Talk:Scotch yoke

message: IMHO the article is too engine and piston centric. I still think all engine related
info should stay although in a separate section than the scotch yokes basic attributes. --DieselDude (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was surprised to see issue about the piston: TDC, combustion, etc. War (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok, I moved some things around but now I think it's even MORE obvious that the references to engine design should be removed. Perhaps if it was all consolidated into a section dedicated to engines. I suggest taking the Advantages and Disadvantages out completely and replacing them with two sections: "Otto Cycle Engine Use" and "Bourke Engine Use". The the Bourke engine fans can clean this these sections as they please.War (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It's clear that the Scotch Yoke should have more discussion about it's use in actuators. The Bourke engine content is barely notable yet it makes up the bulk of the article. It's clearly not balanced at this time. I strongly suggest that other editors reduce and clarify the 'engine' stuff and add more information on it's use in actuators. War (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the Bourke stuff right down, for the one or two people who are interested there is plenty of material on the engine in its own article. It does not need to be duplicated here. Greglocock (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments For Discussion

message: So it's an advantage that the piston would dwell longer at Top Dead Center and a disadvantage that it dwells less at Bottom Dead Center?
The whole idea of the mechanism is that it has a piston on either end--SOLIDLY AND PERMANENTLY CONNECTED.  Quite, obviously, the dwell at top and bottom are IDENTICAL.  Sorry  Homebuilding (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correct, the advantage and disadvantage is compared with a conventional crank and slider. I'll add that in. Greg Locock (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work. Do you want to put those refs into this article? I guess they should go into the Bourke page as well. Greg Locock (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and add them. Its going to cause a flood of edits and undo's when edited in and added to the Bourke Engine :-/ --DieselDude (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. He's been banned permanently. Greg Locock (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed a / in the closing of the ref tag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglocock (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected it, but I don't know how to remove duplicate references. --DieselDude (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanical Inconsistency

message: Article mentions that a common use is for actuators in oil and gas pipelines. A picture (or diagram) of such a device would be useful -- particularly of the actual mechanism -- there is nothing at actuator yet.
The article implies that the mechanism is essentially for reciprocating motion -- certainly, the advantages and disadvantages would suggest that, and the animation too. If an actuator uses this yoke to connect a motor to drive a sliding valve open or shut (a linear rather than strictly reciprocating motion), then the disadvantages relating to friction would be barely relevant (for example). I think the article needs further work to clarify this.
EdJogg (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications - reciprocating vs linear - example? 

message: I would recommend the use of color to distinguish the two components of the linkage - it took me a few seconds to understand what it was doing (I thought one of the two ends of the piston was somehow connected to the rotating crank).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.203.239 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  animation 

message: Recent enthusiastic edits build on previous attempts to shanghai mentions of the scarcely credible bourke engine into this article. Could a non involved editor have  a look and decide how much is appropriate? I would support massive reduction of mentions, but perhaps not complete eliminationGreglocock (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is about Scotch Yokes, not Bourke Engine

message: There's no date of patent, no mention of the first use of the phrase "Scotch yoke", no mention of the first use of it in machinery, how it has varied with different engines over the generations.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has nothing on the history

message: The company behind this engine has released very comprehensive material on this series of engines (it is modular design with 2, 4 and 8 opposed cylinders). As it is a novel ICE that seems to actually reach the commercial market as a range extender, it would be nice with its own page (I personally don't know how).
Even if it should not reach market, it has some very interesting features/design that should be documented for the future.
The youtube chanel "driving 4 answers" (a quite respectable chanel on ICE technology) has made a video on this engine (where he also compares it to an other scotch yoke engine in the works by the company Alfadan). 2A01:799:952:4500:5E97:9E2C:C6CA:CFA5 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. SyTech do seem to have a running prototype. That is rather a large step forward from the usual Solidworks animated engine. Nonetheless, 37% efficiency is not especially good, and flat fours aren't amazingly easy to package, and the vibration problem with this design is significant until you get to a flat 8. It's not a terrible idea, apart from the Scotch Yoke itself which is probably a durability nightmare. That may be solvable, but with only 500 hours running time on a mixture of prototypes, I'm dubious. What you'll actually notice is a complete absence of RS news on this. Greglocock (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SyTech engine