Misplaced Pages

Perpetual motion: Revision history

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
View logs for this page (view filter log)
Filter revisionsshowhide
External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

11 May 2023

10 May 2023

9 May 2023

8 May 2023

4 May 2023

24 April 2023

23 April 2023

29 March 2023

24 March 2023

22 March 2023

  • curprev 20:5220:52, 22 March 2023 Theroadislong talk contribs 44,329 bytes +2,385 Reverted 1 edit by CAIVY (talk): Stop edit warring and discuss on talk page this is your third revert undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
  • curprev 20:4520:45, 22 March 2023 CAIVY talk contribs m 41,944 bytes −2,385 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. undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted Visual edit
  • curprev 20:4220:42, 22 March 2023 DMacks talk contribs 44,329 bytes +2,385 Take it to talk page. You are headed for a block, having been disruptive here since last year already. Undid revision 1146105634 by CAIVY (talk) undo Tags: Undo Reverted
  • curprev 20:2320:23, 22 March 2023 CAIVY talk contribs 41,944 bytes −2,385 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. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit
  • curprev 19:5419:54, 22 March 2023 LuckyLouie talk contribs 44,329 bytes +1,687 Restored revision 1144868643 by Citation bot (talk): Discuss large scale deletion of content on Talk page undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
  • curprev 19:0719:07, 22 March 2023 CAIVY talk contribs m 42,642 bytes −1,687 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. undo Tags: Reverted Visual edit

16 March 2023

21 February 2023

17 February 2023

3 February 2023

2 February 2023

1 February 2023

11 January 2023

3 January 2023

9 December 2022

28 November 2022

26 November 2022

24 November 2022

16 November 2022

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)