Talk:History of perpetual motion machines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of perpetual motion machines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

first law

"Perpetua mobilia of the first kind are those devices that violate the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy, creating energy out of nothing. Most attempts fall into this category. " Thats not true is it? Almost every single one is trying to violate the second law as far as I can see. 90.240.147.56 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

I converted this Wikipedia article from Eric's webpage because it contains interesting information which I believe belongs in Wikipedia. Concerning the question of copyright, Eric's webpage does not mention any copyright claims. Besides, one cannot easily make copyright claims on historical information like that in the article. Furthermore, as Wikipedians edit and integrate this article, it will become less and less like Eric's original version. Although Netiquette states that one should notify Eric when using his work, Eric unfortunatly does not make obvious on his webpage a way to contact him. --Anon.

If it copies the article, it's a copyright violation, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Even if it has changed afterward, (IANAL) but it's a derivative work and can still have legal problems. I'll check the copyright issue (from the ext. ln) when I have a moment, unless someone beats me to it Dysprosia 11:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

M:Avoid_Copyright_Paranoia --Anon.

Regarding copyright -- if something doesn't mention a copyright that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm concerned with the many copyings that took place and I think this article should be completely rewritten if it is to remain; many of the phrases are identical to the referenced web page now. Additionally the article is hardly taking a very encyclopediac tone. While I agree the article should say that any such claims are unproven and many have been proven to being a delusion or a scam, the language used in the article is overly aggressive. User:Martijn faassen

The un-encyclopediac tone you mentioned clearly exists at the present time. However, disregarding the copyright question for a moment, wouldn't it be O.K. to leave this article in Wikipedia for the purpose of letting me, you, and other Wikipedians reword it over time using the neutral point of view? I have already done a small amount of this. --Anon.

The tone issue is not the most important in my mind and can be fixed. I'd already started doing some minor typo fixes until I noticed the dubious copyright status of this page. Copyright is my primary concern here. You can't just copy a web page assuming there's no copyright if no such is mentioned; that's asking for trouble. This article copies far more than a few lines. User: Martijn faassen

In response to your regard towards copyright, I agree with your comment that "if something doesn't mention a copyright that doesn't mean it doesn't exist". However, following the philosophy of trying to avoid paranoia about copyright, shouldn't we leave it up to the author of the original article to ask that we remove it from Wikipedia, rather than worrying about a possible copyright that the author did not care enough about to mention on his webpage? --Anon.

Its better to settle issues of copyright first, as a general rule of thumb, to save us being sued in case there's an issue of copyrighted material. Maybe someone should ask Eric (whomever he may be) whether he doesn't mind the Wikipedia using his work... Dysprosia 11:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

M:Avoid_Copyright_Paranoia --Anon.

His email is eric@voicenet.com - I don't know who is authorized to ask him permission. Mark Richards 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's now 31 March, with no resolution for this issue: I have posted a notice on this page, and listed it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- The Anome 08:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

copyright request

SENT JDR 09:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Eric Krieg,

I am writing to confirm whether permission is granted to use a page from your website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (http://en2.wiki.x.io/wiki/GFDL). A user with the IP 68.163.254.159 has pasted in text from your website Eric's history of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines (http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html) to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, on Feb 2004 at 04:54, 14.

The text concerns History of perpetual motion machines and the original submission can be viewed at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_perpetual_motion_machines&oldid=2388665

An anonymous user added your information, and it is unknown if that user has permission to use this material. But for the page to remain on our site, we need clarification ifthe information can be use.

The article will be deleted in seven days time if permission is not confirmed, though can be undeleted at a later date if you choose to respond later to state that such use is allowed.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully, J. D. Redding User:Reddi http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Reddi

RECIEVED JDR 10:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Subject: Re: Information inquiry From: eric <eric@voicenet.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:53:47 -0500 (EST)

that's fine - you are welcome to mirror anything from my site from phact.org on downward

wikilinks

I'd just like to comment that this page now contains an excessive amount of wikilinks which makes the page hard to read. Let's only put in wikilinks which are at least somewhat relevant. We don't need wiki links to English language, king or war from this page. These are commonly understood terms and people will not normally get a sudden urge to research the article on kings when reading a line which happens to mention one. These links only distract when reading. Links to years I can accept. Years to historical figures, sure. But links to, say, evidence, theory, mail, officials, community, petition and American seem rather overzealous. Martijn faassen 23:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also point out that a lot of the wikilinks that are currently on the page are broken. I mean, an inordinate amount. How did so many links become broken?

I tried to follow a lot of them, and apparently the pages for those links no longer exist. That is very interesting. Is it also significant? -- Jane Q. Public 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hodgepodge?

This page strikes me as a hodgepodge of hoax/scam/discredited inventions/or claim of production of cheap energy.. most of them are unrelated to perpetual motion machines...

Take these excerpts taken for the page...

(1) "In 1926, Albert Einstein and former student Leó Szilárd co-invented a unique type of refrigerator (usually called "The Einstein Refrigerator")."

Although, this is factually correct but they dont claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine, but a fridge..

(2)In 1999, Renzo Boscoli, of Italy, claims to have developed a method for low-energy nuclear reactions. Boscoli did not give a demonstration nor supply proof that was promised to Infinite Energy Magazine investigators (in particular Gene Mallove)

Cold fusion, be it true or not, doesnt not claim to extract energy from the ether.. It simply what it is said, fusion at low temperature, nothing to do with perpetual machines..

(3) Guido Franch reportedly had a process of transmuting water atoms into high-octane gasoline compounds (named Mota fuel) that would decrease the price of gasoline down to 8 cents per gallon. This process involved a green powder (this claim may be related to the similar ones of John Andrews (1917)). He was was brought to court for fraud in 1954 (acquitted) and, again, in 1973 (convicted). Justice William Bauer and Justice Philip Romiti both observed a demonstration in the 1954 case.

Guido franch claims to have found a cheap source of energy, be it true or not, there are no claims of perpetual machine being made ...

This is only three examples I lifted, but in fact most of the article is ridden with them ...

vitaleyes --11:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Einstein and Szilárd dont claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine, but a fridge. The principles though are important. Because it has no moving parts, one of these devices would last hundred of years without any kind of maintenance.

Cold fusion doesnt not claim to extract energy from the aether (why you mention the luminous aether here is puzzling to me). That is also not what is important here. Renzo Boscoli claims an infinite energy resource, a type of perpetual motion.

Nothing to do with perpetual machines? On the contray it does.

Cold Fusion claims to derive energy from a nuclear process, some suggest the Widom-Larsen theory to explain it, but it is nuclear energy, if true, and not infinite energy or perpetual motion. Do you think fission power plants are perpetual motion too? Ridiculous; you are letting your personal view of Cold Fusion cloud competent categorization of the subject. - anonymous lurker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guido franch claims relates to the energy resources of perpetual machine proponents seek ... it is not an infinite energy resource nor a device that would last last hundred of years. This could be a case to remove it from the article. It does ring with the "energy suppression" lines from PMM proponents. So mabey it could be left in the article. Also the claim of _transmuting_ water atoms into high-octane gasoline without requiring additional energy input seems related.

An alternative solution to consider would be to move the info here till an appropriate artile is created.

The article is ridden with unrelated items? Please point out more ... but many are related.

JDR

You are correct vitaleyes, the article is full of irrelevancies. Do you want to remove them? Moriori 22:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Correct? YMMV on that. Remove them? Lets make sure that it's appropriately removed (and of the 3 above example only one could really be removed honestly). JDR

Which two do you suggest come under the classification Perpetual Motion Machines? That is what the article is supposed to be about, according to the heading. Moriori 02:26, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Which two do I suggest come under the classification Perpetual Motion Machines? Specifically [1] and [2]. I thought that the above notes would explain that. [3] is shaky.

The hypothetical perpetual motion machines (and associated "Perpetual Motion") is what the article is supposed to be about (you don't necessarily have to point that out to me ... haveing written most of it and having read nearly all the external links in the article).

JDR 03:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still object to Slizard and Einstein fridge. It is true that it doesnt have any mechanical part and doesnt need maintenance ( i dont know if it has been built yet). A radio can be built without any moving parts but that doesnt justify its entry in this list. By the way, there are fridges built on the Peltier-Seebeck effect that dont have any moving parts, it is nifty but it is not a perpetual motion machine.I still maintain that claims of infinite energy are unrelated to a perpetual machine. Of course, a perpetual machine needs to extract energy from a source but i dont think this article should narrow its scope and focus on machines. To disserve an entry, the inventor should have a prototype of some sort or a blueprint of a machine to be built. For your information, getting energy for nothing is often called extracting energy from aether. That's a concept of the 20th century when scientists realized that the vaccuum energy is infinite (in some sense). Speculations have come on how to tap this infinite source of energy (often based on the Casimir effect). Of course it doesnt work, Vitaleyes 13:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the entry on the Einstein refrigerator. That design, or a similar one using different chemicals, is in use in nearly every recreational vehicle in the world. The biggest advantage it has is that it can run off a heat source such as a propane burner, rather than requiring electricity like a compressor-driven refrigerator does. --Carnildo 01:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some years ago, I don't remember when, I was shown a "perpetual motion machine". It included a battery that was being charged by the machine, but not charged enough. QUITTNER 142.150.49.171 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what a mess

God, this page is a mess. I have removed all the italics from names, and in the process removed a few completely unsupported statements along the lines of "In 2001, so-and-so of this-city said he had an over-unity engine. As of 2002, it is not know if it has been tested" ... stuff like that. But it's still an overloaded mess that nobody will read through. - DavidWBrooks 02:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renormalization and Regauging

Renormalization ist "Regauging", whatever "regauging" is. It is especially not that, what Greg Watson claims, as his "regauging" is an alleged physical process whereas Renormalization is calculation technique. --Pjacobi 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Regauging" (of the physical factors) as used by the PPM community (in calculations) is "Renormalization". J. D. Redding~~ Pjacobi yo are right. J. D. Redding

William M. Connolley Removal of commonly cited topics

16:53, 10 March 2006 William M. Connolley m (→1900 to 1950 - wardenclyffe has nothing to do with PM. Nor do carbs...)

The carb is related to the 100 mile carburator ... a means to "free energy" [it isbn't over unity, but suppose to be highly efficient ... but the patent and inventor is the one cited often in the historical accounts ... it's just a hi oxidized gas system] ... He removes it without knowning why it included.

Wardenclyffe is included in alot of literature on "free energy"... even http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Nikola_Tesla knows that it is part of the perpetual motion myths ... (what he intended was real and based within engineering and experiment ... )

J. D. Redding 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You like Wardenclyffe because of your Tesla obsession. It has nothing to do with this article. And efficient carb is also nothing to do wih perp motion. Do try to have some faint idea of what you're editing William M. Connolley 11:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the fact call them nonsense. skepticwiki.org is but one ... it is related to this article

You dislike Wardenclyffe because of "Teslaphobia" ...

And efficient carb is also someting to do with "free energy" (not in the PMM).

Do try to have some faint idea of what you're editing (have little knowledge on history before you write about history). This article covers all the "free energy" timeline ... the title is there because it's the most common term for it ... J. D. Redding 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Addition

The Dunking Bird Machine. Did not find a mention of it anywhere.

--Bolasanibk 05:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a perpetual motion machine. The thing is driven by the evaporation of water. The air has less than 100% humidity, which is where the free energy comes from. pstudier 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that none of the other machines mentioned in this page are actual Pepetual Motion Machines,(Do correct me if I am wrong) but only claim to be one. With this criteria the Dunking Bird does qualify for inclusion. --Bolasanibk 08:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that nobody pretends the Dunking Bird is a perpetual motion machine. - DavidWBrooks 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, on the Wiki page "Drinking Bird" it is specifically mentioned that its not a PMM. (BTW where the hell did I get the 'Dunking'!! Bird from :-)

And don't break one! I did, and the chemicals which cause just the right evaporation/condensation behavior ate through the finish on my floor and have left and apparently permanent pink stain. - DavidWBrooks 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Linda Hall Library anon in Kansas City, MO

I reverted edits to this article by 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs) (registered to Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, MO). For example this anon removed the information that "In 1775 Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, made the statement that the Academy "will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion". The reasoning was, that perpetual motion is impossible to achieve and that the search for it is time consuming and very expensive."

The Kansas City library anon (who uses machines at a variety of libraries in this city) is one of the perennial problem users at WP, currently involved in an edit war at Nikola Tesla.---CH 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mr. "jump the gun", I did not "removed the information"!!! This comparison shows that I move it to the appropriate place in the timeline as to it's date! sheesh! You Hillman are a problem user, look before you leap and check the history. 204.56.7.1 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [ps., it's already stated over and over that "motion is impossible to achieve" in the article.][reply]

Do you think its Reddi? William M. Connolley 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to compare their interests, personal style, etc. to be able to make a firm conjecture, but yes, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I certainly think this is possible. ---CH 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs), if you still think your changes were appropriate, can you briefly explain here what you were trying to do and let us comment? ---CH 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In edits to Talk:Nikola Tesla by the kc.umkc.edu anon and to that article and this one by the Linda Hall Library anon, some stylistic markers are consistent with the hypothesis that the Kansas City Library anon is indeed a single individual. ---CH 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johnson's motor

Quote:

Patents

This sort of invention has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO has in the past granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. These are:

* Johnson, Howard R., US4151431 "Permanent Magnet Motor", April 24, 1979

...

My understanding from reading an old article about this (Science & Mechanics, Spring 1980 [1][2])is that the USPTO did indeed understand that Johnson's motor was a perpetual motion machine and did refuse to proceed without Johnson showing a working model. Johnson demonstrated at least two models. I don't know how much investigation the USPTO did on them but presumably they were either satisfied or frustrated enough to grant the patent -- or maybe it was just cheaper and simpler to do that than to actually find out what Johnson was doing. The patent was surely invalid simply because no one else has since succeeded in duplicating the motor and patents are supposed to tell anyone "skilled in the art" (here presumably electric motor construction) enough to duplicate the invention. Of course Johnson never marketed any motors after the patent was issued, though he was alive as of 2003.

And no, I don't know what happened to the models. -Wfaxon 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motore di Schietti

Motionless electromagnetic generator

It's correct to say that there is no working prototype. There may be a prototype which appears to work, but has not been confirmed to work by scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about scope

I was going to add info about Blacklight Power, but I'm not sure it's appropriate. They claim to extract energy from hydrinos, which (if real) would provide infinite power, but not technically be "perpetual motion" since eventually all the hydrogen in the world would theoretically go to the new state.

I think that by expanding "perpetual motion" to "free energy" (which is done in the intro), it makes sense to include it, but I don't want to go to the trouble if someone's going to delete it.

Of course, by strict definition, Joseph Newman's motor doesn't qualify either, since (in addition to not working), he claims it gets its power by converting copper atoms to energy.

Thoughts?Prebys (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is appropriate. But it might be better if this article were moved to history of free energy, if the scope were to be expanded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aka "history of free energy"

The source is a free energy AS perpetual motion book. I can't find a publisher, so it may be self-published. It could only be considered a reliable source if more information were included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further checking:

First google hit for the title is this article. No ISBN. No publisher's name (unless the research instute is the publisher, rather than the author). Disagreement among search results as to publication location. No match on amazon.com. Google books match also has no publisher, unless it's the BSRF. No indication there it's intended as non-fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you people know about steorn's orbo, which was the latest free energy machine before the one in Texas[3], which just came out, appeared on the seen. It is odd that people really want to hold on to this technology even after proven not to work. Do you kind people have any experience with this mentality?Irrito (talk)

Could somebody check and consolidate the references to Howard R. Johnson's "Permanent magnet motor"?

It's listed under both "1900 to 1950" and "1951 to 1980". The patent was issued in 1979. I'm not sure about the reliability of all the references in the first section. --72.70.4.152 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using luisprada.com as a source

This site fails WP:SPS as it is a personal website for Luis Prada (as show by the public registration records). It consequently fails WP:RS and should not be used as a source.—Ash (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood about Dennis Lee removed

Under the section "Modern Era, 1951 to 1980," the false statement "As of 2004, Dennis Lee (inventor) is using his devices" was found. Lee never used a free energy device--- there is no such thing. Lee sold, to Fundamentalist Christians, the "right to buy" what Lee claimed to be free energy devices, but Lee never had one, never sold any, and he never "used" any such device. Lee was prosecuted and Lee went to prison for the fraud (http://phact.org/e/dennis.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertphile (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

typos

"In 1610, Cornelis Drebbel, an alchemist and magician, designed a that...." Just what was it he designed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.9 (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issue (introduced here). DMacks (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST for items?

The chronology section is starting to accumulate several entries that do not appear to have merit to include. As a summary/list and as a wikipedia-content issue, there needs to be some WP:V for each device, not just something someone thought of or posted on youtube. Any reason we should not apply WP:NLIST, and remove entries that do not have bluelinks for the specific device/person, or at least reliable-source ref/citation demonstrating that it's reported somewhere? DMacks (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Although, the latest entry, Muammer Yildiz, seems to have been reported as a fraud by one of the "Free Energy" web sites, so it might be allowable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a cite to some reliable debunking sites gives at least marginal notability to it. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unreliable sources

I will be looking through this article at it's sources as many appear to be of very dubious quality. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have weeded most of the article of unsourced claims and removed most of the unnecessary "trivia" that the article had accumulated. Please use Reliable Sources before re-adding anything into the history, showing Why it should be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Tesla sounds dubious to me, and the source is apparently a book authored by Tesla in 2007 60 years after his death! 78.128.90.154 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from an article he wrote in "Century Magazine" in 1900. I've corrected the reference and supplied a link to a scan. I haven't read the whole article, but it looks like he said some "interesting" things.Prebys (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad too

History of perpetual motion machines has been destroyed. Probably a causality of "don't understand it, delete it". Too bad, too ... was informative at a time. J. D. Redding 17:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a useful comment. If you have specific suggestions, please make them.Prebys (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a useful comment. Specific suggestion? Readd content. J. D. Redding 17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously in a dire state with many unsourced or unreliable sources used. I see that unsourced sections have been added to the article again. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, first you remove the content and the citations [some more reliable than others] and, when the I repaired the article, you put in citation needed on mostly everything? WTF? Have you read any of the references in the reference section before you ripped everything apart??? Use the historical method (per WP guideline, not primary sources, but reliable secondary and tertiary sources [note, a primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.]) J. D. Redding 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you actually check the citations? many of them are dead links and the claims can't be verified. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent perpetual motion machines

Should there be a section on Apparent perpetual motion machines such as the Atmos clock? Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a decent section on that in the Perpetual motion article, so there's no need to duplicate it. Perhaps a link.Prebys (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the history of the topic, so it should stay here. Use the historical method (secondary sources and tertiary source, per WP guidelines). J. D. Redding 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) [please rad Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy also][reply]

We do not use the historical method on wikipedia. see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Key point: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent perpetual motion machines would be appropriate for this article (history) if there had been something that was widely regarded as perpetual motion which was later explained. That's not the case in any of the examples given so far. Their operation is, and always was, understood, so they are more appropriate to the general discussion of Perpetual motion, where they already are.Prebys (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war and sock-puppetry

Asistente.manriquez.meiser has been trying to add a section of completely unsupported nonsense. Now he's sock-puppeting as an anonymous user. Please keep an eye out. I can't be reading Wikipedia all the time.Prebys (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the socking. It should be cleaned up soon. Joja lozzo 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP earned himself a 24hr 3RR block for it (2 insertions by the acct and 3 more by the IP, with the content disputed by 3 different other editors). DMacks (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...who has now started to IP-hop. They're subject to insta-block when they appear, and no objection to semi-protecting the article if we get more of them.. DMacks (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New IP

84.106.26.81 is deleting and adding material; some of the deleted material doesn't belong, but the added material is mostly unsourced claims that one of the machines worked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous, you are just reverting tons of peoples contributions as if you own the place. If you object to any of mine you should be specific in stead of aggressively deleting everything. As revert tons of people per minute you cant have spend more than 3 seconds on this page.

QUOTE: "some of the deleted material doesn't belong"

You should fix it yourself dude, this is why I made 5 edits in stead of one. So that the lazy administrator who keeps reverting everything people do can be contextual about his control freaking. LOL

"mostly unsourced claims that one of the machines worked"

I did no such thing but you think there are actual sources that say it does?

Anyway, your wholesale reverting should stop until you can describe for us which specific contributions you are talking about.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggested change Papp engine

This paragraph tells us more about Richard Feynman than about Joseph Papp.

In 1966, Josef Papp (sometimes referred to as Joseph Papp or Joseph Papf) supposedly developed an alternative car engine that used inert gases. He gained a few investors but when the engine was publicly demonstrated, an explosion killed one of the observers and injured two others. Mr. Papp blamed the accident on interference by physicist Richard Feynman, who later shared his observations in an article in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics.^[1] Papp continued to accept money but never demonstrated another engine.

It has no information at all. I propose changing it into this:

In 1966, Josef Papp (sometimes referred to as Joseph Papp or Joseph Papf) supposedly developed an alternative car engine without a fuel tank that used a mixture of noble gases. Initially its workings had been confirmed and validated by Professor Nolan and his team from the University of Oklahoma, by request of the USPTO.^{[citation needed]} When one of his engine was publicly demonstrated, an explosion killed one of the observers and injured two others. Mr. Papp blamed Call tech physicist Richard Feynman for refusing to reconnect the control apparatus. In the forensic investigation no explosives were found, the incident was ruled an accident and Feynman settled out of court.^[2] Feynman remained a critic but never attempted to explain the source of the explosion.

This more properly reflects the controversy. There was no murder conviction and Feynman settled out of court.

Apendix A has a reprint of independent certification testing for the USPTO in 1983. <ref>http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/index.html</ref>

infinite-energy.com is not a credible source for anything, even as a "courtesy copy".
The LASER article is only reliable only for Feynman's opinion.
There's no evidence for the claim that "In the forensic investigation no explosives were found".
Even if there were, it's not clear whether gasoline would be called an "explosive" in that context. I mean, they were investigating an engine; they'd expect it to have fuel, even if Papp denied it.
According to Feynman, CalTech settled out of court, ~~without Feynman's consent~~ against Feynman's advice.
"Initially its workings had been confirmed and validated by Professor Nolan and his team from the University of Oklahoma, by request of the USPTO." requires a source, and may violate WP:BLP, if Nolan is still living.
Oops, I think I found a credible source, http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf . Sorry about that. Nolan's claimed qualifications aren't very relevant to the operation of an unusual chemical engine, and even if the "pulsed plasma engine" was real, it wouldn't be in his field.
Sorry, I have little objection to "without a fuel tank", but some punctuation is needed, and it may require a citation.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: Any changes to that section might apply to Josef Papp as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

patents?

I suspect that at some stage all patent references have been deleted in favor of stories about investors? If not, I would argue it to be interesting and relevant reading material. We don't have to protect the reader from learning to much, even if it isn't real. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the patents have due weight then providing some reliable sources that discuss the individual patents would show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly USPTO has not learned from the Bearden case. Keppe got a patent on perpetual motion motor recently: Keppe et al. US 8,546,985 B2, Oct. 1, 2013. Would there be need for a list of perpetual motion machine patents? Lauri.pirttiaho (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A patent gives very little information by itself. And it's a primary source, directly from the person who made the invention, you can't explain the patent without making some original research. You need secondary sources to explain which physic laws are being ignored.

Anyone can get a bad patent approved. You only need the ability to muddle the language and hide certain facts from the examiner. Getting a patent doesn't mean that you are a famous inventor, or that your invention is famous. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entry

I'm removing the entry about Sanjay Amin and Entropy Systems Inc. (ESI). There are two references, one is dead.

It claims he has a 3.5 million investment.

Neither of the references support this claim.
Sanjay Amin disputes this claim OTRS 2013021510005233

This article is about perpetual motion machines.

Sanjay Amin does not claim it is a perpetual motion machine OTRS 2013021510005233

The entry says the device will "violate the second law of thermodynamics".

That is not stated in either reference, so is OR or was in the missing reference.

It says he is "working on this technology" but neither reference specifically states this, and even if implied, both references date to 1999.

If one removes all the unsourced statements, one is left with a claim that he established a company (which is not quite correct, he was a co-founder), and patented something related to heat transfer. Doesn't belong here.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [4]? I see three: skepdic.com and two wired.com. The second wired one, "Miracle Engine's Tank Is Empty", begins "Entropy Systems now says it has no immediate plans to release Entropy Engines, despite raising about $3.5 million from private investors and hawking the breakthrough technology in the media since at least 1994." (later noting that the dollar amount is "According to Amin"). As for the device itself, "The engines require no fuel, relying only on ambient heat energy in the atmosphere, which they would efficiently convert into power...They would be free to run and wouldn't create any pollution, directly or indirectly." There's no such thing as energy that just floats around that can just be extracted at will with no waste or other thermal sink. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete and needs expansion

This article is incomplete. Too bad, too. Further information might be found on historical books and in the history of the article. This article is missing information about perpetual motion machines, but could be can helped by expanding it. --J. D. Redding 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of perpetual motion machines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot this quack

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Moray

In 1944 Moray was paid $25 a day by the rural electrification administration to perfect his system of drawing electrical energy out of the atmosphere. He claimed his invention produced electricity with no exterior input of energy.

Signed - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, of the Galactic Bureaucracy, Vogsphere 49.184.195.195 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not sure if this counts as perpetual motion. If he really could have drawn energy from the atmosphere, this could have been something comparable to solar or geothermal energy. --Geek3 (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] R. Feynman on Papp perpetual motion engine; Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics

[2] R. Feynman on Papp perpetual motion engine; Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics

[1]

[2]