Talk:Angelo Di Pietro's Rotary Positive Displacement Air Engine
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Angelo Di Pietro (inventor) was copied or moved into Angelo Di Pietro's Rotary Positive Displacement Air Engine with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Efficiency
editAdded some details on efficiency. Some air engines are promoted as environmentally friendly and highly efficient in the media, but it is important to look at the system efficiency. In some cases, the air engines may prove to have a favourable system efficiency against competing technologies, but is never going to be better than 35 to 40%, and probably less than 25% if fossil fuels are used to derive the energy for compression. For more details, Thermal efficiency, Electricity_transmission
Commented You Tube link.
edit1 link commented out - Status unclear - No clear indication that uploader is associated with the footage concerned, however it might be worth someone checking what the status of the clip is as it's not obvious copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Might be nice
editMight be nice, if you are going to criticize the efficiency in this obviously biased article, to actually have some numbers to show that it is less efficient than other technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.76.132 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability and NPOV
editI have tagged this article as having multiple issues, namely WP:N and WP:NPOV
The article refers entirely to one invention by the subject, and a search for "Angelo Di Pietro" turns up this article, one about a Cardinal, and articles and documents regarding the engine he invented. Whilst the engine itself may be notable, the inventor (and the subject of the article) does not seem to be.
This article also appears to be biased in favour of the invention, and reads more like a sales pitch, including the Disadvantages section.
I would suggest that this article needs either deletion or a major rewrite with more sources - perhaps a new article about the engine and remove this one?
split the biography from the engine article?
editI feel uncomfortable to edit an biography article of a living person. Saying that some experts think that a certain engine has a certain limitation is easy. Writing that on a bio page feels wrong. Also, turning the bio page into a detailed discussion about an engine reduces a persons whole live to just one subject alone.