Talk:Engine

message: morris da moose says this page sucks cause me spent like an hour searching for a pic of a car engine and not 1 found  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.87.243 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  engine - disambiguation 

message: I have also been puzzled by the difference between an "engine" and a "motor." I think this is a question that is best answered by someone who has the credentials to do so, but I would like to provide two references and state my opinion on the subject.
Frederick J. Carranti, P.E. of Syracuse University posted a message defining the two terms. He defines a motor as a "device which converts
electrical energy into mechanical energy." Then he goes on to define engine as a "device that converts chemical energy or heat energy into mechanical energy."
The Wikipedia Article on Internal combustion engines states that "although the terms sometimes cause confusion, there is no real difference between an 'engine' and a 'motor.'" That statement is not referenced, so personally I do not find that to be a credible source for information.
I have yet to find any source that defines the two terms opposite of the first source that I referenced, therefore I think the controversy is only whether or not there is a difference.
I think the first source defined the difference well and should be taken into account in the related Wikipedia articles on the subject. I would, however, like there to be a more stable reference that can be cited rather than just a forum post. SpikeBoy 06:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a motor car?  Dolphin51 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Um, if this is 2022 then why are you answering a question from 2010?  Stepho  talk  07:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Difference Between an Engine and a Motor 

message: This should be the top-level article linking into the various types of steam engine, various types of ICE, and other engines, which surely include windmills, watermills, HEP turbines, etc, etc
EdJogg 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: "Again an aircraft will have many motors installed for operation of its many auxiliary operations and services, but aircraft are propelled by engines, in this case, jet engines."  This is not strictly accurate.  Not all aircraft have multiple motors, not all even have an engine(s), as in the case of gliders and balloons.  Also, not all aircraft that use an engine(s) use jet engines, as in the case of prop planes.  If there is no objection in the next month or so I will remove the sentence.
67.160.147.2 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ......A "turbo prop" IS a turbine powered aircraft engine. Everyone please remember, there IS a difference between a engine and a motor. Motors (with the exception of new brushless motors)have windings, commutator and brushes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.18.140 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "IS" in all caps isn't an argument, it's just shouting. As has been sufficiently cited at Engine, some reliable sources say engine and motor are not the same, but other reliable sources do say, in spite of the chagrin it may cause, that an engine is a motor and a motor is an engine. No matter how much one group or another wants to prescribe politically correct (or scientifically correct or engineeringly correct) language, the rest of the world is not obligated to fall into line. People misuse words, and those who would punish them for it aren't always able to do so.<P>A Wikipedia article that fails to inform readers that some sources don't use a technical term in the way that a certain group of engineers approves of is concealing true information simply because a group doesn't like it. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not censored. See also Linguistic prescription, Political correctness, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft Engine

message: ...because it is of a coffee machine, not an engine!! (Sorry, I hit return before edit summary was finished.) EdJogg (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of  'coex' image 

message: that section links to itself multiple times, it is redundant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  air breathing engines section 

message: A new section should be added to the article called Engine cooling.
I placed a link at the see also section, but this is not enough, it needs its own section in the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.57.202 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine cooling

message: The ranges you can produce from a real engine are so vast why bother including statistics that are destined to be wrong? Emissions vary based on air fuel ratios, load, cyclinder geometry, catalytic converter, etc. etc. etc. I can pick a couple of the figures stated here as wrong straight away based on an emmisions test I got on my own car, the rest are arguable at best. Modern cars are very clean in comparison to a few decades ago, let's hear about all those technologies, not what a 5 litre V8 released in the 70's. And rather than a roundabout way of attributing global warming to engines, let's hear a real statistic about the conribution of private-owned automotive engines to the greenhouse effect, e.g. jackdiddlysquat%
192.198.151.37 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Air quality

message: I changed the definition to An engine is a generator that produces mechanical force and motion from another form of energy (eg a fuel source, compressed gas (eg air) or electricity). [1]It is also referred to as a prime mover.
A engine is a generator as seen at the generator article
This is more clear to understand and more accurate ? I'm guessing that a generator that generates mechanical force from another mechanical force or a fuel from a mechanical force (eg as with flowing water, ... as a power source) isn't called anything at all (weirdly enough).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In light to make the articles even more in line the definition could btw be changed to An engine or mechanical generator  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. Tobby72 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: All well and good, but a liquid rocket is powered by engines and a solid rocket is powered by motors. As both are doing exactly the same thing (providing motive force to a vehicle) in pretty much the same way (converting chemical energy into kinetic energy), this begs the question as to whether you guys have difinitively resolved the engine vs. motor thingie. In 30 years as a combustion engineer (including solid rockets, gas turbines, and diesels), I never bothered to resolve this question, heard anyone explain it, or even ask someone (like a professor), but I suspect it may have something to do with thermodynamic cycles. Engines generally are following one (diesel engines, gas turbines, liquid rockets, etc.), while motors don't (solid rockets, electic motors, etc.) - just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockets! 

message: Why does the word "motor" link to here? An engine is different from a motor. Whether it's a stub or not, there needs to be a separate article for a motor. The two can not be interchangeable here, and it is incorrect usage of terminology. ForestAngel (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get agreement here before splitting the article.Embrittled (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too pedantic a distinction for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not say it's wrong to call an engine a motor. Because it's not wrong; it's perfectly correct English. Redirect Motor here and stick one line in Engine somewhere saying in some highly formal circumstances the distinction between motor and engine is considered important. Like maybe on an exam or something you'd get a point taken off. Who else cares? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Motor"? 

message: Just found an interesting (recent) article at the Oxford English Dictionary site about the evolution of the word 'engine':
::Link: Aspects of English --> Word Stories --> "engine"
It may help further shape this article. (Not by me, though, this time I'm just passing through...) -- EdJogg (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford English Dictionary article: 'engine' 

message: overunity motors via youtube
magnetic motors
magnetic engines
magnetic generators
Don548 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even think about adding such crackpot pseudo science anywhere that isn't clearly labelled as a wiki pseudoscience zone. They do not belong anywhere near this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are engines/motors in the sense that they use the potential energy of the magnets to move a bit, move a bit to the point where they come to a complete and total halt ;-). It would probably be a learning point for the readers to actually include them; they might learn something (like why they don't do anything useful).Rememberway (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they are nothing of the sort. Don548's links are describing "free energy" or "overunity" motors. These are not some mere "stored energy" device (we should probably have an article on rubberband motor after all), they are fraudulent attempts to claim a fantastical device exists, when it clearly does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are stored energy devices, not overunity. The guy running the video usually charges them up with their hand... and then they do something as the magnets get on average closer together.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: And they're not usually fraudulent, just totally clueless ;-) These kinds of videos are so funny. I often watch them just for a laugh. "all I have to do is put an electromagnet..." ... um no?Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: But seriously, I think that the Wikipedia has a duty to point them to where they can best get a clue. We are supposed to be a educational and reference tool after all.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that debunking fakery is within the encyclopedic scope. However this has to be done clearly as such, so it should take place in articles that are clearly about that, nothing else. We shouldn't mix it in with articles on real engines or motors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to stick to reliable sources and NPOV. I must admit I don't know of any reliable source treatment of it, but there may well be.Rememberway (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  magnetic engines 

message: It sounds like the combustion efficiency section is referring to the early 20th century, when four cylinders had about 40 hp and V-8s had what? The 1930s Ford flathead V8 engine had about 65 hp. It doesn't make sense to compare 1920-1930 40 hp I4s with 1960s and later 250-450 hp V-8s. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify combustion efficiency section 

message: I know this has been hashed over ten thousand times, but the sentence saying " An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source" is wrong. A motor does NOT have to be driven by electricity, hence "pneumatic motor", etc. Perhaps a motor is a device that converts energy into motion, but it does not have to be powered by electricity. 
And just as my two cents, I subscribe to the school of thought that says a motor is something that powers or imparts motion, while an engine is something that converts heat into work. Therefore, a an engine is a type of motor, but a motor is not an engine. .45Colt 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motors aren't always electrical. 

message: I know security is not Wikipedia's issue, but has anyone noticed the amount of anonymous vandalism constantly occurring on this page and how many edits are constantly reverted either by registered users or by ClueBot? Maybe it's the wrong page on which to talk about this subject, but it's been disturbing me. I started some months ago a personal effort to give this page some new life, and it's been only preserved. And if it occurs on this page, it can certainly spread to more vital articles.
Just felt like I had to say it.
Hayazin (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Broad scope articles like "engine" or "steam locomotive" don't work under WP's "everyone can edit" model. Stop worrying about it, you'll go mad otherwise. Also no-one needs an article on "engines", everyone knows what they are already (and Randy keeps telling us this). Work on the questions that need answering instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is easy for anyone to edit articles, there will be people who vandalise articles. Disenfranchised people use vandalism as a way to say "Take notice of me, I exist!" This is human nature. We can't solve all the world's issues, so we just keep cleaning up our corner of the world and get on with life.  Stepho  talk  10:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent vandalism 

message: Substituted at 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/intern-co.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821175006/http://reference.howstuffworks.com:80/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm to http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218171021/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204034636/http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm proposing that we merge some of the contents from there after carving out all the original research and unverifiable statements. There's no reason to have a separate page each for yacht engine, train engine, motorcycle engine, tank engine, lawn mower engine and so on. Graywalls (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, this article is not here to decribe an engine type, but to describe a particular and somewhat arcane term related to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: alternate target could be locomotive terms list. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with Andy that engines are a broad enough topic to have daughter articles on specific classes, and so oppose a merger. I do think there does need to be some clarification of the titles and redirects, but no merger. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from [[Prime mover (locomotive)]] 

message: ok  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Can you explain in sentences of more than one word ?  Stepho  talk  00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  engine; Expelling carbon is inhaling oxygen 

message: As I found the article earlier today, the lead was stuck in a pedagogic rut and not doing a great job of painting a broad picture or summarizing the article content. I took a stab at this, and added a fair amount of new material. The resulting prose strikes me as adequate, but not great. Perhaps I went slightly deeper into the weeds on emissions than I should have, but that's a hot topic these days (pardon my small pun). 
In any case, I'm a fly-by-night editor, who visits many articles, often makes a small change, sometimes makes a more substantive, and then moves along to the next thing. In order to travel light, I take little ownership in my past contributions; feel free to edit at will. — MaxEnt 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead expansion