The entry for the term of: "[[perpetual_motion#Noun|perpetual motion]]" says, "with <u>no obvious input of energy</u>" while the entry for the term of: "[[over-unity|over-unity]]" says, "an over-unity device should produce <u>more energy than it receives as input</u>" '''and [is]''' "supposedly capable of [[perpetual motion]]" which directs the reader to the entry for "perpetual motion".

I construe this to mean that "perpetual motion" is more vague and broadly generic in contrast to "over-unity" which is a subset of "perpetual motion". Am I correct?

But if these two terms are intended to be capable of replacing each other, then they are so distinctly different as to spawn confusion and a deference towards ambiguity within the mind of the reader whenever dwelling on these terms.

# Either "perpetual motion" should be redefined to be:
## The [[motion]] of some [[hypothetical]] [[device]] that [[continue]]s [[forever]] with an [[input]] of [[energy]] which is less than its output <s>in [[violation]] of the [[law]]s of [[thermodynamics]]</s> by contributing to the generation of its own power. This would require a redefinition of some of the terms and concepts of the [[w:passive sign convention|]] which presume that passive electrical components, such as: inductive loads, are incapable of becoming "active" without assistance from a [[prime mover]]. Yet, the concept of over-unity (which drives perpetual motion) requires that these passive electrical components might somehow become active and capable of generating some power (rather than consuming it) sufficient enough to drive these devices forever (barring their eventual breakdown from wear and tear).

As complicated as that sounds, I see no other way of correcting our collective error, especially since no law of physics need be invoked. It's a conventional hazard which spawns our confusion, not any presumed violation of physics.

Prime movers are normally considered to be sources of power. But they can also be catalysts which merely stimulate the conversion of potential into some variety, or another, of their actualization without requiring any additional energy other than a mild stimulus of a precise type.

Or, in the alternative ...
# The entry for "over-unity" should not direct to the entry for "perpetual motion", or else ...
# Both corrections are required ...

... to bring these two entries into harmony. Yes? -- ~~~~