's air blast engine.

"I'd also like to point out that Brayton's engine still needed a carburettor while the diesel's doesn't." 

Brayton's original engine of 1872 could run on ether town gas or fumes supplied from a vapor carburetor. The problem with this version is both the gas and air were compressed together and held in a tank. Occasionally the screens that were supposed to prevent the flame prorogation back to the tank failed and combustion of the air / fuel in the tank would occur causing the engine to stop. In 1874 Brayton abandon the gas / vapor fuel engine in favor of less volatile fuel oil. This engine had a metered injection pump which saturated a felt pad which was kept alight at all times by a bit of bleed air passing through. As compressed air passed through the admission valve and entered the expander it passed through the flame thus adding heat and increasing the volume. Sometimes the burner Brayton used is referred to as a "Brayton Carburetor" Brayton's 4 stroke engines of 1887 and air blast engine of 1890 both used a timed fuel injection event at or near the peak of compression to initiate the combustion event.

"In HUYGEN's engine, gunpowder was ignited, causing its combustion gases to remove a maximum of residual air from the cylinder through self-closing valves. The fundamental working process of these indirect-acting engines may be termed the "Leonardo cycle".' There's more over the next four pages but no way am I writing all that out. "

Any engine that operates on explosion principal should be referred to as constant volume, any engine that works on combustion as the fuel enters the cylinder is constant pressure pricipal. In reality most diesel engines are a little bit of both (dual cycle) also Diesel's original idea was a constant temperature cycle which would not require outside cooling. He tried to attain a peak compression pressure of several thousand psi. The idea was to expand the air by adding fuel as the expansion increased and keep the temperature constant finally extracting all the available heat in the form of work thus no cooling required. When Diesel realized that it was not possible to make a practical engine operating on his proposed cycle he adopted the constant pressure cycle of Brayton.

More on Brayton's fuel injection

More discussion on Brayton and Diesel cycles

Diesel's Book (translated) "Theory and construction of a rational heat motor" Ideally Diesel wanted to use compression as high as 250 atmospheres. He finally settled on a pressure of 90 atmospheres. His idea was to use the compression to crate a very high temperature and then add fuel to maintain the temperature as the piston descends. Diesel stated "At no time should the temperature of combustion exceed that of compression" Diesel's original idea was a compound design using multiple cyliders for additional expansion. On page 68 he mentions that compression as low as 44 atmospheres is possible. Most modern Diesel engine use a compression of 15-20:1 Diesel describing the Brayton engine page 84 Most of the description concentrates on running Diesel's proposed engine on coal dust. On page 70 he makes a brief mention on how the engine might be operated on liquid fuel.

A true Diesel cycle operates more on the Carnot principal. Ideally (according to Diesel) the engine would not require any form of external cooling because the expansion of gasses would extract all the heat in the form of work. The original Brayton oil engine of 1874 was the first constant pressure oil engine. Later Brayton would develop the Direct injection 4 stroke engine of 1887 which was the first lean burn engine in which speed was regulated by fuel alone also more of a dual cycle than a constant pressure cycle. Also Brayton's air blast engine of 1890 was more of a constant pressure version of the lean burn cycle. Diesel studied Brayton's engines and without a doubt Brayton's engines played a role in the development of the Diesel cycle and his engines.

"Diesel studied Brayton's engines "

OK, that's a really interesting point. What evidence do you have that Diesel did this? As noted before, I've never read anything which suggests such a link from Brayton to Diesel. Nor were Brayton's engines particularly commonplace. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Brayton 4 stroke air blast engine was displayed at the Feb 1892 Warwick show. Diesel didn’t even start thinking about internal combustion engines until around March 1892. Also a write up of the engine and it's performance was published in "Engineering" July 1892 It's fairly inconcievable to suggest that Diesel was not aware of Brayton's air blast engine.

More on Diesel and Brayton Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The information about Diesel studying Brayton's engine is in a German technical paper. I've seen it in the past but I'm having a difficult time locating it.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments? Imotorhead64 (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Ping to Mario Castelán Castro

Ping to Andy Dingley

Ping to Tim D. Williamson

Ping to SQMeaner

Ping to Aron Pye

Imotorhead64 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

23:1 ≠ 40:1

"The air is then compressed with a compression ratio typically between 15:1 and 23:1 resulting in 40-bar..."

PV=nRT. You simply cannot create a 40-fold pressure increase with a reduction in volume of even 23:1. Now, perhaps a 40 bar pressure is created by a number of factors -- for example, the heating of the air by the hot cylinder may account for another doubling of the pressure. If so -- write the article that way. The statement above is false. Drmemory (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Diesel engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927152616/http://www.autonews.com/files/07_ane_ptc/speakers.html to http://www.autonews.com/files/07_ane_ptc/speakers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120523004022/http://www.daimler.com:80/Projects/c2c/channel/documents/1364408_1998_DaimlerChrysler_Annual_Report.pdf to http://www.daimler.com/Projects/c2c/channel/documents/1364408_1998_DaimlerChrysler_Annual_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318232638/http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/news/story/1105261435.html to http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/news/story/1105261435.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diesel engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080923170150/http://www.denso.com.au:80/products/aftermarket_automotive_components/diesel_fuel_injection to http://www.denso.com.au/products/aftermarket_automotive_components/diesel_fuel_injection

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignition can't be ignited!. It can be initiated, however.

Zedshort: The change you insist on making is illogical, because (again) it implies that ignition is ignited. You are leaving it like this: “ignition of the fuel [...] is ignited”. Ignition can't be ignited. Ignition is not a fuel. Ignition can be initiated, so it is correct as written. I think that the aforesaid statement is clear enough as it is written, but if you want to rephrase it, please read what you write carefully lest you repeat the same mistake. Also, please note the policy WP:3RR and the essay WP:BRD.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

Zedshort: I see that you fixed the mistake that I pointed above. I think that you are doing a well intended effort to improve the article, but I don't think that the minor rewritings you are doing are overall an improvement. For example: I think that it was better as it was. Here changing “initiate” to “caused” is less precise and no more clear. Here you removed “a benefit that is magnified by the lower rotating speeds in diesels”. Could you please re-add that last phrase?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

Proposal to add the description of Brayton's 1874 Ready motor to the history section

George Brayton produced the first viable constant pressure engine in 1872 which was a 2 stroke engine. The engine was called the "Ready Motor" because unlike a steam engine it could be made to run in a few minutes time. This engine used a separate piston compressor and piston expander layout. Early versions used a vapor carburetor but in 1874 Brayton developed a metered fuel system and vaporizer to allow the use of oil fuel. Unlike previous low power constant pressure engines, combustion occurred for the first time inside of the cylinder. Numerous engines were manufactured by Brayton and sold in sizes of less than 1 HP to over 40 HP. In the 1870's Brayton "Ready Motors" were used to power 2 submarines, multiple boats, a bus and a rail car.

Any comments? Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take time to read and understand the Brayton engine and how it worked.

This book: Gas & Petroleum Engines By William Robinson (M.E.) a manual for students and engineers does a good job of explaining the operation of the early Brayton engine... when reading you will see that the burner / injection devise is described as a carburetor but in reality it is a fuel vaporizer. please start on page 657 https://books.google.com/books?id=b1dDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA657&lpg=PA657&dq=early+brayton+engines&source=bl&ots=2w2NO67JR6&sig=4HPzDdrBk8XNvy2Rfs8W4GisNjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXmvGr5frOAhVE5SYKHS2zAlUQ6AEIazAQ#v=onepage&q=early%20brayton%20engines&f=false

Here is Dugald Clerks sworn testimony in the Selden patent trials where he does a good job of describing the way in which a Brayton constant pressure engine functions. Much information on the early Brayton engine can be found in many engineering books and books on thermodynamic but it is often difficult to get a good description of the operation that can be understood by a layman. I recomend that anyone wanting to better understand the operation of a Brayton engine give this a read.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fWYxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=1882+brayton+engine&source=bl&ots=-dy0-zdtN2&sig=OkwRoBVAte2uTdJDAexTFjTUIvw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQk-LplPvOAhXHSCYKHYVKALcQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=1882%20brayton%20engine&f=false

Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Diesel engine page is full of unsubstantiated and unproven claims / All unverifiable claims should be deleted.

Much of the page includes incorrect information/ this information should be verified, corrected or removed. In the comming weeks I will be removing All unsubstantiated and unverified claims Imotorhead64 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Diesel engine page is making mutiple claims that Herbert Akroyd Stuart was the first inventor of the diesel engine

Claims like this

Hornsbys built a working high-compression version for experimental purposes, whereby the vaporiser was replaced with a cylinder head, therefore not relying on air being preheated, but by combustion through higher compression ratios. It ran for six hours—the first time automatic ignition was produced by compression alone.Template:No reference or citation provided This was five years before Rudolf Diesel built his well-known high-compression prototype engine in 1897.[14] 

someone has clearly pushed claims that Herbert Akroyd Stuart was the first inventor of the diesel engine. This is not verifiable information. I will need to see reliable information that this is true or all references to Herbert Akroyd Stuart should be deleted. 1892, Akroyd Stuart patented a water-jacketed vaporiser to allow compression ratios to be increased. In the same year, Thomas Henry Barton at

There is no evidence to back this up... These claims should not be allowed... The references provided are lame and not accurate.. These claims should be removed if they cannot be proven. Imotorhead64 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

These are the links provided to substantiate these claims... http://factbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/who-invented-diesel-engine_07.html this one is a blog... and this one is a page where an individual is talking about the Akroyd engine... http://www.oldengine.org/members/ruston/History6.htm These are hardly reliable sources... Unless reliable / verifiable information is presented these claims should be removed. Imotorhead64 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ackroyd Stuart invented the first compression ignition engine. If you do not know this you should not be editing this article. 2.219.158.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User 2.219.158.32 I agree that Akroyd was one of the first but your claim is not entirely true... can you prove your claim that Akroyd was the first to use compression ignition? What about hot tube ignition... ? that existed long before Akroyd and hot bulb and hot tube are somewhat similar concepts... So you feel it's ok to assume that Akroyd invented compression ignition without providing proof? I have said the same thing that Brayton was the inventor of the constant pressure oil engine in 1874, Solid injection in 1887 and air blast injection in 1890... which he was... and I have provided references for those claims.Imotorhead64 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Forced induction

The addition of a turbocharger will increase fuel economy and power, (yes a turbocharger allows the engine to burn more fuel... but you must provide more fuel.. using a turbocharger do not always result in increased economy using a turbo does allow downsizing which does usually result in increased economy ) while a supercharger will increase power only by mitigating the fuel-air intake speed limit mentioned above for a given engine displacement. Boost pressures can be higher on diesels than on petrol engines, due to the latter's susceptibility to knock, and the higher compression ratio allows a diesel engine to be more efficient than a comparable spark ignition engine. Because the burned gases are expanded further in a diesel engine cylinder, the exhaust gas is cooler,[citation needed] meaning turbochargers require less cooling, and can be more reliable, than in spark-ignition engines. (while some of this may be true... this is just one person's unsubstantiated opinion)

Without the risk of knocking, boost pressure in a diesel engine can be much higher; it is possible to run as much boost as the engine will physically stand before breaking apart. This is true this can be referenced i'm sure...

A combination of improved mechanical technology (such as multi-stage injectors which fire a short "pilot charge" of fuel into the cylinder to warm the combustion chamber before delivering the main fuel charge), A pilot charge does not "warm the cylinder... it is exactly what it states... a pilot of ignition / flame so that the main injection event will become ignited by it higher injection pressures that have improved the atomization of fuel into smaller droplets, and electronic control (which can adjust the timing and length of the injection process to optimize it for all speeds and temperatures) have mitigated most of these problems in the latest generation of common-rail designs, while greatly improving engine efficiency. Eletctronic engine controls have increased performance and drivability... but have had slight effects on economy Poor power and narrow torque bands have been addressed by superchargers, turbochargers, (especially variable geometry turbochargers), intercoolers, and a large efficiency increase from about 35% to 45% for the latest engines in the last 15 years.[citation needed] yes modern diesel engines are generally more efficient but most of that is because of better design and has little to do with ... turbos or intercoolers.... this is just speculation...

A turbocharger is basically a "Brayton cycle engine / gas turbine" does adding a turbo onto a diesel then make it a brayton?

Why is this allowed? There is nothing to back up these claims... ! I will delete this in 2 days if claims are not provided. Imotorhead64 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

George Brayton, Brayton cycle and Diesel engine

Re , and also some changes at George Brayton.

A large section has been added to both, claiming "Brayton [...] would contribute greatly to the development of the first Diesel engine." There are problems with this.

1. It's unsourced. See WP:V
2. It's WP:OR.
3. It's far from clear if this is even remotely true.

See the section above for some discussion of Brayton and Brayton cycles. Yes, both Brayton and Diesel used a constant pressure cycle. We might assume that Diesel was well-read on contemporary engineering thermodynamics and so was both familiar with Brayton's work and also how it tied in with his ideas on a constant pressure combustion.

That though is as far as we can go. The section above, Talk:Diesel engine#Edits pushing George Brayton info sees some earlier discussion of this, where I use terms like, "Brayton is certainly relevant here." and I would like to see some coverage of Brayton and comparison of the cycles added. However we can't just drop in big claims like "contribute greatly to the development of" with no sourcing at all.

I have no idea how much of an influence Brayton had over Diesel. I don't recall ever seeing anything written on this comparison (and my library on 1900 IC engines is pretty wide). Without sourcing, it's just WP:OR, and pretty flaky OR at that, to claim that this coincidence was actually causality. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, motorhead, were you editing earlier in the year as the IP 2602:304:791C:CEC0:C4A1:6D99:4C18:2AF3 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)? It's no problem if you are, and thankyou for registering an account, but it's clearer to know if I'm talking to one person or several. If this wasn't you, then I recommend reading their comments too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As a further aside, does any of this belong at Diesel engine or would Brayton's "influence" (if any) belong rather at Diesel cycle? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with the navigation or edit process here. I have studied the development of both the Brayton engine and Diesel engine and can provide sources for why Brayton should be included. Not only did Brayton develop the constant pressure cycle but also the air blast and solid fuel systems which would be used to power the Diesel engine. Brayton was the first to control an engine output by fuel delivery alone (lean burn concept) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping to Imotorhead64. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

" can provide sources" That would be really useful.

Still, it doesn't matter if Brayton was the first to do something, it's necessary to show that Diesel was influenced by it. Otherwise it's still just WP:OR. That's something you can write a book or a blog on, but it's not something that can go here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Imotorhead64: You will not accomplish anything writing about your sources in a talk page like you are doing. Sources are for the articles, not for the talk pages (again, see WP:V). Referencing your sources in talk pages is allowed and is done when necessary, but it is not useful by itself. I gave you some links to relevant articles about policies guidelines and good practice in your user talk and in this message; please read those links!.

Given that you are an inexperienced editor, I suggest the following approach: Write the section you want to add to the article. When you are done writing your section, do not add the section to the article. Instead post it in this talk page as a proposal. That way other editors can check your addition before it appears in the article. If there is any problem with your proposed addition, you will be requested to fix it. Do not expect other editors to fix the problems with your proposed addition. Have especial care to make your addition verifiable and avoid giving your own interpretation; limit yourself to summarize what your sources say. Also, please use correct formatting for your sources. A bare link to Google Books is not a good way to cite sources. See WP:citing sources for the recommended way.

You can also edit the article directly, but it is absolutely necessary that you avoid the problems that Andy Dingley has already pointed about your proposed change.

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the advise... Like I stated before I'm not very good at navigating this site and I'm not sure how to respond when someone challenges a post. I've made a lot of information available here. Hopefully some folks will take the time to follow the links and learn about Brayton and his engines. If someone would like to add Brayton's contributions to the diesel I think it would be great. Imotorhead64 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that it's somehow necessary to prove that Diesel was aware of Brayton's engines seems a bit much. I've already shown that he describes the early version of the Brayton in his book. He doesn't refer to it as a Brayton but he does describe the cycle. Also consider that the Brayton engines were produced commercially both in the USA and the UK. In fact I believe it's the only engine Diesel makes any reference to. The are some notes ( in German) that talk about Diesel studying a Brayton engine but I can't seem to find the information at this time. I would think it's not always necessary to obtain first hand information if it's proven that anyone who was researching development of an internal combustion engine (in this case Diesel) would have likely made himself aware of the known and published designs at the time... Is it also necessary to show that he was aware of the Otto 4 stroke? Maybe Diesel is the inventor of the 4 stroke? What about the steam engine? maybe he invented the piston and the crankshaft? I don't believe he ever mentions it but it is assumed that diesel was aware of both of those engines... Why would you not include the Brayton in this category? Imotorhead64 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To Imotorhead64: I only have a scant idea about the historical development of internal combustion engines. Therefore, I can say little to nothing about the role of George Brayton in the development of what is now called Diesel engines.

Answering to “The idea that it's somehow necessary to prove that Diesel was aware of Brayton's engines seems a bit much.”: In my opinion, if you want to claim that Rudolf Diesel was based in a specific way upon George Brayton's work, then you have to provide sources that prove that connection. On the other hand, you can mention that Brayton's achieved some milestones in the development of modern Diesel-type engines (not necessarily the engines that Rudolf Diesel developed) with a source that verifies that part of Brayton's work by itself, without having to prove any connection with Diesel. This is basically the main point of WP:OR.

(added 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) If you were to include a statement like “It is possible that Rudolf Diesel's was inspired to use air blast injection [or something like that] by George Brayton's engines.“ I wouldn't remove it, even if it has no direct sources, because I am not knowledgeable enough about the matter to judge whether it's a reasonable conjecture. However, other editors can remove this claim. In that case, according to Wikipedia's policy (WP:V), you can't restore the claim without providing a source.

In any case, the main problem with the text you added is that it did not have any references (not even for the work of George Brayton by itself, regardless of the influence it possibly had on the work of Rudolf Diesel).

I think that it is improbable that the text you added in this talk page will make somebody decide to write about George Brayton's engines in this article or elsewhere. It is possible, but in my opinion, improbable. Therefore, do not count on it.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

I don't understand why it's fine to mention Akroyd Stuart and Thomas Barton without any specific proof that Diesel had knowledge of those engines yet somehow Brayton is not allowed? Some things to keep in mind... Brayton's engines used a timed injection event to initiate the combustion, the Akroyd engine did not. Also Brayton made both an air blast and timed solid fuel injection system. Technically the Akroyd and Barton / Hornsby engines are constant volume cycle since all the fuel is available at the time of combustion... Brayton developed and used a constant pressure cycle same as Diesel adopted. I don't believe I actually made the claim that diesel was influenced by Brayton's engines.. I was making the statement that Brayton was the first to produce an engine that had many of the same features as Diesel. Imotorhead64 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To Imotorhead64: I did not say that mentioning the work of George Brayton is not allowed without a proof that Rudolf Diesel had knowledge of Brayton's work!. I said quite the contrary. Here is again (emphasis added):

“On the other hand, you can mention that Brayton's achieved some milestones in the development of modern Diesel-type engines (not necessarily the engines that Rudolf Diesel developed) with a source that verifies that part of Brayton's work by itself, without having to prove any connection with Diesel.”

(added 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)) Again, the main problem is that your section did not have any sources. Please note that I said this in my previous message. You may want to read it again.

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Again with the Brayton pushing. We've been over this before, see the section on Brayton earlier on in this talk page to see what I'm talking about. To sum up:

1) The timed direct injection and air blast principles had earlier been used by Niepce.

2) The operating cycle of the Brayton engine had been anticipated by Barber and Joule.

3) None of Brayton's engines used compression ignition, the key feature of Diesel engines.

4) There is simply no evidence that Rudolf Diesel was influenced by Brayton or any of his engines. Horst O. Hardenberg even goes so far as to explicitly claim that his engine had no lingering effect on other inventors.

I think I'm also going to need to see a good reference for the claim that Brayton's 1874 engine used fuel injection. Hardenberg claims it merely used 'a special kind of carburetor'.SQMeaner (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

---

To SQMeaner: Do you dispute the whole of this addition?. Please be selective in reverting. Please only remove content that is unsourced and that you have a good reason to think that it is false or inaccurate.

To Imotorhead64: You need to get betting at referencing if you want your additions to survive here. You really have to read carefully WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Citing sources. You may consider that it is a lot of reading of unrelated documents for a simple addition. However, knowing these guidelines and many others is part of editing Wikipedia. That is how things work here. If you do not read there documents or you just merely glance at them, the end result is that your references are poor and your addition is removed (like just happened).

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

You need to get betting at referencing if you want your additions to survive here. You really have to read carefully WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Citing sources. You may consider that it is a lot of reading of unrelated documents for a simple addition. However, knowing these guidelines and many others is part of editing Wikipedia.

Hello, I realize I'm not exactly a wikipro but I thought I had done a good job providing the necessary links and references to the claims I was making. Is it the intention here to prevent relevant verifiable information from being published? What other steps do I need to take here? FYI I did read WP:V, WP:RS and WP: and I thought I had provided good verifiable and reliable sources for adding the information. I did not make any comments that my referenced material didn't back up. The links I provided were to published patents, technical books and engineering publications. I had hoped that anyone disputing my claims might actually want to discuss it but that doesn't seem to be the case. SQ made the following comment: "There is no consensus for these highly contentious edits" I'm confused why all the information about Akroyd Stuart was somehow allowed but anything about Brayton is not...? Making the claim that Akroyd invented the Diesel seems like a bit much yet somehow that's allowed yet information about Brayton is disallowed even though clearly Brayton was the inventor of the constant pressure cycle, Unlike a Diesel Akroyd's engines were constant volume not constant pressure... the only information cited to support the claim that Akroyd invented the Diesel engine was a link to a blog / opinion type page... now I see the reference has been removed? Imotorhead64 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To SQMeaner: I'll try to address some of your comments.

Attn: Roches please read

For the record Brayton made 4 distinct compression / constant pressure internal combustion engines. The vapor engine (1872 -73) the oil engine (1874-78) The direct injection engine (1887) and the air blast engine (1890) Brayton did make an engine in the 1860's which was similar to the Otto Langen but it was a non compression type and not very successful.

The first engine of any importance was his vapor engine of 1872. The engine consisted of a compressor and an expander with a receiver tank in between. There was a burner which combusted the air / fuel mixture as it entered the expansion cylinder. As I explained earlier this engine ran on ether town gas or a naptha vapor carburetor. These engines ran well but were prone to occasional explosions due to the fact that fuel and air were pre mixed and compressed in the receiver tank. Here's some video of a Brayton type vapor engine. This is the type of engine that powered Holland boat #1

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brayton_Gas_engine_1872.jpg

http://todayinsci.com/B/Brayton_George/BraytonGeorgeEngine2.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTfwrLiJ0E

In 1874 Brayton made an oil fueled version of his compressor / expander engine. Brayton solved the explosion problems by compressing only air. Fuel was added as the compressed air entered the expansion cylinder where combustion occurred. This engine was produced from 1874 to about 1878. It's unknown how many of these engines were produced. Likely several hundred or possibly a thousand. Brayton licensed the design to Simone in the UK. There were many variations of the layout, some were single acting some were double acting. some had under walking beams others had overhead walking beams. This was the Type of engine used to power the Fenian Ram (Holland boat #2) Sizes ranged from less that 1 HP to over 40 HP. Several of these engines were used in boats. One powered a rail can and another powered a bus. Here are some links to photos and some information, also a video.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BraytonEngineLitho.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brayton_constant_pressure_oil_engine_1878.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brayton_double_acting_constant_pressure_engine_1877.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brayton_constant_pressure_marine_engine_1876.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brayton_double_acting_constant_pressure_engine_cut_away_1877.jpg

Brayton ready motor in Clerks book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ORu1kzklfk

Addressing comments made by SQMeaner

1) The timed direct injection and air blast principles had earlier been used by Niepce.

The Niepce engine is stated to have run on explosive dust and also hydrogen, I've not seen anything that suggests it had a liquid fuel injection system or that the combustion was occurring in the expansion cylinder. The Brayton engine of 1874 was the first compression engine to inject liquid fuel into a vaporizer and burn it in the cylinder using the constant pressure cycle. The timing of the fuel injection event was not critical on the early Brayton engines since a blast of air vaporized the fuel at the proper moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9VLXrzxye4

I admit sources on Niepce's engine are a bit hard to find on the internet though I have provided one below. If you want a detailed description of Niepce's engine try Hardenberg's 'The Middle Ages Of The Internal Combustion Engine'. In it, he clearly states that Niepce deserves to be credited as the inventor of timed fuel injection and air blast injection.

http://www.photo-museum.org/pyreolophore-invention-internal-combustion-engine/SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2) The operating cycle of the Brayton engine had been anticipated by Barber and Joule.

This is absolutely not true. The Brayton is an intermittent combustion engine... There were many constant pressure engines of the Barber type although Barber did not pass the air directly through the fire. His engine had a compressor and a turbine expander. As the air mover from the compressor to the expander the air went through a vessel which was heated by a fire. Here is a picture of the Barber engine. Notice the fire is under the vessels. Diesel even comments about the importance of this in his book.

Drawings of Barbers 1791 engine showing it was not internal combustion.

There were several engines that did work like piston versions of a modern gas turbine though. In these engine the air passed directly through the fire box. The fuel was generally coal or wood. These were the first internal combustion engines. There were several manufactures but the most popular were the Buckett, Roper, and Trewella. These engine were very low power and not at all efficient. Here is a picture of a Roper engine

That doesn't change the fact that the operating cycle was essentially the same as Barber's and Joule's. I've heard that the Diesel engine only partially resembled the constant pressure cycle yet somehow that's not worth mentioning while this is? I see you also didn't addresws Joule's contributions.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

3) None of Brayton's engines used compression ignition, the key feature of Diesel engines.

That is not true ether. The Burger engine of 1900 was a Brayton type engine which once warmed up operated on compression ignition.

That's in 1900 though, ten years after Akroyd Stuart's Diesel engine.SQMeaner (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's some video of a Brayton type engine running on compression ignition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cJ4ICyAT4U

That video was made by you. It also provides no details on the running of the engine or the date of this engine.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Brayton's 1887 engine could have run on it's own after it was hot. The piston had a cast iron dome similar to the Johnston oil engine which was a low pressure diesel type engine of the early 1900's This engine is similar to Brayton's 1887 engine minut the platinum igniter.

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1262116

Prove it. Show me a reliable source that states that Brayton's 1887 engine was a compression ignition engine or could have been run that way. Remember wikipedia doesn't allow original research.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW Diesel himself even stated that compression ignition was not necessarily a feature required on a Diesel engine.

That doesn't change the modern defition of what a Diesel engine is.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

4) There is simply no evidence that Rudolf Diesel was influenced by Brayton or any of his engines. Horst O. Hardenberg even goes so far as to explicitly claim that his engine had no lingering effect on other inventors.

Many claims are made and every inventor will have his supporters and detractors but they are about 10:1 in favor of Brayton. There are many that claim Brayton was the true inventor of the Diesel. I could easily find 20 or more books making that claim.

So show me them.SQMeaner (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not making that claim. I'm simply stating that Brayton did things relating to the constant pressure cycle that no one else had done before him. Here is Diesel's own description of the Brayton engine. At the time he wrote this he thought his constant temperature cycle would work but it did not. He actually ended up adopting the constant pressure cycle developed by Brayton.

I'm still not seeing anything that indicates Diesel adopted a constant pressure cycle similar to the one adopted by Brayton. I'm also not sure what those links are supposed to prove.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm also going to need to see a good reference for the claim that Brayton's 1874 engine used fuel injection. Hardenberg claims it merely used 'a special kind of carburetor'.

Many people didn't understand the operation of the Brayton engine. Here is the metered fuel injection pump described in Clerk's book which was used on the Brayton Ready motor 1874-1878

Here's a link to the book.

I'm still not seeing anything that indicates that Brayton's 1874 engine used fuel injection and not a type of carburettor. I'm more willing to take the word of Hardenberg, an accredited expert, over yours if I'm being honest.SQMeaner (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To SQMeaner

Did you take time to read and understand how the Niépce engine worked? It was a non compression constant volume engine. The ignition system is interesting in that powdered fuel is blown (by bellows) into a chamber where it is exploded by an exposed fuse. The engine worked something like a cannon replacing water for the cannon ball. No doubt it was an achievement but the Brayton system was a high pressure liquid injection which was timed to begin to inject fuel at the peak of compression. There is no explosion in the Brayton, fuel is burned as it is being injected (constant pressure principal).

The Pyréolophore operated as a series of discrete burns at a frequency of about 12 per minute to power a boat. Power was delivered in pulses, each pulse forcing water from the engine's tail pipe set under the boat and pointing towards its stern. The boat was pushed forward at each pulse by the reactive force of the ejected mass of water.[4]

A Pyréolophore engine consists of two principal interconnected chambers: a firelighting chamber and a combustion chamber. There is also a bellows for injecting air, a fuel dispenser, an ignition device, and a submerged exhaust pipe. There is a means of storing energy at each explosion in order to work the mechanism as it prepares itself for the next cycle.[4]

A mechanically operated bellows injects a jet of air into the first chamber where ignition will take place. Mechanical timing lets fall a measured amount of powder fuel into the jet so that it is blown along and mixed with it. Under the control of the mechanical timing mechanism a smoldering fuse is introduced to this fuel air jet at the precise moment it passes the fuse location. The fuse then withdraws behind a metal plate. The now burning ball of powder and air travels though a wide nozzle into the main combustion chamber where a fast, almost explosive, burn takes place. The whole system now being almost airtight, a build-up of pressure follows. The pressure acts against the column of water in the exhaust pipe and expels it from the system. As the flow of exhaust gas moves into the tail pipe, it moves a loose piston in the combustion chamber which extracts and stores sufficient power to work the machine's timing mechanisms. Energy from this piston is stored by lifting weights attached to a balance wheel. The return of this wheel to its lower position under the pull of the weights governs the timing for the next cycle by operating the bellows, fuel dispenser, the fuse and valves at the correct points in the cycle. The tail pipe, being under the boat, fills with water ready for the next discharge. The fall of the timing piston also expels the exhaust gases via a pipe above the ignition chamber, which is closed off by a valve during the burn part of the cycle.[4]

Here is the quote from Brayton's 1887 engine patent. “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.” Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the part in that link I showed where Niepce describes a rudimentary fuel injection system? I'm not sure why you felt the need to provide all the details about Niepce's 1807 engine here and I don't know what you're trying to prove by quoting Brayton's 1887 patent at me. The fact of the matter is, in what is probably the best reference for the prehistory of ICEs, the middle ages of the internal combustion engine by Horst O. Hardenberg, Niepce is described as being the inventor of fuel injection by compressed air and time controlled direct injection. Nothing you have posted so far even challenges that view, which is why I'm confused as to why you bothered writing all that out.SQMeaner (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To SQMeaner

Did you read the part in that link I showed where Niepce describes a rudimentary fuel injection system?

Yes I agree that Niépce did in fact invent a rudimentary injection system but it did not inject under pressure nor did it divide a liquid fuel into small combustible droplets. It was not timed to initiate combustion since all the fuel was blown into a chamber at once and then the ignition was started by exposing the fuse. This is constant volume combustion in a non compression engine not constant pressure in a compression engine.

 I'm not sure why you felt the need to provide all the details about Niepce's 1807 engine here and I don't know what you're trying to prove by quoting Brayton's 1887 patent at me.

I felt the need because you seem to not understand the operational differences between a Brayton engine and the Niépce engine. Brayton clearly made a breakthrough in 1887 when he discovered that fuel oil could be forced through a spring loaded relief valve at high pressure which would cause the oil to become divided into very small droplets which made the fuel much more combustible. As far as I know no one did this before Brayton. This was the first solid fuel injector. Another point of the Brayton invention is variability. No one before him controlled the engine speed by varying the amount of the fuel alone. (lean burn system)

Here Diesel describes his all or nothing governing system not a variable system of admitting fuel.

Additionally Diesel describes a liquid fuel system that looks nothing like nor operates anything like the Brayton air blast system which he ended up adopting.

None of Brayton's engines used compression ignition, the key feature of Diesel engines.

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. It's clear that Diesel did not invent nor was he the first to use compression as an ignition source. And I'm not claiming that Brayton invented compression ignition. There is some documentation that describes the 1887 engine as running on compression ignition and I have run some of my own engines that way so I know it can be done.

Set aside the issue of compression ignition and the 1990 Brayton air blast engine is identical to the first Diesel in every way so is Brayton's 1887 direct injection engine identical to later Diesel engines.

I'm not sure why you are stuck with the one author on this... yes it's clear that Hardenberg had little regard for what Brayton had accomplished, However there are many other experts in the field that would disagree. Try Clerk, Donkin, Roots, and many others that held the Brayton in high regard as a milestone in IC engine development. It the first engines which made enough usable power and had enough economy and reliability to be considered a viable alternative to the steam engine.Imotorhead64 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree that Niépce did in fact invent a rudimentary injection system but it did not inject under pressure nor did it divide a liquid fuel into small combustible droplets. It was not timed to initiate combustion since all the fuel was blown into a chamber at once and then the ignition was started by exposing the fuse. This is constant volume combustion in a non compression engine not constant pressure in a compression engine.

To be quite honest all this engineering talk is going way over my head. I am not an engineer or a scientist or even a particularly technical person so I have no idea whether what you're saying is true or not. All I know is Hardenberg, who I'm almost certain is more qualified to judge the merits and shortcomings of ICEs than you, describes Niepce's system as having both timed direct injection and fuel injection by means of pressurised air. I also see you didn't mention Akroyd Stuart's engine of 1886, which also used fuel injection, pressurised at that, as well as securing a patent for it in 1886.

I felt the need because you seem to not understand the operational differences between a Brayton engine and the Niépce engine. Brayton clearly made a breakthrough in 1887 when he discovered that fuel oil could be forced through a spring loaded relief valve at high pressure which would cause the oil to become divided into very small droplets which made the fuel much more combustible. As far as I know no one did this before Brayton. This was the first solid fuel injector. Another point of the Brayton invention is variability. No one before him controlled the engine speed by varying the amount of the fuel alone. (lean burn system)

Again, I am no engineer, nor do I have much experience with the history of ICEs apart from Hardenberg's book, so I have no way of telling if you're telling the truth or not. What I do know is Hardenberg is an accomplished expert and you have a very obvious bias in favour of the Brayton engine, which makes you an untrustworthy and unreliable source in my opinion.

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. It's clear that Diesel did not invent nor was he the first to use compression as an ignition source. And I'm not claiming that Brayton invented compression ignition. There is some documentation that describes the 1887 engine as running on compression ignition and I have run some of my own engines that way so I know it can be done.

Indeed, that honour would seem to go to Akroyd Stuart, whether in 1886 or 1890. You also seem to have an annoying habit of claiming there is lots of documentation for your claims while providing absolutely nothing in the way of that, not even a reference to a physical book to follow up on. I'm particularly interested in this supposed documentation that describes Brayton's 1887 engine as running on compression, if it even exists.

Set aside the issue of compression ignition and the 1990 Brayton air blast engine is identical to the first Diesel in every way so is Brayton's 1887 direct injection engine identical to later Diesel engines.

Yes just set aside the key feature that makes a Diesel a Diesel. Fuel injection can be used with any kind of engine, as Niepce's efforts show. If you're that keen to include some mention of fuel injection, mention Niepce first.

I'm not sure why you are stuck with the one author on this... yes it's clear that Hardenberg had little regard for what Brayton had accomplished, However there are many other experts in the field that would disagree. Try Clerk, Donkin, Roots, and many others that held the Brayton in high regard as a milestone in IC engine development. It the first engines which made enough usable power and had enough economy and reliability to be considered a viable alternative to the steam engine.

You clearly haven't read Hardenberg's book so I don't think you can really make the claim that he had little regard for Brayton's achievements, especially as the only book I've mentioned by him only covers the early years of the ICE. There is another one by him for the later period of ICE development which I am probably going to pick up at some point. He probably covers Brayton's 1887 and 1890 engines there, if you're interested.SQMeaner (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To User:Imotorhead64, SQMeaner: Do you think that a Wikipedia:requests for comments would help to at a solution?. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

I think that would be helpful, yes.SQMeaner (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To User:Imotorhead64, SQMeaner, Mario Castelán Castro Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

I've been trying to discuss this but I feel SQMeaner may (by his own admission) not have the technical ability to realize the points I'm trying to make... I'm also not sure why someone who admits that he doesn't understand the working systems and cycles of engines feels the need to remove my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To SQMeaner:

be quite honest all this engineering talk is going way over my head. I am not an engineer or a scientist or even a particularly technical person so I have no idea whether what you're saying is true or not.

Ok well I'm not sure not to discuss the technical merits of Brayton with a person who won't take the time or doesn't have the ability to understand how his engines worked? If you don't know the difference between different engine concepts such as constant pressure, constant volume, and constant temperature and if you are not familiar with the fundamental thermodynamics cycles such as Brayton cycle, Otto cycle, Rankin cycle, Carnot cycle and Stirling cycle how can we have an intelligent discussion?

 All I know is Hardenberg, who I'm almost certain is more qualified to judge the merits and shortcomings of ICEs than you, describes Niepce's system as having both timed direct injection and fuel injection by means of pressurised air.

Ok well first off you have no idea what I know or don't know... But since you are seeking to discredit me I feel the need to defend myself... I have spent many years collecting and studying ICE's of all types. I have also taken the time to reconstruct working examples of a couple of Brayton's engines. I did this because there are only 6 remaining original Braytons and all of them are in Museums, and the last time an original engine was running was the 1920's. It's also possible that because I've actually built a running engine that I know more about Brayton engines than Hardenberg did. I doubt that Hardenberg ever actually saw a running Brayton engine much less built one. I would love to discuss the technical merits of the Brayton with Hardenberg... but it seems he's dead now so that's not possible.

As for the fuel injection you are correct... it was a timed injection but it did not inject into a pressurized cylinder. The engine was a non compression engine. If you watch the video on the link you provided you will see that after the fuel is injected into the chamber a disk rotates and the fuse is exposed and that ignites the fuel. This is constant volume combustion. It's an amazing accomplishment for it's time and in no means am I trying to take anything away from the Niépce brothers. I did do a bit more reading and see that that the Niépce brothers did in fact experiment with the use liquid fuels. There is no doubt that their injection system was an amazing accomplishment and IMO their milestone should be included in the history of the Diesel engine. With that being said I don't think this eliminates Braytons contributions since he was injecting into a pressurized cylinder. Also keep in mind that the air blast injection is just one of Brayton's contributions..

Again, I am no engineer, nor do I have much experience with the history of ICEs apart from Hardenberg's book, so I have no way of telling if you're telling the truth or not. What I do know is Hardenberg is an accomplished expert and you have a very obvious bias in favour of the Brayton engine, which makes you an untrustworthy and unreliable source in my opinion.

You are basing your opinion on one experts book. Again how can we discuss this if you admit that you don't understand the technical merits of various engine designs? There are 10 or more books on early IC engine development written by icons in the field. Have you taken the time to read and understand any of those books? I'm going to guess that the answer is no? I'm going to guess that you have read one book? And you admit that you don't even understand it.. now I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion? FYI I'm not in any way biased to Brayton or his engines. What I am in favor of is making all of the correct information available. I can assure you I am neither an untrustworthy or an unreliable source.

Indeed, that honour would seem to go to Akroyd Stuart, whether in 1886 or 1890. You also seem to have an annoying habit of claiming there is lots of documentation for your claims while providing absolutely nothing in the way of that, not even a reference to a physical book to follow up on. I'm particularly interested in this supposed documentation that describes Brayton's 1887 engine as running on compression, if it even exists.

Yes I agree that Akroyd Stuart was likely the first engine produced that used compression as the source of ignition, I never challenged this. I provided multiple links to reliable books in my posts. Have you not taken the time to follow them? The claim that Brayton's 1887 engine was capable of running on compression ignition is in some original Brayton paperwork / notes that is owned by an engine historian located on the east coast. I have never actually seen it so I'm not making that claim. I included 14 references in this discussion above... did you bother to follow or read any of them?

You clearly haven't read Hardenberg's book so I don't think you can really make the claim that he had little regard for Brayton's achievements, especially as the only book I've mentioned by him only covers the early years of the ICE. There is another one by him for the later period of ICE development which I am probably going to pick up at some point. He probably covers Brayton's 1887 and 1890 engines there, if you're interested.

You are correct I have not read Hardenberg's book... I based my comment that he had little regard for Brayton on the quote that you provided... I would be curious if Hardenberg includes Brayton's 1887 and 1890 engines... If he did include them I'd like to learn what he had to say about them. Imotorhead64 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I agree that Brayton's engine should be included in the history section as long as Niepce and Akroyd Stuart's inventions are given due credit as well. I'd also like a third party to come in and judge this discussion, as Mario suggested, just so we're in no doubt as to the validity of any edits carried out on the Diesel engine page.SQMeaner (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SQMeaner

Fine, I agree that Brayton's engine should be included in the history section as long as Niepce and Akroyd Stuart's inventions are given due credit as well.

Ok well thank you.. If possible I'd like to describe the operation of the Niépce brothers fuel injection system? I also have some good links to include with the Akroyd compression ignition portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imotorhead64 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SQMeaner This is the description I'd like to include for the Niépce engine, please feel free to comment.

In 1806 the Niépce brothers developed the first known internal combustion engine and the first fuel injection system. The system used a blast of air provided by a bellows to atomize Lycopodium (a highly combustible fuel made from broad moss) Later coal dust mixed with resin became the fuel. Finally in 1816 they experimented with alcohol and white oil of petroleum (a fuel similar to kerosene) They discovered that the kerosene type fuel could be finely vaporized by passing it through a reed type devise, this made the fuel highly combustible. 

References

Imotorhead64 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To: SQMeaner, Mario Castelán Castro

4) There is simply no evidence that Rudolf Diesel was influenced by Brayton or any of his engines. Horst O. Hardenberg even goes so far as to explicitly claim that his engine had no lingering effect on other inventors.

Many claims are made and every inventor will have his supporters and detractors but they are about 10:1 in favor of Brayton. There are many that claim Brayton was the true inventor of the Diesel. I could easily find 20 or more books making that claim.

SQMeaner So show me them.

Roches Please take the time to follow and read these links:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UK9MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA116&dq=brayton+ideas++diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii1or29-bOAhVkF2MKHfu2D8QQ6AEIUTAH#v=onepage&q=brayton%20ideas%20%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=JJpIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA338&dq=brayton+ideas++diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5pL_8-ebOAhVZImMKHfniBK44ChDoAQg5MAI#v=onepage&q=brayton%20ideas%20%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=M0sXAQAAIAAJ&q=brayton+ideas++diesel+engine&dq=brayton+ideas++diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS1ef--ubOAhVW5GMKHcfYA0w4KBDoAQhTMAg

https://books.google.com/books?id=-nNHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=did+brayton+invent+diesel+engine&source=bl&ots=yibm1MKbrg&sig=Vlh7Z1abGb1sXQr30-2l07FSZuA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-zOKA6ubOAhUWzWMKHSWPAWwQ6AEISTAI#v=onepage&q=did%20brayton%20invent%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=q9YqAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA57&dq=did+brayton+invent+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOhbqs7ObOAhUW6WMKHVADCrsQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=did%20brayton%20invent%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=BmVKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR65&dq=did+brayton+invent+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOhbqs7ObOAhUW6WMKHVADCrsQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=did%20brayton%20invent%20diesel%20engine&f=false

Page 804 states Brayton used compression ignition in 1878 https://books.google.com/books?id=tfwnAAAAMAAJ&q=brayton+invented+diesel+engine&dq=brayton+invented+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj427ey7-bOAhVH9mMKHc0MA0I4ChDoAQg2MAM

https://books.google.com/books?id=9louAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA29&dq=did+brayton+invent+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOhbqs7ObOAhUW6WMKHVADCrsQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=did%20brayton%20invent%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=u3ocAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA778&dq=did+brayton+invent+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOhbqs7ObOAhUW6WMKHVADCrsQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=did%20brayton%20invent%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=DKqCAAAAIAAJ&q=brayton++diesel+engine&dq=brayton++diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjno9Wg7ubOAhUOxGMKHXGXALA4ChDoAQgqMAE

https://books.google.com/books?id=wwVJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127&dq=brayton++diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA-NrZ7ubOAhVI6GMKHfFcBBI4HhDoAQguMAE#v=onepage&q=brayton%20%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cgsAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA169&dq=brayton+invented+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj427ey7-bOAhVH9mMKHc0MA0I4ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=brayton%20invented%20diesel%20engine&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Eks-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA445&dq=brayton+invented+diesel+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPhICm8ebOAhUK7WMKHeITDqo4FBDoAQg3MAM#v=onepage&q=brayton%20invented%20diesel%20engine&f=false

Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I read through all those links and I noted that at minimum they were 50 years old. Some of them are even from more than 100 years ago! If this Brayton engine truly used compression ignition as early as 1878 why are there no contemporary sources that credit him with this invention? I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find a book that claims Lenoir used compression ignition but that doesn't make it true. Are there even any sources apart from that one, extremely old book that make this claim? This whole thing just smells incredibly fishy to me and further confirms to me that you have an overwhelming bias in favour of Brayton. I note also that one of your sources contradicts your claim, as it states that the Diesel engine does not truly belong to the constant pressure class of engines.

EDIT: Also, looking through that link that claims that Brayton used CI first, it looks like that claim comes from a letters section, hardly a trusted scholarly resource.SQMeaner (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If “reliable sources“ (that is the term that WP:RS uses) contradict each other, then, in my opinion: If there is a way to establish which source is right (for example, by consulting the primary sources, which may be patents in this case), then we take that as one which is authoritative and optinally we can mention what the other sources say and how it can be verified that they are wrong (i.e.: “author [the name of the author] claimed that [some engineer] was the first to develop [some technology] in [some year], however this technology was patented previously by [another engineer]. If there is no way to establish which source is right, then we should mention all competing claims made in “reliable sources”; I believe that in such a case, the relevant policy is WP:DUE.

Imotorhead64: I opened all of the links in the last list that you posted, but Google does not shows anything for around half of them and for the rest it only shows a very brief excerpt around 4 lines (not paragraphs) long. These excerpts are not long enough for me to say anything relevant on the matter. Maybe you can see more than me because of Google's country restrictions. I highly dislike Google and all of its products and this is one of my reasons for that feeling.

I am starting a WP:request for comments to try to get other users knowledgeable in the history of engines to contribute.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

Mr. SQMeaner It's becoming increasingly clear that you will not accept any sources other than your own (one book). I provided the links to multiple books that are available online so anyone interested could view them. (unfortunately there are country restrictions for viewing these) Mario Castelán Castro Most of the more modern books and papers are not available online and so viewing them without purchasing or having access to a library that has the books would be very difficult. Also with regards to history and Brayton engines, many of the modern publications do not even acknowledge that Brayton made piston engines, much less take the time to understand how they truly operated. History has a way of whitewashing itself over time and eventually it adopts the more convenient and popular explanation and POV regardless of information that is available from the time period. With all that said you are beginning to wear me down with your lack of knowledge and stubbornness.

Here is a perfect case in point...

This supposedly credible person writing for the ASME describes Braton's engines as turbines even though Brayton clearly never made a turbine engine... So much for historical accuracy... /:

https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/automotive/george-brayton

So even though I provided multiple links from trusted engineer / authors you now seek to discredit them because of the age of publication? Have you considered that (due to the fact they were written closer to the time when Brayton engines were in use and the Diesel engine was being developed) may contain a more accurate history of the Brayton engine that any new book would? Since when is it a policy to discredit dated material? Imotorhead64 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's page on Identifying Reliable Sources age matters. If there are no reliable sources dealing with the history of Diesel engines that are younger than 50 years ago then you would be justified in using those extremely old sources. As I'm almost certain that's not the case though I think you are obliged to reference a source that isn't positively ancient when you claim that Brayton's engine was almost exactly like Diesel's.SQMeaner (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request for comments

What should this article say about George Brayton's contribution to the development of the modern engine type known by the (not necessarily accurate name) “Diesel engine”?. (added 18:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)) Is it accurate to include the claim that George Brayton developed the first constant pressure engine, and if so, what references can we use to make that claim verifiable?

These edits about Brayton's contribution have been reverted. What, if any, are the problems that would preclude this edit from being restored and how can they be fixed?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

---

Collapsed the whole WP:WALLOFTEXT - Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I read through all those links and I noted that at minimum they were 50 years old. Some of them are even from more than 100 years ago! If this Brayton engine truly used compression ignition as early as 1878 why are there no contemporary sources that credit him with this invention? I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find a book that claims Lenoir used compression ignition but that doesn't make it true. Are there even any sources apart from that one, extremely old book that make this claim?

Seriously? Mr. SQMeaner I've stated multiple times that I'm not making the claim that Brayton was the originator of compression ignition. You are the one who keeps asking about it so I included it just to show that there is some information out there stating it. The claims I'm making are the following:

Brayton was the original producer of the first viable constant pressure engine in 1872 which was a 2 stroke engine. This engine used a separate compressor and expander layout and combustion occurred inside the cylinder, not outside of the cylinder like previous low power constant pressure engines.In 1874 he further developed a metered injection system for the cycle to use fuel oil. The engine was used to power 2 submarines, multiple boats and a rail car. 

In 1890 Brayton developed and patented a variable quantity air blast liquid fuel injection system  to be used with the 4 stroke constant pressure cycle (single cylinder). 

In 1887 Brayton developed and patented a variable quantity liquid fuel high pressure spray type injection system to be used with the 4 stroke constant pressure cycle (single cylinder). 

Brayton was the first to use the lean burn concept of governing an engine. The engine fired continuously and speed was controlled solely by the quantity of fuel injected.

I'm not sure how many times I need to state my position on this... Can we please focus on the claims I'm making? Imotorhead64 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we can focus on those. Before that though I would like for you to list all the sources you know of that claim Brayton used compression ignition before 1887.SQMeaner (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to focus in the proposed changes to the article. Discussing history should not be done for its own sake but instead as a part of a discussion to change (and improve) the article. A similar remark applies to sources. Quoting myself from a previous message:

“Sources are for the articles, not for the talk pages (again, see WP:V). Referencing your sources in talk pages is allowed and is done when necessary, but it is not useful by itself.”

Imotorhead64: What are the exact changes you want to make to the article?. Do you intend to restore these changes?. Do you intend to add the above claims exactly in the way you phrased them?. If not, what else?. Please either:

1. Post the exact text you intend to add to the article, verbatim, in this talk page.
2. Edit the article directly, including proper sources.

I insist, if you want to add historical claims to the article, you must also add references to the article along with those claims. Placing your references in the talk page does not obviate the need to place add references to the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations.

I can not comment on most of your claims themselves. There is only one aspect I can comment about: I downloaded the patent mentioned in these changes and I can confirm that the quotations indeed are true to the patent. As a note, the patent uses the term “ignitor” instead of “igniter” (this is not an objection; you do not need to use the same terms).

If any editor edits to your changes on the grounds that they are inaccurate, the relevant policy is this footnote (emphasis added): “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”.

(added 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)) SQMeaner: From the above discussion, I think that it was unnecessary and unjustified to undo all of this. I have questioned whether it was justified since this previous message. Would you agree to restore those edits of Imotorhead64 in full or in part?. Please comment and be specific.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

I agree that some mention of Brayton's constant pressure engine and fuel injection methods should probably be included, along with Nicephore Niepce's contributions.SQMeaner (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What sources state that Brayton's work influenced Diesel's? --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello A D Monroe III , Welcome to the discussion. I'm not claiming Brayton's work influenced Diesel. Although it's clear that Diesel was aware of Brayton and his engine since he writes about the cycle in his book. It's pretty clear that Diesel originally proposed a constant temperature type cycle (Same as Carnot) When it didn't work he adopted the constant pressure cycle of Brayton.  

These are the proposed additions I would like to add to the Diesel engine page:

In 1806 the Niépce brothers developed the first known internal combustion engine and the first fuel injection system. The system used a blast of air provided by a bellows to atomize Lycopodium (a highly combustible fuel made from broad moss) Later coal dust mixed with resin became the fuel. Finally in 1816 they experimented with alcohol and white oil of petroleum (a fuel similar to kerosene) They discovered that the kerosene type fuel could be finely vaporized by passing it through a reed type devise, this made the fuel highly combustible.

Brayton was the original producer of the first viable constant pressure engine in 1872 which was a 2 stroke engine. The engine was called the "Ready Motor" because unlike a steam engine it could be made to run in a few minutes time. This engine used a separate compressor and expander layout. Unlike previous low power constant pressure engines,  combustion occurred inside the cylinder. In 1874 he further developed a metered fuel injection system for the cycle to use fuel oil. Numerous engines were manufactured and sold. The engine was used to power 2 submarines, multiple boats, a bus and a rail car. 

 In 1887 Brayton developed and patented a 4 stroke direct injection oil engine (US patent #432,114 of 1890, application filed in 1887) The fuel system used a variable quantity pump and liquid fuel high pressure spray type injection. The liquid was forced through a spring loaded relief type valve (injector) which caused the fuel to become divided into small droplets (vaporized).  Injection was timed to occur at or near the peak of the compression stroke.  A platinum igniter or  ignitor  provided the source of ignition.  Brayton describes the invention as follows :  “I have discovered that heavy oils can be mechanically converted into a finely-divided condition within a firing portion of the cylinder, or in a communicating firing chamber.” Another part reads “I have for the first time, so far as my knowledge extends, regulated speed by variably controlling the direct discharge of liquid fuel into the combustion chamber or cylinder into a finely-divided condition highly favorable to immediate combustion.”  This was likely the first engine to use a lean burn system to regulate engine speed / output. In this manner the engine fired on every power stroke  and speed / output  was controlled solely by the quantity of fuel injected. 

In 1890 Brayton developed and patented a 4 stroke air blast oil engine (US patent #432,260) The fuel system delivered a variable quantity of vaporized  fuel to the center of the cylinder under pressure at or near the peak of the compression stroke. The ignition source was an igniter made from platinum wire. A variable quantity injection pump provided the fuel to an injector where it was mixed with air as it entered the cylinder. A small crank driven compressor provided the source for air. This engine also used the lean burn system. 

Fire away....Imotorhead64 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that history has a way of changing over time... In 1876 Otto invented the 4 stroke which was much simpler, easier to use and slightly more efficient than Brayton's early engines... It's pretty clear that in the 1880's and 90's the Otto overshadowed the early Brayton. In the early days Brayton easily stood out since he was pioneer in making engines for the masses however by the 1880's and 90's many others were also making progress. The name Brayton is almost always associated with his early engines regardless of his other accomplishments. Brayton died in 1893 while in England working on developing his engines for the European market... had he lived a little longer it's possible he would have gotten more credit for his ideas. I believe this is why most modern historians don't really know much about the Brayton engines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect Imotorhead64 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Brayton may well be under-recognized. But claims that are "pretty clear" are not supported on Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH. Without WP:RSs showing the link between Brayton and Diesel, nothing of Brayton can go in this article about the Diesel engine -- but maybe elsewhere. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To A D Monroe III: What we call “Diesel engines” were not developed as such by Rudolf Diesel. One should avoid thinking of “Diesel engines” as “the type of engine developed by Rudolf Diesel”. For example, common rail injection is very recent. I believe (but I am not sure) that back them, only air-blast injection was used in commercial engines. Therefore, I think that it is unnecessary to prove that Rudolf Diesel was influenced by George Brayton as a requisite to mention Brayton's work in this article. It is enough if Brayton's developed some of the technology or theory used in what we now call “Diesel engines”. I commented about this in a previous message. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

common rail injection is very recent. I believe (but I am not sure) that back them, only air-blast injection was used in commercial engines.

Sorry but common rail is not new at all. Atlas used it in the 20's 30's and 40's. Fuel pressure as high as 4000 PSI were used.. Watch this video ... you can see the rail (red pipe) and the fuel pressure gauge with the red on the dial. The only thing new about common rail is the electronic injector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSdwOKgTGw Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Brayton may well be under-recognized. But claims that are "pretty clear" are not supported on Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH. Without WP:RSs showing the link between Brayton and Diesel, nothing of Brayton can go in this article about the Diesel engine -- but maybe elsewhere. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III This is not a page about Rudolph Diesel... this is a page about diesel engines not Diesel the man... There is no proof that Diesel used the ideas of Akyron Hornsby yet that should be allowed and Bryaton's engine are not? Where is the consistency here? Furthermore I pointed out several times here that Diesel specifically talks about Brayton's cycle. Has anyone taken the time to read and understand it? Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III Also using this (Diesel must be influenced by it) as a criteria for what can or cannot be posted on a page about Diesel engines means every development after Diesel's death in 1913 is disallowed? Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat this again for folks who are joining the discussion... A D Monroe III

Note that compression ignition is an idea usually considered to be Diesel’s contribution & a characteristic or “must” that makes an engine a diesel cycle, but compression ignition combustion was known years before Diesel’s time. The reason Diesel used such high compression in the first place was that it was needed to make his 1892 constant temperature engine feasible. When he found out that his constant temperature cycle wouldn’t produce useable power, Diesel subtly switched cycles over to a constant pressure one. This cycle switch was caught & is well documented in literature.

Roots, one of the sharpest authors at the time, wrote in 1899 about Diesels engine “This engine has created considerable interest, and it is advisable to correct some little misapprehension which possibly has existed owing to greater claims being made for it than were warranted. As has been said, there is not anything novel in it except the exceedingly high compression. There is no new theory – no new system.”

Just before his death in 1913, Diesel himself wrote that “Frequently by laymen & also in scientific circles it will be mentioned that the chief characteristics of the Diesel process is the self-ignition of the fuel, the purpose of the high compression being that at top dead center the injected fuel ignites itself, and that the degree of compression required is for reliable self-ignition. Nothing is more incorrect than this superficial view that is directly contrary to the facts and especially the historic development. Motors with self-ignition of the fuel already existed. In my patents I have never denied self-ignition nor in my writings mentioned it as a desirable goal.” 

Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Imotorhead64 would you mind listing all the sources you know of that mention Brayton as using compression ignition prior to 1887?SQMeaner (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SQMeaner Please take the time to educate yourself about the differences between constant volume, constant pressure and constant temperature cycles https://books.google.com/books?id=0sgqAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA707&dq=constant+temperature+cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRqou5x-nOAhWBRyYKHWfJCMgQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=constant%20temperature%20cycle&f=false

Lets lay out some facts:

#1 In 1892 Diesel proposed a constant temperature cycle which required the compression temperature to exceed the temperature of the combustion. In order to create this condition he needed a very high compression ratio.  His original desired compression ratio was 250:1 In his papers he states that the engine should require no cooling and in fact the cylinder can be insulated to preserve heat. 

#2 A test engine was built in 1893 to test the theory but the highest ratio that could be attained was about 90:1 This test engine never made enough power to run on it's own. The engine had a spark plug located in the head.   Coal dust was the original fuel proposed but Diesel did describe a liquid fuel alternative. Diesel's proposed liquid fuel system looked nothing like the Brayton air blast system he ended up adopting. The coal dust didn't work because the carbon clogged up the rings and compression was lost.  

#3 A second test engine was constructed which ran for about 1 minute under it's own power sometime between 1895 and 1897... The fuel used was similar to gasoline. The history is unclear of the exact date. Diesel eventually realize that his proposed constant temperature cycle was not feasible. A cooling system was added and the compression was lowered and now the engine operated on more of the constant pressure cycle (Same as Brayton) 

#4 Diesel finally gave up on high compression and settled for a much lower compression ratio for his engines.   Most modern DI diesels use a ratio of less then 20:1 

#5 Diesel himself states that he did not invent compression ignition nor was it part of his cycle. It was in fact a by product of his cycle.

#6 Take away the compression ignition factor and Braton's 1890 air blast engine is nearly identical to the first Diesel. Take away the compression ignition factor and Brayton's 1887 engine is nearly identical to all direct injection Diesel with a metered solid fuel injection system.   

Imotorhead64 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Irregardless of how much Diesel's engine was anticipated by Brayton, I would like it if you could list all the sources you know of that describe Brayton as using compression ignition prior to 1887.SQMeaner (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. SQMeaner I'm not sure why you are stuck on this and I'm not sure how many times I need to state that I'm not making that claim. There are some notes and documentation in a private collection that indicate Brayton may have been experimenting with compression ignition as early as 1882 but again it's not public information and I have no way to varifyably prove it. Everything I'm claiming is public information and verifiable. If you want to see a Brayton engine running on compression ignition just visit my youtube channel.. I can assure you an original Brayton type engine is quite capable of running on compression ignition.  Meanwhile please take some time to read and educate yourself on the different engine cycles. https://books.google.com/books?id=JJpIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA338&dq=george+brayton+compression+ignition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-xfuxkurOAhWPth4KHWNKA3kQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=george%20brayton%20compression%20ignition&f=false

Imotorhead64 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this private collection yours or someone else's? Could you provide me with any details?SQMeaner (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're interested in this but it is not mine. The collector is a very knowledgeable engine historian. From what I've heard someday he has plans to publish a book so until then I doubt he'll make the information public. I'm sorry but I won't disclose his identity.  Imotorhead64 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to provide some details on what this evidence is?SQMeaner (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SQMeaner I'd rather not at this time.. Like I said.. I think the person who has it plans to write a book. Even if I did disclose anything it would be hearsay at best and not productive to the current discussion here. Lets focus on weather or not we should add the claims I've made to the page. Ok? Imotorhead64 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Very well. In that case I say wait 24 hours just in case some people from the RFC take an interest in this thread and if no one's raised any serious objections by the time 24 hours have passed go ahead and make the edit. If I object to anything I'll let you know.

SQMeaner I've already stated my proposed edits... If you have any objections please state them here.. Imotorhead64 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose adding the Brayton-related information. I've looked at some old books about engines and automobiles from the Internet Archive and can't find anything about Brayton. There is a significant amount of what would now be called POV-pushing in the books; the authors seem to favor steam or gasoline or something. I noted a Beau de Rochas is also credited with the Otto engine, and the Diesel engine is mentioned along with many others, but I didn't see anything about Brayton.

The article can't be edited to include non-verifiable information from a private collection, per WP:V. Verifiable sources should exist; many old books have been digitized and I expect some should make the claim that is being made here. Citing a verifiable source is critical to the discussion here and it is not productive to propose these edits unless sources can be cited. Roches (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Hi Roches , Did you take the time to read any of the links I've been providing here? There's plenty of verifiable information for the claims I'm making. The information that Bryaton may have had a compression ignition engine is what you are referring to, however as I've stated multiple time here I'm not making that claim. Pleas take some time to read this page and understand what I want to add and why I want to add it... also follow and read the multiple links I've provided. Here are the Patents for Brayton's 1887 direct injection engine https://www.google.com/patents/US432114  and his 1890 air blast engine https://www.google.com/patents/US432260 Also one of the many authors discussing the relationship between the Brayton and Diesel engines   Imotorhead64 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

To Roches: Hello. Could you please quote the exact part of Imotorhead64's proposed addition that you dispute?: This can be solved if Imotorhead64 provides a reference to a reliable source for that part. Even if most books do not say anything about George Brayton that does not imply that he did not contribute to the development of compression ignition internal combustion engines. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

Per WP:FORUM, talk pages should not be used to put forth editor's own ideas. We only follow WP:RSs. In this case, we'd need a large majority of such sources that cover the Diesel engine to include Brayton as instrumental to its development. If they do, we must include Brayton in the article. If a large majority do not, we must not include. If only a few include Brayton, then we can at most only mention Brayton as a side-note, per WP:UNDUE. Long walls of text of well-reasoned WP:SYNTH cannot change how WP operates. So, again, sources? --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE is about giving all viewpoints expressed in “reliable sources” space when they contradict each other. Unless there are books explicitly saying that George Brayton did not contribute anything to compression ignition engine technology, then WP:DUE is irrelevant.

(added 14:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)) Also, what is exactly what you want sources for?. Can you quote the relevant part of Imotorhead64's proposed addition?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

That's backwards. Mentioning something requires specific supporting sources, not a proven lack of conflicting sources (which would be quite a burden). In this case, any mention of Brayton needs sources that actively link his contributions leading to the Diesel engine (without relying on SYNTH). DUE only comes in after such sources are found; if the sources are sparse, then the mention of Brayton in the article must be reduced in prominence. Here, the proposed text in this RfC can imply giving Brayton an equal or even higher prominence than Diesel. That needs sources.

As a much more extreme example case, let's say I wanted to add several paragraphs on Robert Fulton here, basically placing his work logically in front of Diesel's. I could say "obviously, the steam engine led to the Diesel engine", and challenge others to prove me wrong. Hopefully, other editors would tell me I must instead provide sources to replace that "obviously" -- sources that say something like "Diesel studied and was inspired by the work of Fulton". If I do actually find such a source, but just one, that's when DUE would come in. (Yes, this is a bad example -- I'm using it because it is bad. In this RfC, I would suppose sources supporting the Brayton link would be easier to find.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III Do you still have a problem with my suggested edits? Have you followed my supporting sources? I think you will see that Brayton is discussed and credited for the constant pressure cycle in most of the scientific journals. Some go on to point out that Diesel ended up adopting the cycle of Brayton. These are not just in primary sources and low impact journals as Roches has described them, but well respected books in the libraies of well respected technical colleges. Imotorhead64 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Consider that currently there is absolutely no mention of Brayton on the Diesel engine page even though there is overwhelming evidence that Brayton was the first to make a viable constant pressure cycle oil fuel engine in 1874. Brayton clearly developed and patented the metered air blast fuel system in 1890 that was used by the first Diesel. Brayton also developed and patented the metered solid fuel injection system in 1887. Brayton was the first to run an engine on the lean burn concept of regulating only the fuel.... yet in your opinion Brayton does not deserved to be mentioned? A D Monroe III This is not one or two or even three authors. .. there are many different respected authors who point out the accomplishments of Brayton...

Imotorhead64 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For this discussion, Brayton being "discussed" by sources has no significance. Sources crediting him for things that aren't the Diesel engine have no significance. Only the "some" sources that go on to specifically link Diesel to Brayton have significance. Can these citations be listed without encouraging walls of text to taint them? --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III "tq|Brayton being "discussed" by sources has no significance. Sources crediting him for things that aren't the Diesel engine have no significance. Only the "some" sources that go on to specifically link Diesel to Brayton have significance. Can these citations be listed without encouraging walls of text to taint them?" I think you are missing the point... Brayton was the developer of "the constant pressure cycle" and the engines that used that cycle. Diesel originally proposed a different cycle "the constant temperature cycle" Diesel's cycle didn't work so he ended up adopting the cycle of Brayton. It souldn't be necessary to mention both Diesel and Brayton only that Diesel ended up using the constant pressure cycle aka the Brayton cycle. Imotorhead64 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III I think much of the confusion about this is that few are taking the time to understand the cycle that was originally proposed by diesel... also they are not considering that an "air blast" diesel engine operates a bit differently than the engines we are more familiar with... Please take the time to read diesel's original patent https://www.google.com/patents/US542846 and compare it with his 1895 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US608845 . You will notice that the compression is no longer required to be so high that it produces a temperature that is higher than the heat produced by the combustion... In the second patent the compression is only required to be high enough to produce sufficient heat for ignition... Diesel also refers to the injector as a burner... he even goes as far as comparing it to a bunsen type burner.... Brayton's air blast injector was also compared to a bunsen type burner... Diesel changed his position from expansion at constant temperature to expansion at constant presuure... At this stage Diesel's engine was clearly operating on the constant pressure cycle... I will go on to say this is not how modern Diesel engines operate... they are using a dual cycle of constant pressure and constant volume... Here are a couple of references that describes Brayton's burner as a bunsen type burner... this is the same description that diesel used....

https://books.google.com/books?id=JldDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=brayton+engine+bunsen+burner&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4o4eNzYDPAhVN1GMKHRqjDZ4Q6AEIRDAH#v=onepage&q=brayton%20engine%20bunsen%20burner&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4IZDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=brayton+engine+bunsen+burner&source=bl&ots=icjWmK-YOx&sig=yg4DvkOmCskvsb8gULDFvi0tqAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi21rHix4DPAhULS2MKHRtOAJsQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=brayton%20engine%20bunsen%20burner&f=falseImotorhead64 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is another rat hole. Let me take a step back and describe this from a broader prospective.

WP does not rely only on experts to edit articles. I know that may sound wrong, but it's actually how WP is built and works. This is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary summation of commonly-held information, with no secondary or primary information in it. If any editor tries to put in secondary or primary information, we rejected it per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, respectively. That kind of information does not belong here, per the very fundamental definition of WP being an encyclopedia. There are countless other venues for secondary and primary information. In fact, WP heavily relies on those venues; that's what all the calls for cites to WP:RSs is about (mostly secondary -- citing primary sources is only for limited purposes here).

This means that any time an editor goes beyond simply directly summarizing given secondary sources, and needs long reams of text to "explain" how the information they want to add is "correct" -- that is automatically wrong for WP.

Everything in WP articles is supposed to be "statement <ref>cite</ref> statement <ref>cite</ref>..." repeatedly. Other editors must be able to read each statement, check the corresponding cite, and easily see they agree, without being an expert.

Experts are very valuable to WP, but not because they can create new information. Experts that try to focus this will eventually find they are not welcome in WP, and must move on to other, more appropriate venues for their efforts. Instead, experts are valuable to WP because they are very familiar with many pertinent and reliable secondary sources. When an article ends up with statements and cites aren't well connected, or an article has conflicting statements, or has become muddled in details and missing more important points, it's the experts that can quickly and easily point out where things have gone off track, just by providing tighter summaries and more or better sources the rest of us can easily follow. A small amount of effort on their part saves the rest of us a lot of floundering. This is especially important since WP has millions of articles and only thousands of editors. We can't afford to spend much effort on any one article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I'll say my editing name isn't related to internal combustion engines; I hadn't heard of de Rochas before. I had actually heard of Brayton's engine elsewhere. I'm a chemist, not an engineer, and to me the defining principle of the Diesel engine (other than that it burns straight-chain alkanes and gasoline engines burn branched-chain alkanes) is that it ignites the fuel with pressure, without an ignition source. The thermodynamic aspects (constant pressure, constant volume, etc.) are secondary. Brayton's engine had a platinum mesh igniter. Whether or not Diesel's initial engines had igniters is immaterial; by the turn of the twentieth century, they were referring to the Diesel engine by that name.

I have looked at most of the material linked here, which appears to be mostly primary sources in what would now be called low impact journals (local-scope trade magazines). I am not opposed to some mention of the Brayton engine in the context of hot bulb engines. But if Brayton has been unfairly denied a place beside Diesel in the name of the engine, Wikipedia is not the place to establish that. According to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, the "no original research" policy means you cannot use multiple sources to construct an argument here.

I was invited here by a bot for the RfC comment service, and I'm not sure what exactly should be included. I think the full edits stated above are WP:UNDUE, but a due weight inclusion of the Brayton engine is appropriate. Roches (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Roches First off thank you for your comments, I appreciate that you have put a bit of thought into this... With regards to the definition of a "Diesel" engine I agree that compression ignition has become in most cases a definition that most people use to define it. However history clearly shows (Please read Diesel's book "The Rational Heat Motor" that the original cycle proposed by Diesel was a constant temperature cycle (basically a copy of Carnot) which required compression much higher that what is needed for compression ignition. Diesel orginally proposed a ratio of 250:1, they reduced it to 90:1 then finally settled on 40:1. Most modern DI compression ignition engines use less that 20:1. Diesel also stated that the engine would require no cooling. In 1893 a test engine was constructed. After several years of testing it became apparent that the constant temperature cycle was not feasible. Eventually Diesel switched to the constant pressure cycle which was developed by Brayton some 20 years prior. Not only did Diesel use Brayton's cycle without giving credit he also copied his engine design nearly to the T. Normally someone would have cried foul but Brayton died in 1893 the same year Diesel started his testing. I would also like to point out that there is much information about Brayton and his  engines / cycle contained in many well respected engineering books of the period in which the Diesel engine was developed. Authors like Bryan Donkin , Dugald Clerk and James Roots were highly regarded in the field of thermodynamics and engine study at that time and all of them make references to Brayton and his engines / cycle and fuel injection systems. Not only these authors though... many well respected publications also talk of Brayton and his accomplishment Please read chapter 1. I would ask that you do a little more looking and you will see these are not low impact journals but highly technical, well regarded researched books intended for specialists in the field of thermodynamics.Imotorhead64 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Roches: Could you please cite the specific part of Imotorhead64's proposed addition that you believe to be against WP:DUE?. We are working to improve the article. What is your suggestion about this proposed addition?. If you suggest to simply leave out this text, please note that that will not result in an improvement for the article. Therefore, I would disagree if you said “add nothing; leave the article as is”. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

• Comment: First, this doesn't really seem like an RfC because the discussion is just too wide ranging. In the above discussion, the subject matter of which I'm not an expert in, seems to indicate a consensus that Brayton has been largely ignored by historians for his contributions to the Diesel Engine. The dispute is whether this is justified and if justified to include him in the article. My opinion would be that the suggested inclusions not be made as regardless of whether historians are justified in their views of him, writing an article that goes against the historical consensus here on Wikipedia would be WP:OR. Klaun (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I don't understand the policies of WP... and to be honest it seems a bit too much to try and make a case for adding Brayton to the Diesel engine page. It does see like there should be some mention of his 1874 engine. I've removed the other Brayton information.Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, malformed RfC and WP knowledge @Imotorhead64: The policies of Wikipedia can seem very hard to navigate for non-addicts, and sadly it loses us people whose only desire is to add what they believe is objective information to subjects they enjoy. (Especially when others question that information on policy grounds or actively dispute the content.) It can be hard for us oldsters and semi-oldsters, too. It is simpler than it seems - in some ways more so than engine mechanics. If you would like, I’ll converse with you on your talkpage about some of the Wikipedia policy issues raised here, and see if we can put you in contact with even more knowledgeable volunteers who might have a better and more concise ability to explain them. You might then have a better ability to add, or not add, information you find or know about. (Disclosure: I’m not an engine expert, I only sell Turboencabulators for a living. jk.) ^{Edit, referenced future offer in different thread below.}

@Mario Castelán Castro: IMO, RfC is not necessarily the place to ask for subject matter expert opinions in a particular discipline (like history of engines,) as you indicated here. I’d suggest you review the essay Expert editors if you haven’t previously. RfC specifically invites any interested Wikipedian to comment on the issue, and you’re far more likely to get some sort of consensus from RfC on whether the source is a reliable and verifiable one (and other related policies, guidelines, and opinions,) and therefore the text should be included. I know that's the question you kinda asked above, but the rambling on here seems to show some parties to the conflict may have some fundamental misunderstandings. Many apologies if you got all that already and I'm adding nothing new to you.

If all parties are copacetic with it and would agree, I'd recommend withdrawing the RfC, get some editor education for Imotorhead, and then y'all can revisit this subject in a new sections later / eventually reopen another more knowledgable RfC at that time. LaughingVulcan 15:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC) iMotorhead64 stated below that he's not pursuing the initial claims about Brayton. Was anybody else adding that material, or should this RfC be closed early? Or not? Or tea first and coffee later? LaughingVulcan 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommend Closure, No Further Action / No Prejudice As above, this RfC started as looking as a content dispute about Brayton's contributions (if any) to diesel engine development. However, in a long running debate about content it did turn into an education about how this can't be a question for experts to determine the answers, but rather how basic policies of Wikipedia can answer those questions by achieving consensus without appeals to authority that WP doesn't recognize. Because I doubt the large scale questions will receive the answers being sought after, I'd recommend this RfC be closed with the understanding that the local editors continue to work towards obtaining consensus on issues by policy. If there is still conflict remaining, a fresh RfC (or other form of Dispute Resolution should be opened making specific policy questions or statements concerning the subject matter which is challenged to be included or challenged for removal. MVHO at this phase and I won't seek official closure yet in case others differ or there's aspects I don't get here. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LaughingVulcan I plan to revisit the claims at a later date.. one by one.. I think that adding all of Brayton's history was just too much to ask for all at once. For now I added the less contentious description of Diesels original proposed cycle... I want to see how it is received.. I also don't understand why the rather weak claims of Stuart Akroyd inventing the diesel engine before diesel were allowed yet the claims I was making seem to be on much more solid footing than those claims. IMO a consistent standard should be applied. Imotorhead64 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, Imotorhead64. I missed the bit below where you said, “for now.” While you can certainly still be bold, I think you’re learning that additions and changes to an article which are at all controversial need to be supported by a good citation to a verifiable, reliable source. (And that you cannot always predict when a claim will be regarded by others as controversial, and even then there are other potential objections that other editors can make.) For me when I started out figuring out the lines of No Original Research and No Synthesizing Materials to reach a conclusion were hard concepts to grasp. Expert knowledge is needed at WP but can also be a handicap, for nobody is allowed to draw own conclusions about anything. Rather, our mission is to summarize that which has already been noted elsewhere (again reliable and verifiably.) Be aware that because other editors have already challenged the Brayton conclusions, you may still need to source each bit of added material and still not be able to draw your own conclusions (That’s an Obligatory Disclaimer.) You may find yourself back on this talk page having to discuss each bit you add, separately. It's a lot to try to understand, but the more you do the easier it will be to have your edits accepted. Best of luck, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 03:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise LaughingVulcan . Let me state for the record that I'm not here to push my personal POV... I'm here to try to make a better more informative and historically correct page. Engines, particularly Diesel and Brayton Otto and Atkinson are something I know a bit about. Unfortunately the page is full of inaccuracies that have been allowed without referenced material. ... I have removed a lot of it and if someone wants to provide something that shows I'm wrong they should and revert my edits. There is a large section on Akroyd that males unsubstantiated claims about his inventing the Diesel engine that I think should be revised or deleted. Also another thing I encountered here is that it's difficult and frustrating to have a discussion about brayton and diesel and constant pressure and constant temperature with folks who admittedly don't understand the differences between various engine cycles. I would never try to edit a page about biological medicine or war history because that's not something I know anything about... I try to stick to what I know... hopefully some folks who are knowledgeable and interested in IC engine history will want to join the discussion... then we can all learn something from one another...Imotorhead64 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Imotorhead64 Well, it's kind of why I stated what I said earlier. I readily would edit a page on biological medicine or war history, if I had verifiable reliable sources that would add information in a proper context. And if I were interested in doing so. I will absolutely edit any article page text here if I catch a genuine typo (as opposed to British/American spelling differences,) an error in grammar, or what I feel is a sentence that I can better phrase without destroying the meaning. I can be bold if I want to, because if someone has a problem with what I write I'll be reverted. If I feel really strongly about what I wrote, I'll then attempt to discuss it on the talk page. And always be prepared that I'm the wrong one and move along, or need to discuss further, etc. (That is called WP:BRD, an essay, and I wish I'd seen it when I was new here. Though sometimes I'll put my edits on a talk page first, then move ahead, so anyone who comes along can see why I did what I did... BRD is not "law".)

I consider myself an expert or advanced amateur in several different fields due to a long and varied life so far. I am cautious, though, in how I delete what others wrote (that it isn't reliably sourced by someone else,) and that anything I add either is sourced in my writeup, can be easily because I have the source to hand, or that I'm prepared to allow a revert of what I did to stand. I'd suggest you at least skim another essay, Expert editors. Essays are not Policies or Guidelines, they're opinions of one or more editors. But I recommend it to you because one thing you're learning quickly: Any editor may challenge any other editor's entries, expert knowledge or not. It's not my responsibility to know history of Diesel, Brayton, and Atkinson, but it is your responsibility to make sure anything your write here about them is not your own conclusions and is backed up by sourcing as above. (If you had ten other experts all testifying that your claims are true.... You'd still need to have your claims sourced properly or they would be rightfully deleted.) Your expertise will be far more helpful in using your knowledge to find those sources and using them to say in wikified fashion, "Dr. X stated, 'So-and-So's contributions were essential to the Diesel engine.'" (The History of Diesel Engines, New York: Random House 1992, p. 96.)^{Made up quote and reference for clarity} It is a lot of work, but I hope you'll find it worth it to help others gain knowledge! And I hope all this doesn't scare you away, either.  :) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

LaughingVulcan Regarding your comment that "Sources are more important than Expert knowledge." I understand that sources are important but so is having a good understanding of the subject matter... IMO It's difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent discussion otherwise... Imotorhead64 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

True as far as it goes about understanding subjects. I’m not saying having good understanding of subject isn’t important when writing or planning large revisions, ensuring NPOV, etc. But as A D said to you earlier, in disputes it is the consensus of average and common editors that is empowered make the decisions. Not being an expert or getting a gathering of “experts” together on WP. (I use experts in quotes because Wikipedia has no process by which experts are officially or formally recognized.) Disregard that, and you’ll find yourself being inadvertently frustrated at everything you do here. Regard that (and the other policies and pillars) and you’ll be golden. Now, if you’ll excuse me (except for what we’ve been discussing elsewhere and a change of recommendation above,) I’ve got to get back to my looking for edits to make on article space and other business. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What I find interesting here is that an expert editor can have more influence simply because of his or her knowledge on how to navigate the WP system. One unfortunate thing about consensus rule is sometimes the consensus is not accurate. Example: there was a time when the consensus was the earth was flat... However a few scientists had evidence that earth was in fact round.. how does one go about getting the correct information out if the majority rules against his views? If a person has evidence is it not possible to at least state that the earth might be round? I'm not trying to challenge you... I'm just trying to learn something here. Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those that know and follow the policies and guidelines generally have more influence. Because they follow the policies and guidelines. This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia first and foremost summarizes the already documented human knowledge of its time. Entering your metaphor and ignoring that it is documented many ancients actually believed the earth was spherical, a Wikipedia of say 800 B.C. might in fact say the Earth is flat. Because the secondary sources of the day would have said it was. (Want to know how I know the spherical earth goes back to about 600 B.C.? See citation number two here. I could tell you that because I have knowledge about Ancient Coins that had spherical world iconography I know that's true.... but instead I'll point you at the cited source in WP.) So far you have presented source after source after source which leads to a conclusion. What you need is a secondary source that states the conclusion directly. Expert knowledge which leads to conclusions is not acceptable. Secondary and teritary sources that state the conclusion directly is. At Wikipedia, you would "prove the Earth is round" not by stating your evidence but by citing your secondary and tertiary sources that say it is. (Other encyclopedias, print and online, may follow different models. Wikipedia aren't them. And I know print encyclopedia contributors who must likewise cite their articles even if you never see the citations in the article text.) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For RL reasons I cannot even read all the foregoing material, let alone master it in any reasonable time. Apologies. One thing however is that as far as I can tell there are too many issues slopping across boundaries (and into personalities). If there is to be any hope of aiming at a stable and coherent structure for the topic, do please try to separate concerns and contexts and settle them separately with careful attention to citations for particular matters of fact. Note that the central relevance of history in these matters means that the date of publication of a cited source only is relevant in the context of the history time line. Its technical relevance sometimes is different. For example, issues of principle, such as how nice it is to run combustion at high temperatures and pressures, should as far as practical be separated from issues of practicality, such the standards of machining, cost, and materials available a century ago. There are many such distinctions to observe. A lot of the foregoing walls of text probably could have been more productive if they had been posted and responded to in bulleted form. If this had been a spit-fight about a pop group or patent medicine I would have ignored it altogether, but I see it as a topic of intrinsic interest and of historical and technical importance and complexity. Please keep the eye on the ball, and keep your tempers. Good luck all, and thanks for your efforts so far. JonRichfield (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I received an automated notice of this RfC. I would simply add my strong agreement with a few other editors here who have explained the absolute necessity of using only what reliable sources say about an inventor's influence on another inventor, or on the development of a new technology. All the technical sources in the world may seem to point toward influence, but an editor here cannot use his personal expertise or his logic to state that an influence exists if the sources don't explicitly say that. Only in summarizing one or more RS which state that such influence exists or existed may an editor add such information to this (or any) article on any subject. If Imotorhead64 chooses to propose new edits here on the Talk page, I would urge that he post simply the text of each proposed edit, with a source, rather than a very long technical explanation of who did what. The focus must be strictly on what the sources explicitly say about an inventor's influence or contribution, not what the editor thinks those were. Imotorhead64 said, "it's difficult and frustrating to have a discussion about brayton and diesel and constant pressure and constant temperature with folks who admittedly don't understand the differences." Probably true, but I don't think editors here need a detailed understanding of such technical differences. Our opinions about such matters can never be included in Wikipedia articles. Only the opinions stated in RS can be included. DonFB (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi DonFB Thnaks for your comments... I think a lot of the confusion is about whether Diesel was somehow influenced or not... I don't think it matters if Diesel was influenced and I don't think we need to prove that. All that matters here is that it existed. This is not an article about Diesel the man.. it's an article about the history of the Diesel the engine... and it doesn't start or stop with Diesel the man. If there was an article that stated Steve Wozniak invented the computer without mentioning the other preceding inventions that make a computer possible like the keyboard or the transistor the reader might be led to believe that Steve Wozniak also invented those things which he clearly did not ... It's clear and proven that Brayton invented the first practical engine to use the constant pressure cycle that also ran on oil and used a metered injection system in 1874.... It's clear that Brayton had an engine in 1887 that used a metered solid fuel high pressure injection system.. it's also clear and proven that Akroyd was using compression ignition in 1888... it's clear and proven that Brayton made an air blast oil fueled engine in 1890 that closely resembled diesel's first production engine. Most all inventions are built on the things that came before them and the Diesel engine is no exception...This is not meant to discredit Diesel it's just getting the facts straight. Not mentioning these in an article about the diesel engine is a disservice to the article. and Yes I do feel that an editor should have some knowledge about the subject matter if they are going to edit about the subject... Imotorhead64 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding some technical knowledge... I'm not saying anyone needs to be an expert to understand this...it's pretty basic stuff.. However if a person doesn't know the differences between the constant volume , constant pressure and constant temperature cycle or what they represent then yes it would be difficult to have an intelligent discussion about engines.. It would be like trying to have a discussion about electricity where the person doesn't know the difference between AC and DC.. Some foundation is necessary to have a discussion... Imotorhead64 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Purpose here is not to discuss engines. Purpose is to discuss whether the article accurately summarizes what RS say about this type of engine and its development. It might be ok to include some factual text about Brayton's work and let readers decide if he influenced development of "Diesel" technology. It's not ok for this article to draw conclusions about the significance of Brayton's (or anyone else's) contributions or influence based on an editor's expert knowledge of technical details such as volume, pressure, temperature. Any such conclusions about significance cannot be included in the article unless RS explicitly state the conclusions. The conclusions of an editor, no matter how well versed in the technical details, may not be included. Editor A D Monroe III articulated the concept exceptionally well, and I want to quote what he said:

"...any time an editor goes beyond simply directly summarizing given secondary sources, and needs long reams of text to "explain" how the information they want to add is "correct" -- that is automatically wrong for WP."

"...editors must be able to read each statement, check the corresponding cite, and easily see they agree, without being an expert." DonFB (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB The article includes a section about the history of the development of the Diesel engine... I did not once suggest the significance of Brayton's contributions... I drew no conclusion as you are stating I did.... I merely stated that the original cycle proposed by Diesel was the "constant temperature cycle" however the cycle Diesel ended up using was the 'Constant pressure cycle" I also stated that in 1874 Brayton made a viable oil fuel constant pressure engine and in 1887 and in 1890 Brayton made 4 stroke engines that used the same cycle and in fact operated very much the same as the first Diesel engine. This is not synth or original research ....these are all proven and well documented facts. If you can't or won't take the time to read and understand the references I've made I'm not sure what else to do? Imotorhead64 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You have shown the references to Brayton to help people here understand his work. I think you have done that so editors will form an opinion about his importance to the development of the diesel engine--or at least so he can be mentioned in this article. Based on what I've seen, I do not object to mentioning Brayton in the article.

In your post just above you said, "I did not once suggest the significance of Brayton's contributions." However, you previously wrote:

"Not only did Brayton develop the constant pressure cycle but also the air blast and solid fuel systems which would be used to power the Diesel engine." In that comment you're clearly trying to make some kind of connection between Brayton's work and the later development of the diesel engine. Maybe you're right. But you can't say or even imply it in this article on your own authority. If he was important in the manner that your comment implies, reliable sources will say so. If the sources don't say so, the article cannot.

You also made an appeal to authority:

"...hopefully some folks who are knowledgeable and interested in IC engine history will want to join the discussion." Fine, but I want remind you of the point that editor LaughingVulcan made quite well:

"It's not my responsibility to know history of Diesel, Brayton, and Atkinson, but it is your responsibility to make sure anything your write here about them is not your own conclusions and is backed up by sourcing...."

To conclude: I am only cautioning that any statement or implication this article makes about any inventor's significance in diesel engine development must be backed up by an explicit assertion in reliable sources to that effect.

I also agree with comments you made that a lot of other text in the article appears to be opinions of editors and not well-sourced, or sourced at all. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DonFB for taking the time to read and considering my edits... I do see your points and will make sure to present an unbiased description of Brayton's contributions... For the record I did make that statement "Not only did Brayton develop the constant pressure cycle but also the air blast and solid fuel systems which would be used to power the Diesel engine." but I did not include it in the article on Diesel engine history... I did include the statement "Early Diesel engines use a similar cycle. " If you feel something is out of line please let me know... I'm in favor of making changes if there is incorrect or unsupported information. Imotorhead64 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the 1 question at the top:What should this article say about George Brayton's contribution to the development of the modern engine type known by the (not necessarily accurate name) “Diesel engine”?

Suggestion, there seems to be contention, per WP:NPOV write Brayton did abc ccording to xyz sources;

Persons ABC did according to XYZ sources; write both points of view.CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've stayed out of this so far, and ignored the emails, because:

• This is WP. WP is against OR. Sources are needed, not SYNTH. Me? I bloody well love SYNTH - the same person emailing me tried to have me topic banned for it, after all (so guess why I didn't reply?) But SYNTH also has to be right ("to live outside the law you must be honest", as Martinevans123 will probably say, once he sees it) and I have no belief that this is.
• I still see no convincing reason to believe that Diesel was significantly influenced by Brayton's work, by Brayton's commercial engine design, by Brayton's other, undeveloped engine design.
• Text-slab bombing and misformatted markup or missed signatures are a great way to piss off other editors and claim "Look at all the evidence I posted!" whilst still making it impractical for anyone else to actually analyse the case being put forward so badly.
• As always, thermodynamics takes some abuse. And as for describing injectors as "vaporising" the fuel!

IMHO, Akroyd Stuart still warrants their place in the history of the diesel engine, Brayton does not. Brayton's engine was a dead end. Nor was it close enough in its method of operation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley I admit that I'm not familiar with the format here but that shouldn't affect what is or isn't allowed on the history section of the Diesel engine article. I find your comments that I provided no evidence both disturbing and amusing... Did you take the time to read any of the multiple sources I provided that make the claim the the original diesel cycle was nothing more than Brayton's constant pressure cycle with compression ignition? Not just one but multiple respected authors made that claim. Do you have issues with the authors or their credentials? Is it the publications that you object to? I also find it amusing you say that Akroyd should stay but the bulb engine was not even a constant pressure cycle it was clearly a constant volume cycle. Why or how is it ok to state that Akroyd made a diesel engine without providing a shred of proof yet it's not allowed to give any credit to Brayton when there is much documentation stating his relevancy? For anyone that takes the time to read it's fairly obvious that Brayton was credited with the constant pressure cycle. (AKA the Brayton cycle) Also you completely side step the issue of Diesel's original proposed constant temperature cycle not working at all as intended.How do you suggest to address that? Or should it also not be mentioned? I seriously don't understand the double standard... Imotorhead64 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also Andy Dingley I think you totally miss the point that the Akroyd engine does not inject fuel at the time of ignition but unlike the Diesel the fuel is injected into the bulb prior to ignition, Ignition only occurs when the piston pushes fresh air into the bulb thus making combustion possible, In this manner the hot bulb engine operates much like the hot tube ignition system (constant volume combustion) . The Brayton differs substantially from this and operates exactly like the diesel not injecting fuel until combustion is desired (constant pressure combustion) . Imotorhead64 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley I hope you and others might take the time to read and understand this information...

From the book "the gas engine" by Dugald Clerk: Here Clerk describes the fuel injection pump used on Brayton's 1874 engine, The first metered fuel injection pump.

"The plunger of the pump is no larger than a black lead pencil yet it discharges any quantity from a single drop per stroke up to full throw with unerring certainty"

Clerk also makes an account of a Brayton engine used to run a dynamo:

"Notwithstanding all difficulties it has done much useful work not the least notable being the assistance it rendered to Prof Draper during his investigation on the existence of non metallic bodies in the sun's atmosphere He used a Brayton petroleum engine for driving his dynamo machine and he stated in his paper that its ease of starting and almost absolute steadiness in driving were of the greatest service to him In steadiness he states that it acted like an instrument of precision"

Clerk Describe the Brayton as the first compression oil engine:

" In 1873 Brayton an American engineer produced an oil engine v Vol I p 21 In that engine heavy oil it is true was used having a density sometimes as high as 0 85 but this oil was crude unrefined oil flashing at about atmospheric temperature The engine was not a practical success but it was the first compression engine using oil fuel instead of gas "

Clerk Describes the operation of the Akroyd engine:

"Type b Homsby Akroyd Heavy Oil Engine Of oil engines having a combined vaporiser and explosion chamber forming part of the cylinder head the Hornsby Akroyd is one of the earliest and most widely known Invented by Mr Akroyd Stuart 1886 1890 it was the first to successfully utilise the heated walls of a special portion of the combustion chamber in order to vaporise the oil fuel and also ignite the resulting working charge In fig 399 a sectional view is given showing the cylinder and hot bulb vaporiser of the Hornsby Akroyd oil engine the vaporiser is so arranged that the heat of the successive explosions maintains it at a temperature sufficiently high to vaporise the oil by mere injection upon its hot surface the heat also sufficing to produce ignition of the mixture at the completion of compression The vaporiser is heated for 5 to 10 minutes by a blow lamp in order to start the engine the flywheel being turned the piston on its suction stroke induces a charge of air into the cylinder this air entering the cylinder direct without passing through the vaporiser at the same time the oil that has been injected into the hot bulb is vaporising and diffusing through the chamber being mixed however only with the hot exhaust products remaining from the preceding cycle On the compression stroke of the piston the air passes through the narrow neck into the vaporiser and there mixes with the oil vapour The mixture is at first too rich to ignite but the engine is so adjusted that just as compression is completed proper explosive proportions are attained by the vaporiser contents the heat of the walls then causes ignition and the piston moves outward and performs its working stroke under the pressure resulting from the explosion "

"THE BRAYToN CONSTANT PRESSURE ENGINE To those of us who are more or less accustomed occasionally to consult the standard text books on the gas engine the name of Brayton is not unfamiliar We may properly refer to him indeed as the father of the engine in this country for he built gas engines in the United States before Doctor Otto produced in Europe those operating on his cycle Brayton's engine operated on the constant pressure cycle and strangely enough since his day relatively little work has been done in perfecting an engine of this type although before the advent of the Otto engine Brayton's engine had become a commercial success In view of these circumstances it is most natural and logical to inquire why engines of the Otto type superseded those of the Brayton The reasons for this are quite numer ous and probably all of them will never be known Others are quite obvious and among the latter may be cited the following 1 Brayton failed to design his engine in such a way that the work of compression could be done in the same cylinder where combustion took place This lead to the development of a type far more cumbersome and much less efficient mechanically than engines of the Otto type in which compression and useful work are accomplished in a single cylinder 2 In the Brayton engine ignition proved difiicult to accomplish This condition was due in part to the fact that Brayton knew nothing of the perfected electric ignition used universally to day Furthermore he found it difficult to maintain the burning gas within the cylinder during the period that the inlet valve was open He also had great difficulty in maintaining a constant quality of mixture owing to the very crude means employed for mixing the air and fuel in proper proportions 3 More than this he did not employ feasible means for proportioning the work of compression to the work of the cycle nor did he so far as we know make any attempt to utilize the heat of the exhaust 4 The mechanical construction of the day did not permit of utilizing a large volume ratio with consequent high compression pressures if indeed Brayton realized the advantage of the latter as a means toward producing high thermal efficiency With these limitations it is remarkable that Brayton succeeded as well as he did although it is quite evident that he could not hope to compete with engines of the Otto cycle while working under these limitations There are however a number of inherent advantages in engines of the constant pressure type Let us first examine these and then consider by what means it will be possible in the light of modern scientific development to overcome these disadvantages or limitations which operated against the success of the Brayton engine."

The heat engine problem ... By Charles Edward Lucke

"One man there was who not only did turn aside but having turned persevered and he was rewarded by success that was Diesel He prepared an elaborate plan to imitate as nearly as possible the Carnot Cycle with its isothermal combustion in a cylinder certainly a striking novelty But he did not follow it as the low mean effective pressure of all the Cycles IV which he attempted to follow necessitated immense machines for the power produced what he did do was to reproduce the Brayton engine with another burner and igniter His hot compressed air did what Brayton could not do but in everything else he was strictly Brayton with his Cycle III of operations which he ultimately followed This is one solution then but not necessarily the best as Diesel needs a very high compression to run and while this is the reason for his high efficiency it makes a heavy machine A little lower efficiency with less weight would be very acceptable but this would preclude the Diesel burner. 54 A detailed study of the combustion of gas and oil should certainly lead to a still further opening up of this promising though neglected field of engineering Produce a good fire and you must inevitably produce an improved Brayton engine and this in view of what has been said is certainly a very desirable end "

"All cycles possible with the non explosive internal combustion engine The engine built by George Brayton its abandonment and eclipse by the Otto machine Only non explosive internal combustion engine working to day is that of Diesel The Diesel engine in practice working not under the modified Carnot cycle but under the Brayton cycle It is then rather a modified Brayton The cause of failure in other attempts at application of Brayton or modified Brayton cycles invariably traceable to the fire box or method of combustion. "

"Explosive engines pretty well known and now receiving much attention hence this question left for study of less well known types Other types of internal combustion engine considered alone and in relation to others Two typical classes of these non explosive engines stand far in front of others from every point of view the Brayton and the Diesel Review of cyclic analysis so far as it refers to the three typical cases of the practicable cycles . Left for further study Diesel Otto Brayton and their variations Diesel an imperfect Carnot and from analysis may be neglected in comparison with the Brayton for power generation This leaves as the cycle worthy of application but little known and not at all recognized Brayton's with its variations. "

Imotorhead64 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You persist in making it as difficult as possible for other editors to cooperate with you. Throwing in huge wodges of text with a shovel is not the same thing as making a reasoned and coherent argument. You chose to make the formatting as difficult as possible for others to read: indented paras that run off the side of a screen and simply cannot be read, bare URLs to Google Books rather than citations or reasonable quotes, Google Books sources with no context around them, to books which aren't even readable through Google from many countries (I'm having to use a US proxy to access some of these) and now you're scattering my name all over it as some weird sort of red-linked ad hominem to show how disruptive some other editor must be for having the temerity to question you!

This does not encourage any sort of reasonable collegial working practice between editors. It's a big red flag saying "Look at the size of my erudition! What, you won't even spend the same amount of time I do in studying it? Then only I am worthy of The Knowledge!" So you ask all other editors to either become monomaniac obsessives over this one issue (still seemingly invented from your own mind) or else for them to disengage from it entirely. Now that's nice gamesmanship. A strategy I've not seen played before, but entirely rules compliant and yet driving other editors right off it. Way to go. I really have no idea here if you're innocently naive (and yet still refusing to learn basic editing syntax) or if this is a real old WP hand (Wdl1961?) returned with a better game.

And now, lets rename the whole article to compression-ignition engine and make it further and further confused.

Normally I wouldn't let this one drop. Because I'm the poor bloody fool who does waste days on sorting through this sort of mess, but right now I really can't spend the time. So congratulations, it looks like you win. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley FYI I saw that someone was changing your edit of the article but that was not me. I'm ok with calling it a Diesel engine or a compression ignition engine.. IMO they are mostly one in the same. I did insert your name in several places because I wanted to make sure you read specific parts of the Clerk paper... And I thought that maybe you were not able to access the google books so I copied and pasted the text here so that you and others who might not have access would be able to read it. I have other books and I have seen other books that also discuss the Brayton, Diesel and the constant pressure cycle but they are not widely available so I tried to stick to what was available to everyone.

AS for what to call a Diesel I thought you might have some interest in this... From "Rivers and Harbors" Vol 2

"The Diesel internal combustion engine is of constant pressure type and is named after late Dr Rudolf Diesel of Munich Germany invented and patented the cycle of operations which it works There are many types of internal combustion engines some of which closely allied to the Diesel principle There others entirely different and the origin of is lost due to having passed through so stages But not so the Diesel engine for its history there is no doubt and there seems be every indication that this name will be applied to it until the cycle is displaced by more efficient and even more satisfactory operation if ever invented Although the expression Diesel conveys nothing of the working of the cycle it has become firmly established It is distinctive and so should be as a tribute to the memory of the genius invented an engine more efficient than any class of power."

"The class of oil engine which is being so indiscriminately termed semi Diesel is the surface ignition or hot bulb motor With this there is an exhaust heated bulb or vaporizer top of the working cylinder into which the is injected in the form of a spray and upon striking the heated surface There are various forms of the surface ignition engine better known in America of such motors the Bolinders Fairbanks Morse Skandia Avance Remington Kahlenburg Potter and Mietz makers of the first named engine are very opposed to the erroneous use of the term semi Diesel Apparently the old HornsbyAckroyd engine is the original surface ignition hot bulb engine but several claims have made in the past Hence it is best to use term that describes its main principle of operation which the word surface ignition does Hot bulb does not quite cover all the variations which include hot ball hot plate hot pot and one instance the hot surface of the piston utilized on which to spray the oil"

https://books.google.com/books?id=b9b8BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&dq p 1

Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ending RfC

Legobot removed the RfC closure tag today. (For those who are new, read Ending RfC's at the RFC page.) While I'm willing to ask for a formal closure at the Administrators' Noticeboard, I am wondering if that is really required in this case. (I'm also not sure what an Admin will make at all of the big schlemiel.) I would propose closing the RfC discussion proper with the following text:

The consensus in answering the questions presented is that verifiable, reliable, preferably secondary sources must support any contentious claims made in the article.  The onus on making changes is upon the person making the edit to use sources which meet all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  All parties are advised that should any claims be questioned and reverted, parties are advised to bring their disputes to this talk page to work out whether individually claimed facts can be reliably sourced.  Failure to reach consensus on policy in such cases result in the challenged material not being placed in the article.  Any continuing disputes over individual content items need to be handled here, on a sentence-by-sentence basis if necessary.

If anyone has a problem with closing the discussion this way, please speak up, and I'll be very happy to simply make the request at WP:AN for an independent closure. (Or any interested party may do the same by making the proper request at AN.) Any party who feels the RfC must continue on can also certainly request an extension, but given the length of the discussion so far I personally wouldn't advise that. Full disclosure: I consider myself an involved party at this RfC, but also feel that perhaps the above consensus now exists. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:LaughingVulcan, Those statements read like a non-answer to me, repeating WP policies, and I don't think provide any additional value. The RFC started as a request for comments on content, then diverged into WP policies, which are vague general principles, subject to individual interpretation, for which people then submit an RFC, got comments, but no consensus was reached on the original content questions.

I think an approach is to state no consensus was reached, and for the original submitter to submit another RFC with the proposed specific content, and the references to support the proposed content, and ask for specific yes/no answers. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm afraid I must disagree on several points with you. I do not believe this is "no consensus" on anything but whether the content is addable or not. There is pretty compelling consensus that WP policy must be followed and that it is incumbent upon those adding material to follow policy, nor is it impossible to come to consensus as to whether policy is being followed on specific points. However, I do not disagree at all that other RfC's could be opened on this same specific content with yes/no as listed.... just not justified on "expert opinion" grounds but specifically showing how those edits satisfy policy and guidelines. RfC's are not a vote.

In any event, I'll take your disagreement with me as an indicator to not close the discussion out as above. I will put in the request at AN for a disinterested closer. Which I suspect will take awhile, but we've got awhile to be able to wait. Thanks for the response  :) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.