Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Uniflow Steam Engine

Advanced Uniflow Steam Engine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far as I can tell the article is a spam-like advertisement for a patent. The work described is OR and there are no reliable sources other than the original patents, which are not reliable sources for notability, and so the article does not show notability of the topic. GliderMaven (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My past talk comments, and similar concerns:

Are there any references here, especially independent ones, that discuss the AUSE engine in particular, as opposed to being about uniflow engines in general?

So far I'm seeing a novel engine put forward as a notable subject:

It is a novel engine. It is a new invention by one particular team. If it isn't, then it belongs in the existing uniflow steam engine article.
It uses a single electromechanically-actuated inlet valve.
It has a void within the piston, controlled by a sprung bash valve. (I don't believe the benefit of this)
It doesn't use a condenser on the exhaust, because it doesn't need one. (I don't believe the authors understand why this isn't an advantage)
It abandons the recompression of exhaust steam when approaching TDC. This is an advantage of the Stumpf uniflow engine. The authors here appear not to appreciate the thermodynamics of either engine.

Although it's not a key part of the design, the piston is made of Invar. At this point I stop believing its technical credibility.

I'm seeing no independent sources for the engine described above. I'm seeing almost nothing (outside this article) that meet the standard of well-presented OR by the team itself, such as would be in a technical paper. Overall I find this engine simplistic and far from an improvement over previous practice. It appears to have been designed by someone unskilled in steam engine design and thermodynamics and it makes many decisions from a basis of ignorance. Particularly it seems to operate as an engine with no expansion, using some incompressible fluid. It entirely ignores (as Stumpf had such a deep understanding of) the effects of expansion in the steam and the conversion of heat energy into pressure energy.

I'm in no rush to be a deletionist, but if this appeared at AfD, I'd have no basis for arguing to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]