Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 5

More updated informations..
I have added a reference from the canadian spark plug injector patent. It is clearly labeled that there is a laser priming stage, and there are explicitly shown diagrams that utilize the output gases in a radical form.. that being that they have had their electrons stripped off as well. Ionized ambient input air (to keep the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in radical form) from the carburetor is required, as are non-combustible gases.

This is all quite plainly laid out in the patent application I've referenced, no idea why others haven't added it before but here it is.

If it's not super, super clear to anyone whom may be looking at these additions, that spot with the 7a and 7b labeled is the 'water fuel cell' (in the diagram there are also the two inductors as seen in the water fuel cell diagram).

From further resources which I have no strong reference to (please email me with the email on my user page if you're interested, these are widely available documents since 2007), point out that the ionization portion for the ambient incoming air also use the same LC resonant circuit design.

From this updated information, I've removed the claims of perpetual motion from the header paragraph, explicitly pointed out that he'd made modifications to his water fuel cell design after 1996, and also changed the 'perpetual motion' top right area to designate this claim was of 1996 court decision.

UmbraPanda (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah.. if someone could help me out with the image i've uploaded.. i think it's creative commons as it's freely available through the patent search and it's like 10 years old, but i'm not sure.

thanks.

UmbraPanda (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about removing the reference to the Canadian patent without further consideration, but removing the reference to perpetual motion from the lead is just wrong. It would clearly be a perpetual motion machine if it worked.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa okay i'm going to revert it again. I'm not contesting that it was a perpetual motion machine design circa 1996, but there's an extra ionized ambient air step in the 1998 version, which would seem to me that it's using electricity pulled from somewhere to get this air ionized. Please read through the full patent ( http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/2067735.htm has a much more readable formatting than the canadian patent office's version ) before you pull it again please. To note, nowhere that i can see in the patent does it claim that the water is the only fuel to be used, just that it would be 'useful in producing thermal combustive energy from the hydrogen component of water'. perhaps he changed his tact after the 1996 court thing. he also directly mentions welding in the next sentence, which is definitely not a perpetual motion claim :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmbraPanda (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Removal of "perpetual motion machine" from the lead qualifies as intentional damage to the article, and will be treated appropriately. However, if there are independent sources that the 1998 patent application is different, it probably could be noted in the lead, or elsewhere in the article.  Reading the patent, itself, is not evidence of difference.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think images from patents are "public domain", although they might be "fair use". I don't have time to look at it now, but I may be able to help you with that on Monday.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the patent document is a primary source. You can't use it as a reliable source.  A review of that patent is a secondary source, and obviously subject to questions on its reliability based on who wrote it, where it was published, etc..  Until we have a reliably sourced review that has examined the 1998 version and proven that it is not a perpetual motion device, we cannot use a fringe theory to over-ride the mainstream scientific position.  --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification of the methods to updating wikipedia pages. The 1998 version doesn't seem to claim perpetual motion status anywhere that I've found.


 * What he says in the application is that there is ionized air coming in from an 'ambient' source (carburetor in vehicles), which absorb electrons from the hydrogen and oxygen that were seperated in the 'water fuel cell'.


 * As electrolysis doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with electrons coming free from the oxygen or hydrogen molecules, but in fact faraday's law is the ratio of electrons input to the system from an external source, to the amount of gas produced, it is very plain that he wasn't doing conventional electrolysis with this device. Having ionized ambient gases available to absorb the electrons seperated under extremely high voltage electric fields will result in the hydrogen and oxygen atoms as free radicals. Afterwards, the patent application states he uses non-combustible gases to slow the burn rate of the hydrogen and oxygen and partially de-ionized ambient air gases.


 * As there would need to be energy input into the system to ionize those gases as they are input into the system, I don't see any immediate perpetual motion claim by this evolution of his device. He doesn't claim it is *not* a perpetual motion device, but that doesn't mean that it is, either.


 * Thus it is as I feel, without a description of where the energy is coming from to ionize those ambient air gases, not a perpetual motion claim. Considering that our energy situation is needing not just electrical battery powered means to fuel our vehicles and fleets thereof, but actual combustible material compatible with our current engines, be they planes, trains, or automobiles, or even boats, perhaps he simply found a way to increase the efficiency of converting electrical energy into combustible gases. Like I've noted above, and as his application clearly denotes, he definitely wasn't using the type of electrolysis that faraday's law applies to. UmbraPanda (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify a little, faraday's law of electrolysis, being the ratio of the quantity of electrical charge put into the water to the amount of gases released (that is, the amount of electrons passed from anode to cathode), would not model an avalanche breakdown that would occur if there were a very high voltage fields present simultaneously. In order to have any electrons being removed from the hydrogen and oxygen atoms you would need to have this high voltage field present, and hence this whole process could not be modeled properly by faraday's law of electrolysis, unless one were to update the equations with a nonlinear component that modeled the avalanche breakdown process over time. UmbraPanda (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have this all turned around. Wikipedia takes the mainstream scientific viewpoint by default (this is a well established principle that's been ruled upon time and time again).  That viewpoint is that any devices that magically pull energy out of nowhere are bogus.  We have 150 year old laws that have never been shown to be false that say exactly that.  If you can show that it is NOT bogus by finding reference sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia (which a patent most certainly is NOT) - then we can write about it.  So unless you can show where the energy to ionize these gasses comes from - and then show that this ionized gas will indeed split water into hydrogen and oxygen - all using properly referenced sources - then the fringe theory cannot be accepted and the default viewpoint reigns.  That viewpoint is that this can't work.   So - it's a perpetual motion machine unless/until someone can prove otherwise.  Sorry - but them's the rules. SteveBaker (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite understand. My point is that since there was no reference as to where the energy comes from inside the patent application, simply assuming it's another design for a perpetual motion device is just that.. an assumption. Quite possibly it is a design for a device that would have been powered by electricity from a battery, that would function to convert a vehicle from a gasoline based fuel system to a hydrogen based fuel system without replacing the entire engine block, transmission, internal electronics, etc. I would not put these opinions onto the article page since there is no basis for reference other than my own researches into alt-energy genres. However, the injector system I've input into the article is indeed the evolution of the 'water fuel cell'. I simply propose that this evolved design was designed by Meyer to be able to convert electricity into a combustible product more efficiently than others he found on the market, and assuming it was still a device that was meant to power itself fully is faulty as there is no reference to that function in the patent application. I have no contest to the original page's dialog, but am rather trying to understand how any device on the wikipedia online encyclopedia can have newer, more relevant information input.


 * As an example, putting the term 'a vastly inefficient device' onto the water wheel device page lead would indeed be true for the earliest examples of such, compared to the later examples, but is no longer true of more modern designs with updated mechanics and materials. In the same sense, why would the 'Water fuel cell' continue to be proclaimed a perpetual motion device for updated schematics and designs? The earlier device was indeed claimed such a perpetual motion device, but the latter one was not claimed as such from the documentation available. In many other wikipedia articles I've found, for example wind power, there is the updated information in the lead, and then in the next section down (history, in this case), the past is discussed in detail. Is this not then the general method of the formatting of wikipedia articles? Thank you for informing me as to the manner of these updates. UmbraPanda (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1996 or 1998 design...It starts with water, splits the water, runs on the gases, exhausts water. Draw a circle that encloses the whole system.  1- Does it require either fuel or energy from outside the circle?  2- Can all the water be accounted for within the circle?  If 1-no and 2-yes, it is perpetual motion.  If there is another energy source being used, then this energy source must be accounted for.  So far, all claims state that the battery or alternator is powering the system  with enough energy left to keep the battery charged.  Water in, Water out.  Energy in, even more energy out in the form of work being performed on top of sustaining fuel production, recharging the battery and operating the ICE and vehicle it is mounted on.  This all adds up to perpetual motion and it is the responsibility of anyone wishing to prove otherwise to provide the proof that is acceptable to the scientific community.  No one is adamantly against this subject.  There is no giant organized conspiracy.  The standard is pretty simple and straight forward.  If someone has replicated Meyer's device...Where is it?  The plans and patents are all over the internet.  There are whole groups bent on cracking the secret.  Thousands of people toiling away.  All anyone has to do is make it work, make it reproduceable and let it be tested.  Is that too much to ask?I55ere (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The 1998 canadian patent makes no claims as to recharging any battery, and doesn't reference where the energy from another component he's added to the system, the ambient air ionization, is coming from. And there are people whom work on replicating it it seems. many yahoo groups and such. i'm not going to reference any of them in this talk and stick to the article itself, which is the patent application and how it isn't pointing out any information towards being a perpetual motion machine as you describe. the assumptions it seems are that this is using the same methods for the same goals, but those are assumptions. UmbraPanda (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread moved from water-fuelled car

 * Please take a look at Water fuel cell. You may notice the same thing right in the first sentence. This one however has no reference. Sure... you're really going to have me believe that Meyer claimed his device used more energy... especially when there are no references. This is purely, and as I will say in a less elegant manner than user Cecilman, lacking complacency. Clearly this section, just like the aforementioned example, lacks good synthesis of the references or in this case, per The Water Fuel Cell article, references period. Wikipedia's WP:CITE must surely be a joke to someone, but frankly anyone who ignores this rule, in my view, is being WP:Disruptive, more often than less lacking good judgement and simply said a WP:Dick. This gross attempt to promote someone's POV, by adding unsourced information, is an insult to our intelegigence and frankly must be corrected. However, I must conceade, this is not really a POV issue. This is because what we are dealing with is a lack of references and mis-interpretations or simply said WRONG information (ie.: LIES, or maybe even original research). It's, as I stated, an issue of respect for other editors who want to continue building this article, complacency (or, in this case, lack thereof) to add references and a diseregard for the truth (or other editors that would like to verify the truth).


 * WP:CITE states that we must "be assured that the material within it is reliable..." and "...can be checked by any reader or editor." Currently, the first sentence, in Water fuel cell is not easily verifiable and can not be checked by any reader or editor. It states:
 * "The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Allen Meyer, which he claimed could split water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results in the reconstitution of the water molecules."


 * The main reason for this is because we claim that Meyer "claimed could split water... a process that results in the reconstitution of the water molecules". I see at least two mistakes with this.
 * 1) No reference to the page number or where, when or how and what context Meyer's claimed this statement.
 * 2) As user Cecilman asked, why the heck would Meyer's claim his device uses less energy than can be obtained?
 * I also see that this is a prominent POV which appears to be respected by many editor and throughout the many other references. However, as is, it does not have its place in the first sentence. The reason for that is because it is an unsourced fact which is not verifiable.


 * Conclusion: Someone has grossly exaggerated what Meyer is claiming. In fact, someone is trying to promote a POV for water fuelled vehicles and the fact that it is a pseudoscience. There is nothing wrong with the later, promoting a POV, but it must have proper references. To rectify the problems, the first sentence must be review to remove any grossly exaggerated statements. I recommend we follow the widely accepted guidelines as stated at WP:CITE. This will


 * "...show that your edit is not original research... reduce editorial disputes... avoid claims of plagiarism and copying... help users find additional information on the topic... ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy... and improve the credibility of Wikipedia." Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Meyer's claim that his water fuel cell consumes less energy than you get back when you burn the resulting hydrogen is INHERENT in his claim that it can power a car. In order for the engine to sucessfully recharge the battery that runs the water fuel cell - it MUST generate more energy than the cell consumes or else the car won't have any energy left over to drive along the road.  AFAIKT, he doesn't actually SAY this anywhere - but he doesn't have to - it's inherent in the process. If he claims his fuel cell can drive a car (which he most certainly DOES claim) then it's inherent in that claim that his fuel cell has to produce more energy than it consumes.
 * As usual, you are overstating Wikipedia's WP:CITE rule. That rule does not say that everything in Wikipedia has to have a citation.  Please note that it actually says:
 * "Citations are required for quotes, most images, information about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged".
 * The statement in question is not a quote nor is it an image nor is it information about a living person - so it only needs a cite if it is "likely to be challenged". You can't seriously challenge that statement since it's patently obvious that it must be true - given that Meyers claimed he could use the cell to drive a car.  If the cell used more power than it generated - then the car would come to an abrupt halt...and he claimed that it ran until it ran out of water.


 * You really need to calm down and take the time to understand Wikipedia rules properly rather than just sticking a long string of WP:&lt;yadda-yadda&gt;'s together to form your arguments.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I challenge your first sentence, in that Meyer claims his water fuel cell consumes less energy than you get back when you burn the resulting hydrogen. In fact, http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html states "Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible." This is not the same, and I consider this to be a gross exageration of the reference.
 * 2) I challenge your assumptive second sentence. Whereas you claim that there is an engine. and whereas you also claim that the engine must sucessfully recharge a battery and that a battery runs the water fuel cell. Nowhere have I seen any properly referenced material, (including page numbers), that indicates in Meyer's patents that there is an engine that recharges a battery and that the battery run the fuel cell. Find a reference please.
 * 3) I challenge your sentence that the fuel cell must generate more energy than the cell consumes. Not because I don't believe you but more because I see no references on how the machine works and if the fuel cell is in fact a necessary componnent. To fix this problem, I propose the article go into further debt on how Meyer's device works and what components make it function. For example, a reference to, as you claim, the fact that Meyer's device consumes energy!... How does it consume energy?... Where does the energy come from? (In other words, if you solve the first challenge, I think this question may be easier to resolve)
 * 4) I challenge your 3rd and 4th sentence, because it is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH, whereas you are assuming and making a synthesis of Meyer's device : (ie.: "it's inherent in the process".) (There are no references for the claim that it uses more energy, but there are reference that indicate the opposite... see challenge #1.
 * I dissagree with you interpretation of wikipedia rules. The important thing with Wikipedia, is not truth but verifiability. Please see WP:V in regards to how you are obliged to provide easy access to information including the fact that any information that is challenged can be removed and it is up to the one providing the information to provide easy access. (Note: the convention for making information easily verifiable/accessible on wikipedia is WP:CITE).
 * You are correct when it comes to WP:CITE... and in fact, you may have deduced by now that the information you are providing is being challenged. It is not obvious as you say "that the information is patently obvious". In fact, in light of the Lazer priming, and other discoveries on Meyers device... it is all the more confusing and all the more relevant to constanly re-verify our information. I believe, driving a car has nothing to do with this issue and that we must deal with the invention and proper references to the invention. My conclusion: Instead of disputing the issue and spending time discussing how the article lacks proper references and how you can justify adding unsourced material or even citations that are completely out of context to promote a POV that Meyers device is a perpetual motion device, try adding references from reputable sources that actually do state these facts; And do not overstate the meanings to promote a POV. Again, there is nothing wrong with saying this is a perpetual motion mobile, but please add a proper reference which clearly states "Meyer's invention is a perpetual mobile" otherwise, I will be forced to challenge your information and assume you (or the person providing the information) are being disruptive. --CyclePat (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there doesn't seem to be a reference that Meyer stated the device actually worked, making it difficult to determine which physically impossible mechanism he believed it worked by. Perhaps it would be more accurate to note there is no specific claim that the patent has anything to do with the engine as (claimed to have been) constructed, and separate the three separately citable issues that
 * He "sold" (at least to investors) a car that didn't work.
 * He made claims which logically implied that he designed a perpetual motion machine.
 * He has patents related to splitting water in hydrogen and oxygen.
 * Either that, or we could delete the article as not being notable, after reducing it to what is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "there doesn't seem to be a reference that Meyer stated the device 'actually' worked." Not sure I agree with this. Is he not claiming in his patents that the device works? Implicit in filing a patent is the claim that the invention actually works, isn't it? And on top of that, somewhere (and perhaps it's not cited in the article), I seem to remember seeing a video of him driving around a dune-buggy that perhaps even said "runs on water" on the side. In the video he's seen pour water into its "fuel tank". If he never actually did explicitly claim that it "worked", he certainly lead people to believe that it did. So if this is a real problem, we could just do a find-and-replace, changing the word "claimed" to "led people to believe that".Yilloslime (t) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)CyclePat, Meyer's claimed the car ran on water and that you could drive it from NY to LA on 22 gallons of water. If true, than the "fuel cell" the would have to consume less energy splitting the water than than is produced by burning the resulting hydrogen. If this was not the case, the battery would quickly be depleted and the car would come to a screeching halt very quickly (if it ran at all). Think of it this way: In a regular car, you've got two sources of energy: 1) a tank full of gas, and a 2) a battery. There is much more energy stored in the gas tank than the battery, (unless the tank is empty, in which case the car won't run.) The battery is used to initiate the combustion of the gas, and once that combustion is started, the energy released is used to recharge the battery, move the car forward, play the radio, etc. In Meyer's car you have, in theory, 2 sources as well: a battery and a tank full of water. Energy from the battery splits water into H2 and O2, which are then recombined releasing energy. For the car to move forward, this energy must be used to power the wheels. And for the process to be self-sustaining, some of the energy must be used to split more water. If the power source for water-splitting runs out, then the car stops. Thus, the energy released in burning the H2 and O2 must be greater than the energy required to split the water in the first place. This is not OR, this is patently obvious, and is implied if not stated in Meyer's patents. It's implied by the very idea of water as fuel. Yilloslime (t) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, CyclePat has a point there. That's a conclusion, based on common sense and physics, but it is a conclusion.  However, removing the specific assertions of why it violates the laws of physics from the lead, we've got a clean article, if we can remove CyclePat's lies about the laws of physics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can definitely live with your change to the lead. In fact, I think it's a big improvement. But I don't think that CyclePat had much of a point. Conclusions are fine, as long as the are not WP:OR, and I don't this conclusion was OR: We have plenty of reliable sources cited that say it's a violation of the laws of nature, and the statement was simply an explanation of why those laws preclude using water as a fuel. Yilloslime (t) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh boy! It's actually quite complicated. I just opened a can of worm didn't I? I simply wish to say... we could say "alot" of the information we're talking about on the talk page is reasonable and that I agree with... however, when it comes to adding to the article, we need to be extra carefull not to mis-interpret. Take for example the recent sentence I added, regarding physics and electrolosys. In a week from now, I'll look back and say... who said it was less then electrolysis or physics... in fact, the electrolysis thing is an inference on my behalf. a type of WP:OR... to which I hope is covered within the article I cited. I may need to review that sentence which come from the statement :
 * "Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible. Videos show his contraptions turning water into a frothy mix within seconds. "It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that." --CyclePat (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Laws of physics
In case it's unclear from my edit summary, I removed the new section that was nominally about the laws of physics because it gave the impression that there is or was legitimate debate within the scientific community about whether water can be used as fuel as claimed by Meyer. This is simply not the case, as evidenced by the fact that every university scientist who's deigned to comment about this "controversy" has unequivocally stated that Meyer's car violates the laws of physics. By presenting the issue as "One physists says this, while Meyer says this" the section frames it as a squabble between a few individuals, implying the possibility there of some degree of acceptance of Meyer's claims within the broader scientific community. However there is no such acceptance, and the section thus gave undo weight to the very fringe few that Meyer's car might actually work as he claimed it did. Yilloslime (t) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've again removed it. I concur with Yilloslime that it is trying to give the impression of a controversy where none exists. I'll go further and say that (at best) the content is based on a complete misreading and gross misinterpretation of the cited article. The "division" of which it talks is about those who have vs have-not access to or benefits of science or economic power, not at all about mainstream vs "some other" science. Therefore it does not support any claims of alternative anything. CyclePat, please do your homework so we don't all waste our time here. DMacks (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are taking things out of context and grosselly exagerating the perfectly well cited and referenced material. The subject matter is water fuel cell and does not address the issue or legitamacy of whether or not water can be used as a fuel. The citation deals specifically with Meyer's device. In fact I agree with you that there is probably many prof's that disagree with Meyer's invention. That is why I believe this view point is a majority view point, however, I only have 1 reference from 1 prof. and hence, I believe this is only a minor point of view. It however should be included in the article per WP:UNDUE. In fact it states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" I have named one prominent adherent.  Surelly, if as claimed within this article, that Meyer's invention is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, then we should (all you guys that keep prominently fighting to have that stupid laws of thermodynamics label left on the side) be able to provide other adherents. Otherwise, I will agree, that perhaps the prof. emeritus' opinion may be a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, and that "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Currently though, as you just agreed, this is not the case. In fact, you believe that the view point of the one prof. is share by many scientists (or in this case, per WP:UNDUE, it is a majority view point). In fact you specifically stated "that every university scientist who's deigned to comment about this "controversy" has unequivocally stated that Meyer's car violates the laws of physics". Surelly, you must be able to provide a reference for this?  According to WP:UNDUE "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;"  No matter the case, this means that you believe in my source. I believe the violation of laws of physics, per that status quo, is a minority point of view. So, where do we disagree?  It's when it comes to majority point of view vs. significant minority point of view. No matter the case, both meet wikipedia's standards for inclusion. You are exagerating the facts. All you need to do, if you believe this is a majority point of view, is provide more sources and not remove the already perfectly well cite referenced material. It doesn't make sense... whereas on one hand you believe what I'm saying but you remove the material. If there is no such acceptance, please add another sentence which support your prominent (majority POV) and the section will thus, if this is what you believe, conform to WP:NPOV and WP:POV et all.
 * Again, there is absolutelly no dissagreement on the fact that a physists essential call Meyer's device bullshit... just add your references... I did! In fact, I believe per WP:UNDUE that I'm presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." --CyclePat (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, since you the one who is trying assert that there might actually be scientists who think Meyer's car/fuel cell doesn't violate the laws of the universe, then why don't provide some sources backing that assertion up. Yilloslime (t) 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You sirs have made an error of judgment. I see nothing... NOTHING... within this edit here which concurs with you judgements. I descent and furthermore will say again... one last time that I am promoting the POV that "Scientist" believe Meyers invention is pure shit. Again, I am not trying as you say "to assert that there might actually be scientists who think Meyer's car/fuel cell doesn't violate the laws of the universe." Again, the same aforementioned edit here proves this. Frankly, your line of erroneous assumptions and questionings is badgering and bordering WP:DISRUPTIVE. I'm only providing information which, per my aforementioned statement, I believe meets Wikipedia’s rules for inclusion per WP:V (WP:CITE) and WP:NPOV (or WP:UNDUE). This is contrary to any of your claims. More precisely, I'm providing you with, what you consider, a majority point of view (but what I consider a significant minority point of view because currently we don't have enough references from various "scientist"). This doesn't make sense? Why would you want to exclude information to which you agree and believe is a majority point of view?  If you want to be a WP:DICK and remove that information, go right ahead and do it... but at least do it for all the rest of the article (which means you might as well nominate it for deletion). In the mean time, if and when you come to your senses, because I don't believe your reference to WP:FRINGE, perhaps you would be so kind as to please provide your line of reasoning?  Otherwise, I will be forced to believe, as you clearly already demonstrated, that there is an error in judgment within your reasoning. I have faith, and do trust we can continue to work together on this, but, again, if you can please, in light this clarification of your erroneous statements, provide me with you reasoning’s it would be greatly appreciated. This will help lead us to the same conclusion on why you believe this may be a violation of WP:FRINGE.  If there is of course an error in you logic, which currently I believe is the case, then and only then will we be able to clarify the issue. Essentially, saying the sky is blue, because the sky is blue, doesn't help. As I like to sometimes finish off with quotes... I will leave you with this quote from Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus (1991), who said"The Face of Miranda" "The story of a theory's failure often strikes readers as sad and unsatisfying. Since science thrives on self-correction, we who practice this most challenging of human arts do not share such a feeling. We may be unhappy if a favoured hypothesis loses or chagrined if theories that we proposed prove inadequate. But refutation almost always contains positive lessons that overwhelm disappointment, even when [...] no new and comprehensive theory has yet filled the void."  And finally here's a quote from, ironically, Stanley... no it's not Meyer, it's Sue Stanley... "Scientific skepticism[SIC] is considered good. […] Under this principle, one must question, doubt, or suspend judgment until sufficient information is available. Skeptics[SIC] demand that evidence and proof be offered before conclusions can be drawn. […] One must thoughtfully gather evidence and be persuaded by the evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking."  This quote leads me to believe, your scepticism is good however that it lack thoughtfully gathered evidence... rather than... prejudice. --CyclePat (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s.: And even if I did find some POV that says one scientist believes this device can work... as long as it meets wikipedia's rules for inclusion then it should be added... (ie.: WP:UNDUE... and WP:V... etc.))


 * There is only one person here who is being disruptive - and that is CyclePat. We get this CONTINUAL carping on and on about policies that he feels can be interpreted as requiring any statement whatever to require verification and no synthesis and then verification OF the verification and on and on - blah, blah, blah.  Wikipedia requires REASONABLE standards - verification is required when REASONABLE grounds for disputing a statement exist.  Over and over again.  I'm pretty sick of it.  CyclePat is a troll - a troll of the worst kind.  The only way to deal with him it to cease to feed him and simply ignore his blather and revert his edits without comment.  It's totally gotten beyond a joke.  There is very clear consensus on how this article should be - and the sole dissenter is seriously disrupting our work here.  CyclePat please just go away and let us have a simple, truthful explanation of this bizarre man and his fraudulant claims.  You clearly think you're helping Wikipedia - but you aren't.  SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you retract the afformentioned statement, (and this statement too)? Otherwise I will see no other option then to report this abuse attitude to WP:ANI. --CyclePat (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.s.: Please see Civility if you require more information regarding this matter. --CyclePat (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you wouldn't retract it. That must mean you have another suggestion asides from my request that "you please provide your logic behind the WP:Fringe violation,"... I'm all ears. I'm listening? In the mean time, I do concede that my line of writing may be viewed as insulting... but only because it criticizes you grose errors to which you continue to fail to admit. I've explained to you what these error are and sincerelly apologize if they make you, as I so unellogently said "Look like a WP:DICK." Trully, I could have said this in a much more civil fashion. Howevver, your overstatement, which I admit appear to be legitimate questions on the content, cannot be seen as simple content questions when 1) you put in question and attack my method of work 2) you question my state of mind, 3) you insults my intelligence by stating the complete opposite of what I've done and 4) you still contradict our widelly accepted policies of Wikipedia (your fighting the community and what most wikipedian agree too). I'm all ears, if you’re willing to explain why you think on one hand this is fringe violation. Please be specific... because you haven't proven anything asside that you (and perhaps one of your sockpuppets) is trying to own (See WP:OWN) this article? Will you explain yourself? Or should I report you to WP:ANI for grose incivility. --CyclePat (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CyclePat, I explained why I removed the section here. Do you not agree that the text in question leaves the reader with the impression that the scientific community might be divided over the plausibility of Meyers' device? Perhaps it's not your intention to "assert that there might actually be scientists who think Meyer's car/fuel cell doesn't violate the laws of the universe"—and I'm sorry for speculating about your intentions—but this is clearly the effect the section, as I already explained. To pick apart the section a little more, the first sentence "Physics has an important role within modern society and the connectivity of all parts of the planet, however as much proof as there is that physics is important there is much division."—what is the point of this sentence if not to cast generalized doubt upon the importance of physics in explaining observable events? What does "the connectivity of all parts of the planet" even mean? And it's sourcing looks very dubious, too, certainly not up to the standards of WP:RS. And it doesn't even mention Meyers, water-as-fuel, fuel cells, or the laws of thermodynamics, so I fail to see how it's relevant here. Sentence #2: "In fact, there are many mixed opinions regarding Stanley Meyer's patents." Mixed opinions? Among whom? Certainly not in the scientific and engineering community—if there were certainly you'd have brought a reliable source to our attention demonstrating this by now—but the sentence leaves it up to the reader to assume who might be disagreeing about Meyer's work. Since we're talking about physics and physicists in this paragraph, a reasonable reader might assume the disagreement is among scientists. #3: "Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay believes Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy..." "Believe" is the give-away—a classic weasel word. It makes it sound like Neville Reay isn't stating a plain fact that's obvious to anyone with a physics or chemistry degree, rather he's merely mentioning his personal belief. Try replacing "believes" with "explained" or even just "stated" and the sentence looks a whole lot better. CyclePat I suggest you read this essay before commenting here again, as your activity here on this page is starting to take on some of the characteristics described therein. Yilloslime (t) 04:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yilloslime, I must concede to pretty much every point. I must also take the time to think of my conduct and how I could be so aggressive. (I will take sometime away from the article so it doesn't appear as though I wish to agrevate any bad sentements.) Maybe it's the car accident I just had? Maybe it's the project I just missed?  No matter the case, there's not excuse for being rude and until can look things over, and formulate a better appology, I hope you accept this as my sincere appology for being rude. I'm sorry. In the meantime, I will see to reviewing and to putting or even completely deleting these biased comments of mine and developing the good content on my user subpage (where I can get better references). Again, I'm sorry, this applies to everyone I may have offended, including SteveBaker. Thank you for the explanation. --CyclePat (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Template for template regarding laws of physics thermodynamics violation
The Laws of physics section stated that this device is reportedly a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. According report means that there must be some sort of "report". Merriam Webster has several definitions however the relevant information is that this is a transitive verb which means: All of the terms indicate that someone must "Relate" or "tell". The does not address this issue. The reason for this is because it does not make reference to states, believes or "has reported" that the device is a violation of thermodynamics. Conclusion: Respectfully, I put it to the ones that support this label that you are responsible to provide, per WP:V, the relevant references. These references should concure with the templates statement which indicate that "it is reported". This weasel word should be avoided or properly referenced pet WP:CITE. Furthermore I would conquer with the essay at Template creep and the notable question Does this template duplicate information that's already in the article body?. This template currently duplicates information in the body, however, the information in the body is not properly referenced. I therefore, disagree with the current template. I move that it be removed or that proper references be supplied regarding this issue. Let us not forget that a reference, must be added to the template to substantiate "who" supports this belief. Since this issue has been previously raised to the attention of editors on this page I will be implementing the necessary corrective changes. (All be it, removing the template if I don't find references... or adding the references to the text and removing the template). No matter the case, the template should be removed.
 * a: to give an account
 * 1) to make, issue, or submit a report
 * In fact, if you take a look at (Or the discussion regarding the deletion of the template.Click here) you will notice that my colleage user:Amarkov stated that a "Template to flag articles related to perpetual motion as pseudoscience... is entirely unnecessary...".
 * User:Warrens, in that case, believed that it "contain[ed] weasel words".
 * I concur with the aforementioned user comments; This is because if you take the word "reported" it infers that you must somehow have a reference to a report. A template can not give due reference. In fact, there are no references in the template to the specific issue.
 * If you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Archive_3 you will notice that user:ragesoss stated "This type of information should not be presented in a self-referential disclaimer, it should be incorporated into the text."
 * I concur with ragesoss test and believe we should put Stanley Meyer's Water fuel cell article to this test. In fact, this test appears to be the logical step after determining that there are no references in the template. Hence we should verify to see if there are references in the article which sustantiant the claim of pseudoscience.
 * After looking into the article, however, I see no proper references or citations to who believes in this theory. By example of how it should be formated, please take a look at The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman. This article's section clearly states that Newman is the proponent believer that this device is a perpetual motion device. This example shows who "reported" the violation and gives proper reference.

Asside: Some Wikipedia editors have previously, in error, used this template on articles which did not deserve the template. I put it too you that there may be a perpencity to mis-label article. A good example is the article Cox's timepiece. The similarities between that article and Stanley's can be infered on several levels. Take for example the issue that there are currently "no reported" instances that the device violates the laws. --CyclePat (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If it's not called a perpetual motion device, it has no place in Wikipedia.
 * The error in the template is in the Core Tenets line: The claim is that it separates water into oxygen and hydrogen with less energy input than is obtained by recombining them.  Whether it is done by electrolysis is irrelevant to the claim.
 * I suggest that CyclePat be formally banned from editing this article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is nonsensial about this request? You dissagree but I fail to see come to the your conclusions. In fact I disagree with your idea of WP:Notability and that this article should be deleted if "it's not called a perpetual motion device." This is a distraction from the main issue regarding proper references.
 * As for the Core Tenets. There is an error there too. To support the core tenets there must be a proper reference. The claim is partially true. That Meyer's device seperates water into oxygen and hydrogen, True! That it uses less energy, True!  That is uses less energy input "than obtained by recombining them", FALSE!  Nowhere has anyone ever claimed this. In fact, I put it to you that Meyer's claimed his device used less energy then conventional electrolysis.  I agree that electrolysis is irrelevant to the claim, because Meyer uses his own methodology.
 * Finally, I find you tone to be lacking in civility for you continue to bager me with accusation of being disruptive and now, attempt to ban me from this article. It is trully sad this lack of respect influencing you capability to analyse my simple request for proper references. I would ask for an appology but instead I will pray that you are able to surpasse this conflict and lack of complacency to adhere to other peoples opinions (to which we all seem to agree! Per the above citations of other users). --CyclePat (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm civil. When you violate as many Wikipedia policies as you have, it's not uncivil to point that fact out.  I've added the sources (from the lead) for the claim that it violates the laws of thermodynamics to the template.  Neither the present Core Tenets nor your proposed Core Tenets seems adequately sourced, but that requires a little work.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Cyclepat, your argument is more about the template itself (specifically the autogenerated text in the blue box) than this article, and thus you need to take this up over at Template_talk:Perpetual_motion_machine, not here. Here's a thought: why don't register an account over at PES wiki. I suspect that your perspective on Meyer will be much more welcome over there. Yilloslime (t) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Eegad! How many times to we have to go through this? CyclePat, you're correct as far as the claims of the patent go, but what is in the patent would not power a car.  This has been hashed out over and over and over again: (with the hypothetical exception of fusion), a car that runs on water violates the laws of physics as we understand them-period.  This is not POV.Prebys (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Meyer's claims about his car clearly depict it as a perpetual motion machine.  If the article doesn't already say that clearly, then the article should be written as such.   In the mean time, there's no reason to keep bringing this up over and over.  I'm not against a topic ban if this continues. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to mention that there may be an error in my test. (Let us call it the Ragesoss test; afformentioned). In fact, there are some references within the article regarding the violation of physics... but we must be carefull not to take it to much out of context. Anyways, I personnally think, it's just not formated at it's best right now... as stipulated within The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman example. What do you guys think of that example and how they present the compeeting views? Anyways, in short, I now see that this is a questionable issue, (I actually mean that I was wrong... because there are some references in the text regarding this matter... HOWEVER, they just don't spell it out PERPETUAL MOTION device... so I still have reason. By example, and only example for this discussion, if we had JOE BROWN specifically state this was a PERPETUAL MOTION device, that would be the best reference.) and hence (maybe this isn`t well explain but anyways), I believe that the conclusion I came too, that we should remove the template, was ill founded. (Primarily because we may in fact have a reference). Or is it an appropriate reference?  No matter the case, we've obviously found some references to which we kind of agree that it talk about a violation of laws and physics (even if it`s not specifically a Perpetual Motion).  I must concede my error in judgement (regarding the removal), sorry. However regarding other parts of that I raise, I think there are some issues. Also, with the ``new references`` in the template section, I now believe that we resolved half of the problem. So really, all I see is an issue of formating (per above)... what do you think of adding a section on #Perpetual_motion_controversy. p.s.: Thank you for adding the references.--CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a qualifier in the Joe Newman article because he claims the machine extracts its energy by turning copper atoms into energy. This is total nonsense, but if it were true, the machine wouldn't technically be a perpetual motion machine.  As Meyer claims to get net energy out of electrolysis, there's no wiggle room whatsoever.  Also, I wouldn't use the Newman article as a good example.  There's way too much detail about the trial and statements by "experts" that have no technical credentials whatsoever.  I've worked on that article, and there are people who just insist on putting that stuff in.  Unfortunately, because the judge allowed it as testimony, it's difficult to argue it should be left out.  Like Meyer's cell, there is no "scientific controversy" about Newman's engine.  The only difference is that there's some evidence Newman believes his own claims and is just really confused about little things like units.Prebys (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When I see some citable sources, then there's a controversy. Until then, there's no need for such a section. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual motion device
This is not a perpetual motion machine; most of the oxygen and hydrogen are converted into heat, so the fuel cell will eventually run out of water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.34.221 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There's no claim the hydrogen and oxygen (or water) is converted into energy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Meyer's dune buggy, the hydrogen and oxygen are supposedly burned in an ordinary internal combustion engine, which would produce water, which would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Really, haven't we been over this enough? Prebys (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know anything about conservation of mass, it can't be a perpetual motion machine. When hydrogen and oxygen are burned, all of it doesn't become water; most of the mass is lost as heat (a form of energy) in a combustion reaction. The engine puts out less water than it takes in, therefore, the car will eventually run out of water and stop. A perpetual motion machine is something that can run forever, without being refueled. If you want proof that burning hydrogen and oxygen makes energy, fill a balloon with it and light it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.34.221 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a PhD in physics, work as a physicist, and taught physics at the undergrad and grad level for many years, so please don't presume to lecture me about conservation of energy. Yes, all energy comes from a change in mass, but the change in mass during chemical reactions (such as the burning of H and O) is the extremely tiny change of mass as electrons change energy state.  At the end of the day, every atom is accounted for in this and any other chemical reaction. If a significant fraction of the atoms were actually converted to energy, it wouldn't run a car, it would destroy a city. When hydrogen burns, two H2 molecules combine with an O2 molecule to produce two H2O molecules plus excess heat. If you do things as efficiently as possible, you would theoretically end up with the same amount of water you started with. Look, Wikipedia only works when people restrict themselves to topics they have some knowledge of, so please refrain from making pronouncements on things you clearly don't understand.Prebys (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As impressed as we all are by your obviously superior knowledge of physics, that doesn't really come into play here because this is chemistry. First of all, there is no way you could end up with as much water as you started with; there is no machine that can use energy with 100% efficiency. Secondly, it doesn't matter how "extremely tiny" the change in mass is, if the mass of the product is, in any way, less than the mass of the reactants, the machine will eventually run out of fuel. Even if the fuel cell could somehow take in the exact same amount of water as it used, it still wouldn't be perpetual motion because the engine that burns the hydrogen is not a 100% efficient machine. Under physical and chemical laws, the water fuel cell is not a perpetual motion device, it is just a very efficient device that extracts a flammable gas mixture from water. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to break this to you, but chemistry is based on physics. You're missing the key point, mass decreases slightly when H and O burn, but it increases by the same amount when electrolysis takes place (note, these changes in mass are so tiny that they're only worth mentioning in the strictly pedantic sense; no chemist would ever describe the reaction that way). No matter how you choose to state the problem, you can't extract net energy from a cycle involving electrolysis and combustion. Meyer's cell doesn't work any more than the dozens of identical devices which have been claimed, dating back at least to the Garrett Carburetor in 1935, and probably quite a bit further.Prebys (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How in the hell does separating hydrogen atoms from oxygen atoms create more hydrogen and oxygen than it started with? Where did you get your PhD? --98.196.34.221 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it produced more atoms. You're the only one here claiming the number of atoms changes in chemical reactions, and that's just plain silly. I said it increased the total mass slightly.  That is, two H2 molecules and an O2 molecule weigh slightly more than two water molecules, even though the total number of constituent particles are the same. This difference is equal to the change in electron binding energy divided by c^2 - a few parts per billion.  As I said, this is not a practical way to consider energy conservation in chemical reactions, but the underlying (relativistic) conservation of energy principles hold just as they do in nuclear interactions, where the mass differences are actually large enough to measure.  You'll almost never here these tiny mass changes discussed in chemical reactions for the good reason that they're to small to be of any direct consequence, but I was trying to correct your misconceptions as accurately as I could.  I see I have failed, so I will drop this thread now.  If you try to make erroneous changes to the article itself, rest assured they will be corrected.Prebys (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a "troll", I'm just pointing out that you made a mistake. You don't just get H2O2. The main product is HHO, with trace amounts of H2O2, H2, O2, H, O, O3, etc. All of these different gasses are just atoms taken from the original reactant, H2O. The mass of all of these gasses combined can NOT be greater than the mass of the water. Let me try and get you to understand this. You have a sandwich. When you take the sandwich apart, you have 2 slices of bread and a slice of ham. Do the separated slices of bread and the slice of ham have more mass than the original sandwich? And I don't even know why you bring the concept of weight into this discussion; the earth's gravitational pull has absolutely nothing to do with this. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How does combining hydrogen and oxygen produce fewer atoms than it started with? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Electrolysis doesn't combine hydrogen and oxygen. It's already combined in the form of water. Electrolysis separates the water molecules into a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know anything about conservation of mass/energy, you know it can't work, because, if it did, it would be a perpetual motion machine. If it worked, it would work as a closed system with no atoms leaving.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on people....who cares what this guy thinks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone become so rude whenever someone questions the accuracy of anything on science-related articles? Seriously, I saw something I think is incorrect and bring attention to it, and I get insulted, called out as a "troll", warned not to edit the article, and now this guy saying nobody cares what I think. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You apparently lack even the most basic knowledge in the area, and are attempting to draw people in to pointless conversations, therefore you are a troll. If you have some properly cited suggestions for the article please feel free to suggest them, thats what a talk page is for. Otherwise move on, nothing to see here.Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, everything I've said seems to be scientifically correct. Combustion reactions convert matter into energy, electrolysis separates hydrogen from oxygen. Prebys claims that electrolysis of water somehow creates matter, I tell him he is incorrect, and I'm a troll with zero knowledge on the subject? He doesn't even know the difference between weight and mass. He said that something having more atoms isn't the same as it having more mass, which is completely wrong; mass is the measurement of the quantity of matter. I'm sorry, but there's no way this person is a professor of anything. He's lying to gain leverage in this argument, and it puzzles me as to why. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for improving the article, not debating the topic itself. Please give us specific cites from reliable sources supporting...whatever you're claiming is wrong with the article or needs to be added to it. Unless you do, you are proving that you simply here to argue, and you probably won't be here for long. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not debating the topic. I'm stating that the water fuel cell is not a perpetual motion device, and that this article should not categorize it as one. Cites from reliable sources are not needed here; you can't argue with simple scientific facts. If everyone here says 2 + 2 = 5, and I say 2 + 2 = 4, I shouldn't need to cite reliable sources to prove it. So, let me explain this one last time: The water fuel cell is not a perpetual motion device. It is a special form of electrolysis that uses a very small amount of electrical current oscillating at a specific high frequency which causes water to instantly separate into hydrogen and oxygen. Think of the covalent bond between hydrogen and oxygen as a couple of locks. Conventional electrolysis is the brute force method of breaking those locks, and it takes a lot of energy to do it that way, too much energy to create an efficient machine. Stanley Meyer's fuel cell, on the other hand, is the key that opens the locks; it only takes half an amp to quickly convert the water into HHO. That's all the water fuel cell is. A device that can use a very small amount of current to convert ordinary water into hydrogen and oxygen, and interest in it has been continuously suppressed by people falsely labeling it a perpetual motion machine, aka something that could never, ever work, and is a complete waste of time to think about or experiment with. It's not perpetual motion, it's very efficient electrolysis, and nothing more. Why is that so hard to understand? --98.196.34.221 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. We're not debating the topic. If you've got some cites to prove this, provide them. Otherwise move along.Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you exactly how Meyer did it. I'm going by what Meyer himself said; he used electrical resonance to efficiently break down H2O. The secrets of exactly which resonance frequency he used and everything else all died with him. This indian dude just did the exact same thing. All we know is that he purportedly discovered the most efficient form of electrolysis, and every moron on the internet thinks it's perpetual motion because they haven't actually sat down and studied it. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's perpetual motion because you can take water, split it with electrolysis, combust the products, get more water, split it with electrolysis, combust the products... ad infinitum, because matter is conserved. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Mr. Meyer ever made the assertion that this was a perpetual motion machine, but he may have made statements that led folks to believe such (mainly detractors). It is so simple to reason this quandry out, I can't believe the amount of verbage present here asserting perpetual motion. Let's assume that the device works as Meyer claims. You put one on your car, hop in and go tooling down the road. At some point, the electrolysis process will CONSUME all the water in the cell and you will come to a STOP on the side of the road. Now, does that sound like a perpetual motion machine? The last time I checked, perpetual motion machines never stoppped nor required any fuel (in this case, water). If one were to consider just the device by itself, it is a high-efficiency electrolyzer, nothing more. It consumes energy to perform its process. It doesn't add any energy to the water nor does it create anything (mass, water, energy, etc.) The energy that is released by the combustion of the produced gases was always present in the device, stored chemically in the form of water. The cell merely converts the water to a combustible state, much the same way a carburetor converts gasoline (a liquid) to a combustible form, vapor. Now I'm not convinced that Meyer's device can electrolyze water at the claimed efficiency, but I definately don't believe that it can't be done. There must be an infinite combintion of electrodes, cell size/design, AC frequency, DC pulses, etc. that can be used to increase efficiency beyond that of straight DC. Perhaps the statement in question should read " Stanley Meyer's device is reported (by detractors) to be a pertpetual motion machine". MovingTargetB2 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you perform electrolysis on water, you get hydrogen and oxygen. If you combust the hydrogen (i.e., react it with oxygen), you get more water. Thus, if this machine worked as claimed, one could set up essentially an infinite loop, where the water produced by combustion would be electrolyzed and combusted again, and again, and again, thus violating Conservation of Energy. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times to I have to explain this? When you burn hydrogen you get less water. A chunk of the mass is lost as heat energy, the heat of the combustion causes a lot of the water to instantly vaporize, etc. In the fuel cell, you don't even recycle the water. It's a waste of time. You just fill the fuel cell with water, turn it on, and get lots of oxyhydrogen until it runs out of water. There is a big difference between this fuel cell and electrolysis. Electrolysis could never be power anything; it takes more energy to split the water than how much energy the hydrogen would provide, and the process is much too slow. But if you do what Stan, Ravi, and many other people have done and simply use a pulse generator circuit and run different frequencies of very low-amperage current through the water, you can pinpoint which frequency produces the most gasses with that particular water, and hence, get a machine that efficiently harnesses the energy stored in H2O, while barely running any current. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) When you burn hydrogen, you get the same overall mass of water as you had before you used electrolysis to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. No hydrogen atoms are created or destroyed in the process, and complete combustion of hydrogen with oxygen will always result in water (H2O). Water in the form of steam (water vapour) has more energy in it than as a liquid, including the latent heat of vapourisation, so any process that starts with liquid water and ends with steam has a nett energy input, not a nett energy output. To separate water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen molecules requires a fixed nett amount of energy, which will always be less than the gross energy input, due to efficiency always being less than unity. Irrespective of the form of electrical current (DC, AC, combination of the two, various or multiple frequencies, etc.), the process is still electrolysis. Only the efficiency and gross energy will vary. The nett energy input per molecule/mole/litre/kilogram/whatever will still be the same, and will still be greater than the energy liberated by subsequently burning that hydrogen again. In this process, no energy is created or destroyed, no mass is created or destroyed, no mass is converted to or from energy. This is all basic physics and thermodynamics, and any claim to the contrary is outright wrong. I think that this discussion has gone on long enough, and further discussion is clearly a waste of time for all genuine editors. --Athol Mullen (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After doing some reading, I realized I was right about the water fuel cell not being a perpetual motion device, but I was wrong about why it isn't one. The real reason is this: a normal oxygen atom has 8 electrons and 8 protons. A normal hydrogen atom has 1 electron and 1 proton. When water is formed, one oxygen atom takes the electrons on two hydrogen atoms. The oxygen atom ends up having 10 electrons and 8 protons, each hydrogen atom has no electrons and one proton. The oxygen has a charge of -2, the two hydrogen atoms have a combined charge of +2. So, H2O has no charge when it is bonded. When the bond between them is broken by resonant electrolysis, the electrons they are sharing are lost completely. Oxygen becomes normal, uncharged oxygen with 8 electrons and 8 protons, but hydrogen doesn't get its electron back, and remains positively charged. So, when this gas mixture is burned, the positive hydrogen ions gain an electron each from the oxygen, so you end up with negatively charged H2O; oxygen has 6 electrons and 8 protons, giving it a charge of +2; the hydrogen atoms have 1 electron and 1 proton each, giving them a combined charge of 0, meaning the water molecule has a +2 charge. Electrolysis on this water will not work. The water has to be dumped as exhaust and evaporated by the sun where it will eventually turn into normal, uncharged H2O again. This is why the water fuel cell isn't a perpetual motion device, and does not break any laws of thermodynamics. It is just a device that taps into a hugely abundant resource of energy. It doesn't even matter how much water is produced by the burning of the HHO gas, all the water it produces can not be reused in the fuel cell. The water fuel cell is not a perfect machine; there are dozens of other factors that keep it from being one. The electrodes have to be conditioned properly and made out of a special alloy to prevent corrosion, the entire thing has to be set up in a way that reduces or eliminates electron leakage, etc. Stanley Meyer's biggest mistake was showboating his invention as a perfect machine, which basically destroyed its credibility.

--98.196.34.221 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to give us a source for this bit of nonsense? I'm especially amused by the two forms of water, one suitable for electrolysis and one not? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone decided to prevent me from citing my source, so I'm citing it again. Stanley Meyer himself explaining what happens. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you think that the fraudster himself would be a good source? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is familiar technobabble from the "free energy" crowd. The "HHO" part is a dead giveaway.  "HHO" is supposedly something created by electrolysis that isn't a simply mix of H2 and O2.  You can even find papers on it from the venerable "Institute for Basic Research" (I see they've closed their Nigeria and Kasakhstan offices and opened one in Estonia). You'll also hear it called "Klein's gas" or "Brown's gas", although the learned proponents will claim the three are different things. This thread is a lost cause. I recommend you walk away while you still have your sanity and focus on keeping this nonsense out of the article.Prebys (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are absolutely right about HHO not being a mixture of H2 and O2. In resonant electrolysis, the hydrogen atoms separated from the water lose their electrons and become positively charged. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel, so they can't bond together to form H2. The oxygen atoms lose their charge and become completely neutral to one another, and can't form O2, or bond with hydrogen, due to hydrogen not having any electrons to spare. In any case, this has nothing to do with this debate, and you really need to stop dodging the question. We're not debating whether the goddamn thing works as well as Meyer said it did, we're debating on whether or not it is classified as a perpetual motion device. It obviously isn't, so someone needs to rewrite the article.

--98.196.34.221 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that you believe it, but if you had a knowledge of elementary chemistry, you would understand that none of this can be true. Man with two legs (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Guys, remember: do not feed the trolls! The anon editor obviously don't understand basic chemistry, and while that's certainly not a sin, it's not our job to teach it to this guy. This thread has gone on long enough, and it's obvious that a good faith effort has been made to address the IPs concerns. But at the end of the day, it's obvious this guy simply doesn't understand science, and further discussion here isn't going to change that. I suggest, we let this thread die. Yilloslime (t) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made no effort to address my concerns. The article incorrectly identifies the device as a perpetual motion machine, incorrectly assumes that no one has replicated it (which is utterly untrue), and fails to even properly describe the process. The opinions need to be removed and the misinformation needs to be corrected. The accuracy of information on Wikipedia is more important than you getting your way. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, it's as plain to us as $$2 + 2 = 4$$ that "water fuel cells" are perpetual motion machines. You should take your own advice: “The accuracy of information on Wikipedia is more important than you getting your way.” — NRen2k5 (TALK), 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Unless you've got a comment about a cited changed to the article, drop it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perpetual motion is defined as: "a closed system that produces more energy than it consumes"


 * Radiolysis is the dissociation of molecules by radiation. It is the cleavage of one or several chemical bonds resulting from exposure to high-energy flux. For example water dissociates under alpha radiation into hydrogen and oxygen. The chemistry of concentrated solutions under ionizing radiation is extremely complex. Radiolysis can locally modify redox conditions, and therefore the speciation and the solubility of the compounds.


 * Pulse radiolysis is a recent method of initiating fast reactions to study reactions occurring on a timescale faster than approximately one hundred microseconds, when simple mixing of reagents is too slow and other methods of initiating reactions have to be used. The technique involves exposing a sample of material to a beam of highly accelerated electrons, where the beam is generated by a LINAC. It has many applications. It was developed in the late 1950s and early 60s by John Keene in Manchester and Jack W. Boag in London.


 * Flash photolysis is an alternative to pulse radiolysis that uses high power light pulses (e.g. from an excimer laser) rather than beams of electrons to initiate chemical reactions. Typically ultraviolet light is used which requires less radiation shielding than required for the X-rays emitted in pulse radiolysis.

I'm not saying Meyer's inventions worked. That is not for me to say. But if he would have used a radioactive source it could absolutely work. This means it doesn't have to be a perpetual motion device. It might as well be a nuclear reactor.

All speculation of course. But it doesn't make it a scientific impossibility. On the web I read that Meyer showed his device to a lot of scientists who all believe him. Of course there are lots of scientists who don't believe it, but they didn't witness the experiment so their guess is as good as any.

Mind you, I'm not saying it works. I just want to point out that radiolysis is a complex but mature technology.

Paul Pantone should also have one of those perpetual motion banners if it's really forbidden fruit?

''The goal of the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative is to demonstrate the economic, commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. If successful, this research could lead to a large-scale, emission-free, domestic hydrogen production capability to fuel a future hydrogen economy.''

http://www.ne.doe.gov/nhi/nenhi.html

Seems realistic enough to me. Resess (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As was noted in the thread above, Pantone claimed to be performing electrolysis, not radiolysis or direct conversion of mass to energy. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul Pantone's claims were never coherent enough to be labeled perpetual motion. He was claiming that his "technology" increased fuel efficiency, not that it ran directly on water.  While there's no evidence it ever worked, the claim itself doesn't violate any laws of physics.  The nuclear dissociation link has no relevance to this discussion (or the Pantone discussion).Prebys (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's almost spooky how quiet these free energy articles get after each sock-puppet roundup. Probably have a little time to think about some actual improvements to the article in the calm before the next storm. Any suggestions?Prebys (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If only there was some way to harness the energy of these perpetual motion sock puppets (in writing an encyclopaedia, for example). They create more activity than they expend. (now I have a picture of actual sock puppets constantly twirling around forever, getting faster and faster....) Verbal   chat  19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference verification
Here's a comment about a cited change. Actually, thanks to our annonymous IP, he has raise a point which made me look into our current references and sources. Frankly! They are quite poor. I'm not sure, but using reference #1 claim Meyer's device is a perpetual motion device, I believe, is a gross exaggeration. Reference one states: ""It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that.""... "Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." Let me use a little logic for psychology. I must believe that we have made some type of fallacy in a type of conclusion. In fact I believe the premise is even incorrect; whereas:
 * A device that defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, is (according to this article) a perpetual motion mobile. (This doesn't make sense?)(How can we start coming to conclusion in our premises?)

Anyways, the premise presented in reference #1, regarding the violation of laws, is not the same as a perpetual motion mobile. I argue that this is an unacceptable WP:SYNTH. Also, if we are to rely on reference #2, I can not verify this reference because I do not have access to the full article. So, this article has failed Wikipedia's test for verifiability in regards to the claim that this device is a perpetual motion device. --CyclePat (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It might help if you have a look at Perpetual_motion_machine and see that violating the law of conservation of energy is the same thing. Man with two legs (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a fallacy, yet one in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental rules (WP:SYNTH) because it involves a synthesis. As an example, and only an example of what is currently happening in this article in terms of synthesising:
 * If A (Meyer`s Device) is B (a violation of the laws of conservations of energy)
 * And If B (a violation of the laws of conservations of energy) is C (a perpetual motion mobile)
 * Then A (Meyer's Device) is C (a perpetual motion mobile).
 * Here is why I believe this is a fallacy. This argument claims to prove that Meyer's device is in violation of the laws of conservation of energy. This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. Any argument must have premises as well as a conclusion. In this case we need to ask what the premises are—that is, the set of assumptions the proposer of the argument can expect the interlocutor to grant. The first assumption is almost true by definition: Meyer's water-fuel cell and other inventions combined together to make a water-fuel car is a type of device that doesn't respect the laws of energy. Or is it? Perhaps, the first assumption is less clear as to its meaning. What device exactly does not conform to energy conservation rules. Now that I think about it, I believe the assertion has no quantifiers of any kind, it could mean any one of the following:
 * All the inventions of Meyer are a violation.
 * One particular invention (ie.:Meyer's Water Fuel Cell) invention is a violation.
 * Most of the inventions are a violation.
 * To me, (or in this case the doctor emeritus from the University), Meyer's invention is a violation.
 * The second premise, is almost true by definition: A violation of the law... is a perpetual motion mobile.
 * However, again, there could be some quantifiers of any kind:
 * All violations of the law... is a perpetual motion mobile
 * Some violations of the law... is a perpetual motion mobile
 * To me, violations of the law... is a perpetual motion mobile
 * etc.
 * So, which In all but the first interpretation, the above syllogism would then fail to have validated its first premise. One person may try to assume that his interlocutor believes that all Meyer's inventions are a violation of the laws of conservations of energy; if the interlocutor grants this then the argument is valid. In this case, the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point to that person. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe some of Meyer's devices do not violate the laws of conservation of energy, and in this case the person is not much better off. In fact, I believe the premise that would be truthful is the one that says "in this case the doctor emeritus from the University believes Meyer's device is a violation. Anyways, now you have to prove the assertion that a violation of the laws of energy conservation is a unique type of universally phenomenon that is a perpetual motion mobile, which disguises the original thesis of this entire problem. From the point of view of the interlocutor (that's me b.t.w.), the person commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.
 * Example: People often have difficulty applying the rules of logic. For example, a person may say the following syllogism is valid, when in fact it is not:
 * That creature has a beak.
 * All birds have beaks.
 * Therefore that creature is a bird.
 * "That creature" may well be a bird, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Certain other animals may also have beaks. Errors of this type occur because people reverse a premise. In this case, "All birds have beaks" is converted to "All beaked animals are birds." The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of beaked creature besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given. In this way, the deductive fallacy is formed by points that may individually appear logical, but when placed together are shown to be incorrect.
 * In summary: This is a classic synth. Comment: I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of the second premise. In fact there are no inline references in the perpetual motion mobile article regarding this fact. Furthermore, it is generally not acceptable to reference other Wikipedia articles as an authoritative source. Finally, I disagree with making such a synthesis and so does the community of Wikipedia as stipulated within our policies at WP:OR. --CyclePat (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is not to provide a reference. My point is that you do not understand why it is a perpetual motion machine and if you read it you might learn why. Man with two legs (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. My point is that I do not have to believe your conclusion. I do not have to believe your inferance or sylogism in this case (to which the second premise is completely unreference) that Meyer's invention is a perpetual motion machine. Even if I read it and understand why, and come to the same conclusion, it does not avoid the idea the your logic is flawed. A sylogism can come to the same conclusion. It could still be absolutely correct, however there is a flaw in the critical thinking process. That is why such a synthesis is not permissible here at Wikipedia. --CyclePat (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It fits the definition. This isn't disallowed synthesis, in the same way that saying 1 + 1 = 2 is allowed, and that saying if A is also B, and B is also C, then we can say A is also C.  Verbal   chat  17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We agree that this fits the definition of a sythesis. Great! However, Please see the rules at WP:SYNTH. I believe you are wrong. According to WP:SYNTH there is only one exception to making a synthesis, and this involves using a synth for an agument (notice how I bolded argument and not premises) that has already been published. More preciselly: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2]" --CyclePat (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by your argument. If we define a perpetual motion machine as one that has an operational cycle which produces more energy than it consumes, then we can say the source confirms it's a perpetual motion machine.  It's "synthesizing" our definition with a sourced statement.  It's not synthesizing two external statements.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously seem to agree that this is a synthesis. Correct? Moving-on then: the only acceptation for doing this is if "a reliable source has already published this argument". Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source; meaning We should not be relying on referencing "ourselves". More specifically it is wrong to reference the definition of "perpetual motion mobile" and to infer that A (Violation of the laws of thermodynamics for any device) applies to B (Meyer’s device which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics). Though this simple synthesis or perhaps even a syllogism may have the correct answer... it’s a new conclusion. If you accept this idea then you should accept that the articles status quo must change. In fact, We should not be defining anything unless it has been properly defined already (and referenced). Hence, we should simply be refactoring, paraphrasing and stating what has already been stated by someone. (ie.: "Philip Ball believes this is a psudoscience." Is perfectly Okay because we have a strong reference here!) On the other hand we do not have a reference to substantiate that "Meyer's device is a perpetual motion mobile" or even believed to be a perpetual motion mobile. My proposed solution: we must add a reference which substantiates the argument, otherwise we should remove the synthesis. Moving-on to try and resolve this issue: Has anyone read the aforementioned full article from Phil Ball? Does he mention "perpetual motion mobile". --CyclePat (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another angle. "Operational cycle which produces more energy than it consumes." Let's see... according to who? (rhetorical question) Right... so if Joe believes Meyer's device produces more energy then it consumes, is Joe now the proponent believer that this is a "perpetual motion mobile". What if Joe never stated that this was a perpetual motion mobile? Are we now defaming Joe? Better yet, is the propent view now held by Wikipedia's editor? it's readers? You need at least one reference per WP:OR to support the argument and currently there are none.--CyclePat (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)
 * Well, we agree it's "synthesis". We don't agree it's a prohibited synthesis.  The example reads:
 * Source A says J did X.
 * Source B says all who do X are Y.
 * Hence, J is a Y.
 * (Actually, the example is more complicated. But this is what is prohibited.)
 * This example is:
 * Source A says G violates Q.
 * The definition of X states that all that violate Q are X.
 * Hence, G is an X.
 * Entirely different. In some cases, a definition need not even have a source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) The Columbus Dispatch ref, which is cited in support of the claim of perpetual motion/first-law violation explicitly makes the connection for us.
 * Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible. Videos show his contraptions turning water into a frothy mix within seconds.
 * "It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that."
 * Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
 * "Basically, it says you can't get something for nothing," Reay said.
 * "He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy.
 * So there you have it, Cyclepat, a RS explaining that the device violates first law and Meyer's description of the energy input/output efficiency is impossible. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dmack! Cool! I actually remember fiddling around with that quote (or tried to anyways) for the current article. This is what this entire thing is all about is that quote. And I remember thinking... he doesn't realy mention "perpetual motion mobile" but simply violation of "the laws of conservations of energy". Anywyas, I remember formating that reference at one point in time too. So, admirablly though, No that's not the answer... that is the question! Again, my question deals with conservation energy and a synthesis to which we conclude "perpetual motion" (a non permissible synthesis). So what we are talking about is quite specific to the premise of "perpetual motion mobiles".
 * I would like to however concede a point regarding Arthur's comment. If we find a reliable reference for "X states that all that violate Q are X." and place it in our article, I believe we would most likely be heading in the right direction. However, I'm still worried that this may be sylogism. Another issue, is the fact that the more I read through the article at Perpetual_motion_machine the more I wonder where we will find the reference. That's because it says in the intro paragraph something along the lines as "should" or "could" violate and there are no references. (sigh of despair) I've recently put a request for a reference in that article. Again, I would probably logically concede if we found a reference. Nevertheless, I would also still have some issues with the aformentioned synthesis and OR, rules and possibility for a sylogism. Respectfully. --CyclePat (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur, What do you mean a definition needs no sources? Everything should have a reliable source according to WP:V. Maybe, if I was writting an essay at University, that would be different, but this is Wikipedia. Particularly in our case since we may have a WP:REDFLAG... and question the source. Hence it requires high-quality sources. If I haven't asked it already, can someone please add the reference for perpetual motion mobile. And even though I feel it should not be removed, I feel as though it would need to. --CyclePat (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I made a mistake. A definition of perpetual motion machine is one which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, regardless of "producing more energy than in consumes".  We apparently don't use that definition.  I still don't see any way we can say anything and not call it a perpetual motion machine, without violating WP:UNDUE.  Perhaps the article needs to be deleted.... 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay! (Light chuckle) Great! Thank you everyone for continuing on this good debate. However, I think I see where this is going. I re-read through the article too, just to see how many time we actually use the term perpetual motion machine. Asides from the side template (2 times), the category (1 time), the see also section (1 time), it only really appears once in the article and that's in the header. Why only the header? (rhetorical question again). Maybe it's something we should work at developping? Seriouslly though, I agree with your definition for Perp. Motion Machine (PMM). But prior to digressing any further into WP:UNDUE, or my previous paradox of fealing that it should stay but shouldn't stay (probably some weighing in of the NPOV), there must be some reliable source somewhere that believes this is a perpetual motion machine? (ie. Does anyone have access to this article which we already cite in the article?) Otherwise, to answer your question, I would (sarcam starts here) make a huge matrix which calculates the ratio of "X states that all that violate Q are X." and how well it correspondes with the article... (end sarcasm)(I'm kidding b.t.w.). Actually, I'm really not sure?  Here are a bunch of idea which I'm just going to throw out without thinking to much.
 * simply changing the sentence: "Also, if the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine." to reflect the current reference which states "Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy". Or more preciselly we could state "if the device worked as specified, it would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy."
 * Have a section devoted on the "the Law of Conservation of Energy" which has better references or might encourage better references?
 * Keep it as is... frankly anyone can see this is like 1 + 1 = 2, and we should ignore the rules (consequence: most likely have future debate on the same issue)
 * Add a reference to support
 * Add a footnote which explains the synthesis so people will understand
 * I don't know? I can't think of anymore solutions right now... let's come back to this tomorow!
 * Afterwards, And frankly, it would saden me to see our likely correct (status quo), yet unsourced and improprer, answer disapear. I would, again, prefer to see a good strong reference. Maybe someone could find something? Or am I just way off here and the previous comment was simply there to make me think outside the box and turn the roles around so now I try to defend this article? --CyclePat (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) From the Nature article:
 * Can you get more energy out than you put in?
 * I can answer that right now: no. You start with water, you break it apart into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and then you recombine them by burning. Yes you can do that. Hydrogen, indeed, is the promised fuel of the new clean energy economy. But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine.
 * [...]
 * It's not easy to establish how Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that was able to split water using less energy than was released by recombination of the elements.
 * Again, the RS we already have cited supports the words and logical connections we state: the Meyer device violates the first (and second by this source, something we've already hashed out months ago) law, which is impossible and makes the label "perpetual motion machine" correct. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've been saying, exactly - a case of synthesis per WP:SYNTH. We agree. --CyclePat (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Man with two legs (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wagging the dog
I think the tail is attempting to wag the dog here. The point of Wikipedia policies is to assist in creating good articles. But if you really want to, you can use wikilawyering techniques to mangle any article and waste a lot of time. This debate would only be worth having if there were any reasonable doubt that this device is a perpetual motion machine and scientifically speaking, there is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise. It is a perpetual motion machine and this debate is contributing nothing. Man with two legs (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do concede, that PMM can surelly be perceived as an item of minor importance dominating a situation. But, the question you must ask yourself then is, why would this be of minor importance? PMM, "au contraire", is of importance to the article because it puts in question Meyer's integrity (autobiography), the device's fundemental definition (ie.: Water fuel cell = perpetual motion machine) and questions the corp issues we have always had with this article such as WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and Referencing. I do concede the point, as alluded by my previous statements, that there are conflicting proposals to resolve this issue. In fact, I believe all of them point to one big problem: We have a synthesis. The aformentioned debate has at least two other editors, though hesitantly, agreeing that we have a synthesis.
 * I would like to consider myself an man of principles and integrity who follows the current scientific trends of logic. Accordingly, or "scientifically speaking", science does involves psychology. Psychology includes the proper analysis of mental process. A sylogism is a mental process which can come to a correct synthesising of one proposition (the conclusion) which is inferred from two others (the premises). However, even though we may synthesis a correct answer, the synthesis, or critical thinking process, can be totally wrong. I believe, this is one of our current problems. In fact, the aformentioned "perpetual motion machine reference debate" (PMM RD) has raised a significant doubt as to the veracity and verifiability of the information because of such an error. In fact, I put it to you that, if you are willing to accept the posibility of an erronious thinking process (the

PMM RD synthesis), than surelly we can keep the status quo. Nevertheless, be forwarned that those willing to accept a synthesis, as stipulated, are going against Wikipedia's policies and that I can not possibly fanthom agreeing to such a compromise. Those trying to correct the synthesis, via finding a solution to the problem, will obviously be attempting to respect Wikipedia, it's editors and readers. --CyclePat (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Asside: Suddenly, now surrounded by a professional Wikipedians who obviously want more than just a simple solution (I hope), it is clear that "Every man has, some time in his life, an ambition to be a wag." Though I often too motion "going to and fro: a motion that goes to and fro" to continue answering questions and beating around the bush; trying to explain and figure out which came first the synth or the premise - t'is a case of the tail dogging the wag. b.t.w. have you looked at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie. Our reaction to the PPM RD synthesis should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from the problems. In fact:
 * "We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
 * But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: 'It's clever, but is it Art?'"
 * --CyclePat (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That rather long series of comments does not actually address the point originally raised. Man with two legs (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe it does. You indicate that "scientifically speaking, there is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise", whereas I dissagree and indicate that the science of psychology proves there is a doubt." --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong on at least two counts:
 * (a) No it doesn't. Physical chemistry is entirely about things that can be measured.  If the psychology of an individual chemist makes him wrong, that error will eventually show up in a reproducible measurement.  Being blunt but accurate, the fact that you don't already know that proves that you do not understand what science is.
 * (b) Try reading the first paragraph yet again and see if you can figure out what it means. Man with two legs (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps you might want to bring this issue up with the editors of the Wikipedia article called psychology, which states: "Psychology (from Greek ψῡχή, psȳkhē, "breath, life, soul"; and -λογία, -logia) is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior." In the mean time, we disagree. --CyclePat (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s.: We're not talking about "Physical chemistry", we're talking about the science of phsychology and the aformentioned falicy - As you indicated in your first statement "scientifically speaking." Indeed psychology is scientifically speaking. (Reference: Psychology and Quantitative psychology.) Hence, scientifically speaking, there is an error. --CyclePat (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think you are writing about? This article is about an alleged method of making cheap hydrogen.  Entirely about physical chemistry and thermodynamics and nothing to do with psychology. Man with two legs (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I -think- he's trying to say that all science is indefinite because psychology is a science, psychoogy is not definite, therefore no science is definite... you'll have to  tell me what it has to do with the article, and personally I think he's just trolling.Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, may I remind you that this is a point of order in regards to the merits of the debating the aforementioned perpetual motion machine (PMM) synthesis fallacy - a violation per Wikipedia's policies (WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:CITE) which should be removed from the article. (ie.: I think you've proven my point by failing to refute the falicy and trying to argue secondary subjects such as pshychology and science. The debate regarding the fallacy is actually occurring in the section above "Wagging the dog". I believe the SYNTH fallacy is sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt, however we could also argue WP:V which stipulates that we must be able to verify our sources (ie.: Cite, reference for the aforementioned fallacy). Anyways, here are two option which I've considered 1) Follow Wikipedia’s guidelines per dispute resolution, keeping the conversation civil and trying to focus on having others recognize the problem, or 2) Leave it as is and show everyone how ignorant (and untruthfully) we've been towards ourselves via publishing un-sourced information which disrespects Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:SYNTH. I'm trying to let you chose, hopefully the first option, however, I'm perfectly capable of watching you chose option #2, the wrong one. In fact, I'm asking you which one you would like to take. If we are unable to complacently acknowledge 1) That there is an issue in regards WP:SYNTH (which has already been discussed and pretty much agreed upon) then I fear option 2 will be the answer. I'm only going to say this one more time "Find a reliable source". May I point you to a similar debate which was resolved quite complacently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phrenology#Phrenology_is_Pseudoscience.3F. Also, Guyonthesubway, As I've indicated to you already on my user-page, I think your comments are out of line and bordering incivility. --CyclePat (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SYNTH. "^ The rule against 'A and B therefore C' does not, in general, refer to statements A,B and C that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic." See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence".  Once again, there is no controversy here execept what you're attempting to create, again.  Thus my comment on trolling.   After we re-hash the same two or three points a dozen times, at some point you no longer appear to be a good faith editor and begin to look like a troll.  Consensus is that the Water Cell, when opperated as described, is a perpetual motion machine. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * CyclePat, my patience has run out and this is my last comprehensive answer:-
 * Again, you haven't got the point of my post or addressed it in your answer.
 * The point of order itself is in the previous section. This section is about whether that point of order is worth debating in view of the fact that nobody who understands science disputes the conclusion.  Basic conservation of energy is not that hard to understand.
 * The alleged "synthesis fallacy" is neither a synthesis nor a fallacy. It is not a synthesis because there is a source: the Nature article explicitely uses the words "perpetual motion machine".  It is not a fallacy because there is no false conclusion.
 * You introduced and discussed the status of psychology here so kindly do not attribute that to me.
 * Out in the real world, where energy gets used, a perpetual motion machine does not stop being a perpetual motion machine because of an interpretation of a Wikipedia policy. But it very much looks like you want to believe that this machine can be made to work and don't want to accept it never can.  If you don't have that rather silly belief, you can prove it by stating what you do believe about it.  If you do, you can still be big enough to accept that mainstream scientists do not. Man with two legs (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (only answering Man with two legs)(And taking one thing at a time) Okay! Great. I'm excited. The reason I'm excited is because we're closer to getting this resolved. We actually know that the information is, as you indicated, in : "the Nature article..." which "explicitly uses the words "perpetual motion machine"." However, as you are most likely aware, the reference is difficult to verify because it requires payment to view. (I obviously want to check it out!) FYI: I have openly stated since the beginning that I do not have access to that article and have specifically requested someone to indicate if that is where the information came. More precisely, I believe I asked, if the PMM reference is found within the "Nature article". Given the circumstances, I guess that means you have access to the article. Hence, to save on time, (ie.: going down to my local library and accessing the same article through their free databases), could you possibly forward me a copy via email? That way we can verify the reference and put a close to this issue. Many thank you's!
 * To answer your recent post.: Answer to #1) Correct. I have avoided getting to the point of you post because, frankly, I believe it's off topic. Answer to #2) Well technically, if you're looking at the big picture, you are correct in terms of the point of order of a point of order. (b.t.w.: asides: Does adding solar panels to a flashlight (you know like those emergency radio flashlights that exist) make it a PMM? (Do you see how such questions can distract from the main issue?) I think it’s more important to get good references!) Answer #3) (I've already answered most of this in the first paragraph, here.) As for the fallacy, it doesn't need to have a false conclusion to be considered a fallacy. (See Argument from fallacy). Answer #4.: Criticizing my beliefs, as I've indicated on my talk page regarding this matter is quite inappropriate to resolving our current debate. Again, thank you for the source. I hope to hear from you soon regarding that article. --CyclePat (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent a bit) I posted some relevant quotes from the article a few days ago when you asked for them. You promptly responded that it was still synthesis. Either you're not reading what's being written or you're intentionally disregarding it (you already said you had forgotten earlier discussion content). I agree with others...you appear to be debating for the sake of debating and are bordering on disruptive editing here. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! I clearly do remember those quotes from an article that claims Meyer's device violates the laws of thermodynamics. It does not claim that the device is a perpetual motion machine. Which is why I promptly responded: it is a synthesis. Finally, asside but still verry important - and I'm sorry I have to do this right under your message, but this applies to everyone here. I would like to remind everyone regarding Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Please, comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will force me to report the action to the administrator's board and may result, as you are aware inblocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --CyclePat (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat, clearly you're not convincing anyone. I suggest you either drop it, or take this up at another forum like WP:ORN or possibly even WP:RSN. Continuing discussion here is simply a waste of everyone's time including your own. Yilloslime (t) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really here to try and convince anyone, I'm here to work together and build a strong article which has strong references. All I want is a simple reference so we can in fact keep the information regarding PMM. Thanks to Man with Two legs we may be on our way to finding the relevant reference. I trust, since he appears to have read the nature article, that he will forward me a copy so we can verify the reference, correct? A simple and reasonable request, no?--CyclePat (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not specific to Meyers' cell. It relates to water-fueled car claims in general. If you feel you must argue this (which I really recommend you don't), please move the discussion there. However, it has been heavily debated in that article (I think arbitrators have even weighed in). Cars that claim to extract chemical energy from water violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics and are therefore, effectively, perpetual motion machines - period.Prebys (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dissagree regarding your perception of this discussion. In fact this discussion is specific to our Wikipedia article regarding Meyer's device. Nevertheless, ignoring your claims in the first sentence, I do understand what you are trying to bring to the conversation. I also disagree. The debate of Water-fueled cars in general, I fear may be a synthesis if we apply it to this article. In fact, I put it to you that even if you had a reference which states "all water fuel cars are perpetual motion machines",(which I doubt you have - but, I shouldn't talk so fast, as we wait to check that nature article) it would not encompass Meyer's device (unless the study specifically mentioned or considered Meyer's device.) Again, we know that meyer's device violates the laws of thermodynamics... (and this is properly referenced). That's it! We currently don't have any references to support PMM. That is what this debate is all about. Again, I trust user:Man with two legs will forward us a copy of the article so we can verify the reference. Thank you! (Notez bien: I will follow the procedures which lead me to the proof and not to more distractions and debates in other venues.) --CyclePat (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do I get a sinking feeling as I type this?
 * I never promised anything of the sort. I have not seen the article in Nature except for the quotation supplied above by DMacks which is entirely adequate for this debate. I take that quote at face value because I have no reason to doubt the word of DMacks partly because there is no evidence he/she/it is crazy but mostly because if you understand school level science, this is really simple.  It just is a violation of conservation of energy and that makes it a perpetual motion machine.  It is totally unsurprising if the article in Nature says so.  It would be distinctly odd if Nature did not use the words "perpetual motion machine" when talking about things that are undoubtedly perpetual motion machines.  CyclePat, why can't you get this into your head: it really is a perpetual motion machine.  It is clear you would rather it was not, but it is. Man with two legs (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC
 * Cyclepat, there's no requirement that sources must be available online for free to be used, nor is there a requirement you personally must verify every source used. DMacks has already verified the source, DMacks is a longtime trusted editor, and that's good enough. If you must, go to a library, or go to the website and pay for it. Or you could do what I just did, which is to google the first line "Have you heard the one about the water-powered car? If not" and find the forum where it's been posted in its entirety for free. And sure enough, it says: "But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine." Yilloslime (t) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate over: Consensus established, no policy violations
There is no more need for this debate. It has been established that stating that this device is a perpetual motion machine is not WP:OR or a violation of WP:SYNTH. Continued debate would be disruptive, and if anyone disagrees I think they should start a WP:RFC to attempt to bring outside opinion, as the consensus opinion here has been establish, and it has been shown to be within policy. Verbal  chat  21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasonning. "Au contraire", there are no reliable sources which state this device is a perpetual motion machine and there are many unclarified doubts as to WP:OR and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the reasoning you bring forward to end this debate is preciselly the reasoning behind the debate. Hence, it has not been established that there is no more need for this debate. If you feal so stongly about an RfC, I will be happy to support you opening a request. However, I do concede that until we check (per WP:V) the aformentioned "Nature" article, this debate and any future RfC should be suspended. --CyclePat (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in your argument that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Either bring new points or file an RfC for more views if you feel strongly. Further WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT could be viewed as tendentious and disruptive. Verbal   chat  23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. We disagree. --CyclePat (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to the damage the article

 * Here's one cited change that needs to be made:


 * Replace this:


 * While there have been many attempts to replicate the results of the system, nobody so far has claimed to have succeeded. Also, there is no documented proof that the system produces enough hydrogen to run an engine. To date no peer review studies of Meyer's claims or devices have been published in the scientific literature.


 * With this:


 * Ravi Raju, Dave Lawton, and many other people interested in the theory have claimed to have succeeded in replicating Meyer's fuel cell, and have produced video documentation of construction and testing of the fuel cell, showing impressive results with very low amounts of current.


 * And cite these sources:
 * http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Ravi%20Cell.pdf
 * http://www.hyiq.org/Library/HHO.htm


 * That corrects one bit of misinformation. These guys may not have actually replicated the fuel cell, but they have claimed to have replicated it, even providing pictures of the cell pumping out a lot of hydrogen while being given only 12 volts and less than 2 amps. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above sources appear to meat wikipedia's standards for inclusion. One must also look at the whole of the article and what sources we are currently using. What I see is a news article which claims this is a perpetual motion. In my opinion, the afformentioned sources should and can be used. --CyclePat (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, generally neither of those are acceptable sources on wikipedia. They're blogs or self published websites. Have a look at RS to get an idea what would be. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs? One of them is a university, the other is a non-profit organization. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An unacredited on-line university, and a website claiming to be a non-profit. Spend some time at RS.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying photographic evidence of the entire process working is not something that should be cited in this article? --98.196.34.221 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing a "photographic evidence" when it comes to extreme claims like these. The only evidence would be controlled tests done by a reputable lab or university.Prebys (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing extreme about this case. People discovered a rapid form of electrolysis that requires very little current. Why is this so hard for you to understand? --98.196.34.221 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The easy way to point how unreliable video and photographic evidence is here and hereGuyonthesubway (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: are you suggesting the water fuel cell is a massive conspiracy involving engineers from several different countries all working diligently on buying and constructing all this equipment and writing lengthy lab results and diagrams, and spending all of this time and money just so they can trick everyone into thinking they are using resonance to break apart water molecules? It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, this is a controversial subject and both sides of the story should be represented. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * well... lets see, there was certainly one engineer was happy to go as far as constructing a entire car that he claimed ran on this technology...and he was convicted of fraud. His name is at the top of this page.   Even if you are a believer in this tech you should be a bit more skeptical of the 'evidence' you find on the internet.  In any case we're getting off topic, the cites you've provided arent usable here.  Maybe you should try here Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, of course, because if an authority figure says it doesn't work, then it must not work. Guess that makes Tesla a fraud too. If we had more people like you back in the 1940s, we wouldn't have to worry about nuclear war. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose a variant of Godwin's Law that the first person to bring up Tesla in an argument about a free energy scams is summarily declared the loser. On a more serious note, lots of people spend their life savings on fortune tellers and faith healers.  The argument that "This must be true because lots of people believe it" holds no weight, scientifically. If Meyer's idea worked, someone would be getting very rich selling water powered dune buggies on Ebay.  It doesn't work. It's been found to be fraudulent in a court of law, and he never allowed it to be examined scientifically.  Occam's Razor leads to only one conclusion. Anyway, the troll has been fed so much he may need to purge, so let's stop feeding him.Prebys (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of what you are saying is backed up not by facts, but your own speculation. What facts you did use wrong or misleading. Just because a court of law said it is fraudulent doesn't mean it really is; have you ever trusted the US government? A jury of random morons from Ohio knows nothing about science. You said Stan Meyer didn't allow his fuel cell to be examined scientifically. In a UK documentary, he showed how the entire thing worked. He gave out all the information on how to build it. For the last year, the fuel cell and everything involved with it has been in public domain. Several engineers have replicated it. All of your speculations and opinions are useless in this debate, please do some research and try to get your facts straight before you continue arguing. Jesus Christ, I might as well argue with the Flat Earth Society. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fuck it. I'm through wasting my time with you people. Leave your misinformation and glaring inaccuracies where they are, I don't even care at this point. Every time a newbie tries to correct anything on this site, they are instantly declared a troll, and the so-called "regulars" will twist the topic of debate as far as it will go to avoid being wrong about something. If it's this hard to get rid of the misleading crap from just one article, then there's no hope for the rest of the site. --98.196.34.221 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok... Love you, buh bye! Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You were indeed wasting your time here, and the time of several other people. You were never going to get away with putting physically impossible rubbish into the article.  I am glad that you've decided to stop.  --Athol Mullen (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Holy fuck, was that guy for real? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 14:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Athol, I hope you can help me out, I'm obviously missing something in this discussion...which part of the process is physically impossible? The electrolysis of water or the combustion of hydrogen gas? Thanks! MovingTargetB2 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The bit where it is claimed not to be perpetual motion. The components are each separately possible, but put together in the way argued will always be perpetual motion and that's the end of the discussion, because no amount of discussion will change that fundamental fact. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Meyer, or anyone else involved in the project have ever claimed that the fuel cell is a source of perpetual energy. --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's irrelevant. Fortunately, others who understand science can look at what is said and what is known and analyze it further than the originator did. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, what, now you're going to tell me that the elite masters of all science, such as yourself, can read the thoughts of dead inventors? Doesn't matter if some Wikipedia users think it's a perpetual motion machine, it was never designed to be one, never claimed to be one, and never even intended to be one. Also, that part about nobody ever claiming to have replicated the fuel cell: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell#Replications. And before anyone goes on about sources and validity and whatnot, the question wasn't "did they replicate the fuel cell", the question was "did they claim to replicate the fuel cell", which they obviously did. --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to go on about sources, reliability and whatnot, but peswiki is not a reliable source, and it is not appropriate to cite claims of verification from peswiki. It is appropriate to describe this as a purported perpetual motion machine, for the reasons stated by Athol Mullen. LeContexte (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, we aren't talking about whether or not the invention genuinely works, we are talking about whether or not people have claimed to have replicated it; those people listed on that section have all claimed to have replicated Meyer's invention, therefore the statement in this article that says nobody has claimed to have replicated the fuel cell is incorrect. And Athol didn't actually state any reasons, he just said "it's perpetual motion and that's the end of the discussion". --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you could find the original website of someone who claimed to reproduce Meyers' work, we might be able to use it to add a 'claims to have' for that person. Peswiki is not the original source, so we could say that 'Peswiki claims that so-and-so claims to have reproduced....' but that would be third hand.  I've never seen any claims that the Meyers cell's exhaust was a new and novel form of water....until you find some cites on that, the cell is certainly a perpetual motion machine. Pretty easy, just look at the patents or diagrams and look at the part that says 'water in' and run a garden hose from the 'water out' 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to Ravi's videos that he, himself, uploaded, making it the original source: http://www.youtube.com/user/raviwfc
 * And if you look on Peswiki, you'll find links to most of the original sources. Also, let me explain why the water can't be re-used: in Meyer's fuel cell, the two shared electrons between oxygen and hydrogen are stripped away from the molecule, oxygen ends up with no charge and hydrogen ends up with a positive charge. In the combustion reaction, the ionic hydrogen doesn't have any electrons to spare, so it takes 2 of oxygen's 8 electrons, and you end up with some water that has positively charged oxygen and neutral hydrogen, as opposed to normal water where the hydrogen has a +2 charge and the oxygen has a -2 charge. The way the fuel cell (and conventional electrolysis) works is the positive electrode attracts negatively charged particles, while the negative electrode attracts positive particles, and it basically just yanks them apart. But if one of the atoms in the molecule doesn't have a charge, then it won't work. Get it? --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NO. I don't. If we strip the electrons from the hydrogen atoms, where do they go?  Have we created a chemically different water, and what supports this claim?  How does the hydrogen atom recombine with oxygen if there is no electron to share?  If it can't recombine, how does combustion take place?  Take a very close look at your scenario and visualize the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.  Picture them together as H20.  Now, run your thoughts forward and viualize the two free electrons you just stripped from the water molecule.  Two free electrons would be a surplus of energy that could be used to drive the process.  Are we creating energy from nothing here?  If I can combust the hydrogen with oxygen, then I'm recreating water and by using the (impossible) surplus electrons as a source of energy to drive this process I have created a perpetual motion machine.  Also, look closely at Meyer's claims of amperage and voltage.  30kV at 0.5 Amps equals 15kW. A 12V battery would have to supply 1250 Amps to produce 15kW.  What wiring will support this?  He has manipulated the math but check it against Faraday's Laws and see what you come up with.  This process was fraud, is fraud and always will be fraud when you apply logic and time tested proven science and formulas to it.I55ere (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The liberated electrons are extracted through an electron extraction circuit, and can be used to perform small tasks, like lighting a light bulb. I'm not entirely sure if the hydrogen ions can even recombine with the oxygen to form water in the first place, so either way, it can't be a perpetual motion machine. And regarding voltage, the fuel cell is basically a big capacitor in a jar of water. In the capacitor, the voltage gets very high, but the input is usually around 12V 500mA DC, or whatever the person might use to power it. And regarding Faraday, his laws are outdated; they didn't have pulse generators or stainless steel in the 1800s, so resonant electrolysis was impossible. --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. YouTube, wikis and personal websites are not reliable sources, either for the claim that Meyer's invention has been verified, or for the claim that it is possible for "positively charged water" to exist. These are - to say the least - extraordinary claims. LeContexte (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to tell me that a Wiki isn't a reliable source of information, I kind of figured that out already. --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the video is shown on ion Television? "Positively entertaining."  (Sorry.  I just couldn't resist.)  Even if Ravi did upload the video to youtube, it would be considered "self-published", and might be allowable if Ravi was a recognized expert.  NOT.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He has an engineering degree. Why are you guys so obsessed with keeping people from taking this theory seriously? --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, where did he get the degree from? Don't you think it's a bit silly to consider someone an expert... just because he says he is? And I haven't seen any "obsession with keeping people from taking this theory seriously". I've seen just plain ol' critical thinking and application of WP rules. You might want to try cutting down on the fallacies; they really don't help your case. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 14:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, if a guy could really make an engine that runs on water, he would not waste his time making YouTube videos about it and spamming blogs. He would build it, get it tested by someone credible and proceed to get very, very rich.  How stupid do you have to be to believe this stuff?Prebys (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've analyzed the evidence and from my understanding of the scientific method, I feel that I can safely say that all of you have just lost the game. :D --Bobjohnston 1953 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Game? :P — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone cite or reference Mr. Meyer himself actually claiming this to be a perpetual motion device? Who "reported" the device to be perpetual motion? Did the courts actually determine the device to be perpetual motion? This "discussion" seems to be very one-sided if verifiable references or sources are required to remove an inference that is itself unreliable or has no verifiable, reliable source. MovingTargetB2 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a WP:RS (Nature) expaining how if it worked as described, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks...So, if I understand you correctly, Wikipedia is the only cited source or reference? I'm assuming that it is highlighted in the article, is that how the particular WP:RS is accessed? (Yes, I'm a newbie!)MovingTargetB2 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I'm starting to think that you're refusing to understand, rather than being unable to understand.  Please prove me wrong.
 * Nature News is the WP:RS that it (would be) a perpetual motion machine. I can't see how you can read the above as "Wikipedia (being) the only cited source...."  If you subscribe, pay an article charge, or view it at a library which has a subscription, you can view the  article.  (I can't, actually.)  Except in cases of editors who have been proven to misquote sources, we generally trust the word of the editor that they've verified the material.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this:

"While there have been many attempts to replicate the results of the system"

Before you revert it, please explan who "many" refers to. Resess (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can close this section now that some of GDewilde's latest sock puppets have been blocked? Not quite sure why it didn't occur to me that it was probably the same troll having another go.  If MovingTargetB2 adds more edits, there should be enough evidence for a checkuser to confirm sock status. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, at the risk of damning myself to permanent "sock status", please let me apologize for disturbing everyone's lofty greatness here with my inability to understand the process instantly. Wow...I feel like the accused at a Salem witch trial and everyone is shouting "Burn him, BURN HIM!!!". I will now beat a hasty retreat before someone strikes a match, and again, my most profound apologies gentlemen.MovingTargetB2 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, we missed one. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies if my comment was misinterpreted. Checkuser works both ways.  If there is enough information in the logs, it can prove or fairly positively disprove that a person is editing from the same systems as someone else, or return an inconclusive result.  If you are not a sock puppet of another user who is being investigated, the more edits you've made, the more information there will be to make a conclusive "not connected" result.  This is one of the alternatives that I meant when I said that "there should be enough evidence for a checkuser to confirm sock status."  --Athol Mullen (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I stand corrected, checkuser finds no connection between MovingTargetB2 and our latest outbreak of sockpuppetry. Please accept my apologies. Follks, lets try not to bite the newbie, despite his really bad luck of timing. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MovingTargetB2 has restricted his questions to the Talk page, which is what the talk page is for. Ressess and the other sock puppets immediately fell into their old habits of vandalizing the article itself.  Luckily, they appear to have been dealt with, at least for the time being. However, I'm confident they'll be back.Prebys (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that I've cooled off a bit, please excuse my previous rant...I posted while still irritated at the sockpuppet reference. That's not the best way to introduce myself to an online forum. I can see why everyone was suspicious...as Guyonthesubway noted, my timing was terrible and I did come in on the puppet side of the discussion. I try to be skeptical of both sides when stepping in late like that until I'm up to speed. I've posted some background info on myself on my user page which may explain why I have an interest in this subject. Athol, thanks for the explanations! MovingTargetB2 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Killing a dead horse...
This may be WP:OR, but it may come in helpful to explain why using 22 gallons of water to drive from LA to NYC is an outlandish claim and another reason to call this perpetual motion. I did some rough calculations for the amount of hydrogen contained in 22 gallons of water (approx 20 lbs) and 22 gallons of gasoline C8H18 (approx 21 lbs). Meyer claims that he was using a 1.6L 4 cylinder VW engine. Giving him credit for good mileage, (I figured 30 mpg) he would travel 660 miles on a full tank of gasoline. Therefore, he would have to refuel 4.5 times to travel from LA to NYC (3,000 miles). Even if his water fuel cell could crank out hydrogen and run the exact same engine, he would travel 633.9 miles on a full tank of water, requiring 4.7 refills to travel from LA to NYC. Unless there is something special about the hydrogen produced by the WFC that enables it to perform 4.7 times better than the hydrogen in gasoline, this just can’t be. The only way this method could possibly work would be to loop the exhaust back to the intake. Ooops, that wont work as it would then become a perpetual motion machine. And why 22 gallons? Probably because 1 liter would sound too incredible and 103 gallons would weigh to much. This is not exactly article material, but should help quiet future arguments claiming the 22 gal LA to NYC figures.I55ere (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What if it's 100 mpg like my friend Darin Cosgroves car? Would that make 3.33 x 660 miles = 2197.8 miles? Or better yet, 133 mpg, as claimed on a good day by my friend Cosgrove. That would make 133/30 = 4.43 x 660 = 2925.78 miles. Add the wind comming from the west? Lest you not forget the jet stream the time of year, the season (wind), rain, coefficiency of friction of the roads, down hills, up hills, pulsing of engine, kinetic energegy, etc... as my well respected engeneering friend once said when I asked him if he could calculate the estimate life and range of my electric bicycles... "That's a doozy. Now, if you asked me to calculate the life of our galaxy, that would be much easier. There are so many variables for calculating the average range of a vehicle's travelling range and distance. It's difficult and you're better off to simply build it and do the tests." Maybe Meyer's wasn't that far off with a supper fuel efficient motor. No. The idea that you want to suppress perfectly well referenced information just because it maybe or is wrong is not the way wikipedia works. We cite them as is... at that's it. --CyclePat (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point. The point is that Meyer's claim cannot be true even if we suspend our disbelief in perpetual motion machines. Man with two legs (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood your point. I even disproved it by using references to a known source which proves we can obtain 133 mpg with an automobile. I also proved, with the same base information that you had, that it may in fact be possible to make the alleged trip of approx. 3000 km. on one tank. The point is that currently it is theoritically possible to make the trip one tank if you where using my Friends Method. Neverhtless, let's assume your point is true, (to which I obviously disagree) can you please explain what your point has to do with the article? --CyclePat (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, that 133 mpg is based on an unsubstantiated claim including extreme hypermiling and a car with some aerodynamic modifications under nearly perfect conditions. A reasonable person would probably use a guestimate of the mileage of a well tuned prius and come up with somewhere around 60 mpg.  The real problem with Manwithtwolegs' estimates is that water is only 2/18ths hydrogen by weight, and we already know that Meyers burned hydrogen to run his car.  Therefore, 22 gallons of water (182lbs) we would end up with 20.3 pounds of hydrogen gas.  22 gallons of gasoline for comparison weighs about 132 pounds.  By energy density the hydrogen is about equal to 66 pounds of gasoline, about half a tank gasoline equivilent for each tank of water.  20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that 22 gallons of water doesn't cut the mustard. Even CyclePat's calculations leave us anywhere from 74 - 800 miles short of the 3,000 miles that Meyer claimed. Nothing was disproved. I actually feel validated. Meyer claimed that he tested his dune buggy and it consumed 111 mL/min of gasoline while travelling at 65 mph. If you work it out, that's 6.66 L/hr or 1.76 gph. 22 gallons would last 12.5 hrs wich equals 812.5 miles or about 37 mpg. Now, to turn around and claim that the exact same engine would get 3.7x better efficiency burning the hydrogen in water is absurd. My original calculations only compared the amount of hydrogen in 22 gallons of water vs 22 gallons of gasoline and not the respective energy densities of hydrogen and gasoline. In order for Meyer to make good on his claim, the exhaust would have to be run back into the supply. Oooops, I did it again.I55ere (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, did Mr. Meyer claim 3000 km? Or did he claim that he could do a trip from here (where the film was made) to point B and specifically saying he would need to fill it up at least once along the way? --CyclePat (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you watch it for yourself? He stated, I quote, "We have calculated that if we take the dune buggy from Los Angeles to New York we would roughly use 22 gallons of water."  There is nothing about from where the film was made or the need for a refill along the way.  The DUNE BUGGY is not your friend's hypermiling car.  It uses a 1600cc VW engine, is not aerodynamically modified.  You can see it for yourself in the video.  He is sitting in it when he makes the claim.I55ere (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Watched the video. Indeed he says 22 gallons of water for Los Angeles to New York. Google Maps has Los Angeles to New York at 2,792 miles. I fail to find the reference for information regarding the dunebugy having a 1600cc VW engine. Can you please direct me in the right direction. --CyclePat (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It really doesnt matter. Its not in the article, and I dont think anyone is proposing we add it.  If you're not convinced, please feel free to do you own research. It looks like a VW dune buggy, vw engines are usually 1600cc. good enough for me. (if not the article)Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to the article, references section #9, click on it. It will take you here, you will see a link titled data - 243 page .pdf file open the file.  On page 100 of 243 you should see a photograph of Stanley Meyer's dune buggy.  The picture labels the engine as a "standard 1600cc IC engine" painted on the side of the dune buggy are the words "WATER POWERED CAR".  Go to the next page (101 of 243)this is a close up picture of the engine, also labeled "standard 1600cc IC engine".I55ere (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * HAHA! :) Priceless!!! My hats off to you! Nice research. (and future saluts from now on!)--CyclePat (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we change the title of this section to "Beating a dead horse" as right now it's really grating on my nerves! Verbal   chat  21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree! Specially considering I just gave the creator, I55ere, a barnstar. How about we call it, something along the lines of "Doing the math", "calculations", "Reviewing Meyer's Dune Buggy", "Reviewing the math behind Meyer's invention" (I like the last one best! But anything else is mostlikely good) --CyclePat (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Verification of reference
First off, I wish to thank the editor that has provided us with a reliable source. The perpetual motion machine (PMM) fact has allegedly been verified by user Dmack. There is no question that the source we have is reliable. The question is: "Is the information truly in there?" Not being able to read the article, or find the information, puts in question its reliability. Hence, with a sigh of despair but hope and faith that someone will help correct this issue, I raise this question: Is there a link to a free version pf the Nature article and can we add it to the footnote?) Policy arguments considered: Hence, I challenge the current information of perpetual motion machine (PMM). Can someone please provide further verification and an inline citation which precisely locates the page number. The reason for this challenge is to have reference #2 placed at the end of the sentence. ie.: Change:
 * "A reliable sources," according to WP:V, "should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims."
 * "editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
 * Also, if the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine.
 * To
 * Also, if the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. [2]

However, making this change is currently impossible because I can not verify the information. Thank you for providing a reliable source which everyone can verify. --CyclePat (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This material has been discussed, the claim stands as not being a violation of WP:SYNTH whether or not it is explicitly made in this article, as the references given "directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims" and are reliably sourced, which addresses your concerns. You are fully aware of this. Wiki-lawyering is a form of disruption. Verbal   chat  09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the quote I was about to add here has been added to the article. That should address your "concerns". Verbal   chat  10:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat, may I suggest Library.Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Yes, I raised this question even after a lengthy debate regarding the PMM and a possible WP:SYNTH violation. Any new readers will find this debate in archive #5 of the talk page. Though that debate and this debate both deal with the same subject matter, they are, I believe two distinct issues. I digress back into the SYNTH issue only because you rais the subject and because, as a type of final note, I wish to confirm my agreement. I do concure and believe that if the reliable source, in our case the Nature article", specifically makes the claim, then the PPM SYNTH issue is pretty much moot.
 * Now, before continuing on with this issue, I would like to remind editors to comment on content and not on the contributor. Wikipedia has a strict policy against WP:personal attacks and as any pejorative it's misuse is an insult. It continuess misuses can be seen as WP:Harassment. I trust this is sufficient warning to everyone (including myself). If we stay focused on the issues of this article, take our pride and swallow it, put asside any grudges we may have because of critical comments (ie.: don't take it so personal), then I'm sure we'll be able to work together and bring this article closer to featured status.
 * Now, regarding the verification. I eventually hope to get to a library (access a free database) and verify the source. (However, I did ambition at one point the possibility of someone providing a copy! Meuh! Doesn't make much of a difference. I'll eventually get to it.) However, in the mean time, could someone please add the proper and corresponding footnote reference (which I believe has pretty much been done), with the page numbers (which I believe are currently missing), into the corresponding location (ie.: Please see above blue and red text example). Note: by the time you read this you may notice that I have made a change to the annotation. (Impossible to add table per reference #10 at WP:Ref process.) Thank you! And, Thank you very much for providing this information within the article. --CyclePat (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There never was a "syth argument". Your reasoning was repeatedly shown to be incorrect. Providing you with a copy would probably break laws, I can assure you that it is in there. Even if it wasn't, the claim was adequately sourced, and not in violation of any of our guidelines or policies. Please stop disrupting this talk page (and the article) with comments not directed at improving the article, stonewalling, wikilawering, tendentious editing, etc. Verbal   chat  18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding archive - please abide by WP:TALK and the notice at the top of this page. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Pat, given your insistence on keeping this debate alive, I find it remarkable that you don't seem to be following it very well. Open your ears: The nature article is available online for free (albeit illegally hosted) and I already provided the instructions for how to find it here. With regard to page number, Nature News is online-only, so there is no page number. The DOI is all you need to find the legit (legal) version of the article. Yilloslime (t) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Yes! I do clearly remember you saying how we can get the article via Google search. Page numbers I think are a simple request to help locate the information... and depending on the circumstances I think, should pretty much be a requirement. To evaluate these circumstances, I do concur; I need to invest more time searching (reading the article). Nevertheless, I am personally conflicted because I believe it is up to the one providing the information - ie.: the one that want to keep the informaiton - to provide references. In the mean time, don't get me wrong in terms of my faith towards everyone’s ability to properly reference, but the only thing I fear is my trust in your research. I trust this conversation, I trust your reference and I trust the quote you have provided. This should be the end of this debate. However, I will not hesitate to re-open the matter if, after reading the article, the information is not properly referenced. Again, the next thing I will need to do is read the Nature article. --CyclePat (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you insisting on page numbers? It's a short article and is online, which means it doesn't have any page numbers - a Digital Object Identifier has been provided, which is the gold standard for referencing items. Go to your library with the doi, or click the link and pay for access. Verbal   chat  21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Developing the article by adding referenced material specifically on the subject mater of perpetual motion machine regarding Meyer's device
Are there any other sources for the perpetual motion machine (PMM) theory which could be used to develop a new section dedicate to just this? --CyclePat (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since perpetual motion machines do not exist, there is no such thing as "perpetual motion machine theory". However, there are already articles on perpetual motion and water-fueled cars, and these generic discussions belong there, if anywhere. This has already been discussed far beyond a reasonable level for this article, which at the end of the day is about simple fraud.  I for one will do my part by refusing to respond to any further inquiries along this line, and encourage others to follow suit.Prebys (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what a paradox... "perpetual motion machines do not exist, there is no such thing as "perpetual motion machine theory". Doesn't that make it all the more important to have a section dedicate to this paradox? Best regards. p.s.: No need to answer, I understood your aformentioned answer regarding the "generic discussion"... but what about specific "discussions"? Actually, the article, only mentions PMM once in the lead section and once in the table on the side. (which doesn't really count!) --CyclePat (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a whole article devoted to it here: perpetual motion. Take your discussion there. This article should not have a general discussion about PMs, as they are covered in their own article - and that article is linked to from this one in the appropriate place (where we say it is a perpetual motion device, which is fully supported by references). Per WP:TALK, this is not a forum for general discussion - please keep yourself to the topic of improving the article (not the topic of the article). Lastly, it isn't a paradox that perpetual motion devices don't exist; it would be a paradox if they did. Verbal   chat  21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello my friend and thank you for the intellectual adverserial relationship (ie.: two people arguing, two different things as strenuously as possible). With the up-most respect I would like to think both ways are a paradox. Per our Wikipedia article, "A paradox is a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or, inversely, it can be an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth." I think there is a non-dual truth because there is a contradiction. If you acknowlege the definition PMM then you must acknowlege that PMMs exist. But if it is true that the PMMs exist then you must acknowlege that they don't. If they don't exist, then you have no definition... hence you have a type of dual truth. I believe this meets the definition of paradox because of the vicious circularity and the non-dual truth. In short, something that appears to be wrong but is actually correct. Take for example the Atheist paradox. To be an Atheist you must not believe in God. But acknowleging the fact that you don't believe in God makes a paradox because the mere mention of God means you must somehow acknowlege his existance. See this POV on the Atheist paradox. --CyclePat (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it appears as though we've digressed into explaining the definition of Paradox which could be considered a discussion on the topic of the article. The whole article devoted to "perpetual motion" discusses the subject in general. This article is specific to Meyer's device. Any corresponding, and specific information which addresses both the subject maters of Meyer's device and perpetual motion, I believe, should be developed within its own section here. This will help avoid Content forking. As for being on topic I believe the aforementioned is sufficient to prove my point, nevertheless, just in case, I have changed the title of this section from "Developing the perpetual motion machine theory" to "Developing the article by adding referenced material specifically on the subject matter (not a theory) of perpetual motion machine regarding Meyer's device". I trust the title sufficiently explains that we are not discussing the topic of the article but whether or not we should be including a section devoted to this topic of the article. --CyclePat (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that further discussion on this topic is outside of the scope of this article.  Please take it to your talk page, or to perpetual motion.  I encourage you to read the template at the top of the page, I added additional copies to draw your attention to them, since you may have missed them at the top.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)