Talk:Quasiturbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Talk:Quasiturbine/archive1, created today as the page was becoming over long. Andrewa 13:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Stirling cycle 2 Outstanding issues 2.1 AC prototype 2.2 Comments by Gilles 2.3 Capitalisation 3 New comments 3.1 Some replies 4 A word on language and POV 5 QT Audience 5.1 A word of caution 5.2 More on the captital Q 6 Comparisons 7 L'humour console 7.1 Reply 8 Is photo-detonation pseudo-science 9 Suggested clarifications 10 Gilles is back

[edit] Stirling cycle

I once saw something about running a q(Q)uasiturbine engine as a stirling cycle heat pump. I realize that phase changes are a more efficent way to run a heat pump, so I can understand the attention given to the steam engin version,but should this be mentioned as well? In my personal onpinion a striling cycle q(Q)uasiturbine could be used for cooling cyrogenic liquides more simply. cc24.137.78.34 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding issues

[edit] AC prototype

There seems some doubt as to the number of wheels per carriage in the prototype. Some other sources give it as two or four.

I'm still seeking permission to use the photograph or one like it, see Talk:Quasiturbine/archive1#Illustrations. Andrewa 13:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Gilles

Assuming good faith, the unsigned-in user who signs Gilles is Dr. Gilles St-Hilaire, the leader of the Quasiturbine project. Gilles has implied that the October 2 2005 version is in his opinion superior to the current one, and that there are accuracy problems with the current version. However he has neither stated what these accuracy problems are, nor answered many questions raised as to accuracy and other problems with the version he prefers. Andrewa 15:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Gilles has pointed out that he regards the correct spelling as Quasiturbine, capitalised. However the rationale he gives is not valid in English; It depends rather on whether it is being used as a common noun or proper noun, see biro, xerox. Until this is resolved I am following his usage. Andrewa 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New comments

Piston and Wankel are decencies old. This article should be about an innovation ("proposed engine design" of Wiki section), and not be mainly about bearing sizes and prototypes judgements or old photos. Not everyone think the Quasiturbine innovative road is unsupported (theoretically well supported by modern research going in that same direction) and that its pretensions do not make sense or are worthless, because some questions are not answered (sometime by strategy?). Some are better at listing problems and objections, other at listing solutions when time come. When an innovation is under way and not yet commercial, it is not out of scope to indicate its reasons, potential, and eventual breakthroughs and impact importances (rotary expander, continuous combustion, photo-detonation, efficiency enhancement, hybrid car alternative...). What a technology wants to do and intend to acheived is more important that the actual nuts and bolts and provisory results, and part of the accuracy of the overall picture. Visions and objectives are not spams, and deleting this info weaken Wiki while people read it somewhere else anyway. But what if it fail? It could, like Nasa and others fail too following honest try - the way science goes. Neither unfair promotion nor unfair discredit is acceptable, this is the balanced challenge of all contributors, without absolute thruth.

Limiting promotion and Wiki-spam is fine (like the non-pertinent Orbital Sarich reference plug), but it should not shut-down light on major characteristics or be replaced by destructive comments (like the anonymous injurious lubrication comment - see tribology course) or deletes (if someone is not in the engine or hybrid car business, why would he delete photo-detonation and hybrid QT impact section?). The Wankel 12 strokes comparison is simplistic and unfair (See QT not Wankel). Turbo pump fluids do not have to be similar, as pneumatic can well pump water, as exhaust gas can pump-in kerosen. Pneumatic, steam, gaz, diesel or detonation piston engines are not classified base on the numbers of valves, why should the Quasiturbine be? Combustion QT is no immediate priority for the inventors considering the huge 0 - 60 psi pneumatic and steam potential (without equivalent device), but it is not halted, and is such a comment encyclopedic? Who knows who is developping its own solutions? While English is imposing its rule around the world, will it negates other wills? What about the capital I in Internet (capital Q is a non less legimate inventor's convention, a compromise for the engine not being Saint-...).

Cutting, pasting and re-entitling (where minor comment becoming title!) the discussion page (even in the respect of the Wiki rules) denatures, moves out of context (at least mine) and makes it less invitant for the future (see what will happen to this paragraph?). Making contributors comfortable to contribute should be a basic objective. An unpleasant atmosphere chassing contributors away is no achievement and the article become dead (a one man post). It is better when the readers feel there is room for other points of views - not excluding inventors. Yes, at this time, I perfer the Wiki October 2 2005 article, but I am confident it will catch-up, and eventually be even better (excluding no contributor). Mean while a visit to www.quasiturbine.com sources most of it. I do not systematically monitor any Wiki page, and I am not looking to make history on Wiki neither. I know that counter-justification to the above had already been spell-out, so there may be no need to repeate. Let keep Wiki pleasant: After all, it is not a religion, but just a proposed engine design! Mon robot traducteur vient de surchauffer - Salutations / Gilles

I suggest you read carefully the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, and consider apologising for the heading of this section. Keep Wiki pleasant indeed!

Then, I suggest you have a good read of the various other Wikipedia policy and guideline pages before lecturing other, established contributors on how we should run the site. As I have suggested before, you might also create and use a user logon. I'll also make another suggestion: Contribute. As long as you are a single-issue editor, other Wikipedians aren't going to take much notice of you I'm afraid. I'm not asking you to go away. I'm just pointing out that your campaign to promote your invention here is futile. You are not the first to try to post promotional material here, nor to have some temporary success, and you will not be the last. But we have ways of dealing with these attempts, as you are discovering.

But first and most important, please consider carefully how your objections might look to other readers of this site. I am clarifying the article, and removing inaccuracies that you have made no attempt to correct, with the goal of informing readers. You are promoting a previous edition, which I believe the reader will find far less informative, and which you have admitted was inaccurate. The inquisitive reader will compare these versions (perhaps using the link I provided above to make it easy for them to do so). What conclusions might they draw?

You raise some accuracy and POV issues above. I'll deal with these presently, as I find time. Just a general comment for now: Many of the inaccuracies you imply above are in material taken from your website. All I've done is to gather this material into one place so people can find it. And also a suggestion: If you believe that the current article is inaccurate or POV, flag it with the {{accuracy}} and/or {{POV}} tags. These will attract other editors. (And again, they will give far more credence to your claims if you create a userid and contribute using it.)

As to the Wikipedia procedural and policy issues you raise, I'll probably take a bit longer to find time for these. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the goals of Wikipedia in what you have written above, and it's IMO important to discuss this. Andrewa 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the header. Let's focus on the edits, not the editors. -Willmcw 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some replies

Piston and Wankel are decencies old. - Perhaps you mean decades? But newer isn't necessarily better, any more than older is. This article should be about an innovation ("proposed engine design" of Wiki section), Agree. and not be mainly about bearing sizes Agree, and it doesn't even mention those.

and prototypes - I think the prototypes are important. Remember, we are after information here. judgements Agree. or old photos. Again, old photos are information of a very interesting sort. I can understand your wanting to suppress the photos and other information concerning the original prototype, assuming it was a failure as seems likely.

Not everyone think the Quasiturbine innovative road is unsupported Agree. There's a whole society promoting the design, according to your website. (theoretically well supported by modern research going in that same direction) Unsubstantiated despite many requests.

Snipped a bit here that didn't seem all that interesting.

What a technology wants to do and intend to acheived is more important that the actual nuts and bolts and provisory results, Disagree. Both are important, but if we have to choose one or the other, we'll take the verifiable facts rather than the dreams.

and part of the accuracy of the overall picture. Agree. It's a question of balance. Visions and objectives are not spams, Disagree. It depends entirely on where they are posted. Anything in the wrong place can be spam, however accurate. and deleting this info weaken Wiki - If you're referring to my refactor, I disagree. Little if any information was deleted. Lots of other stuff was, and the article was improved by this.

while people read it somewhere else anyway. Yes, and that's good. Your promotional material belongs on your website, and I'm happy we link to it.

But what if it fail? It could, like Nasa and others fail too following honest try - the way science goes. Neither unfair promotion nor unfair discredit is acceptable, this is the balanced challenge of all contributors, without absolute thruth. See below.

Limiting promotion and Wiki-spam is fine - Promotion is not limited here, it is prohibited. Completely.

(like the non-pertinent Orbital Sarich reference plug), - I hardly consider the reference to the Sarich a plug. The Sarich engine was an expensive failure, although the development did get a bit further than the Quasiturbine has yet.

And personally I think the Quasiturbine is a brilliant piece of lateral thinking. It's far more elegant than the Sarich, and has some conceptual advantages over the (successful) Wankel.

but it should not shut-down light on major characteristics Agree. I hope the current article doesn't do that. What major characteristics did you have in mind?

or be replaced by destructive comments (like the anonymous injurious lubrication comment - I think you're referring to the statement that the current prototypes have no lubrication system, and can only run for a few hours without maintenance. That's what your website says. Is it wrong?

- see tribology course) - Relevance?

or deletes (if someone is not in the engine or hybrid car business, why would he delete photo-detonation (we haven't) and hybrid QT impact section?). Because it was pure speculation and seemed to have nothing to do with the Quasiturbine. Obviously, any new car engine is an alternative to every competing technology.

The Wankel 12 strokes comparison is simplistic and unfair (See QT not Wankel). It's accurate. How is it unfair?

Turbo pump fluids do not have to be similar, as pneumatic can well pump water, as exhaust gas can pump-in kerosen. Again, that's not what your website says. If your website is wrong I suggest you update it.

Pneumatic, steam, gaz, diesel or detonation piston engines are not classified base on the numbers of valves, why should the Quasiturbine be? Because duplicating the ports converted it from a 4-stroke cycle to a 2-stroke cycle, which is considered a major classifying characteristic in all internal combustion engines. It's a far more significant difference than the difference between a 2-valve SOHC or 4-valve DOHC head. But I'm not entirely happy with the headings. Would 4-stroke and 2-stroke be better, do you think?

Combustion QT is no immediate priority for the inventors considering the huge 0 - 60 psi pneumatic and steam potential (without equivalent device), If you can easily produce a combustion engine, I strongly suggest you do. It would give your project enormous credibility. but it is not halted, and is such a comment encyclopedic? Again, your website says that work on the AC configuration was suspended. Has it been resumed?

Who knows who is developping its own solutions? What?

While English is imposing its rule around the world, will it negates other wills? Of course not. Wikipedia is committed to being multi-lingual. But this is English Wikipedia.

What about the capital I in Internet (capital Q is a non less legimate inventor's convention, a compromise for the engine not being Saint-...). The Internet is an internet. Capital letter for the proper noun, lower case otherwise. That's the standard practice in English.

Cutting, pasting and re-entitling (where minor comment becoming title!) - I think this refers to my moving your post falsely claiming that the article was a result of consensus from the confusing position in which you added it. I think this claim showed an important misunderstanding of Wikipedia procedures, terminology, and their underlying philosophy. That's why I made it a heading.

Snipped some irrelevant stuff.

Making contributors comfortable to contribute should be a basic objective. Disagree. That's a secondary objective, albeit a very important one. The primary objective is to write an encyclopedia.

An unpleasant atmosphere chassing contributors away is no achievement and the article become dead (a one man post). I find this quite funny. If there is any unpleasantness, it is because you are causing it. I am not trying to chase you away, in fact I am spending a lot of time replying to your posts. But, you seem to want to chase me and others away from this article, and for a while there you succeeded. The article is not currently a one man effort, it is the result mainly of your contributions (thank you) and mine. But you seem to want to remove mine, which would make it, as you say, a one man article - yours!

It is better when the readers feel there is room for other points of views - not excluding inventors. No. We aim for a neutral point of view, and no other. We describe other views, but we try to eliminate these biases from our own presentation of the material.

Yes, at this time, I perfer the Wiki October 2 2005 article, but I am confident it will catch-up, and eventually be even better (excluding no contributor). Mean while a visit to www.quasiturbine.com sources most of it. Good attitude. I also commend you for discussing this here on the talk page rather than starting an edit war.

Snipped the last few words, which didn't seem particularly relevant. Andrewa 09:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Our website date back to 1996 and may not be fully consistant proof(?) in deed. About turbo-pump, our website read "...suitable to applications where the fluid contamination between the 2 circuits causes no problem" (please, let me know where it is said otherwise so that I can update), but you write: ...fluid have to be similar? (Turbo pump fluids do not have to be similar, as pneumatic can well pump water, as exhaust gas can pump-in kerosen).

Please also help me find (local search engine seem of no help) "...current prototypes (what year? help me) have no lubrication system, and can only run for a few hours without maintenance" so that I can delete this non sense. Our website may (? unable to locate) have also said at one time: "...Work on the AC configuration was suspended (what year? help me)" but you write: ...combustion is suspended? (quite a different thing!). The Wankel 12 strokes comparison is again simplistic and unfair (See QT not Wankel). I said stroke piston cLassification is not appropriate at large for: pump, pneumatic, steam, gaz, diesel and detonation... but you say it is fine for piston combustion, and I agree (piston does not have as many degrees of freedom as the QT - which make ports classification unsuitable for the QT). Quasiturbine extra degree of freedom allows of thermodynimic and photo-detonation optimisation which other simplified concepts can not pretend (what is not speculation, but science).

Reporting may have to be more rigourous. Eliminating the biases by deleting the technology objectives and potentials is not the best way to improve an article. There is no editing war as you do it all and alone. I am not comming back on what is matter of rule and opinion, except about the rule by which you can put my name in a title, but I can not put yours? (again, tampering my title is rude and denature my propos). Merci / Gilles

I'd be more inclined to spend time answering your questions if you showed some inclination to answer mine, expecially as yours typically involve a great deal of work, while mine could be answered quite easily. It's all on your website, or was. But when you read it carefully, your website raises far more questions than it answers.

Your page on QT not Wankel, for example, is long and detailed (and largely unverifiable), and doesn't mention the number of strokes per revolution of the Wankel (capital letter because it's a person's name, just BTW) at all. The comparison it does make is, dare I say, simplistic and incomplete, ignoring similarities and advantages of the Wankel, as is appropriate for promotional material. No mention is made for example of the severe problem the Wankel engine has with the junctions at the rotor apex and end seals, see pistonless rotary engine#Disadvantages, which would appear to be a problem with the Quasiturbine engine too.

Your claim that photo-detonation is science remains a curious one. Until you choose to publish it as science, it appears to be pseudoscience.

I am not working alone. Several other editors are watching. Please note, for example, that while I did object to the insulting and inaccurate title you gave this section originally, I did not change it. Someone else did. The fact that they do not edit the article IMO shows that they are happy with my refactor.

If you wish to involve other editors in examining your claims of bias and inaccuracy, I have twice now suggested the correct way to do this. Andrewa 20:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a 10 years old website, the old version has not been removed but is not maintained.

I see. Perhaps then, it would be better use of your time to bring it up to date?

It is sad you do not want to provide reference to our website (which has not been changed) about your assertions presumably based on it - You certainly do not answer my 2 short questions.

I think you should do the work on the website yourself. But, answer my questions, and I'll start answering yours.

Am I (allow me a capital letter) asking to difficult questions?

Hardly. I can even guess what they mean. The captital letter here is correct, unlike much of the grammar in this post. I raise this because I find it very amusing that one with your obviously poor grasp of English is trying to argue with a native speaker on the correct use of capital letters. (And that's quite apart from my training in linguistics.) (See also A word on language below. Andrewa 17:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

You have not even corrected your obvious mistake "...Work on the AC configuration was suspended"

Where is the evidence that this is a mistake?

which you write: ...combustion is suspended? (Quite a different thing!).

Agree it's a different thing. Combustion never started AFAIK. (;->

About port discussion, you confuse the no. of ports with the no. of strokes (see your previous comment). A 2 strokes combustion QT uses 4 ports.

Correct. Which is exactly what the article says.

A 4 strokes combustion QT uses 2, 3, 4 or more ports, and an advanced QT concept has 4 intake ports inward through check-valves located in the blades themselves, plus 1 stator exhaust ports for a total of 5 (only 1 visible exhaut ports on the stator perimeter - See 2004 patent).

If you supply the patent number I'll have a look. But of course all a patent means is that you've supplied a proposed design or principle or other example of what you claim is patentable information, paid some money, and they've accepted it. It doesn't mean they've tested it and found it works. It's only relatively recently that the US Patent Office started refusing to accept patents for perpetual motion machines. Have you built any prototypes of these variations? Do they work? Has anyone seen them demonstrated?

Similar 2 strokes QT and the compressors version would have 6 ports.

I guess they would, yes.

Piston and Wankel do not offer such a ports versatility. This makes the QT ports classification a big mess, and help no one?

It may, if and when these new designs reach the point of being included in the article. Let's cross that bridge then. Alternatively, you could answer my question about what you consider better names for the sections.

There are an infinite numbers of QT arrangement, with and without carriages not being covering it all neither.

There are an infinite number of possible piston engine configurations too. But we classify the existing ones quite happily.

About the the Sarich Orbital engine, there are hundreds of engine concepts of limited or no interest, and your insistence to associate that specific flaw design to the Quasiturbine is tendentious - Using your own words, I say it is irrelevant, Wikispam, undue promotion and should be deleted.

You're free to say it. I think you're wasting your time at best, but you're free to say it.

A couple weeks ago, the Wankel strokes comparison was added following your insistence, see again (QT not Wankel). About sealing, you wrongly assume problems by association to the Wankel which is not a worthed method, as the problematic is completely different and much favorable to the Quasiturbine as the contour seals are near perpendicular at all times.

Wrong. Firstly, this applies only to the AC version. Secondly, it doesn't help with the corner seals anyway. These seals are a major problem with the Wankel, and the need for them is a point of commonality between the two concepts.

It is incorrect to associate sciences to publication as plenty of good science never get published where you think.

That comment might explain a lot. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, scientific knowledge is what is published in scientific journals and similar. We don't publish original research which has not been published elsewhere.

In matter of opinion, there is not reason for yours to supersede others. / Gilles

Agree. But as neither my opinions nor yours belong in the article anyway, it's irrelevant. See neutral point of view. Andrewa 08:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Andrewa has done a great job refactoring the article. When more test data is available from the developers of this concept then we can include summaries of it in this article. Until then we should avoid more speculation about the Quasiturbine's possible capabilities. -Willmcw 21:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A word on language and POV

I raised above the question of Gilles' grasp of English. I do so with some hesitation, not wanting the discussion to become ad hominem. Gilles has several times now accused me of confusion or mistakes or similar when it appears that the problem is really his inability to accurately interpret what the article now says, for example on the matter of ports and strokes.

Gilles has previously raised the question of language himself, making a wild accusation of pro-English bias on the part of Wikipedia generally, which is most unfair considering our long-standing commitment to being a multi-lingual encyclopedia. There's no doubt that English Wikipedia is the largest, that bias is admitted. It doesn't justify the charges he made IMO.

His repeated side comments on the matter of capitalisation are a complete waste of time and space. He does not appear to understand the issues and shows no interest in doing so, and in any case I have said long ago that I will follow his convention until the matter is resolved.

While this is going on, the Quasiturbine article in French Wikipedia has received no attention at all, and was on 4 November listed for deletion but seems likely to survive. My suggestion is that Gilles should for the moment concentrate his efforts here on bringing the French article up to the current standard of the English one. This will involve him finding someone who is sufficiently fluent in both languages, and who understands the Wikipedia goals and policies (which Gilles IMO does not). My French is not adequate for this I regret.

Of course there's also an article on one of the two Norwegian Wikipedias. This article currently has no images and no discussion page as yet. I have little idea what it says, but gather that an image was removed from Bokmål Wikipedia over copyright concerns. This same image is still in use both here and on French Wikipedia, and the copyright issues appear to have been resolved.

Perhaps I should spell out my goals here. I am working to build an encyclopedia. In support of that, I am also working to build a community of editors and contributors.

I have personal views on the Quasiturbine, some of which I have described before. They are that it is a brilliant piece of lateral thinking, unlikely to succeed as an internal combustion engine but a possibility, a better possibility in other applications and as a spur to more fundamental research, and well worth supporting. But, my opinion of the website, the earlier versions of the article here and the current article on French Wikipedia are all most unfavourable. It's hype, with glaring omissions that look deliberate and designed to deceive, not just to promote. But on the other hand, I am well aware the the Sarich orbital engine was equally hyped in Australia, and to the best of my knowledge all involved in that program had the best of intentions.

If I were the Canadian Government I'd seriously consider giving the Quasiturbine developers some money. If I were an investor I wouldn't go near it on the information I have. As an environmentalist, I am concerned that environmental funds (both public and private) might be diverted to this and away from more promising avenues of research and development. These are personal views, they are POV and not necessarily shared by anyone else in Wikipedia, I lay them on the table here as I feel that Gilles has questioned my right to edit this article.

But none of these views belong in the article. As on other issues, my hope is to make the Wikipedia article NPOV, accurate, readable, balanced and as complete as possible. If that promotes my views good, and if not I will regard my views as seriously challenged. That is one of the joys of working here. Andrewa 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it NPOV, how about listing disadvantages? I find it very hard to believe that the QT is immaculate. There must be some reason that it's not being phased into every motor vehicle. There should be a section with problems, hurdles, or disadvantages. Ryan Salisbury 03:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is, these have not been published. We don't even know why the AC prototype didn't achieve ignition. Did it leak too much to produce adequate compression? Did it explode? Was friction so high they didn't even try, knowing it couldn't turn itself without outside assistance? That last possibility is my guess. The 40 hours turning it sound like a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to run it in, and I guess it wore out first. But that's speculation, and doesn't belong in the article.

There are an enormous number of designs that have got to the stage of this one, ie patent granted, no verified running model, money required to build one. Most get no further, but some do. Watt did. Stephenson did. Otto did. Deisel did. Miller did. Wankel did. It would be great to have a few more articles on the ones that didn't, for completeness and balance. Andrewa 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QT Audience

First, I suggest you study the Wankel problem more and correctly.

I'm happy to do this. But frankly, your description below does not show a great deal of expertise in this area either. You are highlighting some problems and ignoring others. Perhaps this is appropriate if the goal is to promote the Quasiturbine, but it is not appropriate on Wikipedia.

Contrary to the Quasiturbine, the admission stroke is not making vacuum intake from the rotor face being horizontal, but beginning later when the tailing chamber seal closes the exhaust port (stroke trunked at the beginning), and it does end intaking when the intake port is out, which occurs before the rotor face gets vertical (stroke also trunked at the end). Similarly, the exhaust strokes do not pressured-expulse the gases until the rotor face becomes horizontal, but stops earlier when the leading chamber seal gets to the intake port (trunked stroke also both at the beginning and at the end). Considering that the excessive overlap is not a productive stroke (furthermore detrimental by permitting some intake mixture to go straight unburnt to the exhaust), one could alternatively say that in one Wankel rotor rotation, there is a missing 30 + 15 + 15 + 30 stroke degrees, reducing the 4 strokes by at least 90 / 360 per revolution.

Understood. I think this is a bit too detailed and patchy for our purposes, and it needs some citations IMO. But if you care to get someone to translate it into good English (or some other Wikipedian might) then it would be a valuable addition to your site. These claimed advantages of the Quasiturbine are hinted at there already, but not put nearly this clearly.

Alternatively, you could put it there in French. I think I would find good French far more comprehensible than your English, frankly, and I'd love to try! Or, you could even see if French Wikipedia is interested in it, see below.

Amazingly, the Wankel experts never did published those explanations (is it pseudo-science?).

No, it's not pseudo-science. It would be pseudoscience if:

• They (or you) published it (as you have done above).
• The publisher claimed it was science (which you haven't done).
• The publisher failed to follow the scientific method in describing their discovery (or in the work itself, which would imply this).

For someone who implies that they have a PhD in the physical sciences, you show a remarkable contempt for the scientific method.

None of these limitations are affecting the Quasiturbine (QT not Wankel).

True, these specific limitations don't as far as I can see. The problem is, they're so selective. There are also points of comparison in which the two engines are similar, and others in which the Wankel is superior.

Your repetitive attempt to confine combustion to Quasiturbine AC model is unfair and do not serve you well (Keep ignoring my answers, but do not pretend I am not giving them).\

Once more, you imply but you do not actually say that other work is occurring, nor do you say what this work might be. Provide some evidence of this other work, and we'll gladly add it to the article.

Repetitive? Agreed. Are you claiming that your posts are not also repetitive?

I suggest you add any new material you may have to the article on French Wikipedia in good French, then provide a brief note here saying what you have added, and I will translate it into good English for you. But please, read fr:Wikipédia:Règles, and follow them. They are not identical to ours here on English Wikipedia. In some ways they are stricter, in others more lenient. But they are quite compatible enough for this purpose.

I suggest a complete rewrite of the French article in fact, to conform to their policies, see below. N'hésitez pas! If you know the person who contributed the Norwegian article, it probably needs some work too.

About your kingdom on this gallery, should I be intimidated because you pretend not being alone?

Please don't be intimidated. Somehow, I feel that's unlikely (;->.

I am alone for sure (I do not count silent supporters), but days after days you are more and more alone too, notwithstanding your definitive cut, past and delete Wiki advantage. Yes you are alone in stating that QT detonation proposed engine design is speculative, pseudo-science and unsupported (read more on the subject). Supposed silent watching editors are not supporting anything, in fact they are not watching neither but like many, they are ignorant of engine matter (like I am of pseudo-science) and are getting educated from our website just the way you did, and we are proud of it as we have strong educational objectives. Silent supporters are useless in this discussion, but wise in abstaining to comment. Not only they are here learning about engines (thanks to Wiki for now), but they are also learning about the fight any new paradigm has to make to get accepted, and the painful evolution of the opponents toward what is becoming the evidence in a Wiki section about "proposed engine design".

I hope they are learning, yes. I am learning too. I'm sorry you feel alone. Where is Ylian?

They are also hopefully learning about an attitude not to have when arguing about an undergoing research (unwelcome on Wiki?), and about some precaution and rigor when editing unknown subject (contribution limited to cut, paste, delete, rules and opinions). Innovators around the world also learn from the discussion that their challenge will not only be technical or scientific, but also very much a matter of human relations. Fortunately, truth never gets intimidated for long, no matter who and how many are watching. Attachment to conventional technologies is strong and natural, and new technologies are always seen as assaults again the comfort of standard know-how (an their gurus), and also are unwelcomed newcomers perturbing the establishment and the power game.

I'm sorry you find me part of that opposition. I've tried to give you a fair hearing. Frankly, I feel that your outbursts here say more about you and your invention than about me or Wikipedia.

The current article is not an expose, just by the way. If it were, I would ask some aggressive questions, such as:

• Does the Quasiturbine site deliberately blur the distinction between the SC and AC models, in order to suggest that current development on the simplified SC models will support the claimed theoretical advantages that only apply to the AC design?

• Is the current Quasiturbine site deliberately vague about the demonstrations of the engine in vehicles (omitting the actual dates, for example) in order to disguise the fact that these were pneumatic engines running on stored compressed air, rather than internal combustion engines?

I repeat these questions here as they are equally relevant to your preferred version of the Wikipedia article, and also (sadly) to the current version on French Wikipedia. Perhaps, you would like to clean up both your website and the French article, to avoid these impressions?

Quasiturbine is alone in the 20 to 60 psi efficient pneumatic and steam solution, why hurry to extend the fight to the crowdy combustion world? (The decision is fortunatly ours!).

I think if you presented the crowdy combustion world with the results you imply you have, you'd get a very positive response. Your review in European Automotive Design a few years ago was very favourable, especially for an engine that never achieved ignition. Unfortunately, they don't return my emails asking for more information.

If the Quasiturbine is now being developed primarily for applications other than the internal combustion engine, then both the article and your website should reflect this. Your website does not, and the English article as you wrote it was primarily about the internal combustion version, and was headed by the diagram of the SC internal combustion concept. The French article still is.

My suggestion is, even if there's some reason you can't bring your own website up to date, write a good up-to-date article for French Wikipedia.

If there is no friendly place here for correct explanations, there could be even less friendly room for the products. It would be naive to think that everyone has interest in the emergence of a new engine (you may be one of them?), and losers will not give up their market without opposition and action. Among millions of banal pages, it is not surprising that Quasiturbine subject and discussion attract audience and monitoring, but I swear it is not a malefique complicity with anyone for that purpose! Innovation is what major companies scare most (like Toyota and Nissan are showing the world), because it is the weapon of a war they can little against, but arbitrary discrediting it for some while... They love what you are doing, at least ask them some money!

The World Wide Web has many such places, but Wikipedia is not one of them as you have discovered. Please read what Wikipedia is not to learn why it's not. The general principles apply equally to both French and English Wikipedias, just BTW, see ce que Wikipédia n'est pas.

I provided here a lot of ignored answers.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I have done my best with them.

Fortunately, other languages see thing differently, and do not have to be Andrewapedia translation. Meanwhile, the Wiki October 2 2005 article version is still more informative, complete and accurate (not just an opinion). Like Wiki, your friends at QT-Howstuffworks encyclopedia do not like undue promotion, speculation and pseudo-science, but certainly view the emerging technology otherwise as they do not hide the technology potential and its eventual impacts (no one can delete there). By the way, the Quasiturbine is back on Howstuffworks entry page for the third times in 4 months as they are not indifferent to the watching audience neither! Will Wiki undue policing maked it lag behind? Maybe some silent people caring about Wiki should start speaking-up and do some damage control on "proposed engine design page". Mon robot traducteur bouillonne. / Mr. Quasiturbine (prénom: Gilles)

HowStuffWorks has a different culture to Wikipedia. I'm glad you find them more sympathetic. Andrewa 16:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A word of caution

I have been assuming that Mr. Quasiturbine (prénom: Gilles) is Gilles St-Hilaire, the leader of the 4-person family team that patented the Quasiturbine. However I think we should bear in mind that there is little evidence. He has not identified himself. There is also some evidence that all may not be as it seems.

In particular, he shows no knowledge of the scientific method, which is taught in even the most elementary high school science classes in Australia. But what is even stranger is that he does not seem to care. Rather, he asserts that his opinions and speculations are science while making no attempt to support them. When asked for evidence, he responds instead with more unsupported speculation. This is not what you would expect from someone with a PhD in the physical sciences.

Looking more closely, the Quasiturbine article (which seems to have originally been written by Ylian St-Hilaire, a member of his team) has never actually said that Gilles has a PhD in the physical sciences. It merely claims that he has a doctorate of some sort, and is a thermonuclear physicist, which presumably means he has worked on nuclear fusion of some sort.

Food for thought? Andrewa 23:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on the captital Q

It also occurs to me that perhaps the reason for taking the name Mr. Quatiturbine might be to try to establish his right to demand the capital Q on Quasiturbine, following my comment that the Wankel engine has a capital W because it is named after Felix Wankel.

If so, this stunt is of no relevance to the question of whether or not Quasiturbine has a capital letter. The Quasiturbine wasn't named after this Mr. Quasiturbine, it's the other way around.

Let me try to explain it. If a US signalman in the Second World War had said "I see three enemy jeeps approaching", there's no capital J when reporting this conversation. He doesn't mean they were made by Jeep, he just means they are jeep-type vehicles, not trucks or tanks. If I use a capital J, I'm implying they were made by Jeep (and not for example Toyota).

Similarly, if we use the capital Q in the article, we are implying that all quasiturbines are Quasiturbines, made or licensed by the organisation that owns that name. We have not actually established yet whether there is any such organisation (although I did ask), but it still seems to me that the article should not assume that nobody else will ever produce a quasiturbine (small q). Andrewa 23:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons

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

[edit] L'humour console

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Is photo-detonation pseudo-science

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggested clarifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gilles is back

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