Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83677
  • *Latest: Seafarer

  • *Total Posts: 515688
  • *Total Topics: 15375
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 18
  • *Total: 25

Author Topic: Any proof?  (Read 83845 times)

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2012, 03:29:11 AM »
Dear Parisd,
 
There are NO mistakes.  Please double and triple check.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2012, 03:29:11 AM »

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2012, 06:12:46 AM »
Dear Parisd,
 
There are NO mistakes.  Please double and triple check.


parisd actually got it right.  I double and triple checked.


First of all, you are wrong when you say that the tension in the string does work.  As we all know from high school, string tension can only perform work along the string.  With the pendulum, by definition, the tension in the string is always exactly perpendicular to the motion of the bob, so the string tension cannot perform any work at all.


parisd is also correct in pointing out the flaws in your calculations.  For some reason not clear to me, you conclude that the total work done is the horizontal displacement plus the vertical displacement.  Assuming zero friction (as you do), the amount of energy required to move a bob purely horizontally (that is, sideways to force of gravity) is very near zero.  So the only real work done is the vertical component of the bob's motion.


Per your calculations, this is about half of the force that is exerted, which makes no sense.  So there is a mistake in your equation, and the mistake is not in your favor.  I do think some kind of integration is in order, as the force required to move the bob along its plane increases exponentially with the angle of incline.  This is not a linear function, as your equations imply.


Finally, and this probably does not make too much difference in moving the bob 9 degrees, your application of the purely horizontal force is an inefficient way to raise the bob.  The most efficient way to apply force would be in a direction perpendicular to the string.  As you would not be wasting energy fighting against the string.  As an example, imagine the bob at 89 degrees.  A  purely horizontal push on the bob would be expending 89/90 of its energy just applying more tension to the string, and only 1/90th of its energy actually raising the bob.  In fact, given a nonzero mass, it is theoretically impossible to raise bob to exactly 90 degrees while applying only horizontal pressure.



Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2012, 07:10:29 AM »
Looks like there are many non-physicists who got themselves and others confused.
 
Rather than me giving the same explanation again, I shall wait for some other scientists or engineers to comment.
 
There are NO mistakes.  But it is good for everybody when someone raise questions.  All can learn.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2012, 07:10:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2012, 08:18:21 AM »
Looks like there are many non-physicists who got themselves and others confused.
 
Rather than me giving the same explanation again, I shall wait for some other scientists or engineers to comment.
 
There are NO mistakes.  But it is good for everybody when someone raise questions.  All can learn.


I disagree.  I think you have made a mistake.  But I am willing to stand corrected if shown a pendulum in perpetual motion, as you assert.  I love learning new things.


I do think your calculation of horizontal work is at the crux of your error.  You are counting the vertical work double.  You count it as part of the horizontal, and then also as part of the vertical.  There is only one bit of work done, and that is rasing the bob against gravity.  Everything else is just (almost, if not for slight friction) effortless motion that does not constitute work.


I've googled some of your older posts, and it appears you have been taking this position for many years now.  This makes me think what I am writing here is wasted effort, as you obviously have seen this criticism before and have not been convinced by it.  Good luck, though.

Offline parisd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2012, 04:26:31 PM »
Lsteung888,

No need to double check, your overunity calculation mistake is obvious.

But prove me wrong by lifting the pendulum to an angle of 9.46 degree (or whatever you wish) using an horizontal force then please do show us overunity; just make a video of any pendulum that has been raised to X degree then just let it go, it will oscillate and due to calculated overunity of 1.5 on the other side should raise more than -X degrees, easy to prove if yes or no you are right. I bet it will stop at -X degrees or slightly less.

Good continuation but please dont confuse people with wrong statement on OU, we are here to find the real thing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2012, 04:26:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2012, 04:49:52 PM »

I disagree.  I think you have made a mistake.  But I am willing to stand corrected if shown a pendulum in perpetual motion, as you assert.  I love learning new things.


I do think your calculation of horizontal work is at the crux of your error.  You are counting the vertical work double.  You count it as part of the horizontal, and then also as part of the vertical.  There is only one bit of work done, and that is rasing the bob against gravity.  Everything else is just (almost, if not for slight friction) effortless motion that does not constitute work.


I've googled some of your older posts, and it appears you have been taking this position for many years now.  This makes me think what I am writing here is wasted effort, as you obviously have seen this criticism before and have not been convinced by it.  Good luck, though.

Dear eatenbyagrue,
 
I am glad that you checked out my older posts.  The calculation is still the same.  There are absolutely no mistakes.  I do not need to change my position.
 
I shall wait a few more days to see if there are more comments.  All your doubts, those of parisd or any other serious members will be answered all at once.  Hopefully this will be the last time I repeat the explanation. 
 
In the past, I tried to answer one question at a time and that made the explanations somewhat lengthy and spread out over many posts.  So wait a few more days and we can get a full and complete explanation.
 
Meanwhile, play with the spreadsheet.  Change the horizontal force to 1,2,3,4… for example and see the effect of the smaller angles.  Check the ratio of horizontal work and vertical work for these cases.
 
Divine Wine is worth waiting.

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2012, 09:07:59 AM »

Dear eatenbyagrue,
 
I am glad that you checked out my older posts.  The calculation is still the same.  There are absolutely no mistakes.  I do not need to change my position.
 
I shall wait a few more days to see if there are more comments.  All your doubts, those of parisd or any other serious members will be answered all at once.  Hopefully this will be the last time I repeat the explanation. 
 
In the past, I tried to answer one question at a time and that made the explanations somewhat lengthy and spread out over many posts.  So wait a few more days and we can get a full and complete explanation.
 
Meanwhile, play with the spreadsheet.  Change the horizontal force to 1,2,3,4… for example and see the effect of the smaller angles.  Check the ratio of horizontal work and vertical work for these cases.
 
Divine Wine is worth waiting.


Why do you even need a pendulum in this example?  It just makes your calculations more complicated, as you have to solve circular force equations.


Why don't you just use an inclined plane, where the motion is linear?


And I have a question for you.  In an inclined plane, when you roll a ball up the plane, does the incline do work (presumably via the "tension" exerted by the ball onto the plane)?


If you are asserting that the inclined plane is doing work, I do not think we have anything further to talk about.  Your definition of "work" is well outside of established physics.  Your device might be overunity, but not in this universe.  You need different laws of physics.


Also, please do not insult the very few readers you have by calling us amateurs who cause confusion.  You are also an amateur, and please remember that you actually have a receptive audience on this forum.  We want to believe you and are predisposed to do so.  But this is so far removed from correct math, that it is hard to do.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2012, 09:07:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2012, 04:10:09 PM »
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #68 on: March 30, 2012, 01:38:56 AM »
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.


I have reviewed your documents, and I am sorry, but you have made a mistake.  I believe you are correct when you say "We all know that a horizontal force cannot do vertical work unless some type of machine is used to change the direction of the force."  You go on to say that you did not see any such mechanism in the pendulum.

There is a mechanism in the pendulum that changes the direction of the force - it is the string.  The bob wants to fall, but the string does not let it.  The bob wants to remain level as it is being moved, but the string will not let it.  The function is similar to an inclined plane.

There is no horizontal versus vertical work here.  There is only vertical work.  When you push sideways, the ball is redirected diagonally.  So I do not see any overunity here, and your example of Milkovic's two stage oscillator is not convincing, as that machine is obviously not over unity, as it stops on its own.

Unless you can convince us how your theory is different than just pushing a ball up an inclined plane, which we know is an under unity activity, there is nothing more here for me.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #68 on: March 30, 2012, 01:38:56 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #69 on: March 30, 2012, 02:14:10 AM »
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.


I will add one more thing.  I think you actually realize my point when you say - "the best pulse-push is actually tangential."  Are you aware of what you are saying?  There is no longer a horizontal push that does vertical work.  You push diagonally, and the bob moves diagonally.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #70 on: March 30, 2012, 04:11:37 PM »
Quote
There is a mechanism in the pendulum that changes the direction of the force - it is the string.  The bob wants to fall, but the string does not let it.  The bob wants to remain level as it is being moved, but the string will not let it.  The function is similar to an inclined plane.

Dear eatenbyagrue,

Please think more about your comparison with the inclined plane.

The pulse-pushed Pendulum is unique in that it can lead-out gravitational energy.  We used the simplest case of applying a horizontal force to it when it is at rest. 

You said that the mechanism was the string that changes the direction of the force.  It is correct.  But if it is correct, we can then apply the Laws of Physics to resolve it into two components – the vertical and the horizontal.  That is our analysis.  Are you saying that we cannot resolve the force from the string (tension) into these components?  Please think and consult your professors and knowledgeable physicist friends.

We can apply the Laws of Physics to any real situation.  This is regarded as the ultimate test of these Laws.  Sometimes we might have overlooked some factors and misapplied such Laws.  In the example outlined in Divine Revelation 2.xls, there are NO mistakes or misapplication.

The scientists in the past misapplied the Law of Conservation of Energy to the whole class of lead-out or bring-in energy machines.  These machines bring-in existing energy from the environment.
 
You should enjoy arguments but should not be eaten by them.
 
When sowing seeds, some may fall on hard rock.  I leave it in the hands of the Almighty.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Any proof?
« Reply #70 on: March 30, 2012, 04:11:37 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #71 on: March 30, 2012, 05:20:48 PM »
Are you saying that we cannot resolve the force from the string (tension) into these components?  Please think and consult your professors and knowledgeable physicist friends.


You telling me to think more or to consult my friends without answering my criticisms is a non-answer.  I do not need to consult with anyone.  This is high school stuff.


I challenge you to distinguish your pendulum from an inclined plane in any way meaningful to this analysis.  In other words, why is an inclined plane under unity, while your devices delivers free energy?  "Pulsing" or whatever it is you are doing could easily be done in an inclined plane scenario.


Second, you have also not answered my comment about applying tangential force.  When you apply tangential force, as you state, you are applying your pulse diagonally, not horizontally.  So why all the math with the horizontal work versus vertical work?  The bob goes exactly in the direction you push it.




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #72 on: March 30, 2012, 05:35:18 PM »

You telling me to think more or to consult my friends without answering my criticisms is a non-answer.  I do not need to consult with anyone.  This is high school stuff.
 
*** The teachers in high school never learned lead-out energy theory.  The theory was developed in 2004 and has not found its way into textbooks yet.


I challenge you to distinguish your pendulum from an inclined plane in any way meaningful to this analysis.  In other words, why is an inclined plane under unity, while your devices delivers free energy?  "Pulsing" or whatever it is you are doing could easily be done in an inclined plane scenario.
 
*** I do not accept such challenges.  The pulse-pushed pendulum and the continuous pushed incline plane are two different machines working on different mechanisms.  Why waste time and brain-power?


Second, you have also not answered my comment about applying tangential force.  When you apply tangential force, as you state, you are applying your pulse diagonally, not horizontally.  So why all the math with the horizontal work versus vertical work?  The bob goes exactly in the direction you push it.
 
*** If you checked in the past posts and on the Divine Revelation 2.xls, you would have found that we know the use of the tangential force long ago.  I did not choose to use it as the example as the mathematics is a little more complex.  I had another spreadsheet using that for analysis but all the students found this one easier.
 
*** Lee and I looked for the simplest model.  This horizontal push at stationary condition is the simplest we found.
 
Keep thinking and analyzing.  May the Almighty shine the light on you.

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #73 on: March 30, 2012, 06:08:42 PM »
OK, I do not think this is going anywhere.  You appear to have great energy for this theory, but I do not believe it is workable, so I am not going to spend any more time on it.  You have committed some very basic mistakes, and appear to have no intention of acknowledging them.

Good luck with your endeavors.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Any proof?
« Reply #74 on: March 31, 2012, 04:57:59 PM »
Now that the explanation file on Divine Revelation 2.xls is complete, I do not need to engage in unnecessary re-explanation again.  Some seeds may still land on hard rock.
Here is the email extract from Mr. Wang Shen He yesterday.
Quote
蒋先生:十分想念!你何时回深圳看看我的磁动力小跑车!另外磁动力机还得加大技术转让宣传!王沈河致
 
 
Translated:
 
Dear Mr. Tseung,
 
When are you coming back to Shenzhen to see my magnet-driven electric sports car?  Please help to promote the technology transfer more.
 
Regards,
Wang Shen He

 
I shall be back in China towards the end of April.  If possible, some details of the magnet-driven electric car will be revealed.
 
 
Need any more proof???

 

OneLink