Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory (Read 2180379 times)

shruggedatlas · « **Reply #315 on:** September 18, 2007, 01:21:21 AM »

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 11:24:26 PM

Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 06:17:32 PM
How can you even make this hypothesis? While I have disagreed with you on some of your overunity theories, I always thought you had a pretty good grasp of basic physics, better than mine, anyway, so I do not see how you can seriously say that, so I assumed you were joking before.

oh, but I am joking. I'm just not sure who the joke is on here. I haven't explained my reason for making the hypothesis to make it sound extra weird to you. I can assure you it sounds just as weird to me but I'm willing to entertain the thought. Other people need to be tricked into chasing their imagination. I don't intend to trick you into thinking we now have accomplished the holy grail of overunity. I will tell you to just take an idea the way it comes and evaluate it, you don't need to be tricked in any way.

If I tell you half my theory and I claim gravity is the ultimate energy source you should just take that the way it is, = > incredibly amusing!! You should furthermore laugh at the fact I didn't really desire to share the thought. I can quite accurately predict how you will respond even if I gave you the theory?

Quote
You see how large pendulums on low friction setups can swing for a very long time. If 95% of energy was lost in each swing, then how can the pendulum continue for more that a few swings? If what you are saying is true, a pendulum would only make it up 5% of the way, compared to the previous rise, and we know from simple observations that this is not so.

Not at all,

I study the data given and it gives no reason to share my theory. It's obvious the rest of the world is still digesting lesson 1

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/veljko-milkovic/video

There are reproductions you know?

I guess I get it. You think that gravity is capable of delivering much more energy than we are currently getting out of it, and the fact that the pendulum is not overunity means that that it is losing 95% of its energy somehow.

I do like Milkovic's invention of the pendulum and the lever combined, and it obviously makes the task of drawing water easier on a person, but he is just playing with mechanical advantage. I guess we need something more to truly bring out the power of gravity.

Good luck with your experiments, but I am afraid that if you are right, we will suddenly find our planet taking a dive into the Sun.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #316 on:** September 18, 2007, 01:29:01 AM »

G'day all.

There have been a number of replications of the Milkovic device. None, to my knowledge has proved overunity, not to speak of the 12 to one gain claim of Milkovic's.

In my own replication I have also confirmed what others have said, no surplus energy there.

If you don't believe me, try it, it is an easy device to build. I wish you luck.

Hans von Lieven

RoadRunner · « **Reply #317 on:** September 18, 2007, 02:19:39 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 18, 2007, 01:29:01 AM

G'day all.

There have been a number of replications of the Milkovic device. None, to my knowledge has proved overunity, not to speak of the 12 to one gain claim of Milkovic's.

In my own replication I have also confirmed what others have said, no surplus energy there.

If you don't believe me, try it, it is an easy device to build. I wish you luck.

Hans von Lieven

Even without expecting OU from such a device, it's still darned ingenious, don't you think ?
It may simply be a complex form of lever with the extra benefit of resonance, but that video is a beautiful demonstration of his principle at work and it sure appears to make certain types of work easier.

A lever isn't OU, but try ripping a tyre off with your bare hands and you'd be begging me for a lever.
If I had to pound something or pump something... I can see that I would apply Milkovic's lever and thank the man for his efforts because he just made my job easier. Right ?

The RoadRunner..

RoadRunner · « **Reply #318 on:** September 18, 2007, 02:23:39 AM »

Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 18, 2007, 01:21:21 AM

Good luck with your experiments, but I am afraid that if you are right, we will suddenly find our planet taking a dive into the Sun.

Urm....
If we were to somehow use up the gravitational energy of Earth, I think our heliocentric orbit would grow, not shrink.
Hey... That's not a bad idea... Longer between birthdays... Get pumping guys...!!!

The RoadRunner..

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #319 on:** September 18, 2007, 10:11:47 AM »

Sorry Road Runner,

I think you misunderstood me, I did not say that Milkovic's device is worthless, I simply said it is not the perpetual motion machine he claims it is.

Hans von Lieven

BTW Longer between birthdays? Perhaps not a bad idea at all. :-)

ltseung888 · « **Reply #320 on:** September 19, 2007, 11:20:33 AM »

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=285#285

Mr. X is an influential person in China. He and team provided seed money for Sun et al on a Pulse Motor Prototype.

Quote

Tseung: "I know that you have already provided seed money to Sun et al to develop a Pulse Motor Prototype. Do you think you might consider seed money for the Chas Campbell device also?"

Mr. X: "My Advisors and I read the overunity.com posts. It appears that the Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier Flywheel is still in an early development stage. My Advisors could learn much more with a visit to Tsing Hua University than a trip to Australia."

Lai: "I would like to lay out the comparisons:
(1) Chas Campbell uses Flywheels instead of Cylinders. (He knows the importance of having weights at the rim to increase the centripetal force.)
(2) Chas Campbell has no auto-adjustment mechanism yet. (Adjusting the belt tension by hand is not close to auto-adjustment.)
(3) Chas Campbell has given out the exact dimensions and type of motor and alternators for others to replicate. (There will still be considerable resonance tuning. A marketable toy will be better - goal of Sun et al.)
(4) Chas Campbell has no theory to explain the source of energy yet (Tsing Hua University and Sun et al have accepted the Lee-Tseung theory).
(5) Chas Campbell has no team to back him up. (Tsing Hua University and Sun et al have access to the best experts in China including Lee and Tseung.)"

Mr. X: "In addition, I can monitor Sun et al easily. They are in China. I do not want to run the risk of the 225 HP Pulse Motor experience - the USA Government refused export of the device even though the Funder was Chinese. I do not mind funding a replication of the Chas Campbell device in China when appropriate."

Lawrence Tseung
Fear of Foreign Government Actions Leads Out non-support of the Chas Campbell device (but Leads Out seed money for Pulse Motor in China).

RoadRunner · « **Reply #321 on:** September 19, 2007, 01:09:34 PM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 18, 2007, 10:11:47 AM

I think you misunderstood me, I did not say that Milkovic's device is worthless, I simply said it is not the perpetual motion machine he claims it is.

No, I think I understood. I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was arguing.
My comment wasn't really meant in argument or opposition to yours, it was a 'looking on the bright side' sort of comment... I'm still impressed and I think the guy's come up with a great device and a phenomenon that is worth fixing in the memory because I can see me using that as a means to solve future problems... You know.. You look at a problem and your brain rummages through the mental toolbox...?
He's just added a new lever to mine...
However, I didn't realise he was trying to claim OU...

I think I'm going to build one of those nodding donkeys to play with for a while it does look like it has some interesting properties and I'm going to see what sort of things I can get which will drive the pendulum...

His point about it not stalling under load like many other means of energy transfer is not only valid, I think that it's almost the other way...

If the head is loaded down and its motion has been suppressed, the pendulum should 'idle' better.
The way I understand it... Once the head is nodding, the instability of the pendulum's fulcrum will cause it to lose some of its ability to resonate nicely and it's energy will be lost into moving the arm/head section...
It's the sort of thing that someone trying to build a good pendulum would normally avoid like the plague... But this guy investigated the phenomenon of a wobbly fulcrum and actually found something darned useful... But if he's trying to claim it's OU... or Perpetual Motion (It sure ain't PM !!!)... Then Hmmmmmmm!!!! Stick his thumbs under that hammer and we'll play patty-cakes with his pendulum for a while.....

However... It has this 'Hey look at me... More out than in...' thing about it...
Much like magnets and steel balls, bessler wheels, and Perendev motors.

Raising a hammer and smacking a surface is a pretty easy sort of calculation to work out and it should also be an easy enough thing to measure.
Likewise the energy in to a pendulum.
The entire system (with pivots, bearings and so on) would surely have more losses overall than a hand on a hammer... (possibly slightly harder to account for very accurately in experimentation without a good lab...) but it shouldn't be too hard to get a reasonable guestimate.

Hmmm.... Time to play, I think.
You say you've already built one or more ? And have measurements/data from such ?

I did see a piece of paper with a formula on it but that was all Russian to me...

This is not just an interesting phenomenon, it's also an interesting little puzzle...
I want to see why it appears to be a 'more out than in' system compared with the available 'work' and convential methods like levers and cogs. If it were a double stage lever, for example... How would its output compare. IE... stroke length/force in/force out etc.

Time to dig out the strain gauges, I guess...

Doh... I originally came here to read about Bedini motors and bessler wheels and now I'm doing pendulum experiments... No... It's not an ADD problem, it's a 'This world's just too darned interesting and I'm a knowledge junkie' problem...

Heheh.

The RoadRunner..

ltseung888 · « **Reply #322 on:** September 20, 2007, 12:11:00 AM »

Quoted from: http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=287#287

Quote

One of the most asked questions is:

If the Lee-Tseung Theory is correct, are there any working prototypes or experiments to confirm the theory? The answer has been repeated multiple times. A good summary was presented to the different groups of Chinese Officials in September 2007 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Hong Kong. The presentation file can be downloaded from the bottom message of Page 19 of The Lee-Tseung lead-Out Theory
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2794.msg49083.html#49083

There were at least 12 systems quoted (in China and outside China). Any positive confirmation will provide evidence to support the Lee-Tseung theory.

The Pulse Motor that is ready for ordering; that can generate more output power than input; that can be demonstrated now; that can be purchased now is the EBM machine from Hungary. The website is http://www.gammamanager.com. They have not explained the theory behind their machine in terms of the Lee-Tseung theory yet. That is understandable as they developed their machine before the Lee-Tseung patent information was available to the Public on July 27, 2006.

One of my tasks is to work with gammamanager. I can provide them with the Lee-Tseung information at zero cost. It will be win-win.

Lawrence Tseung
The EBM machine is an example of a Pulse Motor that can confirm the Lee-Tseung theory

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #323 on:** September 20, 2007, 09:40:36 AM »

G'day Roadrunner,

I think you should have a really good look at the work of George Constantinesco. Much of what Milkovic is saying is right there in Constantinesco's patents from the 1920's.

His Torque Converter is worth studying.

Constantinesco, incidentally, developed a machine gun mechanism that enabled the gun to fire through a running propeller of an aircraft for the British air force. He had over 100 patents to his name, most of which were used in real life, not like MIlkovic's.

If it ever comes to a challenge I believe Milkovic's patents are not worth the paper they are written on outside perhaps Serbia.

Hans von Lieven

RoadRunner · « **Reply #324 on:** September 21, 2007, 02:09:31 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 20, 2007, 09:40:36 AM

G'day Roadrunner,

I think you should have a really good look at the work of George Constantinesco. Much of what Milkovic is saying is right there in Constantinesco's patents from the 1920's.

Howdy, Hans.
I've never heard of Constantinesco. I'll look him up when I get the chance... Thanks for the pointer.

Quote

Constantinesco, incidentally, developed a machine gun mechanism that enabled the gun to fire through a running propeller of an aircraft for the British air force.

I've heard of this invention but I wouldn't have been able to recall the name of the person behind it.... and I don't mean the pilot or the gunner !!!
We used to have a really good TV programme in the UK called 'James Burke's Connections' when I was a kid... He used to wander through history pulling out interesting inventions and events and tying them all together and jumping back and forth between stories and demonstrating how they interelate.
It was a great series... I seem to remember that it was covered on that... I remember that moment of 'Ohhh yeahhhh....!' when he pointed out the obvious, that a machine gun needs to be synchronised with the timing of the propeller...

Quote

If it ever comes to a challenge I believe Milkovic's patents are not worth the paper they are written on outside perhaps Serbia.

Ohhhh well...

I thought he'd come up with something new....

I've been playing about with models of this in WM2D... I really must get myself the full copy, it's a real pain having to rebuild everything that I want to play with... The evaluation version doesn't save out..

The RoadRunner..

ltseung888 · « **Reply #325 on:** September 21, 2007, 03:35:09 AM »

please see:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg50656.html#msg50656

on the drawback of the existing Chas Campbell Flywheel device.

It looks like that the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory can explain it and show how to improve it.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulse Rotation consideration Leads Out direction of improvement for the Chas Campbell Device.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #326 on:** September 21, 2007, 12:30:26 PM »

Quote

Calculation based on Dr. Liang Xingren Car

Mass in Kg      28
Radius in Meters      0.4
Rate of revolution in RPM      4500

Effective rolling velocity in m/s of Cylinder v = 2*pi* r * RPM/60
188.496

Stored Energy of Cylinder = 1/2 * m * v * v in Newton-meter (joule)
497430.3882

"Assume that such energy can be drained or supplied within x sec, power in Newton-meter/second (watt)"
165810.1294      if x =    3

Assume 745.7 watts = 1 horse power
The Dr. Liang Car in Horse Power
222

I have done the spreadsheet to estimate the horse power of a Pulse Motor based on the known or estimated values of the Dr. Liang car.
The car claimed to have a HP of 188.

The spreadsheet gave a figure of 222. This means that the Dr. Liang Car is within the rim of possiblilty. The spreadsheet is attached. You are welcome to play with it and use it for other pulse motors.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #327 on:** September 23, 2007, 01:34:10 AM »

The preliminary Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator report.

Please see:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg50900.html#msg50900

Reply to comments from Hans:

Quote

*** Note: The Lead-Out is best at high rotational speed. The Lead-Out energy at low speed is very low. Thus in the Liang motor, a separate starting motor is used to get the Cylinder to the designed speed of 4500 rpm. (Experiments showed that without the Starting Motor, the IC pulses just could not start the rotation!)

The Equilibrium Rotational Rate can be maintained with just a small percentage of ICs taking part in the Pulse. For example, there are 800 IC pairs. The number of IC interactions required to maintain equilibrium rotational speed at no external load may be 50. (Another way of maintaining the equilibrium rotational speed may be to have 100 ICs Pulsing at half the previous rate). When the external load increases, the program can pulse up to an additional 750 pairs to increase the Pulse Force. That could keep the cylinder to rotate at approximately the same speed or even higher.

The Energy drained or supplied at such high rotational rates is very different from what is experienced in daily life.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Energy Lead Out at high Pulse or Rotational Rates is very different from what we experience in our daily lives.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #328 on:** September 23, 2007, 01:42:53 PM »

Phone Conversation with Wang Shum Ho.

Quote

Tseung: "The Mid-Autumn festival is coming in a few days. Are you having any special celebrations??

Wang: ?Thank you for calling. I am in Beijing working hard with others to plan for the IPO next year. There is so much to do. What is the progress on your side??

Tseung: ?I am working with the overunity group on the evaluation of the inventions from Chas Campbell of Australia. It looks like that he has a very early version of an Electricity Magnifier. He has not written the program to vary Input Power with changes in External Load yet.?

Wang: ?I do not worry about him as a potential competitor. The EBM and the Pulse Motor are well ahead of him. Your disclosing the possibility of building the Flying Saucer with another ring around the Pulse Motor is very stimulating. Good luck.?

It appears to me that Newman, Bedini, Searl etc. may not realize the importance of program control to match the Input to the External Load yet.

Lawrence Tseung
Magnet rotating around the Pulsing Coils Leads Out possibility of the Flying Saucer

ltseung888 · « **Reply #329 on:** September 24, 2007, 02:08:50 AM »

I have now edited Campbell1-5A to include the comparison with the 225 HP Pulse Motor. Edited to add comparison with Wang Generator.

It is attached here as Campbell1-5B.doc. It should be obvious to the scientifically minded investors on what to invest.

Have fun. Comments are welcome. Enjoy the Mid-Autumn Festival. Chew on the Moon Cakes while you think!

Lawrence Tseung
Comparison between Pulse Motor and Chas Campbell Flywheel Leads Out clear choice for investors.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory (Read 2180379 times)

shruggedatlas

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

hansvonlieven

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

RoadRunner

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

RoadRunner

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

hansvonlieven

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Comparing the Pulse Motor and Chas Campbell with Mr. X

RoadRunner

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

hansvonlieven

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

RoadRunner

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Calculations based on the Liang Xingren Car

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory