Talk:Six-stroke engine

message: It appears that an American, Crower, and an Indian team, have both developed and patented different versions of the six-stroke engine - one that involves an injection of air and one that involves an injection of water.  Because the article was initially written about the Indian team, it currently gives more weight to that engine than the Crower engine.  I'm not sure at this point which one is more notable.  I'm also not sure whether the two engines should be covered in the same article or separate articles.  Thoughts?  --Hyperbole 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six Stroke engine

message: Aparently the Beare Head was first patented in US by M.W. Hall in 1917 - See patent US 1,284,190
Good find but there is a crucial difference in that the secondry intake and exhaust valving is subject to full cylinder pressure and not so in the Beare Head   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbeare (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/872.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1096.html
Malbeare (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beare Head 

message: For the claim of who coined it, Mr. Beare provided [ http://www.sixstroke.com/images/history/border_november_1994.pdf] from 1994 showing his use of the term. Femto 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Six Stroke" 

message: Based on the information in this article, it would be crazy not to use these engines, yet the article does not report their commercial adoption. This suggests that either some claims are false or major negative characteristics are omitted. Harold f (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With such a huge investment in the 4 stroke concept it will take at least 10 years for a good new radical concept to have much of an impact on an industry like motor car manufacture. Lumos3 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the downside? 

message: Invented by S.B. Brown in 1930, patent US 1,805,540 
109.103.77.201 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to clean up the grammar and structure of this section and others, but some of it is so poorly written I can't figure it out. — QuicksilverT @ 18:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  M 4+2 

message: This article has a long history of contributions from persons with a conflict of interest and so tends to give undue prominence to patent claims.  Many sources are self-published and so unreliable (note that per WP:SPS this includes patents).  Some of the news references amount to little more than "local person granted patent" and are not credible sources for technical claims such as efficiency improvements (although there may be an argument they are evidence of a particular design's notability).  The only references I think might meet wikipedia guidelines as technical sources are the Knight book and maybe the autoweek article.  The smokstak thread is probably next most reliable but clearly does not meet wikipedia criteria. TuxLibNit (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of references and content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Six-stroke engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070513071644/http://staff.bath.ac.uk:80/ensegb/griffin2.htm to http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensegb/griffin2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The subsections are filled with incomprehensible broken English. Someone needs to fix it 2603:9008:1900:3E5E:F76B:6BDB:A434:7C1A (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken English 

message: As noted by prior posters, (and looking at the edit logs). The "Work" and "Sound" sections appear to be poorly sourced and with grammar errors that make little sense. As an outside observer (and not a regular Wikipedia contributor), it appears these sections are being edited by the same person. Phjoma (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably be rolled back to before User:2001:448A:10CA:2C86:7D78:28A8:A154:619D made the aforementioned edits. Though other contributors have tried to clean up the grammar, that section is still unsourced and incomprehensible Phjoma (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work section makes little sense