Template talk:Perpetual motion machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality!

Free energy machine is a far from unambiguous name (Gibbs?, Helmholtz?...) and not suitable. --Michael C. Price talk 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Free energy device Redirect. "Free energy device" is more neutral. USPatent

Sources? --Michael C. Price talk 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that "perpetual motion machine" is more neutral? USPatent

So I take it you have no sources. Is a free energy device a Gibbs free energy device or a Helmholtz free energy device ? --Michael C. Price talk 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I also take it you have no sources. As to your question, niether.

Devices that use free energy may be categorised as renewable energy devices, although most renewable energy sources would not normally be called free energy sources or sources of perpetual motion. Some are devices that use free energy which may be directly used (and returned) by a device from the surroundings (electromagnetic free energy is sometimes referred to as radiant energy device). Devices that use free energy can also mean a primary energy source that is free (i.e. does not cost anything) for consumption. Examples include wind power devices, water power devices, telluric power devices, and solar power devices. Device that use energy from fantastical forces attributed by fewer "qualified" scientists and engineers, and are skeptically considered perpetual motion devices. These devices use quantum vacuum perturbation (which cannot really be considered to be a force as much as it is a bending of time-space), quantum vacuum energy, rotating magnets (employed in ways hitherto unpracticed), as well as some purported methods to crack hydrogen. USPatent 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that free energy devices are NOT perpetual motion machines. Exactly my point. --Michael C. Price talk 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NO some perpetual motion machines are free energy devices. USPatent

But not all. Ambiguous. Exactly. I am taking this discussion the newly created perpetual motion machine talk page --Michael C. Price talk 16:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not ambiguous, NEUTRAL. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. USPatent 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous; I refer you to your use of some. And neutral claim is unsourced. --Michael C. Price talk 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not ambiguous, NEUTRAL, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And your claim that it isn't neutral is unsourced. USPatent

You seem to think that if your unsourced claim to be neutral was correct that it would therefore make the term "free energy machine" unambiguous. This is a simple error of basic logic. They are two independent issues and you have simply failed to address the ambiguity issue. --Michael C. Price talk 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what you have also done. You seem to think that if your unsourced claim of it being ambigous or not neutral was correct that it would therefore make the term "free energy device" ambiguous. You think that a claim of a device being a "Perpetual motion machine" does not connotate certian meanings and is NPOV. USPatent 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim of ambiguity is not unsourced. Look up free energy. You yourself have ADMITTED that free energy device does not equate with perpetual motion machine!!!!! Your words:
"some perpetual motion machines are free energy devices." [my emphasis] --Michael C. Price talk 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing free energy with a free energy device. One is a mechanism, the other is a concept. A "free energy device" can be seen as a perpetual motion machine, but the connotation is that a perpetual motion machine is unworkable. All the machines with this template work (some achieve the claims of the inventor more than others.) Some if not all perpetual motion machines are claimed as "free energy devices" (others just don't work at all, more of rube goldberg devices). Some "free energy devices" are labeled as perpetual motion machine, but they are not perpetual motion machines. USPatent 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No confusion with me. You have admitted for the nth time that the two terms are not equivalent. Why don't you create a free energy device template instead of vandalising the existing perpetual motion machine template? --Michael C. Price talk 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thus, I propose to retitle this template "thingamabob". It's by far the most NEUTRAL term that can be used. Femto 17:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perpetual motion machine has the connotation that it has because it has been being used widely. The claim that Free energy device has to being more neutral is essentialsly that no one has used it very much. If everyone were to switch terms, Free energy device would quickly develop the same connotations as PMM, much like a politically correct term can end up being just as politically incorrect as its predecessor. We go by the terminology which is actually used, not by one which we reason to be more NPOV. I can write a perfectly NPOV article which has no basis in reality, that doesn't mean it is correct to do so. --Philosophus T 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"Perpetual motion machine" is the term universally employed in physics; the attempt to coin a neologism ("free energy machine") seems deliberatly misleading to me and should be opposed in the interests of our readers. ---CH 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon reversions

Both IP addresses here are from University of Missouri, Kansas City, and are probably the same person. It is quite possible that this person is PMM - note that the IPs did not start reverting until PMM had already reverted three times. I find it unlikely that more than one person would have such bizarre beliefs. --Philosophus T 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Do you agree that this is now just petty vandalism, that 3RR no longer applies? What do you think of the idea of creating a separate template for FEDs? --Michael C. Price talk 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Free energy devices are perpetual motion machines. Plase do not create a new template for them. linas 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually "they" has/have admitted they are not the same, which completely blows the case for renaming. But you're right, a new template is not needed. --Michael C. Price talk 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI, based on contribs and other evidence, the Kansas City library anon (who also uses 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs · block log) at the Linda Hall Library) appears to be Reddi (talk · contribs · block log). ---CH 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, I've removed this sentence:

Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

This is a clear case of using weasel words to attribute a statement to someone or a group of people, without providing proof or references. Statements of this nature don't belong in the encyclopedia. If a specific perpetual motion machine has been discredited by scientists, do so in the article, say who they are exactly, and provide references to their statements. -/- Warren 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. The words apply to *all* perpetual motions machines, by their very definition, rather than to any one in particular. Scientists don't believe in PM at all; it isn't necessary to evaluate the individual mechanisms William M. Connolley 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to make this statement. Including it does nothing positive for the encyclopedia. Quit trying to push your own personal views on this, William -- I'm well-aware you wrote the original weasel-worded claim yourself. -/- Warren 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There are legitimate exceptions to the weasel guideline (not policy), and the previous wording didn't violate NPOV. That said, I prefer the slimmer version introduced by Warrens. The statement about violating the known laws of physics is quite sufficient warning.--ragesoss 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)