text:
Talk:Perpetual motion

Title of the article
I can't believe it. Electrons in atoms are in perpetual motion, as are the planets. Such perpetual motion is not only possible; it does, in fact, exist! But they are not perpetual motion machines. The name "perpetual motion machine" is highly misleading, at best. It should be called "energy-generation" machines, or energy out of nothing machines. The article is about the machines, not the motion. So the title should be "Perpetual Motion Machines." Betaneptune (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Convince all those reliable sources that they should change their vocabulary, then it will end up in the WIkipedia article eventually. There is no shortcut. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The article opens with "Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source" which is what I said. The article is about the machine, not perpetual motion per se. So I don't know what you're talking about. This opening implies my original post is correct. The article itself strongly implies it has the wrong title! Betaneptune (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I am not aware of any common use of the phrase "perpetual motion" except in the context of perpetual motion machines. Nobody uses the phrase for electrons, except you just now. So, one could rename the article into perpetual motion machine, but there is no need. Certainly, the fact there are motions which are perpetual but have nothing to do with the subject is not a valid reason. We do not rename the article United States into "United States of America" either just because other states have also been united.

 * So, there is no problem with keeping the old name, but I can see no problem with the other name either. To avoid daily back-and-forth name changes, we should not make any such change without a good reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * "Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source."

 * I quoted the first two sentences of the article above. "Perpetual motion" is indeed used in the context I said, NOT in the context of a perpetual motion machine, which you said. "Perpetual motion" is not an "idiom". It is just a phrase consisting of two words, each of which has a clearly defined meaning. The phrase then takes up the meaning of the two words. You have an adjective followed by a noun. It's just the putting together of two words to make a perfectly fine phrase that is not an idiom and not a machine. This is important: The phrase is not a machine. In the present context it is being used as an adjective for the word machine. It is a compound noun being used as a modifier for the noun "machine", resulting in a highly misleading term. So it's a bad term to begin with, which the title of this article makes even worse. It should be called something like "energy-generation machine" or "free-energy machine". The fact there is perpetual motion is not the point, as everything is always in motion. So it's a bad name to begin with, now made worse with an even worse name for the title of this article.
 * It is quite clear that the article itself contradicts what you say. Therefore the article is not self-consistent. If you change the name to what it should be, "Perpetual Motion Machine", all will be well. It doesn't matter what the "common use" is. Let me give a further example: Daylight Saving Time. Many say "Daylight Savings Time". That is wrong. Regardless, you don't hear the term "Daylight Saving" in any other context. Still, it would be wrong to title the article "Daylight Saving", wouldn't it, now?
 * Why would anyone want to change it back? What is gained by putting back to something that is clearly wrong? Is this clear now?
 * BTW, it is things like this that has made me stop donating money to Wikipedia. My favorite example is planetary system, a term whose justification suffers from the very same bad logic used to dispense with the correct term, solar system. Solar system, they say, is bad because it contains "solar", which contains "Sol", the name of our sun. So it cannot apply to other solar systems. With the same bad logic, the term planetary system contains the word "planetary", which means planets, which therefore doesn't include all the other objects, esp. their sun. So each term is "bad" for exactly the same reason. (When I hear the term I can't help but think of a bunch of planets orbiting an empty space. It implies a big hole where the star should be.) The only reason the term "planetary system" even exists is because of the new discovery of exoplanets (and why isn't it called an exoplanetary system then?). Stars have been known since ancient times, whereas the exoplanets are relatively new. So astronomers were focusing on the exoplanets and the systems they make up. So the term planetary system was born, which clearly means only the planets. Therefore, solar system is actually a much better term. We had a chance to get it right this time (unlike "planetary nebula" which has nothing whatsoever to do with planets) and blew it.
 * It is because of bad names and the lack of sensible pronunciation symbols for Americans that I have stopped donating to Wikipedia. Oh, and there's the original 12-hour clock article. Maybe that's in better shape now. I'm afraid to look. Betaneptune (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading when you started talking about donations, drifting away from the subject, so this is only about the part above that TL;DR. Your reasoning makes even less sense to me than before. For example, you don't hear the term "Daylight Saving" in any other context - yes, but you don't even hear it in this context unless followed by "Time", so nobody would even consider dropping the "Time" part from the article title. I am not convinced, but maybe others can say something? I have no problem with renaming the article, only with renaming it for no good reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Note that there is a redirect that send readers searching for "Perpetual Motion Machine" to this page. -Roxy the dog . wooF 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * So there is a redirect of the right name to an article with the wrong name, which I already knew and is in fact part of the problem. It should be the other way around, if there is to be such a redirect to begin with. Betaneptune (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Perpetual motion and Perpetual motion machine are only used in the same contexts so both terms should target the same article. My feeling is that Perpetual motion is a broader and more fundamental concept.  The article has to explain things like why time invariance symmetry rules out endless sources of energy, and why thermal motion of a single heat bath cannot be converted to mechanical energy. --ChetvornoTALK 21:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm fine with both titles pointing the same article. I've never said otherwise.

 * Perpetual motion: Everything is always in motion. Yes, it's more general. Far, far, far too general. The article is about a machine that generates energy out of nothing. Still, both titles are bad.

 * I still think "perpetual motion machine" is a much more accurate term, bad as it is. It includes an essential component of the whole thing: a machine. Without that part, the whole thing is meaningless. Yet y'all actually prefer to omit it, indispensable as it is, and the only one of the three words that actually applies. (Actually, perpetual also applies, more or less.) As far as the article being "more general," it is focused on the machine, and discusses only those "more general principles" that actually apply to the machine. This means the article is about the machine and why it's impossible to build one. So it should include "machine" in the title. In fact, the whole discipline of thermodynamics started with trying to make the steam engine, a machine, more efficient.

 * As for "Perpetual Motion" being a more general thing, that's exactly a reason not to use it. The article focuses on the specific. There are other articles for the general. This is an article about a machine, not a course in thermodynamics and statistical physics.

 * As far as being more "fundamental", the fundamental particles and the four fundamental forces are the most fundamental things there are. So by that logic we don't need any other articles focusing on more specific things.

 * You didn't address any of my points. I shan't repeat them. (Well, maybe one.)

 * Fine, call it perpetual motion. Call it Fred Flintstone, flying petunias, planetary system, Bugs Bunny, solar plexus, Yosemite Sam, brain drain, Wilma, planetary nebula, Foghorn Leghorn. I've lost interest.

 * Illogic rules the day. So be it.  Betaneptune (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the title is disingenuous and misleading. We cannot label something and then ramble on about an entirely different subject. In the english language "Perpetual motion" means motion which theoretically lasts forever not some imaginary machine. Theenergyengineer (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree – motion and work are two different things.  I specifically went to this page to learn the particulars that define these distinctions and was dismayed that everything was about work. Aaron E-J (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, WP:FRINGE/PS declares: the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible. This appears to conflate the motion with the machines that are purported to exploit it. As a result, it seems to declare "fringe" such concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. This is as ridiculous a claim as the fabled rockets can't fly in space because there's nothing to push against. That terrible misunderstanding of physics is only encouraged by this article's conflation of topics. –  . Raven  .talk 06:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to start the same discussion in two places now?
 * It is not a misunderstanding, it is a commonly used shorthand. Nobody uses the phrase "perpetual motion" except for perpetual motion machines. I have a 1977 book called "Perpetual Motion. The History of an Obsession" by Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume, and he talks about perpetual motion machines exclusively, except on a few pages on astronomical subjects in the chapter "What is Perpetual Motion?"
 * This is like complaining that people are called "climate deniers" although they do not deny there is a climate, or complaining that sealions are not lions.
 * Why don't you read the discussion above and the ones in the archives? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) You referred me here yourself. (2) This article begins with the sentence "Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system." ' That would, as I indicated earlier, include such mainstream concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. It by no means refers to machines which (by drawing energy out of such a system) would slow it down and eventually stop it, making it non-perpetual. (3) Just as it is fallacious to categorize a machine as a "perpetual-motion machine" if it relies on energy from outside the machine itself – the argument that perpetual motion itself can't exist, because of perturbations like space dust, falls afoul of the specification "in an unperturbed system", e.g., we could look at vacuums free of dust (perhaps the intergalactic void? or at the front of the universe's expanding edge?) for our inertial or orbital thought-experiments. Motion is not the same as work, remember? (4) My reply to you at WT:FRINGE named participants in the above thread; here you ask me "Why don't you read the discussion above...?", as if I hadn't demonstrated having done so! –  . Raven  .'talk'' 11:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You referred me here yourself Not with the goal of having the same discussion twice.
 * here you ask me "Why don't you read the discussion above...?", as if I hadn't demonstrated having done so You assume that I am omniscient, or at least that I have already read everything you wrote, or everything you wrote today, or something like that. Well, I am not, and I did not. My watchlist has many thousands of entries. I checked the FT talk page just now, after I read this, and found that contribution.
 * I think I should stop discussing you. You exhibit a combination of righteous anger, ignoring my reasoning, unnecessarily repeating earlier reasoning, and using reasoning that does not make a lot of sense, which I am allergic to. I will let others handle this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * > "not make a lot of sense" – Let's look at a couple of other places these terms are defined:
 * Perpetual motion (disambiguation): "Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy." [Note that the only mention of 'machine' is in the last line, in the 'See also' section]:
 * Perpetual Motion Machine (disambiguation): "A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source."
 * Once again, the motion and the machine are two different concepts. The latter, by drawing energy from the motion to do its "work", ensures that it cannot remain "perpetual". –  . Raven  .talk 23:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

UK Patent Office link rot
I noticed the link to the UKPT statement has expired. Here is the new link:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-4-industrial-application — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.78.85 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

In the section of Techniques
Buoyancy is another frequently misunderstood phenomenon. Some proposed perpetual-motion machines miss the fact that to push a volume of air down in a fluid takes the same work as to raise a corresponding volume of fluid up against gravity. These types of machines may involve two chambers with pistons, and a mechanism to squeeze the air out of the top chamber into the bottom one, which then becomes buoyant and floats to the top. The squeezing mechanism in these designs would not be able to do enough work to move the air down, or would leave no excess work available to be extracted. The "Float Belt". The yellow blocks indicate floaters. It was thought that the floaters would rise through the liquid and turn the belt. However, pushing the floaters into the water at the bottom takes as much energy as the floating generates, and some energy is dissipated. I would like to ask to remove the above article because the point of view of the article is incorrect. Machines that use buoyancy to extract useful work from water should not be considered perpetual motion machines. The reasons are as follows: In terms of energy, the point of view that machines that convert or extract energy from water or fluids are considered perpetual motion machines contradicts scientific theory if water pressure is the form of energy from the Earth’s gravitational field. Technically, the latest technology can allow air to float in the water and then travel back to the bottom along the air channel. Therefore, the above article is incorrect and should be deleted. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Energy conversion, the transformation of energy from forms provided by nature to forms that can be used by humans. https://www.britannica.com/technology/energy-conversion Scientific Theory Hydrostatic pressure, the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within the fluid, due to the force of gravity. Water, like all things on Earth, is pulled downward by the force of gravity. Every body of water has a certain weight, and this weight pushes downward on whatever is below it. Water pressure is the result of the weight of all the water above pushing down on the water below. https://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/hydrostatic_pressure.htm

The experiments have shown that water pressure is a form of energy. Work is the energy transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement. As shown in the figure below, under the action of pressure, the movement of water squeezes and deforms the air bladder.

In Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. In fluid, when fluid depth is constant, water pressure depends on the value of g of the Earth's gravitational field. The gravitational field is an external energy source; therefore, pressure is not internal energy. The reason for the pressure in the water is due to the action of the gravity field and is given by the expression： P static fluid = ρgh where, ρ = m/V = fluid density, g =acceleration of gravity (g= 9.8 m/s2), h = depth of fluid Accepted theory and fact: the value of g depends on the location, pressure varies with location, therefore pressure is not internal energy. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g Experiments in space demonstrate that g ≈ 0 m/s2 and P ≈ 0. Only when the water is infinitely far away from the earth, g ≈ 0. Human activities cannot reduce the mass of the earth. At the Earth's surface, the distance between the body of water and the Earth's center is nearly constant, so that the gravitational field keeps the value of g at g=9.8 m/s2. As per P=ρgh, the pressure in the water will remain constant. It can be seen that the water pressure and the gravitational field are energy conservation relations. If the earth's gravitational field is infinite, the water pressure is also infinite. Based on the above facts, machines that convert or extract energy from water or fluids should not be regarded as perpetual motion machines. Energy conversion machines is actually similar to a windmill. Like the windmill, it took energy from the sun. https://uh.edu/engines/epi527.htm Energy conversion machines get their energy from the gravitational field. On the earth, water is ubiquitous, clean, readily accessible, a widespread and enduring source of energy.CAIVY (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)CAIVY

 * are you proposing a change here? and if so, what is it? --McSly (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A machine that converts one form of energy into another form. CAIVY (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In the section of Patent:
In the section of Patent: The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[32] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[32] The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.

I also request to delete above section. The reason is that the articles on patents contradict scientific theories and facts. These statements are detrimental to the interests of the patentee.CAIVY (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)CAIVY
 * On Wikipedia we summarize what reliable sources WP:RS say. If you have other reliable sources that contradict what the existing sources say, please post them here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Patent Section:
 * “Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
 * With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[30]
 * And, further, that:
 * A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[31]
 * The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[32] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[32]
 * The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.”
 * The above article is not a trusted source.
 * First, U.S. Patent Rules 37 CFR 1.91 states that models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent.
 * Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html
 * Second, regarding the citation [32], this is a book written by attorney David Pressman to help with patent applications. Among them, he said that " Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work".
 * This expression is his personal opinion and has not been proven correct or endorsed by the scientific community and industry consensus, therefore it is not a trusted source. It is inappropriate for the Wiki to cite it.
 * In the view of the utility of patent application, a patent can be granted if the applicant proves the practical utility of the invention.
 * Examiners will identify the utility of patent applications based on law, scientific theories, facts, and experimental evidence.
 * With regard to utility of invention, U.S. patent law states:
 * 35 U.S.C. 101   Inventions patentable.
 * Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
 * Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376
 * To satisfy 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must be "useful."
 * Nelson 诉 Bowler， 626 F.2d 853、856、206 USPQ 881、883（CCPA 1980）.
 * The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has stated:
 * Practical utility is a shorthand way of attributing "real-world" value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.
 * Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980).
 * Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html
 * l  Patent applications that violate scientific principles has not practical utility.
 * U.S. paten law states:
 * Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could only be true if it violated a scientific principle, such as the second law of thermodynamics, or a law of nature, or was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art.
 * Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html
 * "Incredible utility" is a conclusion, not a starting point for analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101. A conclusion that an asserted utility is incredible can be reached only after the Office has evaluated both the assertion of the applicant regarding utility and any evidentiary basis of that assertion. The Office should be particularly careful not to start with a presumption that an asserted utility is, per se, "incredible" and then proceed to base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on that presumption.
 * Reference: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html
 * l How to identify whether an invention is a perpetual motion machine:
 * Perpetual motion machine is an isolated system that does not require an external energy.
 * perpetual motion, the action of a device that, once set in motion, would continue in motion forever, with no additional energy required to maintain it. Such devices are impossible on grounds stated by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
 * Reference: https://www.britannica.com/science/perpetual-motion
 * Perpetual motion machines violate scientific theory
 * There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy.
 * Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
 * The examiner will use the laws of thermodynamics to determine whether an invention is a perpetual motion machine.
 * Scientific Theory:
 * Thermodynamic systems are generally regarded as being open, closed or isolated. According to the University of Calgary, an open system freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings; a closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings; and an isolated system does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.
 * An open system can exchange both energy and matter.
 * A closed system can exchange only energy.
 * An isolated system cannot exchange anything.
 * Reference: https://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html
 * Energy conversion machine is a non-isolated system that requires an external energy source.
 * Energy conversion, the transformation of energy from forms provided by nature to forms that can be used by humans.
 * Reference: https://www.britannica.com/technology/energy-conversion
 * Pressure is an energy form provided by nature.
 * Hydrostatic pressure, the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within
 * the fluid, due to the force of gravity.
 * Water, like all things on Earth, is pulled downward by the force of gravity. Every body of water has a certain weight, and this weight pushes downward on whatever is below it. Water pressure is the result of the weight of all the water above pushing down on the water below.
 * Reference: https://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/hydrostatic_pressure.htm
 * The reason for the pressure in the water is due to the action of the gravity field and is given by the expression：
 * P static fluid = ρgh
 * where, ρ = m/V = fluid density, g =acceleration of gravity (g= 9.8 m/s2), h = depth of fluid
 * Accepted theory and fact:
 * The value of g depends on the location, pressure varies with location, therefore pressure is not internal energy.
 * Reference:https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g
 * Experiments in space demonstrate that g ≈ 0 m/s2 and P ≈ 0. Only when the water is infinitely far away from the earth, g ≈ 0.
 * Human activities cannot reduce the mass of the earth. At the Earth's surface, the distance between the body of water and the Earth's center is nearly constant, so that the gravitational field keeps the value of g at g=9.8 m/s2. As per P=ρgh, the pressure in the water will remain constant.
 * As per the above scientific theories, pressure comes from gravity, and gravity comes from the gravitational field of the earth. Pressure is the result of the Earth's gravitational field acting on water through universal gravitation. Pressure and gravitational field have a conservation relationship, and therefore pressure is a non-isolated system according to thermodynamic system theory.
 * The value of g varies with position and pressure varies with the value of g, thus pressure is not internal energy.
 * It is clear that it would not be consistent with scientific theory if the examiner regards an energy conversion machine that converts or extracts the energy of the gravitational field in water or fluids as a perpetual motion machine.
 * l Hydropower and tidal power both convert gravitational field energy，which are not considered as perpetual motion machines.
 * Hydropower (from Greek: ὕδωρ, "water"), also known as water power, is the use of falling or fast-running water to produce electricity or to power machines. This is achieved by converting the gravitational potential or kinetic energy of a water source to produce power.
 * Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower
 * Tidal energy is a form of power produced by the natural rise and fall of tides caused by the gravitational interaction between Earth, the sun, and the moon.
 * Reference: https://www.pnnl.gov/explainer-articles/tidal-energy
 * The advantages of gravitational field energy
 * On Earth, water is inextricably linked to pressure. water is ubiquitous, clean, readily accessible, a widespread and enduring source of energy. The total storage capacity of water pressure as an energy source will be far greater than that of other petrochemical energy sources, and the utility of water pressure is certain and credible.
 * When Emissions Stop, Warming Stops
 * Graphic: When Emissions Stop, Warming Stops
 * Decades of research show that global warming is tied primarily to fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gas emissions, and when those stop, warming stops within a few years.
 * Reference:https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/305/graphic-when-emissions-stop-warmingstops/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monthly+newsletter
 * As per above, a patent right granted by the examiner must be based on scientific theories and facts. No matter what technical means are used, the transformation energy from a form provided by gravitational field into a form that can be used by humans should not be regarded as a perpetual motion machine. CAIVY (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 * We know what physicists think. But politicians who drafted the patent laws were not necessarily physicists. So, it is non-sequitur to claim that since physicists consider it impossible, politicians also consider it impossible. Politicians consider it highly improbable, but made an allowance that the proof is in the pudding. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Rotor powered wind powered vehicles section
Re. Since these devices use an external power source (the wind), I don’t think they fit within the scope of this article. Also there is no mention of perpetual motion that I could find in the source itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree, entire section should be removed. Fails WP:RELEVANCE and also looks like WP:PROMOTION.  5Q5 |✉ 10:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 * It's kind of a newer idea. Wikideas1 (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And it still isn’t perpetual motion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Yeah thats the point of that section.Wikideas1 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * If it’s claimed to be perpetual motion there will be multiple RS to cite for analysis and criticism of that claim. So far, I haven’t seen them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just hypothetically, what if you were to place a machine in a vacuum that can't conduct heat, and that vacuum is surrounded by a material capable of reflecting all radiated heat back into the machine? Would this machine be able to run forever, even if it doesn't technically meet the definition of a perpetual motion machine? --Wikideas1 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 * If you mean a heat engine, for an engine to produce work thermodynamics requires it to accept heat from a "hot" source, and exhaust waste heat into a "cold" reservoir, at a lower temperature. For example, in a steam power plant this would be the boiler boiling water by burning coal, and the condenser condensing the steam back to water after it turns the turbines by radiating heat to the outside air.  The problem is that since the condenser is at a lower temperature than the boiler, heat will not flow spontaneously from the condenser to the boiler.  If you put in a metal reflector to try to reflect the heat from the condenser to the boiler, instead heat from the boiler would radiate to the condenser, losing energy.  To collect the lower temperature heat from the condenser and return it to the boiler would require energy.  The second law of thermodynamics says that if you tried to heat the boiler that way, instead of using energy from a fuel, the energy needed is always going to be greater than the energy produced by the turbine, so no net energy would be produced. This is called a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, and the article discusses why it doesn't work. --ChetvornoTALK 00:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The principles of identifying perpetual motion machines：
In thermodynamics, an isolated system is a system that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings, while a non-isolated system exchanges energy or matter with its surroundings.

A perpetual motion machine is an isolated system.

In any isolated system, one cannot create new energy.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics

Thermodynamic system

Thermodynamic systems can be divided into three types: open systems, closed systems, and isolated systems. Open systems can exchange matter and energy with the outside world, closed systems can exchange energy with the outside world but not matter, and isolated systems do not exchange matter or energy with the outside world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system

Energy conversion

Energy conversion, the transformation of energy from forms provided by nature to forms that can be used by humans.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/energy-conversion

Devices that obtain energy from the sun and the earth belong to non-isolated systems, that is, they have heat exchange or material exchange with the external environment. In thermodynamics, an isolated system is a system that does not have heat exchange and material exchange with the external environment. Non-isolated systems require external factors to maintain their effects.

Facts about energy conversion devices - "non-isolated systems"

Devices that get energy from the sun

Solar energy uses the sun’s light and heat to generate renewable or ‘green’ power.

The Sun is the most powerful energy source in the universe, with its internal temperature and pressure caused by its massive mass and gravity.

The process of light and heat production in the sun:

Nuclear fusion reaction that occurs inside the sun. Nuclear fusion is the process of synthesizing four hydrogen nuclei into one helium nucleus under extremely high temperature and pressure, releasing huge light and heat energy.

Wind Energy

Wind is caused when the earth's surface is heated unevenly by the sun. Wind energy can be used to generate electricity.

https://www.nrel.gov/research/re-wind.html

The earth is a huge source of energy, providing many forms of renewable energy.

Hydroelectric Energy

Hydroelectric energy is a form of renewable energy that uses the power of moving water to generate electricity.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hydroelectric-energy/

Gravity Light

The GravityLight converts potential energy that is stored in a weight into light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GravityLight

Tides

Gravity is one major force that creates tides. In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton explained that ocean tides result from the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon on the oceans of the earth (Sumich, J.L., 1996).

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_tides/tides02_cause.html

Hydrostatic pressure, the pressure exerted by a fluid at equilibrium at a given point within

the fluid, due to the force of gravity.

https://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/hydrostatic_pressure.htm

Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them.

https://byjus.com/physics/buoyant-force/

Overall，Light，gravity, buoyancy and pressure are forces/energy of non-isolated systems.

Gravity, buoyancy and pressure are the results of interactions between Earth and other celestial bodies. They are forces/energies of non-isolated systems that require external factors to maintain their effects. In thermodynamics, an isolated system is a system that has no heat exchange and material exchange with the external environment, while a non-isolated system has heat exchange and/or material exchange with the external environment. CAIVY (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 * This is a Wikipedia Talk page, and its purpose is improving the article. Are you proposing a change to the article? If yes, what change exactly? Do you want to add all that to the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also please discuss these edits here before attempting to edit war them in again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I believe Wikipedia should be the place to spread science and sound thinking. Wikipedia should allow people to modify and edit well-discussed error pages based on sound scientific theory and facts.
 * Secondly, I don’t think the articles in the “Buoyancy” and “Patents” sections are correct. Especially the “patent” part has violated the rights and interests of relevant patent holders. I have explained my reasons and sources in detail on the Discussion page of these articles a year ago, and no one objected, so I think my point is valid.
 * CAIVY (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to the bulk of this material being on this page. It is substantially off-topic, rambling, and WP:SYNTH. WP is not the place to create new thinking or spread/advocate ideas. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And, apart from your additions, you again removed the same content that you were edit-warring to remove previously. Given that previous behavior led to a block on this page for you and you immediately returned to that behavior after the block expired, there's really no choice but to reinstate that block. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that the thermodynamic theory I added and referenced is the wiki page's own content, these are not "new thinking or disseminating/advocating ideas". If the content of this page contradicts the content of other pages, if it is not allowed Make changes, and be banned from editing. Doesn't the wiki become a place to promote everyone's point of view?
 * Regarding the patent section, the wiki should not allow the use of information from trusted sources, and it damages the scientific and authoritative examination of the US Patent Office, as well as the interests of other patentees. CAIVY (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear community,
 * I am writing to seek your help with a concern I have regarding some information on a Wikipedia page. Specifically, I am confused about the principles for identifying perpetual motion machines and how they apply to certain energy conversion devices that are not isolated systems.
 * I have noticed that the information on the page appears to contradict other sources, and I am unsure how to proceed. Additionally, I have concerns about the inclusion of information regarding patent applications that may be harming the scientific credibility and authority of the US Patent Office and the interests of patent holders.
 * I am wondering if anyone in the community can help me understand these issues better and provide guidance on how to address them on the Wikipedia page. I believe that accurate and reliable information is critical for the integrity of the site and the benefit of its users, and I appreciate any assistance you can provide.

I don't understand that the thermodynamic theory I added and referenced is the wiki page's own content, these are not "new thinking or disseminating/advocating ideas". If the content of this page contradicts the content of other pages, if it is not allowed Make changes, and be banned from editing. Doesn't the wiki become a place to promote everyone's point of view?

Regarding the patent section, the wiki should not allow the use of information from trusted sources, and it damages the scientific and authoritative examination of the US Patent Office, as well as the interests of other patentees.

Why did the wiki allow these applications to happen? CAIVY — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIVY (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and consideration. CAIVY (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. New users often have trouble understanding why they cannot weave together bits of content from reliable sources ("I cited it to RS!") and then frame it all within their own conclusions. This seems to be the case with your "principles of identifying perpetual motion machines". The same applies to your “patent” issues: you may feel the existing text somehow violates the rights and interests of relevant patent holders - but unless a third party reliable source has made this specific argument - our hands are tied, we cannot include it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 * In practice, it is impossible to totally isolate any system from the effects of gravity. Therefore, there can be no isolated system, as defined. Wdford (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The description in the patent section does not conform to the regulations of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the views of the patent lawyer are not a reliable source. CAIVY (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One year ago, I provided detailed explanations and sources on the discussion page, and no one opposed them. With no objections or counterarguments, isn't this already waiting for consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIVY (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to be a bit more specific regarding your objections in the patent section. For example, identify the specific sections or sentences you object to. If you feel David Pressman is somehow unacceptable per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources please describe how and why. Also it would help to provide reliable sources that specifically contradict the existing text you feel "damages the scientific and authoritative examination of the US Patent Office, as well as the interests of other patentees". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * John Doe’s article on the patent office’s policy on perpetual motion machines is unreliable. It says applicants must show a working model and the office does not reject applications for scientific or public reasons. But it has factual errors, logical flaws and bias. It distorts the patent rules, uses an unqualified source and ignores the thermodynamics laws that rule out perpetual motion machines.
 * CAIVY CAIVY (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The description in the patent section does not conform to the regulations of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the views of the patent lawyer are not a reliable source. CAIVY (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Absence of rebuttal is not the same as consensus. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The section I added is a quote from the thermodynamics page on Wikipedia, which is already an accepted consensus on the topic.
 * CAIVY CAIVY (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine it is frustrating to have so much of your work removed. I believe you have misunderstood a core Wikipedia policy. You say: I don't understand that the thermodynamic theory I added and referenced is the wiki page's own content, these are not "new thinking or disseminating/advocating ideas". If the content of this page contradicts the content of other pages, if it is not allowed Make changes, and be banned from editing. Doesn't the wiki become a place to promote everyone's point of view? The content in the body of a Wikipedia article should summarize published material outside of Wikipedia. It should come primarily from reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but the analysis of primary sources by an editor here on Wikipedia is not allowed. Content on Wikipedia is therefore expected to be followed by a reference to an external source. (Links to other Wikipedia article are fantastic but not sufficient to meet our requirements for verifiability.) Rjjiii (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. It may be frustrating to have my referenced and credible sources removed. However, it's important for administrators to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of using reliable sources to support information in articles. The content I added not only came from the Wikipedia page itself but also from external sources considered reliable. But editors are not allowed to analyze or interpret them on Wikipedia when deleting my references.
 * It is also important to ensure that the content in Wikipedia articles is written from a neutral point of view and not used to promote personal opinions or viewpoints. If the content on one page contradicts that of another page, it is important to discuss with other editors and find a solution supported by reliable sources. CAIVY (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Perpetual motion


text:
Strengthening Nation Forum

The Strengthening Nation Forum is a Chinese bulletin board on the website of the People's Daily, an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party.

The purpose of the forum is for discussion on how to make China a stronger nation. The forum is somewhat remarkable being sponsored by an organ of the Chinese Communist Party yet having a relatively open amount of uninhibited discussion including sometimes extremely strong criticism of the People's Republic of China government. Scholars of the Chinese internet such as Peng Lan, argue that its creation to mobilize internet resistance to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was a landmark moment in Chinese internet history, and the forum has been cited as being important in the development of online Chinese nationalism.

With politically sensitive issues such as the July 1, 2003 demonstrations in Hong Kong against Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23, the amount of coverage and analysis within the forum is often more extensive than with the paper itself.

After Zhao Ziyang's death on January 17, 2005, the forum was flooded with messages expressing condolence. These messages were promptly deleted by the moderators, as the government feared any mass mourning for the purged leader would cause civil unrest, and some posters responded by ridiculing the moderators. One person asked: "I could post messages in the morning, but why not in the evening?"

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Strengthening Nation Forum


text:
Talk:Vladimír Mečiar

Untitled
Here are some internet resources.

 * http://www.dfn.org/news/slovakia/election.htm
 * http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/election.watch/europe/slovakia4.html
 * http://www.kenlayne.com/1992/0812_meciar.html

I note that someone has gone through the article and removed such "unimportant" info as this: that he was born "the eldest of four boys. His father was a tailor, and his mother a housewife." Everyking 14:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really do not consider politicians father being a tailor a crucial issue. Everybody's father does something and yet we (normally) do not mention it. In former Czechoslovakia it is really nothing soooo special. Btw. the last link you added is really really out-dated and obviously in favour of him. mz 29 Aug 2004, 17:42 GMT+2

 * Knowing about a person's family is certainly useful information, it gives an idea of how the person grew up, where he or she came from. It's standard info for a reasonably thorough biographical article. I didn't add the links and I have now divided the two comments for clarity. Everyking 16:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In that case I apologise for senseless critique. Anyway, I just considered the information about his family background unimportant regarding the fact that many other more important information about his political career (essential for a "thourough article") are missing (and it is not my ambition, at least for now, to add them). Anyway, if you are really lacking it, go ahead (btw. he is married with 3 grown-up kids). mz July 29 2024,

 * I have never seen such a destruction of neutral information in the Wikipedia until now and I have seen many things here. Just for your information, we usually add information and do not delete it here. In addition, you have even "corrected" a text already corrected by a native speaker...Juro 20:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I assume you that I have been observing Meciar's political career very closely since 1995. I can prove that most of information I removed was half-true (such as "He was advocating [...] continued federation with the Czechs.") and the article as a whole is quite unbalanced. (But I admit that I might have done some mistakes, deleting information that I should have left.) However, I am really not interested into any sort of political debate here, so I just leave this article as it is, because it is not worth my time (at least not in present moment). In future I am open to discuss some issues I consider controversial in this article. PS. I really didn't mean to vandalise the article, I am sorry if it looked like, but you should not be so touchy, either. mz 22:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(1) A personal tip. When you do not want to end like me, then leave the Wikipedia immediately!!! Everybody is so touchy here after one year or so, unless he does write about things that nobody else is interested in.... :) (2)In general, you cannot delete half an article, like in this case, and expect that nobody will notice that, and everybody will agree. A previous discussion is necessary. (3)As for Meciar himself, I can assure you that I am not a fan of him. But we are writing an encyclopaedia and the article is simply a collection of facts and deliberately contains no opinions. Me and the other authors were not "observing his career", but used available web links and literature. (4) "He was advocating [...] continued federation with the Czechs." - he WAS advocating it until before the 1992 elections, even afterwards - during the negotiations - he was not a full advocator of a separation. There is no informed person and no text in the world that would claim the opposite. But as for this particular point, you do not have to observe anything, it is enough to use your memory (if you are not too young).

PS: There is a new Slovak wiki that needs much help... Juro 01:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I apologise for deleting the text. Please consider it a newbie mistake. Perhaps, in the future we might work out an even better version of this article. Well-balanced, but without deleting ;) mz 20:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Žiar nad Hronom|Ziar nad Hronom - why not just Žiar nad Hronom? JanSuchy 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just hidden away
Why does somebody go to the trouble of working on articles like this, just to keep it obscure and hidden away because of a failure to make redirects from the English alphabet spellings, such as Vladimir Meclar which is a redlink? Gene Nygaard 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

'Boxing' scandal
Does anyone have any particulars on Meciar's attack on a journalist in the late 1990s? I seem to remember this as quite a scandal at the time, and perhaps indicative of Meciar's bullish style. Jimjamjak 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * there is a video on youtube 78.128.195.197 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hungarians
Why is this article not mentioning at all Meciar's policies of opressing ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.98.119 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article really needs work
This article has virtually nothing about his arrest, his suspected role in the kidnapping of the President's son, and NO references. We need to work on this and bring it up to even minimum requirements for Wikipedia. BWH76 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vladimír Mečiar


text:
Double-clutching (technique)

Double-clutching (also called double de-clutching outside of the United States) is a method of shifting gears used primarily for vehicles with an unsynchronized manual transmission, such as commercial trucks and specialty vehicles. While double clutching is not necessary in a vehicle that has a synchronized manual transmission, the technique can be advantageous for smoothly downshifting in order to accelerate and, when done correctly, it prevents wear on the synchronizers which normally equalize transmission input and output speeds to allow downshifting.

With this method, instead of pushing the clutch in once and shifting directly to another gear, the driver first engages the transmission in neutral before shifting to the next gear. The clutch is depressed and released with each change. A related downshifting or rpm-matching technique is heel-and-toe shifting, in which the throttle is blipped (i.e. momentarily opened during downshifting) by the driver's heel during braking.

History
Before the introduction of transmission synchronizers in 1927, double clutching was a technique required to prevent damage to an automobile's gearing during shifts. Due to the difficulty and most often unnecessary redundancy involved in the technique, coupled with the advent of synchronized gearing systems, it has largely fallen into disuse in light vehicles. However, many tractor units are still supplied with an unsynchronised gearbox which requires a double-clutching technique to be used.

Technique
In a non-synchromesh gearbox with neutral between gears, a typical shift involves two gear changes, once into neutral, and again into the target gear. During any shift, disconnecting drive components via a clutch unloads the force from the opposing components from the engine and transmission. Disengaging the clutch for each shift out of, and then into, each gear is double clutching or declutching. Due to the absence of a neutral spacing, double-clutching is impossible for sequential gear changes, as with a fully sequential gearbox used in motorcycles and racecars.

The double-clutching technique involves the following steps:
 * The accelerator (throttle) is released, the clutch pedal is pressed and the gearbox is shifted into neutral.
 * The clutch pedal is then released, and the driver matches the engine speed to the gear speed either using the throttle (accelerator) (when changing to a lower gear) or waiting for the engine speed to decrease (when changing to a higher gear) to a level suitable for shifting into the next gear.
 * At the moment when the revs between the input shaft (i.e. engine revs) and gear are closely matched, the driver then presses the clutch again, shifts into the next gear, and releases the clutch. The result should be a smooth gear change.

Although double clutching is a testing requirement when obtaining a commercial driver's license in some jurisdictions, many truckers learn to shift gears without using the clutch. This is known as floating gears or float shifting, with the clutch needed only during starting and stopping. However, this is not recommended by non-synchro gearbox manufacturers such as Eaton as it will generally cause additional wear on the gears.

Double clutching can be difficult to master, as it requires the driver to gauge the speed of the vehicle and throttle to the intended gear accurately; vehicle weight and road gradient are important factors as they influence the vehicle's acceleration or deceleration during the shift.

Sometimes, truck drivers use the engine brake to help match the engine speed to the gear. The most common situation is with a loaded vehicle that has no split gears or half gears in the lower range, from gears 1–4. In this case, it is especially difficult and sometimes impossible to get from 1 to 2, and sometimes even from 2 to 3 while starting on a hill. The problem is that by the time the engine speed has dropped sufficiently to enable a shift into the higher gear, the vehicle will have slowed down too much or possibly even stopped, making the shift impossible. The engine brakes, which on some models can be set to different intensities (retarding variable numbers of engine cylinders) enable a shift by dropping the engine speed quickly enough to catch the higher gear before the vehicle has decelerated too much. This technique, sometimes called "jake shifting", requires high skill and much practice shifting without the clutch, and is usually not recommended among truck drivers because mistakes can cause damage to the transmission. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), municipalities across the United States have banned the use of compression-release engine brakes, which includes jake shifting, because of noise emission.

Theory
The purpose of the double-clutch technique is to aid in matching the rotational speed of the input shaft being driven by the engine to the rotational speed of the gear the driver wishes to select. The output shaft in the transmission is directly driven by the rotating wheels, and each gear set is a different ratio, so in a five-speed transmission in fourth gear, one will have three lower gearsets not engaged spinning at three different, and faster, rates and one higher gear spinning at a slower rate than the input shaft. In order to shift down, the fourth gear has to be disengaged, leaving no gears connected to the input shaft. This is neutral, and the input shaft and gears all need to be accelerated so the speed of the output shaft and the lower gear the operator wishes to select match speeds long enough for the dog clutch to lock them together. When the speeds are matched, the gear will engage smoothly and no clutch is required. If the speeds are not matched, the dog teeth on the collar will "clash" or grate as they attempt to fit into the holes on the desired gear.

A modern synchromesh gearbox accomplishes this synchronization more efficiently. However, when the engine speed is significantly different from the transmission speed, the desired gear can often not be engaged even in a fully synchronized gearbox. An example is trying to shift into a gear while traveling outside the gear's speed or directional range, such as accidentally into first from near the top of the second, or intentionally from reverse to forward gear while still moving at speed. Double clutching, although (slightly) time-consuming, ease gear selection when an extended delay or variance exists between engine and transmission speeds, and reduces wear on the synchronizers (or baulk rings), which are brass cone clutches themselves, and wear very slightly each time they are used to equalize the transmission revs with the output revs.

title: Double-clutching (technique)


text:
Talk:Shire

2003
Shires in today's common usage are the non-metropolitan counties of England outside London.

Does that include Devon, Kent, Essex, etc.? Or only counties with the suffix -shire? - Efghij — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 8 July 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the full name for devon is devonshire anyway but its not often used now. WPM 131.111.8.104 — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I assume we still have Devonshire cream??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.143.201.9 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We have shires in Australia, too. A shire here is a local government (or local government area) which is either regional or is metropolitan but without sufficient population to be called a 'town' or a 'city'. Maybe this should be incorporated into the article? Surely Britain and Australia aren't the only countries with shires? Mark Ryan 05:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shire county
What is meant by the following line:
 * In England and Wales, the term "shire county" is used to refer to shire counties.

It seems an extreme case of circular definition to me. - Andre Engels 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely - it originally said that "shire county" is used to refer to non-metropolitan counties, but non-metropolitan county is now a redirect to shire county - so I've replace it with the definition from that article. Warofdreams talk 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It should be the other way around. "non-metropolitan county" is the term as defined in the LGA 1972, whereas "shire county" is just a vague description with overlapping meanings. Owain (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall
I don't know if this should be put in or prob. shortly referenced to? but Cornwall which is now an administrative county (I can't be bothered to go into its constitutional position here) was originally divided into shires, eg. Pydershire, East and West Wivelshire Powdershire, I think there were more, they appeared some timein the 12th century.

Cornwall originally had a different 'administration' to england ( beware of historeography here) but the 'shires' in cornwall apparently mirrored the shires in england even though cornwall was comparitevely tiny.(remember pre 1600ish views of cornwall were very different to now.) I don't know when but they became hundereds by the 15th century when cornwall was being absorbed into england. Just to illustarte the 'replication' rather than each hundered having a constable in cornwall there was one per parish, some of these differences remained long after the names changed.

There was another name for these cornish 'shires', I think it was kantrev/cantrev?, sorry if spelling is bad there but there has never really been a standard cornish spelling! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 October 2006

 * There's an article at Cantref, but that only deals with Wales. For some strange reason Cornwall is dealt with in Hundreds of Cornwall. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Downshire
Shouldn't there be a mention of Downshire (as in Marquess of) in the article? Does this simply refer to County Down, or is it a separate place altogether? Are there any other place-names with the "-shire" suffix in Ireland? 195.92.40.49 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Downshire and County Down were indeed the same place in the eighteenth century. I was at lecture about the Irish Militia of 1793 - 1802 and there were a number of mentions of the Downshire Militia. On googling I find this confirmed. Mind you on further investigation I also find downshire was a fictional county where Miss Marple lived!
 * There are a couple of books in Google Books from the mid nineteenth century with Antrimshire, Cavanshire and Wicklowshire. I haven't tried the other 28!Lozleader 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Just had a look at the Times Digital Archive. On August 22, 1818 a list of members returned for parliament shows the follwing Irish counties:
 * Antrim
 * Armagh
 * Carlowshire
 * Cavanshire
 * Clare
 * Cork
 * Donegalshire
 * Downshire
 * Dublinshire
 * Fermanaghshire
 * Galwayshire
 * Kerryshire
 * Kildareshire
 * Kilkennyshire
 * King's County
 * Leitrim
 * Limerick
 * Londonderry
 * Longfordshire
 * Louthshire
 * Mayo
 * Meathshire
 * Queen's County
 * Roscommon shire
 * Sligoshire
 * Tipperary
 * Westmeath
 * Wicklow
 * There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the list.Lozleader 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I've just checked google for all the counties and the only one I can't find with a -shire suffix is Queen's County (there's even "King's-shire"). Opera hat (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I fact tagged the paragraph on Shire names in Ireland in both June and July of this year and as of yet no one has supplied any RS concerning the use of the term in Ireland. The Marquess of Downshire is a title not the county name and as for the list above this is parliamentary seats and again not countries. The lot will be getting deleted shortly if no RS is provided. Bjmullan (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the Question Again?
As codified over several centuries, the Irish meaning of the interchangeable terms Shire and County is exactly the same as in England (excluding idiosyncrasies within formerly separate Kingdoms such as Cornwall and Northumberland). Because Ireland did not have the shire/county system prior to 1169, the only Irish difference between "Shire" and "County" is the preference for Anglo-Saxon or Norman-French terms. Irish shiring is described here, and perhaps reading this section will also help. An independent Reliable Source for both the meaning in Ireland and the current list of Irish Counties above would be the last pre-independence text within the UK's Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (you can access a useful 1899 handbook for it here) and the first post-independence text within the Irish Free State's Local Government Act 1925, whose full text is here

Wikipedia already has a list of counties in The Republic of Ireland, where I note that Queen's County has been informally called Laois by everybody since 1922 (but not officially). Northern Ireland (being within the UK) no longer has counties, but benefits from being in the domain of this document.

On a vaguely related (but crucial) note Miss Marple's home of St Mary Mead was only in the fictional English county of Downshire for Murder at the Vicarage. After that it was reorganized into the neighbouring fictional county of Radfordshire before its Final Destination within Middleshire. ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Shires within shires
In Yorkshire there were also several areas within the county that were called shires e.g.Hallamshire, Richmondshire. Were these shires just administrative units ?--88.111.242.89 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a good question. Unfortunately it doesn't have a good answer. Yorkshire is post-1066 creation. The suspicion is that the smaller shires found in Yorkshire and points north as far as the Mounth are older, and possibly related to pre-Viking Northumbria, which included all of Yorkshire. The suggestion is that these are related to the way royal estates were laid out. There's a short discussion of Northumbrian shires in Nick Higham's The Kingdom of Northumbria (about p. 100 onwards) if there's a copy of that in a library near you. If not, this, while it's about Scotland ("there are two Englands, and one of them is Scotland" said James Campbell in The Anglo-Saxon State), it is probably as relevant to early Yorkshire as anything you might read about Wessex. Just forget the funny names: toiseach -> praepositus/reeve/thane; mormaer -> dux/ealdorman/earl. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Leekshire?
There are hardly any references to "Leekshire" online - a few mentions of a "double sunset" in Leek, Staffordshire in C17 and urban dictionary references to Wales. It doesn't sound like it was a bona fide hundred/wapentake/whatever. — sjorford++ 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Caernarfonshire
The part about Caernarfonshire meaning "corner of the sea" is nonsense! Caer is Welsh for castle and Arfon is the area opposite Anglesea. It may mean Castle of Arfon by the sea, but the idea that Caernarfon means corner is ridiculous.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.41.185 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What madness?
''The Scottsmen were unable to escape the madness. ''

Aside from being more than a little melodramatic, exactly what "madness" does this sentence refer to? rowley (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Malawi
The Shire Highlands of Malawi may merit mention. Drutt (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical context
Interesting view on Shires, I did think that shires were instituted in England by the Saxon kings to form administrative areas to enable defence against the vikings, hence weapontake etc in the North. Something on the formation of shires would be interesting. The current version does seem quite Scottish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuelsimon (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Could somebody have a look at the part about the pronounciation? I may be mistaken, but I remember scottish people using "-shuh" or "-shur" as ending, while english shires rime with "fires". The article suggests the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.206.137 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Wrong to say that 'shire' is pronounced as 'shur' in England. Only pronounded 'shur' when pronouncing the full name of a shire, but as a word on it's own it would be pronouned as 'fire'. 90.197.150.204 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Example (Shires in the United States) *** FIXED ***
In this article's section Shires in the United States, a list of the original Virginia Colony Shires started with "Accomac Shire (now Accomack County, Virginia)". But elsewhere (such as in Shires of Virginia), the same list starts with "Accomac Shire (now Northampton County)". One of these entries must be incorrect or incomplete. Such things seem to annoy me more than they should.

So much so that I went and found The Verifiable Truth. So it is fixed here and elsewhere. ChrisJBenson (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Synonymous?
'In Britain, "shire" is the original term for what is usually known now as a county; the word county having been introduced at the Norman Conquest of England. The two are synonymous.'
 * But Sheffield used to be a shire called Hallamshire, within the county of Yorkshire. Valetude (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"to shire" as a verb
I came here looking for explanation of what does to shire mean as a verb. I have posted a more specific question to Talk:Ulster. « Saper // @talk » 10:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shire


text:
Hughes Airwest

Hughes Air Corporation, doing business as Hughes Airwest, was a local service carrier from 1970 to 1980 in the Western United States. It was backed by Howard Hughes' Summa Corporation. Its original name in 1968 was Air West and the air carrier was owned by Nick Bez. Hughes Airwest flew routes in the western U.S. and to several destinations in Mexico and Canada; its headquarters were on the grounds of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) in unincorporated San Mateo County, California.

With distinctive all-yellow aircraft, the company slogan was Top Banana in the West;  Hughes Airwest was purchased by Republic Airlines in 1980, which in turn was merged into Northwest Airlines in 1986. Northwest Airlines was then merged into Delta Air Lines in 2010.

History
On April 17, 1968, three earlier local service carriers in the western U.S. merged to form Air West:
 * Pacific Air Lines, which previously operated as Southwest Airways when it was founded in 1941, was based in San Francisco, flew along the coast and California's Central Valley, linking cities from Medford, Oregon, to southern California. Pacific operated Boeing 727-100s and Fairchild F-27s in 1968.
 * Bonanza Air Lines routes reached west from its Phoenix base to southern California and north to Las Vegas, Reno, and Salt Lake City. Bonanza flew Douglas DC-9-10s and Fairchild F-27s in 1968, with a DC-9-30 on order, delivered after the merger.
 * West Coast Airlines, based at Boeing Field in Seattle, served the Pacific Northwest, Idaho, Utah, Montana, and northern California. West Coast operated DC-9-10s, F-27s, and Piper Navajos in 1968.

The initial Air West fleet included Boeing 727-100s, Douglas DC-9s, Fairchild F-27s, and Piper Navajos. The first new addition to the Air West fleet was a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30, which had been ordered by Bonanza Air Lines.

Hungry for another adventure in the airline industry, TWA's former owner Howard Hughes sought the airline in 1968, and the US$90 million deal was finalized in April 1970. Renamed Hughes Air West, its call sign became "Hughes Air," and the airline expanded to several cities in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. With the new yellow paint scheme, unveiled in September 1971, the airline began calling itself Hughes Airwest, two words instead of the initial three.

The airline participated in some movies in the 1970s, notably The Gauntlet with Clint Eastwood and Sondra Locke in 1977. Eastwood's character arrives in Las Vegas from Phoenix on the airline and when he phones the airport for flight departure times, Locke's character sarcastically called the airline, "Air Worst." Also in 1977, the airline was operating service from both Burbank (BUR) and Orange County (SNA) to Denver (DEN) via an interchange flight agreement with the original Frontier Airlines. Hughes Airwest soon introduced its own jet service to Denver from a number of locations.

Like other local service airlines in the 1970s, Hughes Airwest eliminated many stops and opened longer routes. Service expanded to resorts in Mexico; domestic routes didn't reach east of Utah and Arizona until Denver, Des Moines, Milwaukee, and Houston Hobby Airport were added in 1978. When it ended F-27 turboprop flights in 1979, Hughes Airwest became an all-jet airline with 727-200s, DC-9-10s, and DC-9-30s.

In September 1979, the airline was grounded for two months by a walkout by their ticket agents, reservations handlers, and office employees, who had been without a contract for over a year. During 1979, several airlines showed interest in buying Hughes Airwest, including Alaska and Allegheny, with the latter soon becoming USAir. The strike was resolved in late October and flights resumed in November. Four months later they were the target of a buyout by Republic Airlines, which was finalized on October 1, 1980, for $38.5 million. Minneapolis-based Republic had formed in July 1979 via the merger of North Central Airlines and Southern Airways, the first under airline deregulation.

Republic was acquired by Northwest Airlines in 1986, which merged into Delta Air Lines in 2010.

Corporate affairs
The original headquarters were in two buildings in downtown San Mateo, California, on the San Francisco peninsula.

Its new headquarters were located in San Mateo. The airline scheduled the move to a new headquarters in late August 1973; the complex was on a hill overlooking San Mateo and San Francisco Bay. The airline relocated two departments from the offices at San Francisco International Airport: flight control and reservations.

Livery
Hughes Airwest's planes were recognizable by their banana-yellow fuselage and tail colors. Their airplanes were often dubbed "flying bananas" and the airline launched an advertising campaign with the catchphrase "Top Banana in the West." Most nicknames given to Hughes Airwest airplanes in aviation books and magazines have to do with bananas. Apart from their all-yellow scheme, the airplanes also featured a blue logo on the vertical stabilizer (tail) that resembled three diamonds connected (possibly a reference to the initials of Howard Hughes). The name Hughes Airwest, in stylized lettering, was featured unconventionally below the front passenger windows.

This livery was devised by the southern California design firm of Mario Armond Zamparelli, following the crash of Flight 706 in June 1971, caused by a mid-air collision with a U.S. Marine Corps F-4B jet fighter near Duarte, California. In late 1971, the company launched a new marketing campaign which included new colors and repainted planes. The cabin windows also had a metallized PET film coating originally, but this proved too costly to maintain. Zamparelli also designed the uniforms of the flight attendants in the new colors, primarily in Sundance Yellow trimmed with Universe Blue.

After the sale in October 1980 the all-yellow paint scheme was gradually replaced by Republic's white with blue and green trim. Aircraft tails bore Republic's flying mallard, "Herman the Duck."

Fleet
Air West and Hughes Airwest operated the following aircraft types at various times during their existence:

Air West in July 1968
This is a list of destinations taken from the Air West system timetable dated July 1, 1968, when the merger to form Air West became effective. Cities served with jets are noted in bold. Air West was operating Boeing 727-100, Douglas DC-9-10, and McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 jets, as well as Fairchild F-27 turboprops and small Piper Navajo twin props at this time. The majority of the destinations on this list that did not have jet service were served with F-27 twin turboprops.

ARIZONA:

 * Grand Canyon (GCN)
 * Kingman (IGM)
 * Page (PGA)
 * Phoenix (PHX): Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - Hub
 * Prescott (PRC)
 * Tucson (TUS)
 * Yuma (YUM)

CALIFORNIA: IDAHO:

 * Boise (BOI) - Hub
 * Burley/Rupert (BYI)
 * Idaho Falls (IDA)
 * Lewiston (LWS)
 * Pocatello (PIH)
 * Twin Falls (TWF)
 * Sun Valley/Hailey/Ketchum (SUN)

MONTANA:

 * Great Falls (GTF)
 * Kalispell (FCA)

NEVADA:

 * Las Vegas (LAS): McCarran International Airport - Hub
 * Reno (RNO)

OREGON: UTAH:

 * Cedar City (CDC)
 * Salt Lake City (SLC): Salt Lake City International Airport - Hub

WASHINGTON: CANADA:

 * Calgary, Alberta (YYC): Calgary International Airport

MEXICO:

 * La Paz (LAP)
 * Mazatlan (MZT)
 * Puerto Vallarta (PVR)
 * Guadalajara (GDL)
 * Guaymas (GYM)

Hughes Airwest in September 1980
In 1980, Hughes Airwest was an all-jet airline operating Boeing 727-200, Douglas DC-9-10, and McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 aircraft. The timetable for September 1 lists service to:

ARIZONA:

 * Grand Canyon (GCN)
 * Phoenix (PHX): Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - Hub
 * Tucson (TUS)

CALIFORNIA: COLORADO:

 * Denver (DEN): Stapleton International Airport

IDAHO:

 * Boise (BOI) - Hub
 * Idaho Falls
 * Lewiston
 * Pocatello
 * Twin Falls

IOWA:

 * Des Moines

MONTANA:

 * Kalispell

NEVADA:

 * Las Vegas (LAS): McCarran International Airport - Hub
 * Reno

OREGON:

 * Eugene
 * Klamath Falls
 * Portland (PDX): Portland International Airport
 * Redmond/Bend

TEXAS:

 * Houston (HOU): William P. Hobby Airport

UTAH:

 * Salt Lake City (SLC): Salt Lake City International Airport - Hub

WASHINGTON:

 * Pasco/Kennewick/Richland (Tri-Cities Airport)
 * Seattle (SEA): Seattle-Tacoma International Airport - Hub
 * Spokane
 * Yakima

WISCONSIN:

 * Milwaukee

CANADA:

 * Calgary, Alberta (YYC): Calgary International Airport
 * Edmonton, Alberta (YEG): Edmonton International Airport

MEXICO:

 * Manzanillo
 * Mazatlan
 * Puerto Vallarta

1971 – Flight 706
On the evening of Sunday, June 6, 1971, Flight 706, a Douglas DC-9-31 collided in mid-air with a U.S. Marine Corps F-4B fighter over southern California near Duarte. All 49 on the airliner and the F-4 pilot were killed; the sole survivor was the F-4 radar intercept officer. Flight 706 had departed Los Angeles for Seattle, with five intermediate stops, the first in Salt Lake City.

1972 – Flight 800 hijacking
Two months after the hijacking by D. B. Cooper of Northwest Orient flight 305, Hughes Airwest was the target of a copycat hijacker in early 1972. After boarding Flight 800 at McCarran airport in Las Vegas in late morning on Thursday, January 20, 23-year-old Richard Charles LaPoint claimed he had a bomb while the plane was on the taxiway and demanded $50,000 cash, two parachutes, and a helmet. When these demands were met, 51 Reno-bound passengers and two flight attendants were released; the DC-9 departed eastward toward Denver, followed by two F-111 aircraft of the U.S. Air Force from nearby Nellis AFB. The parachutes were high-visibility and equipped with emergency locator devices.

Without a coat and in cowboy boots, the hijacker bailed out from the lower aft door over the treeless plains of northeastern Colorado in mid-afternoon. LaPoint was apprehended a few hours later, with minor injuries and very cold. The plane, with two pilots and a flight attendant on board, landed safely at Denver's Stapleton airport at 2:55 p.m. MST. Facing potential death penalty charges for air piracy, the Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Army paratrooper was sentenced to forty years, but served less than eight, and was released from a halfway house in 1979; he died at age 60 in his native New Hampshire in 2008.

title: Hughes Airwest


text:
Talk:People's Daily

Untitled
The part about providing direct information about the Communist Party might sound NPOV, but it is a paraphrase of the self description on its web site. The People's Daily states pretty clearly on its website that its opinions reflect those of the party, and doesn't claim to be objective or evenhanded in its coverage of the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 07:03, 8 July 2003 (UTC)

Moved here since it is unverifiable speculation....

 * The credibility of the information in the People's Daily is relatively low among many Chinese.

My own personal opinion is that the People's Daily does have a distinct slant and you shouldn't expect to see well argued defenses of the free Tibet movement there. On the other hand, the lack of objectivity in the People's Daily isn't that much worse than Fox News.

But there is a link to both the Chinese and English versions and you can judge for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 05:22, 24 October 2003 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the date of founding
The article states it was founded in 1946, the infobox states 1948. Which is correct? VenomousConcept (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

pinyin name, anyone?
I'm surprised that the Chinese name is only given by Chinese characters, and the pinyin transliteration (Renmin Ribao) is nowhere to be found. Was in a conscious omission, or just not considered important enough by anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.220.47 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that, it was there - just "hidden" under a button for no obvious reason (since it doesnt take up much space). 89.134.220.47 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:People's Daily


text:
User talk:Bangoo~enwiki

hi?

if i create " SASLSAL ASLKWKEWKEKEKEW ODODKDOK ", and it is automatically copyrighted, and i don't agree with copyleft stuff gpl etc. can i sue this site for copying it and reproducing it?

 * Welcome, newcomer, to Wikipedia! The answer to your question is: no, because you licensed your content irrevocably under the GNU Free Documentation License in posting it here: see the text under the "save page" button you clicked to save your text. See Copyrights for details. -- The Anome 07:20 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh dear
He's left us.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bangoo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bangoo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bangoo~enwiki


text:
Cameron Mackintosh

Sir Cameron Anthony Mackintosh (born 17 October 1946) is a British theatrical producer and theatre owner notable for his association with many commercially successful musicals. At the height of his success in 1990, he was described as being "the most successful, influential and powerful theatrical producer in the world" by the New York Times. He is the producer of shows including Les Misérables, The Phantom of the Opera, Cats, Miss Saigon, Mary Poppins, Oliver!, and Hamilton.

Mackintosh was knighted in 1996 for services to musical theatre. Two of his productions, Les Misérables and The Phantom of the Opera, are the two longest-running musicals in West End history. In 2008, The Daily Telegraph ranked him number 7 in their list of the "100 most powerful people in British culture". In the Sunday Times Rich List of 2021, Mackintosh was estimated to have a net worth of £1.2 billion.

Early life
Mackintosh was born in Enfield, London, the son of Diana Gladys (née Tonna), a production secretary, and Ian Robert Mackintosh, a timber merchant and jazz trumpeter. His father was Scottish, and his mother who was a native of Malta, was of Maltese and French descent. Mackintosh was educated at Prior Park College in Bath.

Mackintosh first knew that he wanted to become a theatre producer after his aunt took him to a matinee of the Julian Slade musical Salad Days when he was eight years old.

Theatrical career
Mackintosh began his theatre career in his late teens, as a stagehand at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and then became an assistant stage manager on several touring productions. In 1967, working with Robin Alexander, he co-produced five plays at the Kenton Theatre, Henley. He began producing his own small tours before becoming a London-based producer in the 1970s. His early London productions included Anything Goes in 1969 (which closed after a mere two weeks), The Card (1973), Side by Side by Sondheim (1976), My Fair Lady (1978), and Tomfoolery (1980).

In 1981, he produced Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cats, then considered an unlikely subject for a musical. It became the hit of the season, and went on to become one of the longest running musicals on both sides of the Atlantic. After the success of Cats, he approached the French writing team Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil about bringing their musical Les Misérables (then a successful French concept album) to the London stage. The musical opened in 1985 at the Barbican before transferring to the Palace Theatre. Les Misérables had a shaky start at the box office and a lukewarm critical reception before becoming a massive hit, largely by word-of-mouth and is now the longest running musical and second longest running London production.

In 1986, Mackintosh produced Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera, which is one of the most commercially successful musicals of all time. The original London production is still running and is the 3rd longest running production in London, along with the New York production, which is the longest-running Broadway musical of all time.

He produced Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil's next musical Miss Saigon, which opened at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane in the West End in September 1989. It was similarly successful, and the 1991 Broadway production had what was then the largest advance ticket sales in theatre history prior to its controversy. Asian American actors protested the casting of a Caucasian actor and the use of yellowface in the role of the pimp.

Mackintosh has produced several other successful musicals, including Five Guys Named Moe (both in London in 1990 and on Broadway) and a revised London production of Stephen Sondheim's Follies in 1987. In 1995, Mackintosh produced the 10th anniversary concert of Les Misérables in London. Additionally he was responsible for presenting the West End transfers of the National Theatre revivals of Oklahoma! (1999), My Fair Lady (2001), and Carousel (1993).

Mackintosh's less successful London productions include Moby Dick (1993) and Martin Guerre (1996). He produced the stage adaptation of John Updike's The Witches of Eastwick (2000) which despite some positive reviews and a run of over 15 months, failed to replicate the worldwide success of his previous blockbusters.

Mackintosh became a co-owner of the theatrical licensing company Music Theatre International in 1990. He started the theatre group Delfont Mackintosh Theatres in 1991.

Disney Theatrical Productions president Thomas Schumacher met with Mackintosh in 2001 to discuss making Mary Poppins into a stage musical. Mackintosh's involvement in the development of the musical adaptation led to his producing both the 2004 West End and 2006 Broadway productions, at the Prince Edward Theatre and the New Amsterdam Theatre, respectively, along with Schumacher. He co-produced the London transfer of Avenue Q, which opened in the West End at the Noël Coward Theatre on 1 June 2006.

In 1998, Mackintosh celebrated thirty years in show business with Hey, Mr. Producer!, a gala concert featuring songs from shows he had produced during his career. The concert was performed twice, on 7 and 8 June, with proceeds going to the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Combined Theatrical Charities. Many celebrities took part, and the 8 June performance was attended by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Mackintosh produced a revival of Lionel Bart's Oliver! at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane which ran from 2008–09. The production was cast via the hit BBC television series I'd Do Anything. Jodie Prenger became the winner and was subsequently cast as Nancy in the production, with Rowan Atkinson as Fagin. The publicity and attention surrounding the production was unprecedented on the West End stage, and it was reported in January 2009 that the production was the fastest-selling show in West End history, with £15 million of pre-opening sales.

In April 2010, Mackintosh staged a West End revival of the musical Hair in London's Gielgud Theatre. This production was transferred from Broadway, where a revival production was staged in 2009.

In 2013, he worked with the Chichester Festival Theatre on a revival of Barnum, starring Christopher Fitzgerald. Due to the Theatre's refurbishment, it was performed in a giant tent 'Theatre in the Park' in July and August. Mackintosh has voiced interest in producing a Broadway revival of Barnum with American actor Neil Patrick Harris in the title role.

On 27 January 2014, Mackintosh was the first British producer to be inducted into Broadway's American Theater Hall of Fame.

On 3 May 2014, Mackintosh relaunched Miss Saigon at the Prince Edward Theatre in London, celebrating 25 years since its first launch.

On 6 December 2017 Mackintosh began previews of Lin-Manuel Miranda's Broadway hit musical Hamilton in London. It premiered on 21 December 2017 at the Victoria Palace Theatre.

Influence
Mackintosh is notable as a producer for his transformation of the musical into a global and highly profitable brand; he was the first theatrical producer to recognise that both touring productions and worldwide productions (often in countries where musicals were seldom seen such as the former eastern bloc countries in the early 90s) were potentially highly lucrative markets which could collectively, match and even surpass the revenues generated from New York and London productions.

Mackintosh has also had considerable success in bringing legitimate theatre directors (such as the Royal Shakespeare Company's Trevor Nunn and Nicholas Hytner) and technicians to the world of musical theatre.

Mackintosh's Delfont Mackintosh group owns eight London theatres, the Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, the Novello, the Sondheim, the Gielgud, the Wyndham's, the Victoria Palace and the Noël Coward.

Personal life
Mackintosh was knighted during the 1996 New Year Honours for services to musical theatre.

His partner is Australian-born theatre photographer Michael Le Poer Trench. They met at the opening night of a production of Oklahoma! in Adelaide, Australia in 1982. The couple live between homes in London; Stavordale Priory in Charlton Musgrove, Somerset; and the Nevis Estate, on North Morar in the West Highlands.

In 2006, Mackintosh was listed 4th on The Independent on Sunday's Pink List, a list of the most influential "out-and-proud" gay men and women. He was also listed 4th in 2005. Mackintosh also topped The Stage 100 list in 2007 for the first time since 2000. The list recognises the most influential members of the performing arts community at the end of each year.

He is a patron of The Food Chain, a London-based HIV charity.

His younger brother, Robert Mackintosh, is also a producer.

Laird of Nevis
In 1994, Mackintosh bought the Nevis Estate, on North Morar, to the east of Mallaig in the West Highlands of Scotland, covering around 14000 acre. He has since been involved in a long-running dispute with a tenant crofter, over the land use on the estate. As the laird, Mackintosh wants to use the land for building holiday homes, but the crofter says the land is needed for grazing.

Politics
In 1990, Mackintosh responded to criticism of Jonathan Pryce using prosthetics and skin darkening makeup to play a Vietnamese character, "We passionately disapprove of stereotype casting...by choosing to discriminate against Mr. Pryce on the basis of his race, Equity has further violated the fundamental principles of federal and state human rights laws, as well as of federal labor laws."

In 1998, Mackintosh was named in a list of the biggest private financial donors to the Labour Party, a decision he later regretted, saying in 2010, "Labour really fucked it up. They were profligate at a time when we were doing well. That's why we have the problems we have now. They didn't save any money for a rainy day. It couldn't have been worse these last 12 years." In the 2015 British general election, Mackintosh donated £25,000 to the successful Conservative candidate for Somerton and Frome, David Warburton.

In the 2016 European Union membership referendum, Mackintosh voted for the UK to leave the EU, stating that it was "not because I don't love Europe - I do huge amount of work in Europe and love Europeans - but there is something wrong with a system where the Fat Controller is not accountable".

Production credits

 * Anything Goes
 * Salad Days
 * The Card
 * Godspell
 * Side by Side by Sondheim
 * Oliver!
 * My Fair Lady
 * Oklahoma!
 * Tomfoolery
 * Cats
 * Little Shop of Horrors
 * Song and Dance
 * Blondel
 * Abbacadabra
 * The Boy Friend
 * Les Misérables
 * The Phantom of the Opera
 * Follies
 * Miss Saigon
 * Five Guys Named Moe
 * Moby Dick
 * Putting It Together
 * Carousel
 * Martin Guerre
 * The Fix
 * Hey, Mr. Producer!
 * Swan Lake
 * The Witches of Eastwick
 * Mary Poppins
 * Just So
 * Avenue Q
 * The Sundowe
 * Hair
 * Betty Blue Eyes
 * Barnum
 * Kinky Boots
 * Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
 * Half a Sixpence
 * Hamilton

title: Cameron Mackintosh