Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent magnet motor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. The google hits for "permanent magnet motor" are deceptive as there are other motors, not claiming to be Perp motion, that use permanent magnets. There are 6M patents already granted in the US, we cannot have an article for each one. No evidence of notability has been offered. This is a well formatted article but it's not encyclopedic. I will happily userify it to someone's user space if desired but I think delete is the right outcome, as do all the other commentors other than User:Perpetual motion machine --++Lar: t/c 14:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (PS this deletion of the perpetual motion related article is without predjudice to creation of an article about "normal" permag motors...) ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent magnet motor

Unfortunately no reliable sources for this amazing perpetual motion device exist. Surprisingly little can be said about its operation. Perhaps the well-meaning author of the article considered the U.S. Patent 4151431 to be a valid source, but this is not the case, as a patent is essentially a self-published description only. Also personal websites like http://jnaudin.free.fr or wikis like http://peswiki.com/ don't qualify as sources. Please delete as unverifiable. --Pjacobi 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not one policy is violated. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy all are held to.

The patents exist and are reviewed by patent examiners.

The magazine Science & Mechanics (Spring 1980) covered it in the "Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor" article (a copy of it is here).

There are 154,000 google hits (literal "" string). It's known in pertual motion articles. This is sad and only an attack on the article.

Perpetual motion machine 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep if expanded. Xyrael T 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, patents are not notable per se, and this patent does not appear to have had any particular impact on anything (which may have to do with it being a perpetual motion machine and thus physically impossible, of course). Sandstein 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it has some interesting history of fooling someone to put large money into it. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's listed on the perpetual motion page itself! And the The National Research Council has stated that permanent magnetic motors have matured to the point that all-electric ships appear feasible (the patent span 10 to 20 years ago). Do a g.scholar serach, 14000+ hits. Books are written on this subject. Design of brushless permanent-magnet motors by JR Hendershot is one. The general concept is covered in Brushless Permanent Magnet Design (ISBN 1-932133-63-1) by Duane Hanselman. Perpetual motion machine
Heavens, these Google hits and all you say about brushless motors is because there is significant mainstream use of the term "Permanent magnet motor" which has zilch in common with the device patented by Howard Johnson. So even if this wart has to stay, it must be moved to a more specific lemma like Permanent magnet motor (Howard Johnson) or Non-electric permanent magnet motor. --Pjacobi 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is more than zilch. Johnson uses permanent magnets where as others have used primarily electromagnets. But you would have to know more about such devices to really undestand that.
So since this good topic within PMMs has to stay, I think that your suggestion of moving to a more specific lemma like permanent magnet motor (over-unity) (vs permanent magnet motor (electromagnet)) could be good (as others have made similar attempts, such as the "Peregrinus permanent magnet motor", Stephen Walker's "permanent magnet motor", Troy Reed's permanent magnet motor, Robert "Paul" LeBreton's "Millennium Motor", etc.). Perpetual motion machine
  • Delete in perpetuity. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? Seems like the reason of "unencyclopedic" which is not an argument at all but just another way of saying "should be deleted". This article is "verifiable" (vs. WP:V), "secondary research" (vs. WP:OR), and "notable". 134.193.168.236 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is it notable? Seems like all the other perpetual motion machines patented before the patent office required a working model for such inventions. Funny thing, there haven't been any perpetual motion machines patents since.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Why is it notable? It's in many text of this topic. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Perpetual motion machine 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • As to if there have been any perpetual motion machines patents since, the Motionless Electrical Generator was patented recently and is classified by some as a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machine 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge anything notable, if anything, about this particular Perpetual motion machine into that article. --Armon 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Perpetual motion machine article is not the appropriate space for it. It is extra bulk to that page and would really need to be split off. Perpetual motion machine 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It can't stay with this title. Delete or rename to "Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor". Meggar 04:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.