Animation of 4 stroke engine

4 Stroke Engine[edit]

Original - Animated scheme of a four stroke internal combustion engine, Otto principle: #Suction stroke - Air and vaporised fuel are drawn in. #Compression stroke - Fuel vapor and air are compressed and ignited. #Power stroke - Fuel combusts and piston is pushed downwards. #Exhaust stroke - Exhaust is driven out.

This is a large improvement on the existing image; it is higher resolution, has smoother animation and removes some of the unnecessary detail.

Articles this image appears in None as yet, but will be on:

Engine Internal combustion engine Poppet valve Camshaft Petrol engine Four-stroke engine Cylinder (engine) Crankcase Single cylinder engine

Creator Suggested by - 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Comments Low res version for embedding Note there is a smaller resolution version also available for embedding. I think an animation of this principle is very useful. The big one doesn't animate? Not to worry, it's too big to embed anyway at 17MB. Personally I think the description should be enhanced, maybe with some labelling, and poor wording such as 'suction stroke' improved. However, other than running a bit smoother, I think I'd need some convincing that it's an improvement over the existing FP File:4-Stroke-Engine.gif. -jjron (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The big version is animated, but Wiki doesn't produce animated thumbnails... Obviously improvement of the caption is easy, at the moment it is copied directly from the existing FP. In terms of improvement I would argue: 1. this version is not pixelated, 2. this version removes unneeded detail making the diagram clearer, 3. this version has far more frames, therefore is a smoother animation. On these terms I would argue this image is better than the existing FP, plus I am available here and now to apply any improvements people suggest! - 23:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Doesn't animate on the image page either when I view that, so I guess you have to open the full image; I wish we could thumbnail animations. In that case I think we'd definitely be only featuring the big one in principle, but in reality featuring the smaller one as that one would be getting used in article space. Yes, you make some good points - I actually liked some of the detail on the original, but now looking at them side by side, I see some more positives to the new one (can I suggest you change that characterless 1 in yours to something with a serif though, like in the existing one? That's jarring with me every time I view it.). I personally - personally - feel the animation may also benefit from being slowed down slightly, but that could just be me, possibly more to the speed of the existing one. BTW your spark is considerably better as well. Labelling on the actual animation may be too messy, but perhaps we could create a single frame version that named all the key parts? -jjron (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC) A new slightly slower version with a serif'd "1" will be simple to make... I also have a labeled version as a WIP, I have avoided it so far because it is not multilingual but I will finish it and upload it as an alternative... Actually, Wikipedia does support animated thumbnails. See the last two thumbnails in this gallery. Recent behind-the-scenes changes made any animations that, in their native size, have 25 million or more total animation pixels (pixel height times pixel width times number of frames) become frozen. So big animations can be “thumbnails” only if they are specified in their native size. I make all my “big” animations (like this one “Cobalt”) in the size they will be actually used in the article. That spinning “NURBS” animation is a thumbnail, but it is specified in native size. The pint-size ones in the gallery are also a thumbnail of sorts. Those wouldn’t work if either of them exceeded 25 million pixels when full size.

BTW, I like this second animation. But I would suggest arrows or particles in the gas stream in both the intake and exhaust ports to indicate the direction of gas flow. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Another example of Wikipedia developers screwing over content. Adam Cuerden 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)