From The Toronto Star today.
February 04, 2008
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
Thane Heins is nervous and hopeful. It's Jan. 24, a Thursday afternoon, and in four days the Ottawa-area native will travel to Boston where he'll demonstrate an invention that appears – though he doesn't dare say it – to operate as a perpetual motion machine.
The audience, esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Markus Zahn, could either deflate Heins' heretical claims or add momentum to a 20-year obsession that has broken up his marriage and lost him custody of his two young daughters.
Zahn is a leading expert on electromagnetic and electronic systems. In a rare move for any reputable academic, he has agreed to give Heins' creation an open-minded look rather than greet it with outright dismissal.
It's a pivotal moment. The invention, at its very least, could moderately improve the efficiency of induction motors, used in everything from electric cars to ceiling fans. At best it means a way of tapping the mysterious powers of electromagnetic fields to produce more work out of less effort, seemingly creating electricity from nothing.
Such an unbelievable invention would challenge the laws of physics, a no-no in the rigid world of serious science. Imagine a battery system in an all-electric car that can be recharged almost exclusively by braking and accelerating, or what Heins calls "regenerative acceleration."
No charging from the grid. No assistance from gasoline. No cost of fuelling up. No way, say the skeptics.
"It sounds too good to be true," concedes Heins, who formed a company in 2005 called Potential Difference Inc. to develop and market his invention. "We get dismissed pretty quickly sometimes."
It's for this reason the 46-year-old inventor has learned to walk on thin ice when dealing with academics and engineers, who he must win over to be taken seriously. Credibility, after all, can't be invented. It must be earned. "I have to be humble. If you say the wrong thing at the wrong time, you can lose support."
The creation in question is a new kind of generator called the Perepiteia (read related story "Holy crap, this is really scary"😉, which in Greek theatre means an action that has the opposite effect of what its doer intended. Heins torques up the definition to mean "a sudden reversal of fortune that's a windfall for humanity."
Deep down, Heins has high hopes. But he also realizes that merely using those controversial words – "perpetual motion" – usually brands a person as batty. In 2006, an Irish company called Steorn placed an advertisement in The Economist calling on all the world's scientists to validate its magnet-based "free energy" technology.
Steorn was met with intense skepticism and accused of being a scam or hoax. Seventeen months later the company has failed, despite worldwide attention, to prove anything under scrutiny. Well-educated people, from Leonardo da Vinci to Harvard-trained engineer Bruce De Palma (older brother of film director Brian De Palma), have made similar claims of perpetual motion only to be slammed down by the mainstream scientific community.
Heins has an even greater uphill battle. He isn't an engineer. He doesn't have a graduate degrees in physics. He never even finished his electronics program at Heritage College in Gatineau, Quebec. "I have mild dyslexia and don't do well in math, so I didn't do very well in school," he says.
What he does have is a chef's diploma, and spent time as chef at the Canadian Museum of Civilization before launching his own restaurant in Renfrew called the Old Town Hall Tea Room. He has also had political ambitions. In 1999 he ran unsuccessfully as a candidate for the Green Party of Ontario, deciding a year later to run as an independent in the federal election.
Today, Heins is focused on showing his invention to anybody willing to see it, in hopes that somebody smarter than him will give it credibility. His long-time friend, Kim Cunningham, manager of communications and government relations at the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) is working part-time with Potential Difference to help get the message out.
Together, they have demonstrated the Perepiteia to a number of labs and universities across North America, including the University of Virginia, Michigan State University, the University of Toronto and Queens University.
"It's generally always the same reaction," says Heins. "There's a bit of a scramble on the part of the observer to put what they're seeing into some sort of context with what they know. They can't explain it. They don't know what it is."
He'd be happy if somebody did, even if the news was bad. His wife has kicked him out. He doesn't earn an income. He can't pay child support. The certainty would be welcome. "I've tried to quit many times, and thought if I could just be a normal guy I would have a normal life ... But I had this idea and I believe it works."
Others want to believe – or at least help out. Cunningham, whose brother is general manager at Angus Glen Golf Club, introduced Heins to the club's president, Kevin Thistle. For two years Thistle has acted as angel investor, providing start-up capital needed to incorporate Potential Difference, file patents and continue research.
Cunningham's boss, OCRI president Jeffrey Dale, helped open doors at the University of Ottawa and make introductions to its dean of engineering. As a result, Heins teamed up last fall with Riadh Habash, a professor at the university's school of information technology and engineering.
"Dr. Habash has essentially rolled out the red carpet," says Heins, explaining that he now has access to a university lab and all the equipment he needs to test and simulate his generator.
In an interview with the Toronto Star, Habash was cautious but matter-of-fact with what he's seen so far. "It accelerates, but when it comes to an explanation, there is no backing theory for it. That's why we're consulting MIT. But at this time we can't support any claim."
In the meantime, Heins has been on a letter-writing campaign to raise money for his mission. He's written former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, Virgin Group founder and billionaire Richard Branson and John Doerr at venture capital powerhouse Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He's also tried to contact entrepreneur Elon Musk, chairman of electric car upstart Tesla Motors, and the "ReCharge IT" project run by Google's philanthropic arm.
So far no bites, though there have been nibbles. Heins has had discussions with a well-known investor in Oregon, known to many as the "godfather of start-ups," who is apparently flirting with the idea of investing in Potential Difference. "We got the impression ... he's not necessarily interested in making a tonne of money, he just wants to see us succeed."
Just before the big day at MIT, the Star spoke with professor Markus Zahn about what he expected to observe.
"It's hard for me to give an opinion," said Zahn, who admitted he was excited to see the demonstration. "I don't believe it will violate the laws of physics. You're not going to get more energy out than you put in."
He said it's easy for people to set up their tests wrong and misinterpret what they see. "You've got to look closely."
It's now Jan. 28 – D Day. Heins has modified his test so the effects observed are difficult to deny. He holds a permanent magnet a few centimetres away from the driveshaft of an electric motor, and the magnetic field it creates causes the motor to accelerate. It went well.
Contacted by phone a few hours after the test, Zahn is genuinely stumped – and surprised. He said the magnet shouldn't cause acceleration. "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance. But I saw it. It's real. Now I'm just trying to figure it out."
There's no talk of perpetual motion. No whisper of broken scientific laws or free energy. Zahn would never go there – at least not yet. But he does see the potential for making electric motors more efficient, and this itself is no small feat.
"To my mind this is unexpected and new, and it's worth exploring all the possible advantages once you're convinced it's a real effect," he added. "There are an infinite number of induction machines in people's homes and everywhere around the world. If you could make them more efficient, cumulatively, it could make a big difference."
Driving home – he can't afford to fly – Heins is exhausted but encouraged. He says Zahn will, and must, evaluate what he saw on his own terms and time. What's preventing the engineer from grasping it right away, he says, is his education, his scientific training.
Step by step, Heins is making progress, but where it will all lead remains uncertain.
Originally posted by uzlessWhat's preventing the engineer from grasping right away is the engineer being responsible. Nevertheless this seems to be exciting and encouraging news. 🙂
What's preventing the engineer from grasping it right away, he says, is his education, his scientific training.
This happens way too often.
Is it working?
-No.
What do you mean? It seems to work.
-It looks like it is, but it isn't.
What do you mean?
-Well, it shouldn't be working, so I need to assume it isn't.
But here it is, and it does work
-Does it? Why is it working?
Not sure, it just does.
-It doesn't!
Why not?
-It can't, it's against the known laws of physics.
Don't you see? It DOES WORK!
-Prove it.
Just look!
-Not good enough, NEXT!
Originally posted by PhlabibitNah!
This happens way too often.
Is it working?
-No.
What do you mean? It seems to work.
-It looks like it is, but it isn't.
What do you mean?
-Well, it shouldn't be working, so I need to assume it isn't.
But here it is, and it does work
-Does it? Why is it working?
Not sure, it just does.
-It doesn't!
Why not?
-It can't, it's against the known ...[text shortened]... physics.
Don't you see? It DOES WORK!
-Prove it.
Just look!
-Not good enough, NEXT!
At least I don't think it is that often. Often what happens is that people don't propperly understand something and think they're having something new working. And one other things is that are some areas of physics and maths that attract a lot of crackpots. What they do is send letters to working people in the area and expect them to basically referee what they wrote. Well those people have work to do and propbabibly families to take care of so they don't have enough time to properly read everything they get. And by the looks of it some people seem to get a lot of mail of this sort.
The MIT guy seems to have an open mind but also I think he's doing the right thing. Instead of just saying we're getting energy at no-cost he's trying to understand what's going on. One of the basic premisses of Physics is conservation of energy and if that breaks down all else breaks down. The problem is that all the rest (not exactly all) seems to be working fine so far.
But this is hardly a new idea even for serious scientists. In the beging of Quantum-Mechanics Bohr offered as an explanation of some atomic phenomena the possibility of the principle of energy conservation being violated. Later it was found out that those phenomena were explained by the fact thet energy transfer was i the atomic world made in a non-continuous way.
And recentely Joâo Magueijo in his variable light speed theory has come to the conclusion that a cosmic scale some points is spacetime could act like energy sources and others like energy sinks.
So this new possibilities are indeed taken into account but accepting them right away would be foolish and irresponsible.
Originally posted by adam warlockI tend to agree that most of the free energy guys are wackos or have built something that isn't quite free energy but rather low energy.
Nah!
At least I don't think it is that often. Often what happens is that people don't propperly understand something and think they're having something new working. And one other things is that are some areas of physics and maths that attract a lot of crackpots. What they do is send letters to working people in the area and expect them to basically ref ...[text shortened]... eed taken into account but accepting them right away would be foolish and irresponsible.
Just seemed like an interesting article. The BBC did a show about these inventors and one guy built a machine that had a ball rolling around a cirucular track propelled by magnets that moved via a pendulum. It was pretty cool and no one could figure out if it was violating the laws of physics at the time.
It seems that serious scientists don't want to devote much time to debunking these machines because the laws of physics are so entrenched that it seems like its a foregone conclusion these machines won't work so why bother proving why they don't work.
Originally posted by uzlessJust seemed like an interesting article. The BBC did a show about these inventors and one guy built a machine that had a ball rolling around a cirucular track propelled by magnets that moved via a pendulum. It was pretty cool and no one could figure out if it was violating the laws of physics at the time.
I tend to agree that most of the free energy guys are wackos or have built something that isn't quite free energy but rather low energy.
Just seemed like an interesting article. The BBC did a show about these inventors and one guy built a machine that had a ball rolling around a cirucular track propelled by magnets that moved via a pendulum. It was pret ...[text shortened]... s a foregone conclusion these machines won't work so why bother proving why they don't work.
I would like to see that show. Do you know if it is available at youtube or something?
It seems that serious scientists don't want to devote much time to debunking these machines because the laws of physics are so entrenched that it seems like its a foregone conclusion these machines won't work so why bother proving why they don't work.
Yep that is another aspect of the question. Normally physics has a ground to stand on, if you take that ground you should say what the new ground is. Galileu did that, Newton did that, Maxwell did that, Einstein did that, the quantum guys did that. So why some people think that they come along and say: "You are wrong and this is the new deal" without providing an explanation of why the old deal is out and new deal is in is just beyond me.
Originally posted by uzlessI hate articles like this, they never give you the details of the experiment or the principles at work. I'm confident that the "perpetual" aspect of the process will be disproved. Sounds neat, though.
I tend to agree that most of the free energy guys are wackos or have built something that isn't quite free energy but rather low energy.
Just seemed like an interesting article. The BBC did a show about these inventors and one guy built a machine that had a ball rolling around a cirucular track propelled by magnets that moved via a pendulum. It was pret ...[text shortened]... s a foregone conclusion these machines won't work so why bother proving why they don't work.
Originally posted by PBE6I don't doubt it will be disproven...Hell the guy is just a frickin Chef ffs!
I hate articles like this, they never give you the details of the experiment or the principles at work. I'm confident that the "perpetual" aspect of the process will be disproved. Sounds neat, though.
But ya, more details woulda been nice.
I had my first physics class of the new semester today, and the first thing teacher told us was not to make the mistake of assuming that the known laws of physics are infallible. Often scientific ideas are proposed that are known to be wrong, but they are better than the current position. I think that this is the view of most scientists: that only by the refining of theories through new ideas and experiementation can we eventually come to know the truth.
Originally posted by mrjonesvich321If he has the perpetual running machine he has demonstrated that entropy is not a one-way road and will be in for a physics nobel in no time flat.
I had my first physics class of the new semester today, and the first thing teacher told us was not to make the mistake of assuming that the known laws of physics are infallible. Often scientific ideas are proposed that are known to be wrong, but they are better than the current position. I think that this is the view of most scientists: that only b ...[text shortened]... ing of theories through new ideas and experiementation can we eventually come to know the truth.
Originally posted by PocketKingsHey, even France wins once and a while....they still wont' even make the playoffs.
I'm shocked you havn't mentioned the Leafs yet 😉
I've never liked Carboneau as a coach though...he changed all the lines around except kovalev's and then wonder's why everyone played like they didn't know what they were doing giving up too many scoring chances and not generating offence...
Higgins on the 4th line, Koivu on the 3rd line...Dandenault, frickin DANDENAULT on the 2nd line???
The guys's a crackpot.
Originally posted by PBE6The article is written for public consumption. If you are interested and would like to judge the validity of the trials you would be reading published journals. Remember newspapers are written by regular folks. Not in this example a physics Phd.
I hate articles like this, they never give you the details of the experiment or the principles at work. I'm confident that the "perpetual" aspect of the process will be disproved. Sounds neat, though.