Talk:Cox's timepiece

Perpetual Motion?

If this device extracted energy from atmospheric changes, it is not clear to me what makes it a perpetual motion machine, although the sentence "run indefinitely" should be clarified! CH 12:15, 25 May 2006

204.56.7.1, you seem to be very interested in this article. If you want to make yourself useful here, why not try to answer my question above? ---CH 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Linda Hall library anon

Note that 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs), aka the Linda Hall library anon in Kansas City, MO, and more generally a sometimes anon who uses various libraries in Kansas City and who has distinctive interests and dissident points of view, is a perennial problem user at WP. In this case, it is involved in edit wars in articles related to perpetual motion and in Nikola Tesla. It appears this anon may be trying to portray this clock device (possibly misleadingly) as a perpertual motion machine in order to buttress its edits to "free energy"/"over unity" topics. ---CH 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking and reverting honest and good edits. hmmm ... don't be a dick. 204.56.7.1 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Our anon is referring to the fact that several cruft patrollers including myself have drawn attention to a cluster of POV-pushing edits from anons using various libraries, including this one, in St. Louis, MO. Anyone interested should see this user's contribs and User talk:204.56.7.1 for pointers to evidence. See also WP:STALK for the definition of this inflammatory term as it is used at WP (fortunately, genuine wikistalking seems to be fairly rare, although I am slightly wikiacquainted with one victim!). ---CH 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Perpetual motion machine: Cox's timepiece
Disciplines:	physics and mechanical engineering
Core Tenets:	A barometer-driven clock.
Year Proposed:	1760s
Original Proponents:	James Cox
Current Proponents:	unknown
Theory violation:	Second law of thermodynamics
Cox's timepiece is reportedly a perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

Cox's timepiece is a clock developed, in the 1760s, by James Cox. It was developed in collaborations John Joseph Merlin (whom Cox also worked with on developing automata). Cox held firmly that it was a true perpetual motion machine. Cox was quite open about his machine's operation (unlike many other perpetual motion inventors). The device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer. The clock still exists today but was deactivated at the time of the clock's relocation.

Read: Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G. (1977). Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 031260131X. Perpetual motion machine 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So add the bolded sentence. That doesn't make the infobox's claims true that the machine is pseudoscience and that it violates the 2nd law. A working device exists, and the mechanism is well understood with conventional science. There's a difference between something getting called perpetual motion, and actually being it, which in this case is obviously incorrect. I fail to see how this fact warrants a dispute tag. Femto 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the machine is designed to be a machine perpetually in motion? Will it forever produce work that can be utilized? Does the machine exist in a condition in which it moves forever?

Does a machine moving perpetually violates the 2nd law? Does the entropy of the device not at equilibrium tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value?

Does this machine break the 2nd law?

A device exists (though it is not working, it was deactivated).

Please explain in a NPOV fashion, if you can, the difference between non-perpeual motion and perpeual motion. The mechanism of this is documented (and understood) with conventional mechanics (science plays a secondary role). That does nothing to the fact that is is a perpetual motion machine. This device is called perpetual motion machine and is a perpetual motion machine. All the literature about the device is in perpetual motion articles and books.

Bias makes some to call only unworkable ideas perpetual motion. Perpetual motion machine 18:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your claim that this device violates the laws of physics. You explain first. If it's been called perpetual motion machine, be clear about it in the article. If Cox's interpretation was pseudoscience, call it pseudoscience, but the current explanation in the article is not.

It's not a perpetual motion machine like other devices which claim to be perpetual motion but never really existed like that. It's like any other wind-up clock. You can't indiscriminately add infoboxes to anything that runs on external energy for a long time, link to perpetual motion and the laws of physics, and try to bunch fundamentally different principles together with your own muddled up definitions. Femto 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1st, it's not like any other wind-up clock. It has a self-winding mechanism that is intenal to the machine. No human interaction is necessary. Being neutral, one can't indiscriminate remove infoboxes to anything that runs on a "external free energy" (eg., pressure system changes) nearly forever, delink perpetual motion and the laws of physics, and try to ignore fundamental principles with your own biased definitions.

2nd, it's not my claim. Arthur W. J. G. Ord-hume makes this claim (implicitly by inclusion in his book, and to a lesser extent explicitly). He wrote the book about it (and I have read it, mabey you should too).

Now, please anwer my questions. Is the machine designed to be a machine perpetually in motion? Will it forever produce work that can be utilized? Does the machine exist in a condition in which it can move forever? Does a machine moving perpetually violates the 2nd law? Does the entropy of the device not at equilibrium tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value? Does this machine break the 2nd law?

It is a "perpetual motion machine". But it works. To not cite it as such is to be biased, ignore a philosophy of objectivity, and not adhere to the NPOV policy.Perpetual motion machine 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So watermills or geothermal generators are perpetual motion machines too that defy the laws of physics by your definitions? I'm using the fundamental principles and definitions that are documented in the articles that you link to, not my own. Calling this biased is cute. There is no working perpetual motion machine. I repeat, the article may report that this device was claimed as one. But this article will not report that this device is one. If all reasoning fails, you still have been reverted by two people. Whine about bias as you will, you won't modify this article without consensus. Femto 15:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me start off by stating that phenonomena (such as geothermal heat, rain, waterfalls, light, heat, etc.) is not a machine and it is incorrect and one cannot "invent" such natural things. They exist. To try and categorize such is fallacious.

One can though invent a machine that exploits the phenonomena and specific instances of such apparatus could be called perpetual motion machine. This is because to be such would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

Now, watermill systems have been used in the historical past to create perpetual motion apparatus. Watermills in general are not, but some specific designs that incorporate the basic tenet of watermills (akin to the great waterfall image done by Escher) could be called perpetual motion machine. Geothermal generators have not in large part been used in perpetual motion schemes (the closest one being probably Nikola Tesla's suggestion of unlimited free energy in the article "Our Future Motive Power"). Specific designs that ultlize the basic tenets of geothermal heating could be labeled a perpetual motion machine (especially if it's creator thought it was and it is referenced as such).

Specific designs that ultlize the basic tenets of any phenonomena could be labeled a perpetual motion machine (especially if it's creator thought it was and it is referenced as such). The principles and definitions that are documented explicity states that this article would be a perpetual motion machine as "no genuine perpetual motion machine currently exists, and according to certain fundamental laws in physics they cannot exist". This article's device is a working device. But it is a failed perpetual motion machine. Eventually, it will wear out or stop.

There are "working" machine called "perpetual motion machines". The Cox timepiece is but one of the few that do (the Testatika and Motionless Electromagnetic Generator are possible other canidates). Perpetual motion machines are divided into two subcategories defined by which law of thermodynamics would have to be broken in order for the device to be a true perpetual motion machine. This would be one of the latter subcategory violation.

The article should report that this device was claimed as one and this article should report that this device is one. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that wikipedia only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources (ala., Ord-hume's book).

Calling the editing biased is a fact. It is apparant by the posted statement above, a course of action of "editing wikipedia to prove a point" will be undertaken. You seem headset on reverting (and hint that others will also break Wikipedia's own rules).

It might be that some are losing sight of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The ideal is to represent views fairly and without bias. Every revert of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat. I am trying assume good faith but you do not seem to be cooperative nor adhering to a neutral point of view.

Now, you have repeatedly ignored the questions. Now, please answer. Is the machine designed to be a machine perpetually in motion? Will it forever produce work that can be utilized? Does the machine exist in a condition in which it can move forever? Does a machine moving perpetually violates the 2nd law? Does the entropy of the device not at equilibrium tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value? Does this machine break the 2nd law?

Thank you, Perpetual motion machine 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My invitation to expand the historical 'perpetual motion' angle of this article still stands. However your infobox basically either says it is perpetual motion because it would have to violate the 2nd law if it were (which is not only a nonsensical definiton but also applies to any windmill), or that a barometrically driven clock is a perpetual motion machine that violates the 2nd law (which isn't better either).

NPOV is established through consensus, not the other way around, stop accusing everybody not of your opinion of policy disruption. Well, I do disagree with you. The only feasible definition of "perpetual motion" for this article, and the only one consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia, is the modern thermodynamic one. This doesn't even necessarily involve 'motion', so the questions whether it perpetually moves or not aren't relevant. Femto 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a viewpoint which is part of the significant text on this subject. It is easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference text. The reference can be a identifiable and subjective population. The infobox says the "Cox's timepiece is reportedly a perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.

The machine is in the class of the second kind. Statement from the "Second Law" dictate that, "it is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive energy from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." This machine does receive energy from a single reservoir (eg., a supply or source of something; here, specifically, the atmosphere) and produces work. This represents the majority (scientific) view. The "only feasible definition" of a Perpetual motion machines (not "perpetual motion" itself; I believe you are mixing to 2 up, they are distinct) is to define as a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

Again, specific designs that ultlize the basic tenets of any phenonomena could be labeled a perpetual motion machine (windmills and waterfalls have been incorporated into some designs); this does not mean windmills and waterfalls in general are perpetual motion machines. The point is not about a guestions whether it "perpetually moves" or not. It is a point about if it is a machine that can forever produce useful work or not, if it has been desingned to be so, if it is referenced as such,and if there is a population of people that believe it to be so.

Your opinionate viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority (if that) within commonly accepted reference texts on this topic. NPOV is one of the three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors consensus (this is not a consensus reality). NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. This is not my opinion. You are adovcating a policy disruption and have disreguarded the line "Don't ignore questions" repeatedly (as stated in the etiquette of Wikipedia). Please reread the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and associated policies again. Also, I would appreciate if you answer my above questions (and not blow them off by impolitely). Thank you, Perpetual motion machine

This is a very flawed view of the 2nd law. According to your interpretation, nearly any device that produces net work is in violation. Note that the thermodynamic system here is the Earth's atmosphere. There is no net work being done - various things cause the atmospheric pressure to change, and those changes, in part, do work on the barometer. --Philosophus ^T 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see two groups of articles:

1. Articles that describe machines whose function could not be explained without breaking the laws of physics which the encyclopedia usually adheres to. Something that creates energy if you plug it in, or a wheel that would turn ever faster. If you build one, it won't work as described. These articles get the perpetual motion/pseudoscience disclaimer.
2. Articles that merely describe machines working within the laws of physics. An appliance that has no better efficiency than a blowdryer when you plug it in, or a fancy bicycle tire that will come to a halt. You can build one, and it works as described. Though anyone can erroneously call it perpetual motion and pseudoscience, it is nicely factually described without.

If the 2nd law is invoked, the article needs to explain how it must be violated to get this thing explained in the first place. Since the function of the device is already fully characterized without, that would be an interesting feat. No such explanation is given in the article, if Cox ever had one, about a hundred years too early for thermodynamics.

The infobox groups bicycle tires together with impossible wheels. People have raised concerns and there is no compelling reason to include it, this is hardly neutral and pushing your own POV. There's a significant enough history to give this article a Category:Perpetual motion machines, and Cox's fallacy needs to be exlained in the properly referenced perpetual motion context that this device deserves. Still, it's not in the same group with other perpetual motion machines.

As to your questions, they're manipulative and depend on assumptions. "Yes", the designer intended it like that? "No", a design like that is not possible, perpetual is an arbitrary theoretical concept? I can't answer them. Femto 13:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Permetual motion machines (or other similar devices) would usually be an apparatus that supposedly performs a task (including indirect and convoluted ways) and there are two encyclopedia articles (especially if there is a adherance to a NPOV rule):

1. machines whose function could not be explained without breaking the laws of physics (and really doesn't produce work or energy). The articles gets a "pseudoscientific machine" disclaimer if it is portrayed as scientific but is unsupported by sufficient scientific research (or experimental data). It can be built but will not work as described. Anyone can call it pseudoscientific machine. Anyone can call it a perpetual motion machine.
2. machines working outsided the laws of physics but it does produce work/energy. The articles get the "perpetual motion machine" disclaimer if it produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics. It can be built and work as described. Anyone can call it a perpetual motion machine, but not a pseudoscientific machine.

The infobox does group "machines 1" with "machines 2" (not, as you allude to, "balanced tires" (eg., bicycle tires) together with "overbalanced wheels" (ex., Bhaskara's wheel)). Both are suppose to create energy (one does in reality, and the other doesn't). To "nicely" described either without the proper labels and terms is an opinion .

Editors consensus (aka., people have raised concerns) does not change the facts and there is a compelling reason to include it (references, operation details, etc.). The pushing of a POV is clear from various arguements above (go with consensus, ignore references, etc.).

As to the invoking 2nd law, the article does needs to explain how it is violated. As stated above, the machine is in the class of the second kind. Statements from the "Second Law" dictate that, "it is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive energy from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." This machine does receive energy from a single reservoir (eg., a supply or source of something; here, specifically, the atmosphere) and produces work. This is utilized to preform an action, Cox made it run a clock. The function of the device is not already fully characterized without this fact. No clear explanation is given in the article (as you state) about it full operation and it's theory violation. As to Cox's views, Cox was more of a pratical man than later scientists (keep in mind, Cox's work was several hundred years ago) that substitute mathematics for experiments.

I am glad that you acknowledge that there's a significant history to give this article a Category:Perpetual motion machines. But you veer off when you state there is an error in Cox's thinking. There is not a fallacy, as the device operates by receiving energy from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work. This fact does need to be exlained, though as you also state, as a properly referenced perpetual motion machine, that this device is. Your opinion that it's not in the same group with other perpetual motion machines is a POV violation.

So you refuse to answer simply and honestly the basic questions? It's not that you can't answer them, you seem to refuse to answer them (as I have repeatedly asked you to do so).

They're not manipulative. A 'yes' or no would be sufficient. Is the machine designed to be a machine perpetually in motion? Cox did intended to design the machine like that. Your statement that he did not is a clear statement of ignorance and disreguarding of the facts (read the book of Ord-hume)! A design like that is possible, as this machine clearly does work.

Will Cox's tiempiece "forever" produce work (till wear and tear stops it)? Does a machine moving perpetually violates the 2nd law? I agree to some extent that "perpetual motion" itself (eg., movement forever without the expenditure of any limited internal or external source of energy) is an arbitrary theoretical concept (I myself try to stay away from equations which builds a structure which has no relation to reality and deal with things on a practical level), BUT a perpetual motion machine can "exist" in the sense that a machine can receive energy from a single reservoir and work! Perpetual motion machine 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Does my laptop violate the second law? It only receives power from a single source, the battery, and sometimes it works. --Philosophus ^T 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Duh, no. You let your battery try to run forever. Donkey. Perpetual motion machine 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Donkey." was uncalled for. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

How about a laptop with a really big battery then? One that will outlast the wear and tear of the device which it powers? A "single reservoir", and a real "perpetual motion machine" that violates the second law by the twisted definitions of yours. Femto 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A really big battery? Nope. Still run down. The atmosphere will not "run down".

And it's not my "twisted definitions". It is what is listed on the "laws" page and accepted by science. 134.193.94.6 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is my point. Cox's timepiece won't run forever either. It just has a bigger battery. --Philosophus ^T 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cox's timepiece will run forever (as long as the components are there in the poper order and the atmosphere exist). 134.193.94.6 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric pressure variations on the Earth will not last forever. It will take an absurdly long time, but they will eventually stop. --Philosophus ^T 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A sturdy windmill will easily outlast this machine with respect to "how long forever-ish" it runs. This does not represent a meaningful definition of perpetual motion, or one accepted by science, and has no relation to the second law, in any case. Femto 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the "Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists" is factual (though not necessarily the "truth"), as serious work in engineering and mechanics often involves real experiments that test the boundaries of understanding of reality. Many scientists only rely on theory, and, becuase of this, pseudoskeptical and skeptical scientists would call such development (of machines working outsided the laws of physics but producing work/energy) "pseudoscience". This label, tag, disclaimer could also be revised, though. Perpetual motion machine 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, no. Nearly all physicists would be overjoyed to find a discrepancy between theory and experiment, and most experimental research tries to do that. --Philosophus ^T 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, yes. Many physicist, especially mathematical physicists, only rely on theory. Anyone who has had actual contact with the making of the devices that built the engineering arts knows that these inventions have been the product of experiment and work based on physical reasoning, rather than on the mathematicians' calculations and formulae. Precisely the opposite impression is obtained from many of our present day text books and publications. Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. True theory does not require the abstruse language of mathematics to make it clear and to render it acceptable. All that is solid and substantial in science and usefully applied in practice, have been made clear by relegating mathematic symbols to their proper store place --- the study. Perpetual motion machine

Why do you consider yourself qualified to analyze the current state of physics research? Are you a physicist in the community? Have you looked at experiments being done? Have you talked to people involved? Most experiments are looking for phenomena not explained by currently accepted theories. The LHC will certainly be looking for more than the Higgs: most people I have talked to have said that finding only the Higgs, in accordance with current theory, is the least interesting possibility, as opposed to finding nothing, or something else in addition to the Higgs. There are a variety of experiments going on or planned that try to find problems with General Relativity on various scales. The point of Super-Kamiokande was to find evidence of proton decay, and it did find neutrino oscillation, which wasn't explained by the accepted theory at the time. Just because theory is rather ahead of experiment right now doesn't mean that experiment isn't valued - in fact, most theorists would love to have more experimental data. We don't have anything new to base our theories on. --Philosophus ^T 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Perpetual motion machine, dude, I just showed how I could faithfully answer some questions with both yes and no, you still come claiming that either one would suffice? And don't accuse me of ignorance on a statement that I have not made.

You stay away from equations, yet you happily and haphazardly contort these equations to make them justify your own point of view? Now that's a clear statement of ignorance on your side, and on top of that an opinion. After having tossed around a lot of key phrases, you do realize that the second law and its equations refer to a closed system, which this machine is not, don't you?

The entropy of this sub-system can decrease. It does not "receive energy from a single reservoir". It receives kinetic energy from pressure changes, and irreversibly puts it into the thermal mass of its surroundings: a second reservoir distinct from the first. This is what your cited sentence means if you don't distort it out of context. This should be evident from the alternative phrasings of the second law, which, by the way, is defined through equations, not sentence fragments.

Femto 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It does "receive energy from a single reservoir". The reservoir (ie., the body) is the atmosphere. kinetic energy (a "heat"; vibration of molecules) from pressure changes. Perpetual motion machine 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep misapplying this, it's not what the laws of thermodynamics mean, this should be obvious by now. If you insist that repeating a sentence often enough makes it true, go into politics, not physics. Femto 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the sentence, "It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat reservoir" (Kelvin, 1851). The single single heat reservoir is the atmosphere. The cox timepiece does work connected to it. If you insist that ignoring the sentence often then you should get out of physics. 134.193.94.6 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence not what is incorrect - we have seen it many times. The atmosphere is not a heat reservior for the process. --Philosophus ^T 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the atmosphere is, it gets heated by this machine's friction. Still, the unordered heat of the atmosphere represents a second thermodynamic reservoir, distinct from its ordered kinetics, as the conversion is irreversible, one does not replenish the other. Femto 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a theorist. I don't care about the machine's friction. :) --Philosophus ^T 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's a crucial point! If the energy from the reservoir that powers the machine isn't removed to a second, lower reservoir (even as simple as dissipating waste heat from friction), the device would build up an increasing barrier to the first reservoir, and energy transfer must cease. Femto 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the sentence means: "One can't just take something from a single high energy reservoir and make it into work, it's impossible without moving part of it into a second lower energy reservoir." That's what Cox's timepiece does. That's what a windmill does. That's not what a 2nd law violating perpetual motion machine would do. Femto 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

No reasonable objection to the accuracy is upheld. What exactly is your remaining point that would require an accuracy tag? Femto 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Several ...

• Discrediting a true PMM

  The article does no such thing. Claiming this is a matter of your own POV, not of factual accuracy. Femto 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• No category of PMM

  This was never an objection. Added one due to relevant history. Femto 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ignoring the references (WP:CITE)

  Just add the facts, as long as you don't try to intermingle them with your own manipulative misinterpretations. Again, no reason for a tag. Femto 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• etc.

There are more ... Perpetual motion machine

Really? Where? Femto 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We just finished discussing how this is not a true PMM. Besides, if it was someone would have won the Nobel Prize over it. This isn't a serious objection to the accuracy. --Philosophus ^T 15:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Free energy device

Now you're ignoring your own references (WP:CITE). Didn't you say Cox called it perpetual motion? A "Perpetual motion" infobox could not be justified, insisting now that a "Free energy device" infobox would be appropriate is deprived of all reasonability. Femto 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Editors are advised to keep the following in mind:

• Log in. You're just annoying us by trying to edit anonymously; it's not going to make your edits more likely to "stick", nor is it going to allow you to ignore the three-revert rule.
• Editing a page back and forth is pointless and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

No constructive edits are being made to this article. I've locked it down for the moment. Everyone is advised to cool off, take a moment for themselves, and think about what they're trying to accomplish here. JRM · Talk 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)