User talk:Imotorhead64

Welcome

Hello Imotorhead64, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
• Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Imotorhead64, good luck, and have fun. --FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brayton cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compressor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cycle Truck.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jdp407 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cycle truck

Hello, Imotorhead64. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Cycle truck".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Diesel engine. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. When somebody disagrees with a change you have made to an article, you and the other involved editors are supposed to try to achieve a consensus regarding the change. Please see WP:BRD. Blindly insisting in re-adding the content can result in a block for edit warring, especially if you break the 3 reverts rule. Adding your proposed addition in talk pages like you did here and here does not contributes anything and will not result in your content being accepted in the article where you wanted to add it. Also sign your comments in talk pages. Please make yourself familiar with the guidelines and policy of Wikipedia. Read the links in bold. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Talk Page comment format

Thanks for joining Wikipedia. You're doing pretty well for a new editor in the talk pages, but a couple points may help. Please see WP:THREAD. This has to do with indenting and inserting comments between others. I've noticed several of your second and following paragraphs aren't indented like the first, and often start with a leading space which causes them to look

like this

...which is a bit distracting, and, I assume, unintended. You may want to edit your existing comments to more closely conform with common practice for clarity, but it's probably not worth the effort, as that can actually be disruptive if not done just right, per WP:TPG. This is mostly just FYI for the future.

We know that all this WP:ALPHABETSOUP stuff can be daunting to new editors. It's okay that you may stumble on some of these at first; this is part of the expected process. WP wants and needs more editors all the time, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have anytime along the way. Again, thanks for joining. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise A D Monroe III . I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with the format and such... I'll work on it.. Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. If you can stand a bit more of the WP acronyms, I'd like to point to one you are following quite well: WP:BOLD. Keep up the good work. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III I decided to give up trying to edit the Diesel engine page.. Even though I think the page would benefit from a better description of the history. I do intend to keep trying to edit here... so I appreciate your advise.

Sigh. Well, with literally millions of articles to choose from, with most needing quite a bit of work, I'm sure you can find several that can really use your efforts. But even if you view your experience at Diesel engine as getting burnt fingers, I don't want you to think you must avoid all stoves forever. Being BOLD is encouraged here, and is responsible for most of the definite progress in WP. My only possible recommendation for you is to maybe make tighter links between statements and refs, but even that should be taken with a grain of salt. If you can take it, I'd actually recommend going ahead and risk getting burnt a few more times. It's a rougher road, but will make you a veteran all the quicker. Good luck! --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III At least I'll try and get some information about Diesel's original cycle added to the page.. I hope it's not too contentious.. It really should be there since it's part of the history of the development of the engine. I removed all the information about Brayton and Niépce.. I just don't have the patients to debate this stuff endlessly... Imotorhead64 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Question on your first quote

Greetings! I could bring this up on the Talk Page article for Diesel engine if you'd prefer, but...

Be aware that with that RfC continuing as still open, your continuing edits adding information about Brayton - even one bit at a time - may be regarded by some of the editors who have challenged you as being inappopriate behavior, or even tendentious editing. (Note: I am not saying those things, but I really want to help make sure you won't get into further trouble by continuing to add material others may have challenged.) Again, I'd advise you to stop adding material about Brayton the way you're doing until that RfC ends. Sometimes the Wiki moves slow. (OTOH, you may not face any problems at all. Just don't want you even possibly getting burned or blanket reverted again without realizing why.)

Second, in your very first paragraph you added....

In most cases the definition of a "Diesel" engine has become that the engine must use compression ignition, however the original cycle proposed by Diesel in 1892 was a constant temperature cycle (a cycle based on the Carnot cycle) which would required compression much higher that what is needed for compression ignition. Diesel's idea was to compress the air so tightly that the temperature of the air would exceed that of combustion. In his 1895 patent Diesel describes the compression required for his cycle: "pure atmospheric air is compressed, according to curve 1 2, to such a degree that, before ignition or combustion takes place, the highest pressure of the diagram and the highest temperature are obtained-that is to say, the temperature at which the subsequent combustion has to take place, not the burning or igniting point. To make this more clear, let it be assumed that the subsequent combustion shall take place at a temperature of 700. Then in that case the initial pressure must be sixty-four atmospheres, or for 800* centigrade the pressure must be ninety atmospheres, and so on. Into the air thus compressed is then gradually introduced from the exterior finely divided fuel, which ignites on introduction, since the air is at a temperature far above the igniting-point of the fuel. The characteristic features of the cycle according to my present invention are therefore, increase of pressure and temperature up to the maximum, not by combustion, but prior to combustion by mechanical compression of air, and there upon the subsequent performance of work without increase of pressure and temperature by gradual combustion during a prescribed part of the stroke determined by the cut-oil. In later years Diesel realized his cycle would not work and he adopted the constant pressure cycle. 

Read it again and if you wouldn't mind tell me where the closing quote is following, the phrase 'required for his cycle:"'. And then, if you wouldn't mind, please tell me if the whole of the quoted text is being quoted verbatim from either of the sources you referenced. I won't read through the whole of the Google Book - it's your responsibility to tell me what page that quote is on and your link takes me to the title page. If it is in the second source, fine, but unfortunately I won't download a pdf from a site in China to confirm it - too high a virus risk for my taste. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 03:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello LaughingVulcan the quote is from Diesel's 1892 patent which is us # 542846 originally filed in 1892 granted in the USA in 1895 .

Here is a link https://www.google.com/patents/US542846

I should have added the patent # for clarity because in 1895 diesel filed another patent #608845 ...in the 1892 patent Diesel is talking about his cycle requiring very high compression... far beyond what is necessary for compression ignition... He wanted the temperature of compression to exceed that of the combustion. 

In his later patent # 608845 he changes to the constant pressure cycle... he even refers to the injector as a burner... which is very much that same as brayton.

2. In an internal-combustion engine, the combination of a cylinder and piston constructed and arranged to compress air to a degree producing a temperature above the igniting-point of the fuel; a distributing-valve for fuel; a cutoff for Varying the time and duration of the supply of fuel, and a burner placed in the combustion space and constructed for slow and perfect combustion'of the gradually-introduced stream of fuel, substantially as shown and described.

https://www.google.com/patents/US608845

Thanks for the advise... I dont plan to do any more editing about brayton... only minor edits... is someone wants to remove it well I guess I'll deal with it then but omitting the brayton history is really a disservice to the page... If they do that I'll remove the akroyd stuff too since the criteria should be the same and for now there is little support for the claims that are being made about akroyd... Imotorhead64 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, this will be long and I’m sorry!!! Let me see if I understand you…. I see you’ve added the close-quote to the article now (thanks!) - needs typo correction but that’s what we Wikignomes do. You’re quoting a patent of Diesel’s to establish your prior sentence, “Diesel's idea was to compress the air so tightly that the temperature of the air would exceed that of combustion.” (You’re saying he wanted to get to a temperature ignition point due to stroke compression alone(?) Ain’t the ideal gas law and precursors wonderful? ;) And didn’t I read Diesel darn near killed himself trying to get the temperature combustion idea to work when (possibly) it led to a positive feedback cycle?  :) )

Not only the temperature of ignition but he originally wanted to compress the air so tightly that it would exceed the temperature of combustion.. 

In every process of combustion two kinds of temperatures are to be distinguished i The temperature of ignition 2 The temperature of combustion The temperature of ignition is that temperature to which a fuel must be heated to ignite it in presence of air The temperature of combustion is that temperature subsequently generated by the chemical process of combustion after ignition has taken place A somewhat trivial but striking example of this is the common match its temperature of ignition is the temperature created by the friction at the surface being only a little over the temperature of its surroundings Immediately after the ignition has taken place a very high increase of temperature up to 600 800 and more degrees C is caused by the combustion The temperature of ignition is a constant value and only dependent on the physical qualities of the fuel It is very low for most fuels and the higher the pressure at which ignition is effected the lower the temperature Experiments conducted on that subject have resulted in astonishingly low temperatures On the other hand the temperature of combustion is a variabie value being dependent on many conditions especially on the quantity of air by which the combustion is maintained and which under all circumstances is higher than the temperature of ignition In all combustions hitherto known only one proceeding was recognized namely the generation of the combustion temperature by the process of combustion after ignition has taken place.  

https://books.google.com/books?id=pUcEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=diesel+rational+heat+motor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiplvaOm4LPAhUIPD4KHdduAAQQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=diesel%20rational%20heat%20motor&f=false

Anyway, if I got you correct, the patent isn’t in either of the sources you actually cited? If I’m right on that, you need to cite properly that patent. (And that Google link isn’t great since it has all kinds of OCR typo problems and you don’t want to replicate those typos into your quote.) And if I’m wrong and the patent is in your sources already listed, with that passage verbatim, just tell me.

The better way of handling your patent source (if I’m right about both paragraphs above,) is to make that quotation an explanatory note on the sentence, “Diesel's idea was to compress the air so tightly that the temperature of the air would exceed that of combustion.” And then make that note the whole quote including your lead-in phrase. (If you agree, let me know if you know how to do that... or if I'm confusing you with this paragraph and I'll give you an example.)

Now, aside from that quote, a patent filed by Diesel is a primary source. Make sure you understand Primary Sources, and be sure you’re not coming to a conclusion of your own with that quotation that Diesel is describing a constant temperature cycle. Rephrased, is it a constant temperature cycle because Diesel actually said that it is, or is it a constant temperature cycle because you know what he’s describing there is a constant temperature cycle? If it is the latter of the two, that is your own original research or a synthesized conlclsion, even if it is true. And your sentence, by itself, could thus be deletable on WP even though you’ve sourced it. How to prevent that: you’d be far better off also quoting any reliable secondary source which already acknowledges that his first patent is a description of a constant temperature cycle.

For example: [[1]] with it’s quote, “Engines operating on the Diesel cycle were originally intended to operate on a constant temperature cycle, in fact, the Diesel patents so stipulated.” seems perfect. It’s a September 9, 1916 Scientific American Supplement article on page 173. Old, but it still works IMVHO. And you’d cite it that way, as a Scientific American Supplement article of 9/9/16 as found on Google Books of weblink thus-and-such retrieved on 9/8/16... (and I think somewhere in WP there’s a statement as to how you cite Google Books as being where you find the sourc and I'll help you do that if you need/want the help.) Anyway, use this source after your primary source as a note and the second secondary source to back up your statement.

Finally, would I then also be correct to assume that your two cited sources support the, “In later years Diesel realized his cycle would not work and he adopted the constant pressure cycle.” ? And the next question would be, do either of those sources directly state that sentence? (Not as a quote… does say the either source state something like ‘Yeah, later I switched it over to the constant pressure cycle instead.’ or ‘Diesel would go on later to adopt a constant pressure cycle.’) Or is that sentence a conclusion of yours supported by knowing that the book reference “effectively proves” that he later switched to the cycle? The same rules about Diesel’s lecture being a primary source, checking if you’re making a conclusion as an expert opinion, and then needing to have a secondary source to back it up apply. (Again, I’m not sure what your secondary source implies.)

And now, in any event, you’re learning why editing Wikipedia is a sort of glacial thing. It can be a lot of work to make sure all of the above is correct.

A last tip, which has nothing to do with the above…. When you quote people’s signatures, that’s good if you want their attention. We (hopefully!) get notice that you’d like us to look at the replies. (And I only learned that a very short while ago since I spent a long time on break and not editing with my login…) But anyway, most of us who use custom signatures do so such that we can see our own text passages and quickly navigate what we’ve replied to. It isn’t illegal to just copy/paste usernames the way you’ve been doing, just a little awkward for all the other editors to follow. Ordinarily, Wikipedians don’t C/P others signatures like [[User:LaughingVulcan| <span style="color:yellow">Laughing</span><span style="color:green">Vulcan</span> ]][[User Talk:LaughingVulcan|^{Grok Page!}]]. It’s more than sufficient to just type out: [[User:LaughingVulcan|LaughingVulcan]]. (Or copy-paste the first part through the | pipe and just retype the name and closing brackets... Or change it to say "Hello to you! - you're becoming a great editor!" by doing this: "Hello to [[User:iMotorhead64|you!]] - you're becoming a great editor! It's also good to create your userpage with even a single word, just so your name doesn't come up as a redlink... but that's totally your option - there are editors who never do.

Anyhow, I hope all my rivers of words are helping you – they should help you to make edits which are way less questionable. Feel free to reply (or not!) and ‘till next time… LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:LaughingVulcan thanks for helping me learn about some things here... I know there are many typo's in the google patent links.. I'll try to improve those links and maybe just send them directly to the USPTO...?

Let me see if I can help you understand what happened with Diesel... somewhere around 1890 he listened to a lecture by Professor Von Linde (his boss) about how the best steam engine of the day were at best 7-10% efficient and Diesel decides that wasting 90% of the fuel is unacceptable. At this time there were already Brayton engines and otto engines and hot bulb engines... but all of those engines were also just over 10% efficient.. Every person that studies engine cycles / thermodynamics consider Carnot's book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Motive_Power_of_Fire) the bible of thermodynamics and they all consider the Carnot cycle the holy grail of efficiency... It has 2 kinds of compression and 2 kinds of expansion which in theory is the best way to create an efficient engine.. The only problem with the Carnot cycle is that no one has ever figured out how to make an engine that uses it... Diesel latches onto the concept of the Carnot cycle and develops the theory of the constant temperature cycle (based on the Carnot cycle) thinking he will certainly have the worlds most efficient engine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRXVZKH6WQ In 1892 Diesel writes a book titled "Theory and Construction of a Rational Heat-engine to Replace the Steam Engine and Combustion Engines Known Today" to gain support for building his engine. The translated version of the book is called "Theory and Construction of a Rational Heat Motor" https://books.google.com/books?id=2fRLAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA10&dq=rational+heat+motor+donkin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5r3rmYLPAhVFOj4KHVKYDAQQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=rational%20heat%20motor%20donkin&f=false

There is also another publication called "Diesel's Rational Heat Motor: A Lecture By Rudolf Diesel 1897" In which Diesel talks about the development of his engine. This is a different book and it's easy to confuse these two.. https://books.google.com/books?id=pUcEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=diesel+rational+heat+motor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiplvaOm4LPAhUIPD4KHdduAAQQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=diesel%20rational%20heat%20motor&f=false

There are 3 key features of diesel's original claims... 

1. The engine will not need any form of cooling... in fact the cylinder can be insulated for higher efficiency.

2. The compression must be very high and must produce more heat that the temperature created by combustion... not ignition but combustion... there's a big difference between these...  diesel wants a compression ratio of 250:1 but he realizes this may not be possible so he settle on a ratio of 90:1 

3. The engine should run on coal dust...

Here are some quotes from the book... "But let the air in a cylinder be compressed to 200 300 atmospheres by means of a quick moving piston and from the moment of maximum compression let a very small quantity of dust coal be gradually introduced into the compressed air as the piston moves Such an engine can be constructed as we will now proceed to show The theory here laid down indicates therefore the only direction in which efforts should be made in order to obtain the maximum possible utilisation of a combustible which can at present be realised With the help of this theory we ought to concentrate our endeavours to produce a rational heat motor and a theoretical ideal engine ought soon to replace the present very incomplete heat motors To design an engine of this kind is not very difficult the main points to be considered are the FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PERFECT COMBUSTION as deduced from the theory of Cycle V namely 1 Production of the highest temperature of the cycle temperature of combustion not by and during combustion but before and independently of it entirely by compression of ordinary air 2 Gradual introduction of finely divided combustible into the mass of highly compressed and therefore highly heated air during part of the return stroke of the piston The combustible is added in such a way that no increase in temperature of the gases consequent upon the process of combustion takes place and therefore the compression curve approximates closely to an isothermal After ignition combustion should not be left to itself but be regulated by an external arrangement maintaining the right proportion between the pressures volumes and temperatures 3 Correct choice of the proper weight of air G in proportion to the heat value Hr of the combustible according to formula 144 the limit of the compression temperature T1 which is here equal to that of combustion being previously so determined that it is possible to work and lubricate the engine without artificially cooling the cylinder walls If these three conditions are fulfilled the other operations of the cycle will follow in natural sequence As is well known dust coal ignites or rather explodes instantaneously It is therefore not difficult to carry out a process of combustion in the way indicated because coal dust as soon as it enters the air already heated much above the temperature of ignition ignites and communicates its heat of combustion to the surrounding charge Nor does combustion in the cylinder present much difficulty since we are accustomed to it in gas motors In the engine suggested it is even simpler because the maximum temperature T1 is never exceeded this temperature can be produced at will and may be much more easily maintained within moderate limits than in the present internal combustion engines In the motor we propose to construct based upon these principles explosive substances may also be used as combustibles and the theory of such an engine will be very similar to that already given From the above we may conclude a priori that the fifth cycle gives the maximum utilisation of the heat of any combustible in the shape of useful work because it in reality embodies the perfect Carnot cycle It follows also that the other cycles at constant pressure and constant volume give lower heat efficiencies within the same limits of temperature. Leaving for the present the practical utilisation of these cycles we will proceed to describe an engine realising as closely as possible the most perfect cycle of combustion the Fifth." 

Here is another important point to make about Diesel's proposed cycle... The way in which he plans to regulate the speed / output of the engine...

REGULATION OF THE SPEED: If the speed of the engine becomes too great the balls of the governor rise lifting a lever and rod which act in their turn on the coal valve V7 Figs 5 and 11 Plate II in such a way that it is released from the action of the cam and no coal enters As in gas engines when running at too high a speed the admission of combustible is thus suspended for a time It is easy however to regulate the speed still more effectually by varying the height of the annular coal chamber K Pig 11 in which case the governor should act upon the parts represented at Fig 12 

It's clear that Diesel is using an all or nothing system to regulate speed... suspended means stopped.. not varied.. Brayton had already figured out how to vary the speed / power produced by admitting more or less fuel in his 1887 and 1890 engines... Diesel would adopt Brayton's fuel regulation method.

13 METHOD OF UTILISING LIQUID COMBUSTIBLE Plate II Figs 13 to 16 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF A MOTOR WITH Two VERTICAL CYLINDERS SINGLE ACTING The general arrangement of the engine is seen at Fig 13 it consists of two single acting vertical combustion cylinders exactly alike with plunger pistons The cranks of both are at the same angle and combustion takes place alternately in each thus giving a motor stroke for every revolution Each cylinder forms a complete engine but when used singly it would not run so regularly The cylinders are well covered externally to prevent radiation 

This is diesel's proposed method of using liquid fuel... no mention of the air blast system he adopted.

 Fig 2 2 Ascent of the piston to its highest position which is determined by the radius of the crank this position is indicated by the dotted line marked 2 in Fig 13 During the up stroke the piston by the energy of previous motion compresses the air to a pressure of 44 to 90 atmospheres and it is thus heated from 600 to 800 C non motor stroke 

This was the proposed compression ratio:

There is another class of gas engines in which the inflammable mixture is compressed into a separate receiver Prom thence it is forced at constant pressure into the working cylinder passing a flame on its way which ignites it and the gases expand to atmospheric pressure It seems as if the gradual combustion thus obtained presented some analogy to our second condition but the similarity is only apparent This working cycle satisfies neither condition 2 nor the other conditions laid down as essential to rational combustion In the first place there is a mixture of air and combustible present which renders it impossible to produce the required temperature by compression and therefore this primary condition is not fulfilled Further even if combustion takes place gradually instead of suddenly the temperature rises rapidly and thus condition 2 is not realised Lastly the quantities of air used are as before much smaller than they should be otherwise the charge would not ignite and condition 3 is thus infringed This process has no analogy with the gradual introduction of the combustible at constant temperature into air heated to the maximum temperature by compression as in our case It is in fact similar to that of air engines with closed fires in which a mixture of air and combustible is burnt at constant pressure The quantity of air is however greater and combustion takes place in the cylinder itself instead of in a separate furnace These are of course important improvements as compared with air engines but they do not modify the cycle and there is no approach to a rational combustion regulated in the way here described 

Diesel is describing Brayton's 1872 vapor engine and states this cycle won't work because both fuel and air are mixed together and the air fuel mixture would combust if compressed to high pressure but Diesel neglects to mention Brayton's 1874 oil engine which only compresses air. The fuel in the 1874 engine is not introduced until combustion is desired.

Diesel finally finds a partner for his engine and he sets out build a working prototype based on his theories and research. The engine is constructed and has no form of cooling. Here is a download of diesel's book showing the development of the engine. http://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/3496617?name=Die%20Entstehung%20des%20Dieselmotors This is also a good source for information about the development of the Diesel engine. https://books.google.com/books?id=pUcEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=diesel+rational+heat+motor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiplvaOm4LPAhUIPD4KHdduAAQQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=diesel%20rational%20heat%20motor&f=false

After a year the engine is still not able to run on it's own power... It's obvious the proposed constant temperature cycle is not working as diesel intended... time to make changes...a second engine is constructed.. the compression is lowered, a cooling system is installed and the injection system is improved... liquid fuel is adopted and the engine runs on it's own for the first time in 1884 for about 1 minute on gasoline... Diesel abandon's his constant temperature cycle revises his views and files another patent. This time the patent is based on the constant pressure cycle... Not only is this a cycle developed by brayton but diesel also copies nearly to the "T" brayton's air blast injection system.. Diesel now refers to his injector as a burner... he says it's like a bunsen burner... also brayton's injector has been refered to as a burner.. Normally this would have been a problem but Brayton had died in 1893 and no one challenged Diesel. Diesel also doesn't refer to his cycle as a constant pressure cycle (because he knows Brayton was the one who gets credit for that) but almost all books on thermodynamics will always refer to a diesel engine in the following manner: "In the Air-Standard Diesel cycle engine the heat input Qin occurs by combusting the fuel which is injected in a controlled manner, ideally resulting in a constant pressure expansion process 2-3 as shown below."... https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Intro/Chapt.1_6/Chapter3c.html The ideal air-standard cycle is modeled as a reversible adiabatic compression followed by a constant pressure combustion process, then an adiabatic expansion as a power stroke and an isovolumetric exhaust. A new air charge is taken in at the end of the exhaust, as indicated by the processes a-e-a on the diagram. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/diesel.html

Diesel finally made a good running engine in 1897 and the engine was tested for efficiency.. at first the engine was 16% efficient.. Later the engine would be improved to 26%.

This is not OR .. this is known and published information that most folks chose to ignore.. 20:1 compression is more than sufficient for compression ignition and most diesel engines use about 17:1 compression. I hope you can understand my explanation and why it's important to include Brayton. Imotorhead64 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a little more information on various cycles... https://books.google.com/books?id=BmVKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR65&dq=diesel+used+brayton++cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2ooKUkYLPAhUCdj4KHZBmAgoQ6AEIRDAG#v=onepage&q=diesel%20used%20brayton%20%20cycle&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=3KDVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&dq=diesel+used+carnot+cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlpIzojYLPAhUFFT4KHaMpB_gQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diesel%20used%20carnot%20cycle&f=false I was thinking maybe it's best to move this discussion to the Diesel talk page since I think there are others who might also have the same questions... That way I won't need to repeat all of it... could you do that? Imotorhead64 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I’m going to break this up a little by using sub-headings. We can copy parts of this back over the the main Talk page, as we're nearing the end of discussing what WP policy says, but I would still wait for the RfC there to officially close first. One of the reasons I came here to your page to discuss it is so we could have a conversation about both Brayton and WP Policies wihtout being part of the Request for Comment - other RfC participants typically do not want to read this much text. Some of the things we're talking about like the whole section below about 'engines proper' - that does not belong on a Article Talk page at all, let alone in an RfC. I also am really am a little concerned that all this text there won't help the people you're trying to convince - see subsections below. Finally, once we move it over there, it once again becomes a free-for-all where any editor may chime in. (They can do it here, too... but this is likely to be the quieter place to discuss it.) But let me know and we can move/copy things back there. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Patent/citation

I see you placed in the patent reference from USPTO. Cool! I really think the quote is more of a note that justifies your first sentence. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Engines proper

It’s amazing that 10% efficient engines were still considered superior to horse power. I guess that doesn’t say a whole lot for the energy efficiency of biological engines? Or maybe just hay bills and mean time between horse failures.  ;) Then again, I’d hate to fly in a plane powered by a hamster wheel of horses.

I’ve also since read elsewhere about Diesel’s coal dust engine, a little. It is hard to visualize such an engine not getting a seized piston quickly or variable compression due to buildup – did he ever actually get a coal dust prototype to run at all? I’d bet not, since we eventually got the switchover to liquid fuel. (And I also wonder if one could, today, try and build a small scale engine that fires on something like flour dust. But I’ve only ever thought about buying small scale steam engine replicas…. Maybe one of these days I’ll get one of those for fun and education. Anyway….)

I see you’ve laid out the story above now, and it’s more clear as a narrative like that… We’ve still got troubles as below, but I’m starting to get where you’re coming from when you state that Brayton is important to the history of Diesel. Sadly, I’ve still got some concerns for you.

I’ve looked at the other references, but I’m sorry that I won’t download the one you cited. (Also sorry that I said it was China when it’s obviously a Swiss tld…. Either way, I try to not download pdfs when possible that don’t have a web display, even ones cited on Wikipedia.) Sorry if that was the one that could answer my question about if the coal dust engine ever fired.

Now I’ve got to switch gears to WP stuff for a minute… LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

Did you understand my point about primary sources above? (Like Diesel himself lecturing.) Using them requires great care, and you can't use them in an article to say, "X said 'This,' which summarized means 'Y.'" Quoting primary sources often ends up in the text being disallowed because it's being misused in the context of what Wikipedia is. But not always. It also factors in below. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

OR/Synth

I’ll have one more go here about trying to explain what OR/SYNTH is at Wikipedia – because I was very confused when someone first explained it to me. I think you may be seeing our quoting that policy at you the same as telling you that you’re making up something. I’m not using it that way and I don’t think others necessarily were, either. I don’t think anyone who takes the time to read all this you’ve wrote thinks you’re making up something out of whole cloth (and if I’m not mistaken, it’s not the first time you’ve tried explaining the Brayton/Diesel story to those in the RfC even though this one is cleaner.)

^{below is timeline edited from LaughingVulcan's orignial}

• Brayton had developed a viable engine in 1874 that burned oil in the cylinder and used the constant pressure cycle.
• Brayton pioneered the meter fuel injection pump in 1874
• Brayton switched to the 4 stroke cycle and pioneered a direct solid fuel injection engine in 1887, This was the first engine to use the lean burn system. This engine is nearly identical (except for compression ignition) to every 4 stroke direct injection diesel engine made since the air blast system was abandoned.
• in 1890 Brayton made an air blast engine that used the lean burn system. this engine was nearly identical to the engine diesel would adopt as his production engine in 1897.
• In 1892 Diesel announces his proposed constant temperature cycle which is meant to need no form of cooling, have very high compression and use coal dust as fuel.
• In 1893 Brayton dies
• In 1893 diesel constructs a test engine.. this engine will never run on it's own power.
• At some point Diesel switched from his coal dust proposal to a liquid fuel.
• In 1894 diesel constructs a second test engine with lower compression and a cooling system , the engine finally runs.. only for a few minutes at first... but problems are being solved...
• In 1897 a final version of the engine is tested and it's determined that the engine is ready for production. The engine is now a constant pressure cycle engine with an air blast injection system... very much like the Brayton of 1890...

*Diesel remodeled his engine (actually restarted from scratch if I’ve got it) and it used a constant pressure cycle using air blast injection. Do I have that right / OK so far?

Now, here’s the part where we get into big trouble…. The parts in blue below are what I see as the most obvious conclusions about the statements you seem to be making. (And when I say “you,” again I’m not saying you just made this stuff up, and I'm not saying this is just the personal opinion of iMotorhead64, and that you couldn’t find other Diesel experts who’d agree with every word of what you’ve said…. If I and others thought you're just making stuff up, we wouldn’t have taken all this time with you and things would have gotten unpleasantly different. There are people on WP that do just make stuff up – that happens at WP and is a whole different level of not-rightness.) So, if I’ve got what you've put forward:

^{below is edited history collaboration edited from LaughingVulcan's original}

• Diesel pursued development of a constant temperature cycle engine which ran on coal dust.
• Brayton developed an engine demonstrating constant pressure cycle using air blast injection.
• Brayton used both those terms in describing his invention. or Others (as is not Diesel) have directly published or stated Brayton’s invention is a “constant pressure cycle” using “air blast injection,” using those exact words.
• Brayton died.
• Diesel changes the focus of his work, because what he was doing wasn’t working.
• Diesel files a patent using the same constant pressure cycle as Brayton did and he copies the air-blast injection.
• Diesel doesn’t refer to it as a constant pressure cycle because Brayton would then get the credit for that.
• Other sources describe the characteristics of “Diesel’s” engine using the same processes Brayton had developed earlier and stating Brayton was really there first.

Of all those statements which have to be cited (both blue and black above), let's talk about the black parts first: The year Brayton died in and the year patents were applied for certainly aren’t in dispute. Those facts (unless other reliably published sources actually contest the dates) may not even need citation directly but I would just for completeness. I’ve read about Diesel’s coal dust engine a bit… that he tried to develop that isn’t in dispute that I can see. And that he switched up his design later to liquid fuel - I don't think anyone is disputing that. But those facts ought still be cited to secondary sources who said they happened, not just that you can link the patent directly and call it done.

But, those blue words above are (still currently) the statements (or conclusions) that unless you can cite sources by all the criteria we’ve discussed earlier which state exactly what the blue text says…. aren’t allowed.

Collapsing earlier text for current clarity

Let's take just the second to last one (Diesel didn't acknowledge Brayton because Diesel knew Brayton would get the credit for it.) Until you find a V/RS/SEC source that says something explicit like, “Diesel did not want Brayton to get the credit for "his" engine,” or, “Diesel knew of Brayton’s work and intentionally copied it following Brayton’s death,” to Wikipedia, they are unsubstantiated conclusions. It doesn't matter that this seems like an obvious conclusion to you, an expert. You can’t be the source of that and neither can anyone claiming to be an Expert – it must be sourced that some reliable authority published that exact conclusion, to state it in the article. (Now if there is no sources that directly say this, and you've convinced you can lay out the case you just did.... Then the thing for you to do is to write a book saying these things and have it published. Then some other editor can use your book as a secondary citation here at Wikipedia that cites you. It would have to be something like a book or journal article, though, and not just a blog write-up - blogs fail WP:RS at Wikipedia.) For the very last one, it doesn’t even matter that you’ve proven to me these primary sources are using the same terms that describe Brayton’s work. What would matter is that you have a source that directly says the characteristics (air blast injection, constant pressure cycle) of the “Diesel” engine were originally discovered and implemented by Brayton first. By that I mean something that when explicitly quoted says, "the engine of Diesel used the principles discovered and implemented by Brayton." Not, "read this, then read this, then read this, then you'll see that the the fundamental characteristics of the Diesel were Brayton's work." - even if it is true that is a Synth of Original Research. Unless you can source the blue statements directly I think you have a high chance of not getting any of it added at all, or you'll simply get it reverted again. (You shouldn’t just state the facts and let the reader draw a conclusion that Diesel stole Brayton’s work by implication. You need some credible - perhaps very credible - source that makes that allegation.) I believe I’ve seen at least one source (one of yours?) that already mentions Brayton in a single entry on a timeline of Diesel development, though. That's not enough, but it may be a foundation that can lead to a source that does state that. It may be worth the time to continue forward, if and only if you can dig up sources which already say Diesel piggybacked (or stole, whichever) from Brayton. LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But I think you're getting that you need sources that (for example) say Brayton was really there first, not just assertions from primary texts that may show to an expert that Brayton was there first. Without refs like that most of what you're showing me won't last, unfortunately.... And if the blue parts aren't properly cited, then someone may question why Brayton is mentioned at all. (Even though you've shown me a strong case that Brayton should be. And no, you shouldn't just take all this back to talk to prove you're right... Because what we're really discovering is that you also need sources that have already directly said the things that you know.) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 15:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are beginning to understand LaughingVulcan Here is a more accurate timeline...

• Brayton had developed a viable engine in 1874 that burned oil in the cylinder and used the constant pressure cycle.
• Brayton pioneered the meter fuel injection pump in 1874
• Brayton switched to the 4 stroke cycle and pioneered a direct solid fuel injection engine in 1887, This was the first engine to use the lean burn system. This engine is nearly identical (except for compression ignition) to every 4 stroke direct injection diesel engine made since the air blast system was abandon.
• in 1890 Brayton made an air blast engine that used the lean burn system.. this engine was nearly identical to the engine diesel would adopt as his production engine in 1897.
• In 1892 Diesel announces his proposed constant temperature cycle which is meant to need no form of cooling, have very high compression and use coal dust as fuel. The engine is throughly described in his book.
• In 1893 Brayton dies
• In 1893 diesel constructs a test engine based on his book.. this engine will never run on it's own power.
• In 1894 diesel constructs a second test engine with lower compression and a cooling system , the engine finally runs.. only for a few minutes at first... but problems are being solved...
• In 1897 the third engine is tested and it's determined that the engine is ready for production. The engine is now a constant pressure cycle engine with an air blast injection system... very much like the Brayton of 1890...

Also I don't think there's enough evidence to discredit Diesel... All I'm pointing out is that Diesel did end up using a different cycle than the one he originally proposed... and that cycle was the constant pressure cycle developed by Brayton.. There is plenty of research stating that the Diesel was a constant pressure cycle. Also Diesel did make an engine that used nearly all if the features of the 1890 Brayton air blast engine... If Brayton had been alive he would have likely sued Diesel for patent infringement.. and Brayton did make a solid fuel injection lean burn engine in 1887 that was nearly identical to Diesel engines that would be made from the 1920's to the present day.. all i'm trying to do is include the things that Brayton did. Brayton deserves a little credit for his pioneering achievements.. Not mentioning Brayton in a page on Diesel engines is not presenting an accurate version of the history of the development of the engine. Imotorhead64 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm getting what you're saying. Again, I respect that you have a lot of knowledge on this subject. Possibly (probably?) more than anyone else who's been commenting to you. But if you answer the question, "Why is Brayton important to the history of the "Diesel" engine?" (as you have been....) I think you open up a series of statements that you absolutely must have good secondary and tertiary sourcing for. Brayton's pioneering achievements are discussed on the page about Brayton, correct? But I'm not saying "Don't mention Brayton at all on Diesel." I'm suggesting you need to have the sourcing foundations to do so, and that show the context to which his involvement should be mentioned. Along with challenging you to either find reliable sources for the blue statements, or to use your expertise to get them RS published so that eventually other editors will get Brayton the credit deserved.  :) LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 16:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Laughing Vulcan I really do appreciate it.. I'll take these issues one by one and provide some sources and you can tell me if this will or not... and if not then why?

• Brayton had developed a viable engine in 1874 that burned oil in the cylinder and used the constant pressure cycle.

Does this provide enough information to support that claim?

Both of these sources show the engine was constant pressure and burned oil in the cyliner. hhttps://books.google.com/books?id=wwZJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA175&dq=brayton+fuel+injection&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1r4DbvYXPAhUTzWMKHcSUAagQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=brayton%20fuel%20injection&f=false

Check out page 42 and 4

https://books.google.com/books?id=3RUJAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA7&lpg=RA2-PA7&dq=brayton+oil+engine+1874&source=bl&ots=7uQQ7L7WT9&sig=eMv8HF6BNKOWsnWtjqoY25G4Qzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrweO2uoXPAhUCQiYKHZymCJUQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=brayton%20oil%20engine%201874&f=false

• Brayton pioneered the meter fuel injection pump in 1874

This talks about Brayton developing an accurate oil pump.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VQ5HAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA549&dq=brayton+oil+pump&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh_JeMwIXPAhVW6mMKHb5UAwgQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=brayton%20oil%20pump&f=false

• Brayton switched to the 4 stroke cycle and pioneered a direct solid fuel injection engine in 1887, This was the first engine to use the lean burn system. This engine is nearly identical (except for compression ignition) to every 4 stroke direct injection diesel engine made since the air blast system was abandoned.

This one is more difficult... not much was ever published about Brayton's 1887 engine. And there is very little online information about it. There is information in some technical books but those are only in a few university libraries.. but the only available online information is the patent...

https://www.google.com/patents/US432114

• in 1890 Brayton made an air blast engine that used the lean burn system.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bppDAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=brayton+peroleum+engine+warwick+show&source=bl&ots=hyqfpD-1t1&sig=48400nm2C5IaN6UI46ZsaDv0TG0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM6Y7yyIXPAhVV6GMKHWhFB-4Q6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=brayton%20peroleum%20engine%20warwick%20show&f=false

at the Show As the subject of hydro carbon motors is now attracting very considerable attention we propose to describe the older type of Brayton engine which perfectly illustrates the principle of working and later on we may explain the differences which have been introduced in the newer patterns The Brayton engine is quite distinct from any of the types which appeared at the Show in that no attempt is made to gasify or to vaporise or even to heat the petroleum spray The oil is finely divided atomised in fact in a large quantity of air and is flashed into flame instantly The combustion resembles that of flour dust or coal dust suspended in the air and which is so rapid that it constitutes an explosion The combustible material is divided into infinitely small particles and each particle is surrounded with an ample supply of oxygen to which it exposes a surface which is very great in relation to its hulk Under these conditions combustion is exceedingly rapid and spreads from particle to particle with amazing celerity The oil is burned suspended in air its combustion is complete and is not impaired or delayed by metallic surfaces on which can accumulate The method of ignition is entirely novel As oil is nut admitted till the moment of explosion is no question of timing valves or of a certain degree of compression before the can be fired A brilliantly incandescent surface be maintained in the cylinder all the time ready ignite the first drop of oil that comes in contact it To do this advantage is taken of the well phenomenon of flameless combustion which is shown on the lecture table and but seldom found practical work A jet of air laden with hydro vapour is made 10 impinge continuously on a coil platinum wire which has been previously heated as long as the jet is continued the platinum is maintained at a glowing temperature within the cylinder 

http://vintagemachinery.org/mfgindex/imagedetail.aspx?id=6367

The method of ignition is entirely novel. As the oil is not admitted till the moment of explosion, there is no question of “timing” valves, or of attaining a certain degree of compression before the charge can be fired. A brilliantly incandescent surface can be maintained in the cylinder all the time, ready to ignite the first drop of oil that comes in contact with it. To do this,

advantage is taken of the well-known phenomenon of flameless combustion, which is often shown on the lecture table, and but seldom found in practical work. A jet of air laden with hydrocarbon vapor is made to impinge continuously on a coil of platinum wire which has been previously heated, and as long as the jet is continued the platinum is maintained at a glowing temperature within the cylinder.

Fuel control:

The oil pump M, Fig. 61, is operated by an eccentric driven by one to two gearing from the crankshaft. The exact length of stroke of this pump is determined by a wedge, which occupies a position in a slot between the ends of the eccentric-rod and of the pump plunger. When the engine is running above the normal speed, the wedge is raised by the governor; when it is running below the normal, the wedge is lowered and the stroke of the pump is nearly equal to that of the eccentric. 

this engine was nearly identical to the engine diesel would adopt as his production engine in 1897.

• In 1892 Diesel announces his proposed constant temperature cycle which is meant to need no form of cooling, have very high compression and use coal dust as fuel.

https://books.google.com/books?id=s39VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA390&dq=diesel+constant+temperature+and+carnot+cycle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim3vnkzYXPAhUEwWMKHbAQDQ4Q6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=diesel%20constant%20temperature%20and%20carnot%20cycle&f=false

Is it possible to site Diesel's own book?

https://books.google.com/books?id=2fRLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=diesel+rational+heat+motor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqiP-rzoXPAhUKwmMKHZOUDXQQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=diesel%20rational%20heat%20motor&f=false

• In 1892 Brayton dies

http://todayinsci.com/B/Brayton_George/BraytonGeorge.htm

• In 1893 diesel constructs a test engine.. this engine will never run on it's own power.

• At some point Diesel switched from his coal dust proposal to a liquid fuel.
• In 1894 diesel constructs a second test engine with lower compression and a cooling system , the engine finally runs.. only for a few minutes at first... but problems are being solved...
• In 1897 a final version of the engine is tested and it's determined that the engine is ready for production.

All of this is in the book titled Die Entstehung des Dieselmotors”, Verlag von Julius Springer

The book cronicles the development of diesel's engine from inception to 1897 This link should download the book http://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/3496617?name=Die%20Entstehung%20des%20Dieselmotors

There are also many details in the book titled: The Rational Heat Motor

https://books.google.com/books?id=pUcEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=diesel+rational+heat+motor+lecture&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieyNXGlYbPAhWEGj4KHemQC5MQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=diesel%20rational%20heat%20motor%20lecture&f=false

Here diesel describes the first year of experimentation:

I Period 1893 No 1 The first diagram actually produced was accompanied by very violent explosions and destruction of the indicator The same accident has often occurred during the time of the development of the engine so far all trials were connected with great danger and the decision to try new arrangements was difficult to arrive at and was often reached only after weeks of discussion I desire to thankfully acknowledge the assistance of Messrs Lucian Vogel and Fritz Reicheubach engineers with regard to the development of the new motor They devoted themselves to the experiments with never failing perseverance and thus most successfully advanced the work At the present time the combustions in the cylinder take place smoothly and with certainty and are entirely controlled by the governor so that during the easy running of the engine one can scarcely perceive the beginnings of the power stroke In addition to that it is worthy of mention that during the many years of the experimental period not one accident has happened to any one of the attendants Nos 2 3 4 Eliminate the explosions but show no real development In this first period idle running of the engine was not yet effected it was only proved that combustions were obtainable according to the proposed proceedings Then followed an entire reconstruction of the motor.

II Period 1894 Nos 5 to 12 Through many failures a marked combustion period was gradually generated in the beginning very restless then quieter 10 to 12 but never any real development of the diagram Nevertheless quiet running was obtained and thereby it was proved that the achievement was possible although very little had as yet been accomplished In addition to that several diagrams showed quite correct development and large increase of work but they were obtained only occasionally and the conditions of their repetition could not be determined .

III Period 1894 During this period the ignition of the fuel was tried by means of kinematic arrangements having for their purpose to make the quantity of fuel to correspond to the travel of the piston according to theory This apparently correct idea led to entirely misleading results During a period of ten months we obtained in spite of all rebuilding only such diagrams having the appearance of Nos 13 and 14 without any areal development This period was the most unsatisfactory during this entire course of experiments and entire faith of all interested in the scientific truth which guided us was all that kept the experimenters from abandoning the whole matter at that time.

IV Period 1894 Entirely abolishing the III period diagram No 8 of the second period was resumed As it could be generated occasionally it would have to be often repeated We succeeded in so doing as proved by diagrams 15 to 18 whose combustions already showing an increase of work were however going on very irregularly and many failures happening .

V Period 1895 6 Nos 19 to 22 still show a real development and increase of diagram but combustion is still irregular Nos 23 24 and 28 finally show good quiet developing of the diagrams The motor was run through a period of several months accompanied by thermal results which even at that time far surpassed those obtained by any existing similar motor Diagram 27 is obtained after the fuel supply has been shut off it is to be seen that compression and expansion line nearly coincide No 29 is a starting diagram The starting has been effected by means of compressed air After the reversion of the gearing a number of normal diagrams at full capacity is visible Nos 30 to 33 show several endeavors to change the fuel supply but they did not give good results.

VI Period 1897 The typical diagrams of the petroleum motor to day entirely developed are here shown as determined by Professor Schroter No 35 taken under normal conditions shows the compression line The top which is rounded off shows the combustion as taking place isothermally and the expansion follows No 34 represents the successive relief from full load to almost zero The decrease of the diagram by shortening the admission period of the fuel is shown as is the case in steam engines when the decrease of diagrams is effected by less admission This diagram shows one of the most valuable qualities of the motor its entire similarity to the steam engine in regard to form of the diagram and regulation Here one must not be deceived by the scale as the diagrams still appear very narrow Their true meaning is to be seen from Fig 9 in which the diagram of the steam engine of the explosion motor and the rational motor are drawn for the same cylinder volume in the same scale it is evident that the diagram of the new motor is by far the largest as to area Diagram 36 is taken at half load Diagram 37 is the diagram of the air pump In this period and with these diagrams results were obtained upon which a report will be made later The most extensive experiments were made with this motor partly by professors and partly by representatives of industrial establishments as follows    

• The engine is now a constant pressure cycle engine with an air blast injection system... very much like the Brayton of 1890...

https://books.google.com/books?id=0sgqAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1106&dq=diesel+brayton+constant+pressure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj785izmobPAhUKwGMKHevVBZsQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=diesel%20brayton%20constant%20pressure&f=false

In his book The Cycles of Gas and Oil Engines James Roots states:

It is upon this principle that the Diesel engine is constructed but instead of having a cycle of one revolution as in the Brayton engine it has two revolutions and the cycle is in other respects similar to the de Rochas except that continuous combustion the distinguishing feature of this class is substituted for explosion The Diesel engine patent ad 1892 in this country has been described by the inventor as novel in principle On reference to the table Class 3 Type 10 it will be found that there are a considerable number working upon the same principle namely continuous combustion and the inventor possibly made this claim not knowing what had been d ne previously There does not appear to be anything new in the engine beyond the very high compression employed and this is decidedly original

Imotorhead64 (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As a reference stating that Brayton’s engine is a constant pressure engine, the SAE reference works for me – initially.

Aside on your referencing… Do you know how to reformat Google books searches so that the words you searched on aren’t highlighted when you repost the link? And when you cite this to Wikipedia, you cite the actual source (S.A.E. Bulletin, Volumes 11-12, p. 175) and that you retrieved it from http:// etc. google book link?

I don't know how to do this but I can learn.. I'll try to get better at citing sources...  

Aging may also be a question on that source, though that’s not automatically a problem – I just haven’t looked at that at all.

If you are referring to the age of the material, most of the books containing information on the subject are old. Many modern book don't even acknowledge that Brayton made piston engines. There are a few recent books that discuss the Brayton and Diesel relationship  but they are not available online and most libraries wouldn't have them ether. 

Citing Diesel’s own work is tricky. (Both the patent and lectures he wrote.) They are primary sources. Unfortunately, all policy tells you initially is to “use care” using them, without much elaboration. We use care with primary sources for several reasons, not the least of which is that nobody believes that a source directly connected to a story is Neutral (because a source directly connected is not assumed to necessarily apply proper due weight.) You can use primary sources to do things like verify a patent was filed on thus-and-such-date, verify that a person is quoted as saying thus-and-such if you’re citing that someone else said they said thus-and-such in a different reference… The other reason to take care is because WP operates as a summary of knowledge, and as such (for reasons I’ll skip) you have to rely more on secondary and tertiary sources than primary ones.

Ok well there are a few book but again nothing available online that use sources other than Diesel. I could site some books but most people wouldn't have access to them. 

I’m going to skip ahead and then I’ll come back to your other sources if necessary. Coming back up to meta for just a second, I’m going to skip down to the last sentence of the history, “The engine is now a constant pressure cycle engine with an air blast injection system... very much like the Brayton of 1890...”

Let’s apply SYNTH policy to this one sentence: What you need to do, to make that non-SYNTH, is to find a secondary source that says something like, “Diesel’s successful engine of 1897 used the cycle and injection system very much like Brayton’s of 1890.” What you can’t do is prove your other eight points and then conclude that because Brayton made a constant pressure air blast injection motor in 1890, Brayton was the original pioneer of concepts that Diesel then later used. That’s synthy. Not because that’s not true when you read through the eight other points, but because you used the article to prove that conclusion. That’s different from someone else having made that conclusion and you’re now including it in the article.

I think I get your point but why does it matter what Diesel did? The facts are pretty clear that the Brayton constant pressure engine existed before the Diesel. There are several published articles by well respected authors that make that statement. I'm not trying to say that Diesel copied the Brayton.. All i'm saying is the Brayton (constant pressure engine) existed before Diesel...  

Is this not sufficient evidence to show that Brayton was the first to make an engine similar to Diesel?

Brayton's Invention Brayton's invention consisted in a pump for compressing air and gas a reservoir for holding the mixture and a cylinder fitted with a working piston It was designed with the distinct object of utilizing the heat during slow combustion This is one of the earliest patents covering the principles upon which the Diesel and semi Diesel engines operate Combustion was induced in the Brayton motor by a torch or open gas flame operating through a series of wire gauzes to prevent back action from the ignited charge In 1874 United States patent No 151468 was granted to Brayton for an improvement on his early invention The improvement consisted in a better means for mixing petroleum vapors and air Twenty one years after Brayton patented his motor Dr Rudolph Diesel a German engineer published a pamphlet in Germany in which he expressed views which he considered should be held by the designers of gas engines so as to obtain the greatest efficiency The principal points to attain were the production of the highest temperature of the cycle before combustion takes place this high temperature being obtained solely by the compression of air the introduction of the fuel into this compressed highly heated air by slow degrees at the commencement of the next expansion stroke in such a manner that combustion would occur at a constant temperature The air and gas were to be adjusted so that no cooling water would be necessary.

Diesel's Method Similar These theoretical proposals of Diesel did not differ fundamentally from those applied by Brayton Diesel suggested compression by two stages up to six hundred pounds per square inch This was much higher than Brayton contemplated Diesel also discharged at constant volume instead of at constant pressure as Brayton's cycle No American manufacturer would take up Brayton's ideas Diesel in this respect was more fortunate and while he reaped but a small reward for his work he has given his name to a new heat work cycle and has gained immortal fame while the American pioneer is almost forgotten Dr Diesel enlisted support from Krupp and the Augsburg Engineering Company These firms advanced money for experimental machines and tested them until they became commercial successes Later on these firms pooled their interests in Diesel's patents and formed the German Diesel Engine Company The main difference between Diesel motors and other types of internal combustion engines are The much higher compression of the air and the consequent absence of ignition devices such as electric sparks.

This article appears in several publications. Some are technical / engineering magazines.

https://books.google.com/books/content?id=BmVKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR64&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U34B_imfIPgUpjagrKYW_kPUm4cXA&ci=31%2C108%2C928%2C177&edge=0 Imotorhead64 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I’m still not saying Brayton can’t be mentioned whatsoever in the article, just that I don’t see how, without the scope of the other sentences (or an RS saying it like above) you’ll get there. And then, even if you did, then you’ll face questions about if the amount of text you’re adding really gives due weight to the contributions, yet again from a policy point of view. And again, I’ll come back to your other sourcing at look at them if that’s still necessary and desired – I just haven’t had the time since you wrote it, yet. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 13:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A little more on the subject of synth and Diesel... I think it's important to keep in mind that the development of the "Diesel" engine did not start or stop with Diesel the man... It's obvious that some things like the piston and crankshaft and flywheels already existed before Diesel contemplated an engine... It would be pointless to mention the inventor of these things because I think it's pretty obvious that they already existed... However some things are not obvious like a metered fuel injection system, compression ignition, and the constant pressure cycle.... How / why is it not ok to mention things that clearly existed but may not be so obvious? Stating that Brayton made an oil fueled constant pressure engine and that Diesel used a constant pressure cycle is not like saying 1+2=3... it's more like saying that 3 was not really the invention of diesel... 3 was invented by someone else and yes diesel used 3 and it was well know that 3 was already known. If we were talking about the inventor of spokes for wheels (Joe Spoke) would it no be allowed to state that Joe didn't invent the wheel? Should it not be allowed to mention Joe Hub (inventor of the hub) or Joe Rim (inventor of the rim) ? After all the spokes do depend on the hub and rim.... Would it be considered synth to state that Joe Spoke used both Joe Rim and Joe Hub's inventions? Imotorhead64 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

From "Power" Vol 27 Jan 1907 : Prof H Diederichs agreed with Mr Junge's remarks concerning the Brayton cycle The constant pressure gas engine he said has never been developed to the extent that the promise of its cycle seemed to warrant Although comparison of the formulas for thermal efficiency would show the efficiency of the Otto cycle to be higher than that of the Brayton constant pressure cycle this is not true in practice because the operating limit of the Brayton cycle is not fixed by the compression pressure but by the maximum pressure occurring in the cycle Professor Diederichs demonstrated by diagram that the conditions under which the constant pressure cycle shows superior efficiency to the Otto cycle are considerably within the range of the actual conditions obtained in the Diesel engine Prof RC Carpenter presented an interesting resume of the work of George B Brayton inventor of the constant pressure cycle The Brayton engine in operation he said was comparatively noiseless and gave an indicator diagram similar to that of the Corliss steam engine Brayton however fell into the error of designing his engine to operate at relatively low maximum pressures in consequence of which its economy was very poor Professor Carpenter also pointed out that the Brayton cycle differs from the Diesel theoretical cycle in that ignition combustion takes place at constant pressure whereas it is supposed to occur at constant temperature in the Diesel engine In practice however the Diesel engine more often operates on the Brayton cycle than on the theoretical Diesel cycle Prof Arthur J Wood said that although comparative figures in the appendix to Mr Junge's paper This appendix was an interesting but lengthy mathematical analysis not susceptible of abstracting Eds showed a higher efficiency for the Diesel than for the Otto cycle This was due to the difference in the compression pressures of the comparison Mr Junge having taken the same maximum pressure for both engines Had the Otto engine compressed to the same degree as the Diesel this efficiency would have been higher Professor Wood apparently overlooked the fact that it is impossible to compress in the Otto type of engine to as high a pressure as that employed in the Diesel engine Editors. link https://books.google.com/books?id=0sgiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA42&dq=diesel+and+brayton+constant+pressure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwins-jS9I3PAhWGbSYKHeXWCJsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diesel%20and%20brayton%20constant%20pressure&f=false

Proceedings of the Engineers' Club of Philadelphia Vol XXXIII

THE BRAYToN CONSTANT PRESSURE ENGINE To those of us who are more or less accustomed occasionally to consult the standard text books on the engine the name of Brayton is not unfamiliar We properly refer to him indeed as the father of the in this country for he built gas engines in the States before Doctor Otto produced in Europe operating on his cycle Brayton's engine operated on the constant cycle and strangely enough since his day relatively work has been done in perfecting an engine of this type although before the advent of the Otto engine engine had become a commercial success In view these circumstances it is most natural and logical inquire why engines of the Otto type superseded of the Brayton The reasons for this are quite numer ous and probably all of them will never be known are quite obvious and among the latter may be the following 1 Brayton failed to design his engine in such a that the work of compression could be done in the cylinder where combustion took place This lead to development of a type far more cumbersome and less efficient mechanically than engines of the Otto in which compression and useful work are accomplished in a single cylinder 2 In the Brayton engine ignition proved difiicult to accomplish This condition was due in part to the fact that Brayton knew nothing of the perfected electric ignition used universally to day Furthermore he found it difficult to maintain the burning gas within the cylinder during the period that the inlet valve was open He also had great difficulty in maintaining a constant quality of mixture owing to the very crude means employed for mixing the air and fuel in proper proportions 3 More than this he did not employ feasible means for proportioning the work of compression to the work of the cycle nor did he so far as we know make any attempt to utilize the heat of the exhaust 4 The mechanical construction of the day did not permit of utilizing a large volume ratio with consequent high compression pressures if indeed Brayton realized the advantage of the latter as a means toward producing high thermal efficiency With these limitations it is remarkable that Brayton succeeded as well as he did although it is quite evident that he could not hope to compete with engines of the Otto cycle while working under these limitations There are however a number of inherent advantages in engines of the constant pressure type Let us first examine these and then consider by what means it will be possible in the light of modern scientific development to overcome these disadvantages or limitations which operated against the success of the Brayton engine DEFINITION AND ADVANTAGES OF THE CoNsTANT PRESSURE CYCLE The constant pressure cycle is one in which the heat is added and rejected isopiestically or at constant pressure In the ideal card given in Fig 1 DE is the admission line In order to maintain this line at constant pressure beyond the point c it is necessary to add heat while the volume increases At the point e cut ofi occurs and adiabatic expansion takes place along the line ex to the end of the stroke when the products of combustion escape to atmosphere From A to B cooling takes place at constant pressure and adiabatic compression ensues from B to c At c the maximum pressure of the cycle is reached The air compressed is then delivered to the receiver from c to D From the card it is evident that the constant pressure cycle engine may very properly be likened to an air motor in which the air about to enter the cylinder is mixed with fuel and the latter burned so that instead of air the products of combustion enter the cylinder while the heat ing assists in maintaining the pressure constant It should be here noted that in an engine of the constant pressure cycle it is possible to compress in the working cylinder and by delivering air into a receiver from C to D on the card permit it to flow back into the cylinder from D to e during the time that heat is added The fact that the air compressed is discharged from the cylinder der makes it possible to utilize a portion of the heat of the exhaust by allowing it to raise the temperature the air already compressed while the latter is again entering the cylinder Thus the constant pressure cycle makes it possible to effect a most important saving from the heat of the exhaust which in all other cycles is either com pletely lost or if partly used introduces losses of a serious nature Beyond this it should be noted that means may readily be provided whereby a change in point of cut off may be effected as is done for example in the steam engine if a corresponding means is provided for proportioning the work of compression to the work to be accomplished Means by which this can be done will be shown later From the card it is evident that although the work area is large the maximum pressure never exceeds the compression pressure Thus instead of receiving a hammer blow as in the constant volume engine the piston is pushed gradually from the point D to e under the influence of a constant and moderate pressure This results in a relative low maximum bearing pressure and a more uniform torque The longer continued maximum pressure enables the pressure to be applied at a more favorable crank angle than is the case for the constant volume engine This will be apparent from Fig 1 in which a constant pressure and a constant volume card are shown superimposed What now are the possibilitiesof utilizing low grade fuel In the first place it should be noted that fuel is not admitted to the cylinder until addition of heat or combustion is ready to proceed But since the air is delivered outside the cylinder and heated the high temperature resulting makes it possible to utilize the heaviest fuel and still secure proper vaporization The tremendous advantages resulting from this fact become apparent when it is realized that the automobile engine of to day can utilize efficiently only highly refined and relatively very expensive petroleum distillate The constant pressure engine is far better adapted to a two stroke cycle than is any engine of the constant volume type for the reason that scavenging may be rendered practically perfect whereas in the four stroke Otto cycle scavenging is never complete on account of inert gas which always remains in the clearance space The constant volume engine will run with practically zero clearance Furthermore no sacrifice in fuel is necessary to effect proper scavenging as in the two stroke constant volume engine Thus while engines of the last mentioned type seldom give a mean effective pressure of more than sixty five per cent of that obtained in a constant volume four stroke cycle engine there is no reason why engines operating on the constant pressure cycle will not give substantially equal mean effective pressure whether working on the two or four stroke cycle As compared to the Diesel and semi Diesel engines the constant volume engine will require no such accessory as a fuel injection pump or separate air compressor and will moreover be much easier to start than are engines of the Diesel type A small quantity of air such as will remain in the receiver will be sufficient to start after which the engine will quickly pump air into the receiver until the latter is filled to the constant pressure of the cycle The volume ratio in the constant pressure cycle is limited only by mechanical considerations that it is possible especially when the saving in exhaust heat is considered to secure a much higher ideal thermal efficiency than is possible in engines of the constant volume class Combustion conditions in the constant pressure cycle come closer to the ideal than those in any other cycle In the first place as we have seen the density of the charge is limited only by structural considerations In the second place the absorption of exhaust heat raises the temperature to a high point In the third place the fuel may be thoroughly mixed with the air necessary for combustion before combustion begins while in the fourth place dilution is at a minimum on account of perfect scavenging Having thus stated the advantages of the constant pressure cycle let us see how an engine incorporating these advantages may be constructed in such a way as to avoid the difficulties which Brayton encountered A purely diagranmzatical representation of such an engine is shown in Fig 2 This should not in any case be considered as indicating actual or recommended construction except as to general principles involved In the cylinders l which serve both for working and compressing move the differential or step pistons 2 Air enters the compression space of the large diameter 3 from which it is delivered into the combustion chamber of the next adjoining cylinder The latter is thus completely scavenged The air remaining in it is compressed after the piston covers the ports 5 and is then delivered through the valve 7 and suitable piping into the receiver.

link

https://books.google.com/books?id=4Tg6AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA60&dq=diesel+and+brayton+constant+pressure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwins-jS9I3PAhWGbSYKHeXWCJsQ6AEIPjAH#v=onepage&q=diesel%20and%20brayton%20constant%20pressure&f=false

LaughingVulcan Can you please read the text below... In this paper Clerk specifically talks about Diesel's cycle and how even though Diesel was trying to make an engine that operated on the constant temperature (Carnot) cycle what he ended up with was a high pressure constant pressure cycle. (the cycle of Brayton) Here is a well respected authority on engine cycles who wrote several books on early engine development... Clerk was also the expert witness in the Selden / Ford trails. I feel that I've presented some very good sources that show over and over again what Brayton did and What Diesel did and it just keeps falling on deaf ears...  Is there something I'm missing here? How or why does this not make my point?  Is it because the references I'm using talk in technical terms like "constant pressure" and "constant temperature"? Yes there are some other books that I could site but not many people would have access to them and I doubt anyone would take the time to do the necessary research to verify my claims... For this reason I tried to stick to what's available online since I think what's available here more than proves my case. Too bad you didn't respond to my spoke hub rim argument because I'm interested in learning what is and what's not allowed and why... As for the link stating synth isn't a rigid policy I just was searching around and saw that and it seemed relevant to me... There were a good many explanations of what is and what isn't synth  and I still don't see how stating and proving that Brayton made a constant pressure engine and that Diesel ended up using the same constant pressure cycle is snyth but maybe someday I'll figure it out...   Thanks for your patients... Imotorhead64 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In this formula which I worked out some little time ago T0 is the temperature of the charge before compression Tc is the temperature on compression 1 408 is the ratio of the specific heats T is the maximum temperature of combustion and T is the temperature at the end of the expansion You see that in this case there is a much more complicated formula than the formula in the constant volume cycle Diesel started with some erroneous notions as to what he was going to do his idea was that he was going to follow the Carnot cycle In the Diesel engine the piston takes in just as on the Otto cycle it can work on that cycle or on any other cycle a charge of air only not gas and air but air only It compresses that charge up to a pressure of about 5001bs per square inch At that pressure the temperature of adiabatic compression is so high something in the neighbourhood of 700 C that any oil injected into the cylinder with air at once ignites without the use of any outside igniter Diesel thought he was going on the Carnot cycle but what he in fact did was to get the advantages of the constant pressure cycle without the danger of pre ignition or explosion or compression by having air in the cylinder only Of course it is impossible to pre ignite because there is nothing to burn in the air Oil and air were added by means of a sprayer when the compression was complete the air being previously compressed to about l50lbs to the square inch above the pressure in the cylinder that is to say 650lbs On injection of the oil ignition takes place and then expansion In his description of the engine which he called a rational heat motor Diesel suggested that other inventors or designers of engines were proceeding upon wrong principles and that the right principle was to rise to the maximum temperature by compression add heat at the maximum and have no increase in temperature after your compression In his first engine he thought he had done that but it is obvious that if it is desired to follow the Carnot cycle instead of having a pressure of about 50 atmospheres to get the maximum temperature used in this engine a pressure of about 200 atmospheres is required That of course means that heat must be added on the expanding line Working on the Carnot cycle as I showed in my first lecture an extremely slender diagram is obtained and an enormously heavy engine is required Diesel did not notice what has recently been noticed that the efficiency of the Carnot cycle constant volume and constant pressure engines are all exactly the same if you have the same compression The consequence is that you gain nothing by going to the Carnot cycle Diesel in some of his recent papers still adheres to the idea that he is dealing with a modified Carnot cycle but all heat engines may be considered as modified Carnot cycles one as well as another Twenty years ago I was in the habit of drawing Carnot cycles and of cutting out a slice to represent any given engine If you take the Carnot cycle and take the compression curve and take a vertical line for heat addition you have the constant volume engine If you take the Carnot cycle and add heat along a horizontal line you have a constant pressure engine You can carve out of the Carnot cycle any engine you like but you must not say when you have carved an engine to suit your own convenience that you are now working a Carnot cycle and that the engine is therefore different from any other What Diesel has in fact done is to use very high compressions on the constant pressure cycle on the formula which I have given above Many attempts have been made to carry out constant pressure engines for gas Diesel has tried them I myself built an engine in 1887 a diagram from which is reproduced at Fig 22 see page 343 ante This was a constant pressure engine or a modification of constant pressure and constant volume somewhat like Diesel In 1888 I had an engine of 9in cylinder 15in stroke with a compression space into which air alone was compressed The ordinary coal gas was taken into a separate pump working at about 50 behind the main crank this gas was compressed and ejected into the air when compression was complete but I arranged a peculiar igniting device so schemed that immediately the gas began to flow into the air it ignited so that there was no explosion but only the constant pressure combustion That engine worked extremely well It was running well in 1888 for more than six months and was perfectly free from gasengine troubles but the difficulty was that with economy only very low average pressure could be obtained The average pressures I obtained with this engine were in the region of 30lbs to 40lbs instead of 70lbs to 80lbs as then obtained with the Otto cycle or 90lbs as now usual So far as that cycle is concerned there is no doubt that a great deal has to be done yet in the way of constant pressure engines Many people have tried including Diesel himself but so far the difficulties have been too great to put any successful engine on the market Brayton in 1878 produced a gas engine of the constant pressure type but he compressed his gas and air separately into reservoirs to feed his cylinders at constant pressure This engine however was rather troublesome it gave frequent back explosions and there were two or three rather bad accidents with it So far as oil was concerned his engine was fairly successful but he never succeeded with gas the reason being that all constant pressure engines whether of the Brayton type or of the Diesel type or of the old type I tried require gas to be stored up under enormous pressures The gas before being mixed with air must be compressed to the full pressure If we take for instance a cool mixture of gas and air and apply compression to the full pressure on ignition we get a pressure of about two tons on the square inch a pressure which would require extremely heavy reservoirs This is perhaps the chief difi iculty of the Diesel type If the charge in a Diesel engine happens to get in at high temperature and the cylinder misses ignition by any chance as I believe in the early experiments it did at least I should have expected it to do so and I believe it did then an explosion would occur Supposing the mixture is compressed to 5001bs on the square inch only an explosion occurs and a comparatively small rise of temperature soon runs up the maximum pressure to one ton on the square inch The consequence is that you really do get explosion and not combustion That is the main reason why the constant pressure type has never come in for gas engines Nobody has been able to control the effect .

Dugald Clerk / Cantor Lectures delivered before the Society of Arts March 1905

https://books.google.com/books?id=kXo3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA374&dq=diesel+and+brayton+constant+pressure+engine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi40NOViY7PAhUGGD4KHZHrAkUQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=diesel%20and%20brayton%20constant%20pressure%20engine&f=false

The Mechanical engineer Sept 9 1905

p346 p374-376

Imotorhead64 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

General discussion on OR

Back to general, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH basically say that until you’ve reliably sourced a claim, it is not considered “truth,” regardless of what reality is to the editor or even a group of editors. Until you reliably source it, it remains an unverified (or “original”) allegation (“research.”) Whatever “it” is. Any statement unsourced like that may be challenged and removed. (Example: you don't have to source, "The sky is blue." You do have to source, "The sky is blue because because of oxygen." Especially because it is known to be obvious that the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering. But even that statement in an article must still be cited. :) )

Synth goes beyond that and says that if you have A + B = C, that statement must nevertheless be proven by it’s own merits. You aren’t allowed to write 1 + 2 = 3 unless your source says 1 + 2 = 3. You’re not allowed to say source A says 1 and source B says 2 so obviously 1 + 2 = 3, all sourced together. Confusing, eh? You might be synthesizing if you say: Brayton made an engine. Diesel made an engine of same characteristics. Therefore Diesel intentionally copied Brayton. Unless you have a source that testifies that Diesel copied Brayton.

And again, it doesn’t matter if you got a virtual roomful of experts on Wikipedia saying you’re right – the only thing that matters is that you can source those statements or else they’re considered unsubstantiated conclusions at WP and deletable. For LOTS of good reasons that I won’t explain.

From the reaction you’ve gotten from other editors apparently more knowledgeable in Diesel than I, you will likely need multiple sources that say those things because others are indicating you’re making an extraordinary claim there… Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources at Wikipedia. (And I could be wrong about that. I’m extrapolating a bit the concerns of others about this.)

So, if you’re not adding Brayton material, that’s good. It seems in looking at the article history that you have been doing so all along (as in right here (?), while the RfC has been running, am I wrong? It true, some may take that as a sign you aren’t willing to wait for what the community has to say to you about that, with the RfC still open. Please take care with that, as now that many of us tried to educate you about how WP runs you will not be able to say, “Nobody told me….” Unless you have other concerns, in which case I’m still happy to discuss them with you. And I do find technical histories fascinating, the intersections of biography and technology can have a lot more flavor than biography alone, as well as differing points of view on such matters. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for injecting my own comments here, but I thought I'd take a stab at the "good reasons" why SYNTH isn't allowed. If an article has "1 + 2 = 3<ref>A says 1</ref><ref>B says 2</ref>", then any readers or editors checking those citations have a problem: even though both "1" and "2" check out, they must figure out for themselves that "1+2" means "3", which they cannot do unless they are experts on both 1 and 2. That means the great majority of people cannot confirm that this is properly cited. Worse, some self-proclaimed semi-expert with an ego (there are orders of magnitude more of those than true experts) will come along and "correct" the statement to be "1 + 2 = 4", since he thinks he knows better. Other editors are at a lost to determine which is right. In the early years of WP, this happened all the time, and pointless edit-wars ensued with no way for anyone to resolve them. The solution WP has worked out to this is codified in WP:SYNTH. Basically, anyone must be able to check all statements for accuracy by following the citations, without any extra knowledge required. If some extra knowledge is required, then, per SYNTH, it cannot be used in WP as-is. If, in fact, that extra knowledge is well-known and published, then it won't be hard to find an additional source that makes the desired conclusion, especially by any true expert. If such a source can't be found, then the statement is just bait for edit-wars from "experts" that disagree. So, to keep WP running, we keep the info out while we wait for those sources to be found, no matter how long it may take. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I made he changes because no one had replied... I asked how long I had to wait for a response and if there was a specified period of time required? I'm not sure how the rfc things works here...? I did include references to all of the information I posted.. If someone doesn't think I provided enough support for the claims I guess they can remove it? The only thing is I thought they might ask some questions first... ? Furthermore there was a ton of unsupported stuff already allowed on the page. I went through and removed most of the stuff that was outright untrue and unsourced.. There is still a bunch of stuff on there about Akroyd making a compression engine and how he made a diesel before diesel... yet no one seems to care about that? so I'm wonder where is the consistency here? Imotorhead64 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's been seen, actually. And it may yet cause some trouble... (Or maybe not... not always easy to gauge but one should err on the side of caution.) On a regular talk page, there isn't no specified length of time to wait. It's more proportional to the changes you're making. My personal rule (in general-not when an RfC is open on the question) if an edit may be at all controversial, wait a minimum of four days to a week for potential replies... and then you still might face someone who comes back from vacation, whatever, and reverts you anyway and then wants to talk about it.

An RfC is a process that advertises a question to the a wider group of Wikipedians. (That's how I came across this in the first place.) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and you'll see the link to the Diesel engine RfC. An RfC's purpose is to attempt to build a consensus of a wider community than just the local editors in conflict alone. 30 days is usually the default for an RfC to run, though there are many other circumstances in which they can be ended early, and they can also be extended for as long as necessary. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs.) Unless a clear consensus emerges or the conflicts really seem resolved, it is normal to try and find an uninvolved editor (or Administrator if high contentions still exist) who will close out the discussion and summarize what the consensus, if any, seems to be. The result is not supposed to be a vote, it is supposed to be an evaluation of the merits of the arguments in light of Wikipedia policy - but often the strength of the numbers does factor in. When they are closed, they are usually archived and the result is placed in the upper right corner.

The trouble part is the RfC question of, "What should this article say about George Brayton's contribution to the development of the modern engine type known by the (not necessarily accurate name) “Diesel engine”?" So, when you go ahead while the RfC is still open and running and continue to make changes to the article detailing Brayton's contributions... you're effectively saying you don't care to wait to learn what the consensus of the wider community is. That is something which can be regarded as serious. And we have no idea if others have lost interest, or if they're just waiting to see what the RfC produces... which the formatting of is so confusing right now I don't know if an answer can be given, or if someone is just giving you enough rope to show you're going to make the changes regardless of what anyone else thinks. The RfC formatting is enough of a mess that it may also be keeping other voices from particpating now. You might also get accused of running a slow-running edit war - even though I know that's not your intention. That's why I suggested back in the RfC that you hold off on making your changes. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 21:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

LaughingVulcan I thought this was interesting...

SYNTH is not a rigid rule[edit] Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_rigid_rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

Imotorhead64 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There are big differences between Policies, Guidelines, and Essays. For example, the 'Synth isn't policy.' section of that essay you quoted. Yeah, it really is policy, as a case of the OR policy. Thus it's policy, just not the whole of OR. An Essay is just an opinion, some of them widely believed and some not. Policies are not "rules" in the strictest sense of that word. However, "Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made. This means that individual editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines." That is policy, BTW. And so far you've been fairly insistent in your view that you're an expert and it is therefore OK to allow you to make Original Research/Synth conclusions in the article. Policy says otherwise, and so far you have persuaded one other editor in the Talk that an exception should be made, and so far several other editors do not agree.

I don't mean to imply you're not trying to work within the system. Or that you haven't made progress on a quest to properly source and cite the material. But since you stipulate your inexperience with Wikipedia policy, I'd suggest you work within process until you learn when exceptions can be made - or until you convince the other editors in an RfC / on local talk pages that they should be.

Some open ended question: Are there no recent textbooks which detail the history of the Diesel engine? You'd suggested websites that ask questions... Would those websites meet WP:RS policy? For example, I'd consult this website: [2] but the article is behind a quite expensive paywall.

I'd written a longish response to your Hub/Spoke story above, but really it is just going in circles. Again, and for a last time: Wikipedia operates on mostly secondary and tertiary verifiable reliable cited sources, not expert assertions, when material is questioned. You've been questioned, so it's time for real sources as have been described to you multiple times, to be applied to the questions other editors have asked. And if you don't have an overall plan when you introduce major changes as you've done, you need to have one, be able to share your objectives freely, and be prepared to change them if necessary. I do not mean to imply that you haven't been trying to work towards that end - you have, but the conversations we're having are now eating up too much of my editing time while continuing to circle around the same issues. I need to start withdrawing from our conversation and return to how Wikipedia normally handles such things - edit, revert, discuss on talk, engage in further dispute resolution if necessary.

There are still other questions, too: The actual word count in the History section narrative recently was 26% Brayton, 18% Diesel, 55% Other. Percentages aren't everything, but the big concentrated burst in the center of the history section about Brayton isn't supported by any secondary sources at the moment and does look like the point of the History section is to emphasize Brayton's contributions. Something you've not yet established by secondary sourcing. That's all WP:NPOV and due weight questions that others raised to you. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 23:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

LaughingVulcan I think this is not accurate at all... you should include all the information about Diesel's original constant temperature cycle... I think you will find it is more than 60-70% about DieselImotorhead64 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind that I reformatted your comment insertion to what looks more 'regular.' (All I did was properly offset your comment, then I C/Ped my own signature and timestamp from below -the accurate timestamp for those words- at the end of where you broke the text... that way the attributions remain correct, and contrary to what I said before that is one instance where you do go ahead and C/P a user's whole signature, plus timestamp.)

I'm not quite understanding what you meant above. If you do a word count (there's an "easy" way to do that,) the history section had 1,569 words. 409 of them were about Brayton. 296 words were about Diesel. The remaining were about others or not directly referring to either of them. Of the 13 paragraphs in that section four of them are about Brayton. BUT, if you were saying that the history section should be 60-70% about Brayton, or Diesel.... that's actually an area that an expert (operating with consensus) can be extremely helpful. But you still need consensus to support a weight opinion.

In the end, though, I'm not promoting that the weighting there is necessarily wrong - just that one of the other respondents in the RfC was trying to call your attention to due weight in what you'd added, and that to continue growth as an editor you should consider such things as you compose. Since I'm only representing what I thought others had said, take that particular paragraph of mine with a huge grain of salt as to how (and if) you'll address it. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 11:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries LaughingVulcan I'll try to stick to the proper format here... I also did a word count on the History section and I got 748 words about Diesel, 410 words about Brayton,284 about Akroyd Stuart and 95 words about Claude and Nicéphore Niépce. I also counted 1,569 total. Prior to my editing that section more than 70% of the history section was about Akroyd Stuart. Imotorhead64 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

On sources: You do NOT have to rely on Online Sources Only. So long as you can cite it correctly, you may cite written books (even rare ones.) What you can't do is say, "I've got in my library a letter (published nowhere else) from Joe Spoke that says..." Or, "here's a pamphlet in my collection that you won't find anywhere else. Trust me that it says Spoke outright stole it from Hub." But there's no rule saying you can't use a source that happens to be available only in the Philiadelphia library and to researchers who present their credentials. Editors would have to travel to Philiadelphia or ask a research librarian there to look it up for them. And other editors may still question the due weight of a single source of a century plus ago with no contemporary backing. That's OK, though, as it is still Verifiable. At least then, if it is reverted then it's been duly considered but not as expert opinion.... and it may stick! (You might even be able to use sources where all known copies are in private hands, as long as there's some ability to independently verify that the source exists and says what it is cited to say.) So long as it meets WP:RS and all other policy.

Online sources are nicer as they are easier to verify. But they also must be reliable, as below.

But both of those only work if the source cited says what the article says it does. Don't expect not to be fact-checked. And again, you're supposed to rely more on Secondary sources than Primary ones.

Any source, print or online, though, must meet the criteria of WP:RS. (Which may include the source's age, depending on context.) I'm going to refer you directly there to understand why a source may or may not be considered Reliable, print or online.

If we've reached the end of our journey, that's fine, and I'll change my opinion at RfA one more time to state that you either need to put up V/Secondary/RS on each claim, and properly balance the historical contributions of them, or retract.

All in all, I'm not saying you can't advance something like, "Many concepts in the diesel engine, such as the constant pressure cycle^source and the _________^source was already successfully developed by the time Diesel created his engine." Just that you can't put in five paragraphs about Brayton without making sure you're on correct sourcing and NPOV grounds by policy. And no, IMO, this is not something that an exception should be taken for.

That said, I'm sorry I keep giving you walls of text. I know you want to respond to each section under each paragraph. I can't go back and review your comments like that, I apologize for my failing. Perhaps it is time we take ourselves back to the Talk page, if necessary. Dunno if anyone else has added any further opinions, and/or if we need to detail any of this conversation there. (If we do, we would have to do that carefully, as your text and mine are now inextricably intertwined.) I very much appreciated your willingness to continue to share your rationale and I have learned much just on this talk page.

And that's just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure mine is based in how WP is supposed to operate. While you really "stepped in it" as far a making a major change and opening up major conversation, nevertheless I thank you for your ongoing civility and willingness to learn... As hopefully I have also. May you continue to grow as an editor and thanks for the conversation. Best, LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 23:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Imotorhead64. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Imotorhead64. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Imotorhead64. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)