Perpetual Motion Reality by Peter Lindemann

[Peter Lindemann]

At the Beginning

Hi Peter,

I think your idea is very interesting. Have you made any attempts at creating the device? From trying to visualize how it would work I can't help but think the two sides would possibly 'balance' each other out ending up with no movement, due to each side being able to create equal force. Not that I'm trying to cast doubts or say it wouldn't work or anything like that.

I've been having a few ideas how to do something like this too. One idea, is to rotate what you have already by 90 degrees and just have the one spring at the bottom. A weight could then be placed on top which collapses the spring, causing compression and heat in the same way. The NITINOL spring would then stretch out with enough force to overcome the weight which would then lower pressure and temp again. I don't know if you could get a weight to produce enough pressure/heat that the NITINOL could be strong enough to overcome though- and essentially that's where your approach does not have that same problem.

Another similar approach I thought of was to not rely on the pressure for the heat, but go back to a heated reservoir at the bottom, so that when collapsed the spring is immersed in it, and then stretches to be released from it, allowing cooling. Also instead of having a magnet/coil, the force of the movement could be attached to a piston causing rotational movement. Again, in this arrangement gravity could be the force that's used to collapse the spring back down.

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark, I'm very much a novice in this area- but doing my best to learn more

path3755 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Wonza,

The purpose of my talk, and following it with a thread like this is to get people to THINK about possibilities they had not considered before. In that regard, you are doing exactly the right thing.

The idea for the Lindemann Perpetuum came to me while I was preparing my presentation for the conference. One of the reasons I do these talks is to force me to organize and correlate what I already know into something that can be communicated clearly. So, the answer is "no", I have not had a chance to attempt building one yet.

The drawing should be considered a "conceptual drawing" and not an "engineering design". From what I can see in my mind, your comment about it creating equal forces and therefore the possibility that it won't work is valid. I have seen this also. The solution that makes operation possible is that there has to be a slight "time delay" between the heating of the air during compression and the heating of the NITINOL springs by that hot air. That creates the "offset" that makes operation possible.

I'm glad you are exercising your creativity with regard to using NITINOL as an energy source. There are other NITINOL threads in this forum where I think your ideas could make a beneficial contribution, leaving this thread more on-topic about my Conference Talk PERPETUAL MOTION REALITY.

Thanks,

Peter

[ren]

Hi Peter,

Loved learning about Nitinol this morning. Fascinating video linked above.

Peter, I wondered if perhaps your theoretical device above could benefit from recycling some of the heat from the output. If the bulb was positioned/shielded in a way that allowed some of the heat to be transferred to the "hot" side of the system. It could be one way the system is optimized, where the lamp offers heat and light as its output, the heat being recycled back into the system to continue the oscillations.

Thanks again for a new perspective.

Regards

[ibpointless2]

What if you used electricity instead? Nitinol Experiment - YouTube

[Peter Lindemann]

Input from the Natural World

What if you used electricity instead? Nitinol Experiment - YouTube

Dear ibpointless2,

YES, it is possible to build NITINOL Engines that heat the material with electric currents, and in this way, produce a new kind of "electric motor" that produces mechanical force from the expenditure of electricity without introducing magnetic fields. This has been demonstrated, and it does work.

The idea of the LINDEMANN PERPETUUM is to have all of the energy required to cyclically activate the NITINOL provided by the Natural World, and in particular, the heating and cooling provided by the compression and decompression of air.

Peter

[Peter Lindemann]

Thanks for your Thoughts

Hi Peter,

Loved learning about Nitinol this morning. Fascinating video linked above.

Peter, I wondered if perhaps your theoretical device above could benefit from recycling some of the heat from the output. If the bulb was positioned/shielded in a way that allowed some of the heat to be transferred to the "hot" side of the system. It could be one way the system is optimized, where the lamp offers heat and light as its output, the heat being recycled back into the system to continue the oscillations.

Thanks again for a new perspective.

Regards

Dear Ren,

Thanks for thinking about the possibility of this situation. Unlike most "heat engines" that operate on a Carnot Cycle, like the Stirling Engine, the LINDEMANN PERPETUUM does not have a "hot side" and a "cold side" that heat flows between. Both sides alternately get hot and cold without any external heat source being necessary.

This machine is not designed to "convert" heat into mechanical energy. It is designed to manifest the mechanical energy gain available when NITINOL metal is cyclically warmed and cooled. This warming and cooling process can be accomplished simply by injecting and extracting the same heat, over and over again, in this case, by the rapid compression and expansion of a cylinder of air.

The over-all temperature of the machine may not deviate from the ambient temperature at all! At least, that is the current conception of the machine.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Peter

[magnegenix]

30 years and ??????

Hey guys wow, I've never heard of nitinol and then I watch the old video from 1970 something and they've done about a billion tests on this metal.

I see all the possibilities that you're talking about and that the "experts" spoke about in the video but....

Shouldn't we be living off this technology 30 years later?

I tried searching for any FAIL pages or vids out there and just didn't see any yet. On some of the other topics here, there are several people talking about one reason or other why a technology cannot ever be used as a fossil fuel alternative, but I've not seen the nay sayers for nitinol.

The only thing I saw was that they only expect an average nitinol motor to last about 1.5 years.....but that was using 1970 technology.

I don't want to be a person to rain on any parades here, but has anyone seen any videos or posts that suggest nitinol is just a fad like the hula hoop and is a non viable energy source and why. If so can you share these so we can look at it from both sides.

.....Or is the common consensus that the technology is truly viable and has just been suppressed by oil and gas....?

[magnegenix]

What if you used electricity instead? Nitinol Experiment - YouTube

Wow....good find ibpointless2

[Johan]

Hi folks,

In keeping with my plan to introduce this idea as an example of a machine that can produce energy from the behavior of the Natural World, I reproduce the slide from my Convention Presentation here:



Since this thread has already presented evidence that the act of compressing air can increase the temperature of that air, as well as the facts that NITINOL, when it is cool, can be bent easily, and when it is warmed passed it's transition temperature, springs back to it's original shape with a great deal of force. These are the basic concepts necessary to contemplate the operation of the LINDEMANN PERPETUUM.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Wouw a real very nice idea: The heating up I fully agree, only breaking my head how to cool the ex-hot-side rapidly off, meaning in that complete closed container with a still hot-spring, maybe we have flush with cool air or even with higher density.

Maybe on both chambers: a max pressure / temp release valve, and one-way to suck in fresh cold air?

Only than the response times like heating up and cooling down are affected, less heat around the expanding spring by the entering fresh air, nice head breaker you introduced!?

Thanks for sharing!

Kind regards,
Johan Oostrom

[magnegenix]

Times to heat and cool using electricity.

Hey guys, I found this today. It's called flexinol, but I think it's basically just prefabricated nitinol.

The interesting thing is that there are two types, low temp and high temp versions. Also they post some good info about how much current and resistance is required to contract / expand it.

Flexinol Wire

Also this from the wikipedia....
However Nitinol wire has one disadvantage that has resulted in only limited use in BEAM robotics. That is the relatively high power level (about 250-300 mA at 3V) required to make the material contract.

[Peter Lindemann]

Cooling is as Fast as Heating!

Dear Peter,

Wouw a real very nice idea: The heating up I fully agree, only breaking my head how to cool the ex-hot-side rapidly off, meaning in that complete closed container with a still hot-spring, maybe we have flush with cool air or even with higher density.

Maybe on both chambers: a max pressure / temp release valve, and one-way to suck in fresh cold air?

Only than the response times like heating up and cooling down are affected, less heat around the expanding spring by the entering fresh air, nice head breaker you introduced!?

Thanks for sharing!

Kind regards,
Johan Oostrom

Dear Johan,

Just as compressing the air raises the temperature, expanding the air cools it. So, if in the drawing, when the air space is equal on both sides and the temperature of that air is at the ambient, the moment the piston moves to one side, (let's just say to the right, as an example) the air on that side immediately becomes warmer than the ambient and the air on the left side immediately becomes cooler than the ambient. It doesn't matter how fast this happens, as the temperature of the air responds nearly instantly.

So, there is NO NEED to introduce "new, fresh air" to cool down the system. The cyclic compression and decompression of the air is all that is required.

Hope that helps.

Peter

[Rubberband]

flywheel

good mind work Peter,...If it can develop more than the 5% energy that a rotating flywheel needs to maintain motion then then the excess could be tapped with a lot of torque....

[Johan]

Dear Johan,

Just as compressing the air raises the temperature, expanding the air cools it. So, if in the drawing, when the air space is equal on both sides and the temperature of that air is at the ambient, the moment the piston moves to one side, (let's just say to the right, as an example) the air on that side immediately becomes warmer than the ambient and the air on the left side immediately becomes cooler than the ambient. It doesn't matter how fast this happens, as the temperature of the air responds nearly instantly.

So, there is NO NEED to introduce "new, fresh air" to cool down the system. The cyclic compression and decompression of the air is all that is required.

Hope that helps.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Thanks for reaction and explanation!

First English is not mine language, and the european ruling class is willing to maintain that, so: After 40 of years of EU or UN still not one world language, just polarizing in small culture / religion or language communities here around the Mediterranean Sea, you know!

Working with Combustion and other engines, 50% savings on Diesel, we did build a working part of the vacuum PAP engine, the expansion / contraction reaction in Plasma is very fast.

In the Memory-Metal spring density, weight / mass of the spring, mean to absorb or release the heat for the wanted fast movement reaction, to induce a rapid change of magnetic field in the suggested generator coil around the magnet!

Forgive me, but with my half broken English I wanted to initiate a brainwave, for this more rapid magnetic change in the coil.

So next try:

Lets take your nice one tube design from above again, taking the memory metal springs out, putting in both cambers at each side of the piston a small amount of water, both sides we make a good spark-plug or electrodes, and than we suck out both of the chambers the air to a vacuum, with this the water already starts to vaporize in each of the cambers this by the vacuum, creating a good conductivity from the remaining air, putting a similar to an old Jet-Engine plasma ignition system for violent plasma expansion!?

Hoping more, better or clear explained, all ingredients are in the Energetic-House available!


http://www.energeticforum.com/images.../notworthy.gif

Best regards,

Johan Oostrom

[Peter Lindemann]

Compressed Air and Heat

Hi Folks,

As some of you know, I do not believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics and therefore, do not believe in either Energy Conservation or Energy Conversion. I just don't see any evidence that the real world functions this way.

In my presentation, I make reference to the experiments run by James Joule and reported on in his published paper titled On the Mechanical Equivalence of Heat in 1845. The process of compressing a gas and measuring the temperature rise was one of his experimental examples. During the talk, I pointed out that the energy expended to compress the gas produces both a rise in the temperature AND a rise in the pressure of the gas, and that when all of the effects of compressing a gas are taken into account, the total energy present appears to be more than is required by the input.

In the talk, I suggested that the simple act of compressing air can be thought of as an "over-unity" event with an efficiency of at least 145%. To be quite honest, I DON"T BELIEVE that for one second! First of all, I don't believe in "energy conversion", so there can't be any "efficiency of conversion". That means there is no "unity". If there is no "unity", there certainly can't be any "over-unity".

In order to make sense of all of this for you, I would like to share a deeper view of this situation and ask for an intelligent conversation on the topic.

Since I don't believe in Energy Conversion, it is reasonable to ask what is happening when we "compress air"? The first thing to understand is that we are NOT just "compressing air", but we are compressing "ambient temperature" air. We must realize that the air has a "heat content" before we start to compress it.

1) James Joule said that 100% of the energy we expended to compress the air was CONVERTED into the temperature rise, and that the rise in pressure was just a secondary artifact of the temperature rise. His argument was that if you decompress the air, both the temperature and the pressure drop back to their original values, and this he considered evidence that they represented the same energy.

2) In my model of reality, the ambient air has both volume and a quantity of heat for that volume. If I "compress the air", what I am doing is applying pressure to the air to force a large volume into a smaller space. This process gives rise to the increase in the PRESSURE of the air. So, I push on the air and the air pushes back. I apply pressure to the air and that pressure is retained by the air captured in the smaller space. So, there is NO ENERGY CONVERSION here! Pressure applied: pressure retained. The applied energy retains it's original characteristics and is NOT CONVERTED into anything else.

3) Well then, what about the temperature rise? That is easy to understand too. As I said before, the original volume of air had a certain quantity of heat in it. When I compress the air, so that the volume of the air becomes smaller, the heat density must also rise, as the same amount of heat is now in a smaller container as well. This is why the temperature rises. The heat quantity per volume ratio is rising and this registers as an increase in the temperature!

So, I do NOT BELIEVE that the act of compressing air creates any heat! It simply concentrates the heat that was in the air before it was compressed. It manifests as a rise in temperature, but that does not mean there is more heat present! It is just like the air. When I compressed the air, the pressure went up, but that does not mean that there is more air present. I believe that the total quantity of air and heat remain the same. It is just that the density of both has risen.

From this point of view, it appears that the amount of energy required to "compress the air" took all of my input work, and the amount of energy required to "compress the heat" was immeasurably small. This is the apparent "gain" in the system; the ability to access the ambient heat of the air at temperatures above the ambient. Understanding this situation gives rise to the opportunity to engineer extremely low cost heating and cooling systems, as well as "heat engines" that operate on the heat of our natural surroundings.

Peter

[mbrownn]

That makes perfect sense to me, I cant think of anything that would disprove it.

[madhatter]

Hi Folks,

As some of you know, I do not believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics and therefore, do not believe in either Energy Conservation or Energy Conversion. I just don't see any evidence that the real world functions this way.

In my presentation, I make reference to the experiments run by James Joule and reported on in his published paper titled On the Mechanical Equivalence of Heat in 1845. The process of compressing a gas and measuring the temperature rise was one of his experimental examples. During the talk, I pointed out that the energy expended to compress the gas produces both a rise in the temperature AND a rise in the pressure of the gas, and that when all of the effects of compressing a gas are taken into account, the total energy present appears to be more than is required by the input.

In the talk, I suggested that the simple act of compressing air can be thought of as an "over-unity" event with an efficiency of at least 145%. To be quite honest, I DON"T BELIEVE that for one second! First of all, I don't believe in "energy conversion", so there can't be any "efficiency of conversion". That means there is no "unity". If there is no "unity", there certainly can't be any "over-unity".

In order to make sense of all of this for you, I would like to share a deeper view of this situation and ask for an intelligent conversation on the topic.

Since I don't believe in Energy Conversion, it is reasonable to ask what is happening when we "compress air"? The first thing to understand is that we are NOT just "compressing air", but we are compressing "ambient temperature" air. We must realize that the air has a "heat content" before we start to compress it.

1) James Joule said that 100% of the energy we expended to compress the air was CONVERTED into the temperature rise, and that the rise in pressure was just a secondary artifact of the temperature rise. His argument was that if you decompress the air, both the temperature and the pressure drop back to their original values, and this he considered evidence that they represented the same energy.

2) In my model of reality, the ambient air has both volume and a quantity of heat for that volume. If I "compress the air", what I am doing is applying pressure to the air to force a large volume into a smaller space. This process gives rise to the increase in the PRESSURE of the air. So, I push on the air and the air pushes back. I apply pressure to the air and that pressure is retained by the air captured in the smaller space. So, there is NO ENERGY CONVERSION here! Pressure applied: pressure retained. The applied energy retains it's original characteristics and is NOT CONVERTED into anything else.

3) Well then, what about the temperature rise? That is easy to understand too. As I said before, the original volume of air had a certain quantity of heat in it. When I compress the air, so that the volume of the air becomes smaller, the heat density must also rise, as the same amount of heat is now in a smaller container as well. This is why the temperature rises. The heat quantity per volume ratio is rising and this registers as an increase in the temperature!

So, I do NOT BELIEVE that the act of compressing air creates any heat! It simply concentrates the heat that was in the air before it was compressed. It manifests as a rise in temperature, but that does not mean there is more heat present! It is just like the air. When I compressed the air, the pressure went up, but that does not mean that there is more air present. I believe that the total quantity of air and heat remain the same. It is just that the density of both has risen.

From this point of view, it appears that the amount of energy required to "compress the air" took all of my input work, and the amount of energy required to "compress the heat" was immeasurably small. This is the apparent "gain" in the system; the ability to access the ambient heat of the air at temperatures above the ambient. Understanding this situation gives rise to the opportunity to engineer extremely low cost heating and cooling systems, as well as "heat engines" that operate on the heat of our natural surroundings.

Peter

I like your call for an intelligent conversation
I agree with your points and point out that thermodynamics is confusing enough to those who study it let alone the non-educated. The system is always assumed to be uniform, random scattering is impossible to calculate and thus is not. By starting out with an assumed 'smoothing' the answer is being manipulated before it's calculated. real world results are 'macro' systems that the equations can equal, but lets not forget that the system design was based on the equations to start with.

by moving into the micro or quantum scale things go funny. I think that by designing and working on the quantum scale is where gains and progress can be made. Now I'm not talking about building quantum scale engines, no but designing and working on scaling the quantum interactions and not breaking into classical physics. Difficult for sure, it's that gap between classic and quantum that is still not bridged.

I approach from the very fundamental 'building blocks' of nature to see why things behave the way they do. the problem is quantum vs macro, it's still an unknown. So onto the point, thermodynamics are large scale quantum interactions and to 'smooth' over this one will miss the ability to exploit the system properly.

I like your simple idea and would offer this input, more than likely exotic materials are going to be needed to avoid a thermal equilibrium from building up. An interesting bit is at room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process. I think that there is a fascinating connection to why, it has to do with the electrons!

more later, need to get some other things done...