Talk:Diesel engine

Two quibbles

Diesel fuel may have a lower flash point, however the autoignition temperature (energy) is lower. Cigarette butts tossed into gasoline and diesel are much more likely to create a conflagaration with diesel fuel. Second omission is that a much higher proportion of the energy of diesel fuel is carbon, therefore not as green a fuel. (Of Carbon burning in Oxygen: 85% of energy from burning to Carbon Monoxide and only 15% burning CO to Carbon Dioxide.) Also, Diesel engines run at high compression and high pressure which forms significant Nitrogen Oxide pollution. The comment about "some form of air injection" is poorly researched and undocumented: NOx is reduced in gasoline engines by running the mixture fuel rich, not air rich. The resultant carbon monoxide rich mixture is reacted with injected air in the catalytic converter. Diesel engines generate Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) by virtue of their higher pressure and higher temperature of combustion. Note that the equilibrium of 2 CO = CO2 + C is 1400 degrees at the higher limits of gasoline engines, but below diesel combustion temps. Reduction of NOx in diesel combustion is by adding Ammonia or other low valent Nitrogen compounds during the combustion , or exhaust gas recycling (EGR) . Shjacks45 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Diesel No 1 vs Diesel No 2 fuel. Biodiesel wrong.

• Didn't see a link to Diesel fuels etc. like Cetane number or reference to other C-20 type fuels (Kerosene, Jet Fuel, ...).

Lawsuit that can be googled about older fishing boat fueling an dock ran out of #1 diesel so they used #2 diesel because it was the more expensive (higher grade) fuel, narrower distillation range. However the older engine depended on the waxy components in the #1 Diesel for lubrication and the engine failed, was damaged, using #2 Diesel.

• Most waste cooking oil is treated with small ammounts of methanolic sodium hydroxide to removed acidity from decomposed fats. Hydroxide does not catalyze transesterification and not enough methanol to react. Modern gas engines use fuel injection just like diesel engines and can burn the junk mixture that is now called gasoline (isooctane and n-heptane co-distill; octane rating was % octane; current gasoline ranges from propane to cetane and includes toluene and benzene et al). Foolish listing of alcohol since ethyl alcohol boils at 80 degrees which is higher than most engine compartments; engine fluid handling equipment doesn't handle vapor successfully. Vegetable oil is admixed with diesel oil because of poor startup characteristics at cold temperatures (many oils congeal at cold temperatures) as well as much higher Autoignition temperature and flash point of vegetable oil compared to diesel oil (Cetane).

Shjacks45 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proper noun

The term "Diesel" is a proper noun, and should, therefore, always be capitalised, the uninformed opinions of certain "authorities" notwithstanding. The engine is named after its inventor, Rudolf Diesel. There are editors on Wikipedia who have been extensively using lowercase for the name, and even reverting corrections from capitalised to uncapitalised. To continuously insist that it should be uncapitalised is as absurd as referring to vehicles from Ford Motor Company as "fords" or vehicles from General Motors as "chevrolets", etc. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Diesel didn't invent the diesel engine, as we know it today. He invented the Diesel cycle and the original low-speed air blast injection Diesel engine. These bear little relation to the engine we use today, at least not at the car and truck scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, as I understand it. The *name* "Diesel" is a proper noun. The *term* "diesel" is a common noun. It's not absurd, because it's *not* a brand name or any other precisely registered body of intellectual property, but rather, of fairly common or genericized (if those are the correct terms) technology. AFAIK. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a noun adjunct (a noun acting as an adjective), in this case a diesel (fuel) engine. Diesel fuel is a common noun, as mentioned, not a trade mark, and is why this is lower case, as contrasted with Diesel cycle (or Diesel's cycle to think of it a different way). Hence lower case is correct here. Mauls (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand you folks correctly, we should be writing all automotive-related names exclusively in lowercase from now one. Perhaps you'd be happy with others writing your surnames in lowercase, too. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Dingley Act is capitalised, the dingley tin isn't. Dingley tins are the key-opened tins traditionally used for sardines and the root of our family fortune, in the Band-aid industry.

In credible sources, Diesel cycle is capitalised as a proper noun, diesel engine (outside Wikipedia) very rarely so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quicksilver, although your concern on this is entirely good-faith, it's also misplaced. Despite your impression that lowercasing certain eponymous terms is (to paraphrase) "a Wikipedia thing" or "an unreliable-so-called authority thing", it is in reality done by all major dictionaries on various eponymous terms, although the individual dictionaries differ in which terms they choose to lowercase. Take a look at eponym > orthographic conventions. Read the section Capitalized versus lowercase. Look at the refs in it. Read the table at Comparison table of eponym orthographic styling. Look at the ref citations in that table, click on them, and look at which dictionaries they are from. In short, the list of "uninformed" "authorities" (in your air quotes) that you are going up against includes Merriam-Webster, Oxford University Press's Oxford Dictionaries (try it yourself: type "diesel" at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ and press enter), The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, The Chicago Manual of Style, Dorland's medical reference works, American Medical Association style, American Psychological Association style, and all other major dictionaries and style guides. Once you have changed the minds of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionaries, you could expect Wikipedia to follow suit, per WP:RS. — ¾-10 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The article needs improvement

Hello. I think that currently the article is lacking in that it talks about Diesel engines, but describes neither their structure nor operation. There's no description of what a Diesel engine actually is (Ie. it's a machine which consists of an engine block in which there are cylinders and a crankcase, which has pistons, bearings etc) nor how it works (The 4 stroke and 2 stroke cycle).

For instance, currently at the beginning of the “Operating principle” section we can find the following text:

In the true diesel engine, only air is initially introduced into the combustion chamber. The air is then compressed with a compression ratio typically between 15:1 and 22:1 resulting in 40-bar (4.0 MPa; 580 psi) pressure compared to 8 to 14 bars (0.80 to 1.40 MPa; 120 to 200 psi) in the petrol engine. This high compression heats the air to 550 °C (1,022 °F).

But there's however, no mention of where the air is introduced and then how it's compressed. Basically, the reader has to already know how a Diesel engine is and have an idea how it works to make sense of this.

I'd like to fix this problem by changing the “Operating principle“ section into a “Structure and operation” section which contains a description of the structure of a diesel engine interleaved with a description its operation. I have access to the book “Light and Heavy Vehicle Technology” by Malcolm Nunney which I plan on using as a source.

Please comment on this and let me know in this talk page if you'd like to participate on this change as well.

QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

I forgot to say: the elements of the structure of a gasoline and Diesel engine are almost identical, though the proportions differ. The operation of a 4 stroke Diesel engine and gasoline engine are also very similar. I'm considering to make a page operation of Diesel and gasoline engines and include only a summary and a pointer from the articles Diesel engine and gasoline engine. Again, comments are requested on this proposal. QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Capable of self-aspiration in the Supercharging section

Two-cycle chainsaws, model airplane, and motorcycles don't need blowers. They are self-aspirated because they are gasoline fueled and they use the crankcase in the cycle. (The model airplane uses a glow plug for ignition. The chainsaw and motorcycle use spark plugs.) I think the previous editor meant to say that "Diesel" two-cycles need a blower. Questions or comments?66.81.132.81 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that crankcase compression is equivalent to a blower. See also Kadenacy effect. Biscuittin (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Egr vs scr

See Talk:Egr vs scr. Biscuittin (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a merger with Diesel exhaust rather than Diesel engine because the latter article is very large already. Biscuittin (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Diesel engine/Archive 2. Biscuittin (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Engine starting

Some indirect injection engines of the 1950s did not have glowplugs for starting. Instead, there was provision for injecting a small amount of lubricating oil into the upper cylinder. This reduced the clearance volume and gave a temporary increase in compression ratio. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference for this. Biscuittin (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a misunderstanding of the CAV Thermostart system, and it's '60s rather than '50s. I've only seen it applied to direct injection, not indirect injection, and that matters an awful lot to a diesel. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It was used on some Paxman-Ricardo engines. The Paxman history page does not describe the starting system in detail but the reference to a "hot plug" refers to the throat of the combustion chamber, not to a glow plug. Biscuittin (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Which engines? (I've a fairly large library on Paxman and Ricardo).

Cold starting combustion chamber engines is described as both "harder" and "easier". They're difficult to start except when there's a glowplug system, which there always is; with working glowplugs, they're easier to start very cold than anything until very recent common rail engines.

The Comet system is well known for the loose plug, which acts a little like a hot bulb engine, but that's a running feature, not a cold start feature. It was also used as a similar loose ring with several earlier combustion chamber designs, although not with the same flow patterns as the Comet. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The RW engine is the one I am familiar with. Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean ?

"Turbocharging is particularly suited to DI engines since the low compression ratio facilitates meaningful forced induction, and the increase in airflow allows capturing additional fuel efficiency not only from more complete combustion, but also from lowering parasitic efficiency losses when properly operated, by widening both power and efficiency curves. " This is pure technobabble ! I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and it is meaningless to me. Also this: "The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency... due to...inherent lean burn which enables heat dissipation by the excess air" How are Diesel engines "inherent lean burn" and why should heat dissipation give greater efficiency ? More nonsense, I suspect. "lean burn under low load" might be defensible.

This paper states that the stroke of the 1893 engine was 400mm (not 10 feet !), while the efficiency of the 1897 engine was 26.2%. https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/diesel_history.php#diesel

The quoted 75% efficiency figure is totally spurious; good modern engines achieve 50% max for "shaft efficiency", the product of thermodynamic (or indicated) efficiency & mechanical efficiency: http://www.wartsila.com/en/sustainability/environmental-responsibility/products-environmental-aspects/engine-efficiency.

Clearly references are need in the "history" section. The article as a whole seems to be highly unreliable, and in need of radical revision. I have added a section describing the indicator diagram, but note that the figure is wrongly labelled with the horizontal axis said to be specific volume, whereas simple 'Volume' is appropriate if cyclic integral (area enclosed by the loop)is to be related to work. I am not going to tangle with the absurd wikki restrictions on pictures in an attempt to correct this; some-one else can edit out the word "specific". g4oep

Diesel engines run on the Dual Cycle

It is a common misconception that Diesel (Compression Ignition) engines run on the Diesel cycle, whereas in reality they operate closer to the dual cycle. When the fuel is injected at top-dead-centre, the fuel combusts which results in an initial pressure rise before the piston is moved due to the expansion of the air, this is consistent with the dual cycle. The 'Operating principle' should therefore be rewritten in accordance with the dual cycle operation of a diesel engine, rather than the misnomer diesel cycle.Aron Pye (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Whar's the "dual cycle" of which you speak? I agree that high-speed diesel engines (which is the majority of them, since the 1930s) use something much closer to the constant-volume Otto cycle than the constant-pressure Diesel cycle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The dual cycle is where heat is added under separate constant volume (isochoric) and constant pressure (isobaric) processes, it is essentially an idealised model of what occurs during combustion in CI / Diesel engines. The Diesel cycle was envisaged by Rudolph Diesel as a process by which engines could run, where the fuel is combusted under constant pressure conditions; this requires that the piston immediately move at a rate which expands the volume of gas inside the cylinder which permits constant pressure combustion (i.e. heat addition). In reality there is a pressure rise as the fuel combusts as the piston does not instantaneously move, it is also highly beneficial for the heat addition processes to occur under constant pressure and constant volume regimes as this expands the area under the indicator (PV diagram) resulting in more work and higher thermal efficiencies. Aron Pye (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Minority viewpoint

Sources for [1]:

• Willard W. Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine, p. 1
• Doug Woodyard Marine Diesel engines and gas turbines', p. 63
• Charles Fayette Taylor The Internal-Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice, p. 1

The viewpoint of Heywood is a minority viewpoint. Free feel to mention it, but removing a template because it conflicts with a minority viewpoint is not justified. This is not a personal attack, I just want to keep the quality of the article. Thanks for contributing as well. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diesel 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121105211235/http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/about_audi_ag/news/AUDI_REVEALS_WORLD_S_MOST_POWERFUL_DIESEL_PASSENGER_CAR.html to http://www.audi.co.uk/audi/uk/en2/about_audi_ag/news/AUDI_REVEALS_WORLD_S_MOST_POWERFUL_DIESEL_PASSENGER_CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100107145120/http://www.analog.com:80/en/technical-library/faqs/design-center/faqs/CU_faq_MEMs/resources/fca.html to http://www.analog.com/en/technical-library/faqs/design-center/faqs/CU_faq_MEMs/resources/fca.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of already substantiated claim based on a misunderstanding

GliderMaven: You quoted 2 reasons for your removal of the following claim:

The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine due to its very high compression ratio and inherent lean burn which enables heat dissipation by the excess air.

It is fine if you are checking the article for factual accuracy. However, that requires technical knowledge of the field and to read carefully both the article and the sources.

Your first complaint “graph in Mitsubishi reference says gas turbines have both higher efficiency and power” is incorrect. See the graph carefully. The graph has “Gas turbine” below “Large, slow-speed marine diesel engine” in both power and efficiency. You probably confused yourself with the label “Gas turbine combined engine” which is not the same. I elaborate on the difference below.

Your second complaint “second source says combined cycle engines are higher efficiency” shows where the misunderstanding comes from. You are confusing combined cycle systems with engines. Combined cycles are by definition, assemblies of heat engines, and an assembly is not the same as its elements. In this case, the relevant combination is gas turbine/steam engine; neither of which has an higher efficiency than a modern Diesel engine comparable in power.

Free feel to add a clarification to the article regarding this distinction, possibly as a note. However, removing valid content because you have misread the sources and confused the concepts is not justified. I have restored the valid claim. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine, and a combined cycle engine is not, specifically a diesel engine. Further the claim that you're making that: The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine is not found in either reference, nor is it likely to be found in any other reputable reference; nor is it actually true.

The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.

Even if this were to be true in some specifiable narrow sense, unless you specify what narrow sense this is true, then it should still be removed, because it isn't generally true, and you're saying that it is; which is, a lie.GliderMaven (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the efficiencies of the large Diesel cycle Diesel engines used for ships, such as those by Wartsila. They're the highest efficiency engines yet constructed. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference I have found for that is that Guinness said in April 2015 that a specific Wartsila engine is the most efficient diesel 4 stroke engine of all time at 52%. Sure, I'll buy that. They might even be the most efficient 4 stroke engine of all, but it doesn't even say that. That doesn't mean that they're the most efficient engine of all. There's rather a difference.GliderMaven (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet constructed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not what our Wikipedia article is claiming; it's claiming that diesel engines are necessarily the highest efficiency engine of all. And that isn't true. The efficiency of all heat engines is limited mainly by Carnot, which in turn is limited by the temperature ratio.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? In theory, make the hottest possible simple Stirling engine, then make it out of unobtainium instead and run it even hotter. This is not an interesting game to discuss outside an article on the Carnot limit itself.

In practice, the limit is materials, not design, and all materials are considered available to all. So the practical limit becomes pressure ratios, not temperatures. Diesels get to use higher pressure ratios.

In everyday economics, the overall economy of a diesel is also because its part-power efficiency remains quite good, unlike the petrol engine or gas turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's certainly pretty good; but the article that is being revert warred to, is saying that it's better than all other engines; which it isn't. Actually all heat engines seem to top out at about the same, and combined cycle engines do a bit better than single cycle engines like diesel cycle because they're better able to fill the PV graph. But that's not what is being repeatedly written here.GliderMaven (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: You are using terminology in a way that introduces what you want to prove as a premise; that is circular reasoning and therefore a fallacy. Indeed it is true that “a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine”; it is a tautology. However, you are implicitly assuming that we are talking about “combined cycle engines” to begin with, which is an implicit premise and it is false. The literature refers to these systems as just “combined cycles” or “combined cycle power plants”, not “combined cycle engines”. See for instance Jeffs, Eric (2008). Generating power at high efficiency. Here you can find plenty of mentions of “combined cycle” and none of “combined cycle engine”.

You say “The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.” which is false. It does not talks about “combined cycle engines” either.

You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.

Both papers support the claim: the first paper in page 6, first paragraph of that page; the second paper in page numbered 22 (actually 2), second column, third paragraph of that column (counting the incomplete one as the first paragraph).

I repeat: free feel to add a note if you think that there is a chance of confusion, clarifying that despite the fact that some combined cycles achieve an higher efficiency than some comparable Diesel engines, neither the gas turbine nor the steam turbine achieve an higher efficiency.

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but the first reference says it is 'unrivalled' but then qualifies it by only comparing it with two rather specific examples, and then the graph on the same page shows that a diesel running combined cycle with another cycle is still more efficient at 55%. But the references we have elsewhere in Wikipedia say that gas turbines running combined cycle can achieve 60%!

The second reference says that it is higher than 'in other engines and turbines' it doesn't which other, and it doesn't say all other.

And neither reference is a WP:RELIABLE source; these are self published sources by a manufacturer stating how "very" good their own engines are. They have not gone through peer review, and they are not published in reliable, independent, journals!!!

These statements are wishful thinking by a self interested party. Diesel engines are good, but not that good. These "references" are both marketing bullshit.GliderMaven (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

These "referenced" statements don't pass the smell test.GliderMaven (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: I am noticing a pattern: You make several argument in succession, none of which is a valid reason to remove the text; and when you are refuted in one of them, you move to the next one, without acknowledging that the argument you just abandoned is invalid.

1. “graph in Mitsubishi reference says gas turbines have both higher efficiency and power” Simply reading the document reveals that it does not says that.
2. “The combined cycle page indicates that combined cycle engines with over 60% thermal efficiencies have been built.” Again, simply reading the article reveals that it does not says that because to begin with, it does not mentions “combined cycle engines“ at all.
3. “a combined cycle engine is, per its name, actually an engine” Indeed, but it is a tautology and it is a fallacy in this context, because again, the literature does not talks about “combined cycle engines”.
4. “the graph on the same page shows that a diesel running combined cycle with another cycle is still more efficient” It does not provides a counterexample to the text you removed. Like you said, it talks about combined cycles; it does not says “combined cycle engines”.
5. “The second reference says that it is higher than 'in other engines and turbines' it doesn't which other, and it doesn't say all other.” Indeed. We can't be completely sure that it means “all other engines”, but it likely means that; that interpretation is consistent with the rest of the article. In this case one must use reading ability. Note that it does not mentions any single engine type that performs better. It mentions combined cycles, which I already addressed.
6. “And neither reference is a WP:RELIABLE source” The guideline you quoted (note that it is not a policy) regards mostly self published and extremist sources. The Mitsubishi paper is not self published, nor a sales brochure; it is published in a Mitsubishi journal (this is mentioned in the paper itself). You can search for the name of the journal using any reasonable search engine and find it. The other paper clearly has a more commercial intent, but is not a sales brochure either nor makes exceptional claims like claiming somebody has built a perpetual motion machine (which WP:RELIABLE warns about). The relevant policy, WP:Verifiability says “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.” (emphasis added). Note that it says that those are the most reliable sources, not that they are the only sources that may be used in Wikipedia articles.

Your behavior does not seems to correspond to a reasonable effort of checking and ensuring the factual accuracy of the article. You seem interesting in simply removing the claim, regardless of whether it is factually correct.

You have insisted many times on removing the text based on a false premise. I mentioned the mistake since my first edit summary, so you are aware of it: “Combined cycle systems are not engines (the engine is the gas turbine _only_), so they are not a counterexample.”. I have already mentioned that your premise is inconsistent with the majority of the literature on that matter (possibly all, but obviously I can't check all of the relevant literature). I have asked you to give a source, with no response: “You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.”.

It is not productive to discuss if you refuse to back up your arguments and are not willing to listen for the counterarguments. This insistence on removing the text based on a false premise (without providing anything to back it up) is a sign of disruptive editing. Please reconsider your course of action.

Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

I'm sure you find that people pointing out that this part of the article is based on unreliable sources disruptive to your agenda, whatever that may be. In the meantime I'm trying to help write an unbiased, truthful, referenced, encyclopedia article, and that requires WP:RELIABLE sources, but these are commercial sources that have not been through a reliable publication process.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So I'm removing both the claim and the 'references' because they're unreliable. If you can actually back up these or other statements with reliable sources, then feel free to reintroduce them, at that point, and not before.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: You have again edited to your proposed version without consensus. You just restated what you said previously with an added personal attack. This is disruptive editing.

“I'm sure you find that people pointing out that this part of the article is based on unreliable sources disruptive to your agenda, whatever that may be.” This is an unsubstantiated personal accusation (namely that I have an “agenda” that involves adding an untrue claim). There are guidelines and policies against this that you should be aware of, including dispute resolution § Discuss with the other party, no personal attacks and assume good intention.

The text you removed is sourced. You disagree with the sources, the relevant policy says (emphasis added) “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.”. You yet to explain any specific problems. I already asked for a source above (“You insist in that combined cycle systems are engines, and therefore they are a counterexample to the claim you removed. Do you have a source to back up that claim?.”).

You removed the references themselves based on your statement “They have not gone through peer review, and they are not published in reliable, independent, journals!!!”. Again, it is not required that sources are like that. Read the guideline you invoked (WP:RELIABLE), it says: “The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.”. I am restoring these sources.

Like Andy Dingley already explained to you, the point of the text is that Diesel engines are the most efficient practical engines or engines commercially produced (as you want to see it). Any editor including you can change the wording so that it is more clear, subject to consensus of course. However, it already addresses this: “any practical internal or external combustion engine”.

You can not impose unilaterally your preferred version of an article. Edits are subject to consensus. You do not have consensus on removing the text; you must work on establising consensus to your proposed version before restoring it. You must abide by the policy, and since a source has been provided already, you must (verbatim quote, emphasis added) “articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC). Regards.

Sorry, in Wikipedia but I don't have to disprove non reliable sources, I only have to remove them. You have to prove what is written using reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to reintroduce the material only if and when you can support it using reliable sources.GliderMaven (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GliderMaven: The policy says exactly the contrary (here is the quote again, for the third time): “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. In this case you removed the material, so you have the obligation. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

No problem, there were a couple of reliable sources there already.

I for one am completely fed up of GliderMaven's technical ignorance across a wide range of articles. This is the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, so it's hardly surprising, but you appear to have a greater ratio of self-confidence to actual understanding than almost any other editor I can think of. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE SOURCES ARE:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers

GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

THESE ARE NONE OF THESE THINGS- THESE ARE UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND NO STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE USING THEM IN WIKIPEDIA!!!GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the contention that diesel engines have the absolute highest efficiency of ALL engines is actually false. It might be the highest 4 stroke engine but IT IS FALSE THAT DIESEL ENGINES ARE AUTOMATICALLY THE MOST EFFICIENT OF ALL ENGINES.GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

“THESE ARE UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND NO STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE USING THEM IN WIKIPEDIA!!!”. I already addressed this concern 2 times: 1, 2. You have yet to quote a policy or guideline that says that the 2 sources in question (1) are unreliable, and (2) that no statements may be made using them. The quote you included does not says either of (1) or (2) and I gave a quote against (2).

“In addition, the contention that diesel engines have the absolute highest efficiency of ALL engines is actually false.” We already addressed this concern.

GliderMaven: you are just repeating yourself with no arguments to support the removal of the text. Please be civil and restore it yourself. Thanks.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

I came late to this thread and did not read the whole volume (so please excuse if someone else already said this), but GliderMaven, couldn't your concerns be addressed if the article simply said something about "highest engine efficiency of any practical transportation engine, even though not the highest theoretically possible efficiency"? Or something along those lines but worded better? That way both aspects of it could be covered. A link to Carnot cycle or other appropriate articles would then round out the full coverage (reader goes there if cares for more). Reader would still get the practical upshot here either way (layperson-friendly net result). Regards, — ¾-10 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If they can find a decent reference for something like that by all means. I'm not asking for much, just reference a book or something. Commercial, self published reports and articles are not reliable for what are some pretty grandiose claims.GliderMaven (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet again are just repeating yourself. If you actually read the discussion above, you will see that your concerns have already been addressed while you have failed to justify removal based on policy. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Hi Mario. Apparently you're new here, and you haven't heard that sources have to be WP:RELIABLE in Wikipedia. Follow that policy, and then you can keep material in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What utter patronising crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, you say that?: "I for one am completely fed up of GliderMaven's technical ignorance across a wide range of articles. This is the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, so it's hardly surprising, but you appear to have a greater ratio of self-confidence to actual understanding than almost any other editor I can think of. " Andy Dingley

Look just get reliable references to something, anything, and STFU. If you can't, don't write what you can't back up. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm fed up with you spamming the article with crap that is obviously not correct. If it was correct you would be able to quote something that said exactly that, but you cannot because it isn't actually true. You wishing it doesn't make it true. Diesel engines have no magic sauce that automatically makes them more efficient than all other engines. If it was true, it would be in all major textbooks, and it would be easy to prove. But it isn't true. The best reference you've found said that some diesel engine has been certified by Guinness to be the most efficient, four stroke, diesel engine. That's not the most efficient engine of any internal or external combustion engine.GliderMaven (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate more than a modicum of technical competence on any topic. You screwed up the 3D printing article. It would be a waste to let you screw this one up too. Your approach to sourcing is simple: "I disagree with that, therefore MAN engines are Not Reliable, for I Have Spoken." You have provided nothing from any objective source to back this up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I added properly referenced material, and you removed it. I also notice you're attacking me personally, and not addressing any of my technical points. Your claims do not appear in any of the referenced material, actually not even in the unreliable references. I also found reliable references that disagreed with the unreliable references you added, you removed them also. You're a total, total disgrace.GliderMaven (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your patronizing comment: I already pointed that WP:RELIABLE doesn't supports the removal nor says what you pretend it says, so you are aware that I know about WP:RELIABLE and you checked (or if not, you should have checked before making that statement) Special:contributions/Mario Castelán Castro, so you know I am not new.

“Diesel engines have no magic sauce that automatically makes them more efficient than all other engines.” It is already clear that the text you removed says practical engines. It is clear from the text itself, and I directly pointed that; likewise I pointed that you can improve the wording subject to consensus in case is not clear enough and another editor pointed the same thing.

Policy does not supports the removal of the text but that it stays. If you want it to have more sources, you can add them yourself.

Removing does not improves the article; if you are interested in improving it, then expand it or change it for good. There are several editors telling you that in different ways. You will notice that all of us will stop objecting as soon as you stop removing and instead work on improving the article (or just do not edit at all); I hope that the outcome of this discussion is that, but given your current course of action, the outcome may be that you end banned or otherwise sanctioned; I do not want that you get banned; so please reconsider your course of action. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC).