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: 525496
  • *Total Topics: 15645
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory  (Read 1748305 times)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #435 on: October 06, 2007, 01:50:51 AM »
@jeffc

Point taken.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #435 on: October 06, 2007, 01:50:51 AM »

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #436 on: October 06, 2007, 04:35:43 AM »
@Ash, Patrick et al,

I have now read:

http://rpmgt.org/JoinBediniList.htm

the Simplified School Girl (SSG) project.

Some immediate thoughts are:

(1) Only 1 drive coil and/or pickup coil is used in the SSG.  There are 5-8 permanent magnets on the bicycle rim.  Thus there can be 5-8 pulses per revolution.

(2) The 225 HP Pulse Motor has same number  of drive coils as permanent magnets.  The resultant pulse force can be much higher.

(3) The SSG system charges other batteries.  The 225 HP recharges its own batteries.

(4) The SSG system has a variable 1 K ohm resistor  to adjust the current.  The 225 HP has a program to adjust the input depending on the external load.

(5) The source of energy is very clear from the Lee-Tseung theory.  It is the Pulsed Rotation Leading Out  Gravitational or Electron Motion Energy (magnetic).  The 225 HP have multiple coils to provide additional Electron Motion Energy.

Thus theoretically, the 225 HP Pulse Motor is much more superior.  One slice of it could generate over 20 HP of usable energy.  The SSG has the advantage of full disclosure.  It could be reproduced or replicated quickly. 

I would recommend building a SSG for fun and for learning first.  You can at least have a working "over unity" toy to show that you are not "dumb and stupid" in researching in Cosmic Energy Machines.  Then migrate to the 225 HP after digesting  the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

There are no step-by-step instructions, no circuit diagrams, no  computer programs and no hand-holding teachers when you develop the 225 HP type Pulse Motor.  Are you up for the challenge?

Lawrence Tseung
Bedini SSG project Leads Out elementary learning.  It confirms pulsed rotation can lead out energy.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2007, 07:12:17 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #437 on: October 06, 2007, 05:56:32 AM »
OK jeff, let's quit this game.

Sometimes it is hard though to be restrained when one reads some of the stuff that passes here for science.

Count me in.

Hans von Lieven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #437 on: October 06, 2007, 05:56:32 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline jeffc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #438 on: October 06, 2007, 07:24:55 AM »
OK jeff, let's quit this game.

Sometimes it is hard though to be restrained when one reads some of the stuff that passes here for science.

Count me in.

Hans von Lieven
Understood.  There are many other topics here, like the Keely one you started which are of more interest to many of us. 

Please keep your energies flowing into those worthy topics.  Your knowledge along with others goes way beyond many of us, and is one of the main reasons I'm here.

Regards,
jeffc

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #439 on: October 06, 2007, 12:45:08 PM »
@jeffc,

Thanks.

We can now focus on the important tasks:

(1) Let the many Over Unity Developers know their possible source of Energy.  They might not have violated CoE.

(2) They might have Lead Out Energy via Pulsed oscillation, vibration, rotation or flux changes.  Guidelines for improvement according to th Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory are available in this thread.

(3) Promote the New Order.  Modern Wealth = Meaningful Economic Activities.  Define and implement them.

Lawrence
Seeds on fertile soil Lead Out  benefits for the World.  The thorns have been pulled out by jeffc.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #439 on: October 06, 2007, 12:45:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #440 on: October 06, 2007, 01:36:44 PM »
My email to : bedini_motor@yahoogroups.com

Dear Sirs,

I believe that you have been working on the Bedini motor for sometime. 

I approached the inventions from a different direction.  Lee Cheung Kin and I are theoreticians.  We have a theory that states that Gravitational and Electron Motion Energy can be Lead Out via Pulsed oscillation, vibration or rotation.  Patrick Kelly alerted us to your work.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg53128.html#msg53128

I would like to help to contribute so that we can get a win-win scenario that will benefit the World.  Detailed information can be found on the thread ? The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory at:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.0.html

Looking forward to working together.

Lawrence Tseung

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #441 on: October 06, 2007, 03:55:40 PM »
I will take jeffc's recommendations and post constructive criticism.  I posted the pendulum desk toy partially as a joke, but now I think it can be used to completely refute the Lead Out theory.  I have one of these myself and I enjoy watching it go.  There is a simple experiment I did with it that I want to share.

I first pulled up all the pendulums except for one, and I observed a single pendulum in motion and measured its angles over time and also measured how long the pendulum took to stop.  Next, I allowed two pendulums to drop, set them in motion, and watched them collide into each other over time.  What I noticed that the two pendulums maintained their energy pretty well, but not as long as the single pendulum.

Per the lead out theory, even a single pulse should "lead out" gravitational energy.  I understand that my experiment is not perfectly precise.  However, based on Lawrence's theory, there should be an extra 50% energy gain from the pulse force.  Yet the paired pendulums, pulsing into each other at regular intervals, cannot beat a single pendulum for energy efficiency.

I will get a video camera and record this and post it up sometime, and hopefully that will be the end of this.  (Or maybe a powerpoint presentation of still pictures, like the bowl of water experiment - that will prove it for sure!)  Maybe Ms. Foreven Yuen can confirm as well, since I know that Lawrence is "not good with tools" and therefore cannot actually put anything he claims into practice.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #441 on: October 06, 2007, 03:55:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #442 on: October 06, 2007, 05:19:21 PM »
I will take jeffc's recommendations and post constructive criticism.  I posted the pendulum desk toy partially as a joke, but now I think it can be used to completely refute the Lead Out theory.  I have one of these myself and I enjoy watching it go.  There is a simple experiment I did with it that I want to share.

I first pulled up all the pendulums except for one, and I observed a single pendulum in motion and measured its angles over time and also measured how long the pendulum took to stop.  Next, I allowed two pendulums to drop, set them in motion, and watched them collide into each other over time.  What I noticed that the two pendulums maintained their energy pretty well, but not as long as the single pendulum.

Per the lead out theory, even a single pulse should "lead out" gravitational energy.  I understand that my experiment is not perfectly precise.  However, based on Lawrence's theory, there should be an extra 50% energy gain  from the pulse force.  (*** Please read and understand the Lee-Tseung theory thoroughly.) Yet the paired pendulums, pulsing into each other at regular intervals, cannot beat a single pendulum for energy efficiency.

I will get a video camera and record this and post it up sometime, and hopefully that will be the end of this.  (Or maybe a powerpoint presentation of still pictures, like the bowl of water experiment - that will prove it for sure!)  Maybe Ms. Foreven Yuen can confirm as well, since I know that Lawrence is "not good with tools" and therefore cannot actually put anything he claims into practice.

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I know that Lawyers like to use their own words to describe an event.  They like to select sections and ignore other parts(at least that is the impression from Television). 

Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead Out  during the application of the Pulse Force. 

The moment that the Pulse Force stops, no more gravitational energy is Lead Out.

Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!

I checked.  In my reply to you on

Quote
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg48244.html#msg48244

<Reply #273 on: September 08, 2007, 06:26:50 AM>

Page 19 of this thread.  It took some time to search!

The issue of CoP at the application of the Pulse Force and the CoP of the entire Pulsed Pendulum were discussed and calculated.  Please refresh your memory.

Please use a scientist's reasoning and NOT a lawyer's interpretation.

Lawrence Tseung
Lawyer's interpretation of a scientific statement may Lead Out total misinterpretation.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2007, 08:34:58 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #443 on: October 06, 2007, 05:39:31 PM »
Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I know that Lawyers like to use their own words to describe an event.  They like to select sections and ignore other parts(at least that is the impression from Television). 

Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead Out  during the application of the Pulse Force. 

The moment that the Pulse Force stops, no more gravitational energy is Lead Out.

Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!

Please use a scientist's reasoning and NOT a lawyer's interpretation.

Lawrence Tseung
Lawyer's interpretation of a scientific statement may Lead Out total misinterpretation.

Did you even read my experiment?  I did use a control, you know.  I am not claiming that the Lead Out theory is false merely because two pendulums are not an overunity device.  I am claiming the Lead Out theory is false because the paired pendulums fail to improve on the efficiency of the single pendulum.  Even a single pulse force, according to your theory, should lead out energy and therefore increase efficiency, even if to a small degree.  This clearly did not happen, because the paired pendulums did not have the efficiency of a single pendulum.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #443 on: October 06, 2007, 05:39:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #444 on: October 06, 2007, 06:03:11 PM »

.Did you even read my experiment?  I did use a control, you know.  I am not claiming that the Lead Out theory is false merely because two pendulums are not an overunity device.  I am claiming the Lead Out theory is false because the paired pendulums fail to improve on the efficiency of the single pendulum.  Even a single pulse force, according to "shruggedatlas's interpretation of the Lee-Tseung" theory, should lead out energy and therefore increase efficiency, even if to a small degree.  This clearly did not happen, because the paired pendulums did not have the efficiency of a single pendulum.

I shall ask for the opinion of the other forum members whether I should repeat the correct interpretation of the Lee-Tseung theory again here.

Are you the only one who does not understand it?  Your use of the multiple pendulum to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung theory demonstrated some "non-thorough" understanding of the Lee-Tseung theory.

May be it is better for someone who understand the Lee-Tseung theory to post a reply to you.

Edited to add:

(1) May be it is a good time to ask the members whether they think your pendulum toy experiment can be used to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung Theory?

(2) Whether a two pendulum swing necessarily has higher efficiency  than a one pendulum swing according to the Lee-Tseung theory?

(3) Are there better experiments that can prove or disprove the Lee-Tseung Theory conclusively and settle the issue forever?

Lawrence
« Last Edit: October 06, 2007, 06:35:07 PM by ltseung888 »

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #445 on: October 06, 2007, 08:38:05 PM »

I shall ask for the opinion of the other forum members whether I should repeat the correct interpretation of the Lee-Tseung theory again here.

Are you the only one who does not understand it?  Your use of the multiple pendulum to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung theory demonstrated some "non-thorough" understanding of the Lee-Tseung theory.

May be it is better for someone who understand the Lee-Tseung theory to post a reply to you.

Edited to add:

(1) May be it is a good time to ask the members whether they think your pendulum toy experiment can be used to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung Theory?

(2) Whether a two pendulum swing necessarily has higher efficiency  than a one pendulum swing according to the Lee-Tseung theory?

(3) Are there better experiments that can prove or disprove the Lee-Tseung Theory conclusively and settle the issue forever?

Lawrence

Good luck getting answers on that one.  Why don't you just answer #3 yourself and post the results, preferably a video along with explicit instructions on how to replicate.  Your powerpoint presentations of still pictures are not very convincing.   Oh wait, you are not "good with tools," right, so there is nothing you can do, right? 

I wish you would not hide behind your age.  My father is your age, if not older, and he is still very active.  You do not seem disabled in any way.  The tenets of your theory would not require anything complicated.  Put your theory to use and show us something, or we will conclude you are a simple con man.

By the way, what are your credentials?  You consider me unqualified because I am a lawyer, but most of us are hobbyists here.  Where did you study and what professional work have you performed in the real world?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #445 on: October 06, 2007, 08:38:05 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #446 on: October 06, 2007, 08:54:59 PM »
Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I know that Lawyers...

Lawyer's interpretation of a scientific statement may Lead Out total misinterpretation.

If I was you, I wouldn?t put much emphasis on the scientific part and on its strength, Mr. Tseung.
You know why?

Shruggedatlas is right.
Suffice to lower the amplitude of two colliding pendulum and voila, the ratio of pulse duration over the swing duration increases, hence the significance of pulsed force increases.
Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead Out  during the application of the Pulse Force.  .
Exactly: For low amplitudes, pulsed force duration is significant.
And where is the lead out energy? Nowhere.
Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!
There is no need to rethink. The colliding pendulum decreases their amplitudes up to the point where CoP=1.5 applies, according to you. At that point, the system should keep moving forever. Wishes?

Shruggedatlas is very right.
No matter how low the lead-out energy is, if it?s there the system of two colliding pendulums should swing longer before its energy is dampened. Of course, if that ?lead-out? energy is significant, the system should accelerate. But the simple fact that there is a pulsed force which is significant according to your previous definitions and, despite of that, the system swings for a shorter time, means that the ?lead-out? energy, as marvelous as it may be, it does not exist, or if it does, it amounts exactly zero.  ;D

I shall better wait for the person who ?understands the Lee-Tseung theory to post a reply?.

I shall also wait for the passing week during which you are supposed to correct your mistakes and to eventually present support/opinions from Professors.

Meanwhile, please enlighten us:
Are you the only one who does not understand it?  Your use of the multiple pendulum to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung theory demonstrated some "non-thorough" understanding of the Lee-Tseung theory.
And please explain also how it comes that a cup of water full of pulse-forced molecules does not boil itself?

Tinu

P.S.: How is your ?kung fu? today, Mr. Tseung?

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #447 on: October 07, 2007, 02:57:51 AM »

.....

By the way, what are your credentials?  You consider me unqualified because I am a lawyer, but most of us are hobbyists here.  Where did you study and what professional work have you performed in the real world?

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I shall answer this question first.  If you had the time and patience searching the Steorn Forum, you could have found the answer.

But since I do not have the patience to search it myself, I am going to reproduce it here for you.

(1)   B.Sc. Physics, Leeds University, England (Date omitted but you can check)
(2)   M.Sc. Aeronautics, Southampton University, England (Date omitted)
(3)   Two Granted US patents on Guaranteed Reliable Broadcast used on Internet. (you can search the US patent database using Lawrence C. N. Tseung as inventor.)
(4)   Quoted in Prof Andrew Tenanbaum?s Book on Network Operating Systems as one of the important contributors in this field (Internet).
(5)   International Software Manager for Digital Equipment Corporation, once the number one minicomputer company and the Number 2 Computer Company after IBM.
(6)   Wrote the first Email program using DECnet in the 1970s on the PDP-11.
(7)   Taught the first group of Chinese Computer Engineers in 1980 on RSX11M and DECnet.  Invited as guest lecturer to Beijing to talk about Networks.
(8 )   After retirement, took up the M.Sc. research on Using Kinetic Theory of Gases to explain Lift and Drag.  Presented at the Aeronautics University of Beijing in 2004.  That was the start of the Energy from Still Air invention.
(9)   Focusing on Cosmic Energy Inventions since 2004.  That was the start of the Lee-Tseung Theory.  Many pending patents ? now donated to the Chinese People.
(10)   Present ? Benefit the world with Cosmic Energy Machines and the Flying Saucer (Lee manage the China and Japan area, Tseung the rest of the World.)

Lawrence Tseung
Relevant Question Leads Out the qualification of Tseung as a trained Physicist.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Let us now focus on:
« Reply #448 on: October 07, 2007, 04:47:55 AM »
Let us now focus on:
Message reply 423 of this thread - the desk pendulum toy.


I first pulled up all the pendulums except for one, and I observed a single pendulum in motion and measured its angles over time and also measured how long the pendulum took to stop.  Next, I allowed two pendulums to drop, set them in motion, and watched them collide into each other over time.  What I noticed that the two pendulums maintained their energy pretty well, but not as long as the single pendulum.

Per the lead out theory, even a single pulse should "lead out" gravitational energy.  I understand that my experiment is not perfectly precise.  However, based on Lawrence's theory, there should be an extra 50% energy gain from the pulse force.  Yet the paired pendulums, pulsing into each other at regular intervals, cannot beat a single pendulum for energy efficiency.

I will get a video camera and record this and post it up sometime, and hopefully that will be the end of this.  (Or maybe a powerpoint presentation of still pictures, like the bowl of water experiment - that will prove it for sure!)  Maybe Ms. Foreven Yuen can confirm as well, since I know that Lawrence is "not good with tools" and therefore cannot actually put anything he claims into practice.

In a single pendulum experiment, it is almost impossible to time the stop time.  When the amplitude is tiny, we can observe a ?jerky? movement.  When do you consider the correct stop time?  I have the Forever setup in my living room.  The stop time reading for a single pendulum  away from magnetic material varied from 2.34, 3.16, 2.16, 2.42, 2.38.  The above are actual stopwatch readings  taken on the spot. (2.34 = 2 minutes 34 seconds)

When you let two pendulums drop together, I assume that you release them from the same side.  One will act as wind-shield for the other and reverse role when swinging direction changes.  That is the reason you see the ?collision over time?.  If you use such inexact experiments to Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory, what can I say?

@Tinu
Quote
Shruggedatlas is right.
Suffice to lower the amplitude  of two colliding pendulum and voila, the ratio of pulse duration over the swing duration increases, hence the significance of pulsed force increases.

One important fact in Physics with pendulums is that the period is independent of amplitude.  In Layman terms, the time taken for one complete swing is the same.  The swinging arc (amplitude) can be higher or lower.  The above supporting statement from tinu seems to violate this fact in Physics. 

Or tinu is thinking shruggedatlas dropping the pendulums in opposite directions to collide into each other?  The Physics of colliding spheres in real life is too complex for me to analyze.  The losses due to sound, deformation, etc. are almost impossible to model.  May be the genius in tinu can enlighten us.

Lawrence Tseung
Pendulum Desk Toy Leads Out good discussions but it does not seem to have any relevance in the proving or disproving  of the Lee-Tseung Theory.

Offline Mr.Entropy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
« Reply #449 on: October 07, 2007, 05:16:32 AM »
Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead Out  during the application of the Pulse Force. 

The moment that the Pulse Force stops, no more gravitational energy is Lead Out.

Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!

w.r.t shrugged's toy, in its intended mode of operation:

During the application of the pulse force, even though it is of short duration, the entirety of the kinetic energy from one pendulum is transferred to another.  A CoP of 1.5 would, therefore, see the second pendulum with 50% more energy than the first.  Why is this not the case?

 

OneLink