This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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. 2 72.235.131.7 ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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))
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:
-- 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)
OK I'm not a physicist or mechanical engineer or anything. But shouldn't the lead, which states:
Something more like:
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'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
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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. 2 72.235.131.7 ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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))
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:
-- 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)
OK I'm not a physicist or mechanical engineer or anything. But shouldn't the lead, which states:
Something more like:
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'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