Talk:Internal combustion engine/Archive 2

Bender235: Regarding your recent edit and insistence, I must note that:

• Your edit summary of your first edit is incorrect. It does not mention that you removed the non-breaking space, instead it only notes the change of “http” to “https”. When another users sees your edit summary in his watchlist, recent changes, or similar, he will be misled by your summary into thinking that that is the only change; therefore, given that the “ ” is more important given that it occupies a bigger proportion of changed characters (or at the very least just as important), the edit summary is defective in that it fails to summarize the edit.
• Your edit summary of your first edit, “"nbsp" is HTML code for non-breaking space. Please inform before revert.”, is incorrect and inappropriate, in several ways:
  1. You are presuming that I do not know what “ ” is; in fact, I do, and I added these non-breaking spaces when I reworked and expanded this article from a chaotic collection of information lacking a well defined structure to the current version (with minor modifications since then).
  2. A consequence of the former point is that you are accusing me for something that I did not do, namely: acting erroneously because of ignorance.
  3. Your comment “Please inform before revert.” applies to you and not me. If you had informed yourself, you would have seen that I added “ ”, and I use it routinely in other pages, therefore I know what it means contrary to what you claimed. While I do not hold that you most necessarily check the edit history from more than a year ago if you are going to revert (just revert, without making an accusation in the edit summary), I hold that it is a common sense requirement to make sure that accusations are correct before making them.
• Reverting as you did, without making any explanation of why you insist in your proposed version of the article is against the recommended (and under some conditions, regulated) behavior within Wikipedia. I am not giving an exhaustive list, since I know that you are aware of the relevant documents. I will just name Wikipedia:BRD as an example.
• Regarding the topic of the non-breaking space itself: A quantity expressed in the form “Q U” where U is an unit and Q is the numerical value of the quantity when expressed in unit U, requires a non breaking space in the middle. This space stands for a multiplication operation and therefore it is not optional. In this case, the unit is 0.01, which is represented by the percent symbol (“%”).

References:

• The International System of Units (PDF) (8 ed.). § 5.3.7: BIPM.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• Guide for the Use of the International System of Units. § 7.10.2: NIST.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• ISO 31-0 (not officially published online).

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:PERCENT. No space. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed that is what it recommends (the MOS is a guideline and not policy as its header says), giving as the rationale that “that is what most people do” (phrased in the typical austere tone of Wikipedia).

Should a technical article like internal combustion engine follow the taste of the editors with no special qualification or relevance^[1] that write the MOS, instead of the relevant standard that is written for consistency when expressing the value of quantities and with a logical rationale?. How would this make Wikipedia better?. I do not see how.

The reason for space has been given: it stands for the multiplication that is necessary to multiply the numerical value of the quantity and the unit; for more details see the referenced documents, especially the NIST one.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

I am honestly amazed by how meticulous people can be about these trivial edits. So here's what AutoWikiBrowser does automatically: if there's a number followed by a percentage sign, such as 50 %, it adds a non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %. All this does is preventing an accidental line break with 50 on one line and % on the next one. The fact that you reverted this change referring to an "international standard" according to which there has to be a space between the number and the percentage sign signaled to me that you clearly did not understand what   does. It does not remove a space, it only makes it "non-breakable". And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow. --bender235 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your critique is unfounded. Let me address your complaints one by one:

1. “I am honestly amazed by how meticulous people can be about these trivial edits.”
   If you care about these “trivial edits” enough to make them in the first place, and to insist when you are reverted, then common sense says that some people will also care as much as you do (and of course, some will care less, and some will care more). You appear to be judging me for being “meticulous” about “trivial edits”; your phrasing does not makes it completely clear whether that is the case, but if it is, note that exactly the same judgment would apply to you.
2. “So here's what AutoWikiBrowser does automatically: [...]”:The first thing in the page you linked says that you bear full responsibility for those edits, and it is repeated in the first section. You emphasized the word “automatic” as if it was something of importance, while in fact the page you linked establishes that it is irrelevant that it is automatic by virtue of the convention about the responsibility assumed when using AWB.
3. “if there's a number followed by a percentage sign, such as 50 %, it adds a non-breaking space in between, i.e. 50 %.”
   Again (this is the second time), your accusation to me of acting in ignorance is false, and it applies to you instead. If you had checked your edit, as you are supposed to do, you would have realized that your tool did not perform the transformation you claimed it does (50 % to 50 %), but instead it changed 50 % to 50%. Maybe (just maybe) the problem arose because it does what you said in other cases, but not in this one; however, if that is the case, you still bear full responsibility for it.
4. “And you really had to start an edit war over this? Really? Wow, just ... wow.”
   I am abiding by WP:3RR and BRD, therefore I am not edit warring. As further evidence, note that I was the one to bring the discussion from live edits to discussion in the talk page, and I have explained with arguments why you are wrong for the points in which you are wrong (That is: an argumentative “you are wrong in X because of Y”). You on the other hand, are making false accusations and have failed to provide a single argument in favor of your proposed version. If somebody is edit warring here, that is you.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

Ok, this is clearly absurd. Here are my final words on this: by "automatic" I meant that AWB makes certain style changes (which all are in line with WP:MOS, no exception) in the background even if the original purpose of your edit was something else. The purpose of my edits was to transform HTTP→HTTPS. --bender235 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:PERCENT says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Which I interpret as "don't change unless there is agreement". There is no agreement here (yet), so there should be no changes. Ie, it should remain as spaced (which, in this case, includes no-break-space) until there is agreement to change it.

Personally I don't care which way it goes but flipping back and forth cheeses me off.  Stepho  talk  04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a paragraph under types of 2-stroke engines, specifically blower scavenged, that makes a grandiose claim which I can't find any supporting documentation for within the citations, and I suggest the claim be deleted. For one, isn't the most fuel/thermal efficient ICE above 80%? Here's the paragraph with the claim with questionable supporting citations inline on the article: "An example of this type of engine is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged 2-stroke Diesel, used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with a thermal efficiency over 50%.[7][8][9][10] For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke engines are around 43% thermally-efficient (SAE 900648);[citation needed] size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area." Typenolies (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't make good sense of what you've written here.

The most efficient engine, and engine type, at present are these large ship Diesels that are some of the very few engines to use the Diesel cycle. Something has to be most efficient, it happens to be these.

This isn't the same thing as saying that mechanically-scavenged uniflow two-strokes are the most efficient: that's a broad group, not all of them are efficient like this. The Wärtsilä types are actually quite rare, and quite distinct from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I'm noting is that the "most efficient internal combustion in the world" is a contentious claim which needs to be directly attributed with a citation. The second is the nature of the claim. Since the engine is likely using various methods to achieve this efficiency, the question needs to be addressed is that are these techniques technically distinct (specifically are they derived solely from mechanical torque in the exhaust stream) from a combined cycle plant, which is usually the standard for greatest heat efficiency in power production. So what I'm suggesting is that either the claim not be made or may it be addressed thoroughly with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typenolies (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The text says, 'Notably, the combustion takes place at constant pressure, rather than with the Otto cycle, constant volume." But the piston engine does not operate with constant volume (moving piston changes the size of the combustion space) and the gas turbine does not operate at constant pressure (the compressor raises the pressure and the burning fuel further increases the pressure). Perhaps an expert can reword this so that it does not appear to be contradictory. CPES (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In the Otto cycle, combustion is assumed to be so rapid (compared to physical piston movement) that it takes place as a sudden rise in pressure at constant volume.

In the Brayton cycle gas turbine, the pressure at each location is considered constant. In effect the cycle takes place spread out over the axial dimension, rather than spread out over time as in the piston cycles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

< the burning fuel further increases the pressure > No. In the ideal cycle combustion takes place without pressure change - as shown in the diagram in the article. In real engines the pressure falls by a few per cent. (See, for example, Cumpsty, 'Jet Propulsion') 109.145.109.85 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Further regarding the Brayton Cycle, is it appropriate to apply the effects of thrust as output of the exhaust stage, given that it wasn't initially designed for such? Typenolies (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thrust in a turbojet engine has to be calculated separately for each section, as either drag or thrust, then summed overall. It's not obvious just where the main thrust will come from - it's certainly not all from a nozzle. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Digitallymade: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed some problems with the changes you made (Special:Diff/728194728/728986205) and I further edited the article to address them. A description of my changes follows.

• I moved the image of an historical 2-stroke engine to “history of the internal combustion engine”. It was misleading in this article because you added it in a section describing modern engines, which do not use that design.
• You deleted the explanation of crankcase scavenged 2-stroked engines and replaced it with a section “Design”, reusing some of the text. I wrote the section “Crankcase scavenged” around October 2014 (see the article's history for details) and although others have done minor editing, it remains mostly as I wrote it. Here I think that my section “Crankcase scavenged” is more clear than your section “Design”; more so because your section “Design” pĺaces too much emphasis on historical development. I restored my section “Crankcase scavenged”, moved your section “Design” to a more suitable place in this article and deleted the text that would have been duplicated among both sections.
• I deleted this text (quoted below) that you added to the lead section, because those physical laws aren't the whole operating principle of internal combustion engines, therefore there is no point in mentioning them in the lead section (the lead section is supposed to be a summary):

  “The operating principles in Physics are those described by Boyles, and Charles laws which describe how the pressure exerted by a gas will rise when it's temperature is increased. The ideal cycle was described by Sadi Carnot in his work titled Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, published on June 12, 1824.^[1]”

• I requested a reference (with “{{citation needed}}”) for a fragment of you added (quoted below). Please provide it if possible.

  “In the USA two stroke motorcycle and automobile engines were banned due to the pollution, although many thousands of lawn maintenance engines are in use.”

• You renamed and rewrote the section “Gasoline Ignition Process”. I only took a quick look at your changes. Overall it seems an improvement. I left your changes as-is.

Note that I am not a “reviewer” or similar. I am an editor who is interested in this topic and I am interested in keeping this article readable. This article assumed its current form when I reorganized and partially rewrote it around October 2014.

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC).

To OnBeyondZebrax: Hello. I reverted your recent changes for 2 reasons:

• I do not see an improvement in the mass merging of paragraphs. I think that there was a better correspondence between paragraphs and ideas before your edit.
• Unless there is a very good reason for the contrary, the “History” section should remain empty. We already have an article for that. There is little to nothing to be gained by duplicating a section of that article there. It is preferable to simply let users who are interested into history go to the main article rather than to give a scant discussion here.

I discourage editing under the label of “copyediting” that merely shuffles words plus a minor rewording without either providing more factual information or arranging it in a way that is an obvious improvement (e.g.: it is evidently much more clear or deletes obviously redundant statements). In other words, I discourage rephrasing done only for the taste the editor that does it.

I noticed that you added some information apart from the “copyediting” (e.g.: the part that goes “Most countries and jurisdictions require that vehicle engines be fitted with mufflers [...]”). Free feel to add information to the article, subject to consensus and WP:BRD. But please try to include appropriate references and avoid vague language like “Most countries require” (which countries require that?).

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC). Hi,

History section should remain empty

Your statement that the "History" section should remain empty appears to be contrary to the editing guideline set out at WP:Summary style. This editing guideline states that:

• "Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the main parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles. " [bolding added by me for emphasis]

Wikipedia's editing guidelines state that an article should contain "summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections", even if this leads to duplication between the two articles.

Merging of paragraphs

Many articles have one and two sentence paragraphs. This occurs because many editors are working on articles, and people add a sentence, and they may not link the sentence into a paragraph. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." (see MOS:Paragraphs. To cite just one university website on paragraph length, Purdue University states that writers shoud "[a]im for three to five or more sentences per paragraph." Of course there are differing views on how many sentences a paragraphs should contain. But I agree with the Purdue University recommendation.

Copyediting should only be done to eliminate redundant text or make obvious improvements

Under WP:BRD, if I make a change to an article by copyediting, and the change is accepted by other editors, then it seems that the other editors agree that the change was OK. Feel free to point me to a policy page or guideline which sets out a restrictive policy on copyediting. I will be happy to read it and change my ways if such a policy exists. Thanks for your ideas and suggestions. :)OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe we should consider the integration of clickable names to article pages using the following template: Template:Annotated image 4

See the Piston, Spark plug, and additional integrated links below, which can be done for all the rest!

Code:

Piston Exhaust Camshaft Water cooling jacket Spark plug Inlet Camshaft 4 Stroke Engine

Twillisjr (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermal_power_plant_of_Shazand.JPG

I'm 99% certain that this is not a combined cycle power plant.

The white buildings on the left of the picture are four gas- or oil-fired boilers. They supply steam to four 325 MW turbines.

See, for example, http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006evia/papers/516-199.pdf

If Shazand is a Rankine-cycle plant, the picture does not belong in this article.

109.145.107.191 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my English but this page completely miss the Barsanti-Matteuci engine the first modern ICE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.233.42 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

See here

Barsanti-Matteucci engine

109.145.107.191 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to add it to the 'History' section. Don't forget to add references.  Stepho  talk  04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a hatnote at the top of the page stating that "ICEV" redirects here, but nowhere on the page can I find an explanation for what it means, or why it redirects here. What is it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it means Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, as compared to EV for Electric Vehicle or PHEV for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. But I've never heard ICEV used anywhere in the real world.  Stepho  talk  12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uL1CfKfv?url=http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf to http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201210444/http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2003/news-goddard.asp to http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2003/news-goddard.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322224814/http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/2_Item%205.6.pdf to http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/2_Item%205.6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720090822/http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Projects/index.html to http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Projects/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal combustion engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ansys.com/assets/testimonials/siemens.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://195.99.1.70/si/si2002/20021808.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627061021/http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html?series=19 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261289.html?series=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello y'all, just wandering through noticed that there is no reference to the Pyréolophore invented by the Niépce brothers. The Pyréolophore and Joseph Niépce articles claim that it is the 'world's first internal combustion engine.' I have also seen reference to it as the first actually constructed internal combustion engine. Wanted to see if anyone has references to rectify the discrepancy in these articles. I amnotted (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be added in some form. However, the competition for the first engine seems to be around 1794 (Thomas Mead vs Robert Street), as opposed to 1807 for the Pyréolophore.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's older than that - 1791 and John Barber's gas turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is fine now but the Pyréolophore article still claims it was the first internal combustion engine. I have raised it at Talk:Pyréolophore#Disputing claim as the world's first internal combustion engine.  Stepho  talk  07:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

While doing my initial read through the article, I noted that the acronyms "SI" and "CI" (Spark and Compression Ignition respectively) are used several times before they are defined in the ignition subsection. It confused me, but I am familiar with the terms and guessed it and used a search to find them defined in the article. The issue is apparent when considering other readers less/not familiar with the terms and those who are not as computer savvy. I will put this on the talk for a little bit while I do some research because the MoS page for acronyms didn't cover a situation like this exactly. However, the MoS states that anytime a non-widely used acronym is used in a page, it should be written out and put in parenthesis the first time it is used. My confusion is that the MoS covers that an acronym should be defined in its first use, however in this article the terms are not defined fully until the ignition subsection. The MoS mentioned for uses with small space (like tables) that using an acronym without defining it is fine and you can use wikilinks to the section where they are defined, however it specified that for small space usages. If anyone knows of the proper way to do it, I'd appreciate it, it's bugging me. Aaron mcd (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just added definitions for CI and Si in the lead.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_combustion_engine&oldid=920303500 introduced a postulation that internal combustion engines are not heat engines, without a citation, or an explanation which is readable to someone who has not continued education beyond secondary school. Erkin Alp Güney 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I already reverted it 2 days ago. Unknown if it was really Colin Garner or somebody just using his name. Either way, he needs more evidence to go against Carnot's very well accepted theory of heat engines.  Stepho  talk  22:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The editor with the long name is, I suspect, merely quoting Professor Garner. He, or it may be she, doesn't need more evidence: they need only to make clear that internal combustion engines are not necessarily subject to the constraints of the Carnot cycle, simply because they are not cyclic: oxygen and fuel enter; water and carbon dioxide leave. See Fuel cell 86.130.154.27 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A citation: on page 172 of 'Engineering Thermodynamics' by Spalding and Cole, London, 1958 we find:

'the internal-combustion engine cannot be classed as a heat engine. Matter flows continuously into and out of an internal-combustion engine'

The authors' wry follow-up, in an end note on page 358, is:

'Many people have become used to calling internal-combustion engines "heat engines"; they become upset when told they must stop.'

86.130.154.27 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that that is the case then you may need to consider rewriting the article Heat engine which believes otherwise. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The article on the Internal Combustion engine cites Étienne Lenoir (1860) and Nicolaus Otto (1876) as THE INVENTORS of the Internal combustion engine. However, the internal combustion engine was invented much earlier by Isaac de Rivaz (1806). And that engine was very modern with electric ignition (AND HYDROGEN fuel). This facts in your article somehow went almost completely hidden. I think it is not only unfair but slightly dishonest too. Regards 27.32.23.226 (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As always on Wikipedia, please provide reliable references to back up your claims.

I did a quick search and found that Wikipedia has some information at De Rivaz engine. This says that the engine required manual operation for many operations such as opening and closing valves and triggering the spark. To me, this makes it a fore-runner of the internal combustion engine but not quite an ICE yet. Certainly it should be mentioned in this article as at least a fore-runner.

Please beware that calling fellow volunteers dishonest is not a good way to have a conversation. For myself, I had never heard of him and hence there was no thought of including or excluding him. But I'm glad that I now know of him.  Stepho  talk  10:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

could the colours on the graph at the bottom of the page be changed? it's rather hard to distinguish the lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippojazz (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me this article is missing any discussion of carburettors, turbochargers, superchargers, fuel injection and so forth. There's no fuel going into our ICs! —Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs) 09:56, 2 July 2005 (UTC)