Talk:Perepiteia

Magnetic work?
Alright, this guy Heins is implying that his machine pretty much relies on magnetic fields doing work... But magnetic fields do NOT do work, so there's not any energy produced and thus no violation of conservation laws. Can somebody put this in mathematical language, I don't quite know how to edit Wikipedia all that well. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.186.243 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (moved from the middle of IP's comment) THAT'S ME I AM THAT GUY


 * MAGNETIC FIELDS DO WORK WHEN REGENERATIVE BRAKES ON AN EV DECELERATE A VEHICLE


 * PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LEARN


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaneHeins (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 April 2011

Magnetic forces are always perpendicular to the motion of electric charges, so it is impossible for them to do work. When a magent appears to do work, for example by picking up a piece of metal, the work is actually done by rearranging electric charges.Shrikeangel (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attack
The last line of the first paragraph, which references the creator's divorce and custody issues, is a blatant Ad Hominem attack against the inventor and is completely irrelevent to the device and its potential merits or flaws. I say this sentence, and anything else about the creator other than the devices creation, be removed from this article. 272.235.131.7 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Objection noted. The references in question have been removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC))


 * (moved from the middle of 72.235.131.7's comment) I AGREE THAT THIS ENTIRE PAGE BE DELETED AND RE-WRITTEN WITH UPDATED AND CORRECT INFORMATION.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaneHeins (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 April 2011

whooooaaa there cowboy, slow down that deletion pony!
Seriously, there's no real reason to delete this article. Its content may be updated as this whole Perepiteia thing is evaluated, tested, and studied - by MIT and by anyone else who wants to. That's how knowledge is furthered and new ideas are tested. Please, let's not get ahead of ourselves with deleting things. This whole topic has captivated my attention for a full hour, and generated some lively discussion between myself and some friends. I've taken three years of physics, and I've watched all of Thane Heinz's videos, and I'm perplexed. I cannot possibly be convinced until I have the schematics for one of these things and build my own working copy. I want to disprove him, but I also want this to be true, and I lack the informational resources to move in either direction. Where are the schematics? Can we get some here on wikipedia? '''Yo, Mister Heinz, are you out there? Upload some schematics for this thing if you really want it to be evaluated!''' This article was only created yesterday. Give it time to develop. Even if this all turns out to be a hoax, the rise and fall of this particular invention has become a topic of interest for many, and would deserve to be chronicled in the annals of debunked perpetual motion devices and the crazy people who make them. There is no reason to throw this article in the wastebin of history. If I want an abbreviated reference series, I'll buy a subscription to Brittanica. It's not like wikipedia is running out of storage space.

I will also say: having watched this guy's videos, I have concluded that he is not a very good communicator. Furthermore, I can't really assess what's happening when he's flipping all those switches. "The current is going where, and why am I supposed to believe you?" was a frequent question I asked of the computer screen. I'm in the "needing more information" phase of evaluating something new. Don't dismiss it till you understand exactly where, why, and how his idea doesn't work. Then and only then might this POSSIBLY be considered for deletion (or, as I suggested earlier, simply recategorized into the annals of debunked perpetual motion devices and the crazy people who make them).

Will someone maybe create a page on Thane Heinz? He's an interesting guy; the right profile, perhaps, for a crazy inventor who changes the world. Dyslexic, self-educated, relentless... in the end will he be a tragic sysiphus or a heroic somethingorother? If we terminate this article now, in its infancy, we'll never know!

Furthermore, whoever nominated this thing for deletion didn't even give a reason. Seems like anyone nominating something for deletion ought to explain themselves to those who endeavored to write the article. Cause anything less than that is lame.

I HEREBY UN-NOMINATE THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION!

Cajolingwilhelm (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an established place to debate the delete-worthiness of articles, the "Articles for Deletion" page. The Perepiteia subpage is .  That's where the reasons for possible deletion were given: the redflag guideline for  "| fringe theories" and the general "| notability" issue.  I strongly suggest reading through those guidelines before campaigning to save the article. TheodoreTest (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ..except that that's a bad link. [fixed as of 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)] I'm inclined to agree with Cajolingwilhelm, having searched specifically for this page, looking for background information on this alleged 'perepiteia' device.  I have one over-riding reason to nominate the article for retention:  I want to be able to use the damn wikipedia.  All due credit should be given to those of you - creepy little sea-org that you are - who work to maintain the accuracy, relevance, inter-relatedness and coherence of the corpus, but when the hobby of enforcing the policies of the Walesian democracy that has grown up around it starts to interfere with the actual use of the wikipedia as an encyclopedia, then it's time to draw the line.  If you don't think that you should explain your actions where a given non-wikipedian can find and understand that explanation, and you do think that said non-wikipedian should be curtly rebuffed rather than encouraged for having shown a  degree of intelligence and interest in participation, then I think you should do some soul searching.  [continued...]  69.49.44.11 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [continues.] Given that someone was actually looking for encyclopedic information on this topic, it might perhaps satisfy the 'notability' clause.  The content of the article seems to be factual, regarding the ideas or beliefs held by individuals.  It does not make any exceptional claims or attempt to establish the validity of any fringe theories, and the tone is not credulous.  Combined with the (small but definite) noteworthiness of the topic, and given that the article is regarding a specific project by a specific person, rather than the details of a fringe theory, I don't think that deletion is warranted. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This page was a stub originally, and I was the one who first expanded it and brought photos/references because I had gone through about 20-30 other sites trying to piece together a story that had really interested me. Aside from the interesting claim of perpetual motion, this may very well be a discovery of a device that improves the efficiency of engines, which would be very very important in its own right. Over the last few days, a number of better editors than I came and improved the content and references, and I have enjoyed being able to stay updated on the progress of this invention by visiting this wikipedia page, which would seem to be what an encyclopedia is for in the first place. Let's undelete this page and let it grow. The sheer number of visitors and edits shows it is a matter of interest to the community at large. 67.186.15.109 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get this deletion tag removed now? Surely we're settled and happy with the idea now that this article has not yet given reason for deletion? --DonVincenzo (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Moved this comment from the middle of Cajolingwilhelm's comment) ACTUALLY THERE IS REAL REASON TO DELETE BECAUSE IT IS FALSE AND UNTRUE AND ONLY TELLS HALF THE TRUTH IN MANY CASES - I SHOULD KNOW I AM THANE HEINS.


 * HELLO WE SPENT 2.5 YEARS AT OTTAWA UNIVERSITY WHERE WERE YOU?


 * FIRST LEARN HOW TO SPELL MY NAME CORRECTLY


 * IT SHOULD BE TERMINATED AND UPDATED WITH CORRECT INFORMATION.


 * I NOMINATE THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION AND UPDATING
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaneHeins (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 April 2011

New Links to Incorporate
These people actually took the time to view the demo in person at Ottawa U. Hope it helps. Cheers Thane http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=4faab72dd52838161c043a25113cf3d0&topic=4047.135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.18.216 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/4/3505063.html -- Thane responding (twice) to a blog post about his device and providing additional explanation/thoughts.  TheodoreTest (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Snake oil?
"According to Heins' description, he will be running this specially designed "dune buggy" on "a special formula of fart infused methane gas, snake oil and hot air fuel blend"

1. Is this taken in context? 2. Is this really him? 3. Why is this here?

98.215.46.33 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is a ridicules hoax. If you listen to the video you can clearly hear the 60hz sound of regular household electricity. The device is clearly plugged in. This is worse than cold fusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.32.89 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that this really is a perpetual motion machine. . It simply states the claims, the scientific analysis done, its mechanical operation, and criticism. There are plenty of similar articles throughout Wikipedia that document devices which have unsubstantiated claims. In addition, any criticism of the device (from reputable sources) should certainly be included. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC))


 * (moved from the middle of Hyperionsteel's comment) CORRECT THIS "IDEA" WAS CREATED BY THE TORONTO STAR TO "SELL" THE STORY AND GULLIBLE PEOPLE FELL FOR IT


 * YES ABOUT $100,000.00 WORTH OF EVELUATIONS INCLUDING $3000.00 FOR DR. ZAHN AT MIT


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaneHeins (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2011

Some parts are irrelevant
Some of the article is informative.

But some of it is irrelevant.

The question of whether it "violates" a law of physics is silly, silly in that if the device does something, it is not violating real laws. The relevant question is whether it can help produce energy at a lower cost. The former question of theory is for kids and adults who like nothing more than to argue. The latter practical question, of whether it saves money or reduces resources, is the important one. Finally, what editor thinks he was qualified to add the word definitive in this sentence:


 * Natan Weissman wrote a definitive explanation of the Perepeteia machine?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A man comes up to you claiming to be Mark Twain, the 19th-century humorist. Is it possible for a man to be alive at 176? Perhaps. But the available evidence is so strongly against it that one would be correct to presume that what the man says is false, and to look first for evidence that would unambiguously refute his assertion. He might not be lying, he might be mistaken or joking or metaphorical or he might be not in his right mind; but it is extremely unlikely that he is telling the truth.

A man who claims to violate the first law of thermodynamics is in the same situation. That energy is conserved is a consequence of the laws of physics remaining the same over time. The laws of physics might change slowly enough, or subtly enough, that we have been unable to detect their change, but the uncertainty in our determination of them puts a rigid upper bound on how closely energy is to conserved.Shrikeangel (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh that lead...
OK I'm not a physicist or mechanical engineer or anything. But shouldn't the lead, which states:
 * "Due to the long history of hoaxes and failures of perpetual motion machines, Heins' claims about Perepiteia have been treated with considerable skepticism."

Something more like:
 * "Due to the long history of hoaxes and failures of perpetual motion machines and the incompatibility of such a device with accepted principles of physics, Heins' claims about Perepiteia have been treated with considerable skepticism."

I mean... the first version could apply to the Wright Brothers or whomever. The second couldn't. There's a considerable difference, I would say. Is there any reason why I shouldn't add this clause? I don't want to get into a situation of contention, but this just seems incontraveritble to me. (None of this is to say that "accepted principles of physics" are necessarily correct. But they are accepted principles.) Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it would improve the lead, I have no problem with this addition. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion from unknown source
I'll put there this assertion, unsupported but still intriguing about this device "His idea is correct, his approach is accurate but coils will not do a good job of amplifying output. This is achieved with crystals."

Take this words as they are, just intriguing. Maybe the inventor or anyone else interested and competent could sort out something useful from this hint