Deletion of Perpectual motion machines

Comment: or redirect to Perpetual motion. The correct spelling, Perpetual motion machine, already redirects; not sure if we should consider this a likely spelling mistake or not, but there's no place in the encyclopedia for the article as is, because its practically unreferenced and a mass of |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I've declined (regretfully) a speedy for nonsense as the wording is clear enough to me. The concept is still in the development stage, and so fails . As I feel (from what is stated here) that this concept will never get a patent, this looks like a long term fail. Patents are not granted on perpetual motion machines unless accompanied by a working model - that is the hard part. Before I'd learned about friction (and other) losses, I'd 'invented' several ways of getting free energy myself. At present, only the passage of current in a superconductor seems to be free of losses - certainly no mechanical system comes close
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Inventor and scientist, user Aman shah wants to share with the wiki community: "Some have been imagining about Perpectual motion Machines,and they are excited about it!However,Perpectual motion Machines are impossible!Some people claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines are cheating society ,but that doesnot mean that gravity engines and Magnetic engines are impossible. These are possible ,but difficult to make!''  Yes, the laws of thermodynamics do pose some difficulties here, and since this fellow's invention of a perpetual motion machine is |one of many such impossible claims, I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion as a #G3|hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:CSD)