Talk:Quasiturbine/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  compression ratio and combustion chamber design 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Constant width? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[rotary combustion engine]] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Demonstration of the engine

message: 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)
thread_title: Materials

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems

message: 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)
thread_title: Curve of constant width

message: 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)
thread_title: Versions of the engine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some of the personel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refactor 

message: 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)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: thumb|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)
replies: text: I agree. A photograph would be more informative than another diagram. -Willmcw 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stirling cycle 

message: thumb|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)
thread_title:  Outstanding issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: AC prototype

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments by Gilles

message: 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)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: 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)
thread_title:  QT Audience 

message: 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)
thread_title: HowStuffWorks

message: 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)
thread_title: A word of caution

message: 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)
thread_title: More on the captital ''Q''