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 Members: 84217
  • *Latest: Jarik

  • *Total Posts: 897755
  • *Total Topics: 15822
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory  (Read 1850373 times)

Offline argona369

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #240 on: September 03, 2007, 03:51:23 PM »
.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 03:54:28 AM by argona369 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #240 on: September 03, 2007, 03:51:23 PM »

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #241 on: September 04, 2007, 02:05:01 AM »
Great, this gives a chance for me to reproduce one of the discussions with a Member of the Chinese Academy of Science.

Member A: "Will the gravitational energy or the electron motion energy be exhausted if we keep using them?"

Lee: "Gravitational Attraction exists whenever there is mass.  We are being pulled in multiple directions by various masses.  These masses include the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, the Stars and even you and I.  If you move, the force of attraction between you and I actually does work.  Work = Force x Displacement.  Work requires Energy. In other words, we are exchanging gravitational energy constantly with our surroundings."

Member A: "I accept that we are immersed in gravitational fields.  I also accept that we are having constant exchange of gravitational energy due to movement of near and distant masses.  These are Newtonian Physics accepted by almost all Physicists.  However, my question is whether such gravitational energy is theoretically infinite?  Will heavy and constant use of such energy exhaust this energy source?"

Tseung: "This leads to the bigger picture of the entire Universe.  We know that there are Black Holes  that attract masses and light.  We know that there is the Big Bang  theory that explains the expanding universe.  We also believe that some scientists already proposed a non-steady state Universe.  There are multiple Black Holes and multiple Bangs.  Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

Member A: "How about electron motion energy?  You included magnetic, electric, electromagnetic energies as electron motion energies.  Gravitational Energy is attraction only.  Electron Motion Energy can be repulsion."

Tseung: "Unless electrons stop spinning and fall into the nucleus, there will be electron motion energy.  I do not think that you will deny that we are also immersed in magnetic, electrostatic, electromagnetic fields.  Sunlight is only one form of electromagnetic waves.  We have constant interchange with Sunlight and such electron motion energy."

Member A: "I have to admit that you do have logic.  I have seen the working prototypes of Liang and Wang.  I and my colleagues could not come up with a good theory.  Let me think more about it."

*** Many Forum members, including Stefan Hartmann, already observed over unity effects (e.g. his Newman Motor prototype produced 135% Output  from 100% input.) outside China.  My posts will give them encouragement.  I shall refine my TPU article shortly.  The TPU does not violate COE. ***

*** If you do not believe the Lee-Tseung Theory, you better come up with an alternative when any of the Over Unity Inventions are confirmed outside China.  There are multiple confirmations within China and the inventors with prototypes already got support.***

Lawrence Tseung
Working Prototypes Lead Out the need to re-examine established theory.

Great, this gives me a chance to reproduce one of the discussions I too have seen:

Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning.
Handsome Boy A: What happen ?
Pretty Girl B: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Handsome Boy B: We get signal.
Handsome Boy A: What !
Pretty Girl A: Main screen turn on.
Handsome Boy A: It's you !!
Politician: How are you gentlemen !!
Politician: All your base are belong to us.
Politician: You are on the way to destruction.
Handsome Boy A: What you say !!
Politician: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Politician: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Handsome Boy B: Captain !! *
Handsome Boy A: Take off every 'ZIG' !!
Handsome Boy A: You know what you doing.
Handsome Boy A: Move 'ZIG'.
Handsome Boy A: For great justice.

Setting up us the bomb Leads Out all your base to belong to us.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #242 on: September 04, 2007, 03:43:49 AM »
Chas Campbell Devices

Chas Campbell has two devices.  One is a Bessler type perpetual motion wheel with moving balls.  One is the Electricity Magnifier.

This is a perfect test for the Lee-Tseung Theory outside China.  We can help to improve both devices with suggestions - giving out the theoretical explanations using the Lee-Tseung Theory at the same time.

It will be done in a step-by-step fashion in this forum.  The total overview and various predictions will be in the http://forum.go-here.nl.  This is done to benefit the World.

Lee Cheung Kin said: "Why do you educate the nonbelievers?  They will not give you money, fame or support.  There will be cheers and jeers.  Without the products, you get more jeers."

Tseung: "Wang and others are perfecting the products.  They do not need us at present.  Giving out knowledge will not diminish our knowledge.  There are over 7,000 views on this thread already.  I just want to have fun in sharing the knowledge and benefit the World. "

Lee: "You are NUTS.  If you want to take the abuse and insults, go ahead."

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Devices Lead Out Fun for Tseung and Benefits to the World

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #242 on: September 04, 2007, 03:43:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline hardcoreboater

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #243 on: September 04, 2007, 06:55:26 AM »
personally i think you're full of it, mr tseung...you and wang shum ho both.  we have yet to see any of your devices in action and your claim to have successfully demonstrated the technology "in front of 5 chinese officials" does not satisfy me.  if you want anyone to take you seriously then you should release some footage either of the "mysterious stool experiment" or of the generator in motion, itself.  but, hey, good luck to you...you obviously seem to be quite talented at perpetuating this lie.  I for one won't believe in this technology until it is replicated or released to the public, so stop wasting everyone's time.

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Conversation of Energy
« Reply #244 on: September 04, 2007, 09:00:28 PM »
Mr. Entropy, I put my reply here at the top of my outbox.
http://forum.go-here.nl/search.php?search_id=unanswered

I have put 2 of the videos here here. so that you can view them easy.

TsingHua University - electrical energy magnifier

Dr. Liang Car Video

lets see how much bandwidth you can use up. lol

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conversation of Energy
« Reply #244 on: September 04, 2007, 09:00:28 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mr.Entropy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #245 on: September 05, 2007, 05:44:59 AM »
Hi Lawrence,

The first topic I would solicitate your opinion on is:
The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.

Well, you are quite right that the boat is not a closed system, and that the law of conservation of energy does not imply that the man must row.  The scenario elegantly shows how we can misinterpret our own ignorance as a limit imposed by nature.

The analysis of a horizontal force applied to a pendulum, however, although it appears to be based on classical mechanics, does not faithfully apply those laws of physics.  In particular, "energy" is a scalar quantity -- it does not have horizontal and vertical components.  If you were to do the experiment outlined, you would find first that the pendulum's weight continued to rise after you finished applying the force, until its momentum was exausted.  At this point, you would find that the gravitational potential energy in the weight is equal to the energy you added by applying the force, and that would probably tip you off that what you are calling vertical and horizontal energy are, in fact, just different ways of calculating the same quantity.

It is as I said before -- you can't beat the physicists using their own laws of physics.  They know how those laws work better than you do.  You'll have to find an observable phenomenon that contradicts or trancends those laws.

But enough debunking... I don't enjoy debunking.  Instead, I'll use this opportunity to bemoan the increasing prevalence of a terrible condition that I call "Keats' Disease".

I refer to an affiliction that primarily afflicts intellectuals.  It is a belief that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty", and that "That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know".

The most famous sufferer was the great Greek philosopher Aristotle.  He was a great thinker who had a bad thought -- he thought he could do physics without doing experiments, because he thought he could judge the truth of his theories by their beauty and the beauty of their logical interactions with his various prejudices.  In accordance with his affliction, he wrote several books about the laws of the nature that were held in high esteem by entire civilizations until they were later found to be useless and worse, because, well, he just made them up!

Over time it has become clear that a person can believe anything -- any theory at all is believable -- as long as it is beautiful in the context of his other ideas about nature, morality, theology, etc.  He can believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  (He might even belive that beauty = truth, while simultaneously acknowledging that one is subjective, and that the other is not!)  You need only examine the fundamental world-view of whatever political movement you disagree with to see how widespread this problem is today.  Even then, you'll see only half of it.

So, what are we do to about this?  Again, I emphasize that the people with this tendency to believe beautiful things are NOT STUPID.  They're not even a minority.   It may even be that we are ALL afflicted to some degree. We are certainly all affected.  It is imperative, therefore, that we vigilantly guard against this tendency in ourselves, and work against the rising tide of this terrible disease using the only treatment that is known to be effective -- the scientific method.  It may not be truly applicable to the softer sciences, but for practical physics it works!  Theories can be mercilessly tested, and discarded when they fail to predict real observations.  This is the only way we know how to protect ourselves from beautiful falsehoods, while simultaneously embracing the truths.

--
Mr. Entropy

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #246 on: September 05, 2007, 08:16:36 AM »
Hi Lawrence,

The first topic I would solicitate your opinion on is:
The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.

Well, you are quite right that the boat is not a closed system, and that the law of conservation of energy does not imply that the man must row.  The scenario elegantly shows how we can misinterpret our own ignorance as a limit imposed by nature.

The analysis of a horizontal force applied to a pendulum, however, although it appears to be based on classical mechanics, does not faithfully apply those laws of physics.....
--
Mr. Entropy


Dear Mr. Entropy,

Thank you for your opinion on The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.  You arrived at the same conclusion as the Professors and Research Students at Tsing Hua and Beijing University.

Before we discuss the second topic of the Pulsed Force on the Pendulum, I would like you to have access (at least in video form) of the WORKING prototypes.  The Professors at Tsing Hua University have seen and have access to these prototypes.  The videos and their pointers are on previous posts of this thread.

The three working prototypes I would like you to view first are:
(1) The Wang Shum Ho device (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm)

(2) The Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier - similar to the Chas Campbell device except that it used cylinders and could magnify the input 30 times.  The video was taken on Jan 4, 1996. 

(3) The Dr. Liang Xingren Car.  This car used ICs to pulse rotate the Cylinder and the axle.  Chao Ching San improved it with banks of batteries so that it can climb higher slopes than 23 degrees.  The Liang Car video was taken in 2003 and the Chao video was taken in 2006 by CCTV10.

Email me if you have difficulty in finding these three pieces of information.  (I do not want to put you in the position of having less information than the Tsing Hua Unversity Professors and Research Students before the full discussion.)

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
« Last Edit: September 05, 2007, 09:23:50 AM by ltseung888 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #246 on: September 05, 2007, 08:16:36 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #247 on: September 05, 2007, 09:47:41 AM »
Chas Campbell Devices

Chas Campbell has two devices.  One is a Bessler type perpetual motion wheel with moving balls.  One is the Electricity Magnifier.

This is a perfect test for the Lee-Tseung Theory outside China.  We can help to improve both devices with suggestions - giving out the theoretical explanations using the Lee-Tseung Theory at the same time.

It will be done in a step-by-step fashion in this forum.  The total overview and various predictions will be in the http://forum.go-here.nl.  This is done to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Devices Lead Out Fun for Tseung and Benefits to the World


The first step or suggestion in improving the Chas Campbell Gravitational Wheel is
(1) Put Mass on the rim of the wheel. 
(2) The Lee-Tseung theory predicts that more gravitational energy will be Lead Out via the Pulsed Rotation if the mass is concentrated at the furtherest point - the rim.
(3) Many inventors who do not understand the Lee-Tseung theory go for larger wheels.  This has the effect of putting more mass at the further point.
(4) The Bessler Wheel is a double wheel with wood at the rim to hide the workings.  In really, Bessler unknowingly put more mass on the rim.
(5) Once the mass at the rim is increased, the pulsing or resonance frequency will change.  Another round of tuning from the beginning will be required.

This is the first suggestion  on improving the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel.  To the engineering type who plan to replicate and improve the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel in this forum, please consider this improvement suggestion.

Lawrence Tseung
The first improvement step to the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel Leads Out more work for the Engineers.

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #248 on: September 05, 2007, 04:09:42 PM »
But enough debunking... I don't enjoy debunking. 

You have no idea how annoying it really is. I will give you a good tip so that you don't have to appear a debunker. Personally I will refer to every comment as nonsense as long as it does not repeat the question. If anyone is going to give a description of a device and it's the same as their description of any other device then the person is a spammer.

Yes, yes, we know your god is real because it says so in your bible. But in order for others to respect your religion you should fist stop bothering other people with it. There is nothing interesting in such comments you see. This is a very stupid way of communicating and physics is full of this very kinds of stupidity. Any comment that tries to describe whole tribes of people while attributing specific emotional disorders is in fact a pure insult.

You may think I'm overreacting but I'm actually not talking about my research to anyone anymore. It's always the same bullshit they say.

So you better not think I take it mildly when you call me crazy and delusional again. I think it's a revolting personality trait, we need to get rid of this part of you before we can talk about anything.

Behave yourself will you?

I will tell you physics is just an art. It's nothing more as an art. You are not the superior artist. You are just another physicus. Very smart people overall, but most are not very creative by understatement.

Learn more => think less about it

If anyone should correct anyone to attribute proper respect it is the academic ranting about all other artists who should be corrected. The academicus should behave himself like an adult.

What kind of world do you think we get if all knowledgeable people act like little children? Well look around you? Good, point made.

You should buy some watter colors and a set of screwdrivers first, then some hammers. First go learn the basics of art. Your mental disorder looks exectly the same as mine looks from where you are sitting. hahaha!

But no offence intended!! I just want to share how crazy your things look from here! Of course you are wrong and I am right from my angle. The way peeps keep spamming everything said about free energy with the laws of thermodynamics is evident on it's own. And I really don't care it's the millions of you against lille oll me. I know when I'm right. If Aristoteles didn't accomplish anything, then why are you talking about him?  Why was his work so memorable? Why are you so impressed with his art? Could it be because it showed theoretical physics requires debugging like any other software? Perhaps his lesion was even more general?

Now I personally know debugging is not done though denial of the existence of the bugs. Stacking irrational functions is what others skilled in the art of programing call bloatware. So your software is a bloated boob. The computertechnical philosophical term is N3WB1E or N00B. It sounds rather manchildish again but it does cover the load. hahaha

[Theory = true] so  [machine = not real] Is nonsense!

[machine = real] so [theory = nonsense] on the other hand does give a realistic picture of the world.

By no means can you give any tribute to the laws of physics in advance then do nothing. I have hundreds of years of hard evidence of you ignoring perpetual motion devices. You didn't look so you can never claim non of them worked.  Even when we assume non of them where real this method is still erroneous. You have guessed they all didn't work.

The inventors community is like an input device. So you can either fail to configure it or you can make it evident there really is no signal. But you cant leave it disconnected claiming there is no signal. That's just rubbish talk man! LOL !

Physics and it's ancestors have been twisting peoples words for hundreds of years! Most disrespectful behaviour! Hardly something one can base any conclusions upon. For a hundred years you have chanted the mantra "non of the devices where real". But I can prove that 95% was never looked at so this claim is extremely fraudulent.

Here we go:

Anyone can create pages about anything on wikipedia as long as the information is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. NOW THIS MEANS NOT EVEN THE SMOT HAS A DECENT PAGE. Because there was never any science done on ANY free energy device in history. You have never looked!! Can't you see how crazy you all are? ah?? Don't you know about the law of supply and demand?  :D

Common, point your finger at me and call me names? we all know you want to?

The U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror  $3.4 billion on energy research  And you cant even produce one single document describing Stan Meyers water full cell. Not one page of decent documentation you have. And this you want to base your "non of them where real" claim upon? Highly fraudulent, most insulting to Mr Meyer?

I will assume I'm right until anyone explains where I am wrong.

Call me crazy.

Sublimate nuclear waste eh?
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl

What do you mean non where real? What do you have to show for your claims?

So, you understand this makes for kind of a weird online experience with all you "experts" all over the web. I think I'm going more insane by the day but not as a result from the original thought....

LOL !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #248 on: September 05, 2007, 04:09:42 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #249 on: September 05, 2007, 04:48:24 PM »
You may think I'm overreacting but I'm actually not talking about my research to anyone anymore. It's always the same bullshit they say.

Now how did you get all that from Entropy's post?  He did not say one insulting or even critical thing about you or any of your ideas.

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #250 on: September 05, 2007, 06:30:59 PM »
You may think I'm overreacting but I'm actually not talking about my research to anyone anymore. It's always the same bullshit they say.

Now how did you get all that from Entropy's post?  He did not say one insulting or even critical thing about you or any of your ideas.

Entropy absolutely seems like a nice guy. That's why I try to explain

For example, here he is trying to explain what is wrong with the theory.

Quote
If you were to do the experiment outlined, you would find first that the pendulum's weight continued to rise after you finished applying the force, until its momentum was exausted.  At this point, you would find that the gravitational potential energy in the weight is equal to the energy you added by applying the force, and that would probably tip you off that what you are calling vertical and horizontal energy are, in fact, just different ways of calculating the same quantity.

But this is not the method that leads to creating free energy from pendulums. One has to make great effort to accomplish a large number of absolutely wrong but most educative devices.

After each one of those attempts one is to make great effort of enhancing the effect. One can only succeed after a reasonable number of failed attempts and a reasonable number of trying really really hard to make it work.

You can not just say "ahhh, that is impossible" and do nothing.

I read last week some one wrote, the smot didn't work and if it did the ball would need a push and if it didn't need a push then it still wouldn't make any energy for sure!

I have never seen such incredible cognitive dishonesty software! *runs arround the room waving hands in air* What can I do to explain to Entrophy there first has to be effect before there is result? :D

Say, A steel ball is placed in-front of the device, magnetic attraction is converted into kinetic energy and the ball rolls up the ramp. (where the array is positioned closer to the rail) allowing the ball to further accelerate. At the top of the ramp the ball drops out of the magnetic field. Here the projectile launched by the SMOT appears to gain kinetic energy as the ball accelerates from standstill, overcomes distance and has remaining kinetic energy after interaction with the toy.

Where is the hard science behind the SMOT??? I'm sure the 200 000 000 000 € global energy reserach budget allows for you to write a page explaining WHY this does not generate surplus kinetics? I'm sure the 200 000 000 000 € global energy research budget allows for a paper about the hammel spinner. Mr hammel claims perpetual motion then you all run away screaming it isn't so? I don't find a single science journal publicating stuff about it.  The best the scientific community has done is spew at the peoples! ROFL!!

And I claim that upon spewing you can't base "all of the previous devices where nut real.".

Because not even the SMOT is properly explained. LOL ! All documentation we have is a bunch of hobby horses. Now I'm really really sad about this nonsense perpetual drivel. I know it has nothing to do with Mr Entropy it's all my frustration.

I will have to explain this to you you know?  :D

Who else will? LOL


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #250 on: September 05, 2007, 06:30:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #251 on: September 05, 2007, 08:24:44 PM »
Chas Campbell Devices

Chas Campbell has two devices.  One is a Bessler type perpetual motion wheel with moving balls.  One is the Electricity Magnifier.

This is a perfect test for the Lee-Tseung Theory outside China.  We can help to improve both devices with suggestions - giving out the theoretical explanations using the Lee-Tseung Theory at the same time.

It will be done in a step-by-step fashion in this forum.  The total overview and various predictions will be in the http://forum.go-here.nl.  This is done to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Devices Lead Out Fun for Tseung and Benefits to the World


The first step or suggestion in improving the Chas Campbell Gravitational Wheel is
(1) Put Mass on the rim of the wheel. 
(2) The Lee-Tseung theory predicts that more gravitational energy will be Lead Out via the Pulsed Rotation if the mass is concentrated at the furtherest point - the rim.
(3) Many inventors who do not understand the Lee-Tseung theory go for larger wheels.  This has the effect of putting more mass at the further point.
(4) The Bessler Wheel is a double wheel with wood at the rim to hide the workings.  In really, Bessler unknowingly put more mass on the rim.
(5) Once the mass at the rim is increased, the pulsing or resonance frequency will change.  Another round of tuning from the beginning will be required.

This is the first suggestion  on improving the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel.  To the engineering type who plan to replicate and improve the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel in this forum, please consider this improvement suggestion.

Lawrence Tseung
The first improvement step to the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel Leads Out more work for the Engineers.

We also keep seeing the loose belts, I've seen quite a few claims of wobbely prototypes that worked but didn't work in a more serious configuration.  It seemed to me the duck tape and the rubber bands where a mandatory ingredient. Both Stanley Meyer and Royal R Rife figured out how to move oscillatory energies from the micro to the macro world. A pulse within the oscillatory frequency of any vibration can add more energy as it can dissipate. The energy in the mircoworld is quite rich in potential.

But as Chas has build such huge wheel it's quite obvious this is housing the effect.

The geometry is (of course) very familiar.

Let me make you a drawing of the inside.

(http://img.go-here.nl/scot-hall-dbsw.jpg)

Like Scott F Hall's  youtubian video.

He said the ancients suggested to use mercury.

ps.
the besslerwheel Quote of the Day was good.

"X-rays are a hoax."
- Lord Kelvin, engineer and physicist (c. 1900):D

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #252 on: September 05, 2007, 11:08:02 PM »

Say, A steel ball is placed in-front of the device, magnetic attraction is converted into kinetic energy and the ball rolls up the ramp. (where the array is positioned closer to the rail) allowing the ball to further accelerate. At the top of the ramp the ball drops out of the magnetic field. Here the projectile launched by the SMOT appears to gain kinetic energy as the ball accelerates from standstill, overcomes distance and has remaining kinetic energy after interaction with the toy.

I agree with you that the ball needs no push.  In my relatively layman's mind, however, I liken the SMOT to a simple nonmagnetic downward ramp, except that instead of using gravity, the SMOT uses magentic force for acceleration. 

Here is what I mean.  If you were to take a simple example of a ball placed on top of a ramp (no magnets involved) and let go, you would also see the ball (1) accelerate, (2) overcome distance, and (3) have kinetic energy remaining at the bottom of the ramp.  This does not make a ramp overunity.  The trick is to get the ball back up the ramp using only the force generated through the descent, and this is of course impossible.  As far as I can tell, it is equally impossible to get the ball back to the SMOT starting position.  So acceleration, overcoming distance, and having kinetic energy left over does not an overunity device make, unless I am missing something.  The key is "how much kinetic energy is left", and the SMOT does not appear to produce enough.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Chas Campbell Devices
« Reply #253 on: September 06, 2007, 12:12:54 AM »

We also keep seeing the loose belts, I've seen quite a few claims of wobbely prototypes that worked but didn't work in a more serious configuration.  It seemed to me the duck tape and the rubber bands where a mandatory ingredient. Both Stanley Meyer and Royal R Rife figured out how to move oscillatory energies from the micro to the macro world. A pulse within the oscillatory frequency of any vibration can add more energy as it can dissipate. The energy in the mircoworld is quite rich in potential.
 Kelvin, engineer and physicist (c. 1900):D


Dear Gaby,

You made a brilliant observation.  When you try to pulse rotate a wheel, you do not want the pulsing mechanism to be affected by the effect of rotation.

If the inventor uses rigid gears, the pulsing mechanism is likely to be affected much more than the loose belt arrangement.

Lawrence Tseung
Belt Leads Out more independence of the pulsing mechanism

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #254 on: September 06, 2007, 12:22:54 AM »
I agree with you that the ball needs no push.  In my relatively layman's mind, however, I liken the SMOT to a simple nonmagnetic downward ramp, except that instead of using gravity, the SMOT uses magentic force for acceleration. 

Here is what I mean..... 

Dear shruggedatlas,

The Lee-Tseung theory demands a Pulse Force  to Lead Out gravitational or electron motion energy.  Your thought example does not provide the Pulse Force.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulse Force Leads Out Gravitational and/or Electron Motion Energy

 

OneLink