Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double connecting rod engine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double connecting rod engine

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

Challenged prod.

Unsourced, OR article on one editor's new invention. Good luck with the patent application, but this is very much _not_ what WP is here for. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR describing an invention. The inventor's animated GIF needs to go too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good evidence of widespread coverage appears. As to the device, I can't see it catching on unless some great benefit over simple gearing up is shown. Intriguing, but an unnecessary complication, and I can only see application in low-speed diesels if it does work. There again, they once thought rockets wouldn't work in space... Peridon (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the notability, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this could only be used on single cylinder engines without going for a gearwheel or con rod connection(s) to an output shaft. Also, doubling the crank speed won't increase the power output, so I can't see the point for any road engine (where there has to be gearing anyway), and for marine low speed diesels, the normal speed is fine (the medium and high speed engines being geared down to the correct propeller speed). Peridon (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ingenious, but proof of concept and sources lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.