Talk:Thomas Henry Moray

Scope And Content Of The Page

Too much is being made of the patent, which was obviously just a quack 'cure'. As a physicist, I can find no sign of the innovative technology that others claim to see in it. It certainly 'apes' rational physics, but the overall design makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.176.69 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This article started as a section of the Free energy suppression page, and contained a lot of stuff about the supposed suppression of Moray, none of which has any evidence. Once you take that stuff out, it's just one more quack invention. It's really difficult to argue that this is notable.KaturianKaturian 15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  :There's probably a reasonable article to write on Moray. But note that a previous article at this title was PRODed as having no reliable sources left after the unreliable sources were removed. So evidence that he is notable is something the present article could do with - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? It is Entirely YOUR Opinion, that Moray belongs in the Class of Quack inventors. A Great Many might disagree with your strange opinions. You flatter yourself, and falsely claim expertise, in physics and science. Firstmm5 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Education?

According to some user-edit content out there, Moray earned his doctorate in electrical engineering from Uppsala University (which is in Sweden) and studied business at "LDS Business College" which I assume is a Mormon institution. Are there reliable sources concerning his formal education? Laval (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Googling "LDS Business College" "Moray" immediately turned up [1] which puts the claim in a non-self-published book. It appears to be a commonplace of the story of Moray - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Forget that, the book is a novel! The claim might be true (is apparently used as background colour), but obviously that's not a source - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Patent not related to energy production

I seem to remember that when I first started watching this article, there were all sorts of crazy claims made about out Moray. They all seem to have been edited away, and the only thing that's left is the patent; however, the patent has nothing to do with the production of energy. It's a device for combining "electric and radioactive therapy", which people thought was a thing back then.

Unless I hear otherwise, I'll modify the wording to reflect the correct content of the patent.

Once that happens, it's not clear there's anything notable at all. KaturianKaturian 16:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the patent even remotely related to "nuclear batteries", "semiconductors", or anything else claimed in the opening paragraph of the article.KaturianKaturian 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Ppl are being asked to put money in it"?? Really? Where?? You Really should Concentrate and Focus on the Facts and leave the Opinion and speculation to discussion forums! Firstmm5 (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

An internet search for Thomas Henry Moray finds 2,570,000 references. I suggest he is famous. Wikipedia writers may find some way to express the history of that fame without endorsing unproven claims. The page link for patent shows Moray's patent application US2460707A was never issued as a patent.Astrojed (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Any reliable source with significant coverage of Moray? If not, WP:AFD may be appropriate. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete?

Returning to this article after a couple of years, nothing has really changed. Once you trim the unsourced claims, there's really nothing notable left.

I'm considering nominating it for deletion. Discussion? KaturianKaturian 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I did an extensive search for references back in October and was only able to find the single one that I added. I have no problem with this article being nominated for deletion. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 06:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, hearing no objections, I've proposed the article for deletion.KaturianKaturian 18:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not supporting this page and will not object to deletion. Historical citations were given years ago and then deleted as not reliable. Thomas Henry Moray was a famous historical person with books written about him, and 2,200,000 references found in a web search today, none of which seem to be acceptable on the page. He was an inventor not commercially successful due to his poor choices. Some of his claims were not true and he infuriated many people in his life time, resulting in violence. Moray is historically famous, but strongly unpopular with academics.

The page can be compared to Thomas Townsend Brown, famous and possibly honest, but incompetent inventor of a device now understood as an ionic lifter, static electricity lowering the local density of air, not a gravity machine. The page can be contrasted to John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely deliberate fraud who made similar claims but did not invent anything. Are these pages also going to be stripped of similar citations and deleted?

Scientifically Moray is not very notable. Historically he is. The page has been downgraded repeatedly by scientists when it should have been constructed by historians. Maybe Wikipedia is not the place for it. Astrojed (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Keely was world famous. His scam was huge and fooled a lot of experts. In contrast, Moray doesn't appear to have ever been all the famous in the first place and his legacy seems to mostly survive on fringe blogs. He's more like Thomas Bearden, who is significantly more interesting, but whose page was nonetheless removed a few years ago (and I had put a LOT of work into that page). I suggest that like Bearden, the mention of Moray be moved to the History of perpetual motion machines page.KaturianKaturian 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

,

I don't object to moving Moray to the History of perpetual motion machines although he was claiming to recover electricity that leaked from electric power lines. His machine was an early example, but not the first of a common mistake made by fringe inventors. A small amount of energy was collected into an LC resonator where large power flow could be measured in the circuits, but the power could not be removed. The resonator would shut down immediately when the small energy content was removed, typically one cycle of the LC. People have put money into similar devices for a hundred years or more, Moray and others. The notability is that none of the investors received a return on the money. I hope that Wikipedia will find a way to say that. Extensive records in German exist for one of the more outrageous inventors Carl Schappeller in the Austrian State Archives proving that he didn't intend to repay the investments and a different person invented the machine. Astrojed (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)