Talk:Two- and four-stroke engines
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Let's start with the basics:
As it is, this page sounds unbelievably amazingly awesome. So much so that my natural inclination is to be highly suspicious. Additionally, the page seems to be talking about a proprietary product that does not exist yet that would use this technology, as much as it talks about this technology itself. I suggest it be reorganized in this way:
Invention What preceding designs and ideas led to the invention of this? When was this invented? Who invented it?
How the cycle works or something like that Use the current explanation, if you like. It seems alright. It would be nice if the animation had numbered sections that corresponded with its caption.
Current Development What research is currently being done on this? Which companies are currently developing this?
I highly suspect that the people involved in this technology are the only ones developing this page, and that's fine, but they need to make it sound less like proprietary information. Remember, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be for original research. Release a press release and then cite it here if you need to, just don't post it here exclusively.
---
This looks very suspect, the animated picture clearly shows a two-cycle engine (exhaust and intake in the same cycle). In addition, the English of the description was obviously not written by a native speaker, and is not readable to the level of accuracy necessary for good understanding. It should at the very least be rewritten by a competent English language speaker. 173.66.17.183 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything to support the claims. It does not look as efficient as a four stoke to me. Much like a two stroke, but with an extended breathing end of the stroke. Variable compression has been used elsewhere. At least it should be made clear that these are speculative claims, and possibly the whole thing should be deleted. (I don't see the purpose of the upper right port and valve in the diagram.) David R. Ingham (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
---
Actually, the engineering theory behind this design is very solid. With the addition of the second piston, you double the amount of surface area the expansion forces are acting upon. Thus, theoretically making the combustion cycle more efficient. This has been proven to be sound in practice as well as theory with horizontally imposed pistons running a simultaneous 4 stroke cycle in the past. The benefits of a piston moving at half the rate of the other would make performance differences similar to the difference between standard 2 and 4 stroke engines. The addition of the second charged air intake would make for a more complete exchange of exhaust gases for clean air. Also, this engine allows for two output shafts, rotating at different speeds. These shafts could used for different functions. One for the turning of the flywheel and locomotion of a vehicle, and the other for engine sustainment processes (to include the charging of the air intake, AC compressor, fuel pump, etc.) and electrical generation via an alternator OR an electrical generator for the purpose of hybrid locomotion.
This is clearly a technology that deserves much further exploration and development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.98.87 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Name consistency
editIs it “two- and four-stroke engine” or “two-and-four-stroke engine”? Does it matter? I think the title and the article text should probably match but I’m not sure which should change (if any). Just wanted to see if I could find a consensus or anything Eatingbugs (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- 'Two- and four-stroke engines' is the only version that makes sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- That’s what I was thinking but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t being dumb, lol. Thanks :) Eatingbugs (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)