Thane Heins Perepiteia Replications

[hydrocontrol]

This is true... but don't forget that all the readings are done on DMM's.

I found that mine read nearly 30% high at the Hz this is turning.

Ron

So very true about those wally world DMM's. There are many solutions to overcome the cheap DMM's.  One of the easiest is not to use cheap DMM's but that comes at a price. The other is to rectify the output and feed to a cap to smooth the output before feeding a cheap DMM so the cheap DMM can handle it. Of course the ultimate would be to have the output feed the input without a "battery" (maybe a supercap). Anyway I will just continue on building and experimenting. I still think this holds more promise than the "illusion" Mylow motor.

[i_ron]

Anyway I will just continue on building and experimenting. I still think this holds more promise than the "illusion" Mylow motor.

Commendable attitude, I wish you and all with a project underway good luck and hope to hear one day of your successes!

Ron

[baroutologos]

LoL guys...
This thread in the most explicit way proved why OU machines cannot be made at mass replication.

Guys... do you still believe that Peripeteia is not an potential OU machine? What's your role here??

I believe perepiteia is the very basis of a real OU machine.

How can i say that?

Instead of having blind trust in Inventor's saying i do my homework. (so far i conclude inventor is reporting true results, even tho mr T theories are...theories til proven facts)

Has any of you study Bedini's Free energy generator? Kromrey's generator? Muller alternators? etc etc They ALL operate on the very same principle.

They are all, say, internal combustion engines but the one is Diesel powered, the other gas powered the other two stroke etc. They differ only in their configuration. WORKING PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME.

So, we have two options here... We are dicking around each one alone and do nothing or combine forces (knowledge form experiments). Choice is yours

regards,
Baroutologos

ps: commercialization of such technology is a stupid man's dream. This primitive technology exists some 200+ years and yet failed to even be officially PROVEN that exists! The best bet for anyone who has commercial interests in such technology is to go small and "camouflaged" i.e. superefficient motors, looooooww oil consumption power generators etc

[hoptoad]

LoL guys...
So, we have two options here... We are dicking around each one alone and do nothing or combine forces (knowledge form experiments). Choice is yours

Third option; you can dick around each and alone, experience your successes or failures, then share and combine your accumulated knowledge.

Keep experimenting all..  I've been squirreling away small savings, and in another month or two, I'm hoping to purchase a mini bench steel lathe.      ........  I've been wanting to get back to where I left off in 2001 with my own original research ever since I first came upon thane's thread. There is plenty of reason to continue research on open systems, and thane has shown that semi closed and closed systems can also exhibit this behaviour, and are also worthy of exploration.

In all the debate that has centred around core drag, what has once been stated but overlooked by most, is that in a conventional system under load, it is not the core drag that produces the greatest losses or breaking under load, it is the counter mmf arising from current produced in the coils. In other words, the current you wish to use to perform external work is the greatest contributor to the normal breaking effect of a load.

Yet in this peculiar effect that we have all seen, both the core drag and counter mmf breaking caused by current to an external load (especially an extreme load like S/C) can be seen as effectively reduced, if not completely nulled.

The main point to me is this: although it's not always obvious because of the smooth and easy turning of a conventional generator setup with no load, a conventional generator still has core drag at running speed, even with no load, and the core drag is never neutralized! And when you start to use or increase current, you always pay the same price - higher consumption, and ever greater breaking.

In my experiments dealing with open magnetic systems, I saw, by comparison to a "conventional" closed magnetic system, that there is good reason to be optimistic about potential power gains across broader load ranges, through better efficiencies at reduced costs. And after all that has been shared here thus far, I still do.

Keep on Keepin on  ... Cheers and KneeDeep

[LarryC]

So consider the source on this link but he does raise some pertinent points.
http://www.sciscoop.com/perepiteia-explanation.pdf

Also reread deboss and linderman on...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Perepiteia_Generator_by_Potential_Difference_Inc

Actually releasing this old information again, that has been successfully disproved in the past, has made all the Energy Barron's very happy and helps to mislead those new to Thane's generator. Don't bother asking me to disprove as I refuse to go down that path again.


Before Thane left his original site, he had shown partial testing of a generator design that would have definitely been OU when he had received all the correct parts. He was using EI type transformers and they are less efficient than the toroid type. Parts like large toroid transformers are very expensive and he would have first orders one with his best specifications for maximum performance. That would be tested, then likely refined and reordered. When one worked correctly than the other seven would be orders and tested. It is likely that we won't see those results now. Thanks tag team!

I am not going to speak for Thane as to why he deleted Ron's post. But based on past experience I have a good idea why based on the tag team harassing him into a frenzy.

Just keep in mind that Thane has always expressed his desire to help the common man from the suppression of the Energy barons. Also, he had freely shown many of his designs and performances of his test.

Regards, Larry