Talk:Quasiturbine/Archive 1

compression ratio and combustion chamber design

I think the artical is quite good and is very appropriate. However there are some things that should be clarified.

This engine looks quite viable and it can run in a gasoline mode as well as a diesel mode and the newly discussed photo-detonation mode.

In a gasoline mode it is unlikely to be any better than a wankle because it still has those cresent moon shaped combustion chambers with the terrible surface to volume ratio. In this mode compression ratios would have to be limited to about 8.5:1 or it will auto-ignite and probably ping. I see some potential to make a dimple in the top of the wedgie and attempt to squeeze most of the fuel/air into it... but it seems unlikely that one could get much above say 90%. If so then I expect in this mode the engine will waste at least 10% of its fuel just as most older car engines did. I think the wankle was worse but I do not have data.

Two objections may sometime contredict themselves: Either the chamber is efficient and will ping at low pressure ratio, or it is not an efficient chamber and will be unable to ping, but it is unlikely to be an inefficient chamber where pinking will occurs easily. Gilles

In a diesel mode I can see no reason why a dimple cannot be incorporated in the top of each wedge and this can be situated opposite the injectors. In this design the combustion chamber shape is formed dynamically as the wedgie moves under the injector. Compression ratios can be over 20:1 and the residual air in the cresent does not really matter as it has no fuel in it anyways.

I presume photo-detonation is somehow achieved above 20:1 compression ratios and this is trans-diesel if you pardon my cludging this word together. Does photo-detonation overcome the wall effect where any fuel within a proximity of the walls of the combustion chamber do not burn? If so - then how? Perhaps photo-detonation (or possibly the whole discussion of detonation modes) should be split into their own page(s). I would think this is relavent to hyper-jet engines as well because the incoming gas at 10,000 MPH is moving at about 15,000 feet per second which is quite a bit faster than the flame front in a gasoline engine combustion chamber.

Be careful not to confuse the diesel thermo-ignition (which leave a near-surface cold area) with photo-detonation, which is a photonic gas combustion process less dependent of the gas temperature, because it is the photonic activation which triggers dissociation and combustion, not primarly the thermal agitation. Gilles

Another thing is that the speed of the flame front is not quite as important as its made out to be because when the fuel is ignited the combustion chamber is quite small. However if this engine or a wankle is run at high RPM and in a gasoline mode where the fuel/air is more or less homogenous and distributed throughout a cresent shaped combustion chamber - then the flame front propagation is critcally important because the engine can rotate 90 degrees before the flame even reaches the farthest limit of the combustion center. In photo-detonation mode this might not matter - but as the artical points out - nobody has this mode working yet.

I agree that detonation/combustion would be a suitable subject for its own article. Can you write one? Cheers, Willmcw 22:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

prototype engine

I certainly think that it is appropriate to have articles about interesting technologies while they are in the prototype stage. But to reference that technology as if it were mature in a variety of related articles (outboard motor, steam engine, etc), seems premature. Virtually the only mentions that I can find of this engine are press releases and the like. One article has been amended to indicate that the engine was successfully tested for the first time in a gokart last month. OK, so it might belong in a gokart article. At the moment, these edits smells like a publicity effort. Unless more independent references are provided, I am inclined to remove all the mentions of Quasiturbine that go beyond historical facts. -Willmcw 07:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I don't mind a link in the Wankel engine article since the two technologies are similar. But this Quasiturbine concept is entirely new and unproven. I'd hate to have mention of it expand beyond where it is now. And I have NO IDEA what the below "Photo-detonation" text means - I deleted it from the hybrid car article because I couldn't understand it and it didn't seem to be adding anything relevant. --SFoskett 15:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

204.19.188.19 has already put mention of the quasiturbine in 13 articles. I put a note on that user's talk page, but I doubt anyone will ever see it. -Willmcw 20:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to put the message at:User talk:Ylian, all the anon ip's seem to be this person (Montreal, CA). By the way, this user has re-licenced the images to GFDL and appears to be on the patent. Duk 20:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hold your HORSES in the critisisim if my understanding is correct then photo-denotation means that this engine is able to harbor denotation or pinging, although this would would not make it as smooth as the wankel engine e.g rx-8 it would enable one to run compression ratio of even 27:1, talk about the return of the muscle in engines. i went to the site "english version" and they claim that proper desighns could give up to 1000 HORSES at about 800 RPM

Please sign your posts on talk pages, such as this one, user 207.157.122.252. This article seems to be largely speculation, and I suspect it is being used to promote an unproven line of research. Andrewa 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo-detonation engine and the hybrid car

The Quasiturbine is just one of such photo-detonation engine possibility of the future. For now however, the hybrid concept is attractive, until such time it become a fully "electric vehicle", efficiently "fueling" from the electrical grid...

hold your HORSES in the critisisim if my understanding is correct then photo-denotation means that this engine is able to harbor denotation or pinging, although this would would not make it as smooth as the wankel engine e.g rx-8 it would enable one to run compression ratio of even 27:1, talk about the return of the muscle in engines. i went to the site "english version" and they claim that proper desighns could give up to 1000 HORSES at about 800 RPM. and if you dont need the good emmisions record they even say that you could run it in 2-cycle(with the proper desighns) instead of the otton 4 cycle adding power at expense of emissions and economy. what criti"sisi"sm do you have about that

Hybrid car

The only relation to hybrid autos that I can see is that this engine will someday be so wonderful that hybrids will become obsolete. If that is in fact the only connection then the last paragraph of this article should be deleted. -Willmcw 17:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you get the point. Efficiency of a 200 HP gas engine falls dramatically when used at 20 HP because of high vacuum depressurization needed in the intake manifold, which vacuum is less as the power produced by the engine increases. Photo-detonation engines do not need intake vacuum as they intake all the air available, and mainly for this reason, efficiency stay high even at low engine power. This is the objective of the hybrid concept to save on low efficiency at reduced engine power. More is said on the inventor website. Salutations, Gilles

My point is that this article is about Quasiturbines, not hybrid engines. (BTW, one of the key reasons for using hybrid technology is regenerative braking, which I assume the Quasiturbine does not provide). There is no reason to boast about how this technology will supersede technology X or Y. Just describe what it does now, and what is reasonably expected from it in the future (keeping those two concepts separate). I'm going to change that section to "Efficiency at low power" and remove most of the irrelevant mentions of hybrids. -Willmcw 21:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were right to raise the point, because the original text was not explaining anough and be self supporting. Encyclopedic information should however welcome the reasons for concepts and for new R&D. Quasiturbine has one goal : photo-detonation for hybrid alternative solution. (a new engine for airplane should not omit to say "for airplane" ?). Please review the matter, as for a better writing (assist us all ?), but let the readers now that ? Science will be greatful to you...

If this technology works as described (and I hope it does- sounds great) it could be even very important in replacing the polluting and wasteful two-stroke engines. Obviously there is not "one goal" for this engine, as mentions of it were placed in a dozen articles, including outboard motors, and it has been conceptually configured as a pump, steam engine, etc. If the main goal is to design an automotive engine that will provide an alternative to the hybrid technologies or to harness photo-detonation, then that should go in the lead paragraph, or the history section, and all that pump and stirling engine stuff should go in a paragraph way down the article. Instead, the history section doesn't mention photo-detonation as a goal of the engine. Should it? I had thought from reading the article (and some of the website) that the goal was to design a very efficient engine that would have a variety of applications. As for competing with hybrids, hybrid technology is being sold in showrooms around the country, while this article still has very little description of the ongoing development and commercialization of Quasiturbines. If it is being described as a competitor to a proven and marketed product, then the phase of development that it is in should be better articulated. All in all, I think it is better to simply say that it holds promise of achieving or surpassing the efficiency of hybrids.

Thanks for your understanding and for improvement to the text. Your contribution is appreciated. A look at science and technology is not of course like a look at marketing and commercial considerations. In new innovations, a goal is not acheive before multi steps has been through... and sometime years (ref. fuel cells, in wheel electric motor or hybrid car ?) and Quasiturbine will probably not compete with Hybrid car in showroom before long, but I think it is worthed to inform about the goal, while still progressing. Original document version was much driven toward hybrid alternative conclusive section, so it was not necessary to further emphasised it in history or application section. It may be different now (?), but I think the reader already gets the essential at this time. Merci, Gilles

Hybrid alternative Sub-section ? From a non specialist reader, I believe the text is good, but there is a missing link with the Hybrid technology matter. Could you review the sub-section which provide a in-context explanation to all of this... Tell me what you think ? Gilles

• I think that you should get a username.
• I think that if you are an inventor of the engine that you should avoid editing the article about it.
• I think that this may be a wonderful technology in the future, but as of today it is a prototype, like hundreds of other engine technologies.
• I think that if the story is that the inventors created this engine to allow for photo-detonation and competition with hybrid cars then the history section needs to be re-written.
• I think that while there is a nice explanation of how the engine works in theory, there is no experimental data at all showing how it actually works, such as its performance curve, its efficiency, its horsepower per mass, etc.
• I think that if you want to have a section on how it will someday make hybrids obsolete then you might as well add how it will make every other engine obsolete (and then go edit the pages on nuclear power to add that civilian reactors will produce electricity too cheap to meter).
• I think that describing new technologies is encyclopedic, but that claiming unproven capabilities for them is not. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaking regenerative system can exist independanty from hybrid. City driving car energy use is shown at : http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml Regenerative braking energy recovery is insignificant on the highway, little when the battery are near fully charge, limited to smooth breaking (heavy breaking being over recovery power) and none for now from the back wheels (still waste energy to standard friction brakes)http://www.hybridcars.com/renerative-braking.html . It is however very valuable in intense city driving. A more efficient engine would be beneficial to hybrid in all circumstances, and will not prevent regenerative braking (including pneumatic, hydraulic or others) from being done on vehicle. Furthermore, as you know, onboard generator for hybrid could also benefit from a more efficient engine. Regenerative breaking can not be a drawback of an efficient engine ? I will not edit on that. Thanks, Gilles

Yes, of course any wheeled vehicle can have equipment added to allow for regenerative braking, though that "requires additional power components and energy storage, with associated counter-productive increases in weight, space, maintenance, cost and environmental recycling process." A vehicle with a quasiturbine engine and regenerative braking would be a hybrid, most likely. So the Quasitubine would not replace the hybrid power-train, it would replace the engine inside the hybrid. Rather than adding speculation about how the Quasiturbine will replace the hybrid, the article can be improved by adding facts about the actual performance of the Quasiturbine. Surely tests have been done? -Willmcw 00:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Piston engines have motorized the planet activity for 2 centuries, and still today. In Wikipedia, piston engines are linked to hundreds of pages, while the Wankel engines are linked to about 50. The Quasiturbine Wikipedia page exist for about a year (has been improved lately) and is now liked to only few Wiki pages, like the outboard engines because their users are so much in a need of new a engine concept... With time, readers may link Quasiturbine to many more ? If there is not criteria limit on diffusion of scientific and technological knowhow, there are many on commercial products. Fortunatly, the Quasiturbine is for now 100 % science and technology, as no commercial product is still available... Gilles

As far as I am aware, Quasiturbine already has more space and more links than any other engine prototype. After it has been installed in a dozen car models, survived the LeMans 24-hour endurance run, and become a household word then it should have comparable treatment to the Wankel engine. Until then the Quasiturbine has more than enough space devoted to what, without any experimental data to support it, is pretty much just a bunch of speculation about how the engine might run. Sure, outboard motor users need better engines. They do not need new 'concepts' - those won't get them back to shore. Once the Quasiturbine is packaged for sale as an outboard motor, then it will be relevant to that application. Right now, it is just a concept that is less useful than a pair of oars. -Willmcw 20:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A pair a oars is find to start with and may in deed get you back to shore. However, this is not the direction everyone is willing to go. A pair of oars will never get you at 40 kn, neither will get you practically across the ocean; A sound engine concept will... at least for your sons, if not for yourself. Attachment to present technologies is generally strong and quite natural, and this is why chocking ideas must accept polite confrontation with good faith skeptics and detractors. But tell us how the society will ever get new technologies if scientists are not allow to share their theoretical findings (speculations as you call it) ? Learning about new technology is pleasant for some, painful for other (like for myself), because it required effort and time; a few hours of reading over a 3 days period is not quite enough sometime to avoid paradigms traps.

Summering the Quasiturbine solution to "a prototype" is quite a simplification, because at the difference of dozens of other innovating engine designs, the most important about the Quasiturbine technology are not the prototypes itselves, but the fact that it does unlock a field of development that no other engine design has suggested, and where piston engine has failed for over 40 years Ref: A Low-Pollution Engine Solution - Steven Ashley, Scientific American, June 2001 http://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cal/HCCI If engine design are numerous, unlocking theories are only handful! NASA works on concepts and solutions which are often theoretically validated only before expensive flyship are send out with success. Corner garage man will need a mechanical validation, lacking of theoretical know-how. Today methodology has turn around, and if mechanical prototypes do not meet the theory, it is likely the device which has to be improved, not the theory ! Finally, market success is of course a reliable notoriety, but no one is anymore waiting for such a success to happen before interesting themselves about sound concepts : Segway, fuelcell, hybrid, power batteries, high temperature nuclear reactor... By the way, can you name one single private individual you know which relay on a fuelcell (near 100 Wikipedia links) ? Not me ! We may not share all points of view, but you have at least the merit to have enter into discussion. Bravo. I should be silent for upcoming Christmas time. Joyeuses fêtes à tous, Gilles

Rather than "prototype" you prefer "design"? That is fine. For me, a "prototype" suggests a hand-built device in which each iteration or small class is different. A "design" merely suggests a concept that has perhaps been thoroughly specified and confirmed in theory. If the Quasiturbine can power a gokart then maybe the correct term would be "working prototype". More generally, from what I can tell of the mechanics, it is sufficiently different from the Wankel that it would be a different "type" once it becomes a proven engine.

I spent some time reading the website. It's very impressive. I did not realize how much effort was involved in air engines for chain saws. Any news on that? Because of substantial support the project received it might be worth a paragraph on air uses. From your description of hybrids and photodetonation I had assumed that the pumping applications were very minor. Did an air engine ever go into production?

Fuel cells are a very old technology, and are used in the US Space Shuttle. High-tech companies have demonstrated working laptops employing methanol-based fuel cells, and have 2-year timetables for bringing the products to market. It is likely that more than a hundred companies and a few thousand engineers and chemists are engaged in fuel cell R&D. If only that were the case with quasiturbines too!

As I gather that you can write in the French language I hope that you will also compose an article on this topic and others for the french edition fr.wikipedia.org. Best wishes for the holiday and the New Year. I hope that you, your family, and your invention prosper. Cheers,-Willmcw 05:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This question was asked already, but I don't see an answer. What, if anything, does this article have to do with hybrid vehicles? Why not just delete the whole section on hybrids? --Yath 11:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Constant width?

Aaronbrick: Does the rotor really "turn within a curve of constant width"? Certainly, it's a succinct description, but not much use if not correct. I find it hard to believe that an essentially oval shape could be "constant width" (according to the linked article). I may be totally off the mark here, but it seems to me that if the cavity was constant width, the rotor would not need to be articulated. --Mike Van Emmerik 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

hey YOu sOEvEr above do not bring to us your knowhats about NAS-of-A . NASA does not fund any engine designs or anything to do with Engines unless it has JET in it. this is a prototype and the copyright holders arent willing to sell it to car companies. if it wasnt for that the quasiturbine might alredy have outproduced the wankel rotary engine.

I'm happy for this section to be removed or archived now. --Mike Van Emmerik 23:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

rotary combustion engine

If it is a rotary combustion engine how can there be a steam powered version. Surely this is a rotary pressure transducer that can be operated in one of several modes? --Son of Paddy's Ego 00:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be another Sarich engine at best. Whether it even deserves an article is doubtful IMO, but it certainly doesn't belong as it is, full of unverifiable promotional material for an unproven concept. Andrewa 15:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's more like a Wankel engine than the Sarich engine. It seems to be more elegant the either. The Sarich engine has the piston bouncing around, separation being maintained by a blade system that looks complex because it has to allow for the piston moving in 2D, but not rotating. The Wankel has 1 two few sections to sit well with a four stroke cycle. Was the Sarich engine ever demoed on Tomorrows World?--Son of Paddy's Ego 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Quasiturbine is like the Sarich and unlike the Wankel in that the rotor itself has moving parts which change its geometry as it rotates. Cooling and lubricating these moving parts proved to be the insurmountable problem for the Sarich; No useful engine was ever demonstrated, despite attracting a great deal of publicity and finance. A prototype was filmed running on a bench under no load, Sarich did get that far. Andrewa 13:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo-detonation

I tried to clean up the section on photo detonation as best I could. It was somewhat incoherent before. One thing that struck me is that there is nearly no information on the claimed difference between regular detonation and "photo-detonation" anywhere on the web. Even on the quasiturbine sites it is never explained more fully than a sort of detonation that relys on radiated heat (blackbody radiation), assumedly from the surfaces of the engine block and rotor themselves.

A google search for "photo-detonation -quasiturbine" on google shows a near complete lack of information on this phenomenon outside of the writings from the creator of the Quasiturbine.

I tried to make it clear that there is little independant research on this subject, or even evidence that the phenomenon exists distinct from what is normally just called detonation in this context. Gigs 02:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to popular believes, detonation is not a phenomenon that occurs when an air/fuel mixture is compressed to the point of self-ignition. The point of self-ignition is a highly irregular and non homogeneous condition where ignition does not occur uniformly, but rather by patches where the combustion following self-ignition could still governed by conventional slow thermal waves between the patches. In engine, this tends to trigger early ignition, but not necessarily strong detonation. Some patches may carry detonation condition and generate a shock wave traveling in other area of the mixture, then you may have a shock wave driven detonation. All previously described phenomenon exist on the way to photo-detonation, but extra build-up of pressure and temperature are needed (and mostly no anti-detonation additive, which role is to absorb the radiation) to get to a definite and ultimo photo-detonation, where the combustion is essentially radiatively driven. Variation of detonation combustion studies are still limited to very few labs around the world, and poor result with piston engine is fuelling exasperation and is quite confusing to the public. Similar radiation ignition and photo-detonation occur in high light intensity condition of chemical or nuclear bomb, and can be produced under control and study in confined chamber by modest power pulsed laser beam. See for example "Simultaneous Measurements of current and magnetic field in laser-produced plasma at variable pressure" Appl. Phys. Lett., 29, 469 (1976). Quasiturbine AC geometry is not especially attractive for detonation patches, not even for shock wave detonation, but quite indicated for the photo-detonation, the end of the road! However, because of its short volume pulse and rapid ramp near top dead center, the Quasiturbine AC handles all detonations, which the piston can not. Because all this could not be said in the Wiki text, I think the previous version was quite acceptable as it was. Since Wikipedia deserve the most accurate explanation, please allow me a try upon the try... / Gilles

Please consider creating a userid, it will make it easier to sign your posts, costs you nothing, and gives a little extra privacy. Also, it's considered rude to modify other people's comments. Andrewa 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore - it could be classy to cite the text you just pasted here. Beanluc 19:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In other words, the material presented here on photo-detonation is original research? Andrewa 15:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really original research per se, the information is available on the quasiturbine sites run by the Saint-Hilaire family. The problem is that the claims involved with photodetonation are unverifiable. Gilles Saint-Hilaire is one of the creators of the Quasiturbine, so I think he qualifies as an expert editor (with a big conflict of interest, however). The main problem is that there is no independant citation available for the photodetonation phenomenon, since as far as I could find, there has been no independent research at all regarding it. Gilles, if you have an independent source of research regarding photo-detonation please post it. Gigs 18:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To find out about detonation driven by shockwave, electrical sparks, microwaves, radiaoactive particles, thermal radiation (photons), laser light ... search for "trigger detonation" "radiative detonation" "optical detonation" "triggering detonation". QT research associates photo-detonation specifically to fuel mixture. Photo-detonation can not however drive a pandemia detonation, but bird flu known as H5N1 will do. Gilles

"can not however drive a pandemia detonation, but bird flu known as H5N1 will do" -- you are joking right? Gigs 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Good one, too! I laughed. On a serious note, this article needs more explanation about just what "photo-detonation" is. Again, Gilles: Why not let us know that the text you pasted came from here? Beanluc 19:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

ISTM that photo-detonation qualifies for a Category:Pseudoscience tag, especially in the light of remarks on French Wikipedia. But should the tag go onto this article, as photo-detonation currently redirects here, or should photo-detonation be split out into an article of its own? Any thoughts? Andrewa 11:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

REUTERS - Is United States Becoming Hostile to Science? / Gilles

Wikipedia is certainly not hostile to science, or even to pseudoscience. (Nor is it excusively American of course.) We are happy to document both. We do however value clarity and accuracy in these descriptions.

I hope you will join me in making this article both clear and accurate. Answering some of the many questions asked on this page, and the issues raised below, would be a very valuable contribution towards this goal.

The article may end up reading very differently to the promotional material you have posted so far, but hopefully the two will complement each other, and those interested in the promotional material will follow the links to your website.

I can find no link to the Wikipedia article from your website. We don't do link exchanges of course, but one would be appropriate IMO. Andrewa 23:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki logo and link are on our entry page since the begining / Gilles

As of late October 2005

I have attempted an NPOV introduction, removed a number of Wikispam entries from other articles pointing here, and formally closed the debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quasiturbine.

The article still needs at least some cleaning up IMO. On the available information to me, it could be anything from an exciting new frontier to a pure scam. My guess is still that it will go the way of the Sarich orbital engine, whose cooling and lubrication problems it would seem at first sight to share. Meantime, we just compile the information. Andrewa 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The differences between the Quasiturbine and the Wankel are given here. The differences are not less with the Sarich engine. Attribution of deficiencies by similarities requires similarities. / Gilles

Thanks for your reply, Gilles. It's considered bad form to change your comments, as you have, after others have replied to them. They would also carry far more weight if you would create and use a userid, and sign your posts on talk pages.

The similarities between the Quasiturbine and Sarich are given at Quasiturbine#Wankel and Sarich comparisons. They cover some aspects of operation, rather than an overall comparison which is extremely difficult with three technologies at such different stages of development. One specific similarity is the presence of moving parts in the rotor which change the geometry, which is common to the Quasiturbine and Sarich and unlike the Wankel. Andrewa 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean: ...it uses moving parts to change the geometry of the rotor... Wankel also does use moving parts to change the geometry?

No. Wankel has a rigid rotor, and the motion of this rotor inside the chamber is all that changes the volume of the combustion chambers.

Quasiturbine uses a deformable rotor, which neither Wankel nor the Sarich engine uses.

True.

Sarich has a rigid rotor just like the Wankel, with a set of large motion moving seals guided by an excentric central drive which turn out to be too fragil to move the seals back and forth under high pressure

It seems to me that these for the purposes of comparing the Sarich to the Wankel or Quasiturbine, these blades are best considered part of the rotor. But we are of course very short of information on the Quasiturbine until one is built and demonstrated, so it's very speculative, like the rest of the article. I'm relying mainly on this diagram.

(not a problem of lubrication and cooling).

I suggest you discuss this at Talk:orbital engine and/or User talk:Tabletop with the editor who added this information to the article on the Sarich engine. I've also left them a message.

Please explain again the similarities. Merci / Gilles

Is it any clearer now? Andrewa 15:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You have not explained the similarities you say there is, apart from attempting to suggest that the radial Sarich seals compare to Quasiturbine blades? (Your need to explain that as well?). There is plenty of info on Internet about the Quasiturbine design (more descriptive that the Sarich ones) and the diagram you refered to is enough to notice the absence of similarity, in which case, comparing the Quasiturbine to a very different and known flaw design is at least confusing (and unfair association) (Remember: The Quasiturbine is in the "proposed new engine design" Wiki category). Sarich "Oil and cooling problem" are indirect consequences of a design deficiency, on which I am pleased to notice you have no opinion afterall. Maybe I still have a chance to make you a fan of QT! Meanwhile, I suggest you revert to a previous version making no reference to Sarich, and that we take a couple of months to study the matter. What do you think of that? Salutations. / Gilles

I'm afraid I must reject your suggestion, unless and until you can provide better support for it than that. But thank you for making it.

My suggestions for providing this support:

1. As I suggested before, create and use a userid. This makes your comments carry a little more weight, and costs you nothing.

2. Please be very careful with the accuracy of claims you make. For example you say you have no opinion... above. I did not say what my opinion was, so IMO you are misquoting me there.

3. Provide verifiable references for claims such as In November 2004, a Quasiturbine engine was demonstrated on a go-kart (currently in the article). Verifiability may just be a case of clarifying the claims. The article as it stands is about an internal combustion engine according to the introduction. Following the links from the Quasiturbine website eventually leads to an article in French describing a demonstration of a pneumatic engine in a small car. Is this the go-kart demonstration to which the article currently refers?

However, my best advice is to take a Wikibreak from editing this particular article yourself, as you appear to be doing. The claims you have made will then in time be checked and verified, by many editors not just by myself. That's how Wikipedia works.

If you wish to accelerate this process and feel that my edits or any others are inaccurate or POV or both, then I'd encourage you to flag the article with {{accuracy}} and/or {{POV}} tags, to alert other editors, and note your specific concerns here on the talk page. Again, this will be far better received if you do it as a signed-on user rather than from an IP address, as this will help other users to pick up the threads of the discussion.

To attempt to promote your own invention here will make it a laughingstock in the long run. There is even a little danger that this is already happening, see Talk:Disc brake, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joeflynn and Talk:Liquid nitrogen economy.

I do look forward to learning more about the Quasiturbine. I wish it every success, and would certainly not want it unfairly dismissed simply because of misguided attempts to promote it here. Please feel free to continue this discussion, and I hope my comments above are not too harsh. Andrewa 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

See also fr:Discuter:Quasiturbine, where an engineer specialising in combustion expresses surprise that he can find no other reference to photo-detonation, and also expresses (sarcastically I think) his anticipation of soon seeing the internal combustion version of the Quasiturbine. Il dit j'en doute un peu il est vrai. Moi aussi. (Tr: He says I'm a little doubtful that it is true. So am I.) Food for thought? Andrewa 02:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Some outstanding issues

Demonstration of the engine

At the risk of arguing from the silence, it seems likely that the only demonstrations so far have been of non-internal combustion engine uses of the mechanism, notably the pneumatic version that uses stored compressed air. The article mentions a go-kart demonstration in November 2004, which is described on a rather blurred scanned page from Le National Novembre 2004 available at this website as powered by the air from a diver's air tank (my translation). There has since been a demonstration using a small car, again using compressed air to drive the Quasiturbine.

There is also a picture of a Quasiturbine steam engine, but it's not actually connected to either a steam supply or a load in the picture, and I have as yet seen no figures on its performance. The valve arrangements would seem to eliminate the possibility of variable cutoff, so either low-speed torque or high-speed efficiency would suffer depending on the setup. This would also be an obvious problem with the pneumatic version. Andrewa 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction: The engine in this photograph is connected to a steam supply, it is the outlet ports that are disconnected. Andrewa 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Materials

The article describes the Quasiturbine as typically built of aluminum and cast iron but it sounds as if the pneumatic versions actually being demonstrated might use some sort of flexible rotor material.

This may be a translation problem. The rotors I can identify are made of (practically) inflexible metal. They are flexible only because of the pivots between the rotor blades.

I was wondering whether the hi-tech flexible materials used in the blades of some smaller wind turbines might have found application here, but evidently not. Andrewa 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems

The article says which expand and contract by different degrees when exposed to heat leading to some incidence of leakage. A similar problem was encountered in early Wankel engines but engineering development has brought these problems under control for both engines. This is true of the Wankel, but if the development of the Quasiturbine has been all pneumatic engines, with little if any heating problems compared to an internal combustion engine, then that's a very misleading statement.

No doubt there will be other issues. That's just a start. Andrewa 04:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

The Definition that currently occurs in the introduction should be attributed. It appears in neither of the US patents referred to in the External links section, and contains unsubstantiated claims about the superiority of the design which appear out of place in a definition.

Curve of constant width

The claim in the introduction that the rotor turns within a curve of constant width needs clarification. The Wankel and Sarich engines both have rotors in the shape of such curves, but neither the rotor nor housing of the Quasiturbine appear to describe such curves. This may be just a matter of expanding the explanation, and might make a good section of the article.

I removed this claim (and many others tnat seemed unverifiable) in the refactor, and Gilles seems to have supported me so far as this particular claim is concerned. He hasn't actually stated that it is false, just that it didn't come from any member of his team. See below. Progress I think! Andrewa 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

More to follow. Andrewa 20:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Versions of the engine

The Quasiturbine exists in at least two versions, with little in common other than some design principles. The original two-port, four-stroke version with carriages is the one that is an internal combustion engine, and is covered by the original patent, and suggestions of photo-detonation and flame transfer ignition.

A second version, covered by a subsequent patent, has four ports, no carriages, a significantly smaller housing with respect to the blade length, far fewer moving parts, and no major components in common with the first design, or even closely similar to the eye. This design is unsuitable for use as an internal combustion engine, but has been demonstrated as a pneumatic engine, and less publicly as a steam engine.

Both designs use a four-bladed rhomboid rotor, variable in vertex angle by hinges at its vertices, and there is some similarity between the shape of the housings and the pivot mechanism at the rotor vertices. Oh, and I guess when assembled they look much the same to the uncritical eye, unless you count the ports. But that's about where the similarity ends.

The current article makes little distinction between the two. Confusion is rife elsewhere on the web, for example at this website: While quasiturbines can be steam driven, they can also run from fuel combustion as well and can run on virtually any fuel, just like traditional turbines. What this means is that the same engine can be utilized to power all of our large Navy vessels and submarines - we only need to vary the quantity of engines used to the application. This should streamline our support and training needs considerably.

Time for a refactor IMO. Andrewa 23:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Quasiturbine Diagram.png

Hmmm, there seems to be third version of the engine, a two-port carriageless design, which unlike the other two exists only on paper, and combines features of both. And unfortunately, that's the version that features on the graphic on the article! Andrewa 05:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the personel

I'm assuming here that Gilles is Gilles Saint-Hilaire, and that user:Ylian is Ylian Saint-Hilaire. They, along with Roxan and Francoise Saint-Hilaire, all of the same address in Montreal, are the four inventors listed in the quasiturbine patents. Andrewa 10:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Refactor

I've made a first attempt. Some of the removed text may still be restored, but not much. I think the information that was in the article has been largely preserved, and dare I say expanded.

It would be good to have a picture or diagram of the internal combustion engine prototype with carriages. Andrewa 10:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Good refactoring; it cleared up a number of questions. Andrewa has obviously worked tirelessly on this. Thanks! I wonder however if it is possible to explain a little what the other 2 ports (other than intake and exhaust) do in the 4 port version (not necessarily Andrewa of course). Presumably, the extra ports connect to the remaining chambers, but that seems to imply more machinery required external to the main engine. --Mike Van Emmerik 23:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The extra two ports are a second intake and exhaust, and are simply connected in parallel to the first two. I've had a go at clarifying the section. Andrewa 19:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy note

The definition is always intended to be a condensed useful benchmark (could make reference to characteristics and performance). Definition : The Quasiturbine (Qurbine) is a no crankshaft rotary engine having a 4-faced articulated rotor with a free and accessible centre, rotating without vibration or dead time, and producing a strong torque at low RPM under a variety of modes and fuels. The Quasiturbine is also an optimization theory for extremely compact and efficient engine concepts. (It is both a serie of device and a theory)

The general Quasiturbine concept is mathematically based on a set of 7 variables (see 1996 patent) generating an infinity of designs with deformable rotor, some with carriages having a given distance between their 2 wheels (AC model). The special case where the distance between those 2 wheels is set to zero leds the no carriages Quasiturbine variations (SC model). All Quasiturbine produces 4 strokes per revolution per blade (16 total), which can be used either in parallèle (4 ports) or in serial (2 ports). Additionnal angular delayed ports may be found on combustion design and other applications (Number of ports is consequently not a convenient way to characterize the Quasiturbines). Because the Quasiturbine has no crankshaft and can have carriages, the volume pulse can be shaped like the minuscule cursive letter " i ", with a high pressure tip 15 to 30 times shorter that the piston or Wankel volume pulse, and with rapid linear rising and falling ramps. This kind of pressure pulse is self-synchronizing and reduces the immense stresses by shortening the high pressure duration. These characteristics help the following:

Efficiency at low power - The modern high-power piston engine in automobiles is generally used with only a 15% average load factor. The efficiency of a 200 kW petrol piston engine falls dramatically when used at 20 kW because of high vacuum depressurization needed in the intake manifold, which vacuum become less as the power produced by the engine increases. Photo-detonation (terme QT researches specifically associates to fuel mixture) engines do not need intake vacuum as they intake all the air available, and mainly for this reason, efficiency stays high even at low engine power. The development of a photo-detonation engine may provide a means to avoid that low-power-efficiency-penalty; may be more environment friendly as it will require low octane additive-free gasoline or diesel fuel; may be multi-fuel compatible, including direct hydrogen combustion; and may offer reduction in the overall propulsion system weight, size, maintenance and cost. For these reasons it could be better or competitive with hybrid car technology.

Hybrid alternative - It is the purpose of the hybrid car concept to avoid the low efficiency of the Otto cycle engine at reduced power. There is a 50% fuel saving potential, of which about half could be harvested the hybrid way. But getting extra efficiency this way requires additional power components and energy storage, with associated counter-productive increases in weight, space, maintenance, cost and environmental recycling process. The development of a photo-detonation engine like the Quasiturbine would provide more direct means to achieve the same or better.

Quasiturbine rotaty expander - In addition to pneumatic and steam, the Quasiturbine rotaty expander offers new possibilities for refrigeration cycle expansion energy recovery, as well as steam and pipeline pressure reduction station.

Quasiturbine has little to no similarity with Orbital Sarich engine, and does not have problem alike the high amplitude radial contour seals motion and their driving mechanisum. The discussion about "curve of constant width" as never been from the inventors.

Notice that the correct spelling for Quasiturbine and Qurbine is with a capital Q (no -).

Finally, because Internet is of univeral access, included by countries not enforcing the intellectual property laws, disclosure strategy must be minimal within patents, and none otherwise on the web! Years of advanced research should not me given away as bonbons to every agressive worldwide entrepreneurs... (in the engine business, no one else is disclosing as much as the Quasiturbine team has - Check major car companies?). Directions of research and device capabilities can be indicated within the respect of this disclosure right. Salutations / Gilles

None of these points seem to dispute the accuracy of the current article, as refactored, with the exception of the capitalisation of quasiturbine and qurbine, which are very important points indeed. Are these registered names? What would be your reaction to someone using the term to describe something that met the description (as currently in the article) but without infringing your patents? Would that be a quasiturbine, or does that word apply only to the products of your organisation? If so, how are the names protected?

Until this is resolved, I've put it back to a capital Q. It's a similar question to the question of using names such as Xerox or Biro as general terms for the things they describe. Both now are banned, so you do have a case! But if they were used in the more general sense, they'd get a small initial as a common noun. The explanation Following the privilege given to inventors to give the invention name! given at the website you quote does not override the English convention (it may in French, I don't know). I'd like to have a (small) section in the article making this explicit, but we need more information. Andrewa 16:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have incorporated your point about 16 strokes rather have 4 combustion cycles, that is clearer. Thank you!

I also note your point regarding disclosure. The problem is, this means that much of what you say above is unverifiable, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That's one of the reasons the new article is so much shorter than the old one. I do suspect that in your case some more disclosure (for example, providing the photograph I requested of the internal combustion prototype, which has already been published in the press some years ago) would be in your interests.

As to whether the number of ports provides a useful way of classifying quasiturbines, it provided me with a very useful framework for understanding the state of progress of the quasiturbine, as published to date. There are important differences between the three versions described. For example, the pre-refactor article referred to the simplicity of the quasiturbine as opposed to the Wankel. With so many moving parts within the chamber of the only internal combustion prototype quasiturbine whose existence has yet been published, this is obviously disputable. With respect for example to the steam prototype, the comparison is far clearer.

I can understand how you might want to gloss over these differences when seeking finance and other support for your project, but here our goal is clarity in presenting what is available for public scrutiny, not promotion of still-secret research. The same standard would apply to research undertaken by any other organisation. Andrewa 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the position with regards to the curve of constant width. Of course, as you choose to edit anonymously, it's time-consuming and not always possible to identify which contributions are yours. But it seems you support my conclusion that the claim about such curves, which I removed from the article, was in error?

And I'm a little disappointed that you didn't question this claim yourself before now. It was quite prominently made in the article. Are there other errors of fact in the article that I haven't yet noticed? Andrewa 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There was at least one, regarding the hinge design, which is now fixed. Andrewa 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus?

Inventors stay outsiders, do not systematically monitor any Wiki page, and do not insist for suggested corrections or improvements. A fact: Over a two years period, douzens of contributors have produced a consensus article culminating on the October 2 2005 version, which the wiki-readers would still benefit to read. Nov. 5 2005 - Salutations / Gilles

This edit broke more conventions than I care to list, considering you seem to ignore any advice I give you anyway. But thank you for finally answering one of the many questions asked. Yes, I see the link to Wikipedia now! Don't know how I missed it. Thank you!

Fact, you say? Consensus? I see a history of frustrated attempts to clarify the basic concepts, to which you replied by repeating the same enigmatic, incomplete and confusing promotional material, and ignoring simple questions which IMO you could easily have answered. The only consensus achieved during this time was to delete the article, which it somehow escaped. The douzens of contributors appear to be IP addresses used by yourself and another of your team.

But in any case, on Wikipedia even featured articles (for which consensus is obtained) aren't regarded as finished. The question is, have I improved it? I'm fairly confident I have, particularly in the areas of verifiability, clarity, completeness, and (dare I say) accuracy.

It's not perfect of course! I invite you again to help us to improve it further. Permission to use the photograph of the internal combustion engine prototype which appears on your website and was printed in a magazine would be an excellent start. Andrewa 19:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations

File:Quasiturbine internal combustion prototype.JPG

Quasiturbine internal combustion engine prototype

This is the image I'd really like to use to illustrate the section on the internal combustion engine prototype, but while I think it's fair use to use it here in the talk page, I don't think it's safe to use it in the article.

Being a photo of the actual prototype, it's of a lot more encyclopedic interest than a diagram IMO.

Gilles, can you provide a suitable image for us? Andrewa 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A photograph would be more informative than another diagram. -Willmcw 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Outstanding issues

File:Quasiturbine internal combustion prototype.JPG

Quasiturbine internal combustion engine prototype

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

HowStuffWorks

I just had another look at the article on HowStuffWorks at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine2.htm and it makes very interesting reading: What all this amounts to in the Quasiturbine engine is increased efficiency and performance. The four chambers produce two consecutive circuits. The first circuit is used to compress and expand during combustion. The second is used to expel exhaust and intake air. In one revolution of the rotor, four power strokes are created. That's eight times more than a typical piston engine! Even a Wankel engine, which produces three power strokes per rotor revolution, can't match the performance of a Quasiturbine. If I were reading that claim I think I'd be justified in assuming that at least one prototype quasiturbine had actually been run as an internal combustion engine. But later at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine3.htm the article continues: Considering the modern internal combustion engine was invented by Karl Benz in 1886 and has enjoyed almost 120 years of design refinements, the Quasiturbine engine is still in its infancy. The engine is not used in any real-world applications that would test its suitability as a replacement for the piston engine (or the rotary engine, for that matter). It is still in its prototype phase -- the best look anyone has gotten so far is when it was demonstrated on a go-kart in 2004. The Quasiturbine may not be a competitive engine technology for decades. That go-cart in 2004, as we've already discovered, was a pneumatic engine, running in two-stroke mode and powered by a big tank of compressed air.

No fuel. No cooling system required, it probably ran very cool in fact, owing to the expanding gas. No forced lubrication as far as we can tell. If that's still the best demonstration they've managed, perhaps the claim that a Wankel engine... can't match the performance of a Quasiturbine is a bit premature?

And as far as we know, no quantitative basis for the claim. The Wankel can run as a compressed air engine too. Did they try it? Did they actually achieve any efficiency improvement on the Wankel? Or on the piston engine? Or did they even measure the efficiency they achieved as a compressed air engine? Have any figures been published? HowStuffWorks doesn't say.

I'm glad people such as Gilles like HowStuffWorks, but personally I'm not impressed. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse... one of the sources they do cite is http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Quasiturbine which is (or claims to be) a Wikipedia mirror! This Physicsdaily article states although a working prototype has now been constructed, there are no results indicating fuel consumption per unit power...! That is, it is quoting Wikipedia as the source of the claim that a working prototype has been constructed. It doesn't actually say it's English Wikipedia. Hmmm. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)