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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

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 Posts: 894410
  • *Total Topics: 15729
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory  (Read 1782969 times)

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #270 on: September 08, 2007, 06:20:27 AM »
So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!
You nailed it down quite nicely with the hammer stuffs.

That's how you put energy into the thing

You then extract the energy from the bob's pull at the string.

Easy,

why act as if it's so complicated? ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #270 on: September 08, 2007, 06:20:27 AM »

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #271 on: September 08, 2007, 07:07:05 AM »
So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!
You nailed it down quite nicely with the hammer stuffs.

That's how you put energy into the thing

You then extract the energy from the bob's pull at the string.

Easy,

why act as if it's so complicated? ;)

Thank you.  Gaby.

With you around, I do not have to repeat the posts of the simple gravity wheel:
http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

and the related reproduction stories from Sun et al again.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #272 on: September 08, 2007, 07:28:53 AM »
Hi ltseung888

I was not criticizing or questionning the "Lead Out" theory. I (sometimes) see what you mean especially when you are talking about boat, water, sunshine and 'calmness'.

I undestand that you are not talking about COE violation. I also 'beleive' that a Bessler-like device is possible. I need not to be convinced. I'm far from a skeptic. Actually I'm a skeptic fighter. I fight with my native language that is why my posts here are short (I whish I could be more fluent in English).

My question was not a "scientific" one but a mere "gramatical" and "semantical" one. I just wanted to get a synonym for "Lead out".

Best

Thanks for your clarification.  Note that since I could not find a better English Word than LEAD OUT, I "abused" it.  I deliberately use the incorrect English grammar of LEAD, LEAD and LEAD for present, past and future tense.  The correct grammar should be Lead, Led, Led.  That ?mistake? was pointed out by some of the steorn.com/forum members.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #272 on: September 08, 2007, 07:28:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #273 on: September 08, 2007, 08:26:50 AM »
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Tseung.

Please, let's not split hairs.  You know what I mean.  Frankly, I do not care about CoE at this point.  I just want to know if the lead out theory dictates whether a mother pushing a child, or the desk toy I mentioned, or the simple pendulum clock is overunity. 

***The correct answer is
(1)   I now know that you are a lawyer and not a physicist.  So I am using layman scenario  - When you Lead Out existing Gravitational Energy, it is like you are at the top of a hill with a huge water tank.  You use a bucket to get the water from the tank and pour it down the hill.  You LEAD OUT the potential energy of water with your muscle energy to get the water.  However, that is NOT the potential energy of the water coming down the hill.

(2) A mother pushing a child on a swing, the simple desktop toy and the pendulum are NOT overunity devices as they do not have a feedback mechanism to re-pulse the system.  Bill Mehess tried to do that with his Korean parts pendulum.  You can read more about his invention in this forum.

***
....
Quote
I take exception to this logic.  You seem to imply that a single pulse does nothing, while multiple pulses would accomplish the trick.  This makes no sense.  Under the lead out theory, even a single pulse will result in free energy.  More pulses may create more energy, but a single pulse should be enough.

*** I never imply that a single pulse does nothing.  The implication of Tpulse <<Toscillation is as follows:
The time of the pulse (Tpulse) is much shorter than the time of an oscillation (Toscillation). The COP =1.5 part occurs only during the time of Tpulse.  If the Toscillation is 100 times longer than Tpulse, the COP of the pulsed pendulum system as a whole is NOT 1.5. 

If the COP is zero for the rest of the period.  It is 1/100 of 1.5 or 0.015.  0.015 is much less than 1. 

If the COP is 1 (ideal machine) for the rest of the period.  It is 1 + 1/100 of 0.5 or 1.005.  If the COP is slightly less than 1 in reality, the total COP drops below 1.

Thus the Lee-Tseung theory demands higher pulse rates or longer pulse periods to increase the COP value.  One effective way to do it is via pulsed rotation rather than pulsed oscillation.

I am leaving the answer to your last part to Ms. Forever Yuen. She has just completed her school certificate examination in Physics. Her answer would be straightly from textbooks.


« Last Edit: September 08, 2007, 11:49:15 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline Forever

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #274 on: September 08, 2007, 08:45:45 AM »
Mr .Tseung ask me to clarify the following concepts in Physics

*** .....but tension does not by itself create energy.  For example, if I am trying to lift a weight in the gym, a weight much too heavy for me, and I struggle and pull and tug with all my might, but fail to get the weight off the ground, I am exerting great tension on my arms, but there is no way to extract any energy from this.  I would actually have to move the weight in order to accomplish any work.  So your explanation is a little nonsensical.***

There are some elementary formulae in Physics that Tinu or other Physicists can confirm and clarify for you :

(1) Tension is a Force.  Force by itself is NOT energy.
(2) Force is a vector quantity (has direction).  In order for it to do Work, there must be Displacement.
(3) Displacement is NOT distance.  Displacement is also a vector quantity.
(4) In order for the Force to do Work, there must be Displacement in the direction of the Force.
(5) When Work is done, Energy is exchanged.  Both Work and Energy are scalar quantities. (No direction) Note that the product of two vector quantities becomes a scalar quantity.
(6) Tension in the pendulum string by itself does not imply Work done or Energy Exchange.  However, the pendulum swings to a different position.  This implies Displacement.  We can resolve this Displacement into vertical and horizontal components. (Vector arithmetic).
(7) We can also resolve the Tension (a Force) into vertical and horizontal components (Vector arithmetic).
(8) The product of Tension(vertical) x Displacement(vertical) represents the Work done or Energy exchange in the vertical direction.
(9) The product of Tension(horizontal) x Displacement(horizontal) represents the Work done or Energy exchange in the horizontal direction.
(10) The sum of (8) and (9) represents the energy exchanged.

I hope that the above information clarifies the physics concept.
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #274 on: September 08, 2007, 08:45:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #275 on: September 08, 2007, 11:13:05 AM »
High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.
A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.
A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory? :o
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  ??? Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult...  ::)

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept. ;D
It should add:
 11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'.  8)

Tx,
Tinu


Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #276 on: September 08, 2007, 12:16:43 PM »
High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.  A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.

A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory? :o
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  ??? Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult...  ::)

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept. ;D
It should add:
 11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system  is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'.  8)

Tx,
Tinu



Dear Tinu,

When you use the statement that gravitational field is conservative.  I thought that you did not understand the concept that that statement only applies to a closed system.

But you also mentioned later that "The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system  is zero."  That tell me that you probably  know the limitation of the statement (that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system).

This goes back to the hundreds of posts on CoP in the steorn.com/forum that we can never find a perfectly closed system for gravitation fields on Earth.  (Any moving star will have gravitational energy interchange with our Earth.  How can we find a closed gravitational system in such an environment?)

If I repost the dozens of CoP discussions from Steorn.com/forum again, would I be accused of repeat, repeat and repeat???  Please spend some time and read them. 

Thus I ignored the so called "advanced concept" that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system. (At least on our planet Earth.) If you can find one such system in reality, please educate me.  Thank you.

*** Just finished talking to a PhD candidate student majoring in Mathematics.  His understanding of a " conservative gravitatonal field" system is that the total gravitational energy of that system is unchanged or conserved.  If gravitational energy flows in and out from that system, that system cannot be closed.  A non-closed system cannot be conservation as there is loss or gain of the energy under consideration.  A closed-looped subsystem within such a "closed conservative system" must not in itself create or destroy energy.  If so, the "closed conservative system" can never be conservative.  (Imagine this closed-looped subsystem keep creating energy - how can the total system has the same energy?)

I am not sure whether that helps to clarify or confuse the issue for the average Forum participants.  However, some of the posts are intended for the top academics from Tsing Hua, Beijing, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Toyko Universities etc.  They may not read it now but I am sure that they will read it in the very near future when General Magnetic of China or other Companies demonstrate their Cosmic Energy  Products. ***

Lawrence Tseung
Abstract Advanced Concepts Lead Out Confusion not only in the minds of laymen but also that of the top Physicists.  Every statement must be carefully qualified.

« Last Edit: September 08, 2007, 01:20:07 PM by ltseung888 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #276 on: September 08, 2007, 12:16:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #277 on: September 08, 2007, 01:56:34 PM »
Dear Mr. Tseung,

?Conservative force fields and closed loops

A conservative force is one that does zero net work on a particle that travels along any closed path in an isolated system. A conservative force field can be represented as the gradient of a potential. Gravitational forces, electric forces, and magnetic forces are known to be conservative in a time-independent (static) field.
?
The work done in any closed loop shape, by such forces is independent on the path taken by the particle or charge and is equal to zero. This simply means that if a mass, electric charge or magnetic charge travels a closed loop in a static gravitational, electric or magnetic field respectively, it can never gain energy, or do any useful work. The work done in travelling from point X to Y, is always equal and opposite to the work done in travelling from point Y back to X. ?
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.

The limit in which gravitation is not conservative is in parts at E-12, as G variation is shown to be (dG/dt)/G ≤ 8E-12/year. Into this limits, energy can be extracted according to all known principles and laws. However, such a variation is way too small and too slow to be of any use. In fact, it can barely be measured using standard lab techniques and it is more mathematically deduced from observations within our solar system. On paper, however, machines can be imagined and I?d have nothing against them, in principle. But in practice it would require moving masses of billions of tons with no friction and loses; it?s simply not feasible.

Also, why bother to go that far at distant stars?
Use the Moon to extract energy: raise a body during the night when the Moon is above and let it fall when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet. This would also make a workable gravitational engine but only on paper. In practice it is also not feasible, unless, of course, converting the effects manifested on such large masses as those equivalent to a whole ocean? Tidal generators? Clicks heard?
Note that a whole sea is not enough for exploiting such effects! An ocean does it but not a sea?

Is this the line you try to pursue?
All the above facts are well known to me.
Still:
1. They are not feasible from any practical point of view.
2. They are not related in any way with the ?lead-out? theory, as you present it.

From the point of view of lead-out theory, the gravitational field of Earth can be considered static, hence conservative and all systems can be regarded as gravitationally isolated. This approximation is excellent, in the above presented limits.
If your pendulum weights as much as an ocean, then go on. Just state it and go on. I?ll follow your way of thinking. I?ll even accept a weight of a small ocean.
But if your pendulum weights less than the above, then accept that the gravitational field is conservative and forget about any variation of G.
Alternatively, I?ll even accept a ?mechanism? to vary G locally, if you can point toward one. Can you?

Tx
Tinu

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #278 on: September 08, 2007, 03:55:30 PM »
Dear Mr. Tseung,

http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.
.....

Tx
Tinu


Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your education.  I now know where you come from.  The lecture tries to promote zero point energy ZPE.  As I understand it, ZPE so far has NOT been accepted by mainstream science.

The Lecture states the First Law of Thermodynamics in a different way than what I learned at University over 40 years ago.

Quote
The first law states: In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. It simply means that the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. This is the only thermodynamic law that is NOT statistical, and thus is considered the only secure law of present science. In physics, this is known as the law of conservation of energy of isolated systems. N?ether's Theorem, states that if a system has a particular symmetry, there is a quantity associated with that symmetry that is conserved. By this theorem, the principle of conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations, that is symmetry in time. The conservation of energy law does not apply to systems which are not symmetrical upon time translation or reversal.

In many places, the lecture states the importance of isolated or closed systems.  For example, I quote:

Quote
It is not usually stressed enough, the fact that there is a very fundamental assumption in these laws, even in the first most 'secure' law of thermodynamics, or what we usually refer to as COE (conservation of energy). They ASSUME a closed system, and are born out of pure mathematics or statistical work, unprovable in the real world. Unprovable, because no one has yet been able to isolate a closed system. We are not even sure that the universe as a whole can be regarded as a closed system, which is a strict requirement for the conservation of energy law! In fact principles such as uncertainty, and entanglement, would seem to indicate that either it is impossible for a truly closed system to exist, or that our idea of a closed system is not taking into account other phenomena or energy exchanges which cannot be easily or possibly isolated from our systems. For example, one might consider a mechanical engine as a closed system, and finds out that it's impossible to get two similar efficiency readings. This could for example be due to changes in external ambient temperatures which were not taken into account in the first place. So, in such a case, our sun must be taken account as part of this example. But, still, we find that even at absolute zero kelvin, the ground state energy does not go to zero, and this means that other yet unknown energy sources must be taken account, or at least have their existence accepted by mainstream science, which is currently not the case. And that's why the list of anamolous effects in science is getting longer year after year.

I respect your support of ZPE.  However, I believe the Lee-Tseung theory is much easier to understand.  It can be applied much easier to the known working Cosmic Energy Machine Prototypes.  You may feel that I misused the Laws of Classical Physics.  That may be a valuable point for deeper understanding.  However, the top Professors at Tsing Hua, Beijing, Harvard and MIT did not raise that point as objection.  They only said that "this will require more research".  Lee-tseung-Wang were made guest lecturers at Tsing Hua University.  That fact demonstrated that some top academics were willing to investigate the Lee-Tseung theory further.

You did a good job in stressing that we need to use the correct units of force, work and energy.  Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
ZPE supporters Lead Out heated discussions with the Lee-Tseung supporters.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #278 on: September 08, 2007, 03:55:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #279 on: September 08, 2007, 04:36:36 PM »
I do not support ZPE, in particular.
(And I?m sorry but I have to run for now. Real life, real business?)

Still, you have in my above post at least clear examples of workable-in-principle devices, and clear values, supported by known facts and a description that is understable by just everyone reading here.

Try doing the same.

1. Try conceiving and posting a principle experiment. I have even offered before to build it and to test it for you.
Pulsed pendulum is not working. That?s all.

2. Try developing and posting a correct theory
Not only units of force, work and energy are wrong, but the equations are wrong, in the way they were used. And I do not ?feel it?. They are literarily wrong. I won?t post it again; it?s already here, right into this thread.

3. Try showing the limits in which the above 1 and 2 applies, at least the way I did it.

Then, there will be a solid base for discussing.
Right now, there is almost nothing.

Keep in touch,
Tinu

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #280 on: September 08, 2007, 05:02:15 PM »
I do not support ZPE, in particular.
(And I?m sorry but I have to run for now. Real life, real business?)
Typical debunker thing to say.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #280 on: September 08, 2007, 05:02:15 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #281 on: September 08, 2007, 05:40:29 PM »
Perpetual Motion Machine Patent or Patent Applications from the China Patent Database.

I used the Chinese Characters 永动机 as keyword to search  on the Chinese Patent Database.   

当我搜寻"永久行动机器" 我发现这: 自古以来,鼓吹永动机的无非两类人,一类是无知或偏执的空想家,一类是诈骗投资的骗子。 (http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_sad.gif)

Quote
I got 60 hits.  56 were invention patents.  It demonstrates that the dogma of "perpetual motion machines are not possible because of the law of conservation of energy" is less severe in China.  The first page is listed.

I deliberately do not add any translation.  This gives your Chinese friends a chance to shine (or to get a drink or a dinner from you!)

您现在的位置: 首页 > 专利检索 > 搜索结果
        发明专利 56 条       Ã¥Â®Å¾Ã§â€Â¨Ã¦â€“°åž‹ä¸“利 4 条 
 
序号 申请号  专利名称 
1    02104966.1     Ã¦Å“ºç”µç£æ•°æ¨¡å¾ªçŽ¯å¼åŠ¨åŠ›æœº 
2    02102260.7     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦â€ºÂ²Ã¦Å¸â€žÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
3    02108873.X     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
4    01123526.8     Ã¥Â®â€¡Ã¥Â®â„¢Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½åŠ é€Ÿç”µåŠ¨æœºè½¦è¾† 
5    96102681.2     Ã¨â€¡ÂªÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¨Â¿ÂÃ¨Â¡Å’è½®??永动机 
6    97101208.3     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
7    96112631.0     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¤Â¸ÂÃ¥Â¹Â³Ã¨Â¡Â¡Ã¨Â£â€¦Ã§Â½Â®-永动机 
8    97101371.3     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
9    86106041     Ã¦â€“¥åŠ›ç£åŠ¨æœº 
10    88108911.7     Ã¥Ë†Â©Ã§â€Â¨Ã¥â€ Â¬Ã¥Â¯â€™Ã¥Â¤ÂÃ¦Å¡â€˜Ã§Å¡â€ž?永动机?技术方案 
11    88109717.9     Ã¤Â½Å½Ã¨Æ’ŒåŽ‹å†ç”Ÿå‡æ±½å¼æ±½è½®æœºè®¾å¤‡ 
12    89105245.3     Ã¨Å â€šÃ¨Æ’½æŠ½æ°”压缩机 
13    92103544.6     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåŠå…¶ç”¨é€” 
14    93117137.7     Ã©â€¦ÂÃ¥ÂË†Ã¥Âºâ€Ã§â€Â¨Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦Å“º 
15    94107176.6     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¦â‚¬Â§Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
16    93100829.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦â€“°åž‹åŠ¨è£…ç½® 
17    94107644.X     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
18    94111811.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦Â Â¹Ã¦ÂÂ®Ã¦ÂÂ Ã¦Ââ€ Ã¥â€™Å’液压传动原理构成的永动机 
19    93114240.7     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåˆ¶é€ æŠ€æœ¯ 
20    97107032.6     Ã¥Â¹Â¿Ã¤Â¹â€°Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦ÂºÂÃ¦Å“º 
 


Websearchin for "离心增力机" also looks interesting.link

zeer interusant alluhmaal. ;D

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #282 on: September 09, 2007, 10:58:56 AM »
I have boldly stated in:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48389.html#msg48389

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 01:03:00 AM
Hi Lawrence and all,

Thank you Lawrence we will be attaching that to our presentation of this system, depsite Chas not have a refined system and or a working system ATM, there are still many themes and benefits we can attain from this whole experience, and that data you provided needs to make it to the light and day so does all the other gravity theorems/devices mentioned so far and the response Chas got. Plus How you and Chas need endorsement and investigation /support.


Dear Ash,

You and your team have done an excellent job.  I have seen the Chas Campbell gravity wheel video and I also have the dimensions of his Electricity Magnifier.

After careful review and discussions with others in China, we are very confident that we can improve both the Chas Campbell devices.  I shall prepare a full, detailed theoretical explanation of why his two devices are theoretically possible.  We shall then outline the many improvements that are possible under the prediction of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

The Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier is actually easier to implement and demonstrate.  I have the unfair advantage of knowing the superior Tsing Hua Electricity Generator using cylinders.  Lee and I already presented the theory at Tsing Hua University multiple times in late 2006.  In one sentence, it is Pulsed Rotation Leading Out Gravitational Energy.

Lee Cheung Kin and I shall meet some Chinese Officials next week.  As you may know already, China and Japan are extremely interested in alternative energy projects.   If you do not object, I shall present the Chas Campbell devices to them.  (We did that for Wang Shum Ho with good success.)

Keep up the good work.  I am interested in your RV invention too.

Lawrence Tseung
International Cooperation Leads Out a better World for all.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #283 on: September 12, 2007, 01:25:33 AM »
I have updated (to Version 1.2) the campbell.doc document posted at:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484

In Version 1.2, I included both the gravity wheel and the Electricity magnifier.

Have fun.

Lawrence Tseung

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #284 on: September 12, 2007, 04:56:09 AM »
Presentation file to two groups of Chinese Officials this week.

Initial feedback excellent.

 

OneLink