Talk:Pseudo Stirling cycle

I'm trying to eventually stub all the redlinks from Template:Thermodynamic cycles. I know almost nothing about thermodynamics, so they will be small stubs. Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Newbee: I know quite a lot about thermodynamics, though I never heard of a pseudo stirling cycle. Maybe a pseudo-stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.45.231 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This article should be removed.

Amitlevy49 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC) There is already an extensive article called "Stirling cycle", which notes "This article is about the adiabatic Stirling cycle".

"ideally" the wording stirling cycle should not be used at all and instead, ideal Stirling cycle or adiabatic Stirling cycle should be used each time specifically.

I would avoid "pseudo Stirling cycle" and/or just let it stay as a disambiguation, as people would might remove the "pseudo" in engine articles, because they do not realize that "pseudo" and "ideal" are used as an antonym pair. adiabatic Stirling cycle avoids that, because its technically correct and precise (unless the engine is specifically not adiabatic which would be particularly noteworthy).

Articles like Otto cycle have in principle the same problem (no engine is ideal), but people have a better intuitive feel that car engines are not ideal, but also that pistons engines and wankel engines can both use the otto (or diesel) cycle, despite being very different.

I do not want to try fundamentally to resolve this issue here - people here can be very stuck in very wrong ways and insist, that a "commons usage of a therm" takes precedence over technical and/or historical accuracy.

-- MichaelFrey (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)