Talk:Perepiteia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] whooooaaa there cowboy, slow down that deletion pony!

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

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

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

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

I HEREBY UN-NOMINATE THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION!

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

  • There is an established place to debate the delete-worthiness of articles, the "Articles for Deletion" page. The Perepiteia subpage is [1]. That's where the reasons for possible deletion were given: the redflag guideline for "fringe theories" and the general "notability " issue. I strongly suggest reading through those guidelines before campaigning to save the article. TheodoreTest (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ..except that that's a bad link. [fixed as of 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)] I'm inclined to agree with Cajolingwilhelm, having searched specifically for this page, looking for background information on this alleged 'perepiteia' device. I have one over-riding reason to nominate the article for retention: I want to be able to use the damn wikipedia. All due credit should be given to those of you - creepy little sea-org that you are - who work to maintain the accuracy, relevance, inter-relatedness and coherence of the corpus, but when the hobby of enforcing the policies of the Walesian democracy that has grown up around it starts to interfere with the actual use of the wikipedia as an encyclopedia, then it's time to draw the line. If you don't think that you should explain your actions where a given non-wikipedian can find and understand that explanation, and you do think that said non-wikipedian should be curtly rebuffed rather than encouraged for having shown a degree of intelligence and interest in participation, then I think you should do some soul searching. [continued...] 69.49.44.11 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • [continues.] Given that someone was actually looking for encyclopedic information on this topic, it might perhaps satisfy the 'notability' clause. The content of the article seems to be factual, regarding the ideas or beliefs held by individuals. It does not make any exceptional claims or attempt to establish the validity of any fringe theories, and the tone is not credulous. Combined with the (small but definite) noteworthiness of the topic, and given that the article is regarding a specific project by a specific person, rather than the details of a fringe theory, I don't think that deletion is warranted. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This page was a stub originally, and I was the one who first expanded it and brought photos/references because I had gone through about 20-30 other sites trying to piece together a story that had really interested me. Aside from the interesting claim of perpetual motion, this may very well be a discovery of a device that improves the efficiency of engines, which would be very very important in its own right. Over the last few days, a number of better editors than I came and improved the content and references, and I have enjoyed being able to stay updated on the progress of this invention by visiting this wikipedia page, which would seem to be what an encyclopedia is for in the first place. Let's undelete this page and let it grow. The sheer number of visitors and edits shows it is a matter of interest to the community at large. 67.186.15.109 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


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


[edit] New Links to Incorporate

These people actually took the time to view the demo in person at Ottawa U. Hope it helps. Cheers Thane http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=4faab72dd52838161c043a25113cf3d0&topic=4047.135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.18.216 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snake oil?

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

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

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