FrankRadioSpecial

Stefan Marinov

Please note that Free energy is a disambiguation page, and that the entry for "free energy" machines points to perpetual motion. It is an adequate description for machines that bring energy out of nowhere and never stop because they generate more energy than is fed into them.

And he did mention perpetual motion "I hope that the perpetual motion machines, of which I constructed many prototypes without closing the energetic circle, will successfully be built by other people. And if my achievements in space-time physics, in electrodynamics and in the domain of the violation of the laws of conservation (...)"[1] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's an adequate description. I think it's an pop culture description. "Perpetual motion machine" is a description of a hypothetical device, not a device in reality. That description could only be applicable to the device as a concept. To adequately describe actual technical devices, they should just be called controversial machines, while they would just be either functional or non-functional. It might be difficult to understand my point here. I don't intend to challenge the status of such machines. I intend to correct the misuse of terms. Maybe Marinov made some crooked claim, but usually "inventors" of such machines don't claim to violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's simply impossible and they usually understand that. Instead, what they claim is usually an ability to tap energy from an unconventional medium (water, vacuum state, "the environment") through an unconventional (and scientifically unsupported if you will) mechanism. I really think the various Wikipedia articles should be more specific about this. To simply pump all these articles full with the terms "pseudo science" and "perpetual motion" doesn't help anyone. For instance Bearden's MEG was claimed to extract energy from the vacuum state. The scientific community at large appears to say that's impossible. Fine. But now it would be useful to point out exactly where Bearden is making a false assumption/errornous analysis about the vacuum state and which scientific postulate/experiments clearly shows that. If this stuff stays so unspecific Wikipedia could just as well allow article to say Bearden is "stupid" and show photoshopped images of Bearden with a tinfold hat etc.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Marinov, he used himself the exact same terms that you reject. For example: "3. Today's physics asserts that the second law of thermodynamics has a general validity (i.e., that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile of second kind). This is a fraud."(point 3 of one of his letters)

In other cases, reliable sources state that it's a perpetual motion machine. Or they say "if it worked as described, then it would violated the second law." Or reliable sources state that he is clearly describing a perpetual motion machine, even if he denies doing so. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's job to redefine vocabulary. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not my point. You don't seem to understand. Fine.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand your point. My point is that reliable sources don't describe those machines as "controversial machines". They say they are perpetual motion machines. They say the machines would have to violate the second law to work as advertised by their inventors. They sometimes analyze the explanations of an inventor or its invention, and issue its own conclusions. And wikipedia is based on reliable sources.

You said "usually "inventors" of such machines don't claim to violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's simply impossible and they usually understand that" but you have to understand that this your original research from primary sources. Wikipedia articles can't be based on the original research made by editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that even reliable sources use the term perpetual motion, when it's not technically/scientifically appropriate, but merely appropriate as a popular cultural term. I'm in favor of having one or two references in these "free energy" articles to "perpetual motion", but it should be placed in context. Usually these inventors also have given a specific technical claim (vacuum energy extraction, unconventional electrolysis, etc) and these claims are reported on in sources (although often minimally). However these specific claims get buried underneath a pile of name-calling, etc. To be scientifically correct, Wikipedia could at least point out the differences in the use of the term "perpetual motion" in a scientific qualification or popular cultural one.

I do think the reason why most commentators (including prominent scientists) like to label any claim of free energy as being another example of a perpetual motion machine is because of the psychology of the situation, not because of the technical/scientific reality. Saying a certain device doesn't work because of a misconception in the field of quantum physics (or another advanced field of physics) automatically would give much more credibility to the intentions of the inventor, then saying it doesn't work because the inventor doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics (one of the most basic concepts in physics). I think this isn't my own original research, but simply a fair and neutral assessment of the situation. So the use of the term "perpetual motion" serves as a way to quickly dismiss and mock (which is fine), and completely shut down of any serious discussion about the actually proposed deviance of a mechanism/theory of an advanced field of physics (which is a waste).FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motionless electromagnetic generator

Hi FrankRadioSpecial. I don't care how you vote, but since you have voted 3 times (2 delete and 1 keep), it might make sense to strikethru all but 1 of your votes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC) okFrankRadioSpecial (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual motion machine v. unconventional energy source

In this case of "unconventional electrolysis" or "dissociation by a method other than electrolysis" (there, I think you might have a point), such a device is a perpetual motion machine unless it is explained why recombining the molecules and reinserting as fuel would not work. Many of your edits have been helpful, for example, distinguishing energy (allegedly) produced from annihilation of copper from that of a perpetual motion machine, but those "water-fueled cars" qualify as perpetual motion machines. My apologies for not adding this comment immediately after my reverting your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fantastic, while I think we're on the same side with this, it only is a difficult clarification. Perpetual motion can't exist, thereby perpetual motion machine can't either. What we're really talking about, when using that term, is the technical design of the machine. A machine build according such a flawed design would by all checks and balances, simply not function as proclaimed. Even patent offices around the world have had difficulties clarifying this.

It gets even more complicated by testimonies of inventors and ethusiasts to the contrary of the expected functionality. Now on top of a flawed technical design, you also have either a case of false testimony or an attack at the authority position of the scientific community at large e.g. you have a controversy.

A third layer is created by the skeptical community, that freely applies the terms "perpetial motion", "fringe", "pseudoscience" to discuss these subjects, thereby adding to the cultural narrative.

I guess an alternative useful edit could be applied to the introductions of the articles; clarify whether it's about a certain case and/or technical design instead of about an actual machine.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It might also be useful to clarify that assessment of technical designs of perpetual motion machines, in which the complete set of function of state transitions and their constrains by equivalence relation are examined, can lead to definite conclusions about its functionality without the need for additional physical examinations or test runs of actually build devices.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zero-point energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:FrankRadioSpecial/Steven M. Greer

User:FrankRadioSpecial/Steven M. Greer, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FrankRadioSpecial/Steven M. Greer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:FrankRadioSpecial/Steven M. Greer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox controversial invention

Template:Infobox controversial invention has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)