Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testatika (third nomination)

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 was delete. Krimpet (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testatika

• First AfD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Testatika
• Second AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testatika

This article may seem to have a large number of sources, but they fall into two classes:

• crap from the "over-unity" crowd
• articles Reddi unearthed which have only a passing connection to topic

The very definition is sourced to YouTube video by http://www.overunity.com/ -- hardly a reliable source. And very importantly not the inventors site, so the unreliable sources for articles about themselves clause doesn't apply.

For years Reddi is patiently trying to make this perpetuum motion machine look more reputable by his special method of building heaps of references.

Deletion rationale

We must differentiate between the apparatus and the legend.

For the device next to no sources are available, as the inventor doesn't thing the world is ready to learn about. So we should delete this article for lack of sources and non-notability of the device and give it a short mentioning only in the Methernitha article.

If you don't put your claim of having a working perpetual motion machiebe on the desk of the nearest university's physics department (if successfull an sure bid for the Nobel prize), we are better off without speculations.

For the legend: Everybody is free to claim to have a description of the device, or having successfully or not build a replica. Or to claim this his very own theory of new physics explain why it runs ober-unity. But that's a different story. And a non-notable one.

Pjacobi 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Note to closing Admin This AfD has been notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience [1] , indicating to this project that they should be aware of this AfD about an alleged device. Gnangarra 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I noted elsewhere, this is appropriate notification, as most people who watch the pages there will be interested in the AfD, regardless of their opinions. --Philosophus ^T 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• to quote Assist removal of articles about pseudoscience theories that are not important (i.e., that are only of interest to a very tiny group). Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience#Goals. This article would be tagged by the project if it is of interest them like WP:PARA has. Gnangarra 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Pjacobi has patiently trying to make this machine look less reputable. Please use decent language too (eg., "crap" ... )

This is a known and notable topic in so-called" perpetual motion' ... much like the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, and the cox's timepiece. For the device various sources are available ... as the item has been looked over and engineers have been present at the demonstration of it. J. D. Redding 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Notice the [citation needed] ... "Skeptics call it an alleged perpetual motion machine" (skeptics that have made models and really looked at the device have noted that it's not a overunity machine, jsut a notable device.) .... "Replicated devices were hand started and, then, powered directly from the device's generated electricity" (why some call it a "PMM" or "free energy device") ... "By this description (and without further components), a Testatika would be a perpetual motion machine" (there is more information on it ... but maybe the non-neutrality ofd some editors will not allow this ...) J. D. Redding 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It needs to be recognized by someone outside the small group of believers--either peer reviewed journals, or popular articles. This has not been. The number of patents are irrelevant. If there were any real likelihood of it working, or any apparently convincing demonstration, there would at least be popular articles. There are dozens of such machines that have been noticed,and have therefore been described in WP. This one has not.

The second afd had only 3 participants, and was closed as no consensus. The earlier one was unduly impressed by the number of references, and didn't look at them closely. DGG 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• This sourcing is very weak. I'm trying to pick through it, and it's fundamentally confused and misleading. Okay, let's pick through all this horrible mess, one by one:

1. Potter, Paul E., "Methernitha Back-Engineered" - this source appears to be a personal impression about the nature of the machine, and how it operates, based on a "back-engineering" by the author. I'm not sure why the author, or his research, is supposed to be considered reliable - but its not published, and the author appears to have no special claim to authority in this area. This does not appear to be reliable.
2. Google Video - is not a reliable source.
3. "THE SWISS M-L CONVERTER" - this is definitely not a reliable source. Again, it's an essay by someone with no apparent claim to authority, published on a website which is at the very least biased, and has no clear peer review or editorial oversight. This is not a reliable source/
4. "The Thestatika Machine of the Methernitha Commune" - this is 95% a reprint of a self-published website by proponents of the technology, and what is not a reprint says nothing about this topic, nor that it is reliable. Inclusion of this resource appears to be an attempt to disguise the true source of the content. In context, what is being used here is being drawn from a non-reliable source.
5. "Die Thesta-Distatica" - this source is in German, which I do not speak, so I am not qualified to judge the quality of this resource. However, it only sources for the German name, so I don't really see a problem either way.
6. "Prinzipversuch zur Testatika" - this source is also in German, and the machine translation provided is inadequate for my purposes. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of this source.
7. An image - this picture is used to source the claim "The Testatika ultilizes the 1898 Pidgeon machine setup". It does no such thing, reliability aside.
8. Another image - this image is used to source the claim "the fixed inductors are positioned in such a way that there is an increased induction effect". It does no such thing, reliability aside, again.
9. Another image - this image is used to source the claim "[it] charges parallel pads via air gaps." It does no such thing, and the words "air gaps" do no appear in the diagram.
10. Another Google Video link - this is not a reliable source.
11. Link to a patent filing. I'm unsure if this is reliable or not.
12. See above.
13. See above.

I can't finish all of these, since I other things to go through, but the sourcing is very weak. I would hope someone else can finish this up for me. --Haemo 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The google video is reliable ... it's what you call a primary source (need for Wikipedia, a secondary source) ... just like say, the the frank zappa video is from meida censorship. As to air gaps, the please read up on induction electrostatic machines, also. J. D. Redding 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (an article I constructed almost totally alone ...)

Comment: regarding the two references in German: They are on the site http://www.hcrs.at/of two Austrian engineers, which offers some HF and high voltage experiments, as well as standard physics stuff. Their speculations about how the Testatica works, are their very own (and would made them fail their physics exam, if I were the examiner). They have also a books to to sell: One about mainstream HF experiments, ISBN 3772358454, and two of the "free energy" type: ISBN 3772354092, ISBN 3772344003. As both of them are still alive, the Free energy suppression seems to fail in Austria. --Pjacobi 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice that these are international sources ... not just one or two Americans. (Funny you bring up Free energy suppression ... as the attempts to remove this noteable "PMM" seems to fall into it. ) J. D. Redding 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and DGG. The references, though numerous, are no good. Anville 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Notable device. Well known "free energy" device. The video is from the device display a few decades ago. J. D. Redding 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up: The device clearly exists, and appears to be notable enough for an entry. It's only it's end function that is disputed. All that this page really needs is a cleanup do distinguish between it's stated function and it's actual status as a piece of technology/lump of garbage. As for sources, exactly how reliable is a statement on a perpetual motion machine ever going to be. The prove that it exists and prove that claims were made about it. The fact that it makes claims that have never been scientifically verified says the rest. FYI, Afd number three is pushing it a bit. Anybody who hates this article that much but couldn't give a convincing enough argument for deletion the first two times should sit down and think about what this means. If this page survives, I propose that a moratorium be put on Afds for a year. - perfectblue 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge to Methernitha - not encyclopaedia subject worthy. There are numerous failed inventions with fancy names. This looks like one. If we were getting free energy, this would surely be notable enough. Shyamal 09:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing vote to merge. If the Methernitha cult is notable, then this is just a paragraph in that article. One reference [2] notes that this is not a replicable instrument and is more of a legend. Appears to meet WP:RS as far as references to existence of the term - notability as usual questionable. There is no replicability or exact definition of the machine anywhere as per references cited. If this article is providing construction details, it appears to be OR. Shyamal 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS concerns. Although the article appears to be well-referenced, many of the citations do not actually back up the statements in the article. Many fall into a category of "this machine utilises Principle X^[ref]"; however the reference is not to the Testatika's utilisation of Principle X, but to material on X itself. For example:

— BillC ^talk 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? or read the supporting material? It doesn't seem that you have as you fail to grasp them ... I do not think that you read through the material ... most probably a cursury glance

A primary source, the video, shows clearly that the Testatika uses the same set-up as the Pidgeon machine; If you know anything about electrostatic machines the Pidgeon Machine — itself derivative of the Wimshurst machine.

It is well-referenced, especially for a so-called "perpetual motion machine". The citations do actually back up the statements in the article, if you understand engineering and the operation of hte device. Many fall into a category of "this machine utilises Principle X[ref]"; The reference is to the Testatika's utilization of Principle X, via the material on X itself. For example:

• [9] is a link to a website that takes a scholar stance to the subject.
• [11] is a reference to a patent for a variable-capacitance membrane generator. This is one of the principles behind the device ... from the investigators of the subject [not OR]
• [12] is very similar to [11].
• [13] is a reference to a 1930's patent for a Van de Graaf generator (not the one usually shown; did you even read the patent?).
• [16]'s first link is to Tesla's patent for an electric light bulb. The second is to Fleming's patent for the vacuum tube rectifier. The third is to de Forest's patent for a vacuum tube amplifier. The fourth is to Forest's patent for radio transmitter/receivers. ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE THERMIONIC TUBE AT THE TOP OF THE DEVICE ... others have comment on the vacuum tube at the top in the video ...
• [17] is a list of patents by Nikola Tesla. This is technology in the condenser [the big metal cans in the video] ....
• [18] is a list of patents for three air (or fluid) ionisers and one deioniser. The Testatika izonized the air during it's operation ...
• [19] is a link to about the operation of the device ...
• [21] and [22] are links to papers about the topic of electron avalanche. This is about the operation of the circuit ...
• [25] is, like [10] (a link to a google video), is a primary source ...
• [31] is the information on the presentation to the engineers ...
• So ignoring that there are builders out there replicating the device [such as yahoo group] fails that? This is a significant-minority of the topic ...

J. D. Redding 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - very well referenced article and looks fine from what I have read on it. If there is a specific problem to it, we can just clean it up, but there is no need to delete such a well referenced and written article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  Many references do not well-referenced make. The references do not back up the article. — BillC ^talk 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sources don't support claims or show notability, also generally unreliable sources or only trivial mentions. --Minderbinder 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

which ones are unreliable? Which is "trival"? The sources do support the claim, if you read the sources. J. D. Redding

Please assume good faith and quit accusing other editors of not reading the sources. Unreliable? How about personal websites, youtube videos, websites of organizations that seem to be just one person, etc. And "trivial" would be sources that barely mention the topic, or don't mention it at all - they may be useful references for facts within the article, but they don't help establish notability of the topic.--Minderbinder 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. For the most part, the sources are irrelevant when reliable and not reliable when relevant; with the exceptions being neither reliable or relevant. --EMS | Talk 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability? do you know about the history of perpetual motion machine? This is on of the more recent ones that is cites as a so-called PMM (though it may not be one ....) J. D. Redding 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's listed on that article. But articles can't use wikipedia as a source, and notability isn't demonstrated there either. Could you give us an example of the source you think best demonstrates notability? --Minderbinder 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did the fricken most part on the "history of perpetual motion machines". It would not have been included unless there were citations for it in various histories. But it seems that endeavors to add relevant info such as this is "not good". Oh how time passes on the net and ppl ignore previous contributions

testatika -wikipedia -wiki -PESWiki : general search : [3]

testatika @ google scholar : [4]

testatika : Google images : [5]

They also mention it in Books ... from google books, which doesn't have a very large coverage,:

• They All Told the Truth: The Antigravity Papers; Richard P. Crandall, 2003 (700 pages)
• Mit Bleistift und Papier. Remote Viewing in der Praxis, Band 1, Volker Hochmuth - 2003 (264 pages)

Take your pick.

It is notable (in the least, in Perpetual motion history) ... but maybe not in wikiality land. J. D. Redding 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A general comment on reliability': Please remember that this is a perpetual motion/Over Unity device. With the exception of a source scientifically debunking it, NO SOURCE on it will be reliable in terms of mainstream science. Arguments over WP:RS should be thrown out on these grounds alone. We're not talking about a fact of science that should be verified using scientific sources, we're talking about something that barely even counts as pseudo science. This device should be treated as an urban legend and sourced as such, meaning that we need to prove that it exists in popular myth/culture, not in science. You wouldn't ask for peer review evidence for a page about Elvis being seen grocery shopping in Wal-mart, so why ask for it here. This page should be defining what the device is supposed to be and what it is supposed to do, and for this just about any trash source will do. - perfectblue 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is over WP:OR. As has been pointed out, while the article is chock-full of references, peer-reviewed or not, they do not back up statements in the article. How, for example, does a citation to Tesla's 1894 patent for an incandescent lamp support a physical description of the 1960's Testatika? — BillC ^talk 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you understood vacuum tubes, his single node vacuum tube was one of the 1st early tubes ... Tesla produced X-rays with it (among other things). Have you read any history on vacuum tubes? The other patents are supporting material on vacuum tubes, the item at the top of the device, as clearly shown in the video (the primary source). J. D. Redding 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is not what references are for. A reference says "Here is the place where I got this fact". This serves two functions: one, the reader can judge the reliability of the source, since it is named. Two, the reader can check the statement for him/herself. For example, today's featured article, Mars, contains the sentence "The average thickness of the planet's crust is about 50 km (31 mi), with a maximum thickness of 125 km (78 mi).^[8]", and in the list of references we see:

*[8] Dave Jacqué. "APS X-rays reveal secrets of Mars' core", Argonne National Laboratory

The reader can thus ask him/herself "Does a science press release from the Argonne National Laboratory count as a reliable source?" (yes it does); and:

"Does that document actually say the thing that is said in the article?" (yes it does, it's in its fourth paragraph)

Back at Testatika, we have for example "Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve has an anode mesh-plate, a coiled copper grid, a glowing (heated) cathode wire running horizontally across its centre, and the associated wires.^[16]". Reference [16] is a list of links to four patents, the first of which is for Tesla's Incandescent Electric Light. Which of these four patents backs up the statement in the article that the Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve has an anode mesh-plate and a horizontal wire cathode? — BillC ^talk 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good example (Mars article) of what sources should be. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you see Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve? The operation of it is in the four patents.

Does that document actually say the thing that is said in the article? Yes ... it's about vacuum tubes ...

You two though must know better for the reader what is and isn't a "reliable source" and what is and isn't supporting material. Riiiight ... J. D. Redding 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one source about the Testatike from the Methernita commune itself. And it speaks only in esoteric terms about the alleged mode of operation "one disc represents the earth, one disc represents the clouds" or something like that.

All other modern sources are just speculations by fans and skeptics. To even make them notable (let alone reliable) there would be reliable secondary sources needed.

All the old stuff, Tesla etc. are brought into the discussion by these modern sources (or you yourself, Reddi!), who can only speculate about how the Testika works.

The Methernita site states that it cannot be analysed by physics and the any physical terms they use for their descriptions, are only lend and used in a completely different.

In light of this, a short mentioning in the Methernita article should be fine. Some spiritual community have roses floweing in winter, some have wells with fairies, some have gurus materialising holy ash. The Methernita community claims to have en eternally rotating disc, producing some kW. OK, we can report that.

Pjacobi 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are source other sources about the Testatike. One is from the Methernita commune itself. There is also the video.

Modern sources are just research by investigators (your socalled "fans") and skeptics. These are secondary sources (eg., synthetic account based on primary sources and other secondary sources.).

All the old stuff, Tesla etc. are brought into the discussion by these modern sources (eg. other secondary sources) ... this isn't my views but from the views in the references on the Testika operation. Does anyone read here?

If anyone states that something "cannot be analysed by physics and the any physical terms", does that mean it cannot? The other reerences to it would indicate no.

The next point is your opinion that they use them in a completely different fashion (a common, but inappropriate, refrain from you).

Your last comment displays your POV and can stand as is ... J. D. Redding 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PESwiki, the Naudin site, other personal web pages, Yahoo groups, YouTube or Google videos are not secondary sources. --Pjacobi 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The video is a primary source! Some webpages and other scholarly work are mostly either secondary sources or tertiary source. Do you know what a the levels of source are? J. D. Redding 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The inability of a topic to obtain notability in a given area (such as science) is just that, and is not an excuse to keep an article in Wikipedia. If anything, the above "general comment on reliability" is an admission of the sorry state of the references for this article and the overall lack of attention that this device has gotten. I am willing to admit that this is an urban legend, but even an urban legend needs to be notable before it can be have a Wikipedia article. In this case, I see no evidence for notability in this case either within science or within the culture at large. --EMS | Talk 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is notable in history. J. D. Redding 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the books? None of the papers? None of the websites? None of these are notable? What? This is notable in the History of Perpetual motion. J. D. Redding 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (ps., I'll have to wait and see if wikiality does exist ...)

You seem to be arguing piggyback notability: If you cite something that is notable, or are notable within something else that is notable, you become notable. The issue is the topic's notability on its own or within a broad and accepted topic such as physics. "Perpertual motion machines" is neither broad nor accepted. As for the citations: Source do not transfer notability, and usually are not notable to begin with. Instead the issue is how the sources show that the Testatika is notable, and in that case "the sources are irrelevant when reliable and not reliable when relevant". --EMS | Talk 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The topic is notable in history. J. D. Redding 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The sources here are all unreliable and unreputable. This is in contradiction to WP:V and furthermore, does not follow the precedent of the Pseudoscience ArbCom case (WP:ARB/PS). Particularly, the sources would not be Acceptable Sources per ARB/PS even if they were Reliable Sources; as they are neither, and it appears that no suitable references exist, the topic is not notable per the Wikipedia definition. --Philosophus ^T 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Published books that are in libraries are "unreliable and unreputable" for Wikipedia .... hmmm. What is the "suitable reference"? No primary sources? These do adhere to WP:V and WP:ARB/PS ... but you POV of "Unofficial Anti-Pseudoscience Executive" (as stated on your user page) slants this vote ... J. D. Redding 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (ps., this isn't so-called "Pseudoscience" topic, it a historical topic and engineering topic.)

They can be, yes. I have a few libraries, and I could publish a book and put it in one of the libraries, but that doesn't make my book an RS or AS. What books are you referring to, anyway? The two you mentioned earlier on this page? Both appear to be either self published or published by disreputable publishers; for the book in English, it is quite obvious that it is pseudoscientific and not an RS or AS. --Philosophus ^T 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This in interesting ... Template:RationalSkepticismTasks J. D. Redding 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is explained on the project talk page. --Philosophus ^T 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a problem editor who should know better than to start this kind of advocacy. --ScienceApologist 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please No person attacks Joshua. AND this article was here before you even started editing Wikipedia. J. D. Redding 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a considerable history at Wikipedia as a problematic editor, Redi. People have suggested a community ban for your account. And it is quite ironic that you are lecturing me about personal attacks when just a few weeks ago a number of editors and myself had to go through redacting your incredibly personal user talk page. This article is maintained by yourself as a basic POV-push. It's gotta go. --ScienceApologist 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have suggested that Joshua (among the few). I have a considerable history of not dealing with internet trolls or pseudoskeptics. As to the "redacting", I moved it off to my personal space on the web because it was being censored ... it's my opinion of certain editors here at wikipedia, such as you. You have been sanction several times ... and have been told to refrain from personal attacks but various editos; Not to mention the computer attacks originate from systems that you control. J. D. Redding 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you don't know when to quit, do you? I was cautioned by one arbitration and was counseled by another. In comparison to the ban that was leveled against your account, where do you get off mounting any sort of high horse? Your attempts at enlisting the help of members of the paranormal project to help with your POV-pushing are not going unnoticed. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Bill C's analysis is compelling Guy (Help!) 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per BillC. And it borders on patent nonsense. Oscillators are described by similar math, whatever whistles and bells are added, and however much tapdancing and handwaving are done. If energy is extracted (by teh vacuum diode) energy must be added or the oscillator eventually stops. This one claims to extract energy with a vacuum tube diode, no less. I am somewhat familiar with 19th century electronics, and the pseudoscientific wordsalad in this arcticle and the references are not impressive. There may be a video purporting to show it running for a time. I could make a video of a clock (which includes an oscillator in the form of a pendulum) running for a week, but it is no perpetual motion or "over unity" device. Energy is added in each oscillation to keep it going. There are many ways to store enough energy in a complex device such as this to keep it going for a while. This is in the realm of claims about electrical engineering and physics, and references should be to reliable sources, which this article fails to exhibit. To one who is somewhat conversant with the jargon, it just fails the smell test, with claims of "electron chain reactions.". Wikipedia is not available for advertising perpetual motion machines which lack multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are lots of references attached, but most are far from relevant, including those by Preece and Tesla. Edison 05:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:BillC compelling analysis, references 1-6, 14, 15, 20, 26-30, 32 have no issues thats 14 references more then enough for notability, verfiability. Where as deletion based on analysis about whether it works using science, smell or witchcraft would be WP:OR. Gnangarra 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are basing that opinion on the observation that I did not include those references, then you should understand that the reason I did not do so was simply because I ran out of time on the exercise; moreover, Pjacobi had already covered the first 13 in his analysis. — BillC ^talk 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is certainly allowable for you to have your own opinion, but please don't say that it is per BillC, because by doing so you are distorting his analysis in a dishonest manner, as he explained. --Philosophus ^T 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also find your saying "per BillC" to be at best inappropriate. I also question the utility of counting references. If there is anything about those 14 references that counters BillC's opinion or mine, you should state it explicitly. --EMS | Talk 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Somewhere in this bloated farrago of speculation, bollocks, unreliable sources, and reliable but not irrelevant sources there may be a stub trying to get out, but it would be better to start over clean. Cardamon 09:32, 10 May 2007 (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.