User talk:Inventor

Der Wolfhart-Motor, auch -Kugelkolbenmotor, ist ein Verbrennungsmotor mit kugelförmigen Kolben, der Bauart Rotationskolbenmotor, der von dem Physiker Wolfhart Willimczik entwickelt wurde. ^[1]

Zielsetzung bei der Konstruktion des Wolfhart Kugelkolbenmotors waren vor allem kinematische Optimierung sowie mechanische Vereinfachung. Besonders für Alternative Antriebstechniken ist der Wirkungsgrad, der im Carnot-Kreisprozess beschrieben wird wichtig. Es wurden vom Erfinder Prototypen gebaut und betrieben, wobei allerdings der Betriebsnachweis nicht gesichert wurde. Lauffähige Nachbauten sind nicht bekannt. Die Patente sind inzwischen abgelaufen und es sind derzeit (2008) keine Aktivitäten bezüglich dieses Motors bekannt.

Technolgie

In einem zylindrischen Gehäuse drehen sich mit gleicher Drehgeschwindigkeit ein unten offener zylindrisch-hohler Außenläufer mit halbkugelförmiger Kappe und hierin innen anliegend ein kugelförmiger Innenläufer. Die Achse des Innenläufers ist zur Längsachse des Außenläufers geneigt (wie ein Erdglobus in Bezug auf seinen Sockel). Beide Achsen treffen sich genau im Zentrum der Kugel.

Von der Kappe des Außenläufers ragt parallel zur Längsachse eine Trennwand in einen Ausschnitt der Kugel. Dieser Auschnitt hat die Gestalt einer Orangenscheibe, die Trennwand erreicht dessen Scheitellinie und teilt ihn damit vollständig in zwei Abschnitte.

Bei der Drehbewegung ergibt sich nun relativ zur Trennwand eine Nickbewegung der Kugel. Dadurch besitzt die Anordnung links und rechts der Wand in dem Ausschnitt zwei wechselseitig kleiner und größer werdende Räume, die für das Arbeitsverfahren genutzt werden.

Beide Läufer umgibt ein feststehendes Gehäuse, das auch die Wellenlager aufnimmt.

Die patentierte Maschine gehört somit zur Kategorie der Rotationskolbenmotoren in innenachsig- nicht parallelachsiger Bauweise.

• 1. Kugelkolben (kugelförmiger Innenläufer)
• 2. Aussenläufer (zylindrisch-hohles Kammergehäuse)
• 3. Gehäuse mit Wellenlager
• 4. Brennraum
• 5. Stange
• 6. Einlasskanal
• 7. Auslasskanal
• 8. Kühlluft-Einlasskanal
• 9. Gebläseflügel mit Kühlrippenfunktion
• 10. Kühlluft-Auslasskanal
• 11. Führungsschlitz
• 12. Brennkammertrennwand
• 14. Welle
• 15. Schräglager des Kolbens
• 16. Arbeitsraum

The above article could not enter german wikipedia. I was my draft. Regards --Dan Wesson (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan Wesson. Thanks for you effort, but it seems that nobody is able to use my name. I am the hated inventor Wolfhart Willimczik at war with the communists since 1945. Only in the Spanish Wikipedia exist still a Motor Wolfhart.

Hallo Toolittle oder derjenige, der an dem Entwurf noch mitgearbeitet hat. Vielen Dank für Deine Mühe, auch wenn es wieder umsonst war. Meinen Namen traut sich niemand mehr zu nennen. Ich bin der verhasste Erfinder Wolfhart Willimczik, der nicht so wollte wie die Kommunisten wollten und in der deutschen Wikipedia gesperrt ist und meine Artikel gelöscht wurden. Nur in der spanischen Wikipedia gibt es einen Motor Wolfhart. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Wolfhart!

Mir ging es um sie Sache Deiner Erfindung (im DE.Wiki signiere ich mit 'Gruss Tom'). Es geht dabei ein wenig um Gerechtigkeit. Ich habe auch an anderen Artikeln z.B. für Carl F. W. Borgward - + Dan Wesson - - + Elsbett - gearbeitet.

Leider blockierst Du immer wieder Deine eigene Sache immer wieder mit mit dem geschichtlichen Hintergrund, der Dich zwar getroffen haben mag, den aber keiner mehr wissen will (such is life) :-( nun habe ich wirklich alles versucht und recheriert wie ein Blöder .... eine einzige Veröffentlichung in einem Fachmagazin wie z.B. der MTZ hätte sehr geholfen oder ein Nachweis das der Motor gelaufen ist. Gern würde ich den Artikel wieder einstellen aber solange die Nachweise nicht 'wasserdicht' sind und Du nicht Frieden mit Deiner Vergangenheit schließt, hat es keinen Sinn. Bis dahin kannst Du (falls nicht irgendein (****) einen Löschantrag stellt) die Artikel hier (Schutz gegen Missbrauch bitte Versionshistorie einsehen) finden. --Dan Wesson (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurzer Nachsatz: Wegen des 'Perfektionsdrangs' der deutschen Wikipediagemeinschaft habe ich dort einstweilen meine Mitarbeit aufgegeben. Gruss Tom --Dan Wesson (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As you requested, I've reviewed the actions by user:Van helsing. While his manner may have been abrupt, his actions appear to have been appropriate. Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. In practice that means that whatever we say in an article must already be contained in a reliable source, usually a newspaper, magazine or book. I was on this page over a year ago saying that your contributions needed sources. Because you're adding material about your own invention, your contributions have the appearance of self-promotion. Wikipedia doesn't exist to help people promote their projects, businesses, or inventions. It's here to summarize what others say about those endeavors. I see that you list several publications on your user page - can you use any of those to support the information you'd like to add? If your material is properly cited to reliable sources then the concerns about promotion would by lessened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know there are rules, but a rule can not applied for every possible case, especially if more important things are to consider. Who can explain an invention better than the inventor himself? Many countries would be happy to have this luck (with the exception of a communistic Germany of course, but even in China is a “Wolfhart pump” known). I don’t sell anything with Wikipedia.

All my contributions I made now are not only published in serious papers, but also accepted by the industry. I show several pictures of prototypes manufactured by the industry! (Ergo it is not my own staff any more.)

Van helsing himself wrote a long time ago “I shell wait until my inventions are excepted from the industry”. Now they are, but he is still stalking me and erasing everything.

My free piston generator is produced. The pictures from the vane pumps show pumps manufactured by several corporations. With my axial piston pump coming old oil wells to live again, because with my pump we are able to extract oil again from otherwise exhausted wells where conventional methods fail. (To proof this I will even add a picture of it.) This is an important step for our economy. Why should anybody suppress such a progress? I will also add publications as sources. But it will be perhaps necessary to safeguard my writings against vandalism. There are still people which are afraid of my name - Van helsing is one of them. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the success of your inventions. I hope you understand that we're all working for the same goal, even if we sometimes pull in different directions. Are any of the publications that have reported on your inventions available online? While it's not a requirement, it's hard for most editors to verify off-line publications only available in Germany. With good sources we can add reference to the pumps and engines where appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Willimczik, as I seem to have given you the erroneous impression that my goal here is to remove any mention of your inventions, I will voluntarily refrain from doing so in the future. Other users will be able to make that judgment call; I hope that will take away any feeling of wrong doing you may have on my part. --Van helsing (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

@Van helsing:

This sounds like an apology. If your words are tru you should still do one thing: undo all you erasings. (This looks better than I do this and it will remove all your wrong doing.) Than I will put in more “reliable sources” . --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we start with the sources? As I asked above, are any sources online? Could you post the links, please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You find the Wolfhart pump on the front page of “world Pumps” World pumps is online, but you have to pay to see the article: The Wolfhart Principle - an advanced rotary piston pump concept , World Pumps, 405, June 2000 For your convenience I put many publications in my website at You find also these publications supporting my other contributions: Drehkolbenmaschine mit zwangsgesteuertem Schieber , Maschinenbautechnik, 22 1973 Heft2 Pumpen + Verdichter mit neuem Drehkolbenprinzip, Jugend und Technik, 17/1975, Heft6, S.507 Videoclip aus "Umschau aus Wissenschaft und Technik" von 1975 RealMedia (rm) 1,8MB Ein neues Förderprinzip für Pumpen und Verdichter, fluid, März 1979 Der Flügelrotor überträgt die Kraft , VDI nachrichten, Nr. 37716, Sept. 1983 Eine neue Drehkolbenpumpe, Gordian, April 1985 Neuartige Drehkolbenmaschine , fluid, Mai 1985, S.72 ...Drehkolbenmaschine..., Industriemagazin, September 1986, S.14 Wankel läßt grüßen , fluid, August 1987, S.36 Gleiten ohne Schmiermittel, Schweizer Maschinen Markt, Nr.14 1989 Frictionless high-pressure rotating equipment , Impact Compressor/Turbine news, Nov.1990 Neuartige Drehkolbenmaschine mit einem lagerfreien Kolbentriebwerk, fluid, Juli/Aug. 1994 S.18 Hohe Leistung ohne Lager, fluid, Mai 1995 (Top Ten des Monats) Fluid Markt, 1995, S.10 Drehkolbenmaschine mit lagerfreiem Kolbentriebwerk, delta p - Das moderne Pumpenmagazin, März 1999 S.38 fluid, September 1999, S.7

Some publications are as old as me and not yet in the internet, but I will update it as soon they are available.

The patents as the most reliable source are coming – not yet the very old ones, but several from me are available which I have already in the articles.

I put some publications extra on my user page that everybody interested in my inventions find more information and skeptical peoples “reliable sources“.

There are other reliable sources, for instance the BStU which collected some files from the SSD/STASI after the downfall of the GDR, because SSD and KGB collected all my inventions…--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I looked at the first link you posted, to the "World Pumps" magazine. However that article was written by you and so it's not an ideal source. The next most recent article, here: http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wolfhart/delta99.htm, also appears to have been written by you. Are there any articles written by third-parties that discuss these inventions? Also, what is the name of the company that is producing your pump? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect? Of course must be any article about an invention written by the inventor. This is since hundreds of years so. There are only a few other people on this planet, who start slowly to understand it. Why should they write about something they can easily manufacture but hardly understand in time the inventor is still alive? Experts know they would write a second class article only, ergo they don’t do it. It is logical that the ideal source about an inventions can only come from himself! Or has a free Wikipedia suddenly harder pre-conditions as any professional journal ? But you can see pictures from pumps manufactured by several corporations. There also a prospect of my manufactured pump:

You may see even a TV clip introducing a pump of mine: What do you want more? I really don’t understand you what you want and what for. I see nothing logical. Wikipedia tolerated even “proposed engines”. Erasing my one violates the neutral point of view. If you want we can run it under proposed pumps etc, than we don’t need any publications beside the patent.--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

References serve two purposes on Wikipedia. The obvious purpose is that they are (or should be) the source for the information we summarize in the encyclopedia. The second purpose is to guide editors in how much weight to give to a topic. Because patent records are easily verifiable, there is no question that these pump and engine designs exist, or that you are their inventor. However the patent files are full of inventions and obviously we can't mention all of them. If, in the article on Rotary vane pump, you simply wanted to mention that other types of these pumps exist, such as "System Willimczik", then it probably wouldn't be controversial. Instead you added a large amount of text and 12 pictures, including animations. That gives the appearance that these are the most important rotary vane pumps in existence. Independent sources are needed to justify that level of prominence. Let's take a look at Two-stroke engine, a mature technology. That article contains short descriptions of alternative design type. Taking the last one as an example, I see that there are numerous independent sources discussing the "Stepped Piston Engine". By comparison, I see no independent sources for "Two stroke rotary engine" that mention this invention. And again, not only a big block of text, but more pictures. A reader coming to the article would be given the impression that this is a major technology, comparable in importance to the others listed. So the sources you've provided are probably adequate for adding a sentence to these articles, but not for adding major text and illustrations. Does that make sense? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is secondary to the other issues, but it is inappropriate to make claims about your own inventions. For example, "the most simple axial piston pump, but it is superior over all others in all parameters", or "This most advanced pump technology is used in applications where all other pumps fail." I'm not saying that those aren't true, but they are value judgments that should be sourced to independent observers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a contrast to the prior parts of the articles, but only why the other writers build a bad article. Do you mean I shell lower my scientific level that far that I fit in the other Kuddelmuddel? Almost everything I put in is necessary to understand the subject. (Okay the parts you mentioned below can be erased.) Are you an expert? How much would you need?

I think by better examples I will encourage others to raise their levels. Would this be not a better method? I think this is that what Wikipedia needs – improve such articles, but one have to start somewhere.

I think it is a basic question for mankind: shell all experts adapt to the dummies or shell the dummies learn from experts? There are many things in Wikipedia which are simply false. I see no chance for Wikipedia any more if every Scientist is driven out. Or shell I write better new articles with my stuff?

If the TV link don’t work you find it also there. http://inventor.blip.tv --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Last year, the US Patent Office issued 182,901 patents. In the past ten years there have doubtless been more than 1 million granted, in the US alone. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot devote space to explain each one. While I realize you are focused on your inventions, please try to see it from the perspective of the encyclopedia. What if, instead of inventions, a physicist were to come here and seek to add material on his new theory. In that case we'd ask to see some evidence that it had gained some level of approval in the scientific community. Otherwise it would just be someone with an idea. Likewise a music group that wants to tell everyone about their amazing new album. The standard is the same in every case - there must be some independent sources to establish notability. Now then, to get back to your inventions, let's focus on them one at a time. Which invention is in production and has independent sources to establish that fact? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I have never shown only ideas from a patent, but pumps manufactured by corporations according to my patents. The names of the old corporations are in the pictures. Now you ask for new names of corporations, which just started again with a production. Why do you want just these names? (This is exactly what the KGB also want to know to sabotage the production again. Do you want to help the KGB?) I rather will everything put under the name “proposed rotary piston machines.” --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 03:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not with the KGB anymore - they don't pay enough. ;) The reason I'm asking for this information is to help you, not to harm you. Again, what I'm asking for is any invention of yours that has enough independent sources to establish its notability. If there aren't any yet, that's OK too. Wikipedia is a long term project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop user:Wdl1961 erasing my part at two stroke engine He came 1 day after the trouble with Van helsing startet to Wikipedia. Thanks --Inventor 21:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're not paying attention to what I'm writing. If you'd like me to help you then I need for there to be a discussion. If you're just going to go ahead and do what you want without regard to my advice or efforts to help, or the input from other editors, then it's hard for me to do much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yu told me already and I follow. The user:Wdl1961 erased my writing only why he nothing understood. This is very rude. It is much better if there would be a discussion prior erasing something. I did never erase anything, but if I would – I would explain what is false and open an discussion. It would be to much time consuming for you, if we first discuss every word. All I want is stop the rude destroyer, which discuss nothing. This would enough for me I would be very thankful. If you have a special wish to change something It can be done any time without any edit war. Inventor 03:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What I told you before, and I'll tell you again more directly, is that any material you add needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. Anything that isn't verifiable may be removed by any editor. Don't blame other editors for the lack of sources for this material. I asked you to work with me to find what we could add with adequate sources. Instead you went and added more material, more unsourced claims, more links to your websites and pictures. If you continue to do this not only will the material be deleted but your account may be blocked. I urge you to read WP:COI. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please look what really has happening yesterday! As I was going to add sources - what I now could do you may see at two stroke engine - my writings has already erased - after 3 min. You get a wrong picture if I can’t even finish my writings. (I sleep in the night; what are you doing?) Why did you not say anything to the eraser you erased my writings just during I was still writing, who prevented me from adding the sources? Please stay fair. I have minimized my contribution and put reliable sources in. Are you still not satisfied?--Inventor 14:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The only independent, secondary source I see is this: Google translates the text as "The ball piston engine - an unknown internal combustion engine". What is that source supposed to tell us? Did I miss something? Please note above where I say that we should "start with the sources". I'm going to remove the entry in two-stroke engine until we can find sufficient sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a great lack of information otherwise I would never waist my time if this information would not extremely important. I satisfied your wish and gave you an independent source. You gave me your word; read your writing yourself. You split now hairs on one word, what is true for all proposed engines. This is ridicules, but you have the power to dictate all others. Therefore there another source without the word you dislike: Pressebericht: BZ 'mobiles Leben', Kugelmotoren im Vergleich BZ = Berliner Zeitung: comparison of ball piston engines I could not find it in the Internet, but if it is that important for you, you will find it. I just found something else for you: Press release: Hüttlin- and Wolfhart Motor http://www.innomot.com/neu2006/presse/BZ19032008.pdf --Inventor 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what the source, In der magischen Kugel geht’s rund, says. Could you summarize it for me please? It looks like there's a paragraph that mentions you and the ball piston engine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I took the liberty of deactivating Category:Proposed engine designs. Categories manet for article pages aren't supposed to be used on user pages (and vice versa).

As you demanded I gave you another an “independent reliable source for “Wolfhart Motor”. On the first source you dislike one word, now you are looking for another dislike. You never said anything that in Wikipedia exist a rule What is said in this article. Tell me first please what must be written that you approve this as a source? What is your strategy – to tire me out? It seems you change your policy hourly. These inconsistency shows a great lack of a “neutral point of view” . But I am willing to discuss with you technical details if you are qualified. What did you study. Are you a physicist, engineer or what? Do you want an extra article of “Wolfhart engine”? Where is the category for: “Proposed gasoline-free engines”. This would be the right bailout for the car industry. (Can you see please why my sign is not working.) --Inventor 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons we have a conflict of interest policy is that people who are intimately tied to a topic may not be able to view issues objectively. Let's get back to the sources. What does the source titled In der magischen Kugel geht’s rund actually say about the engine? I ask because it appears, so far, to be the best source you've presented in that it is accessible and appears to be written by a 3rd-party.

Let's work with the sourcing issues first. If we can't find adequate sources then everything else is moot. As for your signature, it should come automatically if you type four tildes ~~~~. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is only written, what the students did with my engine, what great prizes they won etc, nothing about my own work. I don’t like this publication. I had never contact to this newspaper.

My signature get never blue?? Inventor 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked you for the best source. If that's not it then please find one that's better. As for your signature, are you typing the tildes? That's the shifted key to the left of "1" on most keyboards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps the best source for you – if not there is still this one: Pressebericht: BZ 'mobiles Leben', Kugelmotoren im Vergleich BZ = Berliner Zeitung: comparison of ball piston engines I can’t find it. I sign in both ways – it never get blue. Inventor 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How can I see "Pressebericht: BZ 'mobiles Leben', Kugelmotoren im Vergleich"? What does it say? What happens when you sign with four tildes?

ThisInventor 12:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have this publication. It is a newspaper from Berlin. Inventor 12:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. We tried. When more sources cover these engines and pumps we can revisit the issue. Until then, please don't add anything about your inventions that isn't discussed in independent, 3rd-party articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please copy the sentence of the rule, where sources outside the Internet are forbidden. If there is non you are in violation of rules of Wikipedia and I am sorry to reject your judgment. Inventor 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If neither of us has access to the source, how are we supposed to use it as a reference for an article? An editor has to be able to read a source in order for it to be usable as a source. Otherwise it's just an netry in a bibliography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who uses the rules as weapons, to destroy my inventions ergo you have to know how to use them.

I cam up with my inventions and could use them. Inventor 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No one here is stopping you from doing anything with your inventions. I'm sure everyone here wishes you success. I know I do. Once those inventions are discussed in independent, reliable sources we can report on them here. Thank you for your patience in this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can’t imagine in what state of happiness your are thrown in if I present in my next case a Website discussing my invention from the highest authorities possible – from NASA. Since you are such great enforcer of the rules there you will defend my contribution against any eraser – I am sure.

And why is my sign not blue? Inventor 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source that talks about your invention then please share it. I keep asking. However please don't add material about your reference until we've reviewed the source.

I don't know why your signature isn't working. You haven't told me what you're doing to try to sign. What are you typing for your signature? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I drop the “Wolfhart Engine” for now. There is no need to discuss anything else. I will share my sources with the entire world if I put it in. They are undisputable.

Unfortunately you was no help against the rude eraser, nevertheless thank you for your time. I release you now as my “supporting admin” or whatever you are. I sign as everybody else with 4 Tildes. Inventor 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm looking forward to seeing those sources. I'll keep an eye on the matter and help as needed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

you got great ideas but do not put them in wrong places. it is impolite.keep doing it is rude .Wdl1961 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t sell anything, ergo there is no "self promo". There are several "proposed engines", even with an extra site. It would be non-neutral if all are allowed but only this one not.

I have a small paragraph only. See also the discussion above. And please be polite - and stay away. Thanks

--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Complain against user Wdl1961 Please stop user:Wdl1961 erasing my part at two stroke engine He came 1 day after the trouble with Van helsing startet to Wikipedia. Thanks --Inventor 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

[edit]

self promo to inventor you got great ideas but do not put them in wrong places. it is impolite.keep doing it is rude .Wdl1961 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t sell anything, ergo there is no "self promo". There are several "proposed engines", even with an extra site. It would be non-neutral if all are allowed but only this one not.

I have a small paragraph only. See also the discussion above. And please be polite - and stay away. Thanks --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 20:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two-stroke_engine" it aint a two stroke . during wwll i never met a pushy german in holland or germany . -----------------Wdl1961 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Will_Beback" Wdl1961 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An den Holländer Wdl1961: before you erase rudely what you don’t understand. you should first read a little more; for instance my home page, my book or look videos at youtube from me. --Inventor 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

i am a us army vet and us citizen now .your item belongs somewhere else.give me your phone no and i will call you on skypeWdl1961 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
my email address:wdelang@cogeco.caWdl1961 (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you still at War with the Germans?

If you are a US army vet why do you not lower first your weapons undo your devastating work and explain:

Why did you erase my contribution already I was still writing?

Why did you not first open a discussion?

Why did you stated such stupid things like “it is not a two stroke engine”?

First you have to decide War or piece, before I speak with you on the phone.

Due to your action I am now threatend by the admin above to erase my entire account! You have to repair the damge you have done, because we are not more at War. --Inventor 14:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

i can no find anything of you in german wikipedia
i suggest you put an article in there in german and than it should be easy after a little while to put a translation in the english wik.
good luck Wdl1961 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been many articles from me in the German Wiki. All are erased due to the conspiracy against me and I has been erased also. Everybody is afraid of my name. The communists want now the same in the US-Wikipedia. My 2 articles are aleady erased. Motor Wolfhart is in the spanish Wiki and in India. My free pistin generator is produced in Australia, all countries not involved in the cold war – what is still on against scientists like me. The order of one chief of the SSD was:”There is no inventor Willimczik.” Everybody follows this order. The communist know there would be otherwise an explosion of new technologies – I have about hundred, which are – by the way – all in the most relaiable source – the archive of the SSD & KGB. See an example: http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wolfhart/bstu1.jpg You will never see such picture in Wikipedia under the article: Inventions suppressed by the KGB The fight is still on. Inventor 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck with your inventions. But please remember that Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to help inventors promote their inventions. Once an invention becomes notable (evidenced by coverage in the media), then the encyclopedia can discuss it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This user was blocked on the German Wikipedia for trolling.

The truth: An admin erased my contribution, because he did nothing understood, I filed a complain against this admin and as answer I was blocked immediately forever without any discussion - a violation of all rules!

He was never able to show that his inventions actually work

The truth: Besides the fact that there are several proposed inventions in Wikipedia everybody can see them at youtube under

Some inventions are in production! Every single invention is working fine.

and they were considered by the de.wikipedia community as being fake or at least unuseful inventions.

The truth: The SSD Officer Wagner ordered “The inventor Willimczik doesn’t exist” as I was in jail by him and his followers execute his orders, what is called “Zersetzung”.

The articles on these inventions were deleted - if I remember well - because they were considered as lacking relevance. --ALE! (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2008 (UT

Yes my name has been erased by the German Wikipedia. There are people they are afraid of my name.

The question now is how far reaches the power of the communists.

Inventor 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have totally the right to defend yourself, but I think that calling everybody on the German Wikipedia a communist will not be of help in your quest. --ALE! (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In der deutschen Wikipedia hatte ich nicht das Recht mich zu verteidigen. Ich bezeichne keinesfalls ALLE als Kommunisten. Es sind immer nur wenige die alle anderen an der Nase herumführen und unterdrücken – in der Gesellschaft und in der Wikipedia. Sie haben ja Angst vor der Allgemeinheit! Warum machen sie dann alles heimlich – ohne Verfahren? Sie sind doch ein Admin; sie könnten die Sache zurück verfolgen; sie könnten die Leute, die dort alle Regeln missachten, ans Licht ziehen und wieder Ordnung herstellen. Inventor 14:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hier einige Daten zu meiner ungerechtfertigten Sperre: Nach meiner Beschwerde gegen Admin Jergen (weil er mein Schreiben mit einer dummen Bemerkung löschte ohne darüber zu diskutieren) wurde ich am gleichen Tage – 1 Stunde später - ohne Verfahren gesperrt:

15:12, 10. Jul. 2006 (Versionen) (Unterschied) Benutzer Diskussion:Jergen ‎ (→Willimczik: Beschwerde gegen Admin Jergen)

1. Sperrender Administrator: Gardini
2. Sperrgrund: Reiner Trollaccount, der nur Unfrieden stiftet und keine nennenswerte Mitarbeit am Projekt leistet.
3. Beginn der Sperre: 16:46, 10. Jul. 2006
4. Ende der Sperre: Unbeschränkt
5. IP-Adresse: 24.164.31.208
6. Sperre betrifft: Willimczik
7. Block-ID: #46013

Ich wäre ihnen dankbar, wenn sie der Sache nachgehen würden. Ich bekomme auf meine E-mails seit Jahren keine Antwort. Inventor 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming from german wikipedia and beeing interesseted in tecniques i tried to help. It's useless because the facts are not proven. My advice: Take a Balalaika understand it and come down. (see my entries concerning: User_talk:Inventor#Article_draft_.28german.29_for_new_begin and below) --Dan Wesson (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Smart pipe plug requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — e. ripley\^talk 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

22:07, 3 June 2010 Bwilkins (talk | contribs) deleted "Smart pipe plug" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))

How can an inventor commit an "infringement" against himself? (Bwilkins likes the oil spill shell go on.) --Inventor 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not restore the article until there are independent, secondary sources that report on the invention.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wait years of “independent, secondary sources” – and the oil is flowing. Do you want this? This article must be published now or never. We have day 46 of the oil spill and the oil is still flowing… Google took my article in Wikipedia already in the list. You take now over the responsibility that the existing solution will not be seen. You made a historical decision. You suppress the solution of a national crisis. --Inventor 13:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of our conflict of interest policy and notability guidelines. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Wikipedia is not your webhost!--Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Smart pipe plug, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. noq (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Smart pipe plug, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. noq (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Inventor, you might try an appropriate venue for submitting your idea, like this one] for instance. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No I am not a German. Your article was deleted because I found a duplicate copy on your userpage, and there are other articles already existing covering the oil spill remediation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Inventor, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Inventor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Inventor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MER-C 08:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your ball piston engine, absolutely brilliant! Have you only built a hand-agitated sample model or do you have a fully working example? Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is forbidden in Wikipedia to talk about my own inventions. It would be "self-promotion". Soon you will not see anything any more.--Inventor 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. Yes, I see a bunch of your stuff is up for deletion. Do you have your own site where you have saved this stuff? I have had an idea for a new Wiki that would be called something like "OriginalWiki: The Original Thought Wiki", which would be the alter ego of Wikipedia. It would be only original research/thought and comprised of any new inventions, concepts, theorems, ideas, etc. that can be supported by research done by the person submitting. Discussion forums could be used by people to discuss the merits and shortcomings of each concept and perhaps contribute to their development, instead of here where people just use them to pretend they are on Facebook. I think there are many people out there with great ideas but the world doesn't know because they have no public and popular outlet or way to present themselves. It will take me some time but I hope to get this going eventually. If I do, maybe you will consider sharing your concepts there where they would be welcome. Best wishes. Kindzmarauli (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would gladly use it. It would be a great achievement to put the entire knowledge of mankind in one spot and make it accessible for everybody. Technically it is possible today. In youtube etc running my inventions in videos. Only the description is missing. Otherwise such site could replace a complicated and expensive patenting process. The author of an article should have full control of his article. The entire site should be officially archived in the national or “world archive” (still to come) that every author can claim his rights. Not only scientists should describe a remarkable experiment or discovery he just made, but everybody who has something to show. For instance, there are many ways to bake a bred. Why not describe all of them? Let the user choose the most popular. (Perhaps in this way the Americans learn one day to bake a real bread.)

Wikipedia is a hopeless failure. Few Admins dictate the rest of the world what they have to believe and what not. This is actually a big step backwards in the stone age, where few people explained the earth is flat and in the middle of the universe. No admin is checked on his education, nor whether he is a member of the SSD/KGB or another terrorist organization, what is everybody is ask if he enters the USA! The Admins live in a law-less space. Nobody holds the communists back. So it is no wonder that first the German Wikipedia and now the US Wikipedia follows the guidelines from the KGB… --Inventor 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)