Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Path

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 DELETE.

For what it's worth, in my experience Joy is scrupulously fair when closing votes, and I support her decision at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joeflynn. This article is a perfect example of why it makes sense to err on the side of keeping if there is any question. The article can always be renominated, as this one has been. dbenbenn | talk 22:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel Path

This article was on VfD 2005-01-05 and the admin closing the case decided on "no consensus". I don't think the article has improved since and the main contributor opposes merging to perpetual motion. He now "clarifies" in the article, that it doesn't fall within the definitions of perpetual motion typically offered. So, seemingly, it falls into other definitions of perpetual motion, obviously the weasel-worded ones which will be accepted by the US PTO. He further clarifies, that he can't give further explainations, due to non-disclosure agreements and the like.

In summary, I strongly suggest deleting this article as quackery, and will be the first re-adding it to the Wikipedia, if and when Parallel Path becomes a commercial success and/or gets a publication in an IEEE Journal or another serious source.

Pjacobi 15:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

• Delete, no original research. Fire Star 16:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason. --BM 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that on the previous occasion the article was submitted to VfD under the title Joeflynn. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joeflynn.) Admin Joy Stovall processed the vote. It seems to have been Delete:7 (counting the nominator, who unfortunately didn't actually vote, but did say it was original research, or a hoax); Merge:1; Keep:3 (2 were marginal/weak keeps, and one was the author of the article, who at that point had only edited this article and the VfD on it.) This was construed by Joy as "no consensus to delete"; but she did change the title to Parallel Path, with the comment that Joeflynn was a nonsense title. I think the conclusion that there was no consensus was surprising, and that Joy was rather bending over backwards to keep the article. To arrive at a "no consensus" conclusion, she had to (1) count the Merge as a Keep; (2) give no consideration to the fact that 2 of the 3 keep votes were "weak"; (3) perhaps not count the nominators comment as a Delete; (4) ignore the fact that the only strong vote to keep was from the author; and (5) not have an opinion herself (or have a Keep opinion). If admins interpret this situation as "no consensus to delete", it looks like it basically has to be unanimous except for the author to delete an article. Hopefully, this time it can be deleted. --BM 18:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Joy_Stovall: A Merge is a Keep, as after a merger the original article title is not deleted. It's merely a Keep with extra toppings. And, whilst Wikipedia is not a democracy, 7/11 is less than 2/3, the standard guideline threshold. Merge to History of perpetual motion machines (where it can join the long line of people and companies and their excuses) if notable enough. Otherwise Delete. Uncle G 04:10, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • I understand how a Merge needs to be implemented. My question is how a vote in which there is only one outright Keep vote from the author of the article, with most other votes being 'Delete', and with 2 'Weak Keeps', and 1 'Merge', can be tallied as "no consensus to delete", with the outcome being that a "Merge" tag is placed on the article, easily deleted by the author, as actually happened. The sysops always point out that VfD is not actually a "vote", that they are trying to find the consensus, and the content of the discussion counts. But here we have a case where the sysop just mechanically tallied up the votes (and apparently didn't have any opinion of her own) and arrived at a ridiculous result. --BM 14:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 19:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm convinced its the same 2/3 sock puppets that keep having a go at this article, under different names. I note they are never able to provide any reason for deletion, or show how or why it contravenes WIKI content guidelines. The emphasis always seems to be on 'votes for deletion', devoid of any reference to why this should happen. If all the votes for deletion are coming from the same 2/3 sock puppets, using different names, then what value so they have, exactly? There is no concensus for deletion of this page, among independent WIKI readers - only the sock puppets vote 100% delete. This page has been nominmated for deletion once already and survived, it should not be possible for the sock puppets to nominate 2 weeks later. It was a keep last time, to keep re-nominating every 2 weeks until the sock puppets get what they want, is simply absurd. Timharwoodx 20:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No person attacks without proof, and the people you are accusing are all users in good standing. Oh ya, delete as nonsence and get Joy's attention and ask her why she didn't delete before. You can't break the laws of physics, or, as a friend of mine said: Bad things happen. humblefool® 20:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • But the page has already survived deletion. This is sour grapes. Timharwoodx 20:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it didn't. Joy added a merge tag, which you so helpfully removed. Really, please. Open histories, my friend. humblefool® 20:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A true Wikipedian would respect the process. So merge the content, if you feel that way. Nothing stopping you. Only sock puppets disrespect the WIKI process. I find it fascinating someone is watching this vote for deletion 24/7, and every time I add a comment, an answer INSTANTLY* comes back. Is this not proof these guys are orchestrated sock puppets? Timharwoodx 20:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Tabbed browsing IS amazing, isn't it? No, do you have an argeument for the merits of this article, or are you going to insult me all day? I would also note that the only reason I can reply to you quickly is that you are replying just as fast. humblefool® 20:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Humble, you are right. I overlooked the merge tag that Joy placed on the article, which got deleted by Timharwoodx. I still think it was a bit of stretch for Joy not to find a consensus to delete in the last vote, but having arrived at "no consensus to delete", it was a good decision to put the merge tag on there, and it was bad faith by User:Timharwoodx to delete it. I'm not going to merge it now, since really there is nothing to merge, and it is better to have the article on display as we vote again. --BM 21:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original nonsense. —Korath (Talk) 22:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless this brings us closer to discovering the Flux capacitor. Rhobite 01:47, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• My vote is the same as last time: merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines, and get rid of this crackpot scheme. (I think the latter article is a better fit for this invention, since it has a list of such 'technologies'.) Beyond the scope of this VfD, User:Timharwoodx should be reminded not to disregard admin's evaluation of VfD consensus—particularly when it's bent very favorably his way. --TenOfAllTrades 03:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you realize the "Merge" is counted as "Keep"? It means that some or all of text should be transferred intact to another article, and the old article redirected so that the edit history is preserved for copyright reasons. What text from this travesty would you transfer *intact* to Perpetual Motion? It should be deleted and if anyone thinks that this so-called invention is notable enough to merit a mention in Perpetual Motion, and can convince the other editors, he can add a sentence or two to Perpetual Motion. However, that is not a merge. --BM 14:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I do realize that, thanks. As I stated, reference to this best belongs in History of perpetual motion machines; I'll edit my above vote to reflect that. I think some of the text can be paraphrased into that article. Creating a redirect also reduces the likelihood this article will be recreated in the future. Since it's one of the perpetual motion devices on which the USPTO was foolish enough to grant a patent, it has some notability and I don't think it should be removed entirely. I'm an academic and very sensitive to the issue of citing sources, so I might be more prone than most to err on the side of caution with a merge to preserve history—even if the text is paraphrased rather than directly quoted. --TenOfAllTrades 15:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to History of perpetual motion machines, since this device has been granted a patent I believe it is worthy enough for a mention there, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge or redirect: nonnotable crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again. --Carnildo 23:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I presume I'm the only person on this thread to have seen a working flux core motor. I mean, you can make them for $50 with a laser cutter, whats the problem? Stuck on circuitry? Maybe I should copy some of these comments, and drag them up in 10 years time, when flux core motors are used everywhere in everything. I am still amazed that a device that is 100% in accordance with the laws of physics, shipping in mass production to commercial products as I type, should cause so much controversy. The customers are happy, and no refunds have been requested thus far. I'd love to say what products it is in presently that you guys are buying, but that would be a betrayal of confidence on my part. The system claims only 69% magnetic efficiency, as I set out in my Nexus article, published in several different languages, internationally. The idea a magnetic field at 69% efficient is some form of 'perpetual motion,' is so deeply stupid as to be comical in its sheer ignorance. Now we've had this request for deletion nonsense twice, may I point out thus Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way science cannot explain (yet). Since this systems only deals with fields that are 69% efficient, that is well below 100%, and does *NOT* enable it to be accorded to the category perpetual motion, as per the WIKI definition. A vote to merge is a vote to keep, and as I have demonstrated, perpetual motion is the wrong category. There is no new physics here WHATSOEVER, or indeed an electrical energy gain claimed. Just a clever commercial engineering implementation of flux manipulaton. This page should be protected, so we don't get the same lame sock puppets, wasting everyone's time every 3 weeks. Timharwoodx 00:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That presumption would seem to be correct, unless you're willing to tell us what devices incorporate this technology. Preferably commercial, off-the-shelf products, please—even just one would help. The technique is patented, so I'm a bit troubled by the perceived need for complete secrecy.

A second concern is that I'm finding the explanations of the technology to be a bit difficult to understand. I'm not exactly sure what is being claimed. Other web sites describing the devices (including the one from Flynn Research[1], and the article by Tim Harwood[2]) don't seem to make the capabilities and functional mechanism of the device entirely clear, though perhaps I'm missing something.

Finally, the technology's credibility isn't helped by the company it keeps on the web. A Google search for "parallel path" Flynn [3] turns up only 81 hits. Of the subset related to Flynn's device (about half) most are sites devoted to over-unity type devices ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) or conspiracy theories ([9]).

As Pjacobi says, many editors here would be more comfortable if this device were mentioned in, say, an IEEE publication. I suspect most would probably settle for a story in Popular Mechanics, actually. When I hear hoofbeats I think of horses, not zebras. When I hear about a new ultra-efficient technology being sold only in secret and only discussed by its inventor and some over-unity enthusiasts, it triggers some skepticism.

Incidentally, I would urge you to avoid using the term sockpuppet unless you really mean it. It's an unnecessary and unwarranted slur against the editors in this discussion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:54, 11 Feb 2005 (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.