Talk:Bourke engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's working to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.165.160.204 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

User:Biker Biker, what would you recommend as the best way to advise people that the book "Bourke Engine Documentary" is still actually available, best way to find it is "online"? Lkcl (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the documentary mentions a point that is referred to in the article, you could cite the documentary as a reference. Also if you think the documentary is notable, I'm sure you can find an appropriate place in the article to mention it.War (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, notability is not 'felt' it is established. The documentary is not a reliable secondary source, it was made and sold by the miraculous device's original promoter, and is still being sold by the commercial promoter. I don't actually have a problem with it being used to source claims about the unfeasible fabrication, I do have great problems with it being used as a source for definitive statements concerning physics and chemistry and the like. However, wiki policy is that primary sources are generally frowned upon, so my relatively lax interpretation could be struck down. If there is a legal free copy of the documentary then add it to the external links or see also sections.Greglocock (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Detonation misunderstanding: article clarification needed[edit]

I have noticed that there is a lot of talk about the Bourke engine being a hydrogen detonation engine however there is not one instance cited of one ever being run on hydrogen. This doesn't meet wiki standards as far as I under stand them. DieselDude (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DieselDude thanks for pointing that out: you appear to have misunderstood, so this does need clarification in the article.

actually, bourke does mention running these engines on pure hydrogen, on page 68 of the "Bourke Engine Documentary". however, Bourke likely didn't have access to a large source of hydrogen, nor have access to the materials needed which could ignite the vastly-higher combustion temperatures. So he focussed instead on using Hydrocarbon Fuels as it was, from reading his notes, clearly of considerable concern that Otto Cycle Engines were so inefficient and polluting.

In the very short section on Hydrogen combustion it is clear that he did give the matter some thought. he mentions use of "Sponge Platinum spark-plugs" so as to be able to withstand the 2,000 Fahrenheit ignition temperatures required. He also points out that use of pure hydrogen and pure oxygen would simply be too violent a reaction, so he recommended the use of atmospheric air, instead.

So no, this is *not* about putting in Hydrogen plus Oxygen directly into the cylinder: it's about getting the hydro-carbon chains (hydrogen plus carbon) to first burn off the carbon (just like in a standard otto engine), and to continue compression such that the remaining chemicals, which will by that time include hydrogen, air, carbon dioxide as well as quite a bit of unburnt hydro-carbon chains, to go massively BANG at elevated temperatures (in excess of 1800 F). *that* is what's meant by "Hydrogen detonation", and it's done using air plus fuel - not pure oxygen plus pure hydrogen.

if you can think of a way to clarify this, in the article, your help would be greatly appreciated. Lkcl (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok i didn't write the section i believe you found, so was a bit confused initially as you can see above. i've since accidentally encountered the mention of hydrogen usage (claims i think it is) and have added a precied version plus reference to what Bourke actually said, rather than having some random previous person's garbled, obtuse and really rather uninformative account. Lkcl (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to clarify what detonation combustion is, and how it differs from pre-ignition in gasoline engines and auto-ignition in CI engines. It also needs to identify evidence for shock waves as being part of the process. Let's give it say 2 weeks to find refs? Greglocock (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User adding gibberish to article[edit]

1 " A normal engine would require a camshaft of infinite length to achieve the same amount of time at TDC as a Bourke Engine." Camshaft length has nothing to do with dwell times. Greglocock (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greglocock, my name is Luke Leighton, not "user". you are in danger of being insulting again. and, unfortunately, mechanically ignorant, as well as failing to read the advised scientific, peer-reviewed pre-existing material available from wikipedia. these factors sadly combine, i am sorry to point out, to categorise your edits as "vandalism".

i've given you ample material and opportunity to review the material, and you are continuing to ignore the facts. please actually read the page Scotch_yoke - examine the diagrams, and please do actually examine the following graph: Piston_motion_equations#Example_graph_of_piston_motion. you can clearly see that the dwell times do, in fact, vary with camshaft length.

until you can answer "i have read the pre-existing wikipedia reference material that you thoughtfully provided, but i disagree with it and/or have some questions, perhaps you could kindly and respectfully answer" i can only advise you that your continued vandalism leaves you in danger of providing evidence supporting that you be banned from wikipedia.

may i respectfully advise you, therefore, to cease and desist from your continued course of action, and to adjust accordingly to a more positive contributory role. Lkcl (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, given the insulting nature of the comments, and the continued vandalism, as well as the lack of acknowledgement of reading of reference material, as well as comments indicating dismissal of reference material as "just a book", i've reverted Greglocock's vandalism (again). until Greglocock pursues a more acceptable attitude i will continue to apply this quite reasonable policy of reversion, as well as carefully reviewing sections so vandalised, seeking out and finding further references where practical. a more constructive approach by Greglocock, instead of demanding "control" of the contributions, would go a long way towards ensuring that, instead of the material being targetted at terminating Greglocock's vandalism in a "defensive" manner, the material is instead more balanced and is in a style which is more in the spirit of wikipedia. Lkcl (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK mate, here you go . If you can provide one reference in an established book that claims that the length of the camshaft affects dwell at TDC, I will cease and desist from editing this article completely. If you can't do that then you must promise to do the same. Fair enough? Greglocock (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you from refraining from using derisory and insulting comments in the above paragraph. There are two answers to this, Greglocock. 1) You are not in a position to make such demands, deals, offers, invitations to gamble, especially on wikipedia. to do so is providing further evidence that you be banned from wikipedia. 2) I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that you have read the reference material that I have provided. I apologise but I cannot spend my time tracking you down (not least it would be privacy violations) and placing diagrams literally in front of your face: whilst this may shock you and appear to be patronising I do not know what else to say or what to do when you refuse to acknowledge that you have read the material provided. I do not know what to do, other than to ask for help from other more experienced wikipedia editors (and have placed a formal request for such assistance) because if you cannot read the material advised, which is a direct answer to your objection, then there is something wrong that I cannot accurately pin-point (or, more specifically, am reluctant to commit in writing as it risks being misconstrued), but continued repetition "please acknowledge that you have read the reference material provided" can only be repeated so many times.

Reluctantly dealing with this instead of pursuing further research into the topic material. Lkcl (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after a little more thought, i believe it is worthwhile to mention the following. I have a kind of brain, the educational backround (A-Level Maths, Physics and Chemistry, then Software Engineering at Imperial College, then a Vehicle Simulator for Detroit Diesel) and the imagination to visualise the extension of a camshaft with incredible ease. it is blindingly obvious to me, and also from my mathematics background i am aware that the cosine of a tiny angle is negligable. take a calculator, greg, and take the cosine of 0.001 and 0.002: it's 1.0 to within five decimal places. thus, it is absolutely blindingly obvious that, by extending a camshaft out to massive lengths, the amount of lateral motion is negligable, and thus you end up approximating the mechanics of a scotch yoke: a sine wave.

if you had a background in mathematics, you would be able to follow the equations on the page that i referred you to, on piston motion equations. you would be able to place in large values and would be able, thanks to that background in mathematics, to understand that extrapolation of the large values to infinity results in other parts of the equation "disappearing", the end-result being that the parts of the equation that are left would result in a sinusoidal wave.

if you did not have a background in mathematics, you could instead look at the graph i referred you to, and see that there are several lines on it. and, you would be able to see that as the length of the cam shaft increases, each line gets progressively closer to that of a sine wave. if you could not see it clearly, then if you had access to a graphics editor, you would be able to place on top of that graph a sine wave, and would be able to go "ah yes, i see now! that's really interesting!"

now: that you are unable to acknowledge that you have done this leaves me unable to determine whether you are deliberately acting in violation of wikipedia guidelines, as distinct from whether you are actually actively working in good faith towards the improvement of this article.

on that basis, i am forced to conclude that until you change the attitude you are displaying, and prove otherwise by being willing to say "yes i can learn", that contributions from you are done in ignorance of basic mathematics, physics and chemistry; that you are wholly unsuited to technically contribute to the improvement of this article, and, worse, that your continued efforts amount to nothing more than insults and vandalism, in direct violation of wikipedia policy and the spirit of wikipedia.

it is very unfortunate, because, as a software engineer, i could easily and very quickly write a software program that you could run on your own computer to demonstrate the principles involved. however, as you have "demanded" that "a book" be produced, i would be deeply concerned that you would treat the software as "suspect", because you could not understand the principles involved. such concern equally extends even to the presentation of such a "book", which i am beginning to suspect that you would not understand even if it was available.

i am sorry to have to point these things out, but it is sadly necessary to. i continue to be very confused, and regretful at having to make these statements publicly. Lkcl (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to understand the vital difference between a crankshaft and a camshaft... the length of a camshaft has absolutely nothing to do with piston position. in fact, no force whatsoever is directly transferred from a cam to a piston. i am pretty sure you are talking about the crank "arm" length, not camshaft length - but after reading your arguments, i really am unsure of anything you are trying to argue. all that you had to do was simply provide a reference for your argument as requested, instead the history of this article is now a mess that will live on. camshaft length could extend to infinity without any effect on time/position of a piston. this is my first "contribution" - i strongly advise you to take a step back and listen to other people. we learn through our mistakes, but it seems you aren't willing to admit them... bashing other users (on your page/this page/etc.) without citing your source to prove that piston position is a function of camshaft length after numerous requests is simply a waste of time on everyone's part. please accept this as constructive criticism - it is not meant for anything other than this. this probably doesn't belong here - but wanted to place it here to show you how ludicrous this entire page has now become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.29.163 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got the slightest interest in your qualifications since demonstrably you cannot read english. None of those references mention changing the camshaft length to change dwell at TDC. If you can find such a reference please type the exact sentence here. I will abide my offer, I trust you will do the same. Greglocock (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greglocock, i repeat, once again: i am still waiting for you to state "i have read the reference material that you have provided, and i do / do not understand it". here it is again: Piston_motion_equations#Example_graph_of_piston_motion. please state that you have seen and examined the graph. once you have stated that you have seen and understood the graph, we can proceed. until then i will be forced to revert all modifications made as "vandalism".

also, you have now added "disrespect of the contributor" to the list of things that you are in breach of, in regards to acceptable wikipedia interaction. also, you are not in a position to "bargain", "make offers" - it doesn't work that way.

other than that, thank you for the valuable contribution of noting sections that you find questionable, rather than destroying them: that's very helpful, as it encourages me to research the points that you have marked, and, importantly, does not waste my valuable time having to educate you on etiquette of wikipedia or having to revert vandalism. if you can continue to mark sections that you believe need work with "dubious", that would be very very helpful Lkcl (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big clue, check who created that graph. On my desk I have both taylor and heywood, and have referenced them many times over the years when I was designing and developing engine components. I also wrote parts of the wiki article on piston motion. So yes, I have read them, understand them, have used that analysis. Now, all you have to do is type the sentence from a reasonable reference that supports your ridiculous and impossible assertion that the camshaft affects piston dwell near TDC. or perhaps you could ask your mates at DD, when they stop laughing let me know. If you do manage to find such a ref, I'll shut up. If you don't then you will be revealed for what you are. Greglocock (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greg, stop. calm down. i take material at face value - i don't check things like "who wrote it". ok, good. now i know we're on the same page. unfortunately, if you've read it, and say "i understand", then you're missing something. i'm not sure how to prove this to you, without both of us having to go through some lengths, scuse the pun, to get there. in the meantime: again, i repeat: please refrain from derisory remarks - it doesn't help. let me get some sleep... ah. wait. i know.... no. darn it. ok, i'll do a quick diagram, tomorrow, ok? Lkcl (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First check who created this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scotch_yoke_displacement.png so don't waste your time recreating it. Secondly while I find your various attempts to explain things amusing you can save your breath, just find the quote supporting your absurd claim and i'll go away. Easy isn't it? Greglocock (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love that this whole argument is based on, what appears to me to be, a mere typo of someone confusing camshaft with conrod. 117.120.16.133 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but then I have a cruel sense of humour, and not much tolerance for pontificating idiots.Greglocock (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More gibberish[edit]

The article repeatedly confuses the possibility of operating the fabulous construct on hydrogen as a fuel, with more general claims that it uses H-O burning when running on conventional fuels. eg "power of hydrogen-oxygen detonation instead of using the more progressive, slower carbon-oxygen burn normally found in Otto_engine". As any IC book worth reading points out, most of the power in an Otto engine burning hydrocarbons is generated from the HO burn. I will remove the ridiculous comparisons in two days unless authoritative evidence can be found otherwise. Greglocock (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greglocock, if you have evidence that there exists "any IC book", please reference it here, especially if the material can be found online. i will be particularly keen to read and evaluate it, because bourke clearly was working on his own when the science was not as mature as it is now. it is pretty clear that *at the time* most otto cycle engines were *not* based on HO burns. it's also pretty clear that the design of otto cycle engines *deliberately* avoid "detonation" because it results in significant engine damage in engines which are not designed to cope.

however, you may be right: it could well be the case that IC engine science has caught up (at last) with Bourke, but you **need to provide proof of that** and you need to provide proof of that **BEFORE** deleting sections or criticising them as quotes ridiculous quotes.

if you cannot find any such evidence, but persist with unverifiable and unjustifiable removal of material, i will be forced to revert anything that you claim - in the continued derisory fashion that you persist, in direct violation of wikipedia guidelines - is "ridiculous".

ok?

Lkcl (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heywood, p69 in my edition, enthalpy of reaction. rogers and mayhew "enginering thermodynamics, work and heat transfer" section 15.2 in my copy. Taylor chapter 10 in my ancient copy. I shall revert all your recent changes to the article, mine are valid edits. Greglocock (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg: please provide *verifiable* sources. where is a copy of heywood, p69, available online? etc. ISBN numbers needed if there isn't equivalent online material. if they're not online, it mayy be ok to scan a few relevant paragraphs, just be careful so as not to violate copyright so keep it to under the limit if possible, email them to me (you can find my email address easily enough, google my name). let's work on this _together_ ok? you could well be right, but you need to provide _proof_ in accessible form, ok?

the problem i think with our previous communications is that you're assuming that "everyone knows" that IC engines have feature xyz (e.g. "burn HO") - they don't know! i didn't know anything about IC mechanics and chemistry (not in detail) until a couple of weeks ago. there are plenty more people in the world who don't know.

now, it *may* turn out that yes, modern engines now deploy HO-level burning (whereas otto engines 50 to 100 years ago didn't), but that doesn't explain the vastly-higher air-fuel mixtures that the bourke engines run on.

in other words, it's far too early to go "deleting sections". this needs _study_. it's one guy who used scientific journals dating back to 1909 for god's sake vs an entire industry of peer-reviewed development! it's going to take time to work out whether things have caught up. bourke was clearly ahead of his time... but what we *don't* know is: is he _still_ "ahead of his time"? that's the burning question (scuse the pun) that i want to find the answer to. Lkcl (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heywood and Taylor are reffed in the article. R&M may be as well. Greglocock (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect balance[edit]

The only configuration I can see that gives perfect balance with 4 cylinders (ie 2 piston units) is to use 2 crankshafts, with the 4 cylinders on a common axis. This result is trivial and would be true for any 4 cylinder engine arranged like that. the width of the engine is absurd, the difficulty of tying the two cranks together is non trivial. I know it can be done, but any notion of simplicity and low weight will have long left the building. An 8 cylinder single crank version would be much more elegant. Greglocock (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greg, fantastic - thank you for entering into a discussion rather than vandalising the page. the addition of "dubious" is very very helpful. yes, my associates and i have been discussing, for over an hour a day, issues such as why the hell this engine wasn't designed with several cylinders on a common axis. yes, sure "modular" is great but it's kinda taken to extremes here. i _believe_ it may be something to do with the high power-to-weight ratio: if you can shave 50% off the materials compared to a standard otto cycle engine, then a modular design is kinda ok because just bolting two engines together at the crank is... well... easy :)

it did occur to me that "perfect balance" - assuming that there is any imbalance in the first place, which, given that we don't have replicas of these engines sitting on a bench is a pain in the ass, so can't verify one way or the other... but, anyway: assuming that there is an imbalance somewhere, and assuming that it is a symmetrical one (i.e. "bang" on one side causes a wobble which, 180 degrees later, the opposing "bang" does exactly the same thing), *then* under such circumstances, logically if you put two engines "inline", i.e. you now have two pairs where the left one goes "bang" on one pair but the right one goes "bang" on the *other* pair, logically i believe that this would cancel out any such imbalance inherent in a single-pair design... assuming that there was one.

now, i am not actually convinced that even two pairs would be sufficient to cancel out any such imbalance! if you take any object and you put a force on its top-left quadrant to the right, and at the same time you put an opposing force *offset* i.e. on its bottom-right quadrant, then, duh, the object is going to spin. the only way to solve *that* problem is to have *eight* cylinders - 4 opposing-pairs, or potentially even more: 10, 12 etc. etc. - the more that you have, the closer an approximation you're going to get to complete cancellation of opposing (offset) "bangs".

urgh, let me try an ascii art diagram: "exit" stands for "it's on exhaust cycle", "bang" should be obvious :) 

bang--> X O -> exit
exit<-- O X <- bang
bang--> X O -> exit
exit<-- O X <- bang
bang--> X O -> exit
exit<-- O X <- bang
bang--> X O -> exit
exit<-- O X <- bang

in this configuration, all "bangs" on left counterbalance all "bangs" on right, resulting in an absolutely tiny angular momentum - if any. does that make any sense?

darn it, if i knew how much the piston heads weighed etc. i'd do some quick calculations. but i know that bourke recommended that even the piston rods be hollow, to reduce materials.

btw, bourke had one of these 30 cubic in engines running up to a max rated 10,000 RPM, producing 76HP. just one pair, that's just... nuts! if his figures are to be believed (2.5HP/lb) that means 30lb of weight. add 2 together, you've got 150HP out of a 60lb engine. how much does a normal 150HP engine weigh? 200kg? quick google search confirms that yes, there's boat engines come up top of list on google "150HP engine weight" @ 216kg, that's 433lb, wow dang, only 0.34HP/lb. that's... wow. ok, i'm sure you may be able to find a better figure than i, but anyway, the point is: the bourke engine is _peanuts_ weight compared to standard 4-strokes, i mean you can see in the diagrams and some of the photos online that the wall thicknesses aren't spectacular, and so doing things like sticking 2 of them together, or 4, or 6 (whatever) isn't unreasonable, i don't think.

anyway. don't jump at me over those figures, ok? bourke himself tried really hard to get his engine independently tested and verified. aviation certification required... what was it... achhh, i'll find the page tomorrow - i think it was 1000 hours of continuous testing under full load, at a cost of $75 per hour, billed by the Civil Aviation Authority. he just didn't have the money to do that, greg. any money he raised had to go on the care of his wife. US. no healthcare, then. whoops. Lkcl (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TODO[edit]

  • bourke documentary, p38 para 8 "bourke cycle chemistry defined" appears to be a mistake. yes detonation is all over at TDC, resulting in torque over 135 deg, but it's *not* linear (as claimed by bourke) due to the expansion itself: the (approximate) linearisation is due to the reverse-lever effect of the scotch yoke, which at angles close after TDC reduces the torque; at 90 degrees between TDC and BDC, just when the depressurisation is 1/2 way run out, the momentum imparted is zero, and at small angles off of BDC the levering-effect is at its largest. by BDC itself, when the depressurisation is at its smallest, the reverse-lever effect has reached infinite, but that's ok because a few degrees prior, the exhaust ports lined up, anyway. argh, complicated! Lkcl (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • argh, find section which mentions that cycloning inside the cylinder results in unburnt fuel still remaining in the cylinder (mostly) even and especially when the exhaust port is open. found it earlier - lost it again. it's an important design characteristic. Lkcl (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) got it! p41, para1.[reply]
  • argh, must find section which mentions inefficient operation of bourke engine, for "claims of hp" section. Lkcl (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • p67, bit about errors on 2-stroke designs increasing exhaust pipe super-scavenging, i'm sure it's relevant somewhere, have to research this a bit more though Lkcl (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • bit about two power-strokes (one each of about 135 degrees) results in extremely smooth torque, etc. etc. don't quite follow it .
  • page 35 "Bourke Engine" stuff, continues p36 and 37, is absolutely essential and critical design information. bearings are all triple-sleeve, mention of 18-22 ampco alloy, geez how did i miss this section earlier?? Lkcl (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • find out more about NOx emissions http://www.cmu.edu/biofluids/papers/combustion.pdf is for wave rotor engines, simulation - doesn't look good for that Wave Disk Generator! Lkcl (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • p33, mention of "bendix scintilla mags", no K2A-205 and "mercurys" being guaranteed to 4200 only (RPM??) must find out what those are.
  • found mention of "too rich" a mixture, p33 para 4, regarding people running the engine under inefficient conditions. he pixes 3 parts white gasoline and1 part stove oil (!) to get the right type of fuel. bizarre! Lkcl (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and self-published-sources.[edit]

The Bourke Engine Documentary is referred to frequently in this article by one contributor, yet it does not have an ISBN. As such I can only concluded that it is a self-published book and should not therefore be considered a reliable source. I would challenge the validity of any information in this article that is referenced using that source and support its removal, especially given the aggressive nature of the contributor towards those trying to bring a decent standard of editing and referencing to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biker Biker, it was published by the "Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc" in 1968, and comprised all of the papers and life works up to that date: letters received including historic ones from the U.S. War Department (December 9th 1937), correspondance written, newspaper clippings dating back to at least 1941, collected over decades: verifying and seeking out this material would be a complete pain in the neck of a task for one single individual to take on.

I am fully and keenly aware that it does not help that Bourke's work entirely predates "The Internet": he had access to reference material that dates back to 1909. He quotes his sources as being Sir Humphry Davy, Sir Fredric Able, Bunsen, Page, Hiscox, Sir Dugald Clerk, and mentions that "any library has their works" - now of course that would mean "A historic library". People such as Beau de Rochas and Dr Otto were still within living memory, for goodness sake! Clearly, such reference material, if still available at all in published form, is of extreme historic value if nothing else.

I know exactly what you are referring to regarding quotes aggressive quotes contributions. Sadly, you are confusing Greglocock's derision, insulting comments and vandalism as being somehow my fault. If you examine the nature of Gregolock's comments, you'll see clearly that he fails to read even basic pre-existing wikipedia reference material that I spent time tracking down for his convenience and education. In the rare instances where he has actually provided something useful - usually at the same time as vandalism with insulting and derisory comments associated with it - I have worked quite hard, in spite of Greglocock's attacks, to credit him and thank him for the contributions that are actually useful.

So, I believe that you are confusing the fact that I will not tolerate insults nor attacks, nor derisory comments, in direct violation of the spirit of wikipedia, as "some form of agression" which has absolutely nothing to do with the article nor the material itself.

Greglocock's attacks make this work very challenging, and are interfering with the development of the page: your help in terminating these attacks, rather than supporting them, would be greatly appreciated.

If Greglocock was not making agressive attacks and vandalising the article, instead, making useful contributions in the spirit of wikipedia, this discussion herein would not even be taking place.

Understandably, I am marginally irritated to even have to be taking up my time even discussing this issue of educating Greglocock, instead of getting on with collaborating with willing editors to improve the quality of this article.

So, let's ignore Greglocock entirely as a separate issue to be dealt with, yes?

Overall: whilst I appreciate your concerns, I strongly urge you to actually read the world's only remaining source of historical information on the design of the Bourke Engine before criticising its value. If you are unable to afford purchasing a copy, I can make available specific pages to you as scanned copies, if you promise to destroy them afterwards. The material is Copyright (C) Lois Bourke 1968, and, closer to the end of his life, whilst Bourke himself was keen to see that the design was freely published, Copyright Law is still in effect so you will need to destroy any scanned pages after reading them, or seek out a copy of this book yourself.

So, instead of recommending the complete removal of two weeks of work from Wikipedia, why not instead help out by verifying the authenticity of the reported material in the book? For example: please help out by attempting to track down the following:

  • "Sports Aviation, March 1964" published by the Experimental Aircraft Association
  • "Hot Rod" January 1962 issue, the October 1958 issue and the April 1957 issue... ok, there's more, dating back to 1954 as well: the July 1954 issue apparently had disassembled components published.
  • Newspaper cutting: Tuesday August 12th, 1941, the heading is "Petaluma Argus-Courier, Petaluma, California. -- EVENING" and the photocopy of the clipping ends there. It's related to the Aircraft "Model H" version of the bourke engine. presumably, petaluma is where Bourke lived. ah ha! the War Dept letter gives an address - Mr A G McKinney, Editor of the Record (newspaper), Petaluma, california, 35 miles north of Hamilton Field.
  • "The Gas and Oil Engine" by Sir Dugald Clerk, 1909 Edition. pages 26, 27, 28 and 79-113 have been re-published in this Documentary.
  • War Dept correspondance, Ref 400.111 August 24, 1936 from "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF THE AIR CORPS (4-F) (A), WASHINGTON", H.H. Arnold, Brig. General, Air Corps, Asst. Chier of the Air Corps, Subject "Engine Invention - Russell Bourke", To: "Commanding General, GHQ Air Force, Langley Field, Virginia", in which General Arnold recommends that the invention be pursued.

Bottom line is: if you wish to "dismiss" this material, then you are going to have to research each and every part of it, in order to demonstrate that the above cuttings, letters from the U.S. Government, magazines etc. and the research material that Bourke references, did not exist. That may be alternately viewed as "you can help to improve the quality of wikipedia by verifying the sources", which is in itself an exciting thing to do.

I trust that this helps clarify matters. I trust that you are willing to operate "in good faith" to collaborate and help verify this material and help improve Wikipedia. thanks. Lkcl (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey, amazing! Dugald_Clerk#Bibliography - the book existed! turns out Sir Dugald Clark invented the 2-stroke engine, wow. now, User:Biker Biker, i reluctantly have to point out that, for the sake of consistency, you must delete from the article on Sir Dugald Clark all references to his published work, "The Gas and Oil Engine", on the basis that it, too, must have been "self-published", by virtue of it also not having an ISBN number. to not do otherwise would be hypocritical, yes? anyway, i trust that you understand that i mention this well, not in jest, but in a spirit of absurdity [laugh - drily] to help dismiss such talk of "deleting two full-time weeks of work", and to move forward in a spirit of cooperation to improve wikipedia. Lkcl (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the wiki policies, in which you'll find a couple of relevant points. (a) comparison with other articles is not valid reasoning. (b), and this is not one I really support, primary sources are not preferred. The reason I don't like the latter is that in the case of historical documents in subjects of little general interest, such as this fabulist construct, nobody sane would waste much time on writing about it in the conventional literature. Incidentally a bit more cooperation on your part and a lot less tude will go a long way. This article could be summarised as "The Bourke engine was designed and developed by Bourke. He made various claims for its virtues which have never been replicated in third party tests." For comparison see the revetec engine where the inventor sent the thing off for testing by an independent lab.Greglocock (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greg: as you can see from the above section entitled "perfect balance", you're beginning to transition to a conversational mode which *invites* cooperation, rather than invites defensive editing. now, let's look at this paragraph you've written, in that same spirit. ok. 1) thank you for pointing out about the wikipedia policies. i won't say i haven't time to read them, but i _am_ knee-deep in research material: your assistance in ensuring that what i write follows wikipedia guidelines would be really handy. 2) precisely because bourke did his research, but also because he worked *independently* of the standard establishment, i am not yet ready to dismiss what he's saying until i have some hard evidence that his work has not been superceded. yes there's a new Audi A3 with a fuel economy figure of 89mpg (Imperial Gallons), but there's no (cheap) modern engine which hits bourke's power-to-weight ratios... assuming that the damn things bloody well work *sigh*. 3) yes, the article could be summarised thus, but to do so would lose valuable historical (if nothing else) information. 4) there do actually exist people who have access to bourke engines: roger richards got hold of one, got it working, then set about replicating it. he's the last known person to do so (other than rob pierce but that's vaux engines). and yes he _did_ do "independent tests" on it. the problem is: do you _believe_ him? how many "independent" tests is it going to take? how many people have to spend modern-day levels of money on learning engineering expertise and then on actually making one of these damn things for it to be viably declared "independent"?

  • sigh* it really doesn't help - i don't know if you've read the story or not - about those 3 older guys who worked for 20 years on a bourke engine, having promised russ to carry on testing and developing it. one of the guys was an engineer, who _knew_ that his 2 (much older) friends had made a mistake in the torque testing, but, in order to "keep his friends hopes up", kept quiet about it for 20 years. a journalist came along, spotted the mistake, and gave the game away. now, what this tells me is that we cannot say one way or the other whether: a) these old 3 guys simply weren't up to the task of understanding the bourke engine enough to run it correctly in "lean-burn" mode b) russ bourke was a complete liar.

so far, all empirical evidence tends to point - including reports of shearing prop-shafts by going from idle to 100% in a few revolutions - to this engine being able to do what it says on the tin. i can _feel_ it. i can _also_ intuitively feel that there's something... missing. it's not a "big" thing, it's a little thing. i feel that with modern valves (yes valves not ports) and with computer control, this engine design could do a lot better. but ... argh! i need an engineering budget to prove it :) ok enough already. Lkcl (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the standard of an ISBN number cannot apply to Sir Dugald Clerks work. His work was published in 1897. That would be 68 years prior to the ISBN number being invented in 1965. The Bourke Engine Documentary was supposedly published in 1968, 3 years after the ISBN number system was invented. Furthermore The Bourke Engine Documentary doesn't appear in a list of Experimental Aircraft Associations published works http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AExperimental+Aircraft+Association.&qt=hot_author DieselDude (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more interesting information. Copies of Original 1967 The Bourke Engine Documentary by Lois Hain Bourke on amazon.com list a publisher "E. Coutant" that seems to not have published any other book http://isbndb.com/publishers/search.html?kw=Coutant . Also there is a version that does have an ISBN number 0914119133 which indicates it was first published in 1990 by Tesla Book Co. Can we count this as a hoax yet? DieselDude (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add the publisher D. D. Enterprises of North Hollywood CA to the list of publishers that have only published a single book The Bourke Engine Documentary by Lois Hain Bourke in 1968 . DieselDude (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complete P.O.S. and I suggest the article is reverted back to a last-known-good version before all this original research was added. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion forces stop the piston claim[edit]

No, in the absence of combustion the piston motion still stops briefly at TDC. yet another example of basic misunderstanding by the editor in question. Greglocock (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flame speed[edit]

Measured flame speed in gasoline engines is around 50 fps. Flame speed of hydrogen is around 10 fps, source added to article. This makes further nonsesne of the claimed combustion chemistry. Unless good cites are found (not primary sources) for the H-O chemistry stuff (you won't be able to, it is utter nonsense) then i will remove all of that garbage in say one weeks time. IC engines burning gasoline have always burned the hydrogen, just like a Bourke engine. They do not routinely run in det, that is the difference, you could usefully find data for flame speeds in detonation, I'm guessing around mach 1. I suspect the overall chemical reactions (and hence energy produced) are virtually identical, the pathways may be different. Incidentally low fuel air ratios (lean mixtures) reduce flame speeds. Greglocock (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real story[edit]

Here's my guess. The Bourke engine operating on a hydrocarbon fual operates almost exactly like a conventional crankcase charged 2 stroke engine, except that it relies on detonation at TDC for some, perhaps even much, of its power. Combustion is initiated very early and proceeds normally up until det occurs. Early ignition is required because the mixture is lean which reduces flame speeds (standard result), and because he wants det of the endgas to occur at TDC. Here's a standard description of detonation in normal engines, I'm sure it applies to bourke http://books.google.com/books?id=MFx4VRErHNoC&pg=PA585&lpg=PA585&dq=942036+hydrogen&source=bl&ots=fkc9J26Lph&sig=kSnl9nX5W5YZ_4kJV_X87PBxSbI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x477ToHFAciUgwen9a2MAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=hydrogen%20flame%20speed&f=false

All the waffle abut H-O and emissions and so on is misdirection. Here's a useful kiddy level summary that may help on the NOx stuff, and hydrogen in general http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf

The performance in terms of torque/capacity, and sfc, is probably about that of a conventional non supercharged 2 stroke. The power output follows from the attainable rpm, given the cumbersome nature of a scotch yoke I'd be surprised if it was exceptional; but that is a decision that has to be made with respect to durability.

The claimed virtues of the scotch yoke are again misdirection, he needed a crosshead piston so as to allow crankcase charging without using oil in the fuel. A scotch yoke is a relatively compact way of achieving this.

There are several additional sources of inefficiency in the Bourke engine's configuration, chiefly some horrible pumping losses due to the crankcase charging system.

Almost all of these extravagant performance claims could be tested by an independent engine test lab, something that neither Bourke nor Richards has ever permitted.

This is mostly OR, hence not suitable for the article, but is my best guess from 30 years working as an engineer on engines (on and off) and several years writing on this and other related wiki articles. Greglocock (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

triple slipper confusion[edit]

A triple bearing is a plain bearing with additional concentric rotating bearing shells inside the oil gap. Double bearings aka floating shel bearings were relatively common on hotted up engines in the 30s http://www.reds-headers.com/html/red_s_engine_talk_7.html. A slipper bearing is also a thing that looks like a slipper on an ankle joint, and slides along a flat or curved surface http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3713791.pdf for example. My guess is that either Bourke or the editor is confusing Bourke's name for a three element rotating bearing with the slipper bearing also used on a scotch yoke. Greglocock (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg...here is link to a pic of the bearing....about 3/4's of the way down the page...I can see that there does not appear to be a slipper on it....so I have no problem with calling it a type of "hydrodynamic fluid bearing" leaving out the slipper part....

http://www.rogerrichard.com/4436.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno2 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have fun.....sno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno2 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bourke engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has this section been copied?[edit]

Comparing the criticism section at the end with this webpage: http://everything.explained.today/Bourke_engine/ appears to be pretty much verbatim. Is that acceptable in Wikipedia? I'm trying to start a _storm, just wondering where to draw the line between contributions based on a given reference and wholesale duplication of that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.193.30 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has been copied, but in the other direction. They've copied the wiki page without attributions. That is quite common, in both senses of the word. Greglocock (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there is attribution at the bottom of the copied page, linking back to here. Kuru (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my comment edited accordingly. Greglocock (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bourke engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk - a new source[edit]

http://a.moirier.free.fr/Moteur/Documentation/Performance%20testing%20a%2030%20cubic%20inch%20bourke%20engine.pdf

This was published in the March 1980 edition of Sport Aviation, the EAA's comic. http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/sportavi80.html

Here's the contents page scanned http://larrysbasement.com/product/eaa-sport-aviation-enthusiast-magazine-march-1980/l-0605-3-jpg/

OK, let's play whackamole with the fanbois! We've got data, they've got PR.

Greglocock (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things to be whackamoled should be the claim that it runs smoother. In the testing of the original Vaux reproduction vibrations were rather severe. Even after modification by a professional engineer vibrations could not be improved beyond a single cylinder engine.

The second thing to be whackamoled should be the claims of it running more efficiently in detonation mode. Just like other engines efficiency drops when it is run under this way. Testing indicated a 20% drop in output power. DieselDude (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bourke_engine&oldid=1200294359"