Talk:History of perpetual motion machines

message: "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)
thread_title: first law

message: ----
SENT JDR 09:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: copyright request

message: 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)
thread_title:  what a mess 

message: 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)
thread_title: Renormalization and Regauging 

message: I reverted edits to this article by  (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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Do you think its Reddi? William M. Connolley 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Linda Hall Library anon in [[Kansas City, MO]]

message: 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 )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)
thread_title:  Howard Johnson's motor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Motionless electromagnetic generator]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question about scope 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Using luisprada.com as a source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Falsehood about Dennis Lee removed 

message: "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)
replies: text: I fixed the issue (introduced here). DMacks (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  typos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yup, a cite to some reliable debunking sites gives at least marginal notability to it. DMacks (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NLIST]] for items? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing unreliable sources 

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

text: It was a useful comment. Specific suggestion? Readd content. J. D. Redding 17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Too bad too 

message: Should there be a section on Apparent perpetual motion machines such as the Atmos clock? Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent perpetual motion machines 

message: 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)
replies: text: I reported the socking. It should be cleaned up soon. Jojalozzo 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
thread_title:  Edit war and sock-puppetry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New IP 

message: 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.R. Feynman on Papp perpetual motion engine; Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics 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. 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.R. Feynman on Papp perpetual motion engine; Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics 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. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/index.html
:#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)
replies: text: note: Any changes to that section might apply to Josef Papp as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested change Papp engine 

message: 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 
This article is about perpetual motion machines.
* Sanjay Amin does not claim it is a perpetual motion machine OTRS 
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)
replies: text: This edit ? 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)
thread_title:  Removal of entry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete and needs expansion 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310193332/http://www.drebbel.net/1621%20PPM.pdf to http://www.drebbel.net/1621%20PPM.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.singularics.com/docs/tesla_the_problem_of_increasing_human_energy.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008094240/http://www.kclibrary.org/localhistory/list.cfm?list=sub&SubjectareaID=77176 to http://www.kclibrary.org/localhistory/list.cfm?list=sub&SubjectareaID=77176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109031748/http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-05.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-05.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040426204625/http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/ceti.htm to http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/ceti.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622223211/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn040502.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn040502.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622223334/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn050302.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn050302.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622223550/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn062802.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn062802.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622223443/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn082302.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn082302.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118095256/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Perpetual_Motion to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Perpetual_Motion
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Forgot this quack