Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Testatika

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

No potential to become encyclopedic. Total acterly know about this claimed perpetual motion machine is pretty much zero. At lot of the stuff in the artlice at the moment doesn't really make sense. A proper description of what it is isn't posible becase the people who have made it are being secretive. at best there are a few accounts of people seeing it under conditions controlled by the makersGeni 13:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Google returns 1,500 (mostly relevant) hits on Testatika; from reading some of them, it seems to be pretty notable in certain, ahem...fringe science circles. And the history of perpetual motion machines and their inevitable failure can be quite interesting... -- Ferkelparade π 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Extermely notable as a fringe invention of "free energy". Important to 'history of perpetual motion machines article. Entertaining for electronics thought experiments. JDR 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Many of the 1,500 hits I found were duplicates or derivative but enough remained to convince me that someone believes in this. Send to clean-up, though. Geni's observation about the controlled conditions might be a good addition to the article. Rossami 22:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Before I went look, I was thinking probably merge and redirect to history of perpetual motion machines, but this is far too elaborate to be proportionate there. I agree about clean-up, but somebody went to a lot of trouble, and it seems both notable and a fun read. Keep. Bishonen 22:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The problem with the Testatika is, that it isn't only notable, it's rather infamous. The problem with the Testatika article is, that the inventors only tell quack about how it is supposed to work, so that's even hard to have some hard point to argue about. Instead of that, claims spring up, that capacitors have to be cylindrical, the rectifiers have to be valves and the resistors have to be natural. Oh wait, seems be the like the High-End audio business, hmm. Anyway I'll vote delete, unless someone of the fans can put together a coherent description. Pjacobi 16:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You can fix up the article while the VfD takes place, you know. It would be great to have some correction. Geogre 16:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm waiting since weeks that somebody puts in a coherent enough description to start serious editing. But I haven't seen a Testatika in real life, let alone being allowed to perform measurements. All descriptions on the web are pompous non-descriptions. Yep, I can erase most of the current content and replace it with the wording that nothing concrete is known about the working principle of the Testatika. But I very much prefer not to do that. -- Pjacobi 17:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I have added several comments to the article that may adress your specific concerns. JDR
        • yes I now includes the paragraph "Two horseshoe magnets with metalised-perspex laminated blocks alternated with copper and aluminium plates form electron cascade generators. The electron cascade (or avalanche effect) is a chain reaction forming 'free electrons' (via the surrounding environmental energy)." There are no such things as electron cascade generators. As such the second part of the paragraph makes no sense. To me this reads as "by using magnatism and a couple of metals the machine breaks the first law of ThermodynamicsGeni 09:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Added ", what various sources call," to the electron cascade generators reference (that is what they call it). I am sorry that you do not understand the second part of the paragraph, making no sense to you. The machine does not "break" the first law of Thermodynamics (if you consider the open system; not a closed system). JDR
            • If you view it likes that it breaks the secondGeni 19:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • It is quack and it becomes more and more quack, as descriptions are added. I don't accuse editors JDR of bad will, but this is no technical description of any mechanism. It doesn't even state, whether the surplus energy claimed is delivered as mechanical or electrical energy to the output. As said above, I have no idea what to do about this article. -- Pjacobi
• You know, this looks as much like a hoax as anything on earth. The problem is that we have a highly partisan editor, so sending to clean up is likely to mean a quick reversion to open claims of perpetual motion. At present, this seems more like an ad than I'd like. A flat keep is out. The only question is whether clean up can clean it up. Send to clean up, with a note that it should come back if not NPOV, if not skeptical, reportage of the claims of the company rather than direct claims without a filter of analysis. Geogre 22:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.