Quote from: jeffc on September 29, 2007, 12:10:43 AM

.....

I have been taking a wait and see attitude until this point, considering that Lawrence has repeatedly stated direct involvement with the university, which implies they believe Lead Out has some sort of scientific basis.  If they really do deny even knowing about this, then we are all wasting time, as it is likely the other credible parties which have been claimed to be involved are fabrications as well.

I hope this is not that case, as the optimist part of me would like to believe that there is actually something incredible going on in China with free energy.  I think if Lawrence has contacts at the university, he should help us clarify this apparent flaw in his claims.

Regards,
jeffc

Dear jeffc,

You should have asked for information earlier.  I was eager to share it - especially my picture at the Lecture Hall of Tsing Hua University.  It was an honor for me.  Almost all my friends and relatives have a hard copy.

Please see the attached file.  Hans can now ask his Chinese Lecturer friends at Tsing Hua University to confirm our visit in September-October 2006. 

Lawrence Tseung
Asking intelligent questions Lead Out valuable answers.  You can put good questions on  multiple pulses in case I overlooked them.

Hi Lawrence,

Thank you for the photo and information.  The post which I made before was in direct response to Hans statement about his attempts to verify your relationship with Tsing Hua.  Prior to his statement, I had taken for granted that your credentials with respect to the university were as you stated, and was instead rather happy to try and follow the scientific elements of this discussion.  But when Hans brought what appeared to be a valid challenge to your information, it seemed to be something which needed your help to verify. 

If you read the last part of my post, it says that "I hope this is not that case", because I am an optimistic person and I have no reason to disbelieve anything you have said.  In any case, if we are able to confirm the truth in this issue, perhaps we can get back to science! 

I will continue to read this topic with interest, and ask questions when I think it will be helpful for reaching conclusions.  Please understand that I do not want to make a personal attack on anyone in this forum.  I'm here to be a small part of progress, and thats all.

Regards,
jeffc

Itseung888:

What the heck does that have to do with anything?  The sum of potential energy and kinetic energy are always equal in any system...at least the ones we know about.  I fail to see how this applies in any way to your theory. I will re-read all of the previous posts (almost done) and I mean no disrespect to you at all. If I have read this right thus far, the "energy" you are describing could easily be described by a bouncing ball, which will also come to rest eventually.  It does not emit or give off or generate any additional energy even though it is "defying" gravity during half of it's cycles.  Maybe I am just ignorant, which is always possible. I always try to maintain an open mind on such matters.  I will research this phenomenon a little more.  Thanks for your reply.

Bill

Dear Bill and Mr. Entrophy,

Thank you for your replies.  Bill is right in comparing the pendulum with the bouncing ball in the case of NO External Pulsing Force.  There is no obvious external energy entering the system.  If there were no loss of energy, we can apply the CoE and limit the energy of the system to be just the two terms - Potential Energy (mgh) and Kinetic Energy (1/2 * M* v* v).  The sum of these two terms will be the same while the ball bounces up and down or while the pendulum is swinging.

We sometimes use the formular
mgH = mgh + 1/2m*v*v) = 1/2m*V*V
where H is the maximum Height reached and V is the highest velocity at the lowest point. h is the height at any instant. v is the velocity at the same instant.

Scientists already know how to use gravitational energy in the following case.  Water from a dam drives a turbine to generate electricity.  The potenital energy of water is used.  However, to get the water back to its original height, we need to wait for the sun to evaporate the water and the rainfall will complete the cycle. 

If we want to continuously use gravitational energy, we should look for repeatable systems.  These systems, fortuanately, are available to us easily.  The first example is the simple pendulum with no external pulse force.  We know that we can safely apply the CoE and use the forumula
 mgh + 1/2 m*v*v = constant.

Now consider exactly how we supply energy to the stationary pendulum.  The pendulum is hanging in the vertical position.  We apply a horizontal Force F.  The pendulum will have both a vertical and a horizontal displacement. (The D vector mentioned by Mr. Entrophy).  Just before we stop the force F, there will be THREE forces involved in the pendulum system.

(1) The Weight of the Pendulum (or more exactly m *g where m is the mass and g is the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth which is 9.8 m/s/s approxiately.  Please yell if you don't understand the statement)

(2) The Horizontal Pulse Force F (Note that it is an externally applied Force controlled by the Engineer. )
 
(3) The Tension  of the String (If there were no string, the pendulum will not swing back)


Bill rightly stated that these three forces are also vectors.  In order to determine the energy supplied by these three forces, we need to apply the vector mathematics of Force * Displacement.  (Note that it is Vector Mathematics and not the scalar multiplication.)

The relationship of the forces MUST obey the Law of Parallelogram of Forces.  That set of Laws is taught at Mechanics 101 in secondary school physics.

I shall pause here to get your response first.

Regards,

Lawrence

Quote from: ltseung888 on October 01, 2007, 09:22:20 AM

(1) The Weight of the Pendulum (or more exactly m *g where m is the mass and g is the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth which is 9.8 m/s/s approximately.  Please yell if you don't understand the statement)

(2) The Horizontal Pulse Force F (Note that it is an externally applied Force controlled by the Engineer.)
 
(3) The Tension of the String (If there were no string, the pendulum will not swing back)

The weight of the pendulum plus the horizontal pulse force already sum up the force the object exerts on the string.  I do not know why you add (3) above.  If someone was pulling on the string, then yes, you would need to calculate that force, but seeing as the string is fixed at a point, why even include this?

Dear shruggedatlas,

When the pendulum is at rest, there were two forces.  They were the tension of the string and the weight of the pendulum bob.  They were equal and opposite to each other.

When we applied a horizontal force on the pendulum bob, there would be three forces.  They were the tension of the string, the weight of the pendulum bob and the horizontal force.  When the Pendulum Bob moved to its new position  and was momentarily at rest under the influence of these three forces, we called this system of three forces as ?at equilibrium?.  When these 3 forces were at equilibrium, we could apply the Law of Parallelogram of Forces.

This would be the situation when the first Pulse Force  was applied.  In this particular situation, the vigorous application of the Physics Law of Parallelogram of Forces and energy analysis conclusively indicated that the total energy entering the system was not  just the energy from the horizontal pulse force.

The Pendulum Bob moved up.  There was displacement up.  The force up  was from the vertical component of the tension of the string.  This displacement up times the force up  represented work done or energy exchanged in the up direction.  This is the Lead Out  Energy!

For more details, see a result from google search:
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_2/Topic_2/Forces%20and%20Equilibrium_files/frame.htm.

I shall pause here for responses.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Three forces at equilibrium Leads Out the use of the Parallelogram of Forces. If one of the forces is Pulsed (repeated) at the right moment, resonance can result.  Useful Energy is not just the energy from the Pulse.  Useful Energy will include the Lead Out  Energy.

But, what I was taught, and possible inncorrectly, was that if you added up all of the energy used in the pushes or pulses, they would equal out to exactly the kinetic and potential energy conveyed by the swinging child.

I don't know physics. I think physics should get to know me.

Personally I try to imagine how far I can throw a person up into the sky with a gentle push. A gentle push seems to be enough to throw a person up by say 0 cm? Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears not enough to even lift the passenger off the ground let alone launch them by means of gentle push.

The fact the swing was already moving isn't so much of an issue.

the part where a small push is enough to lift 80 kg of meat by 30 cm really makes no sense with the established theory. One of the 2 has to be wrong.  If I give you 2 blocks 1000 kg, block 1 is attached to 50 meters of wire, you will be able to swing block 1 up against gravity.  Block 2 remains in it's spot, you cant even lift it - what are we talking about here? LOL!

look? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ok4pPgVYA hahaha??

wait, this is pretty convincing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDla-x-l4Hc no?

where or how does any additional energy come into the picture?  I appreciate your patience in your explanations.

I think A standing wave is still a wave?

if 10 Joule is the energy required to lift a kg by 1 meter(is it?). Then we need about 5 Joule worth of pulses. It appears you can get about twice the height out of it.

I think it's interesting how the bob is already decelerating. If 9.8 m/s is the maximum acceleration then that must also be the maximum deceleration? (I'm guessing here)  As the bob is already decelerating while moving upwards could it be that gravity has some modified influence? You may test what I mean by pushing an object towards the ground faster as it would drop. You feel you are not assisting gravity but replacing it.

If you toss an object in the air it kind of floats there for a moment then reverses direction. It doesn't just reverse direction but it waits for a bit, this is the moment the pulse disturbs the system most efficiently. Push the swing the moment right after it reverses direction.

It's like nature shifts the gears from decelerate to accelerate and you have a small window of free motion while the sprockets are detached.

the part where a small push is enough to lift 80 kg of meat by 30 cm really makes no sense with the established theory. One of the 2 has to be wrong.  If I give you 2 blocks 1000 kg, block 1 is attached to 50 meters of wire, you will be able to swing block 1 up against gravity.  Block 2 remains in it's spot, you cant even lift it - what are we talking about here? LOL!

The established theory is called mechanical advantage.  You are not lifting the 30kg straight up, but at an incline, and it is therefore easier to do, but the total amount of energy needed is the same, assuming no friction or air resistance.

If what you are saying is true, creating an overunity device is trivial.  Just have the pendulum hit something capable of converting the kinetic energy to electrical, and use that stored charge to "pulse" the pendulum when it is on the downswing.

The Ms. Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment

Ms. Forever Yuen gave me her powerpoint presentation with photos on her Magnetic Pendulum Experiment last night.

I have edited and attached it here.

It is easier to set up  than the toy from the overunity.com store.  It is much cheaper too.  The important element to look for are the three sets  of readings:

(1) No other magnetic material around (32 Oscillations per 30 sec)

(2) Repulsion (25 Oscillations per 30 sec)

(3) Attraction (41 Oscillations per 30 sec)

I shall continue to discuss the significance of this experiment in the coming posts.

Thanks to Ms. Forever Yuen once again.

Lawrence Tseung

Lawrence:

So, then might it be possible to contruct a decent size pedulum where the "weight" would be a cylinder shaped magnet and suspend it from two lines into one such that it would keep it from twisting, and have it pass twice during it's period through a coil, or a series of coils, to generate enough power to run a small occilator that would add enough of a pulse at the correct time to maintain the pendulum motion?  This would be fairly easy to construct on a smaller scale for testing.  Do you think this would be possible?  thanks.

Bill

Dear Bill,

I believe you should read the Bill Mehess  Motor first.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,919.msg6407.html#msg6407

I advise a more thorough understanding  of the Lee-Tseung theory first before more experiments.  There are already 300 or so Over Unity Inventions worldwide.  Most of them are from "experimenters" who jumped to try some ideas  without the painstaking research first.

Many almost got it  but then spent years spinning around.  We can discuss how to improve some of them here and then do the improvements. 

I shall wait for a few more comments or responses on the Ms. Forever Yuen experiment before further continued discussion of the Lee-Tseung Theory.

Regards,

Lawrence

Lawrence:

It may not matter in your calculations but I believe that the figure of acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 cm2 does not apply in this case. (Pendulum)  That was calculated for a free falling body in a vaccuum.  I am not going to get into wind resistance or anything but it's the "free falling" aspect that interests me.  Since the sting is forcing the pendulum into a circular path, rather than straight, and if the pendulum is launched (started) at the 3:00 position or the 9:00 position, it would only free fall for an instant before the string causes it to begin it's circular path.  The force imposed by the string in doing this would not allow the pendulum to reach the acceleration figure for a free falling body.

The force of gravity at 1g would also not remain constant during the circular path forced by the string.  I believe it would climb and be at maximum at the 6:00 position of the pendulum arc and taper off back toward 1g, and then 0g at the extreme ends of the swing movement.

I think the most interesting thing is that at each ends of the pendulum arc, there is that one moment where, for all intents and purposes, the pendulm is weightless and would be at 0g.  Velocity would also be 0. The tension on the string would be 0.  It is this exact point in time that interests me.

I saw the slide show done by your friend. The results were not what I would have anticipated if asked beforehand.  Interesting.

Bill