Talk:Diesel engine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc. old discussions

Nozzle / Injector

The terms "nozzle" and "injector" need to be properly used. A nozzle is a mechanical valve that by an electric solenoid. This distinction must be made crystal clear, as a nozzle does not meter or control fuel.

slowcivic2k

• Are you refering to unit injector or just what exactly? to "inject" fuel via mechanical link?, the action of injecting fuel is pure hydraulic action,(unless one is relating an action of unseating the nozzle needle as mechanical action or link) the pump pressurizes the fuel and than this pressurized fuel in layman explanation unseats the injector nozzle needle and than is sprayed in to combustion chamber via the injector nozzle spray orifices. To sum it up for you ,injector and its nozzle has these tasks to perform:

1. - meter the injected fuel
2. - manage and prepare fuel spray
3. - define the rate if discharge curve
4. - seal off the injection system from the combustion chamber

Stonufka (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

petrol engines

the first para implies that all petrol engines are carburretored (sp?), doesn't it? Sory if I'm not doing this properly, first post here. 220.101.68.138 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it only implies that the air/fuel mixture is created before it reaches the combustion chamber. This is true for all Gasoline (Petrol) engines. Including fuel injected even though it may appear different in fuel injected gas engines the fuel is still injected into the manifold prior to the intake valve the air/fuel is then drawn in along with air during the intake cycle, compressed together, and ignited by a spark. Diesel engines the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber at the peak of the compression cycle in the midst of the super heated air created during compression resulting in combustion.

--DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just taken a look - the first para said some diesels are compression ignited (when thay all are!) and also that gasoline engines have fuel added prior to the combustion chamber. There are more and more direct-injection gasoline engines becoming available, where the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber (but still ignited with a spark). The main distinction between the diesel and Otto cycles is the ignition source; diesel uses compression to provide the heat but ignition is initiated by the injection of the fuel itself. Otto uses a spark to ignited a pre-mixed air/fuel system. Weasley one (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You people have GOT TO STOP using the trademarked name of Petrol. Same for Benzin. This is not acceptable. The correct name is Otto engine. You can even call it an Otto Liquid Petroleum engine is you like. As inaccurate as most of you are, even Otto Gas engine would tend to escape censure. Krontach (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

gasoline is not trademarked in the U.S.--Aflafla1 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Diesel engine efficiency

The efficiency of the diesel engine over the gas engine is also because of the boundry layer effect of the fuel air mixture in the combustion chamber. Since the gasoline engine sucks in a fuel air mixture there will alwasy be some fuel near the walls of the combustion chamber which will not burn. In addition to this - the diesel engine almost always runs oxygen rich and thus more complete combustion can take place.

There should be mention of compressions ratios used and pre-combustion chamber designs.

Terrell_Larson (I have a user ID but I didn't bother to log in. If anyone wants to find me they can.)

In addition a liter diesel weights about 15% more than a liter petrol. More weight gives more potential energy.

While wall and crevice quench are significant sources of hydrocarbon emissions from SI engines, they are not major sources of inefficiency. I'd have to check the numbers again on loss of chemical energy due to carbon monoxide quench, but I'm pretty sure it is not important. In either case, both of these belong in the emissions section. Thermodude 17:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotella oils

wondering if you have any knowlege on rotellat 15w 40 engine oil i was told by a mechanic that it was not good for long term and it wears you engine out faster than other oils please advise Leftyroper61@aol.com thank you

I have used Rotella T 15w-40 oil in several engines, both in semi trucks and in pickup trucks, with no ill effects. I also have experience with Mobil Delvac. Both are excellent products. My last semi truck with a 460 HP engine ran Rotella from new on and continues to do so. I sold it with over 500,000 miles on it. The current owner (whom I last spoke with about a year ago) had 830,000 on the engine at that time. Up to that time the only work that engine had received was the replacement of a faulty injector during the warranty period. Terrywerm 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Otto engine vs Diesel engine

Is there any difference between Otto and Diesel engine engine in cycle: Two-stroke cycle Four-stroke cycle. On this page are links to Two-stroke Diesel cycle and Four-stroke Diesel cycle. Not yet filled. anobo 04:26 22 May 2003 (UTC)

First of all, there are differences in Otto engine types. There is not just one type. Diesel engines are very different from Otto engines although the Four cycle Otto and Diesel basic principles are similar.

In the original Otto engine the fuel mixture was layered into the cylinder (the patent court did not understand the nature of gas flow or fuel burning and improperly invalidated an Otto patent (or were bribed, which is more likely). The Daimler Engine used the principle of explosion. The Diesel engine uses a principle closer to the Lenoir and Otto engines of continuous push for the power stroke. The 1884 Daimler engine is the basis for today's automobile engines, not the original Otto engine which no longer exists. We call all four cycle light petroleum fraction internal combustion heat engines Otto engines.

Major IMPORTANT differences between Otto (including Day, Clerk, Miller, Atkinson etc. light Petroleum fraction engines) and Diesel engines are:

• The nature of the expansion of working gas.
• The energy content of the fuel
• The intended design use of the engine
• Design life span
• OVERALL POWER OUTPUT

The last item has no rating and is generally not talked about. But it's the reason that two identical automobiles (example VW Jetta) with differing HP ratings which are both rated in the SAME SAE manner have the SAME performance. The 140hp 2.0 Liter VW common rail direct injection Diesel engine has the same performance as the 2.5 liter Otto engine. Except the Diesel also uses 25 to 30% less fuel.

While there is no rating for this it is an aspect of design that can be felt. When you are driving an automobile that has a manual transmission it can be a busy experience if you have to keep changing gears all the time. It can be less than pleasant if you cannot simply increase throttle to accelerate. The ability for an engine to run at a wide range of rpms is necessary for automobile transportation and required an engine to be designed for this purpose, as opposed to an engine that runs continuously at the same speed. In automobiles this quality is called driveability. In general driveability is related to an engine's ability to produce useful torque over a wide rpm range, not necessarily high horsepower.

Example. If you have ever driven a high horsepower motorcycle, you have to constantly shift gears to keep the engine in an rpm range where it generates a sufficient amount of torque to allow sufficient acceleration when needed. If you get caught in a gear that is two high the drive train may buck, and you may bog down, not accelerate. Driving such a machine is a chore of constant gear changing (which some of us actually like). But... take that SAME motorcycle and detune the engien for less PEAK HP and the toque band can be maintained high over a wider range of RPM which actually provides BETTER torque at lower speeds and in general better driveability.

I was at a classic motorcycle meet on Saturday past. In a discussion of motorcycles the man I was talking to was talking about his unfortunate experience of having owned a Kawasaki Mach III motorcycle. This was a 500cc machine which produced 60 hp at 6000 rpm or so with a two cycle day engine. He mentioned that it was so slow and undriveable as to be useless and he sold it quickly.

One of my friends had one of these and could not use it to commute as it's 23 mpg was too low. He replaced it with a Honda CB750 which was only 68hp but was vastly faster. He mentioned also that the Kawasaki was undriveable and unpleasant but that the bit 750 which was about the same power was a dream to drive and had 250 miles range (as opposed to about 80).

I had the same experience for 7 years when I had both a VW Gasoline and Diesel engines. The Diesel was far more pleasant to drive, had 30% better fuel economy and gave up one item only, about 15 mph in top speed.Krontach (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

peanut oil as biofuel

This sentence from biodiesel should also get a mention on this article, I think: This engine stood as an example of Diesel's vision because it was powered by peanut oil - a biofuel. He thought that the utilization of a biomass fuel was the real future of his engine. -- Tarquin 16:24, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some peanut oil references:

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,61077,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_1

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/biodiesel010523.html

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/biodiesel.pdf

http://www.canadiantechnology.ca/envelope/biodiesel.htm

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/biodiesel3.htm

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/vehiclefuels/biodiesel/biodiesel_faq.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N

Added peanut oil right into the article and vision; feel free to add more. Samw 05:01, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are dozens of Biofuels. Each has slightly different characteristics. Diesel and Ford had a meeting at Ford's house in Ft. Myers (I have a photo of this somewhere, or did) and they agreed that ethanol should be the future for automobiles and that bio diesel fuels should be the future for Diesel engine applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krontach (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. I have heard in various forums references to Diesel building internal combustion engines designed to use vegetable oil as a fuel before settling on a petroleum-derived fuel, but have never seen a verifiable reference for this. This would be an appropriate inclusion in the article, I think, for the sake of technical completeness. The article does not make it clear, in fact. What did Diesel's earliest internal-combustion engines use as fuel? Vegetable oil, kerosene, something else? Can anyone point to a verifiable source for information about this detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

terminology

As I understand (misunderstand?) things, the encyclopedia article misses the point about Diesel engines entirely, focusing, as it does (and as popular perception does) on the use of compression heating to ignite the fuel as the defining aspect of the Diesel engine. I thought that what was unique about the Diesel engine was that it injected fuel (directly, of course) into the engine during the power stroke. That means that there is no fuel (or, depending on timing, very little fuel) in the mixture during the compression stroke. As a result, the compression ratio can be very high without danger of preignition. The high compression ratio results in very high temperatures at/near TDC so that when fuel is injected, it will autoignite without need for a spark. But the lack of separate ignition is a consequence of being a Diesel engine, not a defining characteristic. One could (though, likely wouldn't) build a low compression Diesel engine (direct injecting fuel during the power stroke) and then would need a spark to ignite the fuel. One of the intriguing aspects of direct injection gasoline (modified Otto cycle) engines is the ability to continue injection into the power stroke. This will result in some hybrid (Otto/Diesel) operation and should open new opportunities for power/economy/pollution optimization. And since it will all be run under electronic control, that optimization could be dynamically readjusted, depending on road/operator/environmental conditions.

Am I off base on this? mattes@sonic.net

Ignition by the temperature of compression is what defines a diesel engine, it cannot work without injection to the cylinder. There were in the early years of the 20th century engines that had a hot bulb to ignite at a lower compression ussuallt known as oilengines or semi-diesel Archivist 20:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that compression-ignition is as fundamental to the Diesel concept as direct-injection. A spark-ignition engine cannot be a Diesel.

Incidentally, fuel injection in a diesel takes place before TDC and is thus at the end of the compression stroke. Injecting during the power stroke would be substantially less efficient. In spark ignition engines, the spark happens in advance of TDC for similar reasons.

Of course, the article might not give sufficient space to the greater efficiencies made possible by higher compression, in which case, feel free to add to it! —Morven 20:55, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A Diesel engine IS a compression-ignition engine, by definition. Fuel injection is used in a diesel engine, as a carburetor (usually) in a gasoline engine - but what defines a gasoline internal combustion engine is that it uses sparkplugs.

Some Diesels use indirect rather than direct injection: also of course some gasoline engines use fuel injection.

Since a diesel engine (in the patent and most professional discussion) is defined by injection of fuel during combustion, I have seen no real diesel engine not using injection during burn. It is true that some call model engins using compression ignition "diesel engines" but that is wrong. An Otto engine with fuel injection do not inject fuel during the power stroke but either during suction or compression stroke. I know that it is a very common mistake to make compression ignition as defining a diesel engine, but it is WRONG. I will not edit the article since it will start an edit war. Seniorsag 15:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The greater efficiency of a diesel is due to the higher compression ratio as you say, and fuel injection allows this, not sure you could design a carburetor/diesel engine that would work efficiently if at all - but a fuel injection gas engine can't obtain the same compression ratio as a diesel!

(admission - not an expert on internal combustion engines so feel free to disagree)Exile 16:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following uses a Swedish edition of "DIESEL. Der Mensh, das Werk, das Schicksal" Author: Diesel, Eugen; son of Rudolf Diesel. Swedish edition printed LUND 1941. I do not have access to any english edition so i freely translate from the swedish edition. First: Diesel engine patent (Germany 1892, nr: 67 207) does not primarily describe compression ignition but injection of fuel during the work expansion to keep the pressure constant. Early engins used many ignition metods including a few with spark-plugs. According to text at pictures facing page 192 first engine built 1893, rebuilt 1895. Fate unknown to me. Second engine according to text at picture facing page 240 built 1896, exibited (1941) at Deutches Museum Munich under the sign "The first Diesel Engine"(Dubble translation German-Swedish-English). Exibited first time 1898 at the 2:nd Engine- and Machin exibition Munic. Won Grand Prix at Internal exibition at paris 1900. Seniorsag 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse for the two part acommenting, computer and network f--- up and I was in a hurry to reenter befor I had to leave. In Rudolf Diesel´s writing he described his theory and that did not include compression igniting, it included very high compression, he aimed for 300 atmospheres but reached only 25-30. It also included a theory that by Keeping presuare constant while burning the fuel he would reach about 80% efficiency. He only reached 30-40%. He was lucky. The high compression ment high efficiency (and also autoignitiona of most fuels). The constant pressure during combustion ment that he limited the forces to manageable levels. For a long time small (specially car) engins worked at such low compression that ignition was not ensured but there are many ways of helping that. 1: Glow plug (common) 2: Precombustion chamber (usually combined vith glow plug in small engines, preheated with a blowlamp in big engines) 3: I have seen spark plug igniting used. 4: Injection of easily ignited fuel with the main fuel. The reason for the high efficiency is mainly the high compression ratio but helped with that in a well designed engine no fuel will reach the walls and be cooled to nonignition. The wall effect is not big in an Otto engine but it is always there. Seniorsag 13:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Four-stroke engine#Serious concerns about terminology suggests using the terms "spark-ignition" and "compression-ignition" to distinguish between Otto-cycle engines and Diesel-cycle engines. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1898 or 1900 world fair

this page says he demonstraited diesel engine at the 1900 world fair (paris), while this page Biodiesel says it was the 1898 world fair, can anyone confirm which one is right

Types of engines two stroke and four. most are four Why? which ones? would high speed , medium speed and low speed be a more usefull breakdown?KAM 15:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_fairs#1890s is a listing of world's fairs. There is no 1898 listing for Paris.Krontach (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How diesel engines work

Where do these temperatures come from? They seem a little high to me. An adiabatic compression with a compression ratio of 25 of 40 C air (104 F) gives 860 C, and most engines will have some EGR and a lower compression ratio which would yield lower temperatures. I'm wonder if the original source was in Kelvin. Thermodude 13:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already there. Ambient Kelvin temperate is about 273 Degrees C. When you compress gas, the same amount of heat energy is present, in a smaller space. The result is a rise in temperature. Gas is Vapor which has a pressure. Pressure is a relationship of the number of molecules to the space they consume based on ambient pressure.

Matter at a pressure of absolute zero will also be at a temperature of absolute zero which is about minus 273° Kelvin.

Charles Law describes this well. I don't have numbers in front of my. Atmospheric pressure is 14.9 psi. In an engine at steady state this is ZERO pressure. One bar is double atmospheric which would be 14.9 psi from ambient pressure. Two bar would be 29.8 ps. And so on. A BAR is an Atmosphere is 1 point of compression ratio.

Air compressors offer some insight. The typical operating pressure of an industrial air system is 125 psi. Air compressed to this level is compressed 8.4 atmospheres. Depending on the type of compression the temperate rise can exceed 400°. In a MODERN air compressor the heat of compression is removed so that the air will not deteriorate the air hose or machinery it is being transmitted through.

8.4 Atmospheres is similar to an 8.4 to 1 compression ratio in an engine. Fuel will generally not self ignite at this temperature. So a spark is used.

Diesel fuel is very heavy and resists ignition. During winter times the petroleum producers will often "lighten" it by adding some kerosene. The tendency of Diesel fuel to ignite as intended in the cylinder is rated by the Cetane rating.

I'm a bit fuzzy on this since I haven't studied it for 45 years. Krontach (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

US/Euro/Industry centric

most of the diesel engine vehicles I see, beyond trucks, are Busses and VW's. I live in Canada. Reading this entire article, its as though I'm seeing magic, because I dont think it mentions busses once, and consistantly says that in this part of the world you cant find cars with diesel engines. 74.13.131.174 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Rail technology

I was hoping for some information on this subject as it seems to be becoming quite important in diesel engine technology. Can anyone with knowledge add something? —Pseudonym 10:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Common rail fuel systems are essentially one way to package two important features: rapid fuel delivery and precise timing. Most common rail systems work in excess of 20,000 psi. This brings the fuel injectors close to the ideal goal of filling the combustion chamber with atomized fuel instantly. Common rail injectors are "fired" electrically, meaning that an ECU can coordinate injection timing. Non-common-rail fuel systems typically use an injection pump with individual lines running to each injector. The injection pump would force fuel down each line to open each injector. 24.107.227.12 07:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other than the fact that my shiny new car has one, no.... However, I would like to see something put here, if anyone does know anything.

The cars a Fiat, and I have reason to believe they developed common-rail, or at least were first to market with it on the Punto. Kiand 21:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've written something. I need to do more research to expand it, or spin it off to another article. It really seems Fiat did invent it (as people are paying them licencing fees...), so should a seperate article be under their tradename (MultiJet) or a more generic name?

There seems to be a standalone talking about common rail technology, but doesn't seem much different than what's here in the main Diesel engine article. I've added a "main article" link, but perhaps the common rail page needs to be fleshed out a bit more. Polpo 19:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect in the 2nd paragraph. Pressures are approaching 2000 bar, which is true. But the statement that the pressure achieves the goal of more completely filling the combustion chamber is completely wrong and illustrates a lack of knowledge of how combustion works or more charitably, is simply said incorrectly. Common rail injection also uses an injection pump.

Common rail injection is a refinement of the mechanical injection process. In a modern Diesel injection process there are up to five injections of fuel into the combustion chamber to provide for a quieter running more efficient diesel process. The result of the very high pressures is to improve the efficiency of combustion. The fuel is sprayed into a pattern, but does not fill the combustion chamber. A Diesel engine is designed to push through a longer portion of the power stroke, similar to the original Otto engine, than a modern Otto engine is, which has one big push and is done. So a Diesel engine, extracts a lot more energy from expansion, meaning that less energy is lost out of the exhaust.

Common rail cannot reach the same pressures as Mechanical injection as yet, but has advantages with it's variability of injection amounts, timing and the control of the duration of the spray which mechanical injection cannot match.Krontach (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

External link to biggest diesel engine

Holy friggin' moly! Gzuckier 02:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

divide by speed

I think this is a little more clear, I changed slow speed to low speed, Both mean the same thing but I think low speed is more common. Low speed engines marine are direct drive and also reversible.

Some are, not all. A really interesting engine is the Doxford engine. That is a direct drive ship engine which does not need reduction or reversing gear. Krontach (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unusual means of starting

"Some smaller military diesels can be started with an explosive cartridge that provides the extra power required to get the machine turning".

I've heard of this but it is typically an emergency measure used in cold weather. Maybe we should find some way to make that clearer without botching the whole paragraph.

False, it is an old way of starting Diesel engines that do not have enough compression to

safely compression-ignite when cold, used as an alternative to electric heating of glow plug or blowlamp heating of precombustion chamber. It do not usually give power to turn the engine but heat to ignite the injected fuel. It has also been used to turn the engine in absence of compressed air for starting. Seniorsag 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two common methods of starting small diesels in the cold. One is to use a nitro cellulose pellet in engines such as Deutz and Hatz, particularly with hand cranked diesels. Another which has some risk, is to use starting fluid. In LARGE diesels, there is a mechanism to insert a capsule of ether. While this is common practice when ambient air temperature is cold (for humans) it always has some risk. Certain brands of engines, such as the four cycle Cummins, will on occasion break a crankshaft as the result of the overuse of starting fluid or ether. Ether itself is very dangerous.

I'd rather run the battery down than use ether to start a Diesel. Sometimes there is no choice. This is one reason that truckers let their engines idle all night. There are laws being passed to force them to shut off their engines as this is a huge source of unnecessary pollution. Engines at idle pollute, probably more than when under load. Krontach (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Charles' law

This article says that when you compress a gas it heats up in accordance with Charles' law. However, the page on Charles' law is quite clear that it relates the volume and temperature of a gas at constant pressure. Thus, it cannot possibly apply to a diesel engine.

The right answer would be an adiabatic process, but that might be a little more math that most people want. I'll let someone else decide. Thermodude 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of Charles Law is correct. Krontach (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

link spam

There is a lot of link spam showing up. Whack all manufacturers? Any worth keeping? (Keep that biggest.. link :-) Wizzy…☎ 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove them (Wikipedia is no link farm). They don't help anyone wanting to learn more about diesel engines. - Alureiter 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

More racing applications

Somebody who races a diesel: RallyVW. Apparently they did quite well with a (nearly-stock?) VW Golf TDI.

Le Man, Both Audi and Peugeot use Diesels for P1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krontach (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern Diesel facts

Should this section be revised? It's got some good facts in it, but the bosch-centricity of it isn't very encyclopaedic. StealthFox 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mechanical direct injection?

While the article mentions common rail EFI, indirect, and unit direct, no mention is made of the older style mechanical injection systems. I'm reffering to the kind that use a fuel pump/distributor type device called a "fuel injection pump", which feeds pressurized fuel to each injector in turn. They are found in older F-350s and Dodge Rams, but I don't know much about how they work, so I'd like to see if someone knows more than I do.

I've added something in from my knowledge of how my Peugeot 205 works, someone please correct it if it's nonsense ;). StealthFox 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that looks good to me. --Natesully 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a Distributor pump direct injection section, but it is European centric (as that's what I know). The powerstroke technology is still missing. --Dieselnutjob

If you can find it, there is a very good description of what WV calls Pumpe Duse. There is even a photograph of the several different injections of fuel that occur during a modern Diesel intake and compression cycle. Pumpe Duse is no longer being used as Common Rail has now been developed to a high enough injection pressure to make PD obsolete. Both are used in direct injection.

If you watch the video on PD, you'll clearly see at least 2 separate fuel injectinos. And if you can find the video on common rail... there are 5. The first injection of fuel is some time BEFORE TDC. Diesel created his engine to have a consistent push throughout the stroke, in the same manner as the Otto engine, and unlike the Daimler/Otto engine.Krontach (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Diesel car history

I expanded the part by the Hanomag Rekord, introduced in 1936 at the very exhibition, where Mercedes showed their 260 D. Furthermore I deleted the Citroën-bit because, although I have the greatest possible respect for anybody's beliefs, it was not "encyclopaedic", I think. As soon as this information can be made factual, it should be most welcome, but the way it was, it was only conjectural. Who knows anything provable? Heinrich L. 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From - http://www.cats-citroen.net/citroen/history.html

"7UA, 11UA, 11UD 1935-1938

Models: - Berline - Berline commerciale - Conduite interieure - Familiale - Conduite interieure commerciale

These were cars in the style of the Rosalie but were yet a bit more progressive. The cars were more for those people who thought the Traction Avant was too different. The 7UA has the Traction Avant 7C engine (95 km/h) and the 11UA has the Traction Avant 11 engine (100 km/h).The 11UD was something special though. This was one of the first series production car to have a Diesel engine! Not many Diesels were made and these are now extremely rare." dieselnutjob

New chapter(s)? Diesel vs. Gasoline Engines and/or Environmental Impact of Diesel Engines

I'm very new to Wikipedia so I don't know how to address this properly. But should there be a chapter discussing the differences between diesel and gasoline engines? That is in cars. I mean, as the chapter Facts about modern diesel engines has some points but I think it would be good to have separate chapter(s) about this. It's a big deal. To me it seems that pretty much all Europe is promoting diesel engines to lower their greenhouse gas emissions (which is good). Comments?

There is a great deal of controversy on this issue. Just as there is with the supposed eco friendliness of hybrids being false. I favor Diesel over Otto. There are too many problems with gasoline fuels with regard to octane improvers. Hybrids use manganese.

The USA refuses to act responsibily with regard to reducing CO² emissions. Europe has a limit of 130 grams per mile. It's easier to reach this with a Diesel. Europe is also heavily moving to Bio Fuels of all types. Many biofuels run in Diesel engines only.

A few years ago someone finally analysed Diesel exhaust and found that particulates from P1 to P10 had the potential to cause serious lung damage. Diesels, which until then were thought to be so much cleaner than Otto engines, had not had enough research done have been upgraded since. Diesels, because of high compression ratios, have one pollutant that is HARD to control.. That is NOX.

Gasoline engines, use some additives that are carcinogenic. Benzine and MTBE. Ironically MTBE replaced Tetraethyl Lead, which had killed hundreds, and has contained 625 wells in my area. My town has had almost all the gasoline filling stations in it closed. There is a huge law suit in my county to recover damages from Exxon. They SHOULD be providing bottled water for the life of the homes whose well water they have contaminated. There are nearly 20,000 private wells known to be affected in the USA. Diesel has long been used with scrubbers in mines as a safe solution. New diesels run cleaner than any other IC engines. The dirtiest engines are Day (two cycle) and old air cooled Otto engines (such as Harley-Davidson engines).

By the way, a test was done by a university and found that Cigarette smoke contamination is 100 times more persistent than Diesel exhaust residue.

Fuel is poisonous. But Biofuels can be biodegradable. Krontach (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Knocking

I'd like to know what exactly causes the unique knocking noise?

The knocking noise is caused by piston head slap produced by the combustion of the diesel fuel. Newer engines reduce this knock by a pilot injection to start the combustion before the final injection of fuel is introduced. Danball1976 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Diesel emissions website

There is a web page here: http://www.christiantena.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/motor/diesel/emissions.html about diesel emissions. I don't want to be accused of linkspamming again though... dieselnutjob

World's first diesel engine

Can someone please help. There is a picture and patent on the 'diesel engine' homepage. Is this the world's first diesel engine (coal powder fuelled) and where is it located? Thank you, Ekiumeni

If you click on either image it will bring you to the relevant image description page. The patent is Diesel's original patent, but the picture is of a 1906 engine, which is some time after the first diesel engine was built. --Robert Merkel 03:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. This is the not the first Engine Diesel created and it does mention that his first engine was built in 1893. http://www.deutsches-museum.de/en/collections/machines/power-engines/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/the-first-diesel-engine-1897/ This 1897 engine is the one that is considered the first non-test bed type of engine. Most inventions though are dated from their first development, or sometimes form their patent. Diesel created the first proof of concept engine in 1893, this is the date I accept as the date of development of the Diesel engine.Krontach (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Diesel article vs. Turbodiesel article

This article is too long, and the turbodiesel too short (two sentences, in fact). I think a lot of information may be moved there, and automobile-related links changed to the new location. The common rail article does it very well, but this one doesn't. This article may have a short description of turbocharged engines, with a Main article template at the top. What do you say? -- NaBUru38 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

gasoline

In the fuel section, it says diesels can use virtually any fuel, including gasoline, but owners of all diesel cars are certainly strongly warned NEVER to use gasoline. Like, Whazzup? Gzuckier 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

diesel engines are the best

The use of gasoline in a diesel can be devastating. I understand that doing so can cause the engine to explode, or at the very least severely damage the cylinder heads. Danball1976 01:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Danball1976 has it backwards: Gasoline is designed to be hard to ignite and diesel easy to ignite. Running a diesel on gasoline would just cause a lot of misfires. Bigger problem would be gasoline will strip all of the lubricant out of the system and cause the engine to seize, which would in turn likely gouge up your cylinder walls amongst other things. Oh, and diesel engines are indeed the best. Thermodude 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gasoline doesn't reliably run in a Diesel engine. There are military engines that can use both Diesel and Gasoline fuels because they have versatile ignition systems. A Diesel engine can burn any fuel that can be ignited and which will provide sufficient heat. Gasoline engines can burn light fuels only. I had gasoline put in my Diesel once. It didn't run well.

Multi-Fuel engines are VERY expensive. Turbines are the easiest to get to run on multiple fuels.Krontach (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed from common consensus among vehicle owners that putting gasoline in a diesel vehicle typically causes it to run badly to not at all. As for multifuel engines being "very expensive", I think there's an important qualifier to be added there. I don't doubt that it's true that *technologically advanced* multifuel engines are probably a greater engineering challenge and expense than single-fuel engines. But Ford Model Ts and many old farm tractors of the 1910s through 1940s had multifuel engines (gasoline-kerosene-ethanol), and they were not expensive or complicated. (In fact, quite the opposite; they were some of the simplest and least expensive engines ever made). However, in fairness to the context of modern vehicles, those engines are not suitable today from the point of view of emissions control. However, various corporations such as GM and Ford make flex-fuel engines today for cars and trucks (reciprocating piston type) that are not really all that expensive. — ¾-10 16:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuel mileage in diesels

The biggest thing I don't understand is why the big three: Ford, Chevy, and Dodge don't list the fuel economy on their diesels yet Volkswagen Group does. This is based on what I was looking at on http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and the vehicle information paper on the window of a 2006 Dodge Ram Megacab. Since this is a discussion on diesel engines, does anyone want to add entries on what their diesel vehicles get on fuel economy in the city (or just an average), and what they've observed on the highway? Also, since diesel fuel is a light oil, and is less refined than gasoline, why is diesel more expensive than gasoline? Danball1976 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Diesel is only more expensive than gasoline in certain areas. If you're in an area where there aren't a lot of gas stations that sell diesel, then there's less of a reason to sell it cheap. Manufacturers will tell you what fuel mileage you'll get from any of their engines. Try checking out their websites next time.Mustang6172 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the EPA requires fuel mileage estimates to be included on the stickers of new automobiles, but that requirement does not include trucks over 8500 lbs. GVW. I currently own a 2001 Dodge pickup with the Cummins diesel, 5 spd transmission, 4x4, and it gets 18 to 19 MPG in the winter months, 21 to 22 MPG during the summer. My driving is a mixture of freeway/city driving, totally about 60 miles per day to get to work and back. When towing a large trailer, such as a fifth wheel camper, mileage typically runs 11 to 12 MPG when running speeds of 65 to 70 MPH. Terrywerm 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Fiat/Chrysler a big company. The big four in the USA are Toyota, Honda, GM and Ford. US companies are still contracting while some Euro companies are expanding. The top car producing country is now China. VW and GM are battling for the largest share there. Checkout the Challenge Bibendum. All are affected by the melt down in Fukishima. Honda may have the highest US parts content of all makers sold in this country.

Diesel costs more here because gasoline is being subsidized to keep the remnants of US industry working. There are 3.5 million US citizen employed (making Japanese and German cars). The US brands are significant, but rapidly dying out. The cause of this may be political. The majority of US legislators are heavily beholden to money from the Petroleum lobby. This is the same organization the thwarted the dream of Henry Ford to have the typical American using easily and cheaply obtained ethanol fuel (and Diesel too, but his dream is coming true now in Europe).

The EPA has published INCORRECT MPG figures using a skewed factor applied to their own raw numbers to prevent the VW Diesel from being the higesth rated MPG car in recent years. The office of the EPA would not acknowledge their error nor would any agency talk about it, nor any publication. If you pull up the raw data in Excel, and check you'll see that the fuel mileage of the Golf TDI was understated by 3 mpg. Diesel ALWAYS returns from 10 to 15% MORE real world mileage than EPA test protocol indicate. No Otto engine or hybrid Otto/electric has EVER reached their epa ratings and some do about 40% less. EPA was revised in 2008 to try to get a bit more accurate, but they are maintaining their built in misstatement of actual diesel mileage. Krontach (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

early engine FI systems

Did the injection systems on the earliest engines crank up the same PSI as the current ones? That seems a pretty substantial pressure for turn of the century engineering. If not, then what and how? Gzuckier 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the early fuel injectin systems section. Duh. Gzuckier 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove copyedit tag?

I just did a pass on the first quarter of the article, and while I found some things that needed to be fixed, I would say that overall, it wasn't that bad. I'm thinking of removing the copyedit tag. Any comments before I do so? – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 01:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I will proofread it later to see if it needs copyediting. If you are confident it does not need copyediting, by all means remove the tag. Can you identify those things which need to be fixed? (I haven't actually read the article yet). Rintrah 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article runs to 18 pages when printed out, and I've only proofread/corrected the first 5, so I'm not going to vouch for the whole thing, and I'm certainly not going to claim there's nothing that could be fixed or improved. However, based on what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem that this page is in such need of copyediting that it deserves the tag. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the tag? – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The tag just says the article needs copyediting. If it doesn't, it ought to be removed. Rintrah 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Engine of Fram

There's a picture of the engine of the Fram in the commons. Maybe it could be put on this article, since it's mentioned... Crazy Murdoc 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does a diesel engine produce less CO₂ than gasoline engine?

The article says; diesel has higher density than gasoline, so gives better fuel efficiency (mies/gallon) and thus produces less CO₂. To me this does not seem logical. If diesel is denser and hence have higher carbon content /unit volume, how does it produce less CO₂. Can some one substantiate this claim?

Two completely separate issues and you have made the false assumption that each stroke uses the same volume of fuel.

The mass density of gasoline is ~0.75 kg/liter and that of light diesel fuel is ~0.78 kg/liter. The lower heating value of gasoline is ~44.0 MJ/kg and that of light diesel fuel is ~43.2 MJ/kg. That yields volumetric energy densities of ~33 MJ/liter and ~33.7 MJ/liter, respectively. Note that gasoline has a higher energy per unit mass because of its higher hydrogen content. So long, however, as a light diesel is significantly higher in efficiency, it will require less fuel for the same energy output and thus make less CO₂. Contact me if you want me to tell you the breaking point or more detail. All data from Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, John Heywood, 1988, ISBN 0-07-028637-X. Thermodude 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I know nothing about this subject, but I know this part can't be right: "...Herbert Akroyd Stuart, built the first compression-ignition oil engine in Bletchley, England in 1891. He leased the rights to Richard Hornsby, who by 1892, five years before Diesel's prototype, had a diesel engine working in a water works." In the linked entry on Richard Hornsby, it states that he died in 1864. 220.237.139.190 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison

Does there exist any comparison between otto and diesel engine and probably wankel engine. I would be very glad of it. What are benefits of each... --Janezdrilc 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The comparison is in the internal combustion engine article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Diesel in Aircraft

"In general, though, the lower power-to-weight ratio of diesels, particularly compared to kerosene-powered turboprop engines, has precluded their use in this application." Although the diesel engine in the traditional sense is not commonly used in modern aircraft, the jet engine works in a similar way, which is why this, " Many of these run on the readily-available jet fuel, or can run on either jet fuel or conventional automotive diesel." is true. In fact, jet fuel can power any diesel engine. It is not always the case for the reverse, if ever. 10:14 AM EST 4/28/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.246.123 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Concentrate the article on the real definitions as is done in other non english articles.wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

hot bulb engine design etc etc

A diesel engine is an internal combustion engine which operates using the Diesel cycle; it was based on the hot bulb engine design and patented on February 23, 1893.

A hot bulb engine is not a diesel. A fuel air intake engine is not a diesel. A mercedes diesel will run on gasoline and deisel gasoline mixture .Only advisable in cold weather or emergency. Kerosine is a better choice. Bigger diesels will run on bunker c when hot ,just do not stop. Bunker c is close to tar. Junkers build a two piston per clinder two cycle diesel for aircraft and trucks around 1935. Alcohol is good for removal of water in the fuel tank for diesel and otto engines. See some articles in other languages for a more engineeering type of description. Pre injection of diesel fuel was done with special injectors on automotive diesels around 1938 in Switzerland. Common rail diesels for trucks were build in the usa with camshaft operated injectors in the thirties. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"" Diethyl ether has a high cetane number of 85 - 96 and is used as a starting fluid for diesel and gasoline engines[5] because of its high volatility and low autoignition temperature."" see ether

It can also ruin an engine with a little too much.wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "" Distributor and Inline pump direct injection The first incarnations[citation needed] of direct injection diesels used a rotary pump much like indirect injection diesels; ""see art.

A single plunger pump is used with a rotary distribution disc to the induvidual cilinders. Used on VW with less than 6 (5?) cilinders with indirect (prechamber) injection.wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

""In the early decades of the 20th century, when large diesel engines were first being used, the engines took a form similar to the compound steam engines common at the time, with the piston being connected to the connecting rod via a crosshead bearing. Following steam engine practice, double-acting four-stroke diesel engines were constructed to increase power output, with combustion taking place on both sides of the piston, with two sets of valve gear and fuel injection. This system also meant that the engine's direction of rotation could be reversed by altering the injector timing, so the engine could be coupled directly to the propeller without the need for a gearbox. While it produced large amounts of power and was very efficient, the double-acting diesel engine's main problem was producing a good seal where the piston rod passed through the bottom of the lower combustion chamber to the crosshead bearing."" see art

All large marine diesels are reversible and compressed air started. Double acting diesels are two cycle only during the thirties and not made by Diesel himself. Some double acting engines had a gearbox going from 400 to 100 rpm.These have a odd number of cylinders obviously and two engines on one propeller with a oilcoupling connection to the gearbox. Ref see torqueconvertor wihout a stator . Some used electro magnetic couplings . This is 1920 to 1940 technology mostly to be historically accurate. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

biodiesel

The article discusses competition that biodiesel imposes on food production. Even if this article were an appropriate place to discuss food production, the argument fails terribly in that there is a massive food production surplus manifest in western meat/dairy. Rtdrury (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

environmental changes

do them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.152.168 (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Value

This entire article is losing value due to random edits that have compromised cohesiveness. For example, at one time there was a section that described in some detail how a Diesel engine works, stroke by stroke. What happened to it? A reader coming to this article seeking some information on what goes on inside a Diesel would be disappointed.

The very first paragraph is poorly worded. Why is there a semi-coloned reference to the hot bulb predecessor in this paragraph? That information belongs in a development timeline. Also, the first paragraph fails to mention the defining feature of the Diesel and that is compression ignition.

The above comment about bio-fuels is correct. The politics of bio-fuels belong elsewhere. What this article should be focused on is the Diesel engine, how it works, how it was developed, where it is used, why it is unsuitable for some applications and why it does so well in others. How about if we keep irrelevant (and mostly uninformed) opinions out of the picture?

Quite a bit of this article appears to have been edited by people whose knowledge of Diesel engines is limited. I see much more opinion than fact, and having worked with and on Diesel-electric locomotives for many years, I have no trouble spotting the offending verbiage. Also, in reference to two stroke Diesels, I routinely see writers calling the blower a supercharger—which it is not.

Please! If you don't know for certain that what you are about to write is fact, please don't write it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which implies that it is an authoritative source of information. I believe anyone who thinks they know something about Diesel engines and feels compelled to add to or delete from this article should read it in its entirety before they start with the sort of half-assed editing that has plagued much of Wikipedia. The fact that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that anyone should.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ms VULCANUS (1910) Koninklijke / Shell Groep Built by Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij., Amsterdam (1179g; 60x11.5m; 8k). Served daughtercompany Nederlandsch Indische Tankstoomboot Mij. in the East Indies. Went to the breakers 1931. Had the distinction of being the first sea-going motorvessel in the world. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

quote""""""""Starting In cold weather, diesel engines can be difficult to start because the mass of the cylinder block and cylinder head absorb the heat of compression, thus preventing ignition. Spark ignition engines have the same problem, but they have the benefit of a spark plug to help cause ignition. The main reason diesel engines take a long time to warm up in cold weather is the lack of a throttle. Spark ignition engines are throttled, so only the right amount of air comes in at a time. This is less efficient, but spark plugs only work near the stoichiometric mixture of fuel and air (the ratio of air to fuel that allows complete and most efficient combustion). Diesel engines accept a cylinder full of air and measure in the right amount of fuel. So each time the intake valve on a diesel opens, a full charge of cold air enters the cylinder. This cools the cylinder back down. The heat gained from each combustion process therefore can only cause a gain in temperature that is much, much smaller than it would be in a spark ignition engine.""""""""""unquote

Above reasoning is incompatible with physics ,engineering and logic .wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

quote""""Diesel engines usually have longer stroke lengths to achieve the necessary compression ratios. As a result piston speeds are higher""""" max. normal piston speed is 10m/sec 33ft/sec regardless of stroke length.wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The french wikpedia shows a negative correlation.wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Injection comment. Diesel , Akroid , Newton, Einstein and Wright were all not smart enough to make what is here now. Really.!!!wdl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

quote""""However, nearly all present-day diesel engines use the so-called solid injection system invented by Herbert Akroyd Stuart for his hot bulb engine (a compression-ignition engine that precedes the diesel engine and operates slightly differently). Solid injection raises the fuel to extreme pressures by mechanical pumps and delivers it to the combustion chamber by pressure-activated injectors in a dense jet.""""

Diesel uses a fine distributed fuel spray under high presure into superheated air. Glow bulb engines use a relative low presure solid fuel stream hitting the blowtorch heated surface,evaporating the fuel and igniting it,also the compression ratio and air temperature were way lower than in a diesel. So these are conceptualy different patents and operations. Over hundred years developments have been made but even now it is still basically true. See scaled prechambers and glow plugs. These concepts should be discussed in a history section by engineers. The Glow bulb engines needs a twenty minute warmup with a blowtorch before starting and additional blowtorch heating at low speeds. Is that cold start? Also it needed water injection to keep the temperature down to prevent burnup of the bulb at full power. They were mostly one cilinder engines in lowpower applications in farm tractors and inland boats ,and suffering from piston fouling. Are they sill manufactured ? Other items volume /surface ratios,white smoke ,black smoke,lubrication contamination, but please somewhere else where most of the article should be. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"""""As the engine turns, the valve discs will line up and deliver a burst of pressurized fuel to the injector at the cylinder about to enter its power stroke. The injector valve is forced open by the fuel pressure, and the diesel is injected until the valve rotates out of alignment and the fuel pressure to that injector is cut off. Engine speed is controlled by a third disc, which rotates only a few degrees and is controlled by the throttle lever. This disc alters the width of the aperture through which the fuel passes, and therefore how long the injectors are held open before the fuel supply is cut, which controls the amount of fuel injected."""""

Pump plunger supplies pressure and fuel quantity. Distributer disc distributes only.Third disc ???wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"""""However, nearly all present-day diesel engines use the so-called solid injection system invented by Herbert Akroyd Stuart for his hot bulb engine (a compression-ignition engine that precedes the diesel engine and operates slightly differently).""""" < In the 13th century AD, al-Jazari described and illustrated different types of pumps, including a reciprocating pump, double-action pump, suction pump, and piston pump.[2][3] ^ Al-Jazari, The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices : Kitáb fí ma'rifat al-hiyal al-handasiyya, translated by P. Hill (1973). Springer. wdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.23.84 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Prosper L'Orange

Inventor of the prechamber and solid injection. 14 March 1909 with his Patent DRP 230 517.wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Early history timeline

there are no refs on all these claimms. delete?Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

automotive

Start a seperate automobile diesel article? and move a lot there. comments? Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

copyediting

I have just added the copyedit template to this page. I understand that Wdl24.146.23.84 is currently doing heavy editing of the page, and for now the quality and cohesiveness of some sections have suffered, in particular some paragraphs have turned into a lot of short disjoined sentences. I will have a go at improving this myself in the near future, of course anyone is welcome to beat me to it ;) StealthFox 23:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

i deleted a lot of stuff that was foggy and caried a lot of not true implications . i am sure most people are beter writers than me.but engineering and physics fact should be adhered to first.i am looking forward to improvements.anything is better than it was.look at diesel cycle as an example what it is trying to do.tops^2! i believe diesl eng shoud be kept basic with refs to use for people with more and deeper interest.i got email.what is your background? Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two-stroke Diesels are scavenged by Forced induction. A mechanically driven blower (often a Roots positive displacement blower) or exhaust-driven turbocharger(s) are used.-- /////////////wiki plain english does not like "It should be noted" take it out and it is disjointed??\\\\\\\\\\\\\Wdl1961 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)--- It should be noted that the scavenging engine driven blower can not be used as a supercharger on loop scavenged engines because the exhaust ports located above the inlet ports close afterwarts bleeding off the excess presure, a turbocharger will work because it develops back pressure.
Wdl1961 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

edit two stroke

User talk:Raymondwinn (section). looked at your revisions . care to look at diesel egines also?it needs lots of help.Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raymondwinn"Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Safety

yachts

In yachts diesels are used because petrol engines generate combustible vapors accumulating in the bottom of in the vessel causing explosions.Therefore ventilation systems on petrol powered vessels are required.

deleted by Darth Panda (section) no reason given.Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) tttt24.146.23.84 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Flammability

"Diesel fuel does not explode in a manner such as petrol does, it just slowly burns."

This statement should be clarified. Although neither fuel is explosive in liquid form, both Diesel and Gasoline can create an explosive air/vapor mix under the right conditions. The Material Safety Data Sheet for Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuel indicates a vapor explosion hazard for Diesel indoors, outdoors, or in sewers.

http://www.petrocard.com/Products/MSDS-ULS.pdf

I am going to update the article accordingly.

71.81.2.255 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

biased article

the article contains opinions not supported by patents,drawings,pictures or technical data. a says b says a says is not a proof of anything.any reliable data will be appreciated.Wdl1961 (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

advantages

I have just edited the "Major Advantages" section to add some reasoning into it, i was unsure about what the following sentence actually means:

They can deliver much more of their rated power on a continuous basis than a gasoline engine.

Is this saying that a typical diesel engine can operate at e.g. 90% rated power for 5000 hours before failure, wheras a gasoline engine run at 90% rated power would fail after 2000 hours, and could only manage 5000 hours at 50%? Or is it referring to the difference in power curves, where a diesel has a flatter power/torque curves so will output closer to its peak power/torque over a wider rev range? StealthFox 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

yes.yes.look at man. specs . diesel output per combustion is pretty stable . gas engines have a throttle . try breathing through a small hole .medium and low speed diesels are rated close to their max. exceed it will generally produce black smoke and little more power.diesels are more rugged. diesel output kwh/lbs fuel is flat from quarter to full power . statements are general and using fuzzy logic and eng. handbooks.time between overhaul on diesels 6k hrs and up.Wdl1961 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

more accurate??
generally diesel engines are delivering much more of their rated power on a continuous basis than a gasoline engines.
some (most) school busses still have gasoline engines.
discussion is invited but first go to an interstate highway and count and measure and weigh.
you made me think.good luck .
Wdl1961 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand what is meant by on a continuous basis though, judging by your explanation it is sounding the same as the point that is already in there about the fuel efficiency (lbs/kwh) being about the same regardless of engine load, just expressed in a different way, so perhaps it would be better to just remove it until someone can come up with a better wording? is there a reference i could look at? StealthFox 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about current practice but British diesel engines used to be given three ratings:

• 12 hour rating, e.g. 1,000 bhp
• 1 hour rating (10% higher) e.g. 1,100 bhp
• continuous rating (10% lower) e.g. 900 bhp

There would also be different ratings for different applications. For example a marine engine would have a lower rating (for reliability) than a locomotive engine.

I am puzzled about American school buses having gasoline engines. Does this not involve a bigger fire risk? In the UK, I don't think there is a single gasoline-engined bus on the road (apart from historic vehicles). Biscuittin (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ratings etc

high speed engines for automobiles are overrated by manufacturers as a sales gimmick. a car usually needs only 25 hp at steady speed.gasoline engines are rated mostly at less than 50% for industrial purposes.

piston commercial airplane engines had a ~3 minute max power rating for takeoff with excess gasoline or water cooling otherwise they would blow up..

marine engines needs steady long time power .

more us school busses are getting diesel eng.

efficiency (lbs/kwh) <> power rating ~ beauty rating.

Wdl1961 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

rating example

Specifications (R-1830-S1C-G) Pratt & Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp" |piston eng power

• 1,200 hp (895 kW) at 2,700 rpm for takeoff
• 700 hp (522 kW) at 2,325 rpm cruise power at 13,120 ft (4,000 m)

| Wdl1961 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
problem some people want exact answers no engineer has .one can amost always trade one property for another.
generally it is not a good idea to run anything to max limit.good luck.Wdl1961 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't true as a rule although Toyota and Honda have been caught allowing the marketing people to set their HP ratings often deliberately overstating HP by 20 or more. Engine ratings have been changed over the years. The GOVERNMENT allows the engine makers to interpret the ratings rules and to use whatever set of rules that they want to.

There are ratings such as brake horsepower, Dynamometer HP, shaft hp, etc. Engines in automobiles were rated as bare engines with no water pump, no air filters, no accessories such as fans etc. installed. When measured by the ratings systems that are now being used, the engine must be tested as it is installed in an automobile with all accessories installed and all engine support systems being run by the engine itself.

Air Aircraft engine isn't going to blow up by being run too long at maximum power, but it may fail with a short life span. Aircraft engines are made to run primarily at steady state.

Automobile engines are made for stop and go. Still this is a rating for the engine only. The drivetrain power losses can run very high. Automobile engines are generally designed to run at 100% power for no more than 100 hours. What kills engines is running at reduced power. Krontach (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

section: History: "Diesel was almost killed by his [diesel] engine when it exploded"

Diesel was not almost killed by his diesel engine. He was, however, almost killed by the explosion of one of his earlier steam engines, in which he was using ammonia vapor (see Rudolf Diesel). Such a statement almost seems to be derogatory, seeming to imply to the reader that diesel engines may be more unsafe than the gasoline engine. His earlier steam engine exploded, not his diesel engine.

Someone with more Wikipedia presence please remove or correct (by modifying and positioning it earlier in the "History" section) this part of the wiki page on Mr. Rudolph Diesel. I can't stand the behavior of some Wikipedists who guard the page with their lives/fingers, and don't allow anyone to contribute (One of the banes of my existence). Maybe some people could shoot me some comments as to how to overcome such bullyish behavior here on Wikipedia.? Hypocritus (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

just change it but have reliable ref and use a registered account.or give me the ref and i will change it. we have a lot of biased opinions in this article. good luck
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

reference query

I have just noticed ref 8 (referring to fuel efficiency remaining constant over load range) is just the name of a generator, is this from the spec sheet/manual? Will remove if not, cos the name alone cannot stand as a reference. StealthFox 23:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's an odd reference. Also that statement is an exaggeration. It varies less over load than a SI engine, but still varies a lot. The reference was added in this edit: 04:32, 20 November 2008 Wdl1961. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

pls check rate between 1/2 and full power.30%?glad somebody reads it .thanks.Wdl1961 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
gasoline elect. generator Model Number 03390
Consumption -
Consumption at 1/2 load 0.9 gallons/hour
Consumption at 3/4 load 0.1.22 gallons/hour
Consumption at full load load 0.1.39 gallons/hour
Fuel Tank Capacity 8 Gallons - Fuel Gauge Included
(2*.9-1.39)/1.39 ≈ 30%
with diesel this is mucho less.
Wdl1961 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
diesel table ref
http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspx
Wdl1961 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at that link, if anything those figures show that the efficiency increases as load increases (for the 25/50/75/100% load figures given anyway), e.g. multiplying the 25% figure by 3 yields an expected fuel consumption at 75% that is higher than is actually used, indicating that the generator is operating less efficiently at 25% than 75%.

Also as these are explicitly stated as estimated figures, im not sure how valuable they are as an encyclopaedic reference? StealthFox 12:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

the tables show what is general knowledge.diesel plot is basically flat gas usage lbs/kwh increases at low power which i think you said above.the tables show engineering data.

"""This chart approximates the fuel consumption of a diesel generator based on the size of the generator and the load at which the generator is operating at. Please note that this table is intended to be used as an estimate of how much fuel a generator uses during operation and is not an exact representation due to various factors that can increase or decrease the amount of fuel consumed."""

show me a guy that knows more and i will show you a ----------. i will call you with skipe if you email your phone no. thanks for the attention.Wdl1961 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

---

15.0 jc fuel consumption

1. 2 02-11-2008, 09:22 AM

Jack Hottel Subscriber Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Haymarket, Virginia USA Posts: 201 Thanks: 3 Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

Re: 15.0 jc fuel consumption

---

Stephen, For a 15.0JC at 60Hz, (1800 RPM), the gasoline consumption in gallons per hour is:

Load: 0 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4
GPH: 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4

Good Luck Jack Hottel
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Which was the first diesel, 1893 or 1898

"He operated his first successful engine in 1897.", and "At Augsburg, on August 10, 1893, Rudolf Diesel's prime model, a single 10-foot (3.0 m) iron cylinder with a flywheel at its base, ran on its own power for the first time." conflict. It would be nice to have elaborated, exactly what those two milestones were.

Also it would be nice to have the history in chronological order, and have it supplemented and cleaned up in general.

Also. When he "operated his first successful engine in 1897", it seems unlikely that he was already a millionaire by 1898. Velle (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Major advantages: continuous operation

There was a discussion of compression ratio added to the major advantages section. I took it out. This is a short list for the top of the article only. There is an in-depth discussion explaining it stuff in more depth later. That's where compression ratio is already discussed.

However, that later section does not explain the reason that continuous operation near rated power is possible. I think I know the reason, but I don't have a source for it so I'm not going to put it in. Others should refrain from adding unverifiable material as well. However, discussion of it here is welcome.Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, more generally about that section--there's a request for citations. I think a better goal would be to make sure each of the items listed there has a more complete discussion later in the article, as some of them do. That's where the citations should go. If it's a major enough advantage to make the short list of major advantages, it merits fuller discussion later in the article. If it doesn't have discussion later, either our further explanations are incomplete and only address randomly selected topics rather than explaining the most important aspects; or the items are not truly major and don't belong on the shortlist.Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

this item (continuous operation) every engineer and mechanic knows . just hope no two minute parser editor will remove it.Wdl1961 (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

safety

""Some engines are equipped with a mechanical or electronic governor to control minimum and maximum rpm, which makes runaway much less likely.""
some means 1% 10% or what??.there are no refs of diesels without a governor of some kind because they can not idle wihout one. now this section has no connection with reality.Wdl1961 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. All I did was change the statement in the article to match what is in the reference that it is based on. That's how wikipedia works, like it or not. If the section now has no connection with reality, are you saying the reference has no relation with reality? If that's the case, we should not cite an unreliable source at all.Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

there are almost always exceptions . writers do not talk about the obvious and news is not news if common. just one ref does not mean much at times. try finding a ref for diesel wthout some kind (mechanicla,pneumatic mb 220,hydraulic or electronic)governor. never seen one but i am reasonably sure there has been one somewhere sometime. one can find almost anything three sigmas from the norm. email wdelang@cogeco.ca with phone no and i 'll call you wth skype . good luck.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size.

""This page is 83 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.""author???
Wdl1961 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Coal dust

The Rudolf Diesel article says that Dr. Diesel specifically designed the Diesel engine to use coal dust or vegetable oil as fuel. This Diesel engine article discusses vegetable oil, but never mentions coal dust. Can a Diesel engine run on coal dust?

The article briefly mentions oil manufactured from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process; and coal gas; and coal fired steam engines. But I'm not talking about any of those. I'm talking about directly running a diesel engine on coal dust, perhaps "coal dust suspended in water"[1]. If it turns out that it's not possible to run any Diesel engine on coal dust, then I think this article should specifically say that. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A diesel engine relies on its fuel being injected directly into the cylinder. The amount of fuel injected at each stroke is very small, and occurs in a very brief period of time. I seriously doubt that an injector could achieve this using any finely-divided solid. Also, compared with the calorific value of unit volume of diesel oil, the calorific value of unit volume of coal dust is low, so if a diesel engine were to run on coal dust a larger volume of dust than oil would have to be injected at each stroke, making the task that much harder for the injectors.

It all depends on the available sources. If someone can find a reliable source that talks about coal dust in connection with diesel engines it would be reasonable for Wikipedia to link the two. In the absence of a reliable source I suggest Wikipedia says nothing. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The business about the coal dust is said to be contained in the patent here. Rudolf Diesel may have included it as a possible fuel and never taken it further. It doesn't need mentioning here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Peanut oil actually. Krontach (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Emissions

According to the article, "Some modern diesel engines feature diesel particulate filters". In my opinion, this is quite an understatement. In Europe, new emission regulations will become mandatory in 2009, and these are considered impossible to meet without diesel particulate filter. Alexander Noé (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's accurate. Most Diesel engines do not have filters and are quite dirty. They will have to be cycled out with time. Modern standards for "clean Diesel" cause the use of particulate TRAPS as used by VW and others. The trap can collect the soot and will cycle at times and burn the soot.

Other solutions are being used as well, such as Urea injection which Daimler-Benz is using. New research shows that adding methanol in relatively low concentrations dramatically reduces NOX.

Keep in mind that MODERN is a very indistinct term. The Wartzila Sulzer common rail diesel is a new design which came about because of the increasingly stringent pollution laws designs to improve the air quality of ports. Ship pollution has been a huge problem. The new Diesels run soot free.Krontach (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Four cycle

In the section labeled "modern" about modern engines appears the phrase "Four cycle engines need at least six cylinders, repeated power strokes at 120 degrees.". What is a "four cycle" engine? Also: the structure of the sentence is strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.229.93 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

see four-cycle

three phase same principle

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed "four cycle engines" to "four-stroke engines". Dolphin51 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word stroke is inappropriate. The correct term is cycle. This was changed in the 80s. A stroke is a single action. A cycle is an action that will be repeated. Krontach (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

unless I'm mistake, (technically) both terms are incorrect - to me a 'four cycle engine' seems to imply that 4 cycles are involved, as 2 would be involved in a steam engine - the combustion cycle & steam cycle. To the best of my knowledge, the correct term would be 'four-stroke cycle engine,' which is then colloquially contracted to 'four-stroke cycle engine:' maybe technically ambiguous, but grammatically rational, as opposed to removing a word from the middle of the phrase (?) 80.229.172.13 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

modified in Finland???

Mercedes-Benz type of prechamber and indirect injection engine can reach peak power over 5,000 rpm) once injection pump has been modified in Finland.

original insertion by 23:06, 29 May 2009 83.227.249.2 (talk) (90,035 bytes) (→Indirect injection) Wdl1961 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

diesel gasoline fuel consumption at partial power

"""Q. - What is the Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC, Lbs or grams of fuel per HP-hour) of a Thielert 2 liter 155HP at full cruise power, and at best glide power on for instance a DA40 or 42? A. – As with every diesel, our engine offers a flat specific consumption at all rpms. In other words, the fuel consumption per HP and per hour remains approximately the same whether the engine delivers 155 HP or 40 HP, whereas on a gasoline engine this SFC increases somewhat at less than full power, and, on a turbine, shoots to the ceiling. This is why a turboprop airplane always is a gas guzzler at transitional regimes such as take-off, go around, and approach to land. This is one important reason why diesel engine is so favorable on a trainer operated by a flight school. This being said, the SFC of our 4 cylinder is consistent with what you can expect of a small diesel, that is around 0.35 Lbs per Horse Power and per Hour. Q. - What is Thielert’s opinion on the future of Avgas and on with Dr. Bruno M. Kübler, insolvency administrator of Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH; Jasper Wolffson, chairman of Centurion Aircraft Engines AG & Co. KG; and Prof. Günter Kappler,""" Wdl1961 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History - Diesel engines and light passenger cars.

As far I can remember the cars equipped with a diesel engine one can have encountered in post-ware times were : (The list below is subject to adjustments and criticisms). - 1950 Mercedes Benz 170 sedan 1.7 litre - 1953 Mercedes Benz 180 - 1959 Mercedes Benz 190 - 1960 Peugeot 403 1.8 litre ("Indenor") - 1960 Austin-Morris sedan equipped with a 1.6 liter Perkins engine (used as taxis in Paris, for instance). (Perkins manufactured a series of small diesel engines adaptated on many types of cars or vans). - 1962 Peugeot 404 1.95 litre. In the following years the offering of diesel models tended to generalise : almost all the car makers proposed diesel versions. --193.250.101.71 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Bernard Huet France. ]]

not as reliable electricity is required

any part added will decrease reliability. few diesels without the electronics will fail because of electronincs/electricity i have experienced like none. for failures look at droop speed control and failure rate of the internet and your computer. Wdl1961 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the common rail, electronically controlled injection system. You are correct in stating that this system is less reliable than the purely mechanical version. It requires a battery and alternator/generator in the system, and batteries are the least reliable component of the system. That's also why piston powered aircraft use magneto ignition systems and not coils & distributors. --Aflafla1 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

local interest Commer TS3 engine facts

The Rootes Group of the United Kingdom used a similar design, intending to produce a lower engine for trucks with cab forward layout. The Commer TS3 engine had 3 horizontal in-line cylinders, each with two opposed pistons that worked through rocker arms, to one crankshaft The Commer TS3 engine had 3 horizontal in-line cylinders, each with two opposed pistons that worked through rocker arms, to one crankshaft. While both these designs succeeded in producing greater power for a given capacity, they were complex and expensive to produce and operate,[citation needed] and when turbocharger technology improved in the 1960s,[citation needed] this was found to be a much more reliable and simple way of extracting more power.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC) In Canada, Smart Fortwo was first introduced in 2004 with a Diesel engine, up until 2008.

In Japan, newly registered Diesel vehicles were less than 1% in 2005. Honda and Mercedes-Benz have made plans to offer Diesel vehicles in the future, with Mercedes-Benz having already started selling the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI in autumn 2005.

Diesel cars cannot accelerate as quickly as petrol cars and the increased weight of their engines (normally at the front) tends to increase tire wear. Cold-starting is more problematic in colder climates, and in cases of difficulty they are more difficult to jump start and to bump start.

They have put the emphasis on high performance Diesel cars in their newer ranges, as does Volkswagen across various brands. Other manufacturers (Borgward in 1952, Fiat in 1953 and Peugeot in 1958) joined in, a trend which increased further in the 1970s and 1980s. Citroën sells more cars with Diesel engines than petrol engines, Peugeot pioneered smoke-less HDI designs with filters. The Italian marque Alfa Romeo, known for design and successful history in racing, is now focusing on Diesels that can be and are raced.

Turbodiesels can outperform their naturally aspirated petrol-powered sister cars. One anecdote tells of Formula One driver Jenson Button, who was arrested while driving a Diesel-powered BMW 330cd Coupé at 230 km/h (about 140 mph) in France, where he was too young to have a petrol-engined car hired to him. Button dryly observed in subsequent interviews that he had actually done BMW a public relations service, as nobody had believed a Diesel road car could be driven that fast. Yet, BMW had already won the 24 Hours Nürburgring overall in 1998 with a 3-series Diesel. The BMW Diesel lab in Steyr, Austria is led by Ferenc Anisits and develops innovative Diesel engines.

In the United States, Diesel is not as popular in passenger cars as in Europe. Such cars have been traditionally perceived as heavier, noisier, having performance characteristics which make them slower to accelerate, sootier, smellier, and of being more expensive than equivalent gasoline (petrol) vehicles. From the late seventies to the mid-eighties, General Motors' Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and Chevrolet divisions produced a low-powered and unreliable V8 Diesel engine which generally serves as the prime example for this reputation. (The engine was not a converted gasoline engine as is popularly believed) Dodge with its ever-famous Cummins inline-six Diesels optioned in pickup trucks (since about the late 1980s) really revitalized the appeal for Diesel power in light vehicles among American consumers, but a superior and widely-accepted American regular-production Diesel passenger car never materialized. Ford Motor Company tried Diesel engines in some passenger cars in the 1980s, but to not much avail. In addition, before the introduction of 15 parts per million ultra-low sulfur Diesel, which started at 15 October 2006 in the U.S. (1 June 2006 in Canada), Diesel fuel used in North America still had higher sulfur content than the fuel used in Europe, effectively limiting Diesel use to industrial vehicles, which had further contributed to the negative image. Ultra-low sulfur Diesel is not mandatory until 2010 in the US. This image does not reflect recent designs, especially where the very high low-rev torque of modern Diesels is concerned—which have characteristics similar to the big V8 gasoline engines popular in the US. Light and heavy trucks, in the U.S., have been Diesel-optioned for years. After the introduction of ultra-low sulfur Diesel, Mercedes-Benz has marketed passenger vehicles under the BlueTec banner. In addition, other manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors, Honda, Subaru, Audi, Volkswagen, BMW, and Nissan plan to sell Diesel vehicles in the US in 2008-2010, designed to meet the tougher emissions requirements in 2010. Recently, in early 2008, Honda has stated that they plan to offer their 50 state compliant 2.2 liter i-DTEC Diesel engine in the new 2009 Acura TSX for the US market.Wdl1961 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you removed the above text from the page. Do you care to say why? I think the Commer TS3 part might be "local interest", but the rest of it appears to be an excellent summary of the history and current status of diesel passenger cars. Do you have concerns about its correctness or style or something? 200.125.122.207 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

maybe it should be a part of diesel car history or new art 'diesel cars' .Wdl1961 (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Until such an article exists, I think the text should be restored. Wizzy…☎ 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

is in there also. local details belong in a seperate art. see ww2.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

tried to start diesel automobiles.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

see diesel automobiles art. started.Wdl1961 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What's an "automobile" (US term, I really don't know). Is this article on cars, or on truck, or on both? Although I can see the need for an article on each, I can't see how a combined article (as this currently appears to be) could work. The timescales, technology and local adoption are too different. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Misprint, surely

At the section "High-speed engines" it says "High-speed (approximately 1,000 rpm and greater) engines are used to power trucks (lorries), buses, tractors, cars, yachts, compressors, pumps and small electrical generators. As of 2008[update], most high-speed engines have indirect injection."
Surely thats the wrong way round, haven't the vast majority of diesel engines been direct injection for many years? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At Indirect injection it states that, for a diesel, indirect injection means injection into a pre-combustion chamber. (It does not mean injection into the inlet manifold as is the case with some spark-ignition engines.) Here it states that some of the advantages of indirect injection are that smaller diesels can be produced and higher engine speeds can be reached. Some examples are quoted of engines that are produced both as spark-ignition engines and high-speed diesel engines with indirect injection. Consequently I don't think it is necessarily a misprint. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that "combustion chamber" for a high-speed diesel is often :::I think we needa bowl-in-piston design. That "indirect injection" might actually look very like direct. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

more mechanics on board - as far as I'm concerned, bowl-in-piston is direct injection. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

bowl-in-piston design is considered to be direct injection. most automobile engines (vw & mb) up to now used prechambers. trucks were the first to go for more direct injection. i do not have stats . some people consider a prechambered diesel not to be a diesel . it all depends on your pov. sometimes the boundary lines in history are not the same for everyone. Wdl1961 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

for an history look into hot bulb engines and refs. it shows the advancement of the hot bulb into some prechamered engines with hot sufaces by definition any injection of fuel into the cylinder/piston space is direct injection. the ttrend is towrads direct injection with the higher pressures in common rail and pump/injector combos. Wdl1961 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets

Until the most-recent edit, the second paragraph of this article ended with the following statements:
Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) often have a thermal efficiency which exceeds 50%. (But note that some rockets, a valid form of internal combustion engine, can briefly achieve efficiencies of up to 60% when the atmospheric pressure matches exhaust nozzle pressure){{Citation needed}}

The evolution of this text can be seen in the following trail:

• Diff No. 1
• Diff No. 2
• Diff No. 3
• Diff No. 4

User:BilCat has suggested that, if appropriate comments can be made comparing diesel engines and rockets, those comments should be made in the general text, not in the lead. Whether this article should say anything about the efficiency of rockets should be determined on this Talk page. What do people think?

I don’t doubt that rockets can demonstrate very high efficiencies. Whether this is thermal efficiency or propulsive efficiency is not clear. If 60% efficiency for rockets is a propulsive efficiency the article is not comparing apples with apples because the statement about the diesel engine relates to its thermal efficiency. Propulsive efficiency is dependent on the choice of reference frame whereas for a torque-producing engine, like a diesel, the efficiency is based on torque and rotational speed and is independent of the choice of reference frame.

If the consensus is that this article should mention the efficiency of rockets, we should use this Talk page to decide on exactly what should be said, where, and with what cited sources. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to include rockets in any discussion relating to the Diesel engine. Krontach (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Standardise on FDA efficiencies percentages.

Different figures are used in different parts of the article. The FDA figures are the most credible, (and the highest), shouldn't they be the only ones used? This is particularly important given the dodgy (equivalent MPG) figures used by proponents of electric/hybrid cars compared to diesel cars. High efficiency reduces CO2 emissions, so it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.219 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FDA is the Food and Drug Administration in the USA. What do you think this is? I expect you mean the EPA. High efficiency means how efficiently and engine can convert the chemical energy in it's fuel mixture into kinetic energy. This is an important but possibly secondary consideration in the rising atmosphere of pollution from too many engines. Krontach (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indirect Injection section

In the Indirect Injection section, there is a spurious set of dates given showing the use of indirect injection engines. I know for a fact Mack and Scania (probably others) used direct injection on their diesel engines as early as the 1950's. Mack got their direct injection technology from Scania. Previously Mack had used the Lanova pre-chamber system. I highly doubt many if any truck/marine/industrial high speed diesel engine manufacturer used indirect injection into the 80's, at least not in North America. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeusw (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What limits Diesel engine’s RPM?

According to this article, speed is limited by the time required for combustion. On this http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=126059&page=56 page one person claims that the limiting factor is valve train. Some claim that the reason is the mechanical limits of the physical components. What is the truth?--Teveten (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed is limited by one of many factors, according to the design of a particular engine and whichever of these factors imposes the slowest limit.

Early diesels, and large contemporary engines, did indeed depend on combustion times in terms of propagation through the combustion chamber. These engines were slow-revving (under 1,000 rpm) and heavily constructed, making them impractical for road vehicles and even railway locomotives. They were efficient though, would burn almost anything as a fuel, and some even approximated the Diesel cycle.

Between the wars, and majorly involving Ricardo's work, the "high-speed" diesel engine appeared. This was intended to be lighter and to permit its use in road vehicles. It achieved this by higher speed (>1,000 rpm) which obviously required higher speed bearings (pressure lubrication), high-quality piston rings (already being developed, for as these engines were smaller than slower diesels, their linear piston speed wasn't too different) and also higher-speed valvegear that was already appearing of petrol engines. Their real innovation though, and Ricardo's major input, was the serious study of both "swirl" and then also reducing the need for swirl by design of the injection system.

A diesel engine takes an inlet charge of plain air, unlike a petrol engine (even fuel injected) that takes an already carburetted mixture of air and fuel. So combustion requires the compressed air charge to be mixed with the injected fuel. There are two ways to do this, in Ricardo's terms by either bringing the air to meet the fuel (swirl), or else by bringing the fuel to meet the air (solid injection). Early engines used air blast injection, where a relative large volume of air was used to carry the fuel charge into the cylinder. Coincidentally this also provided enough air for the first stage of combustion. With solid injection (liquid fuel alone) the fuel and air charge must be mixed before combustion is possible. An atomised injection spray disperses the fuel and encourages easy early-stage light-off, however it doesn't penetrate far through the air and so it can't support combustion across the whole cylinder. In contrast a more "solid" injection stream reaches further, but having less surface area over fewer droplets is harder to initially ignite. The solution for this, in the early years at least, was the use of a separate combustion chamber. Notably Ricardo's Whirlpool and several versions of the Comet combustion chamber. These are small separate chambers where the air swirl can be well-controlled and particularly high, with smaller dimensions so that the injector spray can reach the whole volume. Many of these chambers were also slightly insulated, so that they remained hot, also encouraging combustion. If you're interested in this period of the engine's development, you really ought to read Ricardo's "High-speed internal combustion engines", both 3rd and 4th or later editions.

Later designs have moved away from the separate combustion chamber, in favour of "bowl in piston" designs. We've also seen more recently a shift to higher injection pressures, which obviously improves the injection design compromise. The problem is now one of precision in timing, not simply power of injection. Engines are running faster, which makes this timing even more critical.

Valvegear hasn't ever been a limitation on diesel engine speed. Although obviously important, the diesel has always lagged the petrol engine and can simply copy its innovations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. If I understood correctly, the problem with the modern automobile diesels is that with high revolutions air and fuel don’t have enough time to mix to burn efficiently?--Teveten (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still a huge problem, and it gets harder the faster you run the engine. However it also gets easier with smaller engines, which is another move we're seeing, especially thanks to turbo-charging.

I'm not sufficiently up to date with current diesels to know just what the most pressing problem is right at the moment. However since common rail systems and their increased injector power (thus the ability to throw an effectively atomised spray clean across the cylinder), it's more about precise timing than it is sheer power. Vibration and smooth running is now really important, especially for the light car market, and this depends on cylinder timing being consistent from cylinder to cylinder, thus aiding their balance. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Injection pressure is NOT related to how far fuel is going to be sprayed. That's not the concept or the result of higher pressure at all. Higher pressure will in fact result in shorter spray distances. Krontach (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Audi generates 650 hp from 5.5 liters at 5500 rpm. There is no reason to rev faster at this stage as the torque will drop off. The very nature of the long push, rather than the quick push makes revving Diesel engines less rewarding. As long as volumetric efficiency (measured with BMEP) can be maintained, increasing rpm is the way to increase power. This comes at the expense of weight, complexity, lowered economy, and a typically narrowed power band. This isn't important in race machines but is for machines that must be dynamic. Krontach (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Otto Versus Gas Engines

All Otto engines ARE gas engines. It's redundant to say otto engines and gas engines. That's like saying Pizza (Italian for Pie) and Pie, or Pie Pie.Krontach (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "gas engine"? A gas engine is an earlier form of internal combustion piston engine, that used a gaseous fuel that didn't require compression.

A "gasoline engine" or "petrol engine" is a form of spark ignition engine fuelled by petrol or gasoline. Although "gas" is a common shorthand for these, it's unhelpful here as it can be confused with gas engines, as noted above. These gasoline engines use spark ignition and the Otto cycle.

A compression ignition engine could be Diesel's original engine using the Diesel cycle, but nowadays it's more likely to be a diesel engine using the Otto cycle.

It is thus quite untrue to claim that All Otto engines are "gas engines", whether this means gas engines or gasoline engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep dwelling on linguistic counterarguments, Krontach, but regarding the idea that one mustn't say "pizza pie" because it's redundantly saying the same thing in two languages, natural language is jam-packed with such usages. There are various linguistic reasons why these occur (and in many cases persist) in natural language. See the Wikipedia articles on pleonasms, error detection and correction, and RAS syndrome. Basically, human language has evolved some kinds of redundancy checks, which explains why RAS syndrome, for example, will not be eradicated from language, and why prescriptively trying to eradicate it is tilting at windmills. Prescription properly applied always involves an aspect of moderation and reasonable exceptions. I know that many of us were taught years ago by teachers with knuckle-slapping rulers that language is all about pure logic involving few variables, but that was actually miseducation. Linguistics has debunked that understanding of language, although linguists have not yet done a very widely known job of explaining this to non-linguists. Probably in coming decades the educational system will catch up with that. It already has to some extent by simply ceasing to teach prescriptive grammar in many cases, but it hasn't really explained to students and parents why it has stopped. They often think it's because education has gone to hell in a handbasket, but it's actually more because of how linguistic science has debunked the knuckle-slapping, but no one's done a good job of publicizing why yet. — ¾-10 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) says to avoid unnecessary capitalization, but that in science and mathematics (not necessarily the same as engineering) discoveries named after inventor are almost always capitalized. The following say that diesel is not always capitalized:

• Diesel | diesel, n. Oxford English Dictionary Second edition, 1989; online version March 2011. <http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.spl.org:2048/Entry/52418>; accessed 29 May 2011. First published in A Supplement to the OED I, 1972.
• Oxford online (compare Avogadro's number)
• Google
• Practical legal writing for legal assistants
• Technical editor's handbook
• Penn State Style for Students
• The careful writer: a modern guide to English usage
• "diesel engine." Encyclopedia Britannica Online Library Edition. 2011. Web. 29 May 2011. <http://library.eb.com/eb/article-9106037>.
• "diesel fuel." Encyclopedia Britannica Online Library Edition. , 2011. Web. 29 May 2011.<http://library.eb.com/eb/article-9104236>

The claim that diesel is always capitalized is contradicted by numerous sources. I wasn't able to find a single source that insisted that it is always capitalized. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue to capitalize Diesel since I use that to refer to both Rudolph Diesel and his Engine. Or... I'll simply change EVERY reference to read, "The Rudolph Diesel Engine" if you prefer.Krontach (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Read:Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Volume 35, Part 2 By American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the section on Diesel. You'll note EVERY instance of the name Diesel is capitalized. Krontach (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT. Such behaviour quickly leads you into trouble. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, and with no citable basis for this at all, I capitalize 'Diesel' for Diesel's own engines, and for engines using the Diesel cycle. However for the usual Otto cycle diesel engines, I don't. The single ASME ref counts for little, as there are many more equally robust refs that use 'diesel'. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I had something constructive to add when it comes to orthography, so I'm chiming in. Krontach, you should read Wikipedia's article on eponyms, including the information about orthography (especially capitalization). It is far and away standard practice in English-language orthography to lowercase some terms of eponymous origin when they have become so established and pervasive that the eponymous nature of their etymology has become deemphasized. This is the reason why every major WP:RS dictionary in which you might look up "diesel engine" or "diesel fuel" has the lowercase styling as its first-listed variant, and in fact usually the only-listed variant. It would be pedantic for Wikipedia to insist on capitalizing "diesel engine" or "diesel fuel" simply on the abstract logic that "eponymous terms should always be capitalized." That proposed absolute rule doesn't match standard English orthography, even that used by lexicographers themselves (let alone consensus outside of that population), so it's not really something for Wikipedia to militate in favor of (since Wikipedia is much more about reflecting existing NPOV consensus). In other words, it's OK for your personal opinion to continue being in favor of it, but Wikipedia really shouldn't follow suit on matching that personal preference (because the lowercasing is so firmly established in WP:RS dictionaries). Regards, — ¾-10 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of Trademarks in this page.

The trademark names of Petrol is being used. This must stop. Krontach (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What trademark names? And why must it stop? --Biker Biker (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Krontach, "petrol" is an example of a genericized trademark, in which a word that was formerly a trademark has entered the language as a common noun. There are many examples, including aspirin, heroin, and petrol, which are now beyond all challenge as lowercase common nouns. Others, such as Kleenex and Band-Aid, exist in a gray area where their owners spend money on legal efforts to rescue them from genericization, but the general populace basically refuses to play along. Which side is winning at any given time depends on the specific word. For example, check out the discussion at Talk:Thread-locking fluid, where the corporation that owns the Loc-tite brand basically said "can we please avoid stepping on the protected status", and Wikipedians agreed that it was prudent. But "petrol" is a different class of example, because no one can credibly argue anymore that "petrol" is not a common noun (completely genericized) among the general populace in the UK and Commonwealth countries. In addition, what seals the deal in the case of "petrol" is that the word was already attested as a synonym of petroleum before anyone ever had the dubious idea to capitalize it and treat it as a tradename. The pharmaceutical industry is the industry that got really smart about this whole topic some decades ago, and started having a systematic way of establishing generic names and brand names from the very beginning of a new drug's commercialization. Thus a brand owner need never fear that his brand name will be genericized—because English speakers are given, from the start, a well-publicized alternative to genericizing only for lack of another word having currency. Regards, — ¾-10 18:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he was talking about 'gasoline'. Gasoline is not trademarked in the U.S. --Aflafla1 (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Diesel's test engine blew up

This is directed to some person who thought Diesel was working on a steam engine. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Diesel planned to use compressed air to introduce the coal dust into the engine cylinder but found it difficult to control the rate of injection so that the maximum pressure of the cylinder would not exceed a safe limit. After the experimental engine was wrecked by and explosion in the cylinder, Diesel gave up the idea of using coal dust and devoted his efforts to the use of liquid petroleum... copyright 1979 Krontach (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Another refrence:

Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Volume 35, Part 2 By American Society of Mechanical Engineers: "The first engine blew up as soon as fuel was injected." Krontach (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read anything else about Diesels, have you Tobias? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Root(e)s

Oh, shucks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Validity of efficiency claims/reliability of sources

Since this point already has 2 citation, it would seem nonsensical to add a request for citation to the claim that "The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency of any regular internal or external combustion engine." However, while I can't easily find any figures, simple calculations using conservative numbers indicate that efficiencies ~60% are possible with a high pressure ratio gas turbine engine. While that can be debated, there's little doubt that combined cycle power plants can be made much more efficient. As for the references, one is from a diesel engine manufacturer, while the other is from a diesel division of an engine manufacturer - it's reasonable to expect some bias from such sources (?) 80.229.172.13 (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

An important aspect of "diesel efficiency" isn't about their best efficiency, but a worse case. The diesel's great advantage over petrol piston engines, or gas turbines, is that they maintain their efficiency at low throttle much better. Any discussion of diesel efficiency needs to clarify both aspects. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5