The point is that your author (who has never been to the lab for a live demo) did not do his homework very well since each one of those videos employs a DC motor as the prime mover and the article states that;

“The acceleraton phenomenon cannot be observed when a DC motor is employed” – Nathan Weissman

And that we tell that to people when they come to the lab for a demo?

So – why would we say that when it is part of our demonstration to show that the acceleration CAN be observed with a DC motor?

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before publishing nonsene and discrediting your website?

Thane Heins
President
Potential Difference Inc.

Dear Mr. Heins,

I stand by my analysis of the behaviour of AC induction motors. I challenge you to demonstrate rigorously why my explanation of how AC induction motors behave is incorrect in general, and with respect to all of those of your videos where they were used in particular. Or do you now admit that those experiments were all invalid, and your sole basis for making claims are the DC videos? Unfortunately for you, I did my homework. I could see the “Ryobi” label on the grinder in the videos, and contacted the company for follow-up information about their motor.

I have it on very reliable information that you and your co-workers admitted (as of the spring of 2008) that you had tested the setup with a DC motor and that it didn’t work up to that time. This appears plausible, given that all your DC videos date from later than that.

Now concerning those new videos that claim to use DC motors: Your videos are not useful as records of scientific experiments, because they do not provide enough information for anybody to reproduce your results. I need to know what equipment you used. Unlike the Ryobi motor, these have no unique identifying features. As a minimum, please provide the manufacturer and model number of the DC motor you say was used in your laboratory. Also, the manufacturer and model number of the power supply used to drive that motor. I need to study the datasheets for these items before commenting further on these particular videos. I especially require the speed-torque curves. Obviously you must have the speed-torque and speed-current curves already, right? Without them, it was impossible for you to delineate which of the observed behaviours were due to the motor, and which are due to the Perepiteia machine. So, spare me the trouble of tracking down the datasheets and just post them here. Also, I would like to have a list of your test instruments as well.

By the way, have dynamometer tests been performed on your Perepiteia machine? Preferably tests at an engine lab selected and paid for by somebody other than yourself? I think Magna International and the mysterious millionaire aerospace engineer would be wise to seek such rigorous yet TRULY INDEPENDENT validation before making an investment.

Even more importantly, there are also witnesses who have tried spinning your Perepiteia by hand. They did NOT find that as the Perepiteia spins, its magnets are repulsed by the previous coil and attracted to the next. Instead, they found that the machine has cogging torque that obeys Maxwell’s laws. They thereby proved conclusively and irrefutably that your back-EMF theory is incorrect. I encourage anybody who lives close enough to Ottawa (which is in Eastern Canada) to repeat this experiment and report about your experiences here.

There is also the example of your transformers. They yielded fabulous “over unity” results so long as you performed the testing, yet independent tests found that those same transformers performed worse than normal transformers. Have you backed off your claims concerning those devices?

Now that your original back-EMF theory has been rigorously disproved for both the rotating machine and the transformer, then what new theory do you have to account for the behaviour of your machine? You not only need an independently verifiable theory, but to be convincing, you need to disprove conventional explanations which I and others have supplied at the expense of our own time.

In sum Mr. Heins, the onus is on you to prove that your claims of anomalous behaviour CANNOT be explained by conventional means. Other things being equal, the public should obviously trust me. After all you have a vested financial interest in not seeing your work debunked, while I have gained nothing from the substantial effort I invested in proving you were mistaken, and never will.

respectfully,

Natan

Winer!

Sorry whiner…

Dear Mr. Heins,

It is a normal part of scientific endeavour that theories have a life cycle. When they are proposed, they should have some predictive power which can be used to formulate hypotheses that can be tested. The accuracy of predictions is assessed in those tests, and that in turn determines whether the theory should be accepted or discarded. Experiments are “successful” regardless of whether the theory is proved or disproved. Thus it’s not important that I haven’t visited your lab for a demo. If your theory were valid, then its predictions could be replicated elsewhere.

That’s what I’m trying to do: find the truth by testing your theory. Seen in that light, I believe I’m doing you a favour. I point this out because I believe in the truth, and if you do too, then you have nothing to fear. You have bravely taken the first step by making a partial disclosure of your tests through the video medium. The information is very incomplete because your videos dodge many important details, but they are a start. Congratulations. The truly useful experiments performed so far have not yet been shown on video – the independent transformer measurements and the hand-spinning of the Perepiteia – but they are useful precisely because they tested your back-EMF theory most directly (and happened to reach a negative conclusion). BTW, a convincing demo of your back-EMF theory would have been to show the Perepiteia, with no motor attached at all, initiated to turn by hand, and then speeding up of its own accord without any additional intervention. According to your theory, that’s what should happen.

Meanwhile, I have explained why the Perepiteia actually behaved the way it did when connected to a single phase AC induction motor. Next we need to deal with the case of the DC motor.

Your two short comments above would have been spent more constructively in identifying your equipment, especially the DC motor. It would have made my life much easier. Instead you are forcing me to make guesses based on grainy videos. When you don’t help it makes it seem to our mutual readership that you have something to hide. In any case, based on careful scrutiny of the video “Part 4 REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION using 1/4 HP DC Motor” I have tentatively identified the motor as a Lab-Volt model 8211. Am I right? If so, then you should realize that this motor gives you separate access to the armature and stator coils. You can wire this machine as a series or shunt motor, and it will behave differently depending on which you choose. You can also insert motor controls into the circuit. Lab-Volt sells the 86n1 series for this purpose, for example the 8631. The 8211′s many variations make it impossible for me to guess what you did, nor to obtain the correct speed-torque and speed-current curves.

So, for the sake of your own credibility as a scientist, please identify exactly the motor used, its detailed configuration and control arrangement if applicable, and provide the relevant speed-torque and speed-current curves for that particular setup. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Natan

Sorry again you are actually an ignorant whiner.

You can babble your baloney for years and get nowhere – so I invite you to come to the lab at Ottawa University at your convenience and remove your ignorance. That is why we are there!

I will give you the 2 hours required to explain the technology. Then you can serve your readers properly by writing an article that is accurate, truthful and factually correct.

So far you have done none of this and it is your journalistic integrity that is being damaged here. So if you want to clean up your act – take the first step.

Cheers
Thane

Thane C. Heins
President
Potential Difference Inc.

I don’t believe Natan Weissman is a journalist Thane, so insulting his journalistic integrity is somewhat misguided. I’ll leave him to comment on the technology, but just a quick question, why haven’t you solved the world’s energy crisis yet, what’s the hold up?

Dear Mr. Heins,

I like to understand the world around me. When I first noticed your materials on the web, I was intrigued. Usually, when unusual scientific claims are made, the originator is very secretive. This can happen for a good reason, namely as efforts are made to protect intellectual property. However, it is more common that the originator is simply a crackpot. This is especially true of perpetual motion claims. Your approach was different, in that you published your theory about how you thought your devices manipulate back-EMF. You also published enough information that anyone can reproduce your Perepiteia devices, both the generator and the transformer. My earlier congratulations to you for being so open were sincere. The trouble is that while you published enough to reproduce both device concepts, you didn’t publish enough to reproduce any of the experiments in which the generators are shown.

I furthered my own investigation by inquiring about your work through third parties. Academia is a wonderfully connected world, so the fact that you moved your lab from your home to the University of Ottawa made it easier to collect information. Several websites and newspapers have also discussed your work, mentioning the names of various academics in the process.

The availability of enough information for me to reproduce the Perepiteia devices made it possible for me to confirm conclusively the unpublished third party results from your own lab, namely that your generator and transformer obey Maxwell’s laws and not your own back-EMF theory. But I wanted to go further than that and understand the video experiments, which could mislead some viewers into accepting the back-EMF theory. That is why I published my analysis of the AC motor experiments, and now seek to clarify the DC motor experiments too.

I appreciate your invitation to visit your laboratory. However, it would be an expensive proposition for me to go to the University of Ottawa, and likely not add to my understanding. After all, I can see the videos already. I understand your theory too, apparently no less well than you do. (By the way, do you realize it violates not only the law of conservation of energy, but it also implies nonreciprocity in homogeneous isotropic media?) What I would like to know with specificity are the identity of your DC motor, how its stator and armature coils are wired, its control system, and its characteristic curves for the way it is wired: the speed-torque, torque-current, and speed-current relationships. That’s because the behaviour of your DC motor is the only part of your work that I don’t understand yet. You have not been willing to provide that information so far. In fact, you have never answered even one of the questions I posed in my letters here (even simple ones e.g. “Is the motor a Lab-Volt 8211?”). So what guarantee do I have that you would provide all the missing information in the two hours you are generously willing to host my visit, if I did go to the time, trouble and expense of flying to Ottawa? You have already shown a certain lack of decorum in your dealings with me, as a result of which I fear that the risks of such a trip proving unproductive are simply too great to justify the expense.

In any case, even assuming I did find the budget to make such a trip, I believe you and I would both be better off if I invested the funds differently, namely in purchasing exact equivalents of your motors and motor controls after learning all the appropriate settings. I’m guessing you have a model 8211 and are using it series-wound, with an 8631 controller, but even that isn’t enough specificity. I need to know every detailed setting. This would enable me to reproduce and explain your DC experiments more exactly, and then we could close the book on the Perepiteia generator videos, and go back to our careers as physicists, cooks, or whatever.

sincerely,

Natan Weissman

I’m in Thane’s corner on this one but even I have to admit that Mr. Weissman and others as of late have proposed some compelling and fair critiques.

Thane, you’ve been open to this type of criticism in the past and it is, in fact, your willingness to meet these criticisms head on with open sharing that’s won you respect and fans the world over.

I do understand your concern that even if you did post requested additional information to this site, Mr. Weissman or others may misinterpret this information and misrepresent things you’ve confident aren’t true. So I ask you this:

Why not simply address some of the more popular concerns that have been presented over the web over the past year since the story originally broke on your own personal website? At least that way, you can moderate and present the information visually in a way you’re comfortable with so that it’s clear and irrefutable.

I’m of the opinion that if you directly address some of these criticisms, or share some of the information that’s been requested of you in this forum and on others, you’ll silence some of your critics and bring forth more curiosity in your project. It sounds like nobody knows exactly what is happening or why and are instead taking their best guesses using the physics laws they were taught and the information you’ve provided.

Only by continuing to share the way you have will you continue this tremendous wave of success. The minute you lose your cool or restrictive is the minute people start to believe that you are like all the others who’ve conned others before.

David, I’d be interested to learn on what basis you place yourself in Mr Heins’ corner?

That said, you’re absolutely right, if Mr Heins were to explain fully and openly how his system works, we could all build one and start running our homes on this kind of power supply, cut our energy bills dramatically, and solve the problem of imminent fuel shortages and climate change in one fell swoop, couldn’t we?

Frankly, if that is what this technology offers, then it shouldn’t be locked away in a single Canadian lab (hey, I noticed you’re in Canada too David/Mike!) for any individual to play with, it should be shared with the world!

For more than a year now I have been posting information and every single development here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=109.0

There are 480 pages of information, photos and replication instructions,

People all over the world are replicating the technology and sharing.

Cheers
Thane

First of all, I find it highly unprofessional of you to call out a reader of this site by posting email information about myself. When one posts their email address into a message board or the like, they do not expect a forum moderator to post said information. I, like many others, post under a pseudonyms or user names for good reason; I’d like to avoid being harassed by third parties and retain a certain degree of anonymity. My name is meaningless. I’m not making any claims or looking for some sort of conflict; I’m just a person on the internet hoping to continue what appeared to be a somewhat limited conversation.

Besides, it’s not as though I posted anything even remotely controversial or “trolled.” I simply hoped to share my thoughts on this forum because I saw that Thane had posted here.

I’m in his corner in that I’m a fan of interesting scientific discoveries and stumbled across his story while surfing Wikipedia. This is also how I found your site. As my new user name states, I am fascinated by Science and as you pointed out I am a Canadian citizen. Yes, there’s a certain degree of added pride and interest in the story because Thane is a Canadian as well.

I’ve never really thought that Thane had actually created a perpetual motion machine, or an over-unity device, but even the idea that he could have somehow created a very efficient or near unity device intrigues me. I’m also fascinated that many other, more intelligent people than myself, have seen it in person and are still puzzled by the findings. I’m happy that the Scientific community took him seriously enough to view this thing with an open mind and not be entirely dismissive. I appreciate his open approach and I feel like in the past these types of claims have been made by mentally unstable and overly paranoid people so the fact that Thane appears to be well adjusted and approachable is a refreshing twist on this otherwise old story.

It’s not so much that I think he has THE answer to Earth’s energy problems, it’s that I think he might have AN answer to some of Earth’s energy problems. This is why I hope he agrees to share with this site the information they’ve requested. I don’t necessarily think this site is proposing that he’s deliberately misled the public but some have. This is why I hope he continues his open approach and doesn’t lose his temper in the face of constant criticism and doubt.

Do I want to believe that a Canadian without a ton of scientific education has created something worthwhile through tinkering and experimentation? Sure. That’s why I’m in his corner, openly biased, and hoping that somehow… someway… the basic underlying design concept he’s created proves to be valuable in some way. It’s a good story. I like rooting for the underdog.

I’m not sure if my last comment failed moderation because it was worded too strongly but I’d really appreciate it if you edited the post where you post private information about myself.

Most people posting on message boards or the like use pseudonyms, usernames or avatars and don’t appreciate having their private information shared.

When I posted that I was in his corner, I meant that I’m a fan of the idea of this thing he’s created. It’s true I’m probably a bit biased because Thane is also Canadian and I’ll admit that’s partially what caught my attention about the story.

I stumbled across his story while surfing Wikipedia and came to this site while googling his name.

Anyway, it’s not as though I think he’s created an over unity device or perpetual motion device; I simply think he’s created a super efficient device of some kind that’s worth investigating and I’m disappointed when I read things that seem to paint the guy in a negative light as though he’s out to con people because it seems to me he’s been far more open and giving then many other “inventors” have been who’ve made similar devices in the past.

Last but not least, I just wanted to get in on this conversation because I wanted to tell Thane that, in my opinion, the best way to continue this wave of success is to meet these types of challenges and requests head on the way he has in the past. I just think it would be wise to post on his own web page and then link to that page on this or similar sites who are claiming to have debunked the mystery of his device.

Your email address was NEVER made visible on the site, rest assured of that. Your comments were not down moderated, just getting around to approving them now.

By the way, I totally agree with the sentiment of your comments. I too wish Mr Heins every success, in fact, I’d love to see him become a multimilionaire on the basis of the essentially free energy he will provide the world at the massive percentage efficiencies he says his contraptions can produce. Time’s moved on though, I would love to know what the hold up is…

Thanks for explaining the situation and for editing the aforementioned post. I’ve never been to this site before but I like what I see and the fact that you guys met my request with professionalism.

David, have you or Natan read any of the information posted on Thane’s site since he posted the link?

I’m not knowledgeable enough to make sense of schematics and it almost sounded as if the original article here was mostly founded from the Youtube demonstrations Thane posted previously. Does Thane’s link and any subsequent information he’s made available on his site affect your theory on how the device works?

Yes, I removed your “other” name, but your email was never revealed to anyone. As to Heins’ posts. Natan is studying and responding to all the details very carefully as far as I can tell.

Hello to “Interested in Science”.

I’m happy to see more people join the discussion. I would like to comment on some of your comments, and hope that doesn’t bother you. Here we go:

“Anyway, it’s not as though I think he’s created an over unity device or perpetual motion device; I simply think he’s created a super efficient device of some kind”
On what basis can you say Mr. Heins has created a super efficient device? I’m unable to draw such a conclusion based on the available evidence. He has created two devices that I know of, the Perepiteia transformer and the Perepiteia generator. He has also created a single theory to explain the operation of both devices. There are serious issues with all three alleged achievements.

Concerning the Perepiteia generator, no solid evidence has been presented to support a claim of superior efficiency, or even efficiency that matches normal generators. Efficiency is defined as power output divided by power input. For a generator, that means measuring mechanical input power and electrical output power. None of the videos measures power input and power output correctly. In general, all the motor-generator videos are conceptually faulty, in that there are at least two uncharacterized devices (the generator and the motor driving it), consequently you cannot tell which device is responsible for any single observation. It’s even more complicated with DC motors, where their wiring and control circuits have to be taken into account. Meanwhile the acceleration of the induction motor has been shown to be caused by something other than the Perepiteia generator. If you don’t believe or can’t understand my detailed paper on the subject, I suggest you watch the Heins video in which he accelerates an induction motor using just a permanent magnet in the proximity of the motor. There’s no Perepiteia generator there, so it obviously CAN’T be the Perepiteia that’s accelerating the motor! A detailed explanation of Mr. Heins’ experiments with DC motors will be possible once he stops hiding key information about his experiments from this audience.

Concerning the Perepiteia transformer, Mr. Heins made extraordinary claims for this device, including efficiencies up to 7000%. Independent testing proved that these transformers cannot even compete with the >90% efficiency of normal transformers. Mr. Heins has received independent reports on the transformers that give an accurate assessment of their performance. Naturally he has withheld those reports from his fans. In fact, he has had little to say about the transformers of late. Apropos independent testing of the generator, he has declined a challenge to submit the machine to proper testing on a dynamometer. He has possibly also withheld other test results that put the generator in a bad light. In other words, he’s certainly not being open. Instead, he’s being very selectively one-sided in what he discloses.

Then there’s Mr. Heins’ theory that his devices manipulate back-EMF in such a manner as to contradict Lenz’ Law. The implications of this are over-unity transformers and self-powering generators with the characteristic that, once the magnets are turning, they repel the previous coil and are attracted to the next one, thereby speeding up, and exhibit no cogging torque. However, the back-EMF theory has been proven false for both devices, by way of experiments. He is aware of these negative experimental results, but is not admitting to them. In fact, he claims that “No one has been able to prove him wrong” when he knows he has been proven wrong. You live in Canada, right? Head over to Ottawa, and ask to spin the Perepiteia by hand with the motor either disconnected or not driven, but the output coils shorted. If Mr. Heins is right, then the generator will speed up of its own accord. If James Maxwell was right, then the generator will slow down and stop. Simple. You don’t need to take my word or Mr. Heins’.

These facts place the following fond comment in a whole different light, don’t they: “I’m disappointed when I read things that seem to paint the guy in a negative light as though he’s out to con people because it seems to me he’s been far more open and giving then many other inventors have been who’ve made similar devices in the past.” I’m afraid not.

Mind you, I agree without any reservations with this comment: “I just think it would be wise to post on his own web page and then link to that page on this or similar sites who are claiming to have debunked the mystery of his device.” An excellent point, but where is his own web page, anyway?

cheers,

Natan

Good post, Natan.

Where does this go from here though? You mentioned that the device has already been successfully explained and debunked and that Thane rejected testing on a dynamometer. Will you be able to provide any links to the claims? I know the Ottawa skeptics Society left, well, skeptical (according to Wikipedia) but I’m unfamiliar with the society; I’m wondering what they’ve debunked in the past and their track record.

Many extraordinary scientific discoveries and theorems in the past were thought impossible at first but their discoverers allowed their work to be put through the ringer to prove that the results were consistent, real, and irrefutable. This is the way science usually works. Somebody proposes something and everybody else quotes the rule book, suggesting it’s not possible. Thane needs to be open and allow this device to be tested the same way all other devices have been tested.

Thane’s had two intelligent men look at his device that weren’t able to immediately spot your claims and so I think that’s a big part of where his confidence and the confidence of people like myself stems from.

I’m not sure where the scientific community usually goes after the initial claim of an inventor to the potential subsequent debunking of said device but I would suggest that if you’re convinced your theory is true, Natan, you should try to push Thane to step up and prove that you are incorrect.

Again, I’m not familiar with how these little dances between inventors/theorists and skeptics works but I think that so long as you’re not out for blood, and you go the normal route (updating the Wikipedia page, sharing your theory with other sites)… Thane will essentially have to meet your request. I’m of the opinion that this is how science has always and should always work.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM –> RIGOROUS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS –> COUNTER POINT FROM INVENTOR (IF NECESSARY) –> THE TRUTH!

Fundamentally, science does not work like this at all. It works by those with interesting claims providing all the information necessary for someone to try and reproduce the original experiments. As far as I know, all the information an independent party would need to reproduce the Heins experiments is not available. This is not the same as an inventor inviting someone to their laboratory to try out their equipment.

Look at the history of the Cold Fusion debacle. Pons and Fleischmann thought they were on to something and so made available the exact details of how other scientists might attempt to replicate their findings. No one has yet done that, it is unlikely that after twenty years they ever will (despite the fact that the US Navy and Japanese institutions are still putting money into cold fusion on the small off chance of success). But, that aside, the main point is that P and F provided all details of their experiments to the scientific community so that the tests could be done.

Obviously, some parties associated with any potentially groundbreaking discovery may have a commercial agenda. If that is the case, then they are essentially working outside the scientific community, should validate their work with independent parties under secrecy contract in order to convince investors of viability and then get on and commercialize their invention. This would be a much more expeditious approach than garnering irrelevant positive and negative publicity through public video communities and forums.

Hello,

My interpretation of how science works is that there is a constant interplay between theory and experiment. They drive each other forward. Theories are tested by experiment, and unexpected experimental results are explained by new theories, which need to be tested. Therefore a useful theory is one that has predictive power, and a useful experiment is one that decides the validity of a theory. A certain level of theoretical knowledge is needed in experimentalists to ensure good experiment design, and theoreticians need to be aware of the latest experimental advances. In order to ensure the credibility of the whole process, a theory must be shared in full, and an experiment must be successfully replicated by others if there are any doubts about the results. In the world of scientific publishing, the peer review process provides quality assurance. In general, this process works well.

When people publish results directly to a popular audience (for example via YouTube videos), the quality of the work is no longer assured, and that audience is often incapable of noticing the mistakes nor of understanding scientific rebuttals. Do you remember this quote from Arthur C. Clarke “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”? I think this is from his “Profile of the Future”. It is particularly apropos in connection with electromagnetics. As children, most of us were fascinated by electricity and magnetism. It was magic! Later the banality of familiarity took over, we take EM for granted without gaining any understanding. As a result, the popular audience treats scientifically valid forays into a topic like EM with no more weight than it gives to complete nonsense on the same subject. In truth EM is an extremely demanding subject, because it requires so much mathematics and physics to truly grasp, from vector calculus to Maxwell’s theory to quantum mechanics. Worse still, there is so much to know in EM that even top experts can only keep a small piece of the whole body of knowledge in their heads at any one time.

Thane Heins is good at playing to the pop audience, because he is part of it himself. I don’t think a scientist could deliver the performance that he does. Heins brazenly ignores (or doesn’t understand) the underlying scientific issues. His success in temporarily confusing very good scientists like Prof. Marcus Zahn lies in the fact that the induction motor theory subset of electromagnetics was not fresh on Zahn’s mind when he was ambushed by Heins’ visit. I suspect that later, if he had time to consider the effects he saw, Zahn would have reached a similar conclusion to mine. I’m not smarter than Zahn, I just enjoyed the luxury of thinking about the issues at my own pace instead of being put on the spot. In fact, I’d welcome Zahn’s critique of my analysis of Heins’ AC motor experiments. That’s my answer to your comment, “Thane’s had two intelligent men look at his device that weren’t able to immediately spot your claims and so I think that’s a big part of where his confidence and the confidence of people like myself stems from.” Actually, Heins has had more intelligent people look at the device who did tell him that the device doesn’t work and some who explained why not, but Heins is not willing to admit to these less-than-investor-friendly encounters. As I said, he’s very selective in the information he releases.

All that said, I do not believe in “proof by eminent authority”. Neither I nor Mr. Heins are right or wrong because Prof. Zahn or Prof. Habash said so. Nor because he or I or the Ottawa Skeptics said something for that matter. We can be right if we produce a testable theory that is then verified as correct by independent experiments. At the scientific level, that process of theorizing and experimental verification is already complete. No serious scientists that I know of accept Heins’ back-EMF theory because it has been experimentally disproved. If you want to see an example of such a publication, see my paper here and follow-up posts. Detailed quantitative experiments are not available because Heins does not accept having them carried out. Even so, find me anyone with a Ph.D. in physics or electrical engineering who’s willing to go on record as saying that Heins’s theory is right and Maxwell’s theory is wrong. If such a miracle happens, that PhD. will be a laughing stock in his or her circles. However, if Heins were right, every scientist would be first to jump on the bandwagon, claim that they were the first to prove Heins’ theory, add the necessary mathematical embellishments themselves, and be the first to write an article for a peer-reviewed journal. Vanity is a huge part of academia. Everybody wants to go down in history.

However we now need to jump an extra hurdle: To convince a pop audience rather than specialists, the theory and experiments have to be simple enough for that pop audience (and even rich investors) to grasp. So, let’s start with a theoretical prediction based on the back-EMF theory:
Do you accept that the theory predicts that once Heins’ Perepiteia machine has been initiated in turning, that the magnets are repelled from the previous coil and attracted to the next? Heins has written as much explicitly. I happen to agree that this is a prediction of his back-EMF theory, but I can no longer locate the link where I saw that statement. I hope Mr. Heins is not shy about confirming the prediction now.

After that theoretical point is accepted, we design an experiment that tests the prediction. If on the Perepitea generator the magnets are repelled by a coil from which they are receeding and attracted to a coil they are approaching, then this process supplies torque. This means the rotor can not only turn by itself once started, but also speed up with no external power input, provided that the torque is enough to overcome any residual friction, which friction ought to be minimal on a generator with decent bearings. Right. So we have designed an experiment that tests the theory.

That experiment has been performed in Heins’ lab on his own equipment. Once the rotor was initiated sharply into turning and the hand that turned it was released, the machine slowed down and stopped. In a related experiment, as the rotor was turned slowly by hand, the person turning the rotor could feel the cogging torque predicted by Maxwell’s theories but denied by Heins’ theory. Therefore, Heins theory has been disproved by two related experiments. There is no more room to argue about it, unless you choose to believe that the visitors to the lab who did this were liars. Do you only believe video evidence? If you have contact with that Ottawa Skeptics group that you mention, perhaps you could ask them to go to Heins’ lab and make a video of this experiment. Actually, I’d love to see such a video myself, even though I know the results in advance. This was a useful experiment, and will be useful again whenever it is repeated.

Now what about Heins’ own “experiments” shown on video? Whatever they do show, they are useless for testing his theory, and also useless for evaluation the efficiency of his generator. If you have a motor and generator attached to each other, and you measure the (electrical) power going into the motor and the (electrical) power coming out of the generator, but not the (mechanical) power being transfered from the motor to the generator, then you do not know which machine is causing your observations. It is a useless experiment. I have shown in my paper that acceleration with declining power consumption is a normal feature of NEMA class A and B single phase induction motor operation under the conditions Heins uses in his lab. Why reject these facts? They come straight from the website of a reliable disinterested party, Reliance Motors. A similar acceleration effect can happen under some conditions with DC motors, especially if they are series-wired instead of shunt-wired. That is why I’ve been pressing Mr. Heins for more information on his DC motor, but I think he realizes his back is to the wall, so he’s being uncooperative. The case for conducting dynamometer tests is precisely that they separate the motor and generator contributions to the results. Again, Mr. Heins is reluctant to accept this testing, especially not be independent third parties free to publish the results, probably because he’s still fishing for investors who don’t do technical audits of inventions before investing in them.

So, to summarize the present status on your flowchart:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM –> RIGOROUS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS –> COUNTER POINT FROM INVENTOR (IF NECESSARY) –> THE TRUTH!

We have:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM -> yes, made by Mr. Heins
RIGOROUS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS -> rigorous qualitative results available contradicting Mr. Heins’ theory, no data available supporting his theory. No quantitative results either way (except for the Perepiteia transformer). Various videos are available, with no scientifically useful content.
COUNTER POINT FROM INVENTOR (IF NECESSARY) -> by way of counterargument, the inventor has claimed that his critics are “whiners”. Well, at least one has been thus described.
THE TRUTH! -> has been established (in favour of James Clerc Maxwell vs. Thane Christopher Heins), but has not been made believable to a popular audience.

That’s about the size of it. Enjoy.

Natan

Another great post, Natan. Thank you.

You asked me if I’m willing to accept a theory that predicts that once Heins’ Perepiteia machine has been initiated in turning, that the magnets are repelled from the previous coil and attracted to the next? Heins has written as much explicitly. I’m of the opinion that if such a thing were possible, it would only be possible in a zero gravity environment or perfect vaccum, which is not what we’re talking about here. If this is essentially the primary focus of Heins’ theory/working model then I can see why you feel as strongly as you do that it will lead nowhere practical.

I was of the opinion, however, that this was not the primary focus of Heins’ theory/working model but like yourself, I can’t find anything to the contrary beyond the buzz term “Back EMF.”

I’ve already stated that I am very much a novice when it comes to physics history so please forgive my naivety but I came across this and am of the opinion that the primary focus of Heins’ theory relates more to the synchronous speed of an induction motor and the number of poles in the motor. I read somewhere that the coil and magnets of his generator create a pulsing magnetic field that travels through the induction motor shaft and alters the magnetic relationship between the rotor and stator, causing the induction motor to speed up as if the frequency increased or the number of poles has changed.

That’s the thing that interested me. It sounded far more technical and more like a phenomenon than simply one magnet pushing one magnet from another towards another. I was under the impression it had more to do with a magnetic field change. Again, I don’t quite understand how that’s possible or what that means but that’s what originally fascinated me about the device.

Misinformation is an infectious disease and I don’t enjoy spreading it. I think your theory makes sense so long as he hasn’t accidentally stumbled across some sort of phenomenon (the impression I had) that bends the rules as you know it. As you’ve already stated multiple times, however, if this were the case why wouldn’t Heins’ simply hand his device over to critical independent third party analysis over weeks, not hours?

The fact that I’m hearing more and more often that Thane is being selective of what information he releases sets alarm bells off. I want to believe that he’s perhaps stumbled across something fantastic that really does alter back EMF in a way that’s never been done before. I’m not expecting over-unity but I’d like to think there’s a phenomenon at work here that’s of merit. I’m not sure what it is but I hope Mr. Heins will meet your request, or better explain the underlying theory so that the results can be properly scrutinized and proved or disproved.

Hello once again,

The Internet is a wonderful tool partly because it retains a lot of information from the past. Reaching back into archival material from a few years ago across many sources, I can see how Thane Heins’ story has mutated over the years. As recently as two years ago, he put the main emphasis on his theory and his transformers, while now it’s the generator that gets centre stage.

One of the consequences of the theory is a statement that Heins has often made and which you acknowledge, that “once the Perepiteia machine has been initiated in turning, that the magnets are repelled from the previous coil and attracted to the next”. But this is an important prediction of the theory rather than the substance of the theory itself. The theory is best understood in connection with transformers, and for this purpose motors can be seen as a type of transformer too, just a little more complicated.

Let’s start with electrical concepts, which are somewhat more familiar than magnetic ones. If you apply an electrical “pressure” (called voltage “V” or sometimes “electromotive force” or “EMF”), then the electrical “flow” (called current “I”) you get out depends on the resistance “R” to that flow. More resistance means less flow, or I = V/R. This is called “Ohm’s Law”. If there is more than one path available to a current, it will divide itself among all the paths in accordance with Ohm’s law, so that high resistance paths get less of the current, and low resistance paths get more of the total current.

Something similar happens with magnetism. If you apply a magnetic pressure (called magnetomotive force), then the magnetic “flow” (called flux) you get depends on the reluctance “R”. Magnetic flux can flow through air or empty space, but it prefers paths through solids with special magnetic properties, like transformer steel.

There is also an interesting interrelationship between electricity and magnetism that arises out of Maxwell’s equations (which are a set of four vector differential equations that summarize classical electromagnetics) and which makes transformers possible. A time-varying electric field gives rise to a magnetic field, and vice versa. So if you send an AC current through a wire (called the primary winding) wrapped around a transformer core, that current will induce a flux in the core, and that flux can in turn induce a voltage (called the “back-EMF”) in a second wire (called the secondary winding), which in turn gives rise to a secondary current according to Ohm’s Law. However, that secondary current will itself induce a flux in the magnetic core, and that secondary flux will oppose the flux from the primary. This opposition is called “Lenz’ Law”.

If I may paraphrase Heins’ theory in simple but clear terms, it would be the magnetic analogy to the saying “Electricity follows the path of least resistance”, except that he takes this very literally. The heart of his theory is and always has been that if magnetic flux has a choice of two paths, all of it will follow along the path of lower reluctance, and none along the path of higher reluctance.

IF and only IF this is so, then it is possible to make what Heins calls a “bitoroid” transformer with two cores and at least two secondary windings that has some extraordinary properties. Imagine an elongated doughnut with two holes instead of one, so there are in effect two doughnut rings or “tori” (one torus, many tori, using the Latin plural). One torus purposely has much higher reluctance than the other. The primary coil is wound on the high-reluctance torus, the first secondary is wound straddling both tori, and the second secondary is wound on the low-reluctance torus. Now suppose that an AC voltage is applied to the primary coil. The primary current sends magnetic flux towards the secondaries. Heins theorizes that all of the flux will couple into the first secondary and induce a “back-EMF” into that first secondary. The resulting current in the first secondary will induce a flux into the core, which according to Lenz’ Law is opposed to the flux from the primary. Heins believes according to the “follow the path of least resistance” principle that ALL of this flux will be coupled into the second low-reluctance second torus, and therefore NONE of it will go back into the first torus towards the primary coil and oppose the primary flux. This way, the primary can work better, while you also get power from the second secondary that is essentially for free. This enables transformer efficiency greater than 100% (or so Heins believes). What I have just described is the “Perepiteia transformer”.

Speaking of this device, Heins specifically boasted that he could get 100 watts of output with zero watts of input. I agree with him that this is a consequence of his theory. You can’t beat that kind of performance! No power input whatsoever. By implication you can get any amount of power out that you want, a hundred watts or even infinity. Great! We have answered the world’s energy needs.

There is just one little problem: The Heins back-EMF theory is wrong, and the transformer performance claims aren’t true. The transformer fails to behave as advertised for many reasons. Firstly, if the torus linking the primary to the first secondary is a high-reluctance path, you can’t get a lot of flux through it, and a lot of your flux just leaks out into space, which is very inefficient. You also quickly “saturate” the torus, which means you can’t make it accept any additional flux. Then, the little flux that does make it to the junction between the tori splits into portions according to the reluctance of the two paths. The back-EMFs in the two secondaries give rise to currents that in turn create fluxes according to Lenz’ Law, and these fluxes both circulate through the entire core consisting of both tori, again splitting in proportion to the reluctances of the paths they encounter. The overall result is a dismally bad transformer, mostly because of the poor flux carrying capacity of the first torus.

Thane Heins was so lacking in knowledge of how to test transformers that he thought he observed output up to 7000% of the input (therefore power for free as he promised). He was also so confident about this Perepiteia transformer that he farmed out the prototypes to at least three independent companies that then put the transformer to the test. Where Heins saw amazing over-unity performance, all of the real labs reported poor performance under his selected test conditions. All of them.

From this experience in mid-2007, Thane Heins realized that in order to attract more investment to Potential Difference Inc, it would be unwise to allow independent testing of his next great invention based on the exact same “back-EMF” principle, the Perepiteia generator. As he described it then, this was
“A generator that does not produce back EMF magnetic fields in the air gap according to Lenz’s Law and does not produce counter torque on the prime mover.”
One leads to the other. A lack of “back EMF magnetic fields”, or more properly a lack of “magnetic flux due to the current induced in the secondary” would indeed lead to “does not produce counter torque on the prime mover”. No “counter torque” in turn means that the rotor will turn of its own accord while not loading the “prime mover” (i.e. motor) at all. This means it doesn’t need a motor to run. Once you start the Perepiteia generator turning, it produces free energy. I emphasize this important fact: Over-unity performance is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the Heins back-EMF theory, for both the transformer and the generator. You have to either buy into the whole package, or none of it. You can’t pick and choose which consequences of the theory you will embrace and which you won’t.

Unfortunately for Thane Heins, this generator “works” on the same principle and in the same way as the bitoroid Perepiteia transformer, in other words, it doesn’t, because the theory is faulty from start to finish. That’s what it really comes down to: Heins’ devices are nothing special unless the theory behind them is right, but it isn’t. None of the theory or observations has anything fundamentally to do with the number of poles on a motor or generator, or special pulsing properties in his magnetic fields. Also, that theory does not depend on being in a vacuum or in a zero gravity environment. The magnetic properties of air and vacuum are very similar. The difference between one earth gravity and zero gravity is also irrelevant to the theory, to the device, and to electric motors in general for that matter. Electric motors work just fine on satellites in the zero-G vacuum of space. (In outer space you do have to worry about temperature, radiation damage, and lubrication issues, however!)

Of course, as the Thane Heins story has evolved, he has been de-emphasizing his theory and especially his transformer, and playing up the generator. Why? Because that’s the part of the story that still seduces people. Viewers can see real effects in the videos, and most people are not capable of reasoning through the situation to come to the realization that motor characteristics are responsible for the seemingly anomalous acceleration and efficiency behaviours. When I pointed out in my paper that this is a well-known phenomenon for AC induction motors and applies to Ryobi’s motor in particular, Heins did not find any errors in my (and Reliance Motors’) analysis of induction motor behaviour. Instead he replied that his effect is also observable with DC motors (see his first reply here on SciScoop). Fair enough, I said, let me know what kind of DC motor you are using, and I’ll explain your DC motor experiments too. He hasn’t risen to the challenge.

In final analysis, the theoretical justification for Heins’ generator’s special qualities is nothing other than the erroneous back-EMF theory. That is why the simple “spin the Perepiteia by hand” experiment, although qualitative and not quantitative in nature, once it was carried out, was enough to debunk the entire invention.

Therefore I really like your comment here:
“I think your theory makes sense so long as he hasn’t accidentally stumbled across some sort of phenomenon (the impression I had) that bends the rules as you know it. As you’ve already stated multiple times, however, if this were the case why wouldn’t Heins’ simply hand his device over to critical independent third party analysis over weeks, not hours?”

The answer is self-evident. If you have something to hide, you hide it.

Natan

Please find below a May 26 – invitation for Seanna Watson of the Ottawa Sceptics to visist the lab for revised demos.

The same invitation applies to all @ thane_heins@yahoo.ca – I have set up the transformer for demos as well.

Anyone interested talking to people actually replicating the technology and learning something go here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7530.0

To Seanna Watson via Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star

Dear Tyler,

The only way to satisfy Seanna’s Watson’s delusional selective perceptions and scepticism is for her make an appointment to come back to the lab and see the latest developments for herself. Many advancements have taken place since she was in the lab including developing an acceptable scientific explanation for what is taking place.

As always I am in the lab almost every day and always happy to give demos and remove ignorance.

Cheers
Thane

Thane C. Heins
President – Potential +/- Difference Inc.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Hello Mr. Heins,

While it is not a substitute for proper disclosure of technical details sufficient to exactly reproduce your experiments at Technion and elsewhere, I do welcome your continued willingness to accept visitors to your lab.

I am particularly intrigued by one statement in your last post: “Many advancements have taken place since she was in the lab including developing an acceptable scientific explanation for what is taking place.” Excellent. Can you please disclose that acceptable scientific explanation to all of us?

Natan

Yes you are welcome to come to the lab anytime and have your ignorance removed like anyone else. Assuming you have the balls for it…

Now I realize that you can’t come because I might be mean to you and that you are scared of me so why not encourage your source, Seanna to come – that way you can both hold hands and shoot down the theory together.

Or better yet, why not just shut up and build your own like others all over the world are doing and then share your findings with all of us? Assuming you have the brains for it.

If you need someone to hold your hand ask “Iron” or “LarryC” or “Gotoluc” or “Wattsup” or any of the other sincere learners on the Over Unity Replication Forum.

BTW – show some respect and try not to be a whiner cause they will chew you up and spit you out.

T

“While it is not a substitute for proper disclosure of technical details sufficient to exactly reproduce your experiments at Technion and elsewhere,” NW

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology?

If so ask one of the professors there to contact me and we will build you a prototype and send it to you (similar to the California Prototype shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAS5EKsIQM4&feature=channel_page.

Perhaps the Israeli government can be diverted from murdering Palestiniens
for a while?

If not the guys I mentioned at the OU Forum will spoon feed you what you need to get the job done.

Good Luck

T

Dear Mr. Heins,

I’ve said before that I see science as an interplay between theory and experiment. I want to practice science properly as I see it, and therefore I need to get to know experiments intimately enough to explain them theoretically, and seek to understand theories so I can design experiments to test them.

As you know, at this point the only kind of your experiments I can’t adequately explain is the set involving the Perepiteia generator driven by a DC motor, and that only for lack of sufficiently detailed information about the DC motors and their drives. Therefore I would appreciate the answers to the various questions I posed earlier. Perhaps your various OverUnity friends are geniuses or clairvoyants who can deduce the missing information, but I’m just not capable of achieving OverUnity. I’m sorry, I need to replicate experiments the traditional way, via clear published information.

I find examining your theories and designing experiments to test them more satisfying than deconstructing your experiments. Therefore if you do have a new theory to explain your data – and one that’s actually “scientifically acceptable” for a change – then please do share it! I don’t think the boys at OverUnity can help us with that. You’re their theoretician.

sincerely,

Natan

Hello Mr. Heins,

In order to turn your experiments into something that might yield meaningful data if conducted properly, I strongly suggest you add a rotary torque sensor in between the motor and the generator. Here are some models you might look at to get an idea what this apparatus is all about:
(1) Omega Engineering TQ501 rotary torque sensor
http://www.omega.com/pptst/TQ501.html
(2) Futek FSH01987 rotary torque sensor
http://www.futek.com/product.aspx?stock=FSH01987
These are just examples. I’m not endorsing any manufacturer or model in particular, but I certainly do advocate the use of such a sensor. In your experiments, torques are very low, so you should choose from among the lowest range devices in a given product line.

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for your DC motor specs, motor drive specs, and operational configuration. Come now, it won’t take more than a few minutes to post that information on the web.

Cheers,

Natan

In order to turn your experiments into something that might yield meaningful data (because they obviously don’t) if conducted properly (because they abviously aren’t) Natan Weissman (who ever she is?) is going to show us all how to do it…

Take it away Natan the stage is yours!

T

Mr. Heins,

In order to distinguish the contributions of the motor and generator in all of your generator tests, as a minimum you need to measure all of: the real power into the motor (i.e. the voltage, current, and phase angle), the mechanical power between the motor and generator (i.e. the torque and angular frequency), and the real power output from the generator (i.e. the voltage, current, and phase angle). The one component of all this that you are missing entirely is the torque. YOU need this information too – it’s not just for outside observers! But even if you don’t believe you need that data, at worst it would mean collecting extra data that would help convince others. Isn’t that what you want to achieve in the end?

Meanwhile, do tell us the DC motor parameters. Thank you.

Natan

Hello,

I have been a replicator of Mr Heins Peripeteia Setup (as too many others). I have NOT used neither an induction or dc motor. My prime mover is a pulsed motor of Bedini style (SSG for those having knowledge)

This type of motor do not has angle slip, etc so as to attribute those phainomena.

I confirm 100% of mr Heins findings. For more reading see http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7530.50

Regards,
Baroutologos

Baroutologos, congratulations to you! I assume you’re now making money from your setup and I’ll look forward to seeing you and Heins shaking hands on the cover of Time magazine very soon, or not as the case may be.

Mr. Baroutologos,

You are truly amazing. Mr. Heins has been working on this project for many years, and has many completely unpublished results as well as some partially published ones. But you say:

“I confirm 100% of mr Heins findings”.

How did you manage to find out everything that he’s done to date? You must be one of the clairvoyants I just knew existed at OverUnity! But on top of that, you work amazingly quickly, much faster than Mr. Heins, if you as a newbie on OverUnity.com were able to replicate 100% of Heins’ findings in a very short time. You will surely soon surpass Mr. Heins and publish new, original results that add to our body of knowledge in a truly spectacular way. Please do keep up the good work.

In the meantime, can you please use your extrasensory perception to tell me exactly what DC motor Mr. Heins used, what motor drive, and what control settings? I clearly lack your extraordinary skills. I’m very concerned that if I set up my clone of the Perepiteia with a DC motor, that it will obey Maxwell’s laws just like the AC experiment did. Then if I reported that result, Mr. Heins would blame me for not configuring the experiment correctly. Thus I need detailed guidance concerning Mr. Heins’ DC equipment.

On the theoretical front, I would appreciate your analysis of why my explanation concerning AC motors (contained in the posted PDF) is incorrect. Also, please explain to me YOUR theory as to how the Perepiteia apparatus works, because Mr. Heins’ old theory failed, and your theory is likely to have greater predictive power than the new theory that Mr. Heins has not yet disclosed to this audience. Seriously. Tell us why you think you observed what you did with your clones of the Perepiteia generator and transformer. Start with the transformer, since it’s easier to understand. Thank you so very much.

Natan

Natan,

Instead of hounding for the info on DC which you crave so vigorously why not build a unit and learn from their, you know there is more than enough available information to get you started but truly it seems you just want to amaze people with your intelligent prowess where no one can understand, much like Thane you have trouble with layman’s terms except Thane has visuals.
You have stated over and over many facts given from others yet want to save money instead of traveling and proving or disproving and have yet to build any prototype yourself, yet. Seems to me you are only a critique who if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit….

Covey
Just my Opinion and stop being a whiner!

Natan wrote:
“you need to measure all of: the real power into the motor (i.e. the voltage, current, and phase angle),”

Thane has been using a modern AC power meter which measures current, voltage and power factor simultaneously, so he has an accurate measure of the input power… this should have been obvious from most any of the videos in the last year or more!

And I agree that torque would also be nice to have, but its not necessary in some cases. One can make some worst case assumptions and come to meaningful conclusions.

-Mark

Ok got the point here.

This list is destined to be an theoretical, hotted debate whether or not Mr Heins is lying or is misguided about his discovery.
Few things before i vanish. yes i am a noobie, and i lack much of mr Heins experience. I have not an EE degree and neither shaking hands or making money.

But, mr Thanes main argument is that he can produce energy out of a coil without having to pay for that as contemporary science teachings suggest.
Yes, i confirm that.
Anyway, perhaps you are more skilled and eloquent in the use of English language. That does not change anything, especially if you have never had a grasp of a device as the one discussed.

Just get involved and see for yourself or stay in ur denial.

Regards,
Baroutologos

People who can do,
and people who can’t,
criticize those that do,
or
cut and paste articles as a poor substitute.

There is no need for a torque sensor – if you understand correctly how torque works in the drive shaft and if your knowledge base includes more than just reading a book.

For example at:

Steady State Speed – Net Torque = 0
Acceleration – Net Torque > 0
Deceleration – Net Torque < 0

Now Mechanical Drive Shaft Power = Torque x Speed

So if the system is decelerating then the Net Torque is less than zero, therefore the mechanical power in the drive shaft is less than zero.

This critical point is stressed in every video and the accelerating High Voltage Coils are always engaged during SYSTEM DECELERATION and then cause ACCELERATION of the system.

So the question is where does the acceleration come from?

Answer:
The High Voltage Coils because deceleration returns if the High Voltage Coils are disengaged.

The final point here is:

While learning from reading books and articles is important – there is NO SUBSTITUTE for the learning that comes from practial hands on experience and it is impossible to satisfy impotent armchair critics who don’t understand this simple fact.

T

Gentlemen,

I’m sure Covey, Mark, and Baroutologos are all sincere, but I have issues with all of you.

to Covey:

You say: “Instead of hounding for the info on DC which you crave so vigorously why not build a unit and learn from their, you know there is more than enough available information to get you started but truly it seems you just want to amaze people with your intelligent prowess where no one can understand, much like Thane you have trouble with layman’s terms except Thane has visuals.”
“You have stated over and over many facts given from others yet want to save money instead of traveling and proving or disproving and have yet to build any prototype yourself, yet. Seems to me you are only a critique who if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit….”

I have already admitted that electromagnetics is a difficult subject to understand, and there is only so much one can do to make it accessible to a layman. It does seem like magic to you, doesn’t it? I can’t help that. I can’t dumb down the science much more than I have. On the other hand, you are right that I don’t want to spend money to travel to Ottawa. I’m not wealthy. Besides, why should I? There is no monetary gain to me in going, nor is there any scientific gain. I can see the videos already, I can understand that vital information is missing in them, and Mr. Heins has not committed to providing it if I do go.

Concerning replication, I have actually achieved Heins’ acceleration effects in experiments *without using any Perepiteia generator at all,* or for that matter, any homemade apparatus. I used a single phase induction motor (similar to NEMA class B) as the source of mechanical power. Just about any appropriately sized generator will stand in for the Perepiteia as the mechanical load. Change the electrical load on the generator, and presto! You’ve done the experiment. This of course raises the question, what is the actual mechanism by which the acceleration happens? So I provided an explanation in my paper. Meanwhile, reports from Ottawa confirmed that the Perepiteia also behaves like a conventional generator in the hand-spin experiments, which means not only that conventional explanations of the phenomena are available, but also that Heins’ theory is wrong. If you have a Perepiteia clone, you can do a useful experiment too. Start it spinning by hand, then let go. Report back here whether it speeds up, or slows down and stops after you let go. Meanwhile, I’d like the DC motor and related specs so I can explain those experiments too.

to Mark:

“Thane has been using a modern AC power meter which measures current, voltage and power factor simultaneously, so he has an accurate measure of the input power… this should have been obvious from most any of the videos in the last year or more!”
Good for Mr. Heins that he has measured input power correctly. But his experiments are useless unless he measures all three of input power, mechanical transfer power, and output power correctly and simultaneously. One down, two to go. I guess he has made some progress in 20 years after all.

“And I agree that torque would also be nice to have, but its not necessary in some cases. One can make some worst case assumptions and come to meaningful conclusions.”
Absolutely NOT. If you are trying to assess the efficiency of the generator, then measuring torque is essential, and without it you cannot reach meaningful conclusions.

to Baroutologos:

“This list is destined to be an theoretical, hotted debate whether or not Mr Heins is lying or is misguided about his discovery.”
If Mr. Heins’ experiments are not testing his theory nor demonstrating superior generator efficiency, then what are they doing?

“But, mr Thanes main argument is that he can produce energy out of a coil without having to pay for that as contemporary science teachings suggest.”
“Yes, i confirm that.”
I affirm that too. That is what Mr. Heins is claiming, indeed. But he hasn’t yet shown us the video in which the Perepiteia spins by itself, doesn’t slow down, yet supplies power to a load. That’s a video that would definitely prove his point.

“Anyway, perhaps you are more skilled and eloquent in the use of English language.”
English is not my first language, or even the second, so you are not at a disadvantage from that standpoint. I can appreciate the difficulties in mastering this language, which has a simple grammar, but frustratingly many exceptions.

“That does not change anything, especially if you have never had a grasp of a device as the one discussed.”
Earlier you alluded to not understanding what I’m saying. However, if you don’t understand what I’m saying, how can you be sure I don’t have a grasp of what Heins is saying?

to Heins:

“There is no need for a torque sensor – if you understand correctly how torque works in the drive shaft and if your knowledge base includes more than just reading a book. For example at:
Steady State Speed – Net Torque = 0
Acceleration – Net Torque > 0
Deceleration – Net Torque < 0″

Sorry Mr. Heins, this is not so.

There is always a load on the shaft, and that load always requires you to apply a torque in order to maintain constant speed. For a moment, think of internal combustion engines instead of electric motors. Suppose you wheel your Peugeot out of Tel Aviv onto northbound Derech Namir, and step on the gas. As you accelerate, you burn lots of diesel. But once you reach cruising speed, the crankshaft is no longer speeding up, you are no longer adding kinetic energy to the car, but you are still burning fuel. You will not make it to Haifa on an empty tank, because the continued fuel burn is needed to overcome various kinds of friction – esp. against the air, and mechanical components within the car. The same applies to electric motors. There are always loads.

“So if the system is decelerating then the Net Torque is less than zero, therefore the mechanical power in the drive shaft is less than zero.”

Here you are mistaken in another sense. There is no such thing as torque or power less than zero, except in the sense that their direction is reversed. This is indeed possible under some conditions, by the way. It means that power is being transfered from the generator to the motor rather than vice versa.

“This critical point is stressed in every video and the accelerating High Voltage Coils are always engaged during SYSTEM DECELERATION and then cause ACCELERATION of the system.”

I know you stress this, but since your theory of electromagnetics is wrong, and now it turns out that your understanding of mechanical power is wrong too, it does put your “critical point” in a different light, doesn’t it?

“So the question is where does the acceleration come from?
Answer:
The High Voltage Coils because deceleration returns if the High Voltage Coils are disengaged.”
Actually, it is a normal feature of the behaviour of most types of MOTORS for speed to change in response to load changes. HOW that speed changes, depends on the type of motor. That is why I need more particulars about the DC motor.

“While learning from reading books and articles is important – there is NO SUBSTITUTE for the learning that comes from practial hands on experience and it is impossible to satisfy impotent armchair critics who don’t understand this simple fact.”
There is no substitute for using your head and acknowledging that when your experiment yields a result that is not consistent with your theory, then there is an error in at least one of the experiment or theory, but maybe both. Furthermore, if you champion a theory that isn’t accepted, you need to ensure that your theory is consistent with the vast body of already existing experimental data.

best regards to all,

Natan

This is a tutorial on the power budget and efficiency analysis of a motor-generator set

Suppose a system consisting of an electrically driven motor coupled to a generator is running at a constant speed with a constant electrical load attached to the generator.

Suppose further that the torque is assigned the symbol tau, and the initial constant-speed constant-load torque has the value tau0, and is positive in the direction from motor to generator. The motor is receiving electric power, is dissipating part of it, and is converting the balance to mechanical power. That mechanical power, which equals P = tau0 x angular frequency, is delivered to the generator. The generator receives that power, dissipates part of it, and the rest is delivered as electrical power to the load. The power delivered from one stage to the next is always less than into the previous stage, since the motor and generator are both less than 100% efficient at all times.

Suppose the system, initially with tau = tau0, accelerates for whatever reason:

If during acceleration, tau > tau0, then the motor is accelerating the generator. The motor doesn’t necessarily take in additional electrical power while doing so. If it is approaching a more efficient operating point, it will use less power while accelerating, but the mechanical power it delivers will always be less than the electrical power it takes in.

If during acceleration, tau < tau0, then the generator is reducing the load on the motor. In this case, the motor may speed up because of the decline in mechanical load that the motor represents.

If during acceleration, tau < 0, then the generator is cranking the motor, not vice versa

Suppose the system, initially with tau = tau0, decelerates for whatever reason:

If during deceleration, tau < tau0, then the motor is supplying less power to the generator.

If during deceleration, tau > tau0, then the load the generator represents to the motor has inceased if during deceleration, tau < 0, then the generator is cranking the motor.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a test setup that can measure the torque so you can see which case applies, and calculate the mechanical power transfer to boot?

Another question worth asking is “What can cause acceleration and deceleration?” There are several possible answers, and so it is good to devise experiments to distinguish between them (that is, if you are actually interested in learning the answer). The speed of the motor-generator-load system can be made to change by:
(1) changes to the power applied to the motor
(2) changes to the efficiency of the motor as result of changes in the working conditions (this includes many things – temperature, ambient magnetic environment, even speed itself since efficiency is a function of speed).
(3) changes in the efficiency of the generator as a result of changes in the working conditions (same issues as for the motor)
(4) changes in the electrical load

Some of these issues have subtle interactions. For instance, changing the electrical load on the generator affects the mechanical load the machine represents to the motor, but not necessarily the way you’d expect. Suppose you compare the two states where your generator load is either an open circuit or a short circuit. Either way, the power delivered to a load is zero, and therefore the generator efficiency is zero. However, the effect on the motor need not be the same.

With an open-circuit load, there are no ohmic losses in the coil, but the fact that there is no closed circuit means that the back-EMF cannot set up an opposing current in the coil and opposing flux in the core. The induced flux “has nothing to do” to put it colloquially, so power losses due to flux leakage, magnetic hysteresis loss and electrical eddy current loss in the magnetic core are dominant.

With a short-circuit load, current can flow in the coil, so the back-EMF can set up an opposing current that reduces the actual current, and therefore also reduces the flux in the core in accordance with Lenz’ law. This reduces the core losses, but creates ohmic losses in the coil. The magnitude of ohmic losses depends mostly on whether the generator is wound for a low-voltage high-current output (with few turns of thick wire and low ohmic losses), or for a high-voltage low-current output (with more turns of thinner wire and high ohmic losses).

In most generators core losses exceed ohmic losses, and all the more so if poor quality core materials are used. High quality here means materials that encourage low core losses. It’s best to use thin laminations for eddy current reduction, and silicon steel for hysteresis loss reduction.

The crux of it is, therefore, that with a conventional generator that obeys Lenz’ Law, you would more often than not expect that a short circuited output will represent a lesser mechanical load for the driving motor than an open circuited output. In a minority of cases, it will be the other way around. Working our way back towards the motor, we examine what happens to it.

If a typical generator’s output coil transitions from open to short, the generator requires less torque to maintain the same speed, but most motor types tend to speed up in response to lower torque demand, so the system will speed up. Both because most motors are more efficient at higher speeds and because the load has dropped, you’d expect that the power drawn from the source would typically decline during this transition as the motor speeds up. In the case of DC motors, series-wound ones’ speed is far more sensitive to load changes than shunt-wound, which change the current drawn more strongly than they change speed. Class A and B single phase AC induction motors have the added weird property that as speed increases over a large range from ca. 20 to 90% of synchronous speed, available torque also increases while power consumption falls due to improving efficiency. This creates a large acceleration effect.

If you go from a short to an open circuit load at the output of the generator, the opposite trends should be observed.

Again, I stress that both short and open loads represent zero efficiency conditions. Under open circuit conditions, a maximum voltage is present at the output but zero current, while under short circuit conditions there is a maximum current but zero voltage. In between open circuit and short circuit conditions, there will be an operating point at which you can extract the maximum power into a useful load. Naturally, a load close to this optimum will create more torque demand at the input to the generator, and the motor will have to work harder. This in most cases means the motor will slow down and consume more power, but not necessarily so for AC induction motors if the initial operating point is in the unstable region.

Natan

As I said, “whiney – impotent armchair critics” who need to be spoon fed more paticullars instead of creating their own can NEVER EVER be satisfied and as can be seen from this thread – an utter waste of time.

T

Natan, let’s keep this as simple as possible… just one simple scenario/question:

Via a variac, you adjust the supply voltage to the Ryobi induction motor to a level that stabilizes the motor at 72% of it’s synchronous, no-load RPM (3600). So it’s sitting there humming along at ~2600 RPM; whatever BEMF is present is next to nil since the coils are open circuit (very high resistance) and there is NO current flow. Great, all stable at 2600 RPM…

Good scientific process says to only vary ONE thing at a time…

That ONE thing is to “engage” the HV coils, which basically shorts them thru a very low resistance load; hell, just short them out if you want. So all you’ve done is to go from zero current flow in the HV coil, to maximum current flow. NO other changes have been made to the system. And the formerly RPM-stabilized Ryobi begins accelerating at about 40 to 60 RPMs per second (I’ve seen it do about 100rpms/sec). The input voltage to the Ryobi has not been changed…

WHERE is the force coming from to achieve this level of acceleration?

-Mark

“Whiney impotent armchair critics”, such a lovely turn of phrase to use in a scientific debate.

Another phrase used by Mr Heins in a recent comment on this forum: “Perhaps the Israeli government can be diverted from murdering Palestiniens [sic] for a while?” as well as references to the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan and elsewhere is highly inappropriate for a debate about the science or pseudoscience of electromagnetic devices, regardless of whether such a device might assist the world in being less reliant on oil consumption or not.

The point critics of this contraption make repeatedly is that by not providing all the details, despite the claims of hundreds of people to be replicating the device around the world, those who wish to do so using a verifiable scientific approach are unable to without the necessary specifications.

What I cannot understand is why the inventor is so secretive unless he has something to hide. Is the original contraption or its successors still producing 7000% efficiency as claimed some time ago? If so, then why doesn’t every town and business now have this contraption providing endless free energy? It should not be hard to convince a reasonable person that one quick spin of the wheel is enough to power the whole town with not a power station in sight. 7000% is wondrous, infinite efficiency is even better.

This is not impotent armchair criticism, this is valid questioning the answers for which are yet to be made apparent despite dozens of so-called Youtube clips.

Was Einstein a whiney impotent armchair critic, what about Schroedinger, Stephen Hawking, perhaps? The only whining I hear is the whining of a spinning coil as it slows down, following the well-known laws of physics…and the wrapping up of this debate on this forum. Thank you all for a challenging and fascinating insight into the human psyche.