Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cell


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. The main author of the article (the only user who argued to keep the article) agrees with deletion now as well. — Mets 501 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Joe Cell
Non-notable attempt to build a perpetuum mobile including spam for the usual suspects. Delete or at best merge a hugely condensed version into Water fuel cell. --Pjacobi 19:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer pjacobi:

I created this article. I'm currently editing this from various sources. I have no relationship with any of the individuals mentioned in the article. I'm not even in the same country. I don't know where you got the idea of "spam" from. What part of the article contains spam exactly? I don't understand why you think this is any less notable then any other over-unity device claims on wikipedia which are equally wild. I don't understand why you think this article should be condensed or why you think it is the same as the water fuel cell article which it is clearly not.

Here's why I think it should stay:


 * I wrote the article from a sceptical point of view.
 * I make clear none of the claims are validated.
 * I put the article is pseudoscience and perpetual motion categories - I never attempted to suggested it belonged anywhere else.
 * Any rational person reading this should realise that it's not realistic or conventioanl science.
 * Erroneous or disputed claims about science still have a place in an encylopedia for historical value provided they are presented as such. I don't agree with the idea of removing a claim because it is wrong. Instead, explain why it is wrong.

I know the over-unity Joe cell claim is questionable, I'm not an idiot. I just thought it was a interesting claim that was undocumented on wikipedia.

kesfan 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hate pseudoscience, but at least it is correctly categorized. Inclined to argue for delte, but will watch the discussio.

To answer user Williamborg (above comment): I don't like scientology and think it's absolutely hillarious bunk, but I haven't attempted to delete the wikipedia page on it.

I don't believe in Joe cells and am a scpetic, however I don't think it's valid to erase a claim from history just because it's complete rubbish. I think it is interesting to research why people believe in it and the evidence either way. I was hoping people would add evidence over time to debunk the Joe cell claim (or indeed support it if they want to).

If you don't point out the folly of the past, then people will just repeat it. I'd wager that if you delete this article, someone else will recreate it and this argument will start over again.

I was concerned that somebody marked the article as factually in dispute. I've tried to refer to "claims" in the article as not to represent the information as fact. If you think the sceptical balance if not sufficient then please let me know and I'll see what I can do to rephrase it.

--kesfan 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy http://www.thejoecell.com/ has a credible sounding explanation for the Joe cell effect which might generate some worthwhile discussion. I've asked permission to include his theory as he specifically requests that you do so. Just waiting for a response. --kesfan


 * Please don't. That would be against WP:NOR. In the area of natuaral science and engineering, unless stuff becomes published in credible sources, it can't be taken at face value for an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 06:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Pjacobi: My understanding of the root of your difficulties with this article is that your are concerned it may be confused with peer reviewed engineering. Do you think it is in the wrong categories? I thought I'd got it about right.

Refering back to my comparison with scientology. Look at this article on the e-meter to which are attached unsubstantiated wild claims by principally a single person. The article describes what the device is from a dispationate point of view, the theories about it and then presents an undertone of gentle scepticism. That's what I'd like to do here.

With the Joe cell, I don't see anything sinister going on. It's a bunch of Australians having fun with an effect they don't understand because none of them have got the training or resources to figure it out - hence the crackpot theories and questionable claims.

There's at least 50,000 web pages mentioning "Joe cell" which shows some public interest in the device and makes it distinct from any other device/claims. So would you rather people come to wikipedia where they're going to (over time) get a balanced view, or go to some other web site written by an individual with a particular bias? Or worse try and buy one on ebay (of which they are for sale) without reading what people think about the theory behind the device.

--kesfan 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got a new compromise suggestion. What if I drop the "theory" and "conspiracy claims" sections and just keep the history and construction sections?

End with something like:

Numerous people (give list, videos etc) have made claims to have operational Joe cells although none have been peer reviewed or made available for indepedant scrutiny.

Several people have independently produced their own theories as to how a Joe cell may operate - then give external references and links - but none have been verified. So the actual theories don't appear on wikipedia and hence there isn't any implied credibility from wikipedia?

What do you think? --kesfan 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, for a start, the e-meter is of clearly superior notability, completely independent of the question how and if it "works".
 * But regarding Perpetual motion machines, we have to do some filtering. Building a machine that doesn't work, isn't notable in itself, even if the machine would revolutinize the world, if it works. Also getting a patent, setting up a webpage, or getting an entry at PESWiki isn't a notable achievement. For this reasons, most claims of Perpetual motion machines are not notable enough to get reported here. If a device gets some media attention, at least some reporters were tricked to believe the claims, some gullible investors were relieved of excess money -- OK, that's the threshold where a sentence at History of perpetual motion machines may be considered.
 * Whether any single device article within Category:Perpetual motion machines deserves an article for itself can be questioned (and more often than not was questioned by AfD).
 * Wait, wait, you may say, it's not prooven, that it doesn't work. But here Occam's razor is a mighty axe. Any such invention over 10 years ago but today
 * No physics textbooks are re-written to account for this "free energy"
 * Inventor didn't get Nobel prize
 * Inventor not even rich or famous
 * Aramco still a solid enterprise
 * So Joe Cell is a rather clear-cut case. Very fresh claims of perpetual motions are somewhat more problematic, see Steorn which seems undeletable (in the moment). But they at least spent some money for press coverage.
 * Finishing may rather long comment I want to say, that my initial reaction may have been too harsh against you personally: Yes the article takes a cautious approach to formulations and the amount of spam (two or three links to PESWiki) is not obscene.
 * Pjacobi 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd disagree with you over threshold. Wikipedia has a lot lower threshold for interest than say a science journal. If there was a concern over the overall size, then someone would have gone round and deleted all the rediculous pages on every minor science fiction character that's ever graced a paragraph in a Star Wars novel.

You imply that there have previously been a lot of perpetual motion claims placed in wikipedia that have been deleted. I don't think it's such a great idea to delete them in case someone looks up the claim by popular name.

OK, how about this. A lot of machine claims will fall into categories e.g. water fuel cell, permanent magnet motor etc (steorn?).

Create a page on perpetual motion machine claims (distinct from the page describing the meaning of perpetual motion), which is essentially a table or list of the popular names/orignators of the claims against links to a generalised description of the claim (and debunking etc). Then in the table/list you can be put how the specific claim varies against the generalised description.

This will stop similar claims proliferating as sets of pages under differing names and avoid the requirement to debunk each claim individually.

--kesfan 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources given/found. Wickethewok 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I withdraw my article as I see it's too controversial to ever remain. I see I'm not going to win this one and I don't want to annoy anyone. I think though you need a better policy on dealing with perpetual motion machine claims than "delete" as they'll just keep coming back from different people. I think there is benefit in listing claims by popular name as that's what people will Google on. --kesfan 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.