Talk:Quasiturbine/Archive 2

Comparisons

I have expanded the comparison section at Pistonless rotary engine#Comparisons. It makes interesting reading. Andrewa 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

L'humour console

Year 1915 - The Penalty of Leadership - This text, penned by DMB&B founder Theodore MacManus, appeared in the Saturday Evening Post.

Year 1922 - Extrait de LA VIE EN FLEUR d'Anatole France - ... mon pauvre parrain avait été beaucoup insulté par les savants officiels, et il en souffrait, ne sachant pas qu'un homme ne s'élève à la gloire que sur les morceaux d'injures, et que, pour quiconque pense et agit, c'est mauvais signe que de n'être point vilipendé, insulté, menacé. Il n'avait pas suffisamment observé que, de tout temps, ceux qui honorèrent leur pays par le génie ou leurs vertus subirent l'outrage, la persécution, la captivité, l'exil, quelquefois la mort. Ces considérations n'entraient point dans son génie ... pensant n'avoir qu'à montrer son invention pour confondre ses ennemis. Car il avait l'âme simple et croyait à la puissance de la vérité, alors que seul le mensonge est fort, et s'impose à l'esprit des hommes par ses charmes, sa diversité et son art de distraire, de flatter et de consoler ... Free 140 Languages Translator Robots at: Systransoft, Google, Worldlingo, Altavista, Online-Translator.

Year 2005 - So good for the Wiki personal tribunal. I will not comment on what innovations the Australian superior methdology has induced... Time as come I think, to give up honorably and respectfully. I am not trained, neither English equipped, to make verbal terrorism. Never mind the rigor, the sensureship and the accuracy, il faut parfois être bon perdant et se retrancher derrière l'humour... Almost no scientists are making contribution on Usenet anymore, and intellectual interest has drifted low. If web-encyclopedias fail to welcome Scientifics and their contributions the way they are, let see where they go? Innovation and new revolutionary ideas on Wiki "Proposed engine design" tribunal has now been killed. Let wait after the atmosphere is decontaminated before serving new delicious brain-foods. Meanwhile, make sure to read the Wiki October 2 2005 article version.

Year 2006 - Great for sure. Longue vie à tous! / Gilles

Reply

You remain welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I again urge you to improve the French Wikipedia article. But your misleading promotional material was never welcome, and never will be. I think this has been made consistently clear to you.

This is not because I or any other Wikipedian opposes the Quasiturbine, or innovation generally. Wikipedia itself is an innovation! But it is also an encyclopedia. NPOV is not negotiable here.

Your decision to desist from attempting to change or circumvent Wikipedia policy is a good one. An even better decision would have been to go through the correct channels to clarify and perhaps change our policies. These channels have also been made clear to you on several occasions.

Your false and baseless accusations are numerous. As you said, should I be intimidated? It has not been a satisfying experience for me. Every attempt has been made to welcome you, and frankly I feel that your decision to leave is motivated more by the failure of your attempt to revert the article to your POV version than by any change of heart.

But you remain welcome here. One day perhaps you will decide that you have more to lose than to gain by ignoring the principles, procedures and policies of Wikipedia. Andrewa 02:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I now enter a second year of editing this article, and am about to wish another joyeux Noel to Giles, I think that we can all be grateful that this article is better than ever. No ideas have been "killed" or even roasted. The Quasiturbine engine concept is now treated with NPOV, limited to verifiable information, and properly placed within the context of other engine designs. This is an encyclopedia, not an investment-tip hotline. Not to worry. The Quasiturbine is a swell idea and I look forward to seeing this article grow as new acomplishments are achieved. -Willmcw 09:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Is photo-detonation pseudo-science

Hi,

I was first introduced to the quasiturbine in school, our teacher enthusiastically showed a news report on how the quasiturbine , they had CG, it seemed to make sense and probably mostly did (apparently news report are popular outlets for inventors, I was just watching an old video on youtube about the car that runs on water of Stanley Meyers, he was a lot less hones than the guys who made this quasiturbine)

well, anyway , I see that the subject of photo-detonation is introduced without introduction, and until you read the last sentence you could think this concept is based on science

until there is a lot more explaination on this , could this instead introduced in a "the inventor claims that" manner ?

thanks shodan sorry I don't know how to properly sign yet ;)

You can sign by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. You're probably right, this does not seem to be sitting on a firm footing yet, although, I'd have to look a bit more in detail to be sure. --HappyCamper 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other discussions of photo-detonation in Talk:Quasiturbine/archive1. -Will Beback · † · 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. Photo-detonation may or may not exist. We only document that the inventors claim it does and that there is little 3rd party information to back that up. That is about as far as we can go until someone studies it in more detail, or we get some expert on flame-front/detonation-pressure-wave propagation with an open mind to review this article and the citations, which seems unlikely, and would border on original research. Gigs 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem exactly. I think I could write a scathing and well-reasoned review of the Quasiturbine, but here isn't the place to publish it. Same problem with Solar Tower Buronga. The function of these talk pages is to support the development of encyclopedia articles, so all we have any business to do is to make sure that other editors aren't too naive as to the tricks of the vested interests, and that these vested interests understand that attempts to promote their wares here are unwelcome. Andrewa 03:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications

I think Gilles objection to using ports as classification is that it may be confused with the number of valves promoted by post petrol engine manufactures. I suggest using 'Dual cycle' instead of 'four port' and 'Single cycle' instead of 'two port'.

The avec chariots and sans chariots designs could be used in either layout. The AC would be better suited to an internal combution engine but would also suit say a gas pump or expander, due to the greater change in volume through the cycle.

The possible use as an internal combustion engine has recieved the most attention. It has many more uses - pneumatic motor, steam engine, refrigerant expander, pump etc. As far as I can see development is currently focused on the 'dual cycle', which is better suited to the majority of these uses, so perhaps the 'internal comustion engine' should be presented as a simply possible use of the single cycle configuration.

Photo-detonation/HCCI/SCCI/ATAC really warrant a seperate page with a mention here that the Quasiturbine is better suited to it than current engine designs due to the quick compression rate at 'tdc'

It is theoretically possible to use different fluids in the pump, as long as cross-contamination is not a problem. You could use hydrolic oil to pump air, as long as it doesn't matter if your compressed air is full of hydrolic oil! The fact the rotor is exposed to both 'cycles', there will be a layer or oil on the face plate when it is on the 'air' side. Seals and tolerances would also have to be right for the 'thinner' fluid, meaning an increase in friction compared to puming a thicker fluid. There isn't any evidence this has been tested, however.

--brian_chat 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gilles is back

Notwithstanding his above comments to refrain from editing this article, a batch of edits was just reverted that were clearly by Gilles (he signed them). Be on the lookout for this. To Gilles: please don't insert signed comments in the article. Please don't put things in the article that are unverifiable. And please, create an account. It will take you 5 minutes. You've been editing this article (poorly) for coming up on 3 years now that I know of. 5 minutes to create an account is not much to ask. Gigs 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Stirling engine

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stirling_engine&diff=prev&oldid=223506824 for some references. There's no evidence of any quantitative work or even any understanding by the proposer of the principles involved in such research. The page at http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/ETypeStirling.htm is currently half-translated from French, and looks like an attempt at machine translation that didn't complete. The other reference http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/GHGAlberta0205.html is similarly vague and points to an article at http://www.ghgshowcase.com/newsletters/vol1/GHGNews_May.PDF which seems to be currently offline. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)