I am posting this in feedback rather than a more restricted forum so that members such as WBahn may comment if they wish.
The rules on restricted topic are
However the term 'perpetual motion' is not excluded excluded in Physics.
It is a specific requirement of Earnshaw's Theorem.
It is also a requirement of Newton's First Law.
What are against the laws of Physics are devices which contravene the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics and are correctly known as by the full titles as 'perpetual motion devices of the first or second kind' respectively.
It would seem to me to be perverse for a website, that prides itself on its technical correctness and has a stated aim of teaching Physics to students, to create rules that support the opposite, the more particularly since Earnshaw's theorem is an electrical theorem.
Since I don't believe that is the intention, we should observe caution in the way genuine attempts to subvert Physics are handled.
The rules on restricted topic are
Now we quite rightly want to exclude devices contrary to the known laws of Physics.6. Restricted topics. The following topics are regularly raised however are considered "off-topic" at all times and will result in Your thread being closed without question:
•Any kind of over-unity devices and systems
•Automotive modifications
•Devices designed to electrocute or shock another person
•LEDs to mains
•Phone jammers
•Rail guns and high-energy projectile devices
•Transformer-less power supplies
However the term 'perpetual motion' is not excluded excluded in Physics.
It is a specific requirement of Earnshaw's Theorem.
It is also a requirement of Newton's First Law.
What are against the laws of Physics are devices which contravene the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics and are correctly known as by the full titles as 'perpetual motion devices of the first or second kind' respectively.
It would seem to me to be perverse for a website, that prides itself on its technical correctness and has a stated aim of teaching Physics to students, to create rules that support the opposite, the more particularly since Earnshaw's theorem is an electrical theorem.
Since I don't believe that is the intention, we should observe caution in the way genuine attempts to subvert Physics are handled.