Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory (Read 2180258 times)

utilitarian · « **Reply #645 on:** November 22, 2007, 04:46:51 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 22, 2007, 04:26:15 AM

Ms. Forever, the very pretty Chinese woman, does his experiments for him. There is a video of her on this topic in an earlier post.

Bill

I think she does some silly thing with a magnet at the end of a string, which does not prove anything. That scallywag Tseung has her doing bad science!

Rosphere · « **Reply #646 on:** November 22, 2007, 04:55:21 AM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 22, 2007, 04:46:51 AM

scallywag

Milk out nose.

Oh. I mean, now, now, play nice; no name calling please. Silly names count too, I think.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #647 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:26:22 AM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 22, 2007, 04:46:51 AM

Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 22, 2007, 04:26:15 AM
Ms. Forever, the very pretty Chinese woman, does his experiments for him. There is a video of her on this topic in an earlier post.

Bill

I think she does some silly thing with a magnet at the end of a string, which does not prove anything. That scallywag Tseung has her doing bad science!

Dear utilitarian,

Please stick to Physics. I do not want to get into insult training.

There are two types of motion to be considered in the case of the simple pendulum.

The first type is Pull the Pendulum to a reasonable height and let go. The Pendulum will swing. You are right that in this case, there is NO Lead Out of gravitational energy during the swing. It is the simple harmonic motion. You can use the simple concept of potential energy converting into kinetic energy in the analysis. There is no addition of energy of any type.

The second type is Applying the Lee-Tseung Pull (I use this term because some Forum Members misunderstood the concept of a Pulse Force. They misunderstood the physics difference of a Punch and a Push!).

The Lee-Tseung Pull starts with:
(1) A small Horizontal Pull to move the Pendulum slightly to the LHS. The Pendulum rises slightly in height. Energy is imparted and stored in the Pendulum System. The Horizontal Work (and hence energy) is done by the Horizontal Pull. The Vertical Work (and hence energy) is done by the Tension of the String. There is no swinging motion of the Pendulum yet. The Pendulum bob is displaced. Thus there is no harmonic motion at this point. There is ONLY application of Forces (Horizontal Force supplied by the scientist, Weight and Tension of the String). Any analysis MUST involve these three forces.

(2) The Pendulum Bob is let go. If there were no losses, it would swing to the mirror position on the RHS. During the swing, no gravitational energy is Lead Out. The Energy in the Pendulum system is the energy supplied by the initial Lee-Tseung horizontal Pull and the Lead out gravitational energy of the string in Step (1)

(3) At the highest position on the RHS, the Bob will momentarily pause and change direction. At the instant of pausing, the Lee-Tseung Pull is applied. The direction of the Pull is no longer horizontal but perpendicular to the radius or tangential. This Lee-Tseung Pull will have both vertical and horizontal components. The Lee-Tseung Pull vertical component + the vertical component of the Tension of the String will be equal to the Weight. Thus both Lee-Tseung Pull and the Tension of the String will do work (or add energy to the pendulum system).

(4) Let us discuss up to this point first before more complications.

Lawrence Tseung
Consideration of the Lee-Tseung Pull Leads Out More Physics

ltseung888 · « **Reply #648 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:21:28 AM »

Quote from: Rosphere on November 22, 2007, 02:26:03 AM

?.. In order to do any dynamic analysis we need more information about this pulse force and how it is applied. Is it applied by an elastic collision at a=0? (This sounds like what is meant by, "pulse.") ***No ***

Assuming that it is an elastic collision at a=0, what happens to this Lead Out energy when the angle peaks and then returns to a=0; is it Lead Back In energy? If the Lead Out energy is Lead Back In then how can we exercise any claim upon it to do our bidding? *** No, No , No ***
?..
Rosphere--break time

Dear Rosphere,

You are right. If you do not agree with slide 3, there is no point moving on. I now realize why it was so easy at Tsing Hua University with their top professors and students. They had the material weeks ago and then I was physically presenting. Misunderstandings were clarified in minutes.

To be specific, the Pull is NOT an elastic collision. (Wrong assumptions often lead to confusions and dead ends.) The Pull is a Lee-Tseung Pull with changes in direction at the highest position on the LHS or on the RHS. The Ideal Pull is perpendicular to radius or tangential.

I shall discuss this in great depth before moving on. (There is no point in moving on without thorough understanding.) If you are impatient, read reply 643, the attached file titled Cosmic_Energy_Machines3.doc.

Lawrence Tseung
Wrong assumptions often lead to confusions and dead ends.

tinu · « **Reply #649 on:** November 22, 2007, 09:56:25 AM »

Quote from: Rosphere on November 22, 2007, 02:26:03 AM

Quote from: tinu on November 21, 2007, 09:07:45 PM
Excellent work, Rosphere!
I refer mostly to the chart, which is eloquent for why there is no subject to be seriously discussed into this thread.
Thank you.
Quote
After accepting that 'Hori energy' equation is wrong, notice that the values in the chart makes no physical sense. The computed ratio means total energy spent divided by the energy that goes into vertical lift (increase in potential energy). No physical significance whatsoever. No overunity either, just misuse of equations.

But if one reverses the ratio presented in the chart, now the new values would mean potential energy gained versus total energy spent. This may be useable for mental exercises. So, as example let?s take the angle =9.48. One has to spend 1.628 Joule to bring the weight from vertical to that angle, by pulling with a CONSTANT force of 9.882 Newton. By the end of the movement he finds that only 0.819 Joule were actually used for lifting the weight (this amount goes into potential energy). Well?! Is some energy being lost?! Where did the other half of the energy go?! The answer is very simple: it went into kinetic energy. And the pendulum will further move up by itself due to its stored kinetic energy.

Note the word ?constant? above written in capitals. It is important because the simple equations Mr. Tseung uses are no longer valid if the force is not kept constant. Because of that initial assumption already made, any distractions derived from pulsed forces and similar ?improvements of theory? can not be discussed under the above mathematical treatment (which, I must stress again, it is physically wrong.). But the required mathematical analysis never came and I suspect it will never do.

Hope I made myself clear,
Tinu

I recall some of what I had learned back in college; statics, dynamics, kinetic energy, and potential energy. Although his equations and his numbers in slide 3 did match-up to my results, mostly, I should not have moved on to slide 4 until I was comfortable with the origin of his equations.

Regarding my chart: the Fx and Fy equations are mine, based on a static system at each angle. (I did the static Free Body Diagram in my head looking at slide 2.) As you can see, Fx is not constant. We can imagine holding a suspended mass off vertical with our finger; it does not require much force at small angles; we feel very little pressure. At larger angles, the horizontal force required to hold the mass off vertical is noticeably higher and more painful on the finger. (Notice I did not write, "push," or, "move," but, "hold." Fx and Fy are static forces in my chart.) Our experience jibes with the numbers in my Fx column.

I must admit, I did not make a F.B.D and sum all of the forces and moments to equal m*a and I*alpha. Although I did not have a warm-fuzzy about the validity of the horizontal and vertical energy equations, I did not look them up as you appear to have done.

I can not agree with you either, at this point, because I have not dug into it for myself. However, whatever cracks may exist in slide 3 seem to grow into caverns reaching out to slide 4. And these caverns hearken back to my insecurities about slide 3, where I suspect that you may be right about the validity of the Cartesian separation of this "pulse" force.

In order to do any dynamic analysis we need more information about this pulse force and how it is applied. Is it applied by an elastic collision at a=0? (This sounds like what is meant by, "pulse.")

Assuming that it is an elastic collision at a=0, what happens to this Lead Out energy when the angle peaks and then returns to a=0; is it Lead Back In energy? If the Lead Out energy is Lead Back In then how can we exercise any claim upon it to do our bidding?

It must be Lead Back In because swing sets are not banned from playgrounds, (what would happen to Johnny returning with 50% more energy at each pass?)

If this pendulum is set into motion and we wish to make charts showing energy movement between the system and the environment then we need to be clear about what is happening at what time and define our cycle. Splitting the motion up into its two Cartesian parts and saying, "then this happens with one of them," seems odd.

I can not buy into slide 4 at this time without more details. The jury is still out on slide 3. $:-\$

On the other hand, I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps this pendulum example was hastily put together and may not lend itself well to explain this Lead Out theory.

Rosphere--break time

Fx is indeed not constant in your chart and it is well computed, depending on the angle. But when choosing any single line in the chart and sticking to it, Fx is assumed to be constant when HE is computed (HE=FxLsin(a); you take Fx from the fourth column and multiply it with the displacement ? second column, hence the work is computed assuming a constant force from zero angle to the given value. A correct computation would involve integration.)

Anyway, I?d like to say that I appreciate a lot your reasoning and overall fine logic. I mostly like in particular the following part: ?However, whatever cracks may exist in slide 3 seem to grow into caverns reaching out to slide 4.?
Well, HE is one of such crack and then the bottom conclusion is the second crack. One should read ? Thus 2 parts of supplied total energy is continuously and cyclically transferred by the pendulum between potential and kinetic energy and there is a particular angle for which potential energy is exactly half of the total energy supplied.? instead of ?Thus 2 Parts of Supplied Horizontal Energy leads out approximately 1 Part Vertical Energy?. Nothing is being lead out. Only caverns, indeed!

You are on the good path, like utilitarian that came lately and like many others who came by. I?m confident you?ll get the whole picture soon, with or without my further opinions.

Energy from ?still air? is a similar story. Unfortunately for the naives, the device works but it is the equivalent of a pulley system: water can be pumped at high heights but in less quantity. Increase the height and eventually the quantity diminish to zero. No overunity ever proved, experimentally or mathematically. But the same trickery and/or misuse of elementary physics is employed in selling the ideas to the credulous masses.

The ?machine? as Mr. Tseung pompously like to name it in ?If the Displacement is not in the same direction as the Force, no work is done. This means a horizontal force cannot do work in the vertical direction unless a machine is used to change the direction of the Force.? needs not be more than the mere string into this case or a simple pulley in the general case.
We?ve been through this issue several times but we still move in circle. And unfortunately I don?t have much time to explain it over and over. I don?t want to make a fixation out of it and, even more important, I don?t want to post here too often because I have the strong feeling that Mr. Tseung does not wish anything more than eternally perpetuating the current thread, for reasons that are blurred to me but I suspect they are quite obscured. I?ll definitely answer to your direct questions but I?ll limit my posts unless the things depart too far from reality and unjustified optimism reaches alarming levels. Please note that Mr. Tseung has a formal training in physics (although not-practiced, though) and due to that training he can be very slippery to the non-physicists. Luckily I am a physicist too and, unfortunately for him, my ?kung fu? is, lets say, aaa? juuust ?a little better? than his rusty one.

Have a nice day,
Tinu

ltseung888 · « **Reply #650 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:30:23 AM »

Can an experiment be done to verify that the Lee-Tseung Pull does Lead Out gravitational energy?

In Physics, we can look at the consequence of a theory. For example, in the kinetic theory of gases, we assume molecules are ball like structures hitting the walls and each other. We cannot see the actual action of a single molecule. However, their collective behavior gives rise the Gas Laws (Boyle?s Law, Charles?s Law).

It is almost impossible to apply a single ideal Lee-Tseung Pull to a swinging pendulum with perfect measurement of its Force and the Energy imparted. However, the consequence of Lead Out says that we can supply X units of energy to a system, an additional Y units of energy from gravity can be Lead Out.

The sum of these two energies is the real Input Energy to the system. It is obvious that X + Y is greater than X alone. The Lead Out energy Y is the so called Free-Energy.

If the system is designed so that part of the output Z is looped back as Input, the system can indeed sustain itself and produce more useable energy.

For an Ideal (no loss) system,
Output = Input
Z = X +Y

For an non-ideal ( Loss=L ) system
Z + L = X + Y or
Z = X + Y ? L

So long as Y is greater than L, we can loop back X and have (Y - L) as Free Energy! This is the reason why slide 3 (and the associated spreadsheet analysis) is so important.

Thus any demonstrated Free-Energy device will confirm the correctness of the Lee-Tseung Lead out theory. The Hungarian EBM machine is a commercial, demonstrated machine. China ordered one already. Many Engineers are under training.

Lawrence Tseung
Existence of any ?Free-Energy? device will confirm the Lee-Tseung lead Out Theory. Or putting it another way ? The Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory predicts the inevitability of the ?Free-Energy? Machines.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #651 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:43:26 AM »

Dear Rosphere,

Do you mind sharing your spreadsheet in this open forum? Mine is somewhere in one of the earlier threads.

Then we can compare Mathematics in addition to Physics.

The Mathematics including the full integration turned out to be understandable if we use the ideal Lee-Tseung Pull on the simple pendulum!

Let us make sure your spreadsheet and mine have the same basic assumptions and equations.

@Tinu

I am glad that you are a Physicist. It is quite acceptable for two trained experts to disagree (e.g. two doctors and specially two lawyers!)

The Lee-Tseung theory have been published in the form of a patent document. It is widely disclosed in various forms in many forums. The latest version can be seen in reply 643 of this thread.

Regards,
Lawrence

Rosphere · « **Reply #652 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:03:27 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on November 22, 2007, 10:43:26 AM

Dear Rosphere,
Do you mind sharing your spreadsheet in this open forum?

Sure, when I have more faith in it. I am looking at it now and asking myself, "how in the hell can the value for Fy approach zero at a=90 degrees?"

Ever have on of those engineering problems in college where you were never satisfied with your answer? So you keep going back over it, trying to understand it on a deeper conceptual level so that your numbers made sense to you? Tear the damned paper into shreds so fast you hurt yourself doing it? Then start all over again with a fresh clean piece of paper and a new attitude?

This is one of those times for me. I dove in the water too quickly without looking for scallywags.

I made the spreadsheet to quickly check out your numbers against your equations on slide 3. Aside from the rounding and significant-figure issues, they matched.

I need to start over with a clean sheet of paper, a Free Body Diagram, and a clear head because Fy=0 @ a=90 seems wrong. It can not be. In a static condition, there must be a vertical component force equal and opposite to the force of gravity, Mg, for the body to remain at rest, (static; a non-accelerating reference frame.)

(Note: I know that your example does not approach 90 degrees. I am using this angle a mental tool to check my calculations. If my numbers at 90 degrees make no sense then all the forces at all of the other angles will be off as well.)

We can imagine 'pushing' the suspended mass off-vertical-angle with an unconstrained horizontal motion; (able to slip in the vertical,) using our finger. We stop at various angles along the way, from zero to 90 degrees, to compare the pressure on our finger tip. Increasing tension on the string at increasing angles imparted by even more force from the finger. There is no way we can hold that sucker at 90 with JUST horizontal force, Fx. There MUST be a verticle force, Fy, to balance Mg, (in a static condition.)

Since, by initial definition, the applied force may not have a vertical component, Fy = 0, then the only other avenue available to impart such a weight balancing force in a static condition must come from the string tension force, T.

Further, it is impossible to hold the string at a=90 with just a horizontal force because there will be no vertical component of the string to provide the weight balance.

Therefore, when I finally have my static forces Fx and Fy values correct from angles (0 < a < 90) then I suspect that the data in my spreadsheet should look something like this:

Horizontal component of tension in the string, Tx: (0 < (Tx=Fx) < infinity), where Fx is the applied horizontal force; equal and opposite of Tx.

Vertical component of tension in the string: Ty=Mg (constant--I should have seen this initially from the FDB. I guess I have spent too many years in the field doing 'clerical' engineering.)

I think I am on the right track now. I will try to assemble a new spreadsheet later. I need to break now and prepare to visit family to celebrate in the traditional way on this American holiday.

Once I flesh-out the static analysis, I can then look into the static energy. Then we move into the dynamic analysis of forces and moments and the associated dynamic energy. This is where I am going to need specific information about this pulse force, of which you speak, and the range of motion applied. I may need to blow the dust off my calculus books before this is all over.

Rosphere-gobble gobble

Rosphere · « **Reply #653 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:40:32 PM »

Quote from: tinu on November 22, 2007, 09:56:25 AM

Have a nice day,
Tinu

Thank you for taking the time to go over all this again for my benefit.

I will figure it out for myself, eventually.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #654 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:12:40 PM »

Quote from: Rosphere on November 22, 2007, 06:40:32 PM

I will figure it out for myself, eventually. This old song came to mind for some reason:

Dear Rosphere,

I know you will figure it out sooner or later. You have the right approach. Happy Thanksgiving to you and family.

Lawrence

ltseung888 · « **Reply #655 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:31:13 PM »

Quote

Hi Lawrence Tseung,

I read your e-mail on overunity.com and I have a brief question:
Does General Magnetics have a (public) stock listing and, if yes, what is their stock symbol or letters?

Best regards,

xxx

No. General Magnetics is NOT a public company. They plan to have their IPO in 2008 after product introduction. They have a number of working Cosmic Energy Machine prototypes in development. Wang Shum Ho is one of the nine Vice Presidents. His device will be one of them.

I know that they researched the Hungarian EBM thoroughly. They accepted that it was not a hoax. I believe China already ordered a large unit from Hungary. Wang Shum Ho helped to introduce our Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory to them.

From my last communication with Wang, the high priority product would be an electricity generator for a village or a large factory. The existing electrical grid will not be altered. Some of the key investors are existing Power Companies in China.

Two Models of the Wang Shum Ho Device have been submitted to the China Certification Authorities for a six-month safety test.

Lawrence Tseung
The Lee-Tseung theory can explain the source of energy of the working EBM machine from Hungary. Energy was Lead Out from both gravitational and electron motion (magnetic) fields.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #656 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:04:32 AM »

US Patent Office granting impossible patents???

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/17/antigravity-device-p.html

Quote

Antigravity device patented
Posted by David Pescovitz, November 17, 2005 2:59 PM | permalink
I missed this in Nature last week, but the US patent office has approved a patent for a spacecraft powered by antigravity. Here's the abstract of US Patent #6,960,975:
A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale. Link
Such a device apparently defies the laws of physics. From Nature:
This is not the first such patent to be granted, but it shows that patent examiners are being duped by false science, says physicist Robert Park, watchdog of junk science at the American Physical Society in Washington DC. Park tracks US patents on impossible inventions. "The patent office is in deep trouble," he says.

"If something doesn't work, it is rejected," insists Alan Cohan, an adviser at the patent office's Inventors Assistance Center in Alexandria, Virginia. And when something does slip through, he says, the consequences are not significant: "It doesn't cause any problems because the patent is useless."

But Park argues that patenting devices that so blatantly go against scientific understanding could give them undeserved respectability, and undermine the patent office's reputation. "When a patent is awarded for an idea that doesn't work, the door is opened for sham." Link (Thanks, Harvey Lehtman!)

It looks like the US Patent Office has learned from the China Patent Office. Granting impossible patents have insignificant consequence. But if such impossible inventions work and no patents were granted, the US patent Office would be in big Lawsuit troubles.

The Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory predicts hundreds of Inventions that will Lead Out gravitational or electron motion energy. Some debunkers or CIA or the Like keep saying that it is impossible. They are doing the US patent office a disservice.

gaby de wilde · « **Reply #657 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:50:23 AM »

Lawrence,

is there anything important in this valuable speech from shakylee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokWZc8R-co
YouTube - Ã¦Å“Â¨Ã§â€°â€ºÃ¦ÂµÂÃ©Â¦Â¬_20070831 Ã¥Â¯Â¶Ã¦Â³Â°Ã¨Â©Â±Ã¤Â¸â€°Ã¥Å“â€¹

ltseung888 · « **Reply #658 on:** November 23, 2007, 02:12:54 AM »

Quote from: gaby de wilde on November 23, 2007, 01:50:23 AM

Lawrence,

is there anything important in this valuable speech from shakylee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokWZc8R-co
YouTube - Ã¦Å“Â¨Ã§â€°â€ºÃ¦ÂµÂÃ©Â¦Â¬_20070831 Ã¥Â¯Â¶Ã¦Â³Â°Ã¨Â©Â±Ã¤Â¸â€°Ã¥Å“â€¹

He was talking about the story of the inventions of the Wooden Cow and the Floating Horse. According to the story, real cows and horses got frightened when crossing narrow bridges. Much of the food for the soldiers were lost and fell to the river.

The inventions of the Wooden Cow and Floating Horse came as a result of such needs. One Wooden Cow could carry food for a soldier for a year. One Floating Horse could carry food for a soldier for 4 years. One speculation of the Wooden Cow was a hand-push Cart with one wheel in front.

*** Other speculations include self-propelling systems. ***

ltseung888 · « **Reply #659 on:** November 23, 2007, 02:47:49 AM »

To help those who want to examine every equation and every calculation, I am reproducing the original spreadsheet with some explanations.

The attached spreadsheet corresponds to the slides 6 and 7 of the presentation in http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/taiwan2a.htm.

Points to Note:
(1) Cells E10 to E17 are the key cells in the calculation.
(2) When a horizontal force of 10 units is applied to the pendulum with weight equal to 60 units, the angle at equilibrium is 9.48 degrees.
(3) With the spread sheet, it can be seen that at small angles, the ratio of horizontal energy to vertical energy approaches 2.0.
(4) At 90 degrees, the ratio approaches infinite (1.63E+16). This means at this angle, no vertical energy can be lead out no matter how large is the horizontal force.
(5) To be more exact, the best horizontal force is small but frequent.

Comments on this spreadheet is encouraged.

I shall produce another spreadsheet using NOT the horizontal force. It will use the best Lee-Tseung Pull. The efficiency will be even higher.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory (Read 2180258 times)

utilitarian

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

Rosphere

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

tinu

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

Rosphere

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

Rosphere

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

gaby de wilde

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory Ã¥Â¯Â¶Ã¦Â³Â°Ã¨Â©Â±

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory Ã¥Â¯Â¶Ã¦Â³Â°Ã¨Â©Â±

ltseung888

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory