mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perpectual motion machines Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perpectual_motion_machines

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 speedily deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perpectual motion machines

[edit]
Perpectual motion machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR (admitted by author in article). Doesn't duplicate Perpetual motion so not tag-able as CSD, and didn't have any faith that the author would not remove the prod so here we are. Syrthiss (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Perpetual motion. The correct spelling, Perpetual motion machine, already redirects; not sure if we should consider this a likely spelling mistake or not, but there's no place in the encyclopedia for the article as is, because its practically unreferenced and a mass of original research. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essayish and incoherent. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've declined (regretfully) a speedy for nonsense as the wording is clear enough to me. The concept is still in the development stage, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL. As I feel (from what is stated here) that this concept will never get a patent, this looks like a long term fail. Patents are not granted on perpetual motion machines unless accompanied by a working model - that is the hard part. Before I'd learned about friction (and other) losses, I'd 'invented' several ways of getting free energy myself. At present, only the passage of current in a superconductor seems to be free of losses - certainly no mechanical system comes close. Peridon (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inventor and scientist, user Aman shah wants to share with the wiki community: "Some have been imagining about Perpectual motion Machines,and they are excited about it!However,Perpectual motion Machines are impossible!Some people claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines are cheating society ,but that doesnot mean that gravity engines and Magnetic engines are impossible. These are possible ,but difficult to make! Yes, the laws of thermodynamics do pose some difficulties here, and since this fellow's invention of a perpetual motion machine is one of many such impossible claims, I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion as a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.