Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 08:43:44 AM

Title: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 08:43:44 AM
I finally found what may be the right place to discuss the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.  Here is a brief extract:

Boat in Calm Water and Good Sunshine Scenario

The Patent Offices and the Scientific Community used the Law of Conservation of Energy as a roadblock for perpetual motion machines (PPM) for centuries.  The Law of Conservation of energy essentially says that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  It can only change from one form to another.  If the source of energy of an invention cannot be identified, the invention is likely to be classified as the impossible PPM.

The Boat in Calm Water and Good Sunshine Scenario is simple.  If a scientist does not know how to use solar energy, he might wrongly apply the Law of Conservation of Energy and advocate the use of muscle energy to move the boat.  If he knows how to use solar energy, he can relax and let the solar panel powered engine move the boat.  The Law of Conservation of Energy is never violated.

All objects are immersed in gravitational fields.  Newton?s Universal Gravitational Law says that two masses attract each other with a force equal to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.  The Earth rotates around the Sun according to this Law.  All objects, including our bodies, obey this law.  We attract and are attracted by the Sun, the Moon, the Distant Stars and Each Other.  Movement of such objects will have energy exchanges  (Work = Force x displacement).  If an invention uses such gravitational energy, it does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.  In the Lee-Tseung PCT Patent Application (PCT/IB2005/000138), we used the term Lead Out.  This source of gravitational energy is non-polluting, available anywhere and almost inexhaustible.

An even more powerful source is the Electron Motion Energy. Electrons are present in all atoms.  They are usually thought as negatively charged particles rotating around the nucleus.  The rotation gives rise to magnetic fields.  The changing of orbits gives rise to electromagnetic waves.  Their clustering gives rise to electrostatic fields.  Their movement along conductors gives rise to electricity that we depend on daily.  Sunlight is just a form of electromagnetic wave.  Radio waves, TV waves are other forms of electromagnetic waves.  We are immersed in such waves.  If an invention uses such immersed Electron Motion Energy, it does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

The Lee-Tseung theory predicts that both gravitational and electron motion energy can be Lead Out via Pulse Force at resonance on oscillating, vibrating, rotating or flux change systems.  The detailed mathematical proof is via the analysis of the simple pendulum during the application of a pulse force.  The pulse force increases the tension of the string and Leads Out gravitation energy.  For a horizontal pulse force, two parts of pulse energy can Lead Out one part of gravitational energy.  The gravitational energy is not created but Lead Out.  This Lead Out energy source has not been understood by the Patent Offices, the Scientists and many Inventors in the past.  Use of this Lead Out energy does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

For details, read:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2621.msg40277.html#msg40277
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 09:32:32 AM
Phone Conversation with Lee Cheung Kin

Tseung: "I found the right place in the OverUnity.com forum to discuss our theory.  Do you have anything to say?"

Lee: "Tell the participants to be careful with the High Frequency, High Pulse Force at resonance experiments.  Such experiments not only could burn the equipment but also cause fatal accidents."

Tseung smiled: "Most of the participants in the forum has not seen Output equal to Input yet.  They will not believe the danger.  Some may even want to experience the danger.  However, I shall post your warning."

Lee: "Tell them that a correct high pitch note can break many glasses.  The energy used to break the glasses does not come from the note alone.  The note Leads Out the energy inherent in the glass.  That inherent energy is theoretically infinite."

Lawrence Tseung
Resonance Leads Out theoretically Infinite Energy
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 11:21:57 AM
Fun with explaining the Milkovic Pendulum and Lever  system

Reference on this forum:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg39646.html#msg39646

Tseung: "Now we can use this thread to explain every known Over Unity device published.  The idea is to check whether the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory is applicable to all of them.  If so, can the Lee-Tseung Theory suggest improvement to the devices."

Lin: "You are ambitious.  Since you will never build an OU device yourself, there is no harm is making constructive suggestions.  I suppose you would start with the Milkovic Pendulum first."

Tseung smiled: "Our PCT patent information starts with the Pendulum.  So it is logical to start with the Pendulum example.  In slides 5-8 of http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/taiwan2a.htm, we proved that a horizontal pulse force applied to a pendulum could Lead Out gravitational energy.  To be exact, two parts of horizontal Pulse Energy can Lead Out one part of graviational energy.  Thus Milkovic is Leading Out gravitational energy via Pulsing the Pendulum."

Lin: "Does the lever movement contribute anything?"

Tseung: "Yes.  The Lever Movement can be thought of as a vibrational system.  The Movement of the Pendulum Bob shifts the effective balancing weight.  Thus the Milkovic system can be thought of as two systems complementing each other  - the pendulum and the up-and-down lever.  Milkovic has not completed the feedback loop."

Lin: "Is the Milkovic system an Over Unity Device?"

Tseung: "The Pendulum with a Pulse Force is already an Over Unity Device.  The vibrating Lever with shifting weight is also an Over Unity Device.  The combined system is thus an Over Unity Device."

Lin: "Can some type of pull back string or spring be used to complete the Milkovic feedback loop?  If so, can it run forever and conclusively demonstrate the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory?"

Tseung smiled: "Theoretically possible.  I shall let someone better at engineering to shine and do the actual experiment."

Lawrence Tseung
Lee-Tseung Theory Leads Out confirmation that the Milkovic system is Over Unity and could produce a mechanical perpetual motion machine/toy.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 01:38:21 PM
Limitation of the Milkovic System

Lin: "What is the limitation of the Milkovic System?  Why do you keep referring to it as a toy?"

Lai joined the conversation. "The number of Pulses per second of a pendulum is limited.  It is essentially a function of the length of the string, the Pendulum mass and the gravitational constant.  It cannot be changed easily compared with the rotational speed."

Tseung smiled. "How about the vibration of the Lever?"

Lin quickly interrupted: "Important factors will be the arms of the lever, the weights at the end and the Pulse Force (the shifting pendulum weight.  Am I correct?"

Tseung smiled more. "Looks like I can focus on my fishing."

Lawrence Tseung
Stimulating discussion Leads Out suggestions from many others.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on July 20, 2007, 02:35:10 PM
Hello Mr. Tseung,

I appreciate your intense activity and comprehensive postings on various free energy topics. Yet, I?m having trouble understanding the point of ?lead out? gravitational energy.

In your post above, you make a reference to several slides (5-8) available at http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm. In slide no.8 specifically it is suggested that 2 units of supplied horizontal energy ?leads out? 1 unit gravitational energy. Well, the classical interpretation is as follows: 3 (not 2) units of initial total energy, at that particular point on the pendulum trajectory you refer to are converted into 2 units of kinetic energy and 1 unit of potential energy. That is correct. But finally, all of the initially supplied energy will be converted into potential energy (in the upper point the pendulum reaches). So, in this point the ratio of ?supplied energy? to potential energy is one. It is always one; I am not aware of any exceptions and a simple pendulum is known not to be an overunity machine. Then, the pendulum starts moving backwards on its trajectory and again the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. It will cross again the same point you prefer, where the ratio between kinetic and potential energy is 2/1 but frankly, I can not see any energy gain here, but a simple transformation between kinetic and potential energy. On the vertical, it will have again 3 units of kinetic energy (assuming that there are no losses/friction, of course), which was initially provided. So, the 1 unit of gravitational energy you talk about is not ?lead out? but it is paid for, therefore it is not free energy. The logic can be tricky for a freshman but if you want we can discuss on hard equations.

Also, you said in another post above that the "The Pendulum with a Pulse Force is already an Over Unity Device.? I strongly disagree. If one takes two simple pendulums and collide one with the other, this is a pulse force interaction (there are toys made on this principle but they have more than two balls, usually). If it would be overunity (according to your statement), the system would start exceeding a continuous increase in amplitude after each collision. But this is of course, not happening. Please comment also on this issue.

Please reply.
Thanks again,

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 05:04:45 PM

On Slide 8, it is suggested that 2 units of supplied horizontal energy ?leads out? 1 unit gravitational energy.....

You have to understand slides 5-7 fully before you can understand slide 8.  Please read the explanation portion of slides 5-7.  The key points to remember are:

(1) The mathematics is related to the Pendulum at the moment of applying the Horizontal Pulse Force. 

(2) During this moment, we can apply the Law of Parallelogram of Forces to analyze the Force and the Energy.

(3) Please follow the mathematics carefully.  The result of the mathematics concludes that (Hori Energy)/(Vert Energy) = 2.014 when the Weight is 60 Kg and the horizontal Pulse is 10 kg.

(4) At Tsing Hua University, I changed the Weight to 80 kg with the Horizontal Pulse still equal to 10 kg.  I then  asked the PhD Students to work out the new angle and the new ratio of (Hori Energy)/(Verti Energy).  They all got the correct answer.

(5) Please try to work out the answer and post it here.  If your answer is correct, we can continue the discussion.  (This is the technique taught at MIT to see if the participants really follow the vigorous mathematical reasoning.)

(6) Mathematics cannot lie.  All top physicists or mathematicians will get the same answer.  We can then have common ground for discussion.

Hope that does not offend you.

Lawrence Tseung
Vigorous Mathematics Leads Out common logic for discussion.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 20, 2007, 09:34:18 PM
Slides 5-8 to prove that Energy can be Lead Out

Forever: "You are asking the participants in the Forum to do mathematics.  Do you think that they can ever succeed?  I can do it because I had to prepare for the Secondary School Examination in Hong Kong.  The PhD students at Tsing Hua University are the best in China."

Tseung smiled. "Give the Forum participants time.  Give them a chance to read up on Parallelogram of Forces.  Give them opportunity to consult their professors."

Forever: "You mentioned at one time that your posts were targeted for special audiences - the Chinese Government, top academics, other Over Unity Developers and Patent Offices around the World.  Can you simplified them for the average person?"

Tseung laughed: "I have done the best simplification I could.  If you heard the heated discussions in the early days with Professor Woo and Lee Cheung Kin, you would be totally lost.  Even the top physics professors at Harvard University thought that we did double accounting at one time.  Fortunately, mathematics cannot lie.  Once they retraced every step in the mathematics, they became converts."

Forever: "It should be a challenge to see how many days or weeks until some Forum Participants provide the correct answer.  Tell your professor friends not to post the solution."

Lawrence Tseung
Solving the mathematics Leads Out the real scientists

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on July 20, 2007, 11:04:24 PM
Phone Conversation with Lee Cheung Kin

Tseung: "I found the right place in the OverUnity.com forum to discuss our theory.  Do you have anything to say?"

Lee: "Tell the participants to be careful with the High Frequency, High Pulse Force at resonance experiments.  Such experiments not only could burn the equipment but also cause fatal accidents."

Tseung smiled: "Most of the participants in the forum has not seen Output equal to Input yet.  They will not believe the danger.  Some may even want to experience the danger.  However, I shall post your warning."

....

Lawrence Tseung
Resonance Leads Out theoretically Infinite Energy

I'm really happy you're not only putting other people's theories and material into your own TPU write-up but supposedly teaching your partner the importance of not  doing damage to themselves by avoiding resonance! (or is it the other way?). This sure is a good forum for even 'brilliant' theorist!

I believe it won't be much longer before you can Lead us Out to the creation of the Universe.  Can't sleep ... the anticipation is killing me!

All these long winded write up and nobody seems to notice....

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 02:49:12 AM
Theory of the Simple Gravity Motor  as described in:

http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

In this invention, the Pulse Force comes from the eight hammers.  In one revolution, there are eight Pulses.  The above information describes the construction material, the dimensions etc.  However, it avoided the question of stating how long the rotation lasted.  The one who posted it said:

*****
As I look back at the circumstances relating to the way I received this idea and what has happened since, I am quite sure that it is GOD'S will that such simple exposition of such a device that goes against the supposed "laws" of science is released at this time! I am not the first, I know that. I am not the best, I know that. I am not really much of anything other than a follower of Christ, I KNOW that! This device is not mine but is for anyone that wishes to replicate it.
*****

Sun et al tried to replicate it.  They could not get the same material for the hammer.  The resultant device could rotate for about 3 minutes before stopping.  The hammer was than replaced by falling weights and then falling powders.  The rotation time increased to about 20 minutes.  In Sun's Words -'I became an OU invention addict.'  They have some baby-step successes and hope to market an Over Unity Development Platform toy soon.

Lawrence Tseung
The difficulty in tuning for resonance Leads Out idea of a standard, well-machined Over Unity Development Platform Toy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 04:51:03 AM
Discussion of the Simple Gravity Motor  

Lin: "How is the Simple Gravity Motor related to the Bessler Wheel?"

Lai: "Both are mechanical devices.  By the way, I believe ltseung888 was banned from posting in the http://www.besslerwheel.com forum.  There were over 300 postings in the Fraud section under the title 'Cosmic Energy Electricity Generators'. Tseung, what is your reaction?"

Tseung laughed. "When you use the forum of someone else to post, you are subjected to their rules.  If they do not like your information, or if they were told by the CIA or the Like, they can ban you.  I was surprised that they did not delete the posts totally.  That would help me in the future in claiming 'I told you so'.  The Steorn Forum did not ban me totally but they sunk my threads."

Lin giggled: "You have some enemies out there.  What are you going to do?"

Lai: "One cannot please all the people all the time.  Tseung's main target audience are the Chinese Officials.  These Officials reacted after seeing the Wang Device in rotation on January 15, 2007.  Wang became a Vice President of a RMB$13 billion Company.  The posts do have value."

Tseung smiled. "I believe I stated in a Besslerwheel.com post - there must be a feedback mechanism.  The simple gravity wheel has a very weak feedback mechanism.  It may need luck and perfect tuning to work."

Sun interrupted. "That is why we are interested in a well-machined platform toy so that there is no excuse of the wrong material, the inexact shape, the varying magnetic strength etc.  It will be a standard equipment in all schools.  It will also be an educational toy in every affluent home."

Lai laughed. "Tseung talks about Benefiting the World.  Sun, on the other hand, talks about money.  I hope both of you achieve your goals."

Lin giggled more and murmured. "Tseung thinks that he has achieved his goal already.  He is just helping others shine."

Lawrence Tseung
The Simple Gravity Motor is not simple.  It Leads Out talk of well-machined parts to achieve resonance.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 08:15:34 AM
The Energy By Motion (EBM) Machine from Hungary:

Quote from http://gammamanager.blogspot.com/search?q=china

Saturday, October 21, 2006
Brief historical summary of the EBM Units: 1992-2006

1. Number of EBM Units manufactured, tested and operated since 1992 to 2006, for which log-books are available:
(a) BB-LEGO: 4 units
(b) C 4/4 1 unit
(c) 720 unit: 2 units
(d) Total No. of EBM Units: 7 units

Note: Prior to 1992, 108 prototype units were tested and discarded!

2. Number of logged operating hours by the above 7 EBM Units since 1992: over 100,000 hours!

3. (a) In 2001, the manufacturing order for the 1st commercial unit was cancelled to correct design errors in the commercial size EBM Units.
(b) Between 2002 and 2006 fourteen (14) commercial size units were designed, ranging from 1.5 MWe to 225 MWe in sizes;
(c) In 2005 and 2006, cost of manufacturing, installations and operations were obtained from vendors to price out and to establish tariff rates: cents/kWHe (electric) and cents/kWHh (heating energy);

4. First 1.5 MWe and 3.0 MWe EBM Units are negotiated for Russia and Canada under contract in 2006, to be commissioned in mid 2008, together with the larger 300 MWe EBM Plant for China (to be commissioned in 2009);
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 08:40:08 AM
Theory behind the EBM Machine

*****
The self-reliant EBM plant uses its own self-generated electromagnetic fuel. The research and development work of this hi-tech technology began in 1980 in four laboratories in Toronto, Houston, London and in Budapest, managed for ELECTRO ERG LIMITED (EEL) by the GAMMA Group, under Professor L. I. Szab's leadership.
*****

Lin: "Tseung, What is your opinion on the Hungarian EBM machine?  They opened their laboratory to Investors and Commercial Evaluators.  They also claimed that China placed an order to have plant commissionable in 2009."

Lai: "They claimed the EBM plant used its own electromagnetic flux as fuel.  Is that similar to your Cosmic Energy Electricity Generators?"

Tseung smiled. "When the news first hit the Internet, Lee Cheung Kin and I were in China.  We tried to do a double check to see whether a Chinese Organization placed an order for the EBM machine.  The group we spoke to mentioned that they indeed sent people to Hungary.  The group asked for our opinion on whether the EBM Machine is a hoax."

Lai: "What is your reply?"

Lin: "I can guess the answer.  Theoretically possible.  The device is some type of rotation of magnets and/or electromagnets in magnetic fields.  Electron Motion Energy can be Lead Out."

Tseung smiled. "You can read my mind.  That Company tried 108 failed configurations before succeeding.  The chance of them getting one or more working prototypes is good.  They might not know the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory at that time.  If they knew, they might have even better prototypes."

Lawrence Tseung
The EBM machines that can be demonstrated now Lead Out confirmation that Over Unity Devices are Certainties.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 10:00:27 AM
Theory Behind the EBM Machine

Chan: "I know that you have not seen or touched an actual EBM machine.  I know that you have not got to Budapest.  I know that you have not read the Professor L. I. Szab's theory.  How can you be sure  that the EBM machine works according to the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory."

Lai: "After Newton wrote his Laws of Motion, did he need to examine every machine on this Planet?"

Lin: "Wow.  Are you implying that Lee-Tseung will have the same scientific status as Newton?  Before you answer that, I would like to raise a stupid scientifc question.  Will the Lead Out gravitational or electron motion energy be exhausted?  Would that be related to the Creation and Evolution of the Universe?"

Lai: "From Einstein's equation, we know mass and energy are interchangeable.  You must have heard of Black Holes that eat up mass and energy without a trace.  You must have heard of the Big Bang theory and the Expanding Universe.  I am merging the above and postulate that the Universe is in a dynamic state - expanding via the Big Bang and contracting via the Black Hole.  Mass is considered a form of Energy."

Lin: "That means the gravitational and electron motion energies will never exhaust.  They fluctuate together with the Universe!"

Tseung laughed.  "Good postulating.  I can enjoy my fishing."

Lawrence Tseung
Origins of Cosmic Energy Leads Out Fluctuating Theory of the Universe. 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 12:30:08 PM
Improving the Milkovic Pendulum System

Tseung: "I just thought of a simple way to improve the Milkovic System and probably all gravity energy  machines."

Lee: "Let us hear it."

Tseung: "If we can increase the effective gravitational constant G, we can increase the frequency of the oscillation and hence the efficiency of the system.  A simple improvement to the Milkovic System is to use magnets as pendulum and put external magnets below it to increase the frequency of oscillation."

Lee: "This is just the Forever Experiment.  It is bound to work."

Tseung: "Such an improvement may also help in providing Pulse Force to the pendulum.  One or more coils can attract or repel the Pendulum to provide the Pulse Force to Lead Out the increased effective gravitational energy."

Lee: "Simple but brilliant.  Post it and make sure that the Milkovic et al know about it.  Let them do the experiments."

Tseung: "Sure.  We old folks never do experiments.  Let the young ones shine."

Lawrence Tseung
Adding the Forever Yuen Experimental set up to the Milkovic System Leads Out much higher efficiency and possibility of a PPM demonstration.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 21, 2007, 05:34:19 PM
Improving the Milkovic Pendulum System
......

Tseung: "If we can increase the effective gravitational constant G, we can increase the frequency of the oscillation and hence the efficiency of the system.  A simple improvement to the Milkovic System is to use magnets as pendulum and put external magnets below it to increase the frequency of oscillation."
......

Hello Lawrence,

I think your idea occured also to Milkovic, see his patent page on it:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Patent3.jpg

Have you considered a similar arrangement in your mind?  If you have some ideas for futher improvements, would you advise?

Here are some of his further ideas connected to pendulum and lever:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/PatentiEng.html

Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 21, 2007, 10:22:27 PM

Hello Lawrence,

I think your idea occured also to Milkovic, see his patent page on it:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Patent3.jpg

Have you considered a similar arrangement in your mind?  If you have some ideas for futher improvements, would you advise?

Here are some of his further ideas connected to pendulum and lever:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/PatentiEng.html

Regards
Gyula

Dear Gyula,

The http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/PatentiEng.html is blank. 

The http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Patent3.jpg is interesting.  Since I cannot read Russian, I can only comment on the diagram.

From the diagram, he is using the magnetic repulsion set up as a spring for both the Lever and the Pendulum.  He might have thought of increasing the effective gravitational constant G.  However, the diagram did not show it.

Furthermore, the Lee-Tseung theory predicts the best Pulse force should be small but frequent. (The best angle for the best (hori energy/vert energy) should be around 0.5 degrees.)  In his diagram, he uses very big swing angle for his pendulum.

Please note that the increasing effective gravitational constant G technique is applicable to all gravity devices.  (I shall write about the advantage and application of decreasing G in a different post.)

I believe the best path is to give the information to him.  He will shine no matter whether he already knows it or not.  This is the intention of the Forum - share and benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Patent Information from Milkovic Leads Out a chance to Interact and benefit the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 21, 2007, 11:04:19 PM
Dear Lawrence,

The link works for me, though I have to wait a few seconds too for the middle part column to appear, it does not come promptly.  If you have no success, try going to his home page http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm  and move your mouse over the Inventions icon in the vertical column on the left side and a new small window should appear that should include the Patent link, among others. Also, the Content column on the left includes his Contact page.

Thanks for the comments.  If I get it right, there is a compromise in increasing the gravitational constant: one has to trade for the weight of the mass on the pendulum to the swinging angle, does not it?  (a bigger mass cannot swing readily quickly like a smaller one, especially not within a small angle of under 1 degree)  Am I right or missing something?

Thanks,
Gyula


Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 02:14:13 AM
Dear Lawrence,

The home page http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm works.  Also, the Content column on the left includes his Contact page.

Thanks for the comments.  If I get it right, there is a compromise in increasing the gravitational constant: one has to trade for the weight of the mass on the pendulum to the swinging angle, does not it?  (a bigger mass cannot swing readily quickly like a smaller one, especially not within a small angle of under 1 degree)  Am I right or missing something?

Thanks,
Gyula


Dear Gyula,

Thank you for the new link.  It works.  I am particularly interested in his Flying Saucer.  I believe he might be working on the same concept of reduced gravitational constant G.  I shall talk about that in another post.

There is no compromise as stated in your post.  We can still use the concept of the potential energy = mgh.  We can increase the potential energy by increasing any one of the three terms (m = mass, g = gravitational constant, h = height).  Previously, scientist do not know how to change g easily.  The Forest Yuen experiment showed that the magnetic pendulum technique can change g - both increasing it or decreasing it.

Scienitists know how to simulate increased g via centripetal forces - such as training for astronauts in rotating devices.  We now know the cutting off magnetic attraction on rotating ball can produce the anti-gravity effects. That is the principle of the Flying Saucer in a nutshell.

The ideal horizontal pulse should add 0.5 degrees to a pendulum.  However, we do not need to provide the ideal pulse.  Energy can still be added at a lower efficiency (2 parts horizontal pulse energy Leads Out less than 1 part of gravitational energy.) 

Many in the West still do not believe that CoE has been misapplied for venturies.  They still do not believe in the demonstrated EBM machine, the Wang Shum Ho Device etc.  Almost all of them are "followers" and not "pioneers".

I shall quote one conversation with a top English Professor in the Energy field.  "I spent all my life increasing the fuel cell efficiency by a few percent.  You came along and demonstrated free, cheap and constant energy.  How could I face my thousands of students?  I just could not tell them I taught them the wrong things for the past thirty years.  I could not possibly say that my hundreds of esteemed papers were useless.  I understand your theory totally.  It is simple and brilliant.  But I cannot support it!"

Lawrence Tseung
Milkovic Flying Saucer Leads Out the application of reduced gravitational constant.  This may be the reason of Government Suppression of this entire technology.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on July 22, 2007, 12:14:43 PM
Tests are for graduates. I?m a little bit beyond that. Anyway, if you want testing, let?s play. Firstly, please correct the presentation (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm). Slides 5-8 are full (and I mean FULL) of elementary mistakes, even for high-school level!

There is no such thing as a Force of 10kg. 10kg is a mass, right?  This mistake repeatedly appears in slide 5 and 6. Then in slide 7 you (or the author, whoever he/she might be) say(s) again that:
?If Mg=60Kg, F=10 Kg, then
Angle a = 9.48 degrees
Hori Energy/Vert Energy = 2.014?

Wow! Mg is a force but the unit of 60 on the right side is mass (kg). Then F is the consecrated notation for a force but on the right side is also a mass. If you want to be intelligible, at least say F=10Kgf. The numerical results for angle ?a? happens to be correct just because g disappears both from the nominator and denominator but man, this reveals anything you want but not scientific rigor.

So, if you want me to further guess through your riddle, then angle ?a? for a pendulum mass of 80kg and a horizontal force of 10kg*g is 7.125 degrees. This rationale is having a physical meaning in equilibrium only! (Static setup/no movement). However, the pendulum that is starting from the vertical will not stop at this angle. So, the force equality does not hold and you should know it. Then why applying this simple equality? This is another (and quite a huge) mistake.

Then, on slide 7 you say that:
?Hori Energy = F x Lsin(a)?
Nope. Not correct at all. (In fact this is the biggest mistake by far /it is actually inexcusable under any circumstances/ and it is telling me that the author did not pass his/her physics class with a good rank.) The equation above is not the horizontal energy, as you/the author wrongly assume(s), but the work done by force F. And if the system is not under other external forces (except gravity), this equals the Total Energy of the pendulum, not its Hori Energy! Horizontal Energy is m/2 x sqr (v-hori), where v-hori is the horizontal speed. Again, the pendulum does not stop at that angle. It will continue its motion due to the kinetic energy having it stored when accelerated under the force F.

The same error as explained above is made in:
?Vert Energy = Mg x (L(1-cos(a))?
This equation is also wrong because of the accelerating type of motion. If you want to compute the vertical energy you have to use differential equations.

According to the above, knowing the angle ?a? (7.125 degrees), mass M (80kg at your wish) and force F (10 kgf) one easily can compute the ratio Hori Energy/ Vert Energy, as you asked me to do ?for testing?. Is the test solved? That easily?!! Nope. I will not do it, because both equations are incorrect and so is the ratio between them. At this point, it just happens then that your test to me becomes my test to you. :))) Please solve it correctly, using the right equations and then we shall talk again. Deal?

I hope that the students are not being taught this way because it would be very bad for them.
Anyway, following the errors in slides 5-7, slide 8 makes absolutely no-sense whatsoever.

So, I?m not offended. Hopefully so are you.

But even beyond the obvious errors in using basic equations of classical mechanics as pointed above, more understable and relevant to the members here is the second paragraph of my first post, which remained uncommented by you. I?ll bring it again under your scrutiny: Take two balls, make two pendulums and collide them. According to the theory, they should make an excellent pulsed-force pendulum and, voila, you already have the over-unity machine, at least according to the theory you promote and to your previous statements. Too bad that reality sadly contradicts you?

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:35:14 PM
Part 1 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your excellent post.  I am glad that you spotted the error.  You may want to read the explanation in Slide 1.  The more vigorous treatment involves the use of integrals and differential equations as you suggested.  That may be beyond the scope of the Forum (and the Chinese Officials).  In our simplification for the layman, we committed errors that you kindly pointed out.

I shall answer your long post in multiples sections.  In the case when
(1)   Weight of Pendulum of mass 80 kilograms implies (Force due to weight = Mg or 80xg where g is the gravitational constant.  The value g is approximately 9.8 m/s/s on the surface of the Earth.)
(2)   The pulse force is 10xg (in the same units as (1))

The Tan(a) is 10/80 or 0.125 and hence the angle is indeed 7.125 degrees.  You are perfectly right.

End of Part 1.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:37:33 PM
Part 2 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

If Mg=60xg, F=10xg, then
Angle a = 9.48 degrees
Hori Energy/Vert Energy = 2.014?

When we apply the Pulse Force F, the tension (T) in the string must increase from 60xg to a larger value.  To be exact, we can calculate this larger value from the Pythagoras Theorem and get the answer as (sqrt of (10*10 + 60*60))xg = 60.828xg.

This increased tension of the string (which is a force) can be decomposed into the vertical and the horizontal components.  The horizontal component counters the horizontal Pulse Force F.  The vertical component is responsible for lifting the pendulum mass/weight.

The horizontal Pulse Force does work as there is horizontal displacement.  The vertical component of the Tension of the string does work as there is vertical displacement.  We can work out the ratio of these two energies.  That ratio horizontal energy/vertical energy is 2.014.  (In fact if you work out the various cases of small angles, the ratio is approximately 2.)  Thus Slide 8 is not an assumption.  It is the result of such mathematics.

End of Part 2
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:40:45 PM
Part 3 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

?Tinu wrote: ?Angle ?a? for a pendulum mass of 80kg and a horizontal force of 10kg*g is 7.125 degrees. This rationale is having a physical meaning in equilibrium only! (Static setup/no movement). However, the pendulum that is starting from the vertical will not stop at this angle. So, the force equality does not hold and you should know it. Then why applying this simple equality??

Let us focus on the Law of Parallelogram of Forces.  We know that after we applied the Horizontal Pulse Force and then let go, the pendulum will swing back. Let us isolate the two parts and analyze them separately.  Remember that the Law of Parallelogram of forces is a result of Newton?s Law of Motion.  If it fails, Newton?s Laws of Motion also fails. (At least in this case of Pendulum with a Pulse Force.)

If we apply the Horizontal Pulse Force from the vertical first time, the above configuration and calculation will hold.  Energy is added to the pendulum system.  However, the energy does NOT come from the horizontal pulse energy alone.

With pendulum mass of 60 Kilograms and Horizontal Pulse Force of 10g and a displacement of Lsin(a) where L is length of the Pendulum, a is the displacement angle, 2.014 units of horizontal Pulse Energy Leads Out 1 unit of vertical gravitational energy.  That vertical gravitational energy enters the Pendulum System via the tension in the string.

Note that the value of 2.014 is specific to the above example only.

End of Part 3
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:43:08 PM
Part 4 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

In our communication with the PCT patent examiner, we also showed the case of having a Pulse Force at an angle.  (Figure 4.2 in the document TPU-Theory1-5.doc in http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2621.msg40277.html#msg40277)
The angle was deliberately set so that the tension of the string (T) and the Pulse Force (F) are equal  with the Pendulum Mass at the mid-position.  At this initial position, the two forces are equal and a slight application of the Pulse Force will have displacement by both S and F.  Both will do work.

It is obvious that not all the energy comes from the Pulse Force.  We then extended the argument to Pulse Forces in all different directions.

End of Part 4
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:47:02 PM
Part 5 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

On the second and subsequent application of the Horizontal Pulse Force.

The Pulse Force F will now be applied to a moving pendulum system. Tinu is right in saying that if we completed our application of the Pulse, the pendulum system will keep going.  This is because it has acquired energy from the first application.

Tinu may be asking for an accurate mathematical representation of the general case of applying the Pulse Force in a moving Pendulum system.  The general horizontal energy may be thought of as the integral(T1(x)sin(a)dx  where T1(x) is the varying horizontal force component of the Tension of the String; a is the angle of displacement and dx is the horizontal displacement.

T1(x) is a function of the pulse supplied externally.  That can vary greatly depending on whether mechanical, magnetic or electric means are used.  Without that knowledge, the equation cannot be vigorously solved.  (This is the reason why Tsing Hua University is involved to do a much more accurate mathematical and computer modeling.)

In our presentation, we use the simple first application of the First Pulse Force  to demonstrate that some work (work implies energy used) is done by the tension of the String.  This is the Lead Out Energy.

End of Part 5
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 05:50:28 PM
Part 6 of 6 in the reply to Tinu on slides 5-8 of Taiwan2a.htm

Tinu wrote: ?According to the above, knowing the angle ?a? (7.125 degrees), mass M (80kg at your wish) and force F (10 kgf) one easily can compute the ratio Hori Energy/ Vert Energy, as you asked me to do ??. I will not do it, because both equations are incorrect and so is the ratio between them. ??.. Please solve it correctly, using the right equations and then we shall talk again. Deal??

As mentioned and expanded in Part 5,

T1(x) is a function of the pulse supplied externally as well as the classical potential and kinetic energy exchange..  That can vary greatly depending on whether mechanical, magnetic or electric means are used.  Without that knowledge, the equation cannot be solved.  The classical treatment ignores the pulse totally.  Thus almost all University Students learned the Pendulum Theory with NO periodic pulse. (This is the reason why Tsing Hua University is involved to do a much more accurate mathematical and computer modeling.)

I know now Tinu can easily substitute the values and get the ratio of Hori Energy/Vert Energy.  It will be less than 2.014.  I shall leave the exact value for someone else interested to post.

You can wait for Tsing Hua University or other Top Academic Institutions to supply the comprehensive mathematical and computer modeling.

It took me a lot a write-ups and I know I still cannot provide an easy explanation for all.  It was very easy at Tsing Hua University because we could interact directly.  Internet is no substitute for tuition at a top University.

End of Part 6 (The End of Explanations)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 09:15:25 PM
The 2 pendulum experiment suggested by Tinu as a separate discussion

Tinu: ?Take two balls, make two pendulums and collide them. According to the theory, they should make an excellent pulsed-force pendulum and, voila, you already have the over-unity machine, at least according to the theory you promote and to your previous statements. Too bad that reality sadly contradicts you??

According to the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory, there must be a Pulse Force to Lead Out Gravitational Energy.  The moment you stop applying the Pulse Force, no Gravitational Energy is Lead Out.  Let us focus on Pendulum A.  It is stationary.  Now, we pull Pendulum B up ? to give it the pulse force and energy.  The Pull will Lead Out gravitational energy.  When Pendulum B is let go, it swings towards Pendulum A.  During this swinging back, NO gravitational energy is Lead Out.

Pendulum A is then hit by Pendulum B.  At the impact, Pendulum A can be thought of as receiving a Pulse Force.  However, the duration is short and not much gravitational energy is Lead Out.  There is a loud hitting sound.  Pendulum A swings to approximately the same height as when Pendulum B is pulled. The hitting sound means changing some mechanical energy into sound/heat energy.  Energy goes out of the two-Pendulum system.  Eventually, both pendulums will stop.

In a Milkovic type Pendulum system, each swing can be pushed or pulsed.  The total energy of the system is the sum of the pulse energy + the Lead Out gravitational energy.  This is the reason that Milkovic et al are working so hard.  They believe that they are dealing with Over Unity Devices.  If you accept that Newton?s Laws in the form of Parallelogram of forces can be applied to the Pendulum, then Milkovic et al are NOT wasting their time.

If I am not mistaken, you are doubting the correctness of applying the Law of Parallelogram of Forces to the Pendulum System.  Tinu: "This rationale is having a physical meaning in equilibrium only! (Static setup/no movement). However, the pendulum that is starting from the vertical will not stop at this angle. So, the force equality does not hold and you should know it. Then why applying this simple equality? This is another (and quite a huge) mistake."
I do not share that doubt.

(If you can find a way for Pendulum B to hit Pendulum A perfectly with no sound or no loss of energy whatsoever, you will find that Pendulum A swings slightly to a higher position than Pendulum B.  The cycle should repeat with both pendulums swinging higher  - but how can you prevent energy loss?)

Now study the phenomena of resonance.  A high pitched sound can crack many glasses if the natural frequencies were just right.  Resonance effect is not just for mechanical systems.  It can be found in sound, electric, magnetic, electromagnetic wave environments.  This is indeed the advice I can give to Milkovic at el.  (In addition to increasing the effective gravitational constant g via permanent magnets.)

Lawrence Tseung
Having no doubts in the application of the Law of Parallelogram of Forces in Pendulum Systems  Leads Out confidence in the Milkovic et al inventions.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 22, 2007, 09:39:09 PM
Cracking glasses with resonance effects

I believe most physicists agree that the energy used to crack the glass is already with the glass.  It is just Lead Out by the high pitched sound for self destructive purposes.

If it can be Lead Out for self destructive purposes, can it be Lead Out for useful purposes???

Lawrence Tseung
Resonance effects Lead Out possibility of using the Energy inherent in the object.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on July 22, 2007, 10:54:24 PM
Mr. Tseung,

I?m glad we are talking. I still disagree with the theory and I keep suggesting presenting it in a proper way, free of errors.

It is not the vectors summation I doubt but the other forces you neglect (centripetal/centrifugal) that always play an important role in non-linear motion.

I also doubt the rationale behind the ?lead-out? energy. Please follow me: a true pulse is so short in duration that the huge and slow pendulum may and actually can ? for all practical purposes - be considered frozen in time. Of course, the pendulum has to change its speed in order to gain energy from the pulsed force, so it is not completely ?frozen? but the approximation will hold. (I am now also sure that you are very familiar with this kind of approximations but I said it mainly for other readers, to be able to follow our conversation.) If the angle at which the pendulum is pulsed is small, the ratio between vertical and horizontal displacement is very small, so the vertical displacement during the duration of pulsed force may be approximated to zero, in the same manner in which the mathematical treatment considers the pendulum almost frozen in time. But if the vertical displacement can be approximated to zero, this is clearly telling us that no gravitational exchange of energy is involved. Basically no exchange of energy between the pendulum and the gravitational field of Earth can take place in such a short duration of time, during which the pendulum does not travel on the vertical. So, no ?lead out? gravitational energy can manifest.

Pulses may give an excellent study environment for astute students but may I remind you that their treatment is based on the law of conservation of energy? Why? Because the nature always tells us it happens this way. Your explanation based on the mechanical loses in the case of two colliding pendulums may hold up to a point but it will not satisfy a logic person. Remember that around us there are no-loses interactions (gas molecules, for instance). They are the perfect example of pulsed interaction and it happens that they are also immersed in the gravitational field. Yet, an isolated container does not heat itself up as it should be if the molecules would gain energy from the gravitational field. It will remain for an undefined period in thermal equilibrium, despite of trillions of pulsed interactions / seconds?

There are also other macro-molecular setups, in which loses can be lowered very close to zero. For instance, instead of colliding two balls of steel, two balls electrically charged or two magnets can be used to transfer the energy in a pulsed manner. No mechanical losses during such a ?non-contact? collision would manifest. For such a system placed in a good vacuum, all mechanical loses may be lowered very, very much, just enough to detect the effect of any ?lead-out? energy, if real. I would go for experiment but because of the above example with gas remaining in equilibrium, my actual guess is that either the physical assumptions made or the mathematical model used to solve the differential equations is having a flaw. I?m human and I may be wrong. If fact, like I said it before in other threads, I almost desperately wish I am wrong but the person to step forward and show me the free energy is still waited...

We keep in touch. The week to follow it will be very busy for me and on top of it I?m also going to travel through my county. I?ll read your posts when I can but most probably I will not have the time to reply. But who?s in a hurry, here? ;)

Have a nice day,
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on July 22, 2007, 11:18:24 PM
Cracking glasses with resonance effects

I believe most physicists agree that the energy used to crack the glass is already with the glass.  It is just Lead Out by the high pitched sound for self destructive purposes.

If it can be Lead Out for self destructive purposes, can it be Lead Out for useful purposes???

Lawrence Tseung
Resonance effects Lead Out possibility of using the Energy inherent in the object.

One more, just for fun: If ?most physicists agree that the energy used to crack the glass is already with the glass?, I must be among the few of them?

I simply believe that the wave (the sound) energy accumulates because of resonant condition, up to the point the glass can no longer increase its amplitude (beyond its elasticity limits) and when this happens, the glass cracks. (In the absence of resonant frequency, the energy simply can not accumulate in the glass.) There are good movies on internet in which you can actually see this amplitude increasing at resonance, over a period of seconds (2-3s or more). It does not take a large amount of energy to break a thin glass (maybe a fraction of Joule is more than enough). A loud sound is carrying enough power to provide this amount of energy needed to break the glass.

I wanted to respond because this is my major concern with various anomalous effects posted in TPU threads. If a coil is pumped at high power levels and if it can not radiate well (i.e. donut-shaped coil(s)) then at some point after integrating this power of tents of W for several seconds, all this energy has to leak-out somehow, somewhere. And at tents of W for several seconds we are talking about energies that can easily kill a man, not to mention damaging a sensitive oscilloscope?

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 23, 2007, 01:52:02 AM
Resonance Experiment

Dear Tinu,

I remember way back at University some 40 years ago, I watched a film related to resonance.  The film started with a tuning fork  that caused a piano, many string instruments and other tuning forks to vibrate. The resultant sound was much louder  than that from the tuning fork alone.  Even after the tuning fork was stopped, these instruments continued to resonate  or vibrate to produce the tune for sometime.

The professor at that time gave the explanation that resonance can be ?stimulated?.   The resultant sound energy or the continued vibration of many devices do not come from the first tuning fork alone.  He used this to explain the collapse the Old Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940.  He also compared this with the Laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).  Have we been taught two different versions of Physics?

At least we agree on one thing ? The TPU experimenters need to be very careful in dealing with high frequency pulses at resonance conditions.

Lawrence Tseung
Resonance Leads Out discussion on the source of energy.  Does all energy come from the original source?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 23, 2007, 05:57:13 AM
Phone Conversation with Wang Shum Ho

Wang: ?I learned that you had some heated discussion on the Lee-Tseung Theory on the Internet.?

Tseung: ?I only posted them hours ago.  You do not read English.  How can you get the information so quickly.?

Wang laughed: ?You forget that I am a Vice President now.  I have people working for me.  I called to inform you that my Company (General Magnetics 磁普) plans to go IPO in 2008.  All Company information will be handled by our Public Relationship and Legal Department.  You should not publish any of my information any more.  I must thank you sincerely for your help.  When my stock becomes valuable, I shall donate a portion of it to your ?Help Seedlings to Innovate Foundation?.  I shall never forget you.?

Tseung: ?You lose some of your freedom when you become a vice President.  You represent the Company.  You have to watch your words and actions.  You cannot enjoy wining and dining and say anything you want when you were half drunk.?

Wang: ?I shall miss those times.?

Lawrence Tseung
Becoming a Vice President Leads Out Loss of personal freedom
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 24, 2007, 12:09:45 AM
Theory behind the Finsrud perpetual motion machine

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,18.msg36.html#msg36

Let me bring back the virtual team from the Steorn.com Forum

Handsome Boy A and Pretty Girl C: "In our review of known Over Unity devices, we found the Finsrud perpetual motion machine.  Apparently, it uses a ball rotating around a ring with permanent magnets and pendulum set ups. The claim is that it could rotate for a month without stopping."

Handsome Boy B smiled: "Tinu and Tseung were discussing combination pendulums in the Over Unity Forum.  Tseung proposed that combination pendulums could Lead Out gravitational energy and result in Cosmic Energy Machines that can run forever.  Tseung thinks that Milkovic et al are NOT wasting their time."

Pretty Girl A interrupted.  She is the bossy type. "The Finsrud machine is another demonstrated device that Tseung will encourage.  It will help to confirm the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory."

Pretty Girl B: "Tseung should ask Tinu to comment on the scenario of 'boat in calm water and good sunshine'.  This has been his trump at Tsing Hua and other top Universities."

Pretty Girl A: "It was fun to see how Tinu treated the Tseung error on simplifying force and mass for layman.  Tinu tried to show that Tseung knows nothing about physics.  Tseung wrote 6 posts to respond."

Handsome Boy B: "That should be a good lesson for us.  We have to be as perfect as possible in our final paper.  I was at that Lee-Wang-Tseung lecture.  Tseung said that he could not lift the 60 Kg weight with a 10 Kg force.  However, he could push the 60Kg weight and swung it up with the pulsing 10 kg force.  Every one accepted that statement with no challenge."

Pretty Girl B giggled: "We all knew what he really meant.  We were too polite to challenge him on such a minor detail(kg is a unit for mass, not a unit for force).  He also uses Lead for all present, past and future tense.  Some English teacher may challenge him even though we all know what he wants to say."

Pretty Girl A concluded: "Tseung will say that the Finsrud device Leads out gravitational and magnetic energy via pulse forces at the right time (resonance).  There is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  He may even suggest increasing the effective gravitational constant g by adding the Forever Yuen set up."

Handsome Boy A laughed: "Tseung will say that he will let Finsrud et al shine and go fishing.  Do not expect any experiments from him or from Lee."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on July 24, 2007, 02:06:29 AM
Phone Conversation with Wang Shum Ho

...  You should not publish any of my information any more. 

Best advice I heard so far!

Comrade Wang's advice Lead Out No More Propganda Crap from comrade Tseung!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 25, 2007, 06:03:32 AM
Phone Conversation with Sun:

Tseung: "What is the result of your latest attempt in simulating the Steorn set up?"

Sun: "I tried to use 16 magnets set at angles between 20 to 30 degrees in the rotor.  I then used 1 magnet at the stator at different angles. It did not produce a good rotational motion.  The result is worse than my present set up."

Tseung: "Are you disappointed?"

Sun: "From my experience with thousands of experments, I am not disappointed at all.  I am convinced that we are seeking resonance conditions by trial and error.  When we started work on the gravity motor, the initial rotational time was less than a minute.  I got laughed at by my wife and friends.  Now the best gravity motor can rotate for 30 minutes. When I add electrical pulses, the device now rotates forever. My friends no longer laugh at me, they are betting when I could produce a ppm toy."

Tseung:" So you have not given up?"

Sun:" I 'm a hopeless addict now."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 25, 2007, 05:05:21 PM
The Big Picture or the Long Term Vision

Richard and Nancy went to visit Tseung again.

Richard: "Mr. Tseung, we would like to ask more questions about the long term vision of the Cosmic Energy Machines and the Flying Saucer.  I think you can leave the technical development to the Engineers now.  The Lead Out theory is now very clear.  Many working prototypes are already available.  China has pumped in Billions in research and development."

Nancy: "We want you to help to paint a picture of what the World would look like  with Cosmic Energy Machines and Flying Saucers?"

Tseung smiled: "When we have Cosmic Energy Machines, we essentially have infinite energy.  With infinite energy, we essentially have infinite wealth.  Ignorance and poverty will be history.  There will be multiple model farms, model villages and model cities.  The less developed countries can learn and improve upon these models.  The pace of development will be faster than any time in human history."

Richard held the hands of Nancy.  "You hope to introduce concepts such as Mutual Credits, sure-win businesses, the planning right hand working together with the market driven left hand etc.  Money is only a number in trusted financial institutions.  Modern wealth is the quality and quantity of meaningful economic activities."

Tseung: "The Flying Saucer can be a totally self contained system - food, fuel, air etc. can be replenished with the infinite energy.  We can go to outer space with ease.  Crossing country borders will be easy.  There is no need for airports.  The Flying Saucers can Land anywhere.  Government control or restriction will be very difficult.  Individuals can be free from the present restrains or constrains of taxes, customs, resources, etc."

Nancy: "Give us time to digest it.  Let us continue this conversation at another time."

Lawrence Tseung
Cosmic Energy and Flying Saucers Lead Out a new World Order
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 12:14:50 AM
The Big Picture Continued

Richard and Nancy went to see their Professors.

Richard: "We want to discuss the New World Order  when the Cosmic Energy Machines and Flying Saucers are introduced to the World."

Professor A smiled. "It depends on who introduces the technology.  If it were from Hong Kong and China, there will be unsurpassed self-confidence.  We have all seen how fast China is progressing.  If Hong Kong and China were to lead the World on this, every Chinese will learn Physics with a new attitude.  They will re-examine every Law."

Professor B added: "USA may still want to send its professional debunkers out to discredit the Cosmic Energy and Flying Saucer technology.  The Flying Saucer technology, in particular, will wipe out all existing military supremacy.  USA may want to suppress the technology as long as possible.  They are likely to send out more CIA or the Like to discredit and disrupt the Over Unity Inventors."

Professor A signed: "If the Earth is round, there can be no cover-up in the longer term.  No Power, Money, Weapons, etc. can change that fact.  If the boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario is true, Cosmic Energy Machines are absolute certainties.   Nothing can stop the Chinese from investigating and investing in such research."

Professor C nodded: "The Chinese scientists have gone to Budapest and ordered one or more EBM machines.  The EBM machines were first funded and developed in Canada, England, USA and Hungary.   Open visits and investigation by scientists were encouraged.  Steorn of Ireland failed in their demonstration in London but that would not shake the confidence of the Chinese scientists."

Professor A: "The Chinese now have the Lee-Tseung Theory that explains the source of energy.  They also have the Wang Shum Ho Electricity Generator, the Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier, the Liang and Chao cars, the Nanjing Flying Saucer and a laboratory with teams working on all known Over Unity Devices.  They have granted dozens of PPM patents because the Inventors had working models.  No propaganda from CIA or the Like could stop them."

Professor B: "The Energy Hungry Japanese will not stand idly by.  They have the Minato Wheel.  They also have flux change only inventions.  Lee Cheung Kin spent a month with them in late 2006.  Russia has Milkovic.  Australia has Chas Campbell.  India has similar inventions.  There is no stopping now.  The Law of Conservation of Energy is no longer a roadblock."

Nancy smiled: "The Bible predicted the rise of the Dragon from the East.  We must help to make it a Peace event that will benefit the Entire World."

Lawrence Tseung
International Cosmic Energy Developers Lead Out inevitable success of the technology despite CIA or the Like disruptions.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 01:15:02 AM
The Big Picture Continued

Richard: "I do not understand.  The EBM machine is out.  Scientists and investors can see it in Budapest, Hungary.  Why is it that it is not getting the phenomenal News that it deserves?"

Professor C: "I read all their information multiple times.  I have no doubt that they do have a working device.  But they did not have a good theory to accompany their invention.  If they had used the Lee-Tseung theory together with their working prototype, the news value would be different."

Professor A: "I agree.  When an invention cannot overcome the Law of Conservation of Energy Roadblock, very few people will climb over the rock  to further investigate or invest.  EBM already achieved much."

Professor B: "If USA wants to block the information, it can put in a huge Roadblock.  Lee-Tseung is lucky to have Chinese Support and reside outside USA."

Professor C: "Tseung wants to introduce concepts such as Mutual Credits.  That will change the economic order of the World.  USA will no doubt put up even bigger roadblocks."

Nancy: "What happens if the first successful Cosmic Energy Machine comes from USA (e.g. the Pulse Motor)?"

Professor A paused: "Then the story will be different.  We shall discuss that scenario in a different session."

Lawrence Tseung
Who introduces the first Cosmic Energy Machine Leads Out different reactions from USA.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 03:46:03 AM
The Big Picture Continued

Nancy: "Let us assume the following scenario:  A Chinese Company invests in an Over Unity Development Company in USA.   The product is proven beyond doubt internationally.  Some of the proof comes from laboratories worldwide.  A good example is the Pulse Motor.  If Tseung discusses the theory and the set up more, multiple universities and laboratories can reproduce it."

Professor A: "This is a very probable example.  When the USA government knows that it cannot prevent the announcement of the Invention, it will go the opposite direction.  That means Publicity, Publicity and Publicity.  USA must claim the credit for its inventors and the profit for itself."

Professor B smiled.  "The concept of the Pulse Motor is not new.  Many expired patents already described it.  These patents were ignored because none of the inventors could overcome the Law of Conservation of Energy Roadblock."

Professor C paused. "Does that mean the Pulse Motor technology cannot be protected by patents now?  Does that mean a free-for-all competition to introduce products?"

Professor A: "Yes.  As soon as a workable Pulse Motor Prototype is demonstrated, there will be hundreds of similar devices.  Tseung claimed that the CIA or the Like showed him pictures and videos of a 225 HP Pulse Motor.  He claimed that the CIA or the Like tricked him into describing the detailed working of the Pulse Motor."

Professor B: "From the limited information disclosed, I believe if the Bedini, the Joseph Newman, the Minato devices are true, the 225 HP is also true.  I am sure many teams are working on variations of the Pulse Motor now."

Lawrence Tseung
The USA invented Pulse Motor Leads Out dozens of similar inventions.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on July 26, 2007, 04:20:00 AM
You are right,
but this is also the "commercial" problem for many companies !
When an idea is not from their own R&D department,
when a foreign idea is not exclusive or free-Tech,
nobody in a company administration will risk the idea development investment !
They are working for profits,not for humanity !

S
  dL
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 12:22:15 PM
You are right,
but this is also the "commercial" problem for many companies !
When an idea is not from their own R&D department,
when a foreign idea is not exclusive or free-Tech,
nobody in a company administration will risk the idea development investment !
They are working for profits,not for humanity !


We want to benefit the World.  The first group we target are the Over Unity Developers.  We want them to understand the Theory and thus feel more confident in their inventions.

Attached is the updated file from Forever Yuen related to Pulse Motors.

Comments are welcome
Title: Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory_Pulse Motor
Post by: Earl on July 26, 2007, 01:52:18 PM
Hi All,

I have taken the liberty to convert the M$ doc file into open PDF format.

Regards, Earl
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 26, 2007, 02:03:06 PM
Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for the pulse motor concepts.  Can we possibly receive further info?

For instance, how Lenz law is minimized or eliminated?   

Do the coils have ferromagnetic cores?

How much overunity have the builder of these setups measured? For the 225 HP motor for instance, what was the input power?

Is the magnetic shielding needed for the operation principle or it 'only' protects enviroment from rotating fields?

I think these are the questions first for me to explore further on and if you really wish to help ou developers on this Forum, you surely will receive much more questions.

Thanks and Regards

Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 09:12:05 PM
Thanks for the pulse motor concepts.  Can we possibly receive further info?

For instance, how Lenz law is minimized or eliminated?   

Part 1 - the pulsed rotation

Let me answer your question with multiple posts.  One of the key concepts that many OU developers often missed is that:
gravitational or electron motion energy can be Lead Out via Pulsed Rotations.

The rotor and stator set up was used to pulse rotate  the inner cylinder or disc. A better way has already been found by Liang and Chao of China.  Both of them use Hall Effect ICs to achieve rotation.  See Slides 10 to 13 of http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/taiwan2a.htm.

In both the Liang and Chao set up, the main energy Lead Out was gravitational energy.  Their inventions work best on downhill or level roads.  On going uphill, the available gravitational energy decreases with the angle of tilt.  At 90 degrees, the available gravitational energy becomes zero.  That is the reason for the bank of batteries in the Chao set up.  (Liang car just failed to go up steep hills.)

The Fifth generation Cosmic Energy Machines try to solve the problem by having the Hall Effect ICs in magnetic fields.  Lee-Tseung supply the theory.  The top universities in China are doing the implementation.

If you can read Chinese, you can get much more information from the Liang Patent.  (China Patent Application Number 01123526.8 ).

End of Part 1
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 10:07:47 PM
Part 2 - drawing gravitational energy

An often asked question from the Students at the top Chinese Universities is: How can you be sure that you are drawing or Leading Out gravitational energy? 

The best answer to that question is to look at the First and Second Generation Cosmic Energy Machines by Sung Tim Fat.  In the First Generation, the axle was vertical.  The rotation of the three cylinders were in the horizontal plane.  400 watts was generated.

In the Second Generation, Sung essentially tilted the axle 90 degrees.  In other words, the axle was horizontal.  20,000 watts was generated. Sung was at a loss on such a big difference.  Lee Cheung Kin gained his confidence in early 2005 via the simple explanation:

in the first generation, the device used the magnetic field of the Earth and magnified it via the three cyclinder rotations.  In the second generation, the device used also the gravitational field of the Earth.  A simple tilting experiment  with the second generation showed the decrease in power.

Details the Sung Tim Fat invention can be found in China Patent  Number 99126283.2.

End of Part 2
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 10:25:08 PM
Part 3 - achieving the desired rotational speed

The output of the pulse motors depends on the speed of rotation.  There are two alternative techniques to achieve the desired rotational speed.

(1) Use a separate starting motor to get to the desired rotational speed.  This technique was used in the Sung, Liang and Chao inventions.  The pulsed rotation control is simpler as the pulse rate does not need to change with the rotational speed.

(2) Use a varying Pulse Rate to accelerate the device to the desired rotational speed.  I believe this technique is used in the 225 HP Pulse Motor as it has a good Pulse Rate Control mechanism. 

Both of the above systems used starting batteries that could be removed after operation.  Battery power is used to power the ICs or the electromagnets.  In case (1), battery power is also used to power the starting motor.

End of Part 3

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 11:13:26 PM
Part 4 - Pulse Rate or Pulse Frequency

It is obvious from our discussion that the Pulse Rate of Pulse Frequency is extremely important.  The Pulse from the electromagnetic coils must be timed correctly to the rotational speed to achieve Pulsed Rotation.  (Same with ICs).

Thus one of the things I look at with any Pulse Motor claims is the Pulse control mechanism.  We do not need to Pulse at every possible point.  If we Pulse at every possible point, the rotational speed will keep increasing.  The result may be device burnt out, overheat or in the case of the Steorn demonstration - bearing failure.

In the 225 HP pulse motor, we can have the eight Pulse Coils all Pulsing to build up the rotational speed initially.  Then the number may be cut down to match the load.

There is need to consider the resonance frequency of the device.  We do not want the device to vibrate or shake itself to death (e.g. the bridge in 1940).

In the TPU invention, Steven Mark cautioned that the device should operate close to but not at the resonance frequency.  That is good advice.

Selecting the right frequency is often the result of experimental trial and error.  It is somewhat like tuning for a radio station.  We may miss it with slightly too low or too high frequencies.

End of Part 4
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 26, 2007, 11:19:54 PM
Part 5 - Pulse Strength

One obvious question is the strength of the Pulse.  From our pulsed pendulum calculations, the best efficiency is achieved with small but frequent pulses.

We believe this result is also applicable in the case of pulsed rotations.

The 225 HP is much bigger and heavier than the Liang 188 HP car engine.  The Pulse Strength of the Liang engine comes from ICs.

End of Part 5
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 01:12:53 AM
Part 6 - Pulse Force direction

The best direction to spin a wheel is obviously tangential. (Perpendicular to the radius).

However, we may have to consider that the magnets are subjected to varying centripetal forces.  (The magnets must be secure in position otherwise, they may fly away!)

End of Part 6
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 01:21:25 AM
Part 7 - Consideration of Pulsing and Collecting Coils

We may use the same coil for Pulsing and Collecting of electricity.  It is just a matter of putting in the right circuits.  The Bedini Motor is an example.

When the same coil is used for Pulsing and for Collecting, we can imagine that the rotational speed is increased and then decreased almost immediately.  It will be difficult to build up to a high rotating speed (unless we do not collect initially.)

We can use totally different coils for Pulsing and for Collecting.  We can optimize the effectiveness of such specialized coils.

End of Part 7
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 01:26:48 AM
Part 8 - Comparing Pulse Current and Alternating Current

With Pulse Current, the voltage is always in one direction.  The value may change from a maximum to zero.  The current will not flow in the opposite direction.

With Alternating Current, the voltage changes in direction according to frequency. Current or electron move in both directions.

Alternating Current destroys the magnetism  in permanent magnets easily.  Pulsing Current does not.

End of Part 8
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 01:34:46 AM
Part 9 - Use of magnetic shielding material

The use of the Pulse will rotate the rotor pass the 'sticky' spots.  Thus there is no need to use magnetic shielding material.

Magnetic shielding material is expensive and difficult to handle.  It will help in marginal cases.  With pulsed rotation, we can avoid such expense and complexity.

From my understanding, the 225 HP pulse motor did not use magnetic shielding.  The Sung Tim Fat and Wang Shum Ho devices used magnetic shielding.

End of Part 9
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 02:07:36 AM
Part 10 - Feedback Circuit

Once the Pulse Motors achieved feedback, they essentially generate electricity without any more input.  It would be meaningless to talk about Coefficient of Efficiency. (Output/Input power).

However, we have to worry about a different problem - energy buildup.  If the Output Load is reduced, the device must pump out less power.  There must be sufficient power to provide feedback.  Excess power must be avoided to prevent overheating the device.

Good control circuit is necessary.

End of Part 10
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 03:59:30 AM
Part 11 - how Lenz law is minimized or eliminated?

From the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory, the Pulsed Rotation alone is sufficient to Lead Out both gravitational and electron motion energy.  There is no need to introduce new concepts to explain the source of energy.  The Law of Conservation of Energy is NOT violated.

In some Pulse Motors such as the Liang and Chao devices, no coils nor permanent magnets were used.  Lenz Law was not applicable.

In the case of TPU, the pulsed electromagnets introduce electron movement along the torroid.  Using layman languages, if the Pulse Frequency is correct, the 'Pulse' travels around to add to the 'push' of the electrons.  This helps to build up the electric potential or voltage so that the TPU can generate electricity.  Note that it is Pulse Frequency and not alternating current frequency.

Thus we are not introducing new concepts such as back emf, magnetic lag, magnetic viscosity, zero point energy etc.  We believe such concepts might be useful to the inventors in their explanations.  However, we believe we can explain the working of their inventions from the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory alone.

End of Part 11
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 04:10:21 AM
Part 12 - Answers to direct questions


Do the coils have ferromagnetic cores?

How much overunity have the builder of these setups measured? For the 225 HP motor for instance, what was the input power?


From the pictures, the 225 HP motor appears to have ferromagnetic cores in the coils.  The coils are not hollow.

From the pictures, the 225 HP motor appears to have 4 car batteries used to start the rotation and power the coils.  However, these batteries will be recharged by the device and can be disconnected afterwards.

End of Part 12 - (End of reply for now.  Any more questions?)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 27, 2007, 12:40:28 PM
Dear Lawrence,

Many thanks for your lengthy comments in 12 Parts, and although most of the texts you included are also available in the link you referred to,  I do appreciate your efforts. 

Perhaps the most important question, Lentz law in the pulse motor concept you showed, is what I missing: I cannot really make out any answer on that from you.  I quote your answer from Part 11:

Part 11 - how Lenz law is minimized or eliminated?

From the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory, the Pulsed Rotation alone is sufficient to Lead Out both gravitational and electron motion energy.  There is no need to introduce new concepts to explain the source of energy.  The Law of Conservation of Energy is NOT violated.

In some Pulse Motors such as the Liang and Chao devices, no coils nor permanent magnets were used.  Lenz Law was not applicable.

The reason I say this is that you showed using coils for the pulse motors in the DOC file and whenever a coil with a load and a permanent magnet interact, Lenz law manifests. And it is here where your kind answer is missing.  I understand if you cannot include a practical solution which must have been used in case for instance the 225 HP motor from which you wrote it would self-run after the startup   but once you wrote:
We want to benefit the World.  The first group we target are the Over Unity Developers.  We want them to understand the Theory and thus feel more confident in their inventions.
Attached is the updated file from Forever Yuen related to Pulse Motors.
Comments are welcome
I think the question of Lenz law elimination is important. Or if it is NOT the elimination of the Lenz law in the output coils, for instance, in case of the 225 HP motor but something else then it is this something else which does not turn out from your kind answer. 

Maybe others see this differently, maybe I am missing something to understand how Lead Out Theory explains this, sorry. 

Thanks for the answers for my other questions.

Best Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on July 27, 2007, 04:27:28 PM

Maybe others see this differently, maybe I am missing something to understand how Lead Out Theory explains this, sorry. 


Best Regards
Gyula

You're not the only one. Judging from the dozens of posts and the lack of solid answers other than everything in life is based on LEAD OUT theory, CIA conspiracy and UFO-logy, I believe Harry Porter is real!

btw, do look at Joseph Newman's stuff which ia completely verifiable, shown to the public and 'denied' by the USPTO patent office. No conspiracy theory here and no Crap Out stuff either!

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 05:03:16 PM
Part 1 ? Lenz Law in the case of the Liang and Chao Pulse Motors.

Dear Gyula,

I believe your question is: is the Lenz?s Law applicable in the case of the Pulse Motor?  From the wikipedia website: Lenz?s Law is defined as:

For a current induced in a conductor, the current flows in such a direction that its own magnetic field opposes the change that produced it.

In my explanation, I first pointed out that in the Liang and Chao Pulse Motor, there were NO coils and NO permanent magnets.  Both these devices had Hall Effect ICs. The electric current is used to drive these programmable ICs.  The result is rotation of the inner cylinder.  I do not think that Lenz?s Law is applicable in these two devices as no voltage and no current are generated.

End of Part 1
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 05:07:49 PM
Part 2 ? Lenz Law in the case of the 225 HP Pulse Motors

In the 225 HP Pulse Motor, let us assume
(1)   The rotor permanent magnets (R1 to Rn) all have N poles facing outside. 
(2)   The rotation is in one direction ? clockwise.
(3)   An electromagnet (coil S1) will have Pulse Current making it a magnet with N pole facing inwards.  Only one coil is used in the explanation. 
(4)   Initially the N-N repulsion between S1 and R1 will cause the inner cylinder to rotate in the clockwise direction.
(5)   Because of the Pulsing Current in (3), the N pole of S1 will have varying strength. 
(6)   When R2 approaches S1, the N-N replusion should have a force moving the inner cylinder in the anti-clockwise direction.  However, the N pole of S1 is weaker at this moment.  R2 can then rotate just pass S1 because of the momentum.
(7)   N pole of S1 becomes strong because of the Pulse, the N-N replusion will cause the inner cylinder to rotate in the clockwise direction ( similar to Step 4).
(8 )   Steps 4 to 7 repeats with the Pulsing matching the rotational speed.

This Pulsed Rotation already Leads Out electron motion energy.  The total energy in the system at this point is the sum of the Pulse Energy + the Lead Out electon motion energy. Some of this energy can be collected via a collector coil. Or this energy can be collected via the central rotating axle.

The collector coil will slow down the rotation of the inner cylinder but the Pulse Current will accelerate it again.  Since the collected energy (Output) is the sum of the Pulse energy PLUS the Lead Out energy, the 225 HP is an over unity device.  However, it does NOT violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Lenz?s Law may be used but it does not explain the Lead Out energy.

Lawrence Tseung
Lack of Interactive Conversation on the Internet Leads Out frustration and repeatition of the same material.

End of Part 2 (End of reply)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 05:14:49 PM
btw, do look at Joseph Newman's stuff which is completely verifiable, shown to the public and 'denied' by the USPTO patent office. No conspiracy theory here and no Crap Out stuff either!


That is why I am working with Joseph Newman et al.  They can use the 'boat in calm water and good sunshine' scenario to overcome the objections from the USPTO patent office. 

We used that strategy successfully with the Chinese patent office.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on July 27, 2007, 06:00:30 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble Lawrence.  If the USPTO first denied Newman's patents based on 'lack of technical description' or maybe even out of  'strategic interest' , they are not likely to consider your "boat in calm water" or "good(or bad) sunshine" poetic explanation. Btw, I've seen your 'broad' claims for your patent. The USPTO will never grant claims like these! The USPTO is NOT the Chinese patent office.

Try understanding the technicalities of what is patentable and what is not and specifically the mandatory requirements of USC codes. I seriously don't think Joseph Newman (nor Steorn) need your theories to help them in their patent applications. No offence.

Another 'issue' I have with all your propaganda has to do with trying to impress the world how wonderful these very smart Chinese scientist in their ivory tower universities are doing such a great job and how much the Chinese Goverment is spending on General magnetics etc. etc. Please, spare us all these technicalities. First, clean up all these crappy factories that spill out enough sulphur to kill tens of thousands of Chinese citizens and eject enough pollutants into the air that I don't have to breathe your polluted air in California! Also, Mr. wang may be the GM of General Magnetics and I do wish him success in his UFO research, but please remember too that that is the same Goverment that executed the head of the Ministry of Food(?) for bribery? Maybe they'll go after Mr. Wang's head if that Nanjing flying saucer was not of Chinese design? Maybe it belonged to Harry Porter?

To continually extolling the greatness of the Chinese Research without truly understanding,  perhaps other research institutions and certainly the US Military may be light years ahead of their research is simply naive.

Enough of politics. This is not the forum for such discussions. People here want to experiment OU (practical) and few are interested in Leading In or Leading Out theories. Practical solutions which can be built, tested, explained and entirely reproducible.

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 27, 2007, 06:14:13 PM
Dear Lawrence,

What I meant with the Lenz law question was why the law does not hamper significantly the operation of your pulse motor (or generator) just like in a conventional electric motor or generator.

Thanks for the answers.  From your answers it turns out that Lenz law is not really valid for a setup where moving permanent magnets interact in repel mode with controlled electromagnets with ferromagnetic cores.  Basically this is the case for the 225 HP self-running motor, right?  It seems that adding strong magnet flux to pulsed electromagnet flux in repel mode is a way to overunity pulse motors. 
Regarding the collector coils they seem to suffer from Lenz law but as you said the received extra power from the repel interaction can overcome its effect.

Regards
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 27, 2007, 08:36:48 PM
Dear Lawrence,

What I meant with the Lenz law question was why the law does not hamper significantly the operation of your pulse motor (or generator) just like in a conventional electric motor or generator.

Thanks for the answers.  From your answers it turns out that Lenz law is not really valid for a setup where moving permanent magnets interact in repel mode with controlled electromagnets with ferromagnetic cores.  Basically this is the case for the 225 HP self-running motor, right?  It seems that adding strong magnet flux to pulsed electromagnet flux in repel mode is a way to overunity pulse motors. 
Regarding the collector coils they seem to suffer from Lenz law but as you said the received extra power from the repel interaction can overcome its effect.

Regards
Gyula


Right.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 28, 2007, 01:54:45 AM
Value of the ltseung888 posts

Phone call from an International Business Broker.

Broker: ?Mr. Tseung, I would like to bring an inventor and an investor to see you.  They have read your posts in the various forums.  They did a google search on ltseung888.  You surely did much work.?

Tseung: ?Why do they want to see me?  I am only a theoretician and have no Cosmic Energy Prototypes to show them.?

Broker: ?The investor heads a whole investment group.  They can invest many billion US dollars.  They already asked their technical consultants to check your posts.  The result is very positive.?

Tseung: ?I do not need money. Any money to me should go to the ?helping seedlings to innovate foundation?.  I cannot make any business decisions for the Cosmic Energy Inventors.?

Broker: ?I am also bringing an Inventor.  He has a working prototype but no theory.  He wants to pick your brains.  The Investors have seen his working prototype.  But the inventor could not provide an explanation of the source of energy.?

Tseung: ?You have read the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory many times.  Can you just apply it??

Broker: ?I am not a scientist.  The inventor really wants to see you.  He believes that you can explain the workings of his device.  He said that he was aware of the Steven Mark TPU for years but never understood its workings until he read your posts on overunity.com.  The Investors are likely to invest in his invention if he gets a positive comment from you.?

Lawrence Tseung
Posting on the Internet Leads Out unexpected visits.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on July 28, 2007, 10:36:12 AM
Dear Lawrence,

I am pleased you have had that phone call.  I wish the inventor mentioned by the broker could show up here in the open Forum before it is too late and he will be bought out and his device goes to a deep drawer.
If you could somehow speak to or send this inventor a message through the broker  with an invitation to this Forum, it would be great!

Thanks,
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on July 28, 2007, 09:27:30 PM
I have put the Discussion of the Joseph Newman motor according to the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory in:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=16#16

Comments are welcome.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on July 29, 2007, 07:42:14 AM
....
Broker: ?I am also bringing an Inventor.  He has a working prototype but no theory.  He wants to pick your brains.  The Investors have seen his working prototype.  But the inventor could not provide an explanation of the source of energy.?

Tseung: ?You have read the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory many times.  Can you just apply it??

Broker: ?I am not a scientist.  The inventor really wants to see you.  He believes that you can explain the workings of his device.  He said that he was aware of the Steven Mark TPU for years but never understood its workings until he read your posts on overunity.com.  The Investors are likely to invest in his invention if he gets a positive comment from you.?

Lawrence Tseung
Posting on the Internet Leads Out unexpected visits.


ROFLMAO! Maybe in that part of Mr. Tseung's woods, investors invest on theories and inventors don't know what they have invented! Gets stranger every posts!

Further unsubstantiated theories Lead Out more hallucinations
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 01, 2007, 04:41:59 AM
Working with Newman et al

We are now working together with Newman et al.  The initial agreement is to focus on the fact that they now have a closed system.  This closed system can be housed in a secure, public place with clear windows and webcam monitoring 24 hours a day for at least 30 days.

There is still much work on the theoretical side.  We have the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory that can be applied to almost all known Cosmic Energy Machines.  Newman et al has the gyroscopic particle theory.  We agree to have continued discussions.

An International Business Broker will bring a group of inventors and investors to Hong Kong to meet me from August 9-11, 2007. 

We hope to repeat the success of Wang Shum Ho - demonstration of a working device on January 15, 2007 and billion dollars of funding a few months later.

I have updated the TPU theory discussion to include general improvements to the Gravity Motor etc.

Lawrence Tseung
Multiple Forum posts Lead Out International Cooperation
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 01, 2007, 10:13:49 PM
Working with Newman et al

.....

An International Business Broker will bring a group of inventors and investors to Hong Kong to meet me from August 9-11, 2007. 

We hope to repeat the success of Wang Shum Ho - demonstration of a working device on January 15, 2007 and billion dollars of funding a few months later.

.....
Lawrence Tseung
Multiple Forum posts Lead Out International Cooperation

Wow! Good for you Lawrence! Congratulations! Even Tesla and Einstein with their great theoretical theory and practical implementations plus patents upon patents never got more than peanuts.

p/s:  Just make sure you're not counting Monopoly money by the billions!

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 02, 2007, 12:43:46 AM
Modern Wealth is the quality and quantity of Meaningful Economic Activities

Money is only a number in Trusted Financial Institutions.

With Infininte Energy, we can create Infinite Wealth.  Ignorance and Poverty will be History.

In the coming new order, there will be no sense talking about military might.  The destructive power of the Flying Saucer, the anti-matter bombs and Laser guns etc. means any small, dedicated group could destroy the entire human race.

The way to combat such groups is not 'hunting them down' or invading them like what USA is doing.  (I am a USA Citizen but I totally object to the policy of President Bush. I no longer believe Democracy will automatically get a Country on the right path.) The way is to remove hatred in their hearts  via Mutual Credits, Model Farms, Model Villages, Model Cities etc.

Lawrence Tseung
Modern Wealth Leads Out New Order
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on August 02, 2007, 01:01:48 AM
Do you mean a model like this  www.planetaryrenewal.org   ?
Or more like  ATLANTIS II ,for selected people ?

S
  dl
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 02, 2007, 02:15:45 AM
Do you mean a model like this  www.planetaryrenewal.org   ?
Or more like  ATLANTIS II ,for selected people ?

S
  dl

Since this topic need a much longer reply, I shall continue the discussion in http://forum.go-here.nl.

Go to the general discussion section.  You will find "Describing the New Order" thread.

Have fun.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 04, 2007, 02:26:08 AM
Open Reply to another private email:

Quote
"Hi. My name is Heriberto. I was reading about your 5KW electricity generator, and I couldn't believe it was for real. I got very interested in the "mysterious movement of water in a bowl
under a 4 legged stool?, but I haven't been able to find how is the experiment made. I even typed HKIA in the internet, but haven't found the experiment. In the summary of your invention you mention that I could do the experiment in the HKIA.Could you tell me how to make that experiment?? (sizes, materials, etc)

By the way, if you start selling your generator, let me know. I would really be interested on buying a couple of them.

Thanks

- Heriberto"

*** The Wang Shum Ho 4 legged stool experiment was first done in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era when there were practically no resources in the villages.  The equipment is as follows:
(1) A large bowl three-quarter full of water
(2) Put the bowl on a relatively smooth surface
(3) A clean 4 legged stool with the top surface that can cover the entire bowl.  Make sure you wash the legs and/or wrap with something clean.
(4) Invert this stool and put it on top of (1)
(5) Get 4 people.  Get them to put the index finger of their right hand on the tip of a leg.  They effectively form a circle with each one pressing a finger on a leg.
(6) On the slight pressing, the bowl of water and the 4 legged stool will start to turn clockwise.  The 4 persons should then walk following the rotation.
(7) The Rotation will become faster and faster.  The walk will become a run.  If the 4 persons are young and can run very fast, one of them may even 'fly up' similar to spinning up on a skating ring.
(8 ) If they use their Left Hands, the rotation will be anti-clockwise.

Make sure you are aware of the danger of running at high speed.  Do the experiment in a grass field with a piece of wood or plastic as the smooth surface.  The fast running persons are likely to fall.  Make sure that they are prepared.  (Old folks like us prefer to stop when the walk starts to become a run.  We do not want to end up in hospitals.)

Lawrence Tseung
Do the experiment Leads Out confidence in the Wang Device
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 04, 2007, 04:48:34 AM
Commenting on Describing the New Order  in  http://www.forum.go-here.nl

The virtual team assembled at the Student Lounge again.

Handsome Boy A and B were playing the chess game Go (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)) if you do not know that game.

Pretty Girl A: ?Tseung posts quite a bit of information in the forum.go-here.nl.  He was also named moderator in that forum.  He can modify or delete posts he does not like.  What do you think his new strategy should be??

Pretty Girl B giggled. ?Just like the game Go.  Tseung has an established base and he is putting pieces far out on the chessboard.  He is claiming much territory ? technical, social, economics, legal, etc.?

Pretty Girl C hit her on the shoulder.  ?You have to speak in layman?s language.  I do not know what you are talking about??

Pretty Girl B giggled more. ?Ask your boyfriend.?

Handsome Boy A: ?The established base is the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.  Successful Demonstration of any one of the known 200 Cosmic Energy Inventions will further confirm it.  The EBM machine confirmed it.  The Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier confirmed it.  The 225 HP Pulse Motor confirmed it.  The Wang Device confirmed it.  We are going to confirm it with our Pulse Motor.?

Handsome Boy B: ?Many people will say that Tseung should build on success.  He should add pieces to his established base.  In the game Go, that would be the most stupid strategy.  The right strategy is put seemingly random pieces far out.   Use these far out pieces to encircle and capture the enemy pieces.  When Lee and Tseung get their inevitable recognition (Nobel Prize etc.), reporters will read the Tseung posts.  They will ask questions ? guided by the economic, social, legal posts etc.  Tseung must be a good Go Player.?

(Tseung learned Go at Hong Kong University when he worked in the Physics Department in 1960s)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 04, 2007, 04:53:57 AM

*** The Wang SHum Ho 4 legged stool experiment was first done in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era when there were practically no resources in the villages.  The equipment is as follows:
(1) A large bowl three-quarter full of water
(2) Put the bowl on a relatively smooth surface
(3) A clean 4 legged stool with the top surface that can cover the entire bowl.  Make sure you wash the legs and/or wrap with something clean.
(4) Invert this stool and put it on top of (1)
(5) Get 4 people.  Get them to put the index finger of their right hand on the tip of a leg.  They effectively form a circle with each one pressing a finger on a leg.
(6) On the slight pressing, the bowl of water and the 4 legged stool will start to turn clockwise.  The 4 persons should then walk following the rotation.
(7) The Rotation will become faster and faster.  The walk will become a run.  If the 4 persons are young and can run very fast, one of them may even 'fly up' similar to spinning up on a skating ring.
(8) If they use their Left Hands, the rotation will be anti-clockwise.

Make sure you are aware of the danger of running at high speed.  Do the experiment in a grass field with a piece of wood or plastic as the smooth surface.  The fast running persons are likely to fall.  Make sure that they are prepared.  (Old folks like us prefer to stop when the walk starts to become a run.  We do not want to end up in hospitals.)

Lawrence Tseung
Do the experiment Leads Out confidence in the Wang Device

I think in the West, it's called the Ouija board? It's been around for centuries., way before the Cultural Revolution. Actually more than 4 can run around the board and it's effects can be spooky too!

 
cheers

chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 06, 2007, 01:05:27 AM
Wang Shum Ho did not believe the "spirit" part of the talking boards.  He believed that it was the unconscious mind of different people providing the net force.

So he derived his 4 legged stool experiment.  He found that
(1) Adding force to circular motion will increase the rate of rotation
(2) The rotational rate can be so high that one of the participants may fly up similar to a female skater lifting off the ground.

For details, see the notes portion of the file:
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 06, 2007, 02:03:07 AM
Quote from http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=28#28

Part 7 - Source of energy facts and postulates

Richard: "Let us list out the indisputable scientific facts  and the Tseung Postulates. The facts need not be disputed or discussed. Then we can focus on the postulates."

Nancy nodded in support. Here is their list of scientific facts:
(1) All objects are immersed in gravitational energy fields. We are attracted by the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and each other. When we move, there will be displacement. Work and hence energy exchange would be taking place.
(2) If we can use such gravitational energy, we do not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is brought out by the ?boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario?.
(3) In the magnetic pendulum experiment by Ms Forever Yuen, the frequency increases with magnetic attraction. The frequency decreases with magnetic repulsion. The effective gravitational constant g can thus increase or decrease. If we can draw or Lead Out gravitational energy, then we can also draw of Lead Out Electron Motion Energy (in this case, magnetic).
(4) Electron motion gives rise to magnetic, electric or electromagnetic fields. The orbiting motion gives rise to magnetic forces. The lumping together gives rise to electrostatic forces. The change of orbits gives rise to electromagnetic waves.
(5) All objects interact with one anther via the Electron Motion Energies. For example, we absorb and reflect sunlight. We radiate electromagnetic waves (infrared light and black body radiation effects). Thus we have constant interchange of Electron Motion Energy with our surroundings.
(6) Both the gravitational and electron motion energy fields are huge, non-polluting, available everywhere, including outer space.

End of Part 7
The above 6 points should be scientific facts beyond dispute.
Shall list the Tseung postulates in Part 8 - 10 days from now. This gives people a chance to digest the above scientific facts.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 06, 2007, 02:15:04 AM
Quote from http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=28#28

Part 7 - Source of energy facts and postulates
.....
End of Part 7
The above 6 points should be scientific facts beyond dispute.
Shall list the Tseung postulates in Part 8 - 10 days from now. This gives people a chance to digest the above scientific facts.

Judging from the fact your posts on this thread isn't exactly serious interest from folks on this forum, maybe it's better you don't add any more postulates? Just a suggestion. It's a lot of typing for what it's worth....

cheers
chrisC

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 06, 2007, 09:28:43 AM
Quote from http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=28#28

Part 7 - Source of energy facts and postulates


Please go to the following forum for the postulates and comments.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=86#86

In that forum, I have moderator rights.  Watch out.  I may edit or delete your posts.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 06, 2007, 04:10:29 PM
Quote from http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=28#28

Part 7 - Source of energy facts and postulates


Please go to the following forum for the postulates and comments.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=86#86

In that forum, I have moderator rights.  Watch out.  I may edit or delete your posts.
Are you really expecting anyone to go-there when you in advance acknowledge (may I say threaten?) to apply censorship on any opinion at your will? :-\
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 06, 2007, 05:54:14 PM


Please go to the following forum for the postulates and comments.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=86#86

In that forum, I have moderator rights.  Watch out.  I may edit or delete your posts.

I would seriously encourage you to migrate your postulates elsewhere. If you can't stand the heat, don't work in the kitchen.

In this forum, stuff is either real, imaginary or fake. Anything else will lead out nonsense.

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 07, 2007, 06:40:49 AM
Open Reply to another Private Email

***
I am Luke.  I have followed your posts for sometime.  Here is a quote from my Pastor:

"Who doesn't want to live a confident life?  And by confident, we don't mean prideful, arrogant, onnoxious.  True confidence comes from an underlying, stablizing assurance that God is in control."

You want to Benefit the World.  You want to remove hatred from their hearts first.  You cannot do that with logic.  You have to let God take control.....
***

Thank you, Luke.  Please post on this forum and share the wisdom - How to let God take control.

Lawrence Tseung
Christian Scientists Lead Out Peace of Mind via the Devine Powers.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 09, 2007, 01:33:47 AM
The scene is a care group meeting  at the home of a believer.

Believer A: "We want to discuss the email from ltseung888 related to Cosmic Energy Machines today.  We are scientists and engineers.  We are also Christians.  I do not see any conflict in these two roles."

Believer B: "A few of us went through his website and his hundreds of posts thoroughly.  He stated multiple times that he wanted to benefit the World.  He mentioned that he was guided by the wise Taiwan Monk to ignore personal fame, wealth and ego.  He could easily have been guided by our God."

Believer C smiled: "I want to focus on the tecnology side.  Tseung claimed that the technology would lead to the development of the Flying Saucer.  He pointed to a youtube video titled UFO in Nanjing.  His explanation of the principle of the Flying Saucer is simple and does not seem to violate any Laws of Physics.  What are your comments?"

Believer A: "His whole Lead Out theory  is simple and could have been understood and/or derived by an average secondary school student.  He did not use any relativity or quantum mechanics.  His mathematical equations are all within the framework of secondary shool physics.  If he is right, why have the scientific community not discovered it over the last few hundred years?"

Believer B: "The Swing has been around for over 5 thousand years.  People have been pushing it for fun since day one.  That is effectively a pulsed pendulum.  According to Lee-Tseung, it leads out gravitational energy."

Believer A smiled: "Apples have been falling before civilization.  It took Newton to explain it.  The Earth have been round since its existence.  It took Galileo to correct the misconception that it was flat."

Believer C: "The Forever Yuen experiment is even easier.  Use a permanent magnet as the pendulum bob.   Place another magnet below it.  Attraction increases the fequency.  Repulsion decreases it.  Tseung used that to argue that he could Lead Out Electron Motion Energy  with the magnetic pendulum.  The 13 year old Ms. Wini Woo used that to show that the effective gravitational constant g could be decreased to zero or turned negative.  That was the start of the Flying Saucer.  If Tseung et al were right, we scientists would all be turned to shame."

Believer A: "God works in mysterious ways.  Let Him take control.  Amen."

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on August 09, 2007, 11:13:16 AM

If Tseung et al were right, we scientists would all be turned to shame."


Fortunately, until the smallest evidence is provided, this is not the case. ;D

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 09, 2007, 11:26:41 AM
From http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=107#107

***
Part 11 - Experimental Prototypes

(1) Pendulum Prototypes
- Bill Mehess Pendulum
- Milkovic Second Oscillation Pendulum
- Finsrud Pendulum

(2) Pulsed Rotation Prototypes
- Joseph Newman Motor
- Bedini Motor
- 225 HP Pulse Motor
- Minato Wheel
- Liang and Chao Motor

(3) Electricity Magnifier Prototypes
- Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier
- Chas Campbell Motor

(4) Flux Change Prototypes
- Steven Mark TPU device
- Japanese Flux Change device

(5) Special Double System Prototypes
- Wang Shum Ho Electricity Generator

(6) 5th generation Prototypes
- Lee-Tseung design being implemented at Tsing Hua University etc.(Status confidential)

(7) Flying Saucer Prototypes
- The Magneto Propulsion Unit implementation shown on youtube video as Nanjing UFO (May become classified information)

Thus we have 13 to 15 demonstrated prototypes at present. Most of them can be improved. We are trying to achieve win-win scenario with the inventors at present.

End of Part 11
***

The above are the more well known Cosmic Energy Work that we are aware of.  Other surprises will come shortly as many top universities in China, Japan, etc. are working on both the Lead Out theory and the various prototypes.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on August 09, 2007, 12:10:02 PM
Hold on, please. I?ll fall off my chair laughing.

That?s what you are calling proofs?!!!
Already explained, very controversial, non-working, ad-hoc ?invented? or ?confidential? (wow!) devices and unheard names? You have to do much better than that.

In addition, the kind request of at least to correct your own elementary mistakes on http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm remained unanswered since 22 July. You really can?t do it, can you? You either don?t actually know how to do it or you desperately avoid doing it because if you do, there will be nothing else left to be put in the empty place of your ?lead-out? theory, which is actually nothing more than a continuous lead-out of endless errors and lack of knowledge in the basics of Newtonian physics?

No real theory, no basics knowledge to address a possible theory, no clear evidences, no capacity and skills to pinpoint toward an experimental setup (which, by the way, I?ll build for you, assuming you are able to conceive one ? I strongly doubt), no nothing.

But you?re already a Full member here. Keep on going. Keep up with your ?good work?. It won?t take anything more but monkey-typing before becoming a real hero member. Then who?s gonna stop you making more propaganda?! What the heck, it has to be something leading-out from sooo many pointless posts, hasn?t it?

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: bigface on August 09, 2007, 04:28:36 PM
HI itstseung, I respect your work and everything and hope that you are successful in bringing a free energy machine to the market, but don't you think that testing so many prototypes is counterproductive?  You only need to have one working machine.  Why don't you just focus on 4-5 of the most promising, this would be a much better use of time in my opinion. 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 09, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
Already explained, very controversial, non-working, ad-hoc ?invented? or ?confidential? (wow!) devices and unheard names? You have to do much better than that.

I do not think you can have a genuine discussion with Lee Tseung.  He is trying to write gospel almost, and treating this as a religion.  He is not actually trying to prove the validity of anything - he assumes everything as valid.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 09, 2007, 06:18:13 PM
Here is a thread on Steorn's forum where Lee Tseung, through a series of obviously alternate forum accounts, has a 500 post discussion with himself.  Say what you will, but the man is determined.

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821&page=1 (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821&page=1)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on August 09, 2007, 09:28:49 PM
Here is a thread on Steorn's forum where Lee Tseung, through a series of obviously alternate forum accounts, has a 500 post discussion with himself.  Say what you will, but the man is determined.

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821&page=1 (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821&page=1)

Wow! That?s deeply pathological.
I had no idea about it and now I feel really sorry, Mr. Tseung, for your health status.
Lead out the mental stress inside and take good care!

Tx, shruggedatlas!
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 09, 2007, 11:54:25 PM
HI itstseung, I respect your work and everything and hope that you are successful in bringing a free energy machine to the market, but don't you think that testing so many prototypes is counterproductive?  You only need to have one working machine.  Why don't you just focus on 4-5 of the most promising, this would be a much better use of time in my opinion. 

Dear Bigface, Tinu and Shruggedatlas,

You might have missed the purpose of my posts.  Lee and I are old and will NEVER build  a prototype ourselves. We have already given our patent rights to China and its people.  We no longer own any financial interest in the technology.

We presented our information freely at Tsing Hua University since September 2006.  We helped to promote the invention of Wang Shum Ho.  Wang is now Vice President of General Magnetic 磁普.  Presenting at Tsing Hua Univerity (one of the best in the World) was easy.  The professors and students were eager to do our suggested experiments and they designed and did their own improved versions.

The decision was to share the information with the rest of the World.  We want to benefit the World.  It was much more difficult.  What could be said in Tsing Hua University in 10 minutes required many posts that took days.  However, as I am prepared to write a book for the layman, I decided that it was worth it. (Others are encouraged to use the information from the posts to write their own books.  I do not seek copyright on the information.)

The real audience at present  are NOT the casual readers.  They are:
(1) Chinese Officials who read our information and supported Wang.  They may support others with working prototypes. 
(2) Other Cosmic Energy Developers who are eager to find an explanation for the source of energy for their inventions.  That included both Chinese Developers and Others.  Lee Cheung Kin got invited to Japan because someone in Japan read the ltseung888 posts.
(3) The Patent Examiners we had been communicating with. Even though we are no longer owners of the patents, we enjoyed the experience of vigorous intellectual exchange.  We know that they will enjoy the continued open posts.
(4) The University Professors and Students including those at Tsing Hua, Beijing, MIT, Harvard, Tokyo, Leeds, Southampton, etc.  Professor Woo, one of the retired scientists who developed the Chinese Atomic Bomb, discussed our Lee-Tseung theory at Harvard in early 2005.  We know that they read our posts.
(5) The CIA or the Like who got us to explain the theory of the 225 HP Pulse Motor which puzzled them for over 15 years.  Since they knew everything from private conferences, they could show their bosses the open ones from these posts.
(6) The News Reporters who will dig for information after any of the Cosmic Energy Inventions are validated or turned into products.  They may not read the posts now.  But they will read (study) and quote them later.  The more posts are available, the more juicy will be their stories.

You have NOT seen a working Cosmic Energy Device yet.  Lee and I took apart and photographed every component of the Wang device.  That device rotated in front of 5 Chinese Officials on January 15, 2007 (We have the videos and posted them on Multiple Forums).

The forum I shall use much more often is forum.go-here.nl.  I have moderator privilege there.  It will be much easier to organize or re-organized the information with such privileges.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 11, 2007, 10:10:41 AM
Dear Larry,

Quote:  "You have NOT seen a working Cosmic Energy Device yet.  Lee and I took apart and photographed every component of the Wang device.  That device rotated in front of 5 Chinese Officials on January 15, 2007 (We have the videos and posted them on Multiple Forums)."

This seems to acknowledge that no working machine exists to this day...why do you state elsewhere that many working overunity devices exist?  I/m confused.

Also, a google search does not reveal any video of a "Wang Shum Ho" motor.  Can you offer a link to these videos you have posted, please?  Thank you.

Humbugger
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 11, 2007, 02:28:07 PM
Dear Larry,

Quote:  "You have NOT seen a working Cosmic Energy Device yet.  Lee and I took apart and photographed every component of the Wang device.  That device rotated in front of 5 Chinese Officials on January 15, 2007 (We have the videos and posted them on Multiple Forums)."

This seems to acknowledge that no working machine exists to this day...why do you state elsewhere that many working overunity devices exist?  I/m confused.

Also, a google search does not reveal any video of a "Wang Shum Ho" motor.  Can you offer a link to these videos you have posted, please?  Thank you.

Humbugger


This seems to acknowledge that no working machine exists to this day???

How can it seem to acknowledge that no working machine exists???  The Working Prototype rotated in front of the eyes of 5 Chinese Officials on January 15, 2007!!!!

Please see the video in the Wangdev.zip file
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2675.msg39266.html#msg39266

i076_211.mjp shows rotation with the ferro-liquid in place only.
i080_211.mjp shows rotation with both ferro-liquid + permanent magnets.

Make sure you read the description (Notes portion) file first:
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm.

Understand the full background of the Wang Shum Ho Device.  Lee Cheung Kin and I took it apart and did the photographing.  Please do the suggested four-legged stool experiment.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 11, 2007, 03:07:25 PM
I do not understand what you mean when you emphatically tell someone that they "have NOT seen a working Cosmic Energy Device yet".  To me it can only mean two things:

1)  You know for certain that none exist, so no one could have seen one
or
2)  One or more exist but you have all of them totally within your control at all times and you know for certain that no one could ever see one without your knowing.

Is there a third meaning?

I watched the "videos" and had already read the "explanation" of the motor...they teach nothing, prove nothing and reveal nothing.  In hunting through your posts to find the zip file, I read Wang's bragging comments about his big 700 sqm villa and big job and his "let them wait" and "it is out of my control" (regarding when the 5kw unit will be available for sale) attitude.  He sounds like his success has really made him into what we call "a total jerk"...not someone who gives a damn about pollution and saving the world.

Let us hope he does not go the way of the poor fellow who was the chief of consumer product safety...executed so the government could save face!

So far, Mr. Tseung, I have followed every bit of information you have lead out and I know nothing more about the Wang motor/generator or your theories than when I started.  I think I am finished with the Larry Tseung story until you can show me something that makes some sense and teaches me something other than that the world is full of crazy people with huge egos and wild unsubstantiated claims.  Sorry!

Bah...Humbugger!

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 11, 2007, 10:51:45 PM
Interesting Toy ? Leads Out Gravitational Energy?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 12, 2007, 12:00:43 AM
No, it really leads out thermal energy: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgiZPGKQ_Y (http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgiZPGKQ_Y) ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 12, 2007, 12:09:40 AM
Interesting Toy ? Leads Out Gravitational Energy?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc


Never. It is not enough.  ;)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 02:21:19 AM
No, it really leads out thermal energy: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgiZPGKQ_Y (http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgiZPGKQ_Y) ;D

Looks like the inventor could not take the heat. He produced much more heat himself - burning the device.

We have worked on the simple gravity motor for sometime. See
http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

The initial setup stopped rotating after 1 minute.  A few months work improved that to 30 minutes.  If the inventors know the theory, they will realize that we are tuning for resonance. 

Tuning for resonance is always a trickly undertaking.  It is like pushing the swing, pushing it at the wrong time (wrong frequency) will not get it to swing high.  At present, we do not know a scientific method to get there.  We used trial and error.

The coupling of two mechanical systems to complement each other is better.  Examples are the Milkovic pendulum and the Wang generator.

Lawrence Tseung
Not knowing the pain of hunting for resonance Leads Out many frustrated inventors.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 12, 2007, 03:04:01 AM

Make sure you read the description (Notes portion) file first:
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm.


I read this description.  The part I found particularly comical is the example of the bowl and the upside-down stool.  Gee, when people put their right finger on it, it spins right.  With left fingers, it spins left.  Did you stop to think that it is the participants who impart the energy to the device - otherwise, why wouldn't it spin on its own?  If that device works so great, why isn't the nation of China being powered by upside down stools on top of bowls right now?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 06:04:52 AM

Make sure you read the description (Notes portion) file first:
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm.


I read this description.  The part I found particularly comical is the example of the bowl and the upside-down stool.  Gee, when people put their right finger on it, it spins right.  With left fingers, it spins left.  Did you stop to think that it is the participants who impart the energy to the device - otherwise, why wouldn't it spin on its own?  If that device works so great, why isn't the nation of China being powered by upside down stools on top of bowls right now?

I believe you laughed so hard that you might have failed to read the next part.
(1) Wang modified the bowl containing water to a dish containing ferro-liquid.
(2) When the ferro-liquid spins under an external rotating magnetic field, a vortex is formed.
(3) This vortex will spin the dish and the attached axle.  Furthermore, the vortex will hit the cover of the dish and the ferro-liquid is again randomized.
(4) The process starts from (2) again.
(5) This set up coupled with the rotating permanent magnet set up at the axle  will rotate forever.

The above was demonstrated in front of 5 Chinese Officials  on January 15, 2007.  The result was funding of RMB13 billion in June 2007. 

Be patient, you shall see the Cosmic Energy Machine products from China soon.  By the way, Professors from MIT, Harvard, etc. also saw the Wang demonstrations. 

As stated in one of my earlier posts - if you are not a top professor or not a billion dollar investor, you can still see the videos at present.  If you were one of the above, you might have seen the actual device (e.g. Bank of America).

The other group that knew all about it was the CIA or the Like.  We took them to Tsing Hua University in November 2006 mistaken them as representing the Chinese Government.  (We can be stupid too.)

Since we want to benefit the World, we do not mind disclosing what we know.  USA and Japan obviously knew about it.  We do not want the technology to be abused (like the Colonial Powers caused much suffering to the World). 

Lawrence Tseung
Enjoy your laughter - it will Lead Out Benefits to the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tagor on August 12, 2007, 08:28:42 AM
Interesting Toy ? Leads Out Gravitational Energy?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc


sorry but this thing does not exist any more
so it can not be a proof

can you replicate it ?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 09:54:19 AM
Interesting Toy ? Leads Out Gravitational Energy?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc


sorry but this thing does not exist any more
so it can not be a proof

can you replicate it ?


I was involved in the Sun et al experiments with the simple gravity motor  based on the following:

http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

Sun et al produced over 20 variations.  I have 3 in my house.  The initial wheel stopped rotating after 1 minute.  (The hammers did not hit the right spot - the rim).  We then improved via the following:

(1) Let the hammers hit the rim.
(2) Change the weight of the hammers.
(3) Vary the number and position of the hammers.
(4) Use falling steel balls inside tubes to replace the hammers.
(5) Use falling powder inside tubes to replace the hammers.

Ms. Forever Yuen helped me to increase the rotation time for one of the variations in my house to 20 minutes.  Sun et al improved it further with magnets.  With an arrangement similar to the Minato Wheel - with hand movement controlling the angle and position of the magnets, he could get the wheel to rotate forever.  (That was regarded as cheating as energy can be supplied by the hand movement.)

Sun et al then placed the wheel in the vertical position and could achieve a rotational time of 30 minutes.  (A big improvement compared with the 1 minute attempt.)  As a comparison, the wheel rotating by itself without the magnetic interaction would stop after 10-13 minutes.

We learned the very difficult task of resonance tuning.  A seemingly insignificant change could affect the result considerably.  For example, we swapped two magnets brought from the same shop.  The improvement jumped over 30%.  (At this time, we did not have equipment to check the strength of the individual magnets.)

The "wood hitting wheel" is similar in concept to the above simple gravity wheel.  It used pulsed rotation. We believe much tuning is required to get the best result.  I do not do prototypes myself.  Sun et al may do it at their spare time in their machine shop.  Sun et al are working on a primitive form of the 225 HP Pulse Motor at present.

We may have some surprises as Sun et al are planning to produce "platform toys".

Unlike many of you, I am 100% confident in my Lee-Tseung Theory.  Lee and I played with at least 4 working Cosmic Energy Machine prototypes  - by other inventors such as Wang, Ting, Liang and Chao.

Lawrence Tseung
Experience with working prototypes Leads Out supreme confidence.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 12:32:44 PM
Look at the following information related to the Chas Campbell Machine.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5520200869600922360

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ChasCampbell.htm

The Chas Campbell Machine Leads Out gravitational energy similar to the Electricity Magnifier at Tsing Hua University.  See slide 16 of
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/taiwan2a.htm

The Tsing Hua University Electrcitiy Magnifier can magnifier input 30 times via three rotating cylinder.  The Chas Campbell Machine claims to magnify input 10 times at present.  Campbell uses flywheels with weight concentrated at the rim.  He could increase the efficiency by using cylinders.

I believe members of this forum are in touch with him in Australia.  It is another application of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.  (We used it on the Tsing Hua device.)

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell device Leads Out another confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 12, 2007, 04:10:48 PM
Your ideas and inventions are very intriguing, but it is impossible
to get proper copies of your patents in English. Your patent
number 99126283.2 was not found by the Chinese web site.
Please can you provide an English version of the description
and claims, along with drawings.

I would urge you to file with the EPO as well if you want to
make the most of the system.

Paul.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 12, 2007, 06:14:57 PM
Look at the following information related to the Chas Campbell Machine.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5520200869600922360


Mr. Tseung, is there any perpetual motion machine that you are actually skeptical of?  You seem to accept any old crap posted on the Internet as the real thing.  No one will take you seriously, especially in this field, which is full of fraudsters, if you continue to do this.  Having a 500 post discussion with your alter egos on the Steorn forum does not help either.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 11:17:16 PM
Your ideas and inventions are very intriguing, but it is impossible
to get proper copies of your patents in English. Your patent
number 99126283.2 was not found by the Chinese web site.
Please can you provide an English version of the description
and claims, along with drawings.

I would urge you to file with the EPO as well if you want to
make the most of the system.

Paul.

I shall first put the official information in Chinese.  The website is:
http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-yx-new.jsp?recid=CN99126283.2&leixin=fmzl&title=磁能发电机&ipc=H02N11/00

The inventor is: 宋添发
The abstract is:

本发明提供一种利用永磁体作为能源的磁能发电机,包括主轴、换向器、机壳和定子转子组,换向器位于主轴的一端,其它部分位于主轴的另一端,机壳内设有至少两层定子转子组,每层定子转子组包括机壳内层套、隔层板、定子、转子、转子磁块和主轴定位套,定子上绕有不同用途的线圈绕组,转子固定在主轴上,其上设置多个转子磁块。若在主轴上增加输出端并改变结构设计,本装置可变成磁能发动机。

You can get professional patent translators to do the proper patent translation.  I shall only do a layman/scientist version that cannot be used in Law Courts.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 11:44:50 PM
My layman/scientist translation of China Patent 99126283.2 is as follows:

Title: Electricity Generator using Permanent Magnets

Inventor: Sung Tim Fat

Abstract:

This invention uses permanent magnets as source of energy  to power electricity generators.  The invention includes axle, direction changer or governor, shell, stator and rotor.  The direction changer or governor is on one side of the axle.  The other components are on the other side of the axle.  Inside the shell are at least two groups of rotors and stators.  Each group contains a shell layer, a magnetic shielding layer, stator, rotator, rotating magnets and axle holder.  Stator has coils with different functions.  The rotors are attached to the axle.  The rotors have many small permanent magnets. If an extraction mechanism were added on the axle, the apparatus can be turned into an electricity generator.

*** Note that this description is very general.  The same description can be applied to the Joseph Newman, the Bedini Motor, the 225 HP Pulse Generator etc.  My major objection (also that of the Chinese Patent Office) is the first sentence ?uses permanent magnets as source of energy?.  Sung could not answer the following question from the Chinese Patent Office:

If it takes x units of energy to create or replenish the permanent magnets, how can you produce more than x units of energy in your invention?

He was granted the patent because his device rotated in front of the Patent Examiners.  We have the Video.  We later used the Lee-Tseung theory to explain the working of his invention.

Lawrence Tseung
Sung Tim Fat patent Leads Out the first and generation Cosmic Energy machines.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 12, 2007, 11:55:30 PM

I would urge you to file with the EPO as well if you want to
make the most of the system.

Paul.

Lee Cheung Kin and I have given our patent rights to the Chinese Government and People.  We intent to benefit the World.

It is up to the New Owner to decide the best course of action.   

Sung can make his own decision on his patent.

Lawrence Tseung
Giving Patent Ownership to the Chinese Government Leads Out Peace of Mind.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 13, 2007, 12:50:25 AM
Hi ITseung888

It can you to post a diagram of this such one cosmic device really working ?

regards
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2007, 04:48:04 AM
Hi ITseung888

It can you to post a diagram of this such one cosmic device really working ?

regards

The scene is Richard and Nancy at the home of Tseung.

Richard: "Looks like some members of the overunity.com forum are interested in the Sung device.  I saw that 40 minute video and was convinced that the device worked.  You can use rapidshare as the attach file limit here is only 12MB."

Tseung: "That is not a problem.  I shall zip the 96 MB file.  It should be read with Windows Media Player.   Before I do that, I shall quote the warning from the Inventor and the Chinese Police.  That video was used by some unauthorized persons to solicit funds.  It MUST NOT be used for that purpose again.  It may be used for scientific discussions only."

Nancy: "Can you repeat the story of why Sung gave up the development of his inventions?  The video seemed to indicate excellent working prototypes?"

Tseung smiled: "I shall repeat the story one more time.  Note that I use the term story because I was not personally involved.  The story was that Dr. Liang Sing Yan heard about the Sung Invention and wanted to use that invention to recharge his battery car.  They worked together for a few months.

Dr. Liang then got the brilliant idea that he could rotate the inner cylinder with ICs.  He did not need to use the permanent magnets and the complex setup of the Sung invention.  He succeeded.  All the potential investors for Sung changed ship.  Sung was obviously unhappy.  However, as a scientist, he accepted the fact that his invention was not as good.  He abandoned further development on his devices.

We also have the video on the Dr. Liang Car.  That video was definitely used by criminals to solicit funds.  Some of these criminals are in jail now. 

Mr. Chao did a big improvement to overcome the hill-climbing drawback of the Liang car using banks of batteries.  That improved car traveled 1,500 kilometers to Beijing with 8 newspapers and televisions following the journey in 2006.  We have two videos.  One of them was done by the Chinese Official Television Station CCTV.

I shall post these videos when appropriate.  Here is the first one.  It will be available for 90 days.  The download time is approximately 1 hour.  The link is:
http://rapidshare.com/files/48650021/Sung.ZIP.html

Lawrence Tseung
The third generation Cosmic Energy Machines Lead Out abandonment of the first and second generation.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2007, 05:03:31 AM
Some previous comments on the Sung Video:

(1)   It is in Chinese.  Can you translate it for us?
Try to get a friend who can speak Chinese.  If a beer cannot do it, try wine and dine.

(2)   It is too long.  Can you edit it to about 2 minutes?
I do not have the video editing tools and I do not know how to edit video.  Some also demanded an unedited video to reduce possibility of fake.

(3)   Can you summarize the video in a couple of sentences?
The first generation used a 3-cylinder setup with axle vertical.  It generated 400 watts ? enough to light a bulb, power a fan and an electric drill.  The machine needed initial power to start but the power can be unplugged after starting.  The second generation with more electronics has the axle horizontal.  It generated 20,000 watts (but very unstable with burning of electronics and coils frequently.)

(4)   Can I believe all the comments in the video?
Ignore all theoretical comments on the source of energy.  Sung was wrong in saying that the energy came from the permanent magnets.  He now believes in the Lee-Tseung theory.  Sung-Lee-Tseung are co-inventors of another flux only invention.

(5)   Should I invest in the Sung devices?
Wait until you have seen the Dr. Liang and Chao videos.  The best way is to visit Tsing Hua University or General Magnetic 磁普and see the many working prototypes first.  The Chinese Cosmic Energy Developers with working prototypes are now highly valued in China.  The well-known ones have much funding support.

Lawrence Tseung
Working Prototypes Lead Out Funding
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2007, 02:50:14 PM
Quote from:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=143#143

Part 13 - Further comments on the Sung Video

Professor A: "Let me try to get the best scientific picture. The video started with pictures of the First Generation that had three cylinders mounted with the axle vertical. The first cylinder generated enough energy to feed the second cylinder. The second cylinder generated enough energy to feed the third cylinder. The third cylinder generated 400 watts."

......

Professor B: "It means China dropped two generations of working Cosmic Energy Prototypes. This is similar to Microsoft not selling Windows Versions 1 and 2 to the World. Is that a good strategy?"

.....

Please put your comments in the forum.go-here.nl.

Thank you.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on August 13, 2007, 03:58:37 PM

I shall post these videos when appropriate.  Here is the first one.  It will be available for 90 days.  The download time is approximately 1 hour.  The link is:
http://rapidshare.com/files/48650021/Sung.ZIP.html

Lawrence,

Please tell me which software do you use for watching the above video???

I downloaded and unzipped your file. I found the SungAVSEQ02.DAT file (99MB) when unzipped.  Windows Media Player cannot handle it.  In fact files with .dat extension are not known as video files but data files if I know correctly.  I may be wrong.

Thanks
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 13, 2007, 04:30:17 PM
Those kind of DAT files come from either VideoCDs or SuperVideoCDs.
That media is encoded in MPEG, so you might do well by renaming the file extension to .mpeg or .mpg and opening it with your favourite video player. In fact, that's what I did an am watching it right now.

Cheers.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on August 13, 2007, 05:03:19 PM
Those kind of DAT files come from either VideoCDs or SuperVideoCDs.
That media is encoded in MPEG, so you might do well by renaming the file extension to .mpeg or .mpg and opening it with your favourite video player. In fact, that's what I did an am watching it right now.

Cheers.

Hi Iosh,

Many thanks, will do it.
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 13, 2007, 07:32:47 PM
My layman/scientist translation of China Patent 99126283.2 is as follows:
Title: Electricity Generator using Permanent Magnets
Inventor: Sung Tim Fat
Abstract:
This invention uses permanent magnets as source of energy  to power electricity generators.  The invention includes axle, direction changer or governor, shell, stator and rotor.  The direction changer or governor is on one side of the axle.  The other components are on the other side of the axle.  Inside the shell are at least two groups of rotors and stators.  Each group contains a shell layer, a magnetic shielding layer, stator, rotator, rotating magnets and axle holder.  Stator has coils with different functions.  The rotors are attached to the axle.  The rotors have many small permanent magnets. If an extraction mechanism were added on the axle, the apparatus can be turned into an electricity generator.

*** Note that this description is very general......
Yes, it is. It says nothing.

To be of value to the patentee, a patent must reveal the technology to be patented. That is the deal. Disclose to the world in return for a 20 year period of protection.

Unless the patent discloses, it will be of no value to the patentee. It will not hold up in court.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 13, 2007, 11:19:50 PM
Hi ltseung888

Very good. Nice!

When it will be available for all?

Regards.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2007, 01:04:39 AM
Hi ltseung888

Very good. Nice!

When it will be available for all?

Regards.

Please go to the thread - the New Order  - in http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13&start=0

The goal is to remove the hatred in the World as much as possible before product introduction.

A dedicated group with hatred in their hearts could destroy the entire World  when they were equiped with the self-sustainng Flying Saucer, Anti-Matter Bomb, Laser Gun and Infinite Energy etc.

I am in no hurry.  Furthermore, I have no say  in the decision of the Inventors, Companies or Governments.  My guess is that General Magnetic of China plans to go IPO in 2008.  The chance of seeing a multiple number of working prototypes together is excellent before the IPO.

Lawrence Tseung
Glad to find someone accepting the evidence.  Hope that Leads Out Benefits to the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2007, 01:16:27 AM

To be of value to the patentee, a patent must reveal the technology to be patented. That is the deal. Disclose to the world in return for a 20 year period of protection.

Unless the patent discloses, it will be of no value to the patentee. It will not hold up in court.

The patent allowed the inventor to have comfort in disclosing  his invention.  In the case of Wang Shum Ho, he had the patent and prototype (and we helped to provide the theory and the connection to Tsing Hua University). 

The result was financial security and resources  to direct his research.

Lee and I gave our patent rights to the Chinese Government and People so that we do not have to fight the inevitable court battles.

Lawrence Tseung
Giving Patents Rights to Chinese Government and People Leads Out Peace of Mind.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2007, 01:25:10 AM
Those kind of DAT files come from either VideoCDs or SuperVideoCDs.
That media is encoded in MPEG, so you might do well by renaming the file extension to .mpeg or .mpg and opening it with your favourite video player. In fact, that's what I did an am watching it right now.

Cheers.

Dear Iosh,

Thank you for your excellent hint.

I shall rename the other video files to .mpg before uploading.

Regards,

Lawrence
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 14, 2007, 01:41:31 AM
You are both welcome, Gyulasun and Lawrence.

Quote from: ltseung888
The goal is to remove the hatred in the World as much as possible before product introduction.
Well, that is simply not possible. There are political, economic and religious interests in that mix, and those are not going away anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 14, 2007, 02:06:52 AM
ltseung888

Well, I have 3 devices working, running free. But, No is  moment for public exhibition.

I Desire success for you.

Regards
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2007, 06:09:09 AM
Quote from:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=149#149

Official Certification of the Chao Car in China

This morning (April 18, 2006) a 47 seat luxury bus and two electric cars left the Chao factory  and traveled 1,470 kilometers to Beijing. The convoy arrived Beijing in five days to be examined and certified by the China National Car Inspection Center.

.....

Here is the 98MB CCTV-10  video.
http://rapidshare.com/files/48853975/chao.mpg.html

.....
(5) It was a business decision  not to fully recharge the batteries so that a production license could be obtained quickly. That decision was correct as the production license was granted 4 months later in August 2006.

Lawrence Tseung
Official Certification of the Chao Car Leads Out absolute certainty of the Cosmic Energy technology.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 14, 2007, 09:19:28 PM
"This morning (April 18, 2006) a 47 seat luxury bus and two electric cars left the Chao factory and traveled 1,470 kilometers to Beijing. The convoy arrived Beijing in five days to be examined and certified by the China National Car Inspection Center."


Down hill all the way, no doubt!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 15, 2007, 12:29:58 AM
Quote from:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=149#149

Official Certification of the Chao Car in China

This morning (April 18, 2006)


This is from over a year ago.  Any updates?  I did a google search for Chao Car - got nothing.

Second, how does any of this show over-unity anything?  The cars ran from charged batteries.  In one instance, an additional huge battery had to be installed underneath a car.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 12:58:35 AM
Quote from:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=149#149

Official Certification of the Chao Car in China

This morning (April 18, 2006)


This is from over a year ago.  Any updates?  I did a google search for Chao Car - got nothing.

Second, how does any of this show over-unity anything?  The cars ran from charged batteries.  In one instance, an additional huge battery had to be installed underneath a car.

If you know Chinese and use Google Search on 曹青山. you get the following:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,850 for 曹青山. (0.27 seconds) 

保康農民曹青山21年研發純電動車今驅車進京- 簡 - [ 轉為繁體網頁 - Translate this page ]今晨,由湖北曹青山科技有限公司研發的一台47座純電動豪華大巴和兩台純電動轎車駛離保康,一路向北,將途經河南、河北兩省,行程1470公里,5天后抵達北京,接受國家 ...
www.hb.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2006-04/18/content_6769517.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

The last update I got from Lee Cheung Kin and a business person from that town was - they had huge investment.  They started many improvements and projects.  The business person even claimed that they had Flying Saucers.

The plan was to present the Car and an electricity generator as proper Cosmic Energy Machines with the Lee-Tseung theory when ready.

They owned a small hotel and used their prototype cars to drive their VIP vistors around.

Try to get a Chinese friend to interpete the 3,850 Google search results.

Do not make the mistake  that all worthwhile information must be in English.

Lawrence Tseung
Working Prototypes and Proper Publicity (CCTV) Lead Out huge investment.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 01:07:13 AM
"This morning (April 18, 2006) a 47 seat luxury bus and two electric cars left the Chao factory and traveled 1,470 kilometers to Beijing. The convoy arrived Beijing in five days to be examined and certified by the China National Car Inspection Center."


Down hill all the way, no doubt!


You can try that.  And then drove the bus and the cars from Beijing back to the Factory.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 02:11:17 AM
The Dr. Liang IC powered car patent information in Chinese.

Title: 宇宙引力能加速电动机车辆

China Patent Number: 01123526.8

Inventor: 梁星人

Abstract:

宇宙引力能永动机车辆,在一个不锈钢的圆筒内,两边分别安装智能芯片和智能集成电路片,不锈钢圆筒中间有轴,轴外接负载,不锈钢筒通过导线外接启动器,不用任何燃料而启动该宇宙引力能永动机外接的负载即可转动,产生的动力能供各种车辆使用。因宇宙引力能永远存在宇宙中,能源是免费的,能量不间断,具洁净安全、所以做出的设备体积小、重量轻、便宜、无污染,而且已经用于轿车、中巴车实践,装置一直在运行中。
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 02:15:21 AM
My English translation of the Liang Patent 01123526.8

Title: Cosmic Energy Powered Electric Car

Inventor: Liang Sing Yan

Abstract:

The invention covers an engine using Cosmic Energy (gravitational attraction).  The engine uses steel cylinder with ICs and electronic components for control.  There is an axle in the center of the Cylinder.  Load is attached to the axle.  A battery and a starting motor are first used to rotate the Cylinder.  This perpetual motion machine  engine uses gravitational energy and does not require any fuel.  The torque from the axle can drive all type of vehicles.  Gravitational energy exists in the Universe and is free, continuous, pollution free.  The engine has small size, light-weight, low cost and pollution free.  It has already been installed on cars and buses and can be demonstrated immediately.

*** Please read section 4.3 from the attached updated file
TPU theory1-8.

Lawrence Tseung
Using ICs to rotate Cylinders Lead Out the use of minimal energy.
Title: additional information on the 225 HP Pulse Motor
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 09:13:33 AM
Refer to the additional information on the 225 HP Pulse Motor

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=156#156

.....

Richard: "The 225 HP Pulse Motor has the elements of permanent magnets rotating in pulsed magnetic fields. It can be regarded as a superset of the Newman, Bedini and other similar motors. That is why you are so confident in supporting the various International Over Unity Inventors."

Forever: "If the rotors are on the outside similar to the John Searl SEG, the Flying Saucer effect  will be more obvious. The entire picture of Over Unity Devices is clear to me now."

.....

The extra 225 HP Pulse Motor information is in:
http://rapidshare.com/files/49067928/Pulse225HP.ppt.html

Lawrence Tseung
USA already has the working 225 HP Pulse Motor. It Leads Out friendly competition.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 15, 2007, 04:44:26 PM
The Dr. Liang IC powered car patent information in Chinese.

Title: 宇宙引力能加速电动机车辆

China Patent Number: 01123526.8

Inventor: 梁星人

Abstract:

宇宙引力能永动机车辆,在一个不锈钢的圆筒内,两边分别安装智能芯片和智能集成电路片,不锈钢圆筒中间有轴,轴外接负载,不锈钢筒通过导线外接启动器,不用任何燃料而启动该宇宙引力能永动机外接的负载即可转动,产生的动力能供各种车辆使用。因宇宙引力能永远存在宇宙中,能源是免费的,能量不间断,具洁净安全、所以做出的设备体积小、重量轻、便宜、无污染,而且已经用于轿车、中巴车实践,装置一直在运行中。

Google Translator gives us:

Cosmic gravitational vehicles can be perpetual motion machine, a stainless-steel cylinder, were installed on both sides of the smart chips and smart chips, a stainless steel cylinder intermediate shaft, the shaft external load, stainless steel tube through an external wire starter, do not have any fuel to activate the cosmic gravitational perpetual motion machine external load can rotation, the motivation for a variety of vehicles. Because of the universe will exist forever gravitational universe, energy is free, uninterrupted energy, with clean, safe, make the equipment small size, light weight, cheap, non-polluting, but also has been used for cars, bus practice, has been installed in the operation.

Mr Tseung:
This is not disclosing. Nothing is revealed. I believe that you and your colleagues may not understand the nature and purpose of the patent system.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 15, 2007, 05:24:13 PM

*** Please read section 4.3 from the attached updated file
TPU theory1-8.

Lawrence Tseung
Using ICs to rotate Cylinders Lead Out the use of minimal energy.


Mr. Tseung, I have read the document you attach and I am beginning to suspect that you do not really have and never had anything that worked.  The reason I say this is because of the youtube videos referenced in your attached document.  These videos look like the work of someone who is trying to mislead the viewer. 

I am referring specifically to the Minato wheel simulations.  You never show the device starting on its own.  I can only assume someone has to give it a push.  Furthermore, in each video, it is clear that each wheel is slowly coming to a halt, though of course you stop the video before that happens.

In other videos, THERE ARE WIRES GOING TO THE DEVICES.  Gee, I wonder where the power is coming from.

Until you can show us clearly any evidence of overunity, I am going to assume you and your lead out theory are just bunk.  And please, no Good Sunshine, Calm Water, Pretty Girl A, Handsome Boy B, Fat Girl D nonsense.  Time to get the lead out.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2007, 10:05:22 PM
Google Translator gives us:

Cosmic gravitational vehicles can be perpetual motion machine, a stainless-steel cylinder, .....

Mr Tseung:
This is not disclosing. Nothing is revealed. I believe that you and your colleagues may not understand the nature and purpose of the patent system.


My US Patent attorney told me "Patent documents are specialized documents.  Try to save money using a translator package will land you in trouble."  His charge is USD$2,000 per hour.

In particular, the abstract is not supposed to contain the technical details.  In Patent Legal Battles, the claims are the vital parts.  The description and diagrams must support the claims.

Thus I read the Liang Patent and extracted the information myself.  See
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg44359.html#msg44359.

The key concept is section 4.3 of that attached document.

Lee Cheung Kin and I gave our patent rights to the Chinese Government and People.  We intend to benefit the World.  We are old and do not want to spend our golden year in Patent Law Courts.

I shall repost some of the juicy discussions on Cosmic Energy Patents later.

Lawrence Tseung
Patent Documents Lead Out juicy fees for the Patent Attorneys.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 16, 2007, 01:10:31 AM
"Using ICs to rotate Cylinders Lead Out the use of minimal energy."

I think I read in one of your posts that one inventor was using electro-magnets to turn his rotors and another inventor prevailed by using IC's instead of electromagnets.  Do you mean integrated circuits?  ICs?  The only magnetic IC's I know about are Hall effect devices and they are exclusively sensor ICs.  What kind of ICs could replace magnets in a motor for providing torque? 

You are certainly a man of many extravagent claims, lofty philosophies and verbose writing.  When will anything you say make any sense, though?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 16, 2007, 01:44:12 AM
I think that by ICs he means Intelligent Chips, according to the .doc file he posted earlier.
I don't know what kind of devices are those though. Help, someone? ???
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2007, 01:56:55 AM
I think that by ICs he means Intelligent Chips, according to the .doc file he posted earlier.
I don't know what kind of devices are those though. Help, someone? ???

These Intelligent Chips can be programmed to show the effect of North Pole, South Pole or No Pole.  They are usually grouped together with the Hall Effect ICs.

In the Liang China Patent, he quoted China IC 3001 and IC 3008 as examples.  He used seven hundred of each of these if I remember the numbers correctly from his meeting.

I do not know whether there is an equivalent outside China.

Lawrence Tseung
Studying the details of the Published Patents Lead Out confidence in the invention.  Meeting the inventor in person is even better.  Driving the actual car is best.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2007, 02:59:37 AM
More information on the use of ICs to pulse rotate  the Cylinder.

(1) The Intelligent Chips (ICs) can be programmed to exhibit property of magnetic North Pole, South Pole or No Poles.

(2) One set of ICs is on the rotating cylinder.  Another set is on the non-rotating cylinder. Their interaction pulse rotates the cylinder.

(3) The Rotating Cylinder will be driven to a certain designed speed by a separate starter motor.

(4) We are absolutely certain that gravitational energy is Lead Out because the engine works best on level road or surface.

(5) Tilling the axle from the horizontal to the vertical will reduce the power output.  When the axle is at the vertical position, the output power is close to zero.

(6) The amount of power generated depends on the following factors:
      - speed of rotation
      - the pulse rate (programable)
      - the number of ICs (several hundred used)
      - Diameter and weight of the Cylinder

(7) There is a sensor to detect the external load and adjust the program accordingly. (Some ICs can be programmed to No Pole)

(8) The Published Data from Liang is that a 28Kg engine could generate 188 Horse Power.  (See picture in section 4.3 of the previous mentioned TPU theory1-8.doc)

(9) In the Liang demonstration, once the engine started, the battery was disconnected.  The engine kept on running.

(10) Lee Cheung Kin, who spent a week working with Chao, was convinced that the Chao engine is similar to the Liang engine in principle.  The Chao factory and the Liang laboratory are in the same small town.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on August 16, 2007, 03:25:17 AM
Are these IC in reality MIC, magnetic -integrated- transistors,
with Bloch/Weiss  domain/wall controle ?

S
  dL
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 16, 2007, 03:37:26 AM
hmmmm!!!

brushless motor ? Ics Controller...

sounds nice
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 16, 2007, 04:08:06 AM
I think that by ICs he means Intelligent Chips, according to the .doc file he posted earlier.
I don't know what kind of devices are those though. Help, someone? ???

These Intelligent Chips can be programmed to show the effect of North Pole, South Pole or No Pole.  They are usually grouped together with the Hall Effect ICs.

In the Liang China Patent, he quoted China IC 3001 and IC 3008 as examples.  He used seven hundred of each of these if I remember the numbers correctly from his meeting.

I do not know whether there is an equivalent outside China.

Lawrence Tseung
Studying the details of the Published Patents Lead Out confidence in the invention.  Meeting the inventor in person is even better.  Driving the actual car is best.

Please post a link to a data sheet or tell us the manufacturer of these Chinese ICs.  I don't believe they exist.

Also, am I understanding that 700 of these ICs were sufficient to power an automobile?
Without using any electromagnets or other motors whatsoever...just these ICs?

Thank you
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 16, 2007, 04:23:56 AM
hmmmm!!!

brushless motor ? Ics Controller...

sounds nice

Do you just automatically believe in everything, Brnbrade?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 16, 2007, 05:47:26 AM
Google Translator gives us:

Cosmic gravitational vehicles can be perpetual motion machine, a stainless-steel cylinder, .....

Mr Tseung:
This is not disclosing. Nothing is revealed. I believe that you and your colleagues may not understand the nature and purpose of the patent system.


My US Patent attorney told me "Patent documents are specialized documents.  Try to save money using a translator package will land you in trouble."  His charge is USD$2,000 per hour.

In particular, the abstract is not supposed to contain the technical details.  In Patent Legal Battles, the claims are the vital parts.  The description and diagrams must support the claims.

Thus I read the Liang Patent and extracted the information myself.  See
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg44359.html#msg44359.

The key concept is section 4.3 of that attached document.

Lee Cheung Kin and I gave our patent rights to the Chinese Government and People.  We intend to benefit the World.  We are old and do not want to spend our golden year in Patent Law Courts.

I shall repost some of the juicy discussions on Cosmic Energy Patents later.

Lawrence Tseung
Patent Documents Lead Out juicy fees for the Patent Attorneys.

Not understanding the principles of the U.S Patent Office is one thing, wildly quoting a $US 2000 per hr as an excuse not to do things right shows how little you really know about patents. Regarding your giving the rights of your patent/s to the Chinese Goverment etc, it's not exactly like Tesla patents and seriously with the wishy washy claims in your supposedly quality patents, I don't think too many Goverments or individuals would lose sleep over the rights to these so called patents!

Maybe at your 'old' age you should stop writing poetry and spend more time with your grandchildren instead of coughing out nonsense in this forum.

Sincerely
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2007, 11:15:25 AM
Refer to Describing the New Order thread in:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Describing the New Order - Insult Training  

Professor A: "Joseph Newman got much insult in USA. Dr. Liang Sing Yan received something similar in China. Tseung also received insults on the Internet. Comparing the three, Tseung got off lightly."

Professor B: "When one wants to change the Order of the World, there are established Interests who feel threatened. They or their supporters will react to defend such interests. Insult is a very mild form. In the earlier centuries, such acts may be treated as witchcraft or treason. In China, the emperors may behead you, your family and your relatives. Some even beheaded the pupils of the offenders."

Professor C: "In Roman Empire times, you might be crucified. Jesus Christ was a good example. He preached Peace but the authorities feared his influence on the masses. Lee and Tseung preached their Lead Out theory and their Flying Saucers. That would create a New Order. They are lucky to be alive."

Professor A: "Looks like all Over Unity Developers are advised to take a course in how to take and endure insults. They must not lose heart. There are professional debunkers out there. The CIA or the Like fooling Tseung is a solid example."

Lawrence Tseung
Developing Cosmic Energy Leads Out insults.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 16, 2007, 03:47:59 PM
Dear Mr. Tseung,

Forget the insults. They do not matter; like water off a duck's back.

The real problem for us is that the Chinese patent system is very
difficult to deal with. The patent number you quoted was not recognised.
I am sure it exists; I cannot find anything from that web site.

If you want to help us replicate, then we need the claims in English,
along with the rest of the document and the drawings. That would
be very helpful.
Paul.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2007, 09:56:28 PM
Dear Mr. Tseung,

Forget the insults. They do not matter; like water off a duck's back.

The real problem for us is that the Chinese patent system is very
difficult to deal with. The patent number you quoted was not recognised.
I am sure it exists; I cannot find anything from that web site.

If you want to help us replicate, then we need the claims in English,
along with the rest of the document and the drawings. That would
be very helpful.
Paul.

Dear Paul,

I believe there is strong interest in understanding and possibly replicating the Intelligent Chip (IC) pulse rotate technology  or the Dr. Liang invention.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg44359.html#msg44359

You used Google to translate the abstract and the result was far from satisfactory.  The professional cost estimate on properly translating that particular patent from Chinese into English was US$20,000.  The wording of the Claims must be exact as the legal challenge will be related to those Claims.  The description and diagrams are to justify the claims.

Please note that the Dr. Liang patent rights belongs to Dr. Liang.  My interest is:

(1) Apply the Lee-Tseung theory to help him remove the roadblock  of "where does the energy come from?".

(2) Suggest improvement on his invention.  We suggested the 5th generation - being researched at Tsing Hua University in Beijing, China (and many other top-secret locations?).

(3) Help to promote him similar to promoting Mr. Wang Shum Ho.  We ran into some difficulties in this aspect.  Wang was willing to share his information with us and agreed to our presenting them on the Internet.  Dr. Liang wanted to keep his information confidential.  The only information allowed on the Internet are the published Patent Information.

Since I do not have USD20,000 to spend on a proper translation of that patent, I shall pass that task to the Forum Members (hoping one of them is a patent attorney skilled in such translations.)

However, I do not mind doing a scientist/layman's interpretation of the patent.  Please do NOT treat that layman translation as the correct legal wording document.  It is for information purposes.  We want to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Translation of Patent Leads Out Cry for Help from Professionals
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2007, 04:09:26 AM
Additional information on the Liang Patent (Part 1)

China Patent Database website:
http://211.157.104.66/sipo/zljs/default.htm

Number:  01123526.8

Application/priority Date: 2001.07.30

Inventor: Liang Sing Yan 梁星人

Number of Pages: 7

Claim (Layman Interpretation)
A car (engine) using Attraction Forces of the Universe (gravitational energy), the characteristics are:
(1)   On the two sides of a steel cylinder are intelligent chips and integrated circuits (to control and pulse rotate the cylinder)
(2)   The center of the cylinder has an axle
(3)   The axle is attached to (drive) an external load
(4)   There is a starting motor (which can be removed after rotational speed achieved)
(5)   The number intelligent chips and integrated circuits can be varied. (programmed to take part in the pulse rotation)

*** DO NOT use the above translation as LEGAL document.  The parts in (?) were added by me to clarify the translation.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2007, 09:33:43 AM
Building the Core Team to understand and/or replicate the Liang Engine

Brainstorm result between Forever Yuen and Lawrence Tseung:

(1)   Need Intelligent Chip and Integrated Circuit experts to select and program. They will be the technical brain at this stage.  Without these experts, the project cannot be started.
(2)   Need patent experts (preferably patent attorneys) to correctly interpret the China Patent information.  Apparently, Dr. Liang did not apply for Patents outside China.  We need to understand the legal and moral implications.
(3)   Need good Public Relationship (PR) persons to feed information to this Forum and others on the Internet.  We expect insults, insults and insults.  Some insults may come from professional debunkers.  (Tseung plans to use this forum and http://forum.go-here.nl where he has moderator privileges.)
(4)   The initial funding is likely to come from the pockets of the Volunteers and/or strong supporters.  We do not want to be accused as fraud at this stage.  We need to select a good location for the brains mentioned in (1).
(5)   Need manufacturing facilities to produce the Cylinders and Axle.  One is the Rotating Cylinder with one set of ICs and connected to the Axle.  The other is the non-rotating Cylinder to contain the other set of ICs.  The closer the cylinders, the stronger will be the magnetic forces.
(6)   Need starting motor to get the inner Cylinder to the designed speed.
(7)   Need test equipment to check input power, output power and/or torque.
(8)   Need sensing equipment to determine external load and adjust the Input Power (e.g. vary number of ICs involved in pulse rotation) accordingly.
(9)   May have a battery always connected and recharged by output similar to the battery in a car.  The battery will drive the ICs.  (or the battery can be removed to convince the skeptics after starting.)
(10)   May have a constantly running engine to provide electricity. This is effectively a Cosmic Energy Powered Electricity Generator.  Once started, the starting motor can be removed forever.  A few light bulbs may be lighted up to continuously draw some energy to avoid zero external load.
(11)   Need a way to tilt the axle to demonstrate the reduced output power when axle vertical.  This is a very convincing argument that Gravitational Energy is Lead Out.
(12)   The more we talk, the more it appears a University Environment is best.  Or we should get someone with University Connections in the Forum to help.  More than one team is acceptable.

We should ask for Qualified Volunteers from the Forum and ensure that we have the Team to lead the project before starting.  A few qualified experts can guide us better than hundreds of posts from unknown sources. (Most casual participants are likely to wait for the Liang or Chao Car/Generator to hit the Market.)

Please indicate your interest on this thread.  Or if you prefer, email forevermango_118@hotmail.com with your area of expertise and/or qualifications if you wish to participate.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on August 17, 2007, 03:34:20 PM
.....
The real problem for us is that the Chinese patent system is very
difficult to deal with. The patent number you quoted was not recognised.
I am sure it exists; I cannot find anything from that web site.

If you want to help us replicate, then we need the claims in English,
along with the rest of the document and the drawings. That would
be very helpful.
Paul.

Hi Paul,

While I do agree with you wrt what you wrote above, those Chinese patents that are AVAILABLE via the internet at EPO do NOT always include drawings or in other cases claims or even descriptions.  Let me show you an example of that of Lawrence: he wrote the Number as 01123526.6 in his last but one mail, where he also gave the link to the Chinese Patent database and wrote the inventor was Liang Sing Yan.

First, here is a link that takes you to the English language user intro page of the same Chinese Patent database Lawrence gave: http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/
(You can also reach this if you use the link by Lawrence and click on 'English' icon at the upper right side corner.)
Second, copy and paste the Number 01123526.6  BUT OMIT decimal .6  so that you search for 01123526 only! ALSO, choose Application Number from the choices under it.
Third, by entering these two and click Go, you receive a new page with 1 result:
ID  App. No.   Title
1  01123526   Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle   

and you can click on the title to see some data and the patent Abstract in English:

Title: Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle
 Application Number:  01123526  Application Date:  2001.07.30
 Publication Number:  1400384  Publication Date:  2003.03.05
 Approval Pub. Date:    Granted Pub. Date:   
 International Classifi-cation:   F03G7/00
 Applicant(s) Name:  Liang Xingren
 Address:  450052
 Inventor(s) Name:   
 Attorney & Agent:   
Abstract
     In a stainless steel cylinder the intelligent chip and intelligent integrated circuit chip and respectively mounted on its two sides, the centre of the stainless steel cylinder is equipped with a shaft connected with external load, said stainless steel cylinder is connected with external load by means of wire, so that said load which does not use any fuel and can start said cosmic gravitational force energy perpetual motion machine can be rotated. Said invention is applicable to various vehicles, and its volume is small, weight is light and it has no pollution.  

Now the important thing is you can see the Publication Number:1400384 and if you place CN as a start: CN1400384 you have got the patent number known by EPO! And if you search this CN1400384 at EPO patent number search you will find it but no any description, claims or drawings except the the same Abstract text, that is all!

Notice that the Applicant Name is Liang Xingren AS known by EPO!  Lawrence knows this as Liang Sing Yan. (Maybe Xing= Sing?)
If you search for the name Liang Xingren at EPO you end up with some 14 very interesting patent titles but no any drawings, in some cases even no description in Chinese either!
For instance I would rather read his thoughts and solutions on this patent: Gravitational energy generator  (Application Number: 200510132560   Publication Number:1841912 i.e. CN1841912)   
It is possible the Chinese Patent Office did not issue the full patent outside of China??

Regards
Gyula




Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 17, 2007, 04:12:55 PM
" In a stainless steel cylinder the intelligent chip and intelligent integrated circuit chip and respectively mounted on its two sides, the centre of the stainless steel cylinder is equipped with a shaft connected with external load, said stainless steel cylinder is connected with external load by means of wire, so that said load which does not use any fuel and can start said cosmic gravitational force energy perpetual motion machine can be rotated. Said invention is applicable to various vehicles, and its volume is small, weight is light and it has no pollution. "

This is the very kind of total nonsense that seems to appear at the end of every referenced wild-goose-chase Mr. Tseung leads us out into.  Has the world gone berserk?  Is there no bastion of sanity left?  Does the above statement describe anything to anyone in any useful way?  Does it promote understanding of a new technology?  Am I missing something?  Everything Mr. Tseung leads out seems to be totally unsubstantiated tripe, backed up only by his incredible statements.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2007, 04:58:34 PM

Title: Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle
 Application Number:  01123526  Application Date:  2001.07.30
 Publication Number:  1400384  Publication Date:  2003.03.05
 Approval Pub. Date:    Granted Pub. Date:   
 International Classifi-cation:   F03G7/00
 Applicant(s) Name:  Liang Xingren
 Address:  450052
 Inventor(s) Name:   
 Attorney & Agent:   
Abstract
     In a stainless steel cylinder the intelligent chip and intelligent integrated circuit chip and respectively mounted on its two sides, the centre of the stainless steel cylinder is equipped with a shaft connected with external load, said stainless steel cylinder is connected with external load by means of wire, so that said load which does not use any fuel and can start said cosmic gravitational force energy perpetual motion machine can be rotated. Said invention is applicable to various vehicles, and its volume is small, weight is light and it has no pollution.  

Regards
Gyula


Thank you, Gyula.  Looks like I do not have to do the translation myself.  Let the experts do their job.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 17, 2007, 05:57:27 PM
 
It is possible the Chinese Patent Office did not issue the full patent outside of China??
Regards
Gyula
Yes. But seems to have a "mention" on the EPO here:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=CN1400384&F=0&QPN=CN1400384
But since nothing real is actually said, I don't see how it can be a real EPO application.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 17, 2007, 06:12:09 PM
If I go to:
http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/
and  put "Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle" in the Title Box,
I get to an abstract which adds nothing. I am bewildered. I shall go and have
a cup of tea.
Paul.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 17, 2007, 06:17:42 PM
As I warned...following anything lead out by Mr. Tseung results in only extended chasing of wild geese.  No actual information is ever imparted; only wild claims and unintelligible references...enjoy your tea!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on August 17, 2007, 09:46:44 PM
I am bewildered. I shall go and have a cup of tea.

It's sad to see a person who thinks making a cup of tea is a noteworthy activity.

There is only 1 representative talking about the Chinese overunty machines. Lawrence should not disclose things he doesn't own. I know he wants to but he cant. If you are looking to donate your life's work I will be happy to take. For free of course. Don't forget to document everything also. ROFL Just keep looking Paul! I read your postings you are doing great.

here is my page

do remember to have fun. ;)

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on August 18, 2007, 02:03:50 AM
I think that you and all other inventors worldwide are wrong,when you/they
think that there has to be an explanation from where the energy comes !

Patent rights are not physics related,patent rights are commerce oriented !

You/they have to serve a functional model, which demonstrate for itselves the principle
and the material configuration listing, that is all as request !

Physical processes are not patentable and for this area unimportant !

S
  dL

p.s.: 2000 US$/hour:
       Langenscheidt-service translation:
       German/Chinese: 1 line(up to 55 digits) for 3,4 Euros ! 

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 18, 2007, 02:49:32 AM
       Langenscheidt-service translation:
       German/Chinese: 1 line(up to 55 digits) for 3,4 Euros ! 
US$2000 on that service would be about 435 lines worth, and that's pretending a line won't have more than 55 characters.
It seems that being literate in Chinese is expensive!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 18, 2007, 12:39:07 PM
My understanding of the Liang Machine

1. It is basically a pulsed rotation device. In the Lee- Tseung Theory, pulse rotation can lead out gravitational energy.

2. It uses intelligent chips to achieve the pulse rotation. These intelligent chips can be programmed to exhibit magnetic north pole, south pole or no pole at all.

3. The energy that can be lead out depends on the rate of rotation, the number of intelligent chips, the diameter and the mass of the rotating cylinder, the proximity of the intelligent chips, etc.

4. It uses only gravitational energy because when we tilt the axle from horizontal to vertical we get reduce energy output.

5. Liang got his China patent even though he stated that his machine was a perpetual device because he had working demonstration prototype.

6. The reason for his not demonstrating his prototype on December 2004 was the lawsuit from unhappy investors. I believe that demonstration could be very successful because Professor Woo, a well respected scientist (who helps to develop the first Chinese atomic bomb) examined the working prototype.

7. Mr. Chao overcame the hill- climbing drawback of the Liang car with banks of batteries. His car was certified officially by the Chinese authority. The rating was 8.60 kilowatt hour per one hundred kilometers. This is probably the best official record for all electric cars.

8. According to Lee Cheung Kin who spent a week working with Mr. Chao, that rating can even be better (zero or negative). Negative means the car can generate extra energy for other appliances.

9. The only explanation is that the Laing or Chao Car used the Lead Out gravitational energy. Both cars confirmed the correctness of the Lee ? Tseung Theory. 

10. The engine can be use as a pure electricity generator. It will require a battery to power the intelligent chips and to get the stating motor to rotate the cylinder to the designed speed. I believe this is being implemented. In some of the past implementation, the engine burned after a few days. Tseung explained that there must be a monitoring and control mechanism to adjust the output power when the external load changes.

11. I believe I understand the theory. I don ? t know the exact intelligent chips used, their arrangement and programming. I can wait to buy a Liang or Chao car to disassemble and examining it legally later.

I shall be willing to discuss this more in this forum. I shall also willing to participate in a team to understand or even replicate the engine.     ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 18, 2007, 05:23:22 PM
I am bewildered. I shall go and have a cup of tea.

It's sad to see a person who thinks making a cup of tea is a noteworthy activity.

There is only 1 representative talking about the Chinese overunty machines. Lawrence should not disclose things he doesn't own.....
I am not asking him to donate his kidneys. I am asking him to provide
or point to a translation of a PUBLISHED patent. If the patent had been
filed in the US or EPO, all would be OK. But the Chinese system is
obscure beyond measurement. Am I asking too much?
Paul.

P.S. The text in Chinese would be a start (with drawings)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 19, 2007, 12:03:00 AM

I am not asking him to donate his kidneys. I am asking him to provide
or point to a translation of a PUBLISHED patent. If the patent had been
filed in the US or EPO, all would be OK. But the Chinese system is
obscure beyond measurement. Am I asking too much?
Paul.

P.S. The text in Chinese would be a start (with drawings)

Dear Paul-R,

Your request is certainly reasonable.  I have the same difficulty with the many Japanese Patents I am interested in.  Fortunately, the wife of Lee Cheung kin speaks and writes fluent Janpanese.  I can get layman translations from her.

Attached is the zipped 7 page PUBLISHED patent document of the Liang invention.  Each Page is in .tif format with diagrams.  Ms. Forever Yuen will try to translate them in the next few days.

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung

Reasonable request Leads Out solid information
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 19, 2007, 12:54:02 AM

I am not asking him to donate his kidneys. I am asking him to provide
or point to a translation of a PUBLISHED patent. If the patent had been
filed in the US or EPO, all would be OK. But the Chinese system is
obscure beyond measurement. Am I asking too much?
Paul.

P.S. The text in Chinese would be a start (with drawings)

Dear Paul-R,

Your request is certainly reasonable.  I have the same difficulty with the many Japanese Patents I am interested in.  Fortunately, the wife of Lee Cheung kin speaks and writes fluent Janpanese.  I can get layman translations from her.

Attached is the zipped 7 page PUBLISHED patent document of the Liang invention.  Each Page is in .tif format with diagrams.  Ms. Forever Yuen will try to translate them in the next few days.

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung

Reasonable request Leads Out solid information

I really hope the translation provides more useful information.  I've been through the US patent process a few times and I can't imagine that the diagrams in this document would make the standard.  The diagrams really show nothing about the generator.  Unless this patent isn't for the generator technology itself, but for a generator device which can operate on a table and in multiple types of transport vehicles which using some mounting mechanism (figure 1). 

Figure 1 with what I call the "mounting mechanism" is really the only useful diagram.  In the US, the diagrams (or schematics) and flowcharts  are the primary source of information which someone who is skilled in the art would be able to use to construct an invention.  The text of the invention description is secondary. 

Interesting to see the results of the translation.  Very revealing (at least to me) of how the patent systems are different.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 19, 2007, 12:58:07 AM
Or perhaps, it shows how this generator could be used as a portable battery charger for electric vehicles.  Either way, it doesn't diagram the components of the generator itself. 

Ahh, no need to be impatient, time will tell.  I do very much appreciate the document being posted!    ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 19, 2007, 01:15:26 AM
Or perhaps, it shows how this generator could be used as a portable battery charger for electric vehicles.  Either way, it doesn't diagram the components of the generator itself. 
Ahh, no need to be impatient, time will tell.  I do very much appreciate the document being posted!    ;D
It's nice of Lawrence to post it and even nicer of Forever to have a go at translating it. Thank you both.
I wonder if China's Patent Office did "reserve" some information for themselves, namely the device diagrams?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 19, 2007, 02:17:02 AM
Brushless motor, IC controller.
No secret.
HardDisk Motor.
Google Brushless motor
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 19, 2007, 03:05:52 PM
The 18 Published China patents or patent applications  by Dr. Liang.

We are focusing on the first one.  For those who want a more thorough insight into Dr. Liang and his patents, knowledge of all of them may be useful.

专利名称 Title of Invention
1    01123526.8     Ã¥Â®â€¡Ã¥Â®â„¢Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½åŠ é€Ÿç”µåŠ¨æœºè½¦è¾†  Cosmic Energy Car
2    200510132560.3     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½å‘电机  Cosmic Energy Electricity Generator
3    200510135191.3     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½å‘电机列车  Cosmic Energy Car A
4    200610098923.0     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½ç”µåŠ›æ‹–拉机  Cosmic Energy Tractor
5    200610091059.1     Ã¥Å“°çƒç”µç£åœºè€¦åˆå‘电的气垫飞翼船  Cosmic Energy Hoovercraft
6    200610098979.6     Ã¥Å“°ç£è€¦åˆå‘电的单人低空安全飞行器  Cosmic Energy Flying Machine for low attitude flight
7    200610000638.0     Ã¨Å â€šÃ¨Æ’½ã€æ— æ±¡æŸ“、电力摩托车  Pollution free electric bike
8    200610002034.X     Ã¦â€” ç”µæ¶²ã€æ— æ±¡æŸ“、免维护的固体超容高能?储电器?
Pollution free Electricity Storage device
9    200610098922.6     Ã¥Å“°ç£è€¦åˆå‘电的轮船  Cosmic Energy boat
10    200610007575.1     Ã¥Å“°å¿ƒå¼•åŠ›åŠ é€Ÿè¿åŠ¨åŠ¿èƒ½è½¬æ¢ä¸ºæœºæ¢°èƒ½è£…ç½®(引力发动机)  Cosmic Energy Conversion device
11    200610057926.X     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½å‘电机轿车  Cosmic Energy Car 3
12    200610150142.1     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½å·¥ç¨‹æœºæ¢°è½¦  Cosmic Energy truck
13    200610150141.7     Ã¤ÂºÂ¤Ã©â‚¬Å¡Ã¥Â·Â¥Ã¥â€¦Â·Ã§Å¡â€žÃ§Â¼â€œÃ¥â€ Â²Ã¥Â®â€°Ã¥â€¦Â¨Ã¦Â¤â€¦  Safty seat in vehicles
14    200610150143.6     Ã¤Â¸ÂÃ¥â€¡ÂºÃ¨Â½Â¨Ã£â‚¬ÂÃ¤Â¸ÂÃ§Â¿Â»Ã¥â‚¬â€™Ã§Å¡â€žÃ©Â«ËœÃ©â‚¬Å¸Ã¥Â®â€°Ã¥â€¦Â¨Ã¤ÂºÂ¤Ã©â‚¬Å¡Ã¥Â·Â¥Ã¥â€¦Â·  High speed transport devices
15    200610078729.6     Ã¥Å“°çƒç”µç£åœºè€¦åˆå‘电机  Cosmic Energy Electricity Generator 1
16    200610000603.7     Ã¥Â®â€¡Ã¥Â®â„¢Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½ç”µåŠ›é£žè‰‡  Cosmic Energy Flying Saucer
17    200610002125.3     Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã§â€ÂµÃ§Å¡â€žÃ¥Å¸Å½Ã¥Â¸â€šÃ¥ÂºÅ¸Ã¥Â¼Æ’物资源化综合处理的创新设备与设施  Cosmic Energy Waste disposal system
18    200330102792.6     Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦Å“º  Cosmic Energy Motor
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 19, 2007, 10:00:36 PM
China Patents or Patent Applications of Tseung et al

http://search.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/zljs/hyjs-jieguo.jsp

专利名称 
1    200510054958.X     Ã©â‚¬Å¡Ã¨Â¿â€¡Ã¦Å’¯åŠ¨èŽ·å–能量的方法及系统  Lead Out Energy via vibrations
2    (Not relevant)
3    200510101434.1     Ã¤Â»Å½Ã¨Æ’½é‡åœºæŠ½å–能量的方法及系统  The Method and Apparatus to Lead Out Energy from Energy Fields
4    200510102187.7     Ã¤Â»Å½Ã©Ââ„¢Ã¦â‚¬ÂÃ§Â©ÂºÃ¦Â°â€Ã¤Â¸Â­Ã¦Å Â½Ã¥Ââ€“能量的方法及系统  The Method and Apparatus to Lead Out Energy from Still Air
5    200510120813.5     Ã¥Ë†Â©Ã§â€Â¨Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å“ºæˆ–电子场作为动力的方法及使用该方法的系统  The Method and Apparatus of using magnetic or electric fields to provide thrust (Flying Saucer)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 20, 2007, 12:11:58 AM
Brushless motor, IC controller.
No secret.
HardDisk Motor.
Google Brushless motor

@brnbrade

I'm guessing you've concluded this from Lawrence's description, not the patent document, correct?  (unless you can read Chinese or could see more from those patent figures than I could). Brushless motors have been around a long time, so if that is what has been described, then it is very unlikely there would be a valid patent claim.  On the other hand, it could be there was some sort of improvement to a standard brushless design that somehow increases efficiency using gravity. 

From the previous description provided by Lawrence, I cannot see how a brushless motor or anything similar could be described as powered by gravity. An enhancement to the standard brushless to increase efficiency is one thing, running completely from gravity force is something else. 

Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 20, 2007, 01:36:07 AM
Brushless motor, IC controller.
No secret.
HardDisk Motor.
Google Brushless motor

@brnbrade

I'm guessing you've concluded this from Lawrence's description, not the patent document, correct?  (unless you can read Chinese or could see more from those patent figures than I could). Brushless motors have been around a long time, so if that is what has been described, then it is very unlikely there would be a valid patent claim.  On the other hand, it could be there was some sort of improvement to a standard brushless design that somehow increases efficiency using gravity. 

From the previous description provided by Lawrence, I cannot see how a brushless motor or anything similar could be described as powered by gravity. An enhancement to the standard brushless to increase efficiency is one thing, running completely from gravity force is something else. 

Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

Regards,
jeffc


The secret is Driving the rotation via Intelligent Chip's programmed Magnetic Interaction.  Such a pulsed rotation  Leads out gravitational energy to produce an engine of 188 Horse Power  without use of any fuel.  The axle is horizontal.

The starting battery can be recharged from the Lead Out gravitational energy.  The mass of the 188 Horse Power Engine was 28 Kilograms.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 20, 2007, 02:04:46 AM
@ltseung888 . @jeffc

That this I am speaking.
Brushless is that.
Doesn't matter how it is built.
It uses ICs to drive the coils.
I have a device based on this.
The difference is, I don't use mechanical turn, use virtual turn.
Virtual motor.

Regards
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 20, 2007, 03:14:18 AM
@ltseung888 . @jeffc

That this I am speaking.
Brushless is that.
Doesn't matter how it is built.
It uses ICs to drive the coils.
I have a device based on this.
The difference is, I don't use mechanical turn, use virtual turn.
Virtual motor.

Regards

@brnbrade
@jeffc

I think you missed the main idea...Mr. Tseung is telling us that the motor has no coils.  All the magnetic force comes directly out of the ICs, he claims.  No electromagnets are used and (I think) no permanent magnets.  No coils of wire.  Just stainless rollers and IC chips.  Period. 

It sure sounds implausible to me but I don't guess we will get much more detail.  I long ago asked for data and/or manufacturer's name on these magical Chinese magnetic ICs, which he claims do have assigned part numbers.  Mr. Tseung has not responded. 

I think that anyone making such enormous, sweeping and impractical-sounding claims is responsible for answering specific simple questions, but Mr. Tseung does not appear to agree.  I say, with all due respect, Bah!   

@Ltseung888      Please, Mr. Tseung, correct me if I am not understanding your statements and enlighten me with some useful information about these ICs if I am.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 20, 2007, 03:29:58 AM
Well, if I understood it correctly, Lawrence basically says those so-called ICs are just reprogrammable magnetic chips.
Searching "magnetic chip" at Google gives a fair amount of related results.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 20, 2007, 03:53:38 AM
Well, if I understood it correctly, Lawrence basically says those so-called ICs are just reprogrammable magnetic chips.
Searching "magnetic chip" at Google gives a fair amount of related results.

I chased the first three pages worth...most are talking about mechanical conveyor belts to move chips of ferrous material, a few are about magnetic bubble chip memories.  None seem to say anything about an IC chip which simulates or behaves like a magnet where the external fields are programmable.

I suppose any chip inductor would do this, but that's just a common (if tiny) electromagnet, not an IC and certainly not an Intelligent Chip.  nice try...no cigar!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 20, 2007, 08:32:59 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the first page of the Liang patent.  ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 20, 2007, 09:04:47 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the second page of the Liang patent.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 20, 2007, 07:51:03 PM
Well, if I understood it correctly, Lawrence basically says those so-called ICs are just reprogrammable magnetic chips.
Searching "magnetic chip" at Google gives a fair amount of related results.

I chased the first three pages worth...most are talking about mechanical conveyor belts to move chips of ferrous material, a few are about magnetic bubble chip memories.  None seem to say anything about an IC chip which simulates or behaves like a magnet where the external fields are programmable.

I suppose any chip inductor would do this, but that's just a common (if tiny) electromagnet, not an IC and certainly not an Intelligent Chip.  nice try...no cigar!
Wouldn't those IC chips be a stripped down version of the magnetoresistive memory microchips? http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 20, 2007, 08:30:19 PM
Well, if I understood it correctly, Lawrence basically says those so-called ICs are just reprogrammable magnetic chips.
Searching "magnetic chip" at Google gives a fair amount of related results.

I chased the first three pages worth...most are talking about mechanical conveyor belts to move chips of ferrous material, a few are about magnetic bubble chip memories.  None seem to say anything about an IC chip which simulates or behaves like a magnet where the external fields are programmable.

I suppose any chip inductor would do this, but that's just a common (if tiny) electromagnet, not an IC and certainly not an Intelligent Chip.  nice try...no cigar!
Wouldn't those IC chips be a stripped down version of the magnetoresistive memory microchips? http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH)

No.  The Freescale devices are, like all magnetic memory chips, nano-gauss devices whose field strengths involve orders of magnitude lower numbers than the weakest, wimpiest, tiniest refrigerator magnet known to mankind.  They are not in any way capable of or intended for creating motion-inducing external fields; in fact they are internally shielded to prevent even weak external fields from upsetting their content.

I believe that Mr. Tseung and Ms. Forever, and maybe the inventor, Mr. Liang, are not truly atempting to give out any genuine information about real inventions, sad to say.  I am open to any hard data or logical explanations, but all I hear so far is charming stories and wild technical claims...nothing at all specific or explanatory about these world-beating inventions. 

If these inventions are real to any degree, there has been no evidence presented yet, in my opinion, despite the many requests.  The Chinese patents, even when so graciously translated by the lovely and talented Ms. Forever Yuen, add nothing to further understanding...only more outrageous and seemingly-nonsensical claims.  It is hard to imagine those documents as protective of intellectual property, since they disclose none that I can detect.  Lots of undefined terms; no substance.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 21, 2007, 02:01:55 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the first page of the Liang patent.  ;D

Thank you very much for the translations.  This provides a LITTLE more information, but I certainly wish the patents provided more detail.  It is hard to believe how general the claims are. 

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 21, 2007, 02:05:09 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the second page of the Liang patent.   ;D ;D

Also, thank you for your interpretation, which is helpful.  If someone could figure out what the ICs are and how they interact then perhaps this could be replicated. 

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 21, 2007, 02:11:39 AM
Well, if I understood it correctly, Lawrence basically says those so-called ICs are just reprogrammable magnetic chips.
Searching "magnetic chip" at Google gives a fair amount of related results.

I chased the first three pages worth...most are talking about mechanical conveyor belts to move chips of ferrous material, a few are about magnetic bubble chip memories.  None seem to say anything about an IC chip which simulates or behaves like a magnet where the external fields are programmable.

I suppose any chip inductor would do this, but that's just a common (if tiny) electromagnet, not an IC and certainly not an Intelligent Chip.  nice try...no cigar!
Wouldn't those IC chips be a stripped down version of the magnetoresistive memory microchips? http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=015424&tid=FSH)

No.  The Freescale devices are, like all magnetic memory chips, nano-gauss devices whose field strengths involve orders of magnitude lower numbers than the weakest, wimpiest, tiniest refrigerator magnet known to mankind.  They are not in any way capable of or intended for creating motion-inducing external fields; in fact they are internally shielded to prevent even weak external fields from upsetting their content.

I believe that Mr. Tseung and Ms. Forever, and maybe the inventor, Mr. Liang, are not truly atempting to give out any genuine information about real inventions, sad to say.  I am open to any hard data or logical explanations, but all I hear so far is charming stories and wild technical claims...nothing at all specific or explanatory about these world-beating inventions. 

If these inventions are real to any degree, there has been no evidence presented yet, in my opinion, despite the many requests.  The Chinese patents, even when so graciously translated by the lovely and talented Ms. Forever Yuen, add nothing to further understanding...only more outrageous and seemingly-nonsensical claims.  It is hard to imagine those documents as protective of intellectual property, since they disclose none that I can detect.  Lots of undefined terms; no substance.


@Humbugger
I absolutely agree that this patent would not fly in the US or Europe.  The very purpose of a patent document, by definition, is that the invention can be easilly reproduced by someone with experience ("skill in the art") by following precise instructions.  It is not supposed to be a guessing game. 

That being said, the quality of the patent document doesn't provide any conslusions about the invention itself, only a glimps into differences in the western and Chinese patent process.  IF the US patent office would grant me a patent with this level of detail, I would have done it as well!

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 21, 2007, 02:43:34 AM
If someone could figure out what the ICs are and how they interact then perhaps this could be replicated. 
Well, those seem to be nothing else than... electromagnets with memory of their magnetic state? How can such a simple device have not been invented yet? :P
Saving the differences with the MRAM, the concept seems to be the same. The question is how much power would require such an useable magnet to change its polarity.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 21, 2007, 03:33:00 AM
If someone could figure out what the ICs are and how they interact then perhaps this could be replicated. 
Well, those seem to be nothing else than... electromagnets with memory of their magnetic state? How can such a simple device have not been invented yet? :P
Saving the differences with the MRAM, the concept seems to be the same. The question is how much power would require such an useable magnet to change its polarity.

Dat's da question, all right!  And how would you create a high-gauss magnetic field of any orientation using only a tiny ultra-low power IC chip?  Those are the questions on the table here.  I await any good answers from our experts!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 21, 2007, 06:43:55 AM
Dear Forever,

Thank you for your translating the first two pages.  I am specially impressed with your interpretation  of the second page reproduced below.

***
My (Forever Yuen) interpretation

There can be two cylinders. The inner cylinder can rotate and has one type of intelligent chips. It is also connected to the rotating axle. The outer cylinder does not rotate and contains another type of intelligent chips. ( In a later part of the patent, the two types of chips are refer to as China 3001 and China 3008) These chips are programmed to provide a pulse rotation.

Since the magnetic interaction is very small between two ICs. A large number of ICs are used. They are placed very close to each other.  Assume the magnetic interaction force between ICs is ?X?. Assume the total number of chips of one type is ?N?. Assume the rate of rotation is ?R?. If the diameter of the cylinder is ?D?. The energy is related to D times X times N times R. If typical value N= 700, R = 100 revolution per second, D= 0.5 meter . The total energy would be related to 35,000 times X. Even if the lead out energy is 50% of this amount, that energy is very significant.

This is the reason why a 188 horse power engine can be produced.

Please comment.
***

There are two comments I would like to make.  The first one is that the r=100 per second may be too high.  (6000 rpm).  I believe the more correct understanding is that r= 10 per second.  However, each IC may react with 10 other ICs in 1 revolution (If the 700 ICs are arranged in 10 rows).  The resulting number is still 100.

The second comment is that there are at least two more factors involved.  One is the mass of the rotating cylinder.  The other is the gravitational constant g.  The gravitational constant g can effectively be changed with your magnetic pendulum type setup.

Many chip experts know how to program the Hall Effect ICs and/or Magnetic ICs.  (I am NOT one of them.) However, few of those I know have ever thought about programming them to provide power.  They all wrongly applied the Law of Conservation of Energy.  They thought it would be pointless to use ICs to rotate the axle.  The energy loss and complications would not justify the effort.

The Tsing Hua University Professors and Students are the exceptions.  They believed in the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory after a half day explanation by Lee-Tseung-Wang.

I shall wait for you to finish translating more pages before additional comments.  Please keep up the good work.

Lawrence
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 21, 2007, 08:29:12 AM
Phone Call with an Electrical and Electronics Expert

Tseung: "I am interested in whether there are intelligent chips that can be programmed to exhibit the effect of a North Pole, South Pole or No Pole."

Expert: "There are the well known Hall Effect ICs that can be used to detect the presence and strength of magnetic fields.  Why are you asking the question?"

Tseung: "In the Dr. Liang Patent, he quoted China 3001 and China 3008 ICs were used to pulse rotate  a cylinder to generate power.  We have the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory you know about.  Can two chips be programmed to provide attraction or repulsion in theory?"

Expert: "I know you have good background in Computers.  Do you still remember the floppy disk?  The floppy disk uses magnetic technique to record the information. Your credit card also uses magnetic technique to record information. If you imagine two strips of magnetic material close together programmed to exhibit different magnetic poles, you get your attraction or repulsion.  I am not an expert on the China Chipset information as I never buy chips from China."

Tseung: "That is  great information already.  I shall share it with others on the Internet."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 21, 2007, 09:22:50 AM
Dear Forever,

Thank you for your translating the first two pages.  I am specially impressed with your interpretation  of the second page reproduced below.

***
My (Forever Yuen) interpretation

There can be two cylinders. The inner cylinder can rotate and has one type of intelligent chips. It is also connected to the rotating axle. The outer cylinder does not rotate and contains another type of intelligent chips. ( In a later part of the patent, the two types of chips are refer to as China 3001 and China 3008) These chips are programmed to provide a pulse rotation.

Since the magnetic interaction is very small between two ICs. A large number of ICs are used. They are placed very close to each other.  Assume the magnetic interaction force between ICs is ?X?. Assume the total number of chips of one type is ?N?. Assume the rate of rotation is ?R?. If the diameter of the cylinder is ?D?. The energy is related to D times X times N times R. If typical value N= 700, R = 100 revolution per second, D= 0.5 meter . The total energy would be related to 35,000 times X. Even if the lead out energy is 50% of this amount, that energy is very significant.

This is the reason why a 188 horse power engine can be produced.

Please comment.
***

There are two comments I would like to make.  The first one is that the r=100 per second may be too high.  (6000 rpm).  I believe the more correct understanding is that r= 10 per second.  However, each IC may react with 10 other ICs in 1 revolution (If the 700 ICs are arranged in 10 rows).  The resulting number is still 100.

The second comment is that there are at least two more factors involved.  One is the mass of the rotating cylinder.  The other is the gravitational constant g.  The gravitational constant g can effectively be changed with your magnetic pendulum type setup.

Many chip experts know how to program the Hall Effect ICs and/or Magnetic ICs.  (I am NOT one of them.) However, few of those I know have ever thought about programming them to provide power.  They all wrongly applied the Law of Conservation of Energy.  They thought it would be pointless to use ICs to rotate the axle.  The energy loss and complications would not justify the effort.

The Tsing Hua University Professors and Students are the exceptions.  They believed in the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory after a half day explanation by Lee-Tseung-Wang.

I shall wait for you to finish translating more pages before additional comments.  Please keep up the good work.

Lawrence

Thank you Lawrence, this is beginning to make more sense now.  Very interesting concepts.  I need to do some research on these ICs to better understand how they would be arranged.  Perhaps someone on this thread has experience with these?

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 21, 2007, 09:40:21 AM
@Humbugger
I absolutely agree that this patent would not fly in the US or Europe.  The very purpose of a patent document, by definition, is that the invention can be easilly reproduced by someone with experience ("skill in the art") by following precise instructions.  It is not supposed to be a guessing game. 

That being said, the quality of the patent document doesn't provide any conslusions about the invention itself, only a glimps into differences in the western and Chinese patent process.  IF the US patent office would grant me a patent with this level of detail, I would have done it as well!

Regards,
jeffc

These gentlemen are so full of themselves they only think of their postulates as 'Gospel'.
They forget the real world outside is not an 'opera' stage!
The US and European Patent Office will not even consider such things as patentable inventions! That's how far removed these guys are from reality...

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 21, 2007, 10:05:25 AM
Phone Call with an Electrical and Electronics Expert

Tseung: "I am interested in whether there are intelligent chips that can be programmed to exhibit the effect of a North Pole, South Pole or No Pole."

Expert: "There are the well known Hall Effect ICs that can be used to detect the presence and strength of magnetic fields.  Why are you asking the question?"

Tseung: "In the Dr. Liang Patent, he quoted China 3001 and China 3008 ICs were used to pulse rotate  a cylinder to generate power.  We have the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory you know about.  Can two chips be programmed to provide attraction or repulsion in theory?"

Expert: "I know you have good background in Computers.  Do you still remember the floppy disk?  The floppy disk uses magnetic technique to record the information. Your credit card also uses magnetic technique to record information. If you imagine two strips of magnetic material close together programmed to exhibit different magnetic poles, you get your attraction or repulsion.  I am not an expert on the China Chipset information as I never buy chips from China."

Tseung: "That is  great information already.  I shall share it with others on the Internet."

Write heads on magnetic media devices like floppy and disk drives.  Hmmm.  The magnetic field produced by modern hard drive heads is quite narrorow compared to floppies and early HDs.  And tape drive write heads are a bit different set of properties as well. 

Is the key here the relatively narrow magnetic fields as opposed to other methods which would create quite wide, perhaps "mushroom" shape fields?

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on August 21, 2007, 01:28:59 PM
I found this on "magnetic chips":
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0614023.htm

Intelligent chips are harder; the name is used for
changing CD anbd DVD formats in some odd way.
Paul.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 22, 2007, 04:17:44 AM
@Paul-R: 

Interesting article about a very far out R&D effort on magnetic logic devices at nano-atomic scale.  Not, as described by Mr. Tseung, a device for producing or controlling working external magnetic fields and certainly not a commercial part-numbered device!  Thanks for the neat link, though!

@Ltseung888 et al:

"Many chip experts know how to program the Hall Effect ICs and/or Magnetic ICs.  (I am NOT one of them.) However, few of those I know have ever thought about programming them to provide power.  They all wrongly applied the Law of Conservation of Energy.  They thought it would be pointless to use ICs to rotate the axle.  The energy loss and complications would not justify the effort."  Lawrence Tseung quote

Still no idea what a "Magnetic IC" is from all this.  40 years designing electronic products using (and often finding innovative and unintended uses for) thousands of different IC chips...yet I've never heard of these!  Hall effect IC, sure, understand those...they do not produce controlled external magnetic fields; they simply detect them. 

Could the reference possibly be to simple chip inductors?  These are full of wire turns around ferrite or iron, typically, but I know of none that are "programmable" or "intelligent".  Typically, ICs are bits of silicon with metallization.  Other than the well-known magnetic field that occurs whenever current flows in any conductor, there are no silicon chips I'm aware of that are designed to produce external magnetic fields by themselves, without attachment to some external device like a write head or solenoid or speaker or discrete electromagnet.

There has been a direct statement made that these are a standard part-numbered device pair IC3001 and IC3008 made in China.  All searches for any such devices come up empty or non-related in any way to magnetics.

My questions remain unanswered:  What company makes these devices?  Is there any specific data available?  Are these commercially available devices?

If "Many chip experts know how to program these...magnetic IC's" is a true statement, then they must not be a secret or proprietary device.  Can you please tell us how to get some real manufacturer's data about these mysterious chips?  Simply repeating the same incredible claims a hundred times does not provide the needed information to evaluate and advance the application of this proclaimed new chip technology.

The continued lack of any verifiable source or engineering data specifics despite my repeated polite requests only adds to my skepticism that any such IC exists.  Belief or disbelief is not the issue here.  Making startling claims with zero tangible evidence is.

Humbugger
 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: brnbrade on August 22, 2007, 05:14:04 AM
Hi

Up to where my knowledge is.
Those magnetic chips have to be disturbed by external agent to work.
it is more efficient, doesn't make miracles

regards
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 22, 2007, 10:24:58 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the third page of the Liang patent.  ;D  ;D
There are three pages of description on the workings of the invention.
This is the first of the three pages..


There will be more juicy material to come..  :D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 22, 2007, 11:39:46 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the fouth page of the Liang patent. ;D

I included my programming logic.  :D

I believe you can do better! :P
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 22, 2007, 11:54:06 PM
@Paul-R: 

Interesting article about a very far out R&D effort on magnetic logic devices at nano-atomic scale.  Not, as described by Mr. Tseung, a device for producing or controlling working external magnetic fields and certainly not a commercial part-numbered device!  Thanks for the neat link, though!

@Ltseung888 et al:

"Many chip experts know how to program the Hall Effect ICs and/or Magnetic ICs.  (I am NOT one of them.) However, few of those I know have ever thought about programming them to provide power.  They all wrongly applied the Law of Conservation of Energy.  They thought it would be pointless to use ICs to rotate the axle.  The energy loss and complications would not justify the effort."  Lawrence Tseung quote

Still no idea what a "Magnetic IC" is from all this.  40 years designing electronic products using (and often finding innovative and unintended uses for) thousands of different IC chips...yet I've never heard of these!  Hall effect IC, sure, understand those...they do not produce controlled external magnetic fields; they simply detect them. 

Could the reference possibly be to simple chip inductors?  These are full of wire turns around ferrite or iron, typically, but I know of none that are "programmable" or "intelligent".  Typically, ICs are bits of silicon with metallization.  Other than the well-known magnetic field that occurs whenever current flows in any conductor, there are no silicon chips I'm aware of that are designed to produce external magnetic fields by themselves, without attachment to some external device like a write head or solenoid or speaker or discrete electromagnet.

There has been a direct statement made that these are a standard part-numbered device pair IC3001 and IC3008 made in China.  All searches for any such devices come up empty or non-related in any way to magnetics.

My questions remain unanswered:  What company makes these devices?  Is there any specific data available?  Are these commercially available devices?

If "Many chip experts know how to program these...magnetic IC's" is a true statement, then they must not be a secret or proprietary device.  Can you please tell us how to get some real manufacturer's data about these mysterious chips?  Simply repeating the same incredible claims a hundred times does not provide the needed information to evaluate and advance the application of this proclaimed new chip technology.

The continued lack of any verifiable source or engineering data specifics despite my repeated polite requests only adds to my skepticism that any such IC exists.  Belief or disbelief is not the issue here.  Making startling claims with zero tangible evidence is.

Humbugger
 

I've been wondering if the ICs could be similar to RFID components?  RFID tags are certainly programmable.  There are read and r/w versions, passive and active.  The reader component generates RF which hits the tag (transponder) providing both energy to run the rfid circuit and also to communicate.  A magnetic field is certainly created between the reader and tag.  I haven?t done enough with rfid beyond practicle implimentations to understand if it is possible to somehow dynamically vary the polarity of the field.  Perhaps vary the RF. 

Even so, the relative field strength would be low for standard passive tags.  Now the longer range active tags are powered (typically by battery) and therefore must generate a stronger field strength.  But, I still don?t know if there is any advantage using rfid technology in creating a magnetic motor.  The only thing I can think of is that their input power requirements are small. 

Perhaps their efficiency at generating a magnetic field with low current is coupled with whatever arrangement is being utilized by the invention (which I still cannot conceive at this point) to provide overunity.

Of course, all of this would be much easier if we just had a complete list of components and a schematic!  Oh well, I guess that would take all the fun out of speculation and mental gymnastics.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 23, 2007, 12:36:26 AM
Perhaps, but I do not see a reason for the "maintained mystery" except possibly to hide the fact that no such ICs actually exist and, like everything else quoted in these "patents", these magic IC3001/3008 devices are just a figment of someone's fantastic and unlimited imagination.

Programmable-field magnetic IC chip claims lead out earnest requests for hard data and name of chip supplier.

Said earnest requests lead out only endless further incredible claims and avoidance of the questions.

All of the above leads out further skepticism and distrust of Chinese storytellers.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: NerzhDishual on August 23, 2007, 12:52:33 AM


Yet Another Hamburger Acerbic Sarcasm (YAHAS)!

Best
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 23, 2007, 01:57:34 AM
All in good humor, of course!  It is only slightly frustrating, actually, since my expectations are extremely low in terms of receiving useful information.

Bah...Humbugger!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 23, 2007, 06:24:06 AM
Perhaps, but I do not see a reason for the "maintained mystery" except possibly to hide the fact that no such ICs actually exist and, like everything else quoted in these "patents", these magic IC3001/3008 devices are just a figment of someone's fantastic and unlimited imagination.

Even if these magical ICs existed, there would still be the question of whether it would take more energy to power the ICs than the ICs delivered via the making the magnetic watchamacallit spin.  But anyway, forget the ICs.  From now on, I am just going to power my house by turning all my stools upside down and putting bowls of water under them.   Look at them stools spin.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 23, 2007, 09:30:46 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the fifth,sixth and seventh page of the Liang patent. 

I added some of my interpretation.
Actually, translation of patents is a very painful work! Don't ask me to translate  anymore.. ;D :o 8) ???
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 23, 2007, 09:55:56 AM
Here is my layman 's translation of the fifth,sixth and seventh page of the Liang patent. 

I added some of my interpretation.
Actually, translation of patents is a very painful work! Don't ask me to translate  anymore.. ;D :o 8) ???

Forever,
Thank you for taking the time to translate the patent text.  The information about the size and output of the motors is quite promising.  I hope that we can discover more information about the motor so that all of this makes sense in the near future. 

I do hope that the Chinese company is able to make a public display of these vehicles so that we can get some sort of confirmation that this has truely been developed into a working model.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 23, 2007, 10:00:12 AM
All in good humor, of course!  It is only slightly frustrating, actually, since my expectations are extremely low in terms of receiving useful information.

Bah...Humbugger!

Your posts are great!   ;D

Nothing wrong with pessimism when you keep it balanced.  You always ask important, strait forward questions.  Just what we need.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 23, 2007, 10:22:08 AM

Forever,
Thank you for taking the time to translate the patent text.  The information about the size and output of the motors is quite promising.  I hope that we can discover more information about the motor so that all of this makes sense in the near future. 

I do hope that the Chinese company is able to make a public display of these vehicles  so that we can get some sort of confirmation that this has truely been developed into a working model.

Regards,
jeffc

Dear Jeffc,

In our previous post, we showed the video of the Chao car filmed by CCTV10. CCTV10 is the official chinese TV news network.

I also have a very long Dr. Liang car video. I shall edit it to a suitable size and share with you and others in this forum.

Regards,
Forever
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 23, 2007, 02:56:16 PM

Dear Jeffc,

In our previous post, we showed the video of the Chao car filmed by CCTV10. CCTV10 is the official chinese TV news network.

I also have a very long Dr. Liang car video. I shall edit it to a suitable size and share with you and others in this forum.

Regards,
Forever

Dear Forever,

Thank you for your great work.  Once scientists accept that pulsed rotation can Lead Out gravitational energy, they will ask whether mechanical means work.  An example is the Chas Campbell Electrical Energy Magnifier.

I put more information in:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=211#211

Lawrence
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gyulasun on August 23, 2007, 11:47:10 PM
Dear Forever,

Thank you for taking the burden of translating from Chinese to English I do appreciate your hard work!

Regarding the Figures in the patent, would it be possible for you to upload Figs. 1 and 2 here?  Figs. 1 and 2 would be enough for me I think.  Of course I do not expect much detail from the figures because the patent text does not include much either (such are the wordings of most patents...)

Thanks
Gyula
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 24, 2007, 01:21:00 AM
Gaby suggested a list of Chinese Inventors working on Cosmic Energy. Please see:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=214#214

.....

Great Idea, Gaby. The following is a start:

(1) Sung Tim Fat 宋添發 - First and Second Generation of Cosmic Energy machines

(2) Liang Xingren 梁星人 - Pulse Rotation with ICs

(3) Chao Ching San 曹青山 - Improvement on Liang with banks of Batteries

(4) Lee Cheung Kin and Lawrence Tseung 李長建,蔣振寧 - Lead Out theory

(5) Tsing Hua University 清華大學 - Electricity Magnifier that can magnify 30 times.

(6) Wini Woo and Bill Fong - The Flying Saucer

(7) Wang Shum Ho 王沈河 - The Ferro-liquid + permanent Magnets Electricity Generator

I shall also list the over 40 inventors related to Cosmic Energy Machines from the China Patent Database. I have not checked every one of them yet.

Lawrence Tseung
Good suggestions Lead Out hard work
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 24, 2007, 09:57:13 AM
Phone call with Lee Cheung Kin who just came back from Japan.

Lee: "You guys should hurry up.  The Japanese Company is producing a range of Cosmic Energy Products.  I have the pictures and product literature.  They are in Japanese.  I shall get my wife to translate them first.  The President and other senior staff plan to come and visit us and General Magnetic."

Tseung: "I believe their product is what we call the fourth generation.  It uses flux changes only.  It is different from the TPU in that it is based on AC current acting on setup similar to the transformer.  The US has a similar patent from Tom Beardon et al.  If they are in production, they should be better than our Lee-Tseung-Sung device."

Lee: "Why are you wasting your time educating the nonbelievers on the Internet?  When the products come out, there will be no dispute.  It is a matter of months now."

Tseung: "We want to benefit the World.  The first group that will benefit are the existing Over Unity Developers.  They are the first ones to accept the Lee-Tseung theory.  Almost all of them puzzled over the source of their energy.  They saw the extra output energy.  I am in contact with many Over Unity Inventors outside China.  I believe General Magnetic already contacted the most promising ones in China."

Lee: "Wang is one of the nine vice presidents of General Magnetic.  I assume that there might be nine promising ones from China.  Lee-Tseung do not have prototypes but we have the theory.  I know that you do not need and want any money.  But I do need money, money and money."

Tseung: "Wang mentioned that we might become Consultants  of the Company General Magnetic.  The existing cash asset is RMB13 billion.  When the Company goes International IPO in 2008, the asset is likely to exceed RMB 130 billion.  There will be multiple Cosmic Energy Machine products.  He thinks that your chance of receiving RMB 100 million is excellent.  He also mentioned that your name and mine are being nominated to receive the Nobel Prize and other similar ones."

Lee: "With that, I can take any insult."

Lawrence Tseung
Japanese Success Leads Out more dedication from the Chinese Scientists.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Iosh on August 24, 2007, 04:03:57 PM
Hm, isn't it "surprising" that two of the countries which are greatly dependant on energy importing are the ones who will seemingly be the leading ones in developing and marketing alternative energy means?

No, it is not.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 24, 2007, 04:52:29 PM
Hm, isn't it "surprising" that two of the countries which are greatly dependant on energy importing are the ones who will seemingly be the leading ones in developing and marketing alternative energy means?

No, it is not.

What surprised me was the willingness of the Japanese Company coming to Hong Kong and China.  There may be possible coorperation between China and Japan.

Well, I never understood Politics.  Let others shine.

The only way I know how to deal with insults is to ignore them.  Similar to Galileo, if the Earth is round, why worry about who objects (including the whole clergy and the Pope.)  It may take them 300 hundred years to change their point of view.  Lee-Tseung does not have 300 years to wait. (3 years is likely, 30 years is very doubtful, 300 is beyond reality).

Lawrence Tseung
Success in China and Japan Leads Out possible coorperation of the Cosmic Energy Development Organizations.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: sevich on August 24, 2007, 05:20:50 PM
Itseung888,

You've been aroung for a little over a while now on this forum and wish to remind you that you've been thrown off  www.besslerwheel.com forum due to your unproven "free energy" methods. (bullshit)

You've stated that all free energy ideas are freely given to the Chinese Government to use as they see fit (or something to that regard)

You seem very suspicious to me and I wish to know why you're so trusting of the (untrusting) Chinese Communist Government ???  ??? ???

Tell me.....Are you being paid to do this ?

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 24, 2007, 11:42:23 PM
Itseung888,

You've been aroung for a little over a while now on this forum and wish to remind you that you've been thrown off  www.besslerwheel.com forum due to your unproven "free energy" methods. (bullshit)

You've stated that all free energy ideas are freely given to the Chinese Government to use as they see fit (or something to that regard)

You seem very suspicious to me and I wish to know why you're so trusting of the (untrusting) Chinese Communist Government ???  ??? ???

Tell me.....Are you being paid to do this ?



Thank you for raising a very good point.  I shall give you a bit of history, the Cosmic Energy information first appeared on several Hong Kong and China based websites.  Those got "bombed".  It could be hacker activity (or more likely CIA or the Like).

I then put information on http://www.energyfromair.com/  We had difficulty in updating information. (We are still investigating why.)

Then I tried forums managed by others:
(1) You can go to the fraud section of http://www.besselwheel.com and still see the over 300 posts from ltseung888.  They banned me.

(2) You can go to http://www.steorn.com/forum and still see the over 500 posts from ltseung888.  Some entire threads were deleted.  Steorn said that they did not do it.  The total posts should be greater than 800.
They sunk my posts and thread after their London Failure.

(3) Stefan invited me to join this forum.  I expect the "unseen" hand will be at work to ban me again.  (Remember, the CIA or the Like tricked us to believing them as representing the Chinese Government once before.)  It would not surprise me if a few professional debunkers are here at this Forum.

(4) Gaby invited me as a moderator in his forum http://forum.go-here.nl.  I am starting to post there.

(5) Soon, the Public Relationship people from General Magnetic or the Japanese Company with huge resources will take over.  They will have actual products to sell.  Lee and I can go fishing.

I am a Chinese born in Hong kong.  I worked in USA for decades and I am a US Citizen.  I helped to train the first group of Chinese Computer Experts when I worked at Digital Equipment Corporation in Boston in late 1970.  I was accused as a spy by some people.  Doing a good job has its bad consequence!

My goal is to benefit the World and help to create the New Order.  Please see http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13 for details.

As I stated many times before, I do not need nor seek any money.  All financial benefits to me should be given to the "Helping Seedlings to Innovate" Foundation.  Wang said that General Magnetic would not mind supporting such a worthy cause.  That is good enough for me.

Lawrence Tseung
Ignorance Leads out Stoning of the Prophets
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 25, 2007, 02:30:11 AM
Dear Forever,

Thank you for taking the burden of translating from Chinese to English I do appreciate your hard work!

Regarding the Figures in the patent, would it be possible for you to upload Figs. 1 and 2 here?  Figs. 1 and 2 would be enough for me I think.  Of course I do not expect much detail from the figures because the patent text does not include much either (such are the wordings of most patents...)

Thanks
Gyula

Please see my post at
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45026.html#msg45026

Figure 1 and 2 are on page 6.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 25, 2007, 04:32:14 AM
Itseung888,

You've been aroung for a little over a while now on this forum and wish to remind you that you've been thrown off  www.besslerwheel.com forum due to your unproven "free energy" methods. (bullshit)

You've stated that all free energy ideas are freely given to the Chinese Government to use as they see fit (or something to that regard)

You seem very suspicious to me and I wish to know why you're so trusting of the (untrusting) Chinese Communist Government ???  ??? ???

Tell me.....Are you being paid to do this ?



Servich:

Like you, I first started reading the stuff Lawrence Tseung wrote a few months ago, most willing to try understand where whis gentleman was coming from. The more I read, the more I understand what hallucinations means in reality.

John Nash (in the Beautiful Mind movie) was a brilliant mathematician with a mental disorder known as Schizophrenia. The CIA was supposedly after him, people were opposed to his findings etc etc. Yet John Nash in his own rights proved himself with a genius of a mathematical mind.

What did Mr. Tseung accomplish? Lead out more and more BS everytime! Does Lawrence have schizophrenia? I don't think so. But he is clearly delusional.

Talk about professional CIA debunkers, spies etc etc. It's not like you were working at Los Alamos designing the atomic bomb. What does working at DEC in the 1970's contribute to special interest to classify you as a spy? It's only PDP computers for goodness sake! Don't amplify your own qualifications and significance.

Also what does being Chinese working in America for many years got to do with all these? I'm Chinese and I don't give a hoot about what the Chinese Goverment does because I choose to live and owe my allegiance to the country I adopted as my own. Who you are and what you can meaningfully contribute has nothing to do with your race. It is no wonder you don't fit in this free society.

Please spare us these other BS about how great all these Chinese inventions are. They really meant nothing until they are proven. Just like your many many posts and your banning from other forums, it is because you have not learn to differentiate truth and delusion! It's not about CIA debunkers or stoning of the Prophets. It's really all about your own delusions! I recommend you renting the 'Beautiful Mind' movie rather than writing more crap.

Sincerely
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 25, 2007, 05:29:51 AM
Perpetual Motion Machine Patent or Patent Applications from the China Patent Database.

I used the Chinese Characters 永动机 as keyword to search  on the Chinese Patent Database.  I got 60 hits.  56 were invention patents.  It demonstrates that the dogma of "perpetual motion machines are not possible because of the law of conservation of energy" is less severe in China.  The first page is listed.

I deliberately do not add any translation.  This gives your Chinese friends a chance to shine (or to get a drink or a dinner from you!)

您现在的位置: 首页 > 专利检索 > 搜索结果
        发明专利 56 条       Ã¥Â®Å¾Ã§â€Â¨Ã¦â€“°åž‹ä¸“利 4 条 
 
序号 申请号  专利名称 
1    02104966.1     Ã¦Å“ºç”µç£æ•°æ¨¡å¾ªçŽ¯å¼åŠ¨åŠ›æœº 
2    02102260.7     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦â€ºÂ²Ã¦Å¸â€žÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
3    02108873.X     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
4    01123526.8     Ã¥Â®â€¡Ã¥Â®â„¢Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½åŠ é€Ÿç”µåŠ¨æœºè½¦è¾† 
5    96102681.2     Ã¨â€¡ÂªÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¨Â¿ÂÃ¨Â¡Å’è½®??永动机 
6    97101208.3     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
7    96112631.0     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¤Â¸ÂÃ¥Â¹Â³Ã¨Â¡Â¡Ã¨Â£â€¦Ã§Â½Â®-永动机 
8    97101371.3     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
9    86106041     Ã¦â€“¥åŠ›ç£åŠ¨æœº 
10    88108911.7     Ã¥Ë†Â©Ã§â€Â¨Ã¥â€ Â¬Ã¥Â¯â€™Ã¥Â¤ÂÃ¦Å¡â€˜Ã§Å¡â€ž?永动机?技术方案 
11    88109717.9     Ã¤Â½Å½Ã¨Æ’ŒåŽ‹å†ç”Ÿå‡æ±½å¼æ±½è½®æœºè®¾å¤‡ 
12    89105245.3     Ã¨Å â€šÃ¨Æ’½æŠ½æ°”压缩机 
13    92103544.6     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåŠå…¶ç”¨é€” 
14    93117137.7     Ã©â€¦ÂÃ¥ÂË†Ã¥Âºâ€Ã§â€Â¨Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦Å“º 
15    94107176.6     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¦â‚¬Â§Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
16    93100829.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦â€“°åž‹åŠ¨è£…ç½® 
17    94107644.X     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
18    94111811.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦Â Â¹Ã¦ÂÂ®Ã¦ÂÂ Ã¦Ââ€ Ã¥â€™Å’液压传动原理构成的永动机 
19    93114240.7     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåˆ¶é€ æŠ€æœ¯ 
20    97107032.6     Ã¥Â¹Â¿Ã¤Â¹â€°Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦ÂºÂÃ¦Å“º 
 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 25, 2007, 07:17:39 AM
See the posting by Stefan Hartmann:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2869.msg45887#msg45887

Looks like the Newman Machine is ready for the closed loop demonstration.  I sincerely hope that it will not suffer the same fate as Steorn.

We already explained its workings via the Lee-Tseung Theory.  Thus it can be another confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory in USA!

The debunkers do not need to go to China to see working Cosmic Energy Machines.

Lawrence Tseung
Newman Machine Leads Out World Acknowledgement of Cosmic Energy Machines.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 26, 2007, 04:51:28 PM
I went to the Watoto Youth Concert this morning and was deeply touched.  The children were from Uganda.  They lost one or both parents because of AIDS.  They found hope in the Watoto organization.
The website is http://www.watoo.com/.

There is a plan for me in my old age.  The plan is to give the younger generation hope and future.   Lee and I wanted to benefit the World.  The Concert this morning gave new purpose and urgency.  We can indeed benefit the World with our Lead-Out Theory.  The many Over Unity Inventors now do not need to worry about the Law of Conservation of Energy Roadblock.

We know that we have to introduce the New Order to the World.  The President of USA cannot do it.  The Pope cannot do it.  The Cosmic Energy developers can do it.  For details of the New Order, see
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13


Lawrence Tseung
The Watoto organization Leads Out compassion and sense of urgency from the Old Man.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 27, 2007, 09:23:47 AM
I uploaded the Dr. Liang Car Video. ;D

http://rapidshare.com/files/51541711/avseq016740-13405_1.WMV

The video consisted of the following:

1.It was done on 28 October, 2003 in the presence of many Chinese officials and scientists.

2.The hoot of the car was opened and the engine consisting of a starting battery and a pulsed rotated cylinder could be seen.

3.A belt is connected to the central shaft. This shaft rotated to provide power.

4.The controlling electronics are at the back of the car.

5.The car was first jacked up so that the engine could be shown rotating without the car moving.

6.The car had a very simple control. It could either go forward or backward. There were no gears to shift.

7.The visitors were invited to sit in the car and drove around the flat surface.

8.This video must not be used for investment purposes. It is straightly for scientific discussion  only.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 27, 2007, 10:47:45 AM
I have also uploaded the electrical energy magnifier from TsingHua University. :D

http://rapidshare.com/files/51563146/tsinghua7846-8069.mpg.html

1. The video was done on 4 January 1996.

2. The electrical input was magnified 30 times.

3. The input energy was A.C. power from the local power company. The power was fed to a starting motor. The starting motor is then connected via a belt arrangement to the energy magnifier.

4. The energy magnifier consisted of three cylinders.(The Chas Campbell Device from Australia at three wheels.)

5.The output energy was used to support the entire factory.

6.No output energy was fed back to input as that mechanism had not been perfected.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on August 27, 2007, 02:33:27 PM
Great footage, thanks for the update.

They seem awfully exited. (I wont ask you to translate  :D )
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 28, 2007, 05:26:20 AM
We already explained its workings via the Lee-Tseung Theory.  Thus it can be another confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory in USA!

So the Newman machine will work so long as it sits on an upside-down stool atop a bowl of water?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on August 28, 2007, 09:12:16 AM
.....
Tseung:... He also mentioned that your name and mine are being nominated to receive the Nobel Prize and other similar ones."

Lee: "With that, I can take any insult."


As far as I am aware of, Nobel prizes have never been awarded to delusionist!

It's not the 'insults' you need to worry about. You need to see a psychiatrist.

It's pretty obvious you can't tell reality from make-believe!

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on August 28, 2007, 09:53:24 AM
Two huge useless movies.
Such a waste of bandwidth!

One movie is presumably showing an electric car with the batteries in the trunk. If that huge block of so-called ?electronics? does not contain batteries then it surely contains another kind of chemical-electrical converter of some sort. Two huge fans are needed to cool it. And the motor in front is a regular 3-phase one. Electronics are in the box near-by, in the front (not in the back). Probably a dc-ac three phase converter.

The other movie is showing an electric motor turning a machine. Probably an ordinary electric generator under various tests.


What?s the excitement there about, anyway?
Well, in the first movie it may be because of the ?electric nature? of the car. Remember that electric cars are relatively new.
In the second movie, there is not much of an excitement at all.

The question is what the excitement here is about?!

?Lack of solid arguments leads out more useless movies.?

Have a nice day everyone,
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 29, 2007, 07:46:14 AM
Dear tinu,shruggedatlas,and others

Thanks for your comments. However, I do not agree with what you are saying.
Firstly, you said that they were two useless movies. The inventors poured in sweat and blood to invent. You have not played with actual inventions. If you were one of the patent evaluators or one of the participating professors at Tsinghua University or Beijing University, you would have a different prospective.

I understand why you think it is just an empty talk. When an invention is not a product yet, there will be speculations. Some of these inventions may even be regarded as fairytales.

Let us take the example of going to the moon. In China, there was a fairytale about a beautiful lady(常娥). She ate the forever-living pill of her emperor husband. She had double dosage and became light and rose to the moon. This is also the origination of Mid- Autumn Festival which will come up a few weeks. ;D In Greek Mythology, Icaria flew too close to the Sun and his wax wings melted. It was usually assumed that flying to the moon was impossible.

Even in the 20th century after the inventions of the airplanes, some scientists regarded going to the moon as not possible. They applied the Newtonian Physics on a single stage rocket. Now we know that it is possible with multi- stage rockets.

We can compare the Cosmic Energy Machines with going to the moon. I believe in the Cosmic Energy Machines because:

1. I have already done an experiment related to extracting Cosmic Energy. In this experiment, I proved that magnetic energy could be extracted in the same way as gravitational energy. It is a very simple experiment, but it confirms a very important theory. This is the replacement of the simple pendulum with the magnetic pendulum.

2. The Lee- Tseung Theory uses the? boat in clam water and a good sunshine? scenario. It clearly shows that Cosmic Energy does not violate the law of conservation of energy.   

3. There is so much evidence to support the theory. Just like you, I didn?t believe the Cosmic Energy Machines initially. However, the more I understand the theory, the more convinced I become.

4.I am in the better position than you because I can read and write Chinese. I have searched the China patent database. I have the 180 pages document from Dr. Liang Xingren. I have the unedited videos. I have a copy of the 2006 China Venture Capital Forum document in front of me. In this Official document, the Cosmic Energy Machine was ranked as number one. I also have the pictures of Lee- Tseung at Tsinghua University.

5.If the top professor at Tsinghua University accepted the theory and made Lee- Tseung ?Wang guest lecturers, I took the theory seriously. I did the mathematics multiple times. I explained the theory and the maths to my many friends. I have sent many emails to academic and economic institutions. 

6. I am sure the products will be out shortly. I shall have the privilege of seeing the early prototypes as a helper of Tseung. When the products come out and generate electricity in front of the world, more people will be convinced. When you buy one in your house, and never pay electricity bills again, you will be convinced too.

 ;D :D ;) :)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on August 29, 2007, 08:00:06 AM
Dear tinu,shruggedatlas,and others

Thanks for your comments. However, I do not agree for what you are saying.
Firstly, you said that they were two useless movies. The inventors poured in sweat and blood to invent. You have not played with actual inventions. If you were one of the patent evaluators or one of the participating professors at Tsinghua University or Beijing University, you would have a different prospective.

I understand why you think it is just an empty talk. When an invention is not a product yet, there will be speculations. Some of these inventions may even be regarded as fairytales.

Let us take the example of going to the moon. In China, there was a fairytale about a beautiful lady(常娥). She ate the forever-living pill of her emperor husband. She had double dosage and became light and rose to the moon. This is also the origination of Mid- Autumn Festival which will come up a few weeks. ;D In Greek Mythology, Icaria flew too close to the Sun and his wax wings melted. It was usually assumed that flying to the moon was impossible.

Even in the 20th century after the inventions of the airplanes, some scientists regarded going to the moon as not possible. They applied the Newtonian Physics on a single stage rocket. Now we know that it is possible with multi- stage rockets.

We can compare the Cosmic Energy Machines with going to the moon. I believe in the Cosmic Energy Machines because:

1. I have already done an experiment related to extracting Cosmic Energy. In this experiment, I proved that magnetic energy could be extracted in the same way as gravitational energy. It is a very simple experiment, but it confirms a very important theory. This is the replacement of the simple pendulum with the magnetic pendulum.

2. The Lee- Tseung Theory uses the? boat in clam water and a good sunshine? scenario. It clearly shows that Cosmic Energy does not violate the law of conservation of energy.   

3. There is so much evidence to support the theory. Just like you, I didn?t believe the Cosmic Energy Machines initially. However, the more I understand the theory, the more convinced I become.

4.I am in the better position than you because I can read and write Chinese. I have searched the China patent database. I have the 180 pages document from Dr. Liang Xingren. I have the unedited videos. I have a copy of the 2006 China Venture Capital Forum document in front of me. In this Official document, the Cosmic Energy Machine was ranked as number one. I also have the pictures of Lee- Tseung at Tsinghua University.

5.If the top professor at Tsinghua University accepted the theory and made Lee- Tseung ?Wang guest lecturers, I took the theory seriously. I did the mathematics multiple times. I explained the theory and the maths to my many friends. I have sent many emails to academic and economic institutions. 

6. I am sure the products will be out shortly. I have the privilege of seeing the early prototypes as a helper of Tseung. When the products come out and generate electricity in front of the world, more people will be convinced. When you buy one in your house, and never pay electricity bills again, you will be convinced too.

 ;D :D ;) :)

Thank you Forever, for you continued help in providing information.  From the videos, it is not easy to determine what is actually being presented, so it will be hard for people on this forum to accept without more detail concerning each component shown as part of the motors. 

If you are correct about products being released soon, then there will be proof soon enough. 

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 30, 2007, 02:06:04 AM
Firstly, you said that they were two useless movies. The inventors poured in sweat and blood to invent. You have not played with actual inventions. If you were one of the patent evaluators or one of the participating professors at Tsinghua University or Beijing University, you would have a different prospective.

Sorry, but the videos are useless.  Neither one shows any evidence of a closed loop.  This is the whole problem with these inventions.  They claim on paper they are overunity, but when you actually try to use the energy output as the input, some "engineering problem" occurs.  Gee, is the engineering problem related the fact that there simply is not enough output to be used as input?

Quote
Let us take the example of going to the moon. In China, there was a fairytale about a beautiful lady(常娥). She ate the forever-living pill of her emperor husband. She had double dosage and became light and rose to the moon. This is also the origination of Mid- Autumn Festival which will come up a few weeks. ;D In Greek Mythology, Icaria flew too close to the Sun and his wax wings melted. It was usually assumed that flying to the moon was impossible.

I cringe at the use of an Internet acronym, but it is so appropriate here.  WTF?  You are talking about fairy tales.  Not all fairy tales come true.  Going to the moon is possible, yes.  But what about Alladin and the magic lamp?  Do you think if we all work and research enough, we can make a magic lamp that contains a genie that will grant us wishes?

Quote
I believe in the Cosmic Energy Machines because:

1. I have already done an experiment related to extracting Cosmic Energy. In this experiment, I proved that magnetic energy could be extracted in the same way as gravitational energy. It is a very simple experiment, but it confirms a very important theory. This is the replacement of the simple pendulum with the magnetic pendulum.

To date, no one has extracted gravitational energy to produce a power generator.  Yes, you can drop something, and it will fall, and thereby convert its potential energy to kinetic.  But it is a one time deal, and invariably, it takes more energy to lift the object back than what was generated, so no go on the overunity.  If magentism is no better than gravity, this is not of itself promising.

Quote
2. The Lee- Tseung Theory uses the? boat in clam water and a good sunshine? scenario. It clearly shows that Cosmic Energy does not violate the law of conservation of energy.   

The boat in calm water and good sunshine is an analogy, that is all.  Yes, if you had a solar generator, you could use it to power the boat.  However, you have not shown how gravitational energy can be captured in the same manner as solar energy, and until that happens, the boat scenario is an analogy that does not apply.  I can make up any number of analogies to contradict your analogy, and until one of use proves that a particular analogy actually applies, none of them are relevant.

Quote
4.I am in the better position than you because I can read and write Chinese. I have searched the China patent database. I have the 180 pages document from Dr. Liang Xingren. I have the unedited videos. I have a copy of the 2006 China Venture Capital Forum document in front of me. In this Official document, the Cosmic Energy Machine was ranked as number one. I also have the pictures of Lee- Tseung at Tsinghua University.

True, you have us at a disadvantage there, with your knowledge of Chinese.  However, I read your translations.  These describe the invention in such vague terms, there is no way to test the theory.  The patent refers to ICs which may or may not exist.  Even if they do exist, there is no evidence that they create overunity.  To the extent the ICs can be used toggle magnetic fields, they will probably consume more energy than they create through the rotation of whatever doohicky they act on.  I admit I may be wrong about this last bit, but I think we all agree that the burden is on the inventor to show overunity.

Quote
6. I am sure the products will be out shortly. I shall have the privilege of seeing the early prototypes as a helper of Tseung. When the products come out and generate electricity in front of the world, more people will be convinced. When you buy one in your house, and never pay electricity bills again, you will be convinced too.

I agree with you that proof is in the pudding, and I will be the first to eat crow if this happens.  However, your fervent belief, without something as basic as a video of a working prototype, is not convincing.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on August 30, 2007, 02:23:11 AM
G'day all,

Even if there was a convincing video, what would that prove? That Godzilla is real?

Let us have some technical drawings of a device, sufficiently detailled to allow replication and then, and only then, can we be certain it is not smoke and mirrors.

Hans von Lieven giggles and shakes his head.

Exit stage left :-)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 30, 2007, 03:06:17 AM
G'day all,

Even if there was a convincing video, what would that prove? That Godzilla is real?

Let us have some technical drawings of a device, sufficiently detailled to allow replication and then, and only then, can we be certain it is not smoke and mirrors.

Hans von Lieven giggles and shakes his head.

Exit stage left :-)

As Jeffc and Forever suggested, the best strategy is to have actual products on the Market.  When the skeptic buys and uses the Cosmic Energy Electricity Generator and pays no electricity bills, the dust will settle down.  That is being done  by "huge resource" Companies.

My purpose in posting is not to try to convince the skeptics or the debunkers.  It was pointed out to me multiple times - that would be close to impossible without actual products.

The Wang device with theory and all components exposed would not do the job.  Why waste more time?

My purpose in posting is:

(1) Convince the Chinese Government  to take a look at the working prototypes. (We succeeded in the case of Wang.)

(2) Promote the Lee-Tseung theory to the Over Unity Developers.  They do not need to worry about the COE Roadblock anymore.

(3) Have material ready for the International Reporters  when ANY of the Over Unity Inventions is confirmed outside China. 

(4) We are in touch with inventors such as Joseph Newman, Milkovic, Liang, Chao etc.  Their success is our success and vice versa.  We are working on the win-win  scenario.

(5) We want to benefit the World.  We want to give direction and hope to the younger generation, especially the African Nations suffering from the effect of AIDS.

(6) We do not just talk technical.  We also advocate the New Order.  Please see:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13

Lawrence Tseung
Posting Leads Out direction and hope to the younger generation
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 30, 2007, 03:29:05 AM

(2) Promote the Lee-Tseung theory to the Over Unity Developers.  They do not need to worry about the COE Roadblock anymore.


This is a noble goal and probably the only one you could possibly accomplish by posting here, but as the poster above just pointed out, without detailed specifications, it is impossible to try the theory out, so your efforts at promotion are hitting a roadblock.

Moreover, I have a fundamental problem with your statement that there is no need to worry about violating the COE principle.  In the boat in calm water scenario, you analogize solar energy with gravitational energy, and thereby make the logical leap that if using solar energy does not violate the law of COE, then neither does using gravitational energy.

However, you ignore the key difference that Solar energy is not infinite, while gravity is.  As we all know, the sun gives off energy in the form of radiation, and this energy can be captured and used by us, and the reason the law of COE is not violated is that the sun's energy is slowly being depleted.  Are you therefore suggesting that by emitting gravity, the earth's matter is somehow being depleted?  And if so, isn't it inherently dangerous to use gravity as a power source?  What happens when we run out of gravity?

Luckily, based on everything we know about gravity, every piece of mass inherently projects a gravitational pull, just by the fact that it is mass.  And by projecting gravity, it is in no way losing its mass as result.  So being able to tap this infinite source of "energy" to actually produce excess power would violate the law of COE, and therefore the underlying principle of your theory is flawed.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 30, 2007, 04:26:29 AM

(2) Promote the Lee-Tseung theory to the Over Unity Developers.  They do not need to worry about the COE Roadblock anymore.


This is a noble goal and probably the only one you could possibly accomplish by posting here, but as the poster above just pointed out, without detailed specifications, it is impossible to try the theory out, so your efforts at promotion are hitting a roadblock.

Moreover, I have a fundamental problem with your statement that there is no need to worry about violating the COE principle.  In the boat in calm water scenario, you analogize solar energy with gravitational energy, and thereby make the logical leap that if using solar energy does not violate the law of COE, then neither does using gravitational energy.

However, you ignore the key difference that Solar energy is not infinite, while gravity is.  As we all know, the sun gives off energy in the form of radiation, and this energy can be captured and used by us, and the reason the law of COE is not violated is that the sun's energy is slowly being depleted.  Are you therefore suggesting that by emitting gravity, the earth's matter is somehow being depleted?  And if so, isn't it inherently dangerous to use gravity as a power source?  What happens when we run out of gravity?

Luckily, based on everything we know about gravity, every piece of mass inherently projects a gravitational pull, just by the fact that it is mass.  And by projecting gravity, it is in no way losing its mass as result.  So being able to tap this infinite source of "energy" to actually produce excess power would violate the law of COE, and therefore the underlying principle of your theory is flawed.

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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 30, 2007, 05:05:21 AM
I found the FAQ on Black Holes by Ted Bunn most educational.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q1

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 30, 2007, 05:07:07 AM
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 30, 2007, 10:32:34 AM
I have put a lot of explanation of the Liang video as doc format in the following.

http://rapidshare.com/files/52197342/liangcar.doc.html


Enjoy it!!  ;D :D :)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on August 30, 2007, 10:48:13 AM
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on August 30, 2007, 12:27:22 PM
I have put in much detail in the attached file related to the Tsinghua electricity magnifier.;D

It is very similar to the Chas Campbell device from Australia. The Tsinghua video was done on 4 January 1996.  ;D

Enjoy it! :)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on August 30, 2007, 10:24:51 PM

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

When we apply this Law, we need to consider a closed  system. We must consider the Total Energy Going into this system (The Input Side).  There may be work done; energy loss (e.g. energy changed to heat); and Energy Going out from this system.

Mathematically, the following equation is useful to us:
The Total Energy In = The Total Energy Out (include work done, loss)

In the case of a boat in calm water and good sunshine, the Total Energy Going into the system should be (at least):
(1) Human Muscle Energy
(2) Energy due to Sunlight (a form of electromagnetic wave)
(3) Energy due to Wind (assumed none in calm waters)
(4) Energy due to Current (assumed none in calm waters)
(5) Energy due to gravitational attraction (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)
(6) Energy due to electron motion (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)

Now, focus on the concept of a closed system.  A person might know a little about science.  He might ignored items (2) to (6) because he could not use them.  He might wrongly apply the CoE and concluded that he must use muscle energy to move the boat.  He might even wrongly claim that he was in a closed system.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  A top scientist looking at the above scenario will say, "The boat is NEVER in a closed system."  The person should never claim that he applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in a closed system.

If a way were found to use (2) Sunlight, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (5) Gravitational Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (6) Electron Motion Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

Please go to the Http://www.steorn.com/forum and search for CoE under topics.  Thousands of posts were devoted to this topic.  You can refine the search by looking at the ltseung888 posts.

Regards and enjoy your reading,

Lawrence Tseung
CoE questions Lead Out thousands of posts in the Steorn Forum
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on August 31, 2007, 07:15:21 AM
Quote
If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

Science is not a state of agreement, you need to empirically observe stuffs and make the evidence hold with the claims. Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO but the likes of such is not something you can just agree with but something that requires to be understood first. One can not agree with something one does not understand.

I don't understand it at all. - LOL - I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me. I'm thus not really in title to say I support this theory or that I reject it. I'm still looking for someone who can explain the logical gist I seem to be missing.

Do you really understand the theorem?

Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 01, 2007, 04:28:06 AM
I have put further discussion related to CoE in:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=240#240

Have fun.  ;)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on September 01, 2007, 05:21:57 AM

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger

These eastern philsophers obviously think they still live in the Confucian era where poetry and play acting are sufficient to impress the masses about their supposedly fool-proof postulates.

The real world is very different. The western world measures real values through a rigorous process of substantiating proofs. These guys are NUTS!

I wouldn't take these dreamers and delusionists seriously.

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 01, 2007, 05:26:31 AM
Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Conversation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 02, 2007, 01:37:35 AM
Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

Yeah, that was way out there dude. hehehe Weiw It like confirms all my prejudgements I was trying to suppress. I thank you for the accurate layman explanation.

As an inventor things just don't get pseudoscientific enough for me.

I will explain even tho I know the consequences :D The thing is zero point energy proves that an equilibrium doesn't exist. The system may want to go there but it never actually gets there. ha-ha!

If we are not going to honestly measure the flows of our so called energy content at each stage of the translation but rather assume it's always the same we are never going to figure it out.  Maybe it was not the physics idea to ignore how the universe works. Maybe we are just spinning some old wheel?

I will tell you that every reaction that ever happened in this universe influenced every other reaction, every particle was a crucial ingredient to make it the way it is today. Analog is really analog and nothing else. One should appreciate what analog means.

What it means is best illustrated with an example.

Say you drop a stone 10 kg from a height of 73 cm.... ..... then that changes everything! The planet will resonate as a whole, the solar system will then vigorously shake as a direct result thereof! Then the galaxy! And eventually you will have absolutely changed the universe as a whole! Nothing will ever be the same again. Equilibrium just doesn't happen in a million years.

So I envision the whole principal of equating things to be wrong. Say there are 3 or more sides to an equation, all with a starting figure and a constant factor of change. Like 3 or more magnets magnetising each other. We already have perpetual motion at the micro and the macro scale. This cant be that hard? LOL! Unless of course everyone is trained to be ignorant up to the point of aggressively attacking the innocent and harmless inventors. Like that the person ain't going to figure out anything, it's not like I have to guess to know. :(

You know that Lenz law stuffs right? What my most limited understanding can bake of it is that if an electromagnet is attracting a permanent magnet it is squeezed together. If it's repelling one it's wants to expand.

 [- +] (-) squeeze

 [- +] (+) expand

But what if we make a 3 way equation and have the electromagnet both pull and push at the same time!

[- +] (+) [- +]

Now we get 2 times the work and most of the coil is outside the permanent magnetic flux. It just doesn't draw more current and it doesn't create less electromagnetic flux either.

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary

It's a little less complicated as the Newman motor, Joe Newman used 1 magnet with the coil around it, that way there are 4 interactions with the magnets for each pulse.

Jet, if everything really has to be conservative.... Take a coil and a pm, you get just as much energy back into the coil as that what you put in to attract the pm. There is no way of getting the pm off the coil without making this electricity. The kinetic energy loss from departure is the same as the gain from approach. No energy was used but the mass sure moved, people also call this SMOT ramps (adds pun) There is not much to equate with 3 points of interaction. The reaction forces are very different in size as that what goes in. It may just be a hypothesis I can show you quite good proofs of it. ;)

Thanks again for explaining the theorem.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 02, 2007, 02:28:40 AM
Getting ready for the Chas Campbell Device Videos from Ash:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg46913.html#msg46913

*****
Hi Lawrence,
many thanks for posting this video (on Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier) and all your explanation.

Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?

Unfortunately form this video you can not see any
output versus input measurements, so
we have to believe you that it is the way you claim it.

Is anybody working now still on this principle  in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?

Many thanks for bringing news from the China energy research to
over here.
As China is a very big country and is in need now for very big energy
to continue its modernisation growth
it would be good if your industry would use green energy instead of polluting
fossil fuel energy...

So please try to spread the word in China about free energy and alternative
technology by inviting many Chinese people who can speak English
to come over here.
Many thanks for your great efforts.
Regards, Stefan.
*****
Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?

(1) The initial reaction from the Scientific Establishment was that the Inventor was only "stealing" electricity from the local electricity company.
(2) The inventor was over 80 years old and did not have a strong academic training.  He initially refused to show the details inside the cylinders.  That caused much distrust and conflict with the Tsing Hua University Professors.
(3) Initial effort without detailed information on the cylinders could not reproduce the result.  There were much speculation just like what is happening on this overunity forum.
(4) When Tsing Hua University could not come up with a good theory to explain the source of energy, it was in a state of "research".
(5) Tsing Hua University accepted the Lee-Tseung theory in one day after Lee Cheung Kin and myself went to Beijing and provided the detailed explanations in Oct 2006.

Is anybody working now still on this principle  in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?

(1) When Lee-Tseung went to Tsing Hua University, we also brought Wang Shum Ho.  Wang had a very interesting invention using the coupling of ferro-liquid and rotating permanent magnets.  That invention could generate 5 KW of electricity. (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm)
(2) Tsing Hua University then thought of putting the two inventions together.  5KW x 30 = 150 KW.  That amount of power would be sufficient for most villages and small factories.
(3) On January 15, 2007, the Wang device was demonstrated in front of 5 Chinese Officials.  Dozens more demonstrations followed.
(4) In June 2007, Wang informed me that a Chinese Company (General Magnetic 磁普) had been formed.  The initial target was to raise RMB6 billion but they got RMB13 billion in a matter of hours. 
(5) General Magnetic got a number of Cosmic Energy Machine projects together.  Wang was made one of the nine vice presidents.
(6) Lee Cheung Kin devoted his effort in China to convince the top Academics that the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory could explain all the known Cosmic Energy Inventions (or Over Unity Inventions).  Six were conclusively demonstrated in China.  He got invited to Japan to consult on the flux change only device.
(7) I continued the posting outside China and worked on the theory of the Magneto Propulsion Unit (MPU) for the Flying Saucer.  To my amazement, there was the Nanjing UFO video on youtube.  That was an almost exact implementation of the Woo-Fong-Tseung patent.

*** I believe General Magnetic plans to go International IPO in 2008.  There will be multiple Products before the IPO.  The known working prototypes include: EBM, Japanese Flux Change Device, Liang Car, Chao Car, Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier, 225 HP Pulse Motor, Wang Shum Ho Device, (Nanjing Flying Saucer?), and many variations of the Magnetic Pulse Motors.   From our misdealings with CIA or the Like, we believed that USA knew all the above.  The unannounced (top secret) funding in USA is likely to be much more than RMB13 billion.

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Leads Out the first conclusive OU demonstration supported by the overunity forum members.
Title: Re: The Conversation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 03, 2007, 04:55:32 AM
But what if we make a 3 way equation and have the electromagnet both pull and push at the same time!

[- +] (+) [- +]

Now we get 2 times the work and most of the coil is outside the permanent magnetic flux. It just doesn't draw more current and it doesn't create less electromagnetic flux either.

You've gotta give the physicists their due.  Getting free energy is impossible as long as nature works according to the known laws of physics.  This can be proven mathematically, and physicists do that math, so believe them when they tell you it is so.  (Don't listen to the foul-mouthed skeptics, though -- they don't know what they're talking about any more than you do).

What that means is that it's NO GOOD doing thought experiments, trying to find some arrangement of stuff that makes free energy according to the known laws of physics.  There are no such arrangements.  If you think you imagine some way that the laws allow it, like the example above, then you're just mistaken (no shame in that!) and you might want to figure out why it isn't so.

With the particular example above, it's because the forces on the electrons moving in the coil from each of the nearby magnets add linearly, i.e., the effect of magnet1 + magnet2 is the same as (effect of magnet1) + (effect of magnet2).  Since the energy you get out or put in as the coil moves is proportional to the total force, the energy effects from both magnets are also simply added.  If you can't get free energy out of 1 magnet, then you can't get it out of 2 or any number of them.

This is called linear superposition, and many physical laws work that way.

So, trust the physicists to tell you the implications of the known laws of physics.  If you want to find free energy, you must do real experiments, and you must observe something that behaves COUNTER to the known laws or that just isn't adequately covered by the known laws.  And by the principle of superposition, the laws that describe magnetism, gravity, kinetics, etc., cover all configurations of the basic elements, no matter how many there are, or how cunningly they are arranged.

Quote
It's a little less complicated than the Newman motor [...]

You know, I generally like the free energy believers a lot more than I like the skeptics.  It breaks my heart that they can get so confused.

I've seen several Newman demos, for example, and it's clear that he just doesn't know what power is.  He's worked so hard on those demonstrations, but they show nothing.  It's tragic, whether he has anything or not.

I hope somebody has something.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 on September 03, 2007, 05:12:18 AM

What that means is that it's NO GOOD doing thought experiments, trying to find some arrangement of stuff that makes free energy according to the known laws of physics. 

.....

I've seen several Newman demos, for example, and it's clear that he just doesn't know what power is.  He's worked so hard on those demonstrations, but they show nothing.  It's tragic, whether he has anything or not.

I hope somebody has something.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy


Dear Mr. Entropy,

I noticed that you are new to this forum.  But from your posts, I believe you do have a much stronger Physics and Mathematics background than most.

My goal is to benefit the World.  I welcome you to comment on the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.  If you desire to have less "noise", we can go to http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=18 where I have moderator privilege.

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

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg40843.html#msg40843

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 03, 2007, 10:46:10 AM
Welcome aboard, Mr. Entropy!
My full respects to your posts and views!


I noticed that you are new to this forum.  But from your posts, I believe you do have a much stronger Physics and Mathematics background than most.

My goal is to benefit the World.  I welcome you to comment on the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory... 

Yes, finally that?s a good point, Mr. Tseung.
A rare good point...

Hopefully Mr. Entropy will have a look at your work (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm) and post a second opinion.
Mine is the same as previously posted here and it will ever be so. You twist around and massacre known and simple equations (it?s the same with the water-air-pump, not just with the so-called ?lead-out? theory), making a lot of elementary but also subtle mistakes, probably at least some on them purposely done to fit your obscure purposes.

Maybe you want to ?test? also Mr. Entropy? lol

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: sevich on September 03, 2007, 02:46:44 PM
I don't understand as to why Stefan hasn't shut down this topic/thread ? ..... so much talk and boastfulness by Itseung888 with no proof to back it up ? ...it's just going on and on and on and on...

what's my point you may ask ?  ........well, nearly every idea on this forum Itseung888 will describe as incorporating HIS "lead-out theory" and...bla...bla...bla...

I really admire Stefans patience with (Itseung888)...I also try to familiarize myself with the sad reality of this hopeless episode/situation. Getting way out of human control in that (Itseung888) was allowed to leave (lead-out) the state psychiatric ward, cell block No 6.  While feeling extremely cold, suicidal and hungary (Itseung888) stumbling along highway 101 helplessly but desperetly finds a new meaning of life and somehow discovers "lead out theory".  Whilst squatting at the local library he stumbles across overunity.com. Ahha!!...now he can release all his (free Neg energy) & psycotic fantasies of gradour to the poor and unsuspecting. In a desperate bid to offload all his bubbling bullshit which was just under the surface waiting for a presidential release. FINALLY it needing to free itself whilst ignoring and reckelesly infecting the rest of the innocent "overunity.com" populase.........bla...bla...bla...

hope i'm not out of line? :P



Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: argona369 on September 03, 2007, 03:51:23 PM
.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Title: Chas Campbell Devices
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hardcoreboater 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.
Title: Re: The Conversation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde 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 (http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=76)

Dr. Liang Car Video (http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=75)

lets see how much bandwidth you can use up. lol
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy 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
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: Chas Campbell Devices
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde 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 !
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde 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

Title: Re: Chas Campbell Devices
Post by: gaby de wilde 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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Scott+F.+Hall%22)'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
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Title: Re: Chas Campbell Devices
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: The Conversation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 06, 2007, 03:40:35 AM
Mr. Entropy, I put my reply here at the top of my outbox.
http://forum.go-here.nl/search.php?search_id=unanswered

Gaby, I think you've mistaken me for someone else, or, more probably, everyone else.

No matter...  The page you point to here is interesting.  I'll check for Gary's "neutral line", according to his instructions, some time this week or next.

Tell me: have you verified any of these things yourself?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 06, 2007, 04:08:17 AM
Hi Lawrence,

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.

You make me wonder what I'm getting myself into, but OK, I've got the videos.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: tinu on September 06, 2007, 09:33:12 AM
Hi Lawrence,

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.

You make me wonder what I'm getting myself into, but OK, I've got the videos.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy


Quote from http://www.energyfromair.com/Gravity.files/frame.htm

?The Theory (1)
The Pendulum works because of gravity.
The Pendulum can achieve resonance via a small horizontal force. At resonance, the required force to overcome friction can be very small.
One of the magnetic toys has a tiny magnet at the tip of the pendulum and uses a battery to attract or repel the pendulum using IC control.
A single AAA battery can keep the pendulum swinging for months.
Conclusion: A small force can keep the pendulum swinging.

The Theory (2)
A moving metallic object in a magnetic or electromagnet field can produce electric current.  (Basic theory of the Electricity Generator)
If the pendulum swings inside this magnetic field, it can produce electric current.
The electric current produced will depend on speed of motion, area of pendulum, strength of the magnetic field, the arrangement to reduce loss etc.
This electric current can be more than that required to drive the pendulum.
This is the basic theory behind extracting gravitational energy via magnetic means.?

The Theory (3)
One way of looking at this is ? we have effectively used gravity to do work.
We used a small horizontal force to move the pendulum.
Gravity will swing the pendulum back.
Electric Current is produced (which supplies energy for the small horizontal force)
Extra Energy is obtained to do other work.
The pendulum can be a semi-circle to provide larger area. ?


Now that?s a ?solid? theory!
Even a sixth grade child would dismiss it with ease.
Not to mention he/she can write a much better one in minutes?
I personally, however, miss the glorious song at the end.

Following the line, here are more conclusions:

Pendulum tends to ?swing!
Once stopped, pendulum no longer swings ?unless you start it again.
AAA battery is a marvelous engineering achievement.
IC control too.
Magnetic toys sell.
Their effect on various ?scientists? is profound.
Maybe magnetic toys should be banned for adults. Look at their consequences.
Friction can be very small because it simply can.
Friction can be also very large.
This behavior of friction is outrageous! Shame on it!
Mr. Friction and Ms. Resonance are not relatives.
Actually, when they meet, no one cares about the other.
Therefore, resonance is completely misunderstood, in the above ?theory?.
The statement that ?This electric current can be more than that required to drive the pendulum? is a wish in a dreamland universe. To be more then a wish, it requires maybe a very strong or a heavily disturbed psychic.
Psychic is therefore the key for the ?theory? to work. Not gravity.
Psychic is affected by medication. Gravity is not.
Gravity always works but unfortunately medication doesn?t.
Still, there is hope.

Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

P.S.: Welcome again to the world of shadows, Mr. Entropy. And keep your lights on.  ;)
Title: Re: The Conversation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 06, 2007, 11:20:29 AM
Mr. Entropy, I put my reply here at the top of my outbox.
http://forum.go-here.nl/search.php?search_id=unanswered

Gaby, I think you've mistaken me for someone else, or, more probably, everyone else.

haha, yes the frustration is entirely my own. Please don't apply it to yourself. :D

Quote
No matter...  The page you point to here is interesting.  I'll check for Gary's "neutral line", according to his instructions, some time this week or next.

Just remember there is plenty of crazy magnet stuff out there.

Quote
Tell me: have you verified any of these things yourself?

I started with my own theory. Later I figured out Newman's work had much in common, then I figured out wesley gary's device worked by the same principal.

Here, I just wrote it down for you.

Quote
3 POINT INTERACTION
ABSTRACT
Unleash complimentary reactions utilizing the subtraction of contradicting actions.

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/3-point-interaction

I'm sorry it's so simple, it's just the way I am.(http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 06, 2007, 12:25:19 PM
@ gaby de wilde,

Your work is very interesting.
I hope you are open to discussions.
I will be open to experiments also.
In fact, I think I?ll conduct some experiments right during this weekend if I?ll find everything is needed.


Here is what I?d like to address:
Quote from: http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor-it-cant-be
?conclusion
1) The pendulum doesn't swing -this means it can not have suffered drag. If the magnet you swinged-by had suffered drag - there would have been pendular motion. Drag absolutely demands a point to attach itself to. You may have the spin but you don't have that swing. It dont mean a thing if it aint got that swing!?


Well, apparently you are right.
However, your statement that Newton is ?so wrong? gave me some headache.
Not because Newton is Newton but because if he is not right, sky is the limit in free energy. Unfortunately it is not so.

Anyway, my challenge and the sad news to you is, imho, that you are wrong.

1. ?The pendulum doesn't swing -this means it can not have suffered drag.? False, in the general case.
The pendulum doesn?t swing ? this means the drag is along the wire ? My version.

2. ?If the magnet you swinged-by had suffered drag - there would have been pendular motion.? False in the general case also.
The magnet you swing by hand suffers drag. It may not be strong but it is there. What can be measured is the opposed drag suffered by the swinging magnet. Here is my thought experiment I?ll try to replicate during this weekend. Hopefully you?ll conduct it too.
Exp: Take exactly your setup and replace the wire with an elastic one. When you swing the magnet by hand, the elastic wire will get longer or shorter, depending on the drag orientation on the swinging magnet? If it?s not getting longer or shorter, obviously you are right. But if it does, you are wrong.
(Alternately, instead of using elastic chords, one can measure the weight of the setup, using a sensitive weighting device).

3. ?Drag absolutely demands a point to attach itself to.? You are perfectly right here.
The point drag attaches to is the upper point where the wire is fixed. The drag is there; it is just along the wire, affecting the tension within.

Opinions?

Respectfully,
Tinu

P.S. After debating the above issue, if you agree, of course, I?d also like to raise the next one about the three-point interaction. One at a time?
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 on September 06, 2007, 11:03:35 PM
Hi Lawrence,

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.

You make me wonder what I'm getting myself into, but OK, I've got the videos.
Cheers,

Mr. Entropy


Dear Mr. Entropy,

Great, you have the videos.  Let us assume that these videos are not hoaxes.

(1)   In the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier, the input power was magnified 30 times via a ?3 cylinder type device?.  The axle of rotation was horizontal.  When the axle were tilted, the magnification decreased.  Prototypes of this Electricity Magnifier exists today and at least one of them has been used in a factory environment  for over 11 years.  The Chas Campbell Device works in the same way and is being investigated by Ash and other members of this forum.  I am absolutely sure that the Chas Campbell Device works.  Chas Campbell is willing to disclose the details of his invention and I am confident that I can propose improvements. (Knowledge of a superior device helps.)

(2)   The Wang Shum Ho device.  This device is unusual, as it needs no starting motor and no input power.  It uses the coupling of two mechanisms.  One is a ferro-liquid rotation.  A ferro-liquid is caused to rotate via a rotating magnet in a magnetic field.  The ferro-liquid will form a vortex and hit the top of the container. Such motion will cause the ferro-liquid to ?remix?.  The video shows that such a mechanism by itself can rotate for a long time.  The other is the solid magnet rotation.  When these two mechanisms are coupled to enhance and complement each other, the resulting is a permanently rotating device that can generate electricity.  This device was demonstrated on January 15, 2007 in front of 5 Chinese Officials.  The result was that Wang became vice president of a RMB13 billion Company (General Magnetic 磁普).  This Company gathered a number of Cosmic Energy Machine Projects.  The plan was to go International IPO in 2008.  The Publicity and Product Introduction plans will come from the PR section of this Company.  My first confirm dealing with the Chinese Officials was October 2005 when we met the Senior Officials in the China Patent Office in Beijing.  Lee Chung Kin and I were able to convince them that our Cosmic Energy Inventions did not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

(3)   The Dr. Liang Xingren Car and later improvement by Chao Ching San.  The full Liang China Patent information was translated by Ms. Forever Yuen.  The China Patent disclosed that the Pulse Rotation was achieved via programmed Intelligent Chip and Integrated Circuits.  We are confident that it used Gravitational Energy because it had the problem of tilting similar to (1).  Chao improved it with banks of batteries.  The Chao Car has been certified by the Official Chinese Electric Car Authorities and is entering the mass production mode.  The same principle is being applied to small electricity power plants.  There are still some technical problems to overcome.  Lee Cheung Kin spent one week early 2007 working with Chao.

Now, imagine that you are one of the Tsing Hua University professors with access to the three above inventions.  (I believe they also have access or have visited the EBM machine in Hungary.)  How would you attempt to explain the source of energy of these devices?

(The answer and tone will set the stage for the detailed juicy discussions to follow.)

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Solid Experimental Prototypes Lead Out the juicy coming Meaningful theoretical discussions
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 07, 2007, 06:43:22 AM
Now, imagine that you are one of the Tsing Hua University professors with access to the three above inventions.  (I believe they also have access or have visited the EBM machine in Hungary.)  How would you attempt to explain the source of energy of these devices?

Hi Lawrence,

That's a very entertaining question!  If I had access to working overunity prototypes, then "explaining" the source of energy for these devices would be the last thing on my mind for quite some time.  It would be the final step in a journey that would go something like this:

1) First, I would perform a lot of tests to ensure that the prototypes were actually overunity devices, so that I could be sure I wasn't wasting my time.  I would isolate them from the environment as well as I could, ensure that they can run on their own power, and extract enough work from them running on their own power to be sure that they weren't simply depleting some energy storage device like a battery.  The electricity magnifier would need a feedback circuit so that it could run on its own power.  If the car normally depletes its battery, then it would need a generator on the wheel and a feedback circuit to charge the battery or a capacitor to prevent that depletion.

If I couldn't extract sufficient energy at sufficient power levels from any of the devices, then I would put those devices aside.

Lets assume that they work.

2) If I was satisfied that I had in my possession a device that violated the laws of physics that I know about, i.e., that behaves contrary to the under-unity predictions of those laws, I would then attempt to isolate the anomalous effect.

The process I would follow is basically one of structural and temporal decomposition.

Structural decomposition would involve finding the specific parts of the device that are behaving counter to the predictions of physics.  It starts with the whole device, and proceeds recursively.  We know that maginfier is overunity, so either the motor part or the generator part must be over unity.  I'd test them independently, and continue this decomposition down to the smallest set of anomalous components I could find.

Temporal decomposition would consist of measuring the state of the device or a part of the device as completely as possible at frequent and precise intervals to isolate the specific moments when the measured evolution of the device deviates from the evolution predicted by current physics.   Oscilloscopes and high-speed photography are good tools for this.

Having found the specific anomolous event, then I'd create a simple, repeatable experiment that demonstrates the anomalous effect, i.e., the violation of the current laws of physics.  Note that this is not a set of instructions about how to build a perpetual motion machine.  It's a set of instructions about how to reproduce and measure the anomaly that makes perpetual motion possible.

3) Given the repeatable experiment, I would examine variations.  How does the effect change when I change various components or the relationships between them?  I would collect a lot of data, and document the procedures required to reproduce it.  By examining variations, I would determine which aspects of the repeatable experiment are important, and try to come up with a mathematical model that predicts the anomalous behaviour based on those variables.

4) Then it would be a good time to publish so that others could do it too, and to broadly patent classes of devices that rely on the anomalous effect.  I'd want to call it the "Entropy Effect", but that would probably just cause confusion :-)

5) Given a working mathematical model, I would use it to design practical devices, and start a company to manfacture and sell them, hire a company to do so, or license the patents with clauses that deny exclusivity to licensees that fail to bring products to market effectively.

6) Finally, when the press starts to call, and asks "so how does it work?", I'd have to think of a good answer that would paint a picture in the minds of laymen that wasn't entierly inconsistent with the mathematical model of the anomalous effect.  This is what most people would call the "explanation".

7) Eventually, some physicist would integrate the mathematical model, or an approximation of it, into the theoretical framework of modern physics, ensuring that there was still a Lagrangian form.  This would change the working definition of energy by introducing a new term that they would call the "whatever" potential, that could actually take on negative values and be reduced boundlessly.  They would then say that these overunity devices work by converting whatever potential energy into useful work, thereby "explaining the source of energy" for these devices.

I hope that answers your question.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 07, 2007, 09:37:12 AM

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

And this is why the lead out theory is complete drivel.  According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy.  So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!  And Mr. Tseung claims a 1.5 to 1 efficiency rating too boot, so this should be very easy to set up.  A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much.

Come to think of it, we already have something like this in the form of desk toys.  I am referring to the set of 5 or 6 steel balls suspended on strings that hit each other.  According to the lead out theory, this device should produce infinite energy, and we know this is not true.  All this toy is really, is pendulums and pulsed forces.

Is a simple pendulum clock overunity?  I believe there are pulsed forces applied to the pendulum to keep it in motion.

Now, having debunked the lead out theory, is there really any merit to anything else?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 07, 2007, 10:16:37 AM
Wait, shruggedatlas; maybe you?ve not heard about the ?boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario?!
Mr. Tseung will soon post about it, explaining it in great detail. ;D
Then about the OU devices and then about the 5 Chinese Officials and not to forget the Tsing Hua University and its famous professors. Did I mentioned the rumors about Nobel prize nomination? What about the philosophical discussions between student A, handsome B, scientist C and investor D? And that vice president of one company? And about the great investments opportunities. Not to forget the way ?lead-out theory? explains all the phenomena into this world, especially those that are not even proved to be real?
Lol!

Then Mr. Tseung will start over and over again. Endlessly, like a moebius coil.
This is not fun. It?s really sad. It?s like a broken machine, like an erroneous software endlessly looping.

Shruggedatlas, your post will remain unanswered, although you are perfectly right. Or, it will happen this way maybe exactly because you are right.
I?ve raised similar issues, much earlier into this thread. Check them if you want.
I?ve asked fair questions. I?ve shown elementary mistakes. Mistakes not just about physics and equations but about elementary logic. Then I?ve pointed toward the stupidity of the whole thing.

It?s pointless. Let him looping and dreaming on.
Speaking alone or just with himself is something that to Mr. Tseung will not be an impediment at all. He already has an extensive experience into this area as well as in creating various accounts just to post and to create a so-called ?dialogue?.

I post here now just for the record. There are plenty of innocents out-there reading this thread. They should find such post here before making their own minds. (Otherwise it would be so easy to mislead a lot of persons?)

Have a nice day,
Tinu
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 04:22:37 AM

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

And this is why the lead out theory is complete drivel.  According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy.  So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!  And Mr. Tseung claims a 1.5 to 1 efficiency rating  too boot, so this should be very easy to set up.  A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much.
.....

Now, having debunked the lead out theory, is there really any merit to anything else?

Dear shruggedatlas,

There are a few point you and many others might have overlooked.

(1) "According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy."  When you use the word "produce", most people will think that we "create" energy.  That is a direct violation of the Law of Conservation of energy.  I have used the term "Lead Out" again, again, again and again.  Lead Out uses the existing gravitational energy that is already there.  Thus there  is NO violation of CoE.

*** one tiny misunderstand or misuse of the word "produce" distorts the entire theory.

(2) "A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much." You should also quote the qualifying sentence.  Gravitational Energy is Lead Out only during the application of the Pulse Force.  In the case of a mother pushing a child on the swing, the time during which the pushing is applied (Tpush) is short compared with the total time of one swing or oscillation (Toscillation).

*** (Tpush) << (Toscillation)  That is the reason for multiple pulse points on a wheel (e.g. Liang Xingren IC motor and the 225 Pulse Motor.)

I can appreciate the difference in actually presenting the information in a Lecture Room with interactive questions  compared with passive reading of information on the Internet.  Very slight misconceptions not immediately  clarified could lead to total misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

However, I do appreciate the posts from shruggedatlas.  They help to pinpoint some of the misconceptions.  Thank You.

Lawrence Tseung
Slight misconception Leads Out major misunderstanding.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: NerzhDishual on September 08, 2007, 04:37:40 AM

Hi ltseung888

Sorry for disturbing. But? My English is not so good.
What the heck does the verb to "Lead Out" exactly/precisely mean?
Sounds like you can use it at every opportunity.

My English Synonym dictionnary (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search)) has no entry for 'Lead out' and my Harraps's English-French is not so informative. It just talk about wires  and 'groove disc'.
Of course if you drop the 'out' it is more simple and understandable.

With 'Lead' I got the following Component Selection:
Quote
administer, administrate, captain, cause, chair, clue, command, conduce, conduct, confidential information, contribute, control, cue, determine, direct, escort, excel, extend, first, go, govern, guide, guide round, head, hint, indication,
induce, influence, inkling, intimation, leading, leash, leave, manage, moderate,
outstrip, pass, persuade, pilot, pointer, precede, preside, primary, principal,
result, rule, run, shepherd, show, show around, show round, star, steer, suggestion, surpass, take, tether, tip, track, trail, usher, vanguard, wind
So, is this irritating 'out' relevant?
What the heck is this 'out' used for?

Best

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 05:29:32 AM

Hi ltseung888

Sorry for disturbing. But? My English is not so good.
What the heck does the verb to "Lead Out" exactly/precisely mean?
Sounds like you can use it at every opportunity.

My English Synonym dictionnary (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search)) has no entry for 'Lead out' and my Harraps's English-French is not so informative. It just talk about wires  and 'groove disc'.
Of course if you drop the 'out' it is more simple and understandable.

Best


Dear NerzhDishual,

You might not have read the posts in the Steorn.com/forum  related to the Lee-Tseung Patent and the dozens of posts on Lead Out.

We use the term "Lead Out" in our patent in a specific way.  We said in our Patent Application that Gravitational Energy can be Lead Out via Pulsed oscillation, rotation or vibration.   In the boat in calm water and good sunshine example, we talk about that we are already immersed in gravitational field.  Newton's General Gravitational Law states that any two masses attract each other.  The Sun attracts the Earth.  Even you and I attract each other.  If you move, this attraction force will do work and we effectively have energy interchange.

This gravitational energy can be used.  We do not create or destroy energy.  Thus we do not violate the CoE.  Scientist already know how to use gravitational energy in a non-circular fashion (e.g. water from a dam to power turbines.  In this case, we wait for the sun to evaporate the water to become rain to fill the dam again to repeat the cycle.)

Our patent describes that we can use such gravitational energy continuously.  We apply a small horizontal force (thus supply energy) to push the swing or pendulum.  This will increase the tension of the string of the pendulum.  This increased tension lifts up the pendulum slightly.  The vertical component of this tension produces an increase in height (displacement).  In other words, work is done or energy has been supplied.

In our patent and in our theory, we pointed out that this work done or energy is NOT supplied by the horizontal force.  It is the LEAD OUT energy provided by the increased tension of the string.

In our full patent discussion with the Patent Examiner, we also showed the cases of non-horizontal force acting on the pendulum.  The case that helped to convince the patent examiner was:

(1) The String of the Pendulum (Sforce) and the string supplying the Pulse Force  (Pforce) were equal and opposite.  The Pendulum Weight was thus half way in between.

(2) In this starting position,
     the vertical component of Sforce = the vertical component of Pforce
                                                             = 1/2 the weight of the Pendulum
     the horizontal component of Sforce = - that of Pforce

(3) A slight pull of the Pulse Force string will do work.  However, it could not do ALL the work.  Some contribution must come from the tension of the String.  Or Gravitational Energy is Lead Out via the tension of the String.

Lawrence Tseung
Hope the meaning of Lead Out is clear now.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 06:02:43 AM
Dear Entrophy and Tinu,

Just finished a telephone conversation with Lee Cheung Kin.

Lee: "There will be a meeting with a group of Chinese Officials next week.  They want to have a report on the Cosmic Energy Machine development outside China.  I shall handle the Japan situation.  Can you handle the other cases."

Tseung: "Have they seen the cases within China, in particular, the following prototypes:
(1) Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier
(2) Liang Xingren Car
(3) Chao Ching San Car
(4) Wang SHum Ho Electricity Generator
(5) The 225 HP Pulse Engine
(6) The EBM machine from Hungary?"

Lee: "Some of them are very knowledgeable on the above.  I want you to tell them the Inventions outside China."

Tseung: " I shall prepare the following:
(1) The Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel and Electricity Magnifier.  I just downloaded the Gravity Wheel.  I shall use the Lee-Tseung theory to explain it.
(2) The Joseph Newman Machine.  I have email communication with them for some time.  It appears that they are ready to do a closed system  demonstration soon."
(3) The TPU device from Steven Mark.  Many members of the Overunity forum are working on this device.
(4) The Milkovic Pendulum.  It is almost a direct confirmation of our Lead Out Theory.
(5) The many magnet motors that use rotation of magnets in magnetic field.  I shall talk about this in the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory context.  An example is the Bedini motor."

Lee: "We shall ask them about the promotion plans for the Chinese Products.  You can publish them on the Internet if you get their permission."

Tseung: "When China has actual products coming down the pipe, I do not care about personal attacks.  My goal is to benefit the World.  I can simply treat the insults as deliberate attempts by the paid debunkers similar to the CIA or the Like who tricked us."

Lee: "I also want to see who can beat our theory!"
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 08, 2007, 06:14:27 AM
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Tseung.


There are a few point you and many others might have overlooked.

(1) "According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy."  When you use the word "produce", most people will think that we "create" energy.  That is a direct violation of the Law of Conservation of energy.  I have used the term "Lead Out" again, again, again and again.  Lead Out uses the existing gravitational energy that is already there.  Thus there  is NO violation of CoE.

*** one tiny misunderstand or misuse of the word "produce" distorts the entire theory.

Please, let's not split hairs.  You know what I mean.  Frankly, I do not care about CoE at this point.  I just want to know if the lead out theory dictates whether a mother pushing a child, or the desk toy I mentioned, or the simple pendulum clock is overunity.  I do not care whether the extra energy is produced, lead out, or whatever other term of art you want to attach.  I just want to know if your theory would dictate that those devices are over unity, and if so, please reconcile the fact that the three devices I mentioned are known to be under unity, while your theory would dictate otherwise.

Quote
(2) "A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much." You should also quote the qualifying sentence.  Gravitational Energy is Lead Out only during the application of the Pulse Force.  In the case of a mother pushing a child on the swing, the time during which the pushing is applied (Tpush) is short compared with the total time of one swing or oscillation (Toscillation).

*** (Tpush) << (Toscillation)  That is the reason for multiple pulse points on a wheel (e.g. Liang Xingren IC motor and the 225 Pulse Motor.)

I take exception to this logic.  You seem to imply that a single pulse does nothing, while multiple pulses would accomplish the trick.  This makes no sense.  Under the lead out theory, even a single pulse will result in free energy.  More pulses may create more energy, but a single pulse should be enough.

Finally, I want to touch on what you tell NerzhDishual.  You say that the tension of the string is what causes extra energy to be lead out. We still do not know what lead out means in this case, but I think you are running afoul of a pretty elementary concept in physics.  I am a lawyer by trade, not a physicist, so correct me if I am wrong, but tension does not by itself create energy.  For example, if I am trying to lift a weight in the gym, a weight much too heavy for me, and I struggle and pull and tug with all my might, but fail to get the weight off the ground, I am exerting great tension on my arms, but there is no way to extract any energy from this.  I would actually have to move the weight in order to accomplish any work.  So your explanation is a little nonsensical.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: NerzhDishual on September 08, 2007, 06:18:39 AM
Hi ltseung888

I was not criticizing or questionning the "Lead Out" theory. I (sometimes) see what you mean especially when you are talking about boat, water, sunshine and 'calmness'.

I undestand that you are not talking about COE violation. I also 'beleive' that a Bessler-like device is possible. I need not to be convinced. I'm far from a skeptic. Actually I'm a skeptic fighter. I fight with my native language that is why my posts here are short (I whish I could be more fluent in English).

My question was not a "scientific" one but a mere "gramatical" and "semantical" one. I just wanted to get a synonym for "Lead out".

Best
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 08, 2007, 06:20:27 AM
So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!
You nailed it down quite nicely with the hammer stuffs.

That's how you put energy into the thing

You then extract the energy from the bob's pull at the string.

Easy,

why act as if it's so complicated? ;)
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 07:07:05 AM
So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!
You nailed it down quite nicely with the hammer stuffs.

That's how you put energy into the thing

You then extract the energy from the bob's pull at the string.

Easy,

why act as if it's so complicated? ;)

Thank you.  Gaby.

With you around, I do not have to repeat the posts of the simple gravity wheel:
http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

and the related reproduction stories from Sun et al again.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 07:28:53 AM
Hi ltseung888

I was not criticizing or questionning the "Lead Out" theory. I (sometimes) see what you mean especially when you are talking about boat, water, sunshine and 'calmness'.

I undestand that you are not talking about COE violation. I also 'beleive' that a Bessler-like device is possible. I need not to be convinced. I'm far from a skeptic. Actually I'm a skeptic fighter. I fight with my native language that is why my posts here are short (I whish I could be more fluent in English).

My question was not a "scientific" one but a mere "gramatical" and "semantical" one. I just wanted to get a synonym for "Lead out".

Best

Thanks for your clarification.  Note that since I could not find a better English Word than LEAD OUT, I "abused" it.  I deliberately use the incorrect English grammar of LEAD, LEAD and LEAD for present, past and future tense.  The correct grammar should be Lead, Led, Led.  That ?mistake? was pointed out by some of the steorn.com/forum members.
Title: Re: The Conservation of Energy
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 08:26:50 AM
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Tseung.

Please, let's not split hairs.  You know what I mean.  Frankly, I do not care about CoE at this point.  I just want to know if the lead out theory dictates whether a mother pushing a child, or the desk toy I mentioned, or the simple pendulum clock is overunity. 

***The correct answer is
(1)   I now know that you are a lawyer and not a physicist.  So I am using layman scenario  - When you Lead Out existing Gravitational Energy, it is like you are at the top of a hill with a huge water tank.  You use a bucket to get the water from the tank and pour it down the hill.  You LEAD OUT the potential energy of water with your muscle energy to get the water.  However, that is NOT the potential energy of the water coming down the hill.

(2) A mother pushing a child on a swing, the simple desktop toy and the pendulum are NOT overunity devices as they do not have a feedback mechanism to re-pulse the system.  Bill Mehess tried to do that with his Korean parts pendulum.  You can read more about his invention in this forum.

***
....
Quote
I take exception to this logic.  You seem to imply that a single pulse does nothing, while multiple pulses would accomplish the trick.  This makes no sense.  Under the lead out theory, even a single pulse will result in free energy.  More pulses may create more energy, but a single pulse should be enough.

*** I never imply that a single pulse does nothing.  The implication of Tpulse <<Toscillation is as follows:
The time of the pulse (Tpulse) is much shorter than the time of an oscillation (Toscillation). The COP =1.5 part occurs only during the time of Tpulse.  If the Toscillation is 100 times longer than Tpulse, the COP of the pulsed pendulum system as a whole is NOT 1.5. 

If the COP is zero for the rest of the period.  It is 1/100 of 1.5 or 0.015.  0.015 is much less than 1. 

If the COP is 1 (ideal machine) for the rest of the period.  It is 1 + 1/100 of 0.5 or 1.005.  If the COP is slightly less than 1 in reality, the total COP drops below 1.

Thus the Lee-Tseung theory demands higher pulse rates or longer pulse periods to increase the COP value.  One effective way to do it is via pulsed rotation rather than pulsed oscillation.

I am leaving the answer to your last part to Ms. Forever Yuen. She has just completed her school certificate examination in Physics. Her answer would be straightly from textbooks.


Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on September 08, 2007, 08:45:45 AM
Mr .Tseung ask me to clarify the following concepts in Physics

*** .....but tension does not by itself create energy.  For example, if I am trying to lift a weight in the gym, a weight much too heavy for me, and I struggle and pull and tug with all my might, but fail to get the weight off the ground, I am exerting great tension on my arms, but there is no way to extract any energy from this.  I would actually have to move the weight in order to accomplish any work.  So your explanation is a little nonsensical.***

There are some elementary formulae in Physics that Tinu or other Physicists can confirm and clarify for you :

(1) Tension is a Force.  Force by itself is NOT energy.
(2) Force is a vector quantity (has direction).  In order for it to do Work, there must be Displacement.
(3) Displacement is NOT distance.  Displacement is also a vector quantity.
(4) In order for the Force to do Work, there must be Displacement in the direction of the Force.
(5) When Work is done, Energy is exchanged.  Both Work and Energy are scalar quantities. (No direction) Note that the product of two vector quantities becomes a scalar quantity.
(6) Tension in the pendulum string by itself does not imply Work done or Energy Exchange.  However, the pendulum swings to a different position.  This implies Displacement.  We can resolve this Displacement into vertical and horizontal components. (Vector arithmetic).
(7) We can also resolve the Tension (a Force) into vertical and horizontal components (Vector arithmetic).
(8) The product of Tension(vertical) x Displacement(vertical) represents the Work done or Energy exchange in the vertical direction.
(9) The product of Tension(horizontal) x Displacement(horizontal) represents the Work done or Energy exchange in the horizontal direction.
(10) The sum of (8) and (9) represents the energy exchanged.

I hope that the above information clarifies the physics concept.
 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 08, 2007, 11:13:05 AM
High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.
A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.
A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory? :o
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  ??? Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult...  ::)

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept. ;D
It should add:
 11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'.  8)

Tx,
Tinu

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 12:16:43 PM
High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.  A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.

A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory? :o
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  ??? Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult...  ::)

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept. ;D
It should add:
 11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system  is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'.  8)

Tx,
Tinu



Dear Tinu,

When you use the statement that gravitational field is conservative.  I thought that you did not understand the concept that that statement only applies to a closed system.

But you also mentioned later that "The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system  is zero."  That tell me that you probably  know the limitation of the statement (that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system).

This goes back to the hundreds of posts on CoP in the steorn.com/forum that we can never find a perfectly closed system for gravitation fields on Earth.  (Any moving star will have gravitational energy interchange with our Earth.  How can we find a closed gravitational system in such an environment?)

If I repost the dozens of CoP discussions from Steorn.com/forum again, would I be accused of repeat, repeat and repeat???  Please spend some time and read them. 

Thus I ignored the so called "advanced concept" that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system. (At least on our planet Earth.) If you can find one such system in reality, please educate me.  Thank you.

*** Just finished talking to a PhD candidate student majoring in Mathematics.  His understanding of a " conservative gravitatonal field" system is that the total gravitational energy of that system is unchanged or conserved.  If gravitational energy flows in and out from that system, that system cannot be closed.  A non-closed system cannot be conservation as there is loss or gain of the energy under consideration.  A closed-looped subsystem within such a "closed conservative system" must not in itself create or destroy energy.  If so, the "closed conservative system" can never be conservative.  (Imagine this closed-looped subsystem keep creating energy - how can the total system has the same energy?)

I am not sure whether that helps to clarify or confuse the issue for the average Forum participants.  However, some of the posts are intended for the top academics from Tsing Hua, Beijing, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Toyko Universities etc.  They may not read it now but I am sure that they will read it in the very near future when General Magnetic of China or other Companies demonstrate their Cosmic Energy  Products. ***

Lawrence Tseung
Abstract Advanced Concepts Lead Out Confusion not only in the minds of laymen but also that of the top Physicists.  Every statement must be carefully qualified.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 08, 2007, 01:56:34 PM
Dear Mr. Tseung,

?Conservative force fields and closed loops

A conservative force is one that does zero net work on a particle that travels along any closed path in an isolated system. A conservative force field can be represented as the gradient of a potential. Gravitational forces, electric forces, and magnetic forces are known to be conservative in a time-independent (static) field.
?
The work done in any closed loop shape, by such forces is independent on the path taken by the particle or charge and is equal to zero. This simply means that if a mass, electric charge or magnetic charge travels a closed loop in a static gravitational, electric or magnetic field respectively, it can never gain energy, or do any useful work. The work done in travelling from point X to Y, is always equal and opposite to the work done in travelling from point Y back to X. ?
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.

The limit in which gravitation is not conservative is in parts at E-12, as G variation is shown to be (dG/dt)/G ≤ 8E-12/year. Into this limits, energy can be extracted according to all known principles and laws. However, such a variation is way too small and too slow to be of any use. In fact, it can barely be measured using standard lab techniques and it is more mathematically deduced from observations within our solar system. On paper, however, machines can be imagined and I?d have nothing against them, in principle. But in practice it would require moving masses of billions of tons with no friction and loses; it?s simply not feasible.

Also, why bother to go that far at distant stars?
Use the Moon to extract energy: raise a body during the night when the Moon is above and let it fall when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet. This would also make a workable gravitational engine but only on paper. In practice it is also not feasible, unless, of course, converting the effects manifested on such large masses as those equivalent to a whole ocean? Tidal generators? Clicks heard?
Note that a whole sea is not enough for exploiting such effects! An ocean does it but not a sea?

Is this the line you try to pursue?
All the above facts are well known to me.
Still:
1. They are not feasible from any practical point of view.
2. They are not related in any way with the ?lead-out? theory, as you present it.

From the point of view of lead-out theory, the gravitational field of Earth can be considered static, hence conservative and all systems can be regarded as gravitationally isolated. This approximation is excellent, in the above presented limits.
If your pendulum weights as much as an ocean, then go on. Just state it and go on. I?ll follow your way of thinking. I?ll even accept a weight of a small ocean.
But if your pendulum weights less than the above, then accept that the gravitational field is conservative and forget about any variation of G.
Alternatively, I?ll even accept a ?mechanism? to vary G locally, if you can point toward one. Can you?

Tx
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2007, 03:55:30 PM
Dear Mr. Tseung,

http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.
.....

Tx
Tinu


Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your education.  I now know where you come from.  The lecture tries to promote zero point energy ZPE.  As I understand it, ZPE so far has NOT been accepted by mainstream science.

The Lecture states the First Law of Thermodynamics in a different way than what I learned at University over 40 years ago.

Quote
The first law states: In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. It simply means that the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. This is the only thermodynamic law that is NOT statistical, and thus is considered the only secure law of present science. In physics, this is known as the law of conservation of energy of isolated systems. N?ether's Theorem, states that if a system has a particular symmetry, there is a quantity associated with that symmetry that is conserved. By this theorem, the principle of conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations, that is symmetry in time. The conservation of energy law does not apply to systems which are not symmetrical upon time translation or reversal.

In many places, the lecture states the importance of isolated or closed systems.  For example, I quote:

Quote
It is not usually stressed enough, the fact that there is a very fundamental assumption in these laws, even in the first most 'secure' law of thermodynamics, or what we usually refer to as COE (conservation of energy). They ASSUME a closed system, and are born out of pure mathematics or statistical work, unprovable in the real world. Unprovable, because no one has yet been able to isolate a closed system. We are not even sure that the universe as a whole can be regarded as a closed system, which is a strict requirement for the conservation of energy law! In fact principles such as uncertainty, and entanglement, would seem to indicate that either it is impossible for a truly closed system to exist, or that our idea of a closed system is not taking into account other phenomena or energy exchanges which cannot be easily or possibly isolated from our systems. For example, one might consider a mechanical engine as a closed system, and finds out that it's impossible to get two similar efficiency readings. This could for example be due to changes in external ambient temperatures which were not taken into account in the first place. So, in such a case, our sun must be taken account as part of this example. But, still, we find that even at absolute zero kelvin, the ground state energy does not go to zero, and this means that other yet unknown energy sources must be taken account, or at least have their existence accepted by mainstream science, which is currently not the case. And that's why the list of anamolous effects in science is getting longer year after year.

I respect your support of ZPE.  However, I believe the Lee-Tseung theory is much easier to understand.  It can be applied much easier to the known working Cosmic Energy Machine Prototypes.  You may feel that I misused the Laws of Classical Physics.  That may be a valuable point for deeper understanding.  However, the top Professors at Tsing Hua, Beijing, Harvard and MIT did not raise that point as objection.  They only said that "this will require more research".  Lee-tseung-Wang were made guest lecturers at Tsing Hua University.  That fact demonstrated that some top academics were willing to investigate the Lee-Tseung theory further.

You did a good job in stressing that we need to use the correct units of force, work and energy.  Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
ZPE supporters Lead Out heated discussions with the Lee-Tseung supporters.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on September 08, 2007, 04:36:36 PM
I do not support ZPE, in particular.
(And I?m sorry but I have to run for now. Real life, real business?)

Still, you have in my above post at least clear examples of workable-in-principle devices, and clear values, supported by known facts and a description that is understable by just everyone reading here.

Try doing the same.

1. Try conceiving and posting a principle experiment. I have even offered before to build it and to test it for you.
Pulsed pendulum is not working. That?s all.

2. Try developing and posting a correct theory
Not only units of force, work and energy are wrong, but the equations are wrong, in the way they were used. And I do not ?feel it?. They are literarily wrong. I won?t post it again; it?s already here, right into this thread.

3. Try showing the limits in which the above 1 and 2 applies, at least the way I did it.

Then, there will be a solid base for discussing.
Right now, there is almost nothing.

Keep in touch,
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 08, 2007, 05:02:15 PM
I do not support ZPE, in particular.
(And I?m sorry but I have to run for now. Real life, real business?)
Typical debunker thing to say.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 08, 2007, 05:40:29 PM
Perpetual Motion Machine Patent or Patent Applications from the China Patent Database.

I used the Chinese Characters 永动机 as keyword to search  on the Chinese Patent Database.   

当我搜寻"永久行动机器" 我发现这: 自古以来,鼓吹永动机的无非两类人,一类是无知或偏执的空想家,一类是诈骗投资的骗子。 (http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_sad.gif)

Quote
I got 60 hits.  56 were invention patents.  It demonstrates that the dogma of "perpetual motion machines are not possible because of the law of conservation of energy" is less severe in China.  The first page is listed.

I deliberately do not add any translation.  This gives your Chinese friends a chance to shine (or to get a drink or a dinner from you!)

您现在的位置: 首页 > 专利检索 > 搜索结果
        发明专利 56 条       Ã¥Â®Å¾Ã§â€Â¨Ã¦â€“°åž‹ä¸“利 4 条 
 
序号 申请号  专利名称 
1    02104966.1     Ã¦Å“ºç”µç£æ•°æ¨¡å¾ªçŽ¯å¼åŠ¨åŠ›æœº 
2    02102260.7     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦â€ºÂ²Ã¦Å¸â€žÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
3    02108873.X     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
4    01123526.8     Ã¥Â®â€¡Ã¥Â®â„¢Ã¥Â¼â€¢Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¨Æ’½åŠ é€Ÿç”µåŠ¨æœºè½¦è¾† 
5    96102681.2     Ã¨â€¡ÂªÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¨Â¿ÂÃ¨Â¡Å’è½®??永动机 
6    97101208.3     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
7    96112631.0     Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¤Â¸ÂÃ¥Â¹Â³Ã¨Â¡Â¡Ã¨Â£â€¦Ã§Â½Â®-永动机 
8    97101371.3     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã§Â£ÂÃ¥Ââ€˜Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
9    86106041     Ã¦â€“¥åŠ›ç£åŠ¨æœº 
10    88108911.7     Ã¥Ë†Â©Ã§â€Â¨Ã¥â€ Â¬Ã¥Â¯â€™Ã¥Â¤ÂÃ¦Å¡â€˜Ã§Å¡â€ž?永动机?技术方案 
11    88109717.9     Ã¤Â½Å½Ã¨Æ’ŒåŽ‹å†ç”Ÿå‡æ±½å¼æ±½è½®æœºè®¾å¤‡ 
12    89105245.3     Ã¨Å â€šÃ¨Æ’½æŠ½æ°”压缩机 
13    92103544.6     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåŠå…¶ç”¨é€” 
14    93117137.7     Ã©â€¦ÂÃ¥ÂË†Ã¥Âºâ€Ã§â€Â¨Ã©â€¡ÂÃ¥Å â€ºÃ¥Å Â¨Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦Å“º 
15    94107176.6     Ã§Â£ÂÃ¦â‚¬Â§Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
16    93100829.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦â€“°åž‹åŠ¨è£…ç½® 
17    94107644.X     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“º 
18    94111811.8     Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã§Â§ÂÃ¦Â Â¹Ã¦ÂÂ®Ã¦ÂÂ Ã¦Ââ€ Ã¥â€™Å’液压传动原理构成的永动机 
19    93114240.7     Ã¦Â°Â¸Ã¥Å Â¨Ã¦Å“ºåˆ¶é€ æŠ€æœ¯ 
20    97107032.6     Ã¥Â¹Â¿Ã¤Â¹â€°Ã¥Å â€ºÃ¦ÂºÂÃ¦Å“º 
 


Websearchin for "离心增力机" also looks interesting.link (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fq%3D%2522%25E7%25A6%25BB%25E5%25BF%2583%25E5%25A2%259E%25E5%258A%259B%25E6%259C%25BA%2522%26sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DGGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-27%2CGGGL%3Aen&hl=en&langpair=zh|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8)

zeer interusant alluhmaal. ;D
Title: Chas Campbell Devices
Post by: ltseung888 on September 09, 2007, 10:58:56 AM
I have boldly stated in:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48389.html#msg48389

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 01:03:00 AM
Hi Lawrence and all,

Thank you Lawrence we will be attaching that to our presentation of this system, depsite Chas not have a refined system and or a working system ATM, there are still many themes and benefits we can attain from this whole experience, and that data you provided needs to make it to the light and day so does all the other gravity theorems/devices mentioned so far and the response Chas got. Plus How you and Chas need endorsement and investigation /support.


Dear Ash,

You and your team have done an excellent job.  I have seen the Chas Campbell gravity wheel video and I also have the dimensions of his Electricity Magnifier.

After careful review and discussions with others in China, we are very confident that we can improve both the Chas Campbell devices.  I shall prepare a full, detailed theoretical explanation of why his two devices are theoretically possible.  We shall then outline the many improvements that are possible under the prediction of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

The Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier is actually easier to implement and demonstrate.  I have the unfair advantage of knowing the superior Tsing Hua Electricity Generator using cylinders.  Lee and I already presented the theory at Tsing Hua University multiple times in late 2006.  In one sentence, it is Pulsed Rotation Leading Out Gravitational Energy.

Lee Cheung Kin and I shall meet some Chinese Officials next week.  As you may know already, China and Japan are extremely interested in alternative energy projects.   If you do not object, I shall present the Chas Campbell devices to them.  (We did that for Wang Shum Ho with good success.)

Keep up the good work.  I am interested in your RV invention too.

Lawrence Tseung
International Cooperation Leads Out a better World for all.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 12, 2007, 01:25:33 AM
I have updated (to Version 1.2) the campbell.doc document posted at:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484

In Version 1.2, I included both the gravity wheel and the Electricity magnifier.

Have fun.

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 12, 2007, 04:56:09 AM
Presentation file to two groups of Chinese Officials this week.

Initial feedback excellent.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 13, 2007, 10:56:24 AM
The message to Ash before his trip to Chas Campbell

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg49330.html#msg49330

and the reply from Ash and the sharing of information

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg49330.html#msg49330

Quote

Hi Lawrence,

Personally i would like to thank you and so does the trustees and volunteers at Panacea for your ideas and enthusiasm /support. Patrick Kelly has added your thesis to our on line university, also your page and Chas has been updated with your document. The new site is being uploaded now.

We will be presenting a Full video production of all gravity devices which are currently reported working, Bob mays, Milkovics, and presenting your Gen and thesis with the experimental data we attain at Chas's test.

We will also be getting faculties and government to go on record stating they have evaluated this research.

We will also be presenting this along with our water fuel cell and neon switcher to the public in order to attain support for all open sourced engineers and work towards getting a RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.


Check got it Lawrence, will do those tests for you.

The video will take time to edit, how ever we will be posting the pulse RV tests parts here exclusive for Stefan, so you guys don't have to wait   wish us luck Guys, plenty more to come.


Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on September 13, 2007, 03:48:27 PM
@Lawrence

Do you believe there has been a history of suppression of free energy devices in China by big business and government?  From the little I know about China's history, I would think that the government there would be very much in favor of any devices like that and that big business has been controlled and owned by government there for many years, perhaps always.

It seems interesting that in most of the world, evil oil business and government interests have been blamed for suppressing public awareness and commercial production of free energy devices.  What has kept these wonderful devices you speak of from becoming popular commercial products in China all these years?

Humbugger
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 13, 2007, 07:47:21 PM
@Lawrence

Do you believe there has been a history of suppression of free energy devices in China by big business and government?  From the little I know about China's history, I would think that the government there would be very much in favor of any devices like that and that big business has been controlled and owned by government there for many years, perhaps always.

It seems interesting that in most of the world, evil oil business and government interests have been blamed for suppressing public awareness and commercial production of free energy devices.  What has kept these wonderful devices you speak of from becoming popular commercial products in China all these years?

Humbugger

My own experience in China with the Chinese Officials is actually very positive.  Lee and I were able to meet the top Officials in the China Patent Office.  They were very eager to listen to our theory.

We got great reception at Tsing Hua University - the top University in China responsible for evaluating perpetual motion patent applications.  We were made guest lecturers.

The real bad experience in suppression was from what I called CIA or the Like.  They tricked us in believing that they represented the Chinese Government and got us to disclosing every technical detail.  They also got us to explain the working of a 225 HP Pulse Motor developed in USA.  The device was working for 15 years but the inventor could not figure out the source of energy.

That group and similar were very skilled in generating jealousy and distrust amongst the inventors.  They really knew how to use greed and distrust.  They infiltrated into the team and then broke it from within.  My own conviction is that - there is indeed conspiracy to suppress the Cosmic Energy Inventions.  However, such conspiracy did not come from the Chinese Government.

After we promoted Wang Shum Ho  on the Internet, 5 Chinese Officials saw his demonstration.  Wang became vice president of General Magnetic with 13 billion dollar RMB backing.  The date of demonstration was Jan 15, 2007 and the date of becoming vice president was June 2007.

Thus heavy support  on Cosmic Energy Development in China with public knowledge was only a few months - since June 2007.

China has been extremely careful  with its scientific image.  Tsing Hua University worked with the Electricity Magnifier that could magnify the input 30 times since 1996.  They knew that the invention worked.  They could not come up with a theory to explain why.  They kept it very low key for over 11 years.

Now, the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory is out.  CoE has not been violated.  The Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier will be validated  by Ash et al.  Lee and I (who knew the workings of the Tsing Hua device) are helping openly.  It is a matter of weeks before the World confirms the Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier and thus the Lee-Tseung theory outside China.

I like your change in attitude  - no longer accusing inventions as hoaxes and inventors as imposters.

Regards and enjoy the show from Australia.  (Expect many posts from the debunkers.  That will add flavor to the drama.)

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Humbugger on September 13, 2007, 08:26:06 PM
@Lawrence

So...the CIA came into China and posed as the Chinese government to suppress free energy machines?  Wow...what an operation!  But you were not fooled, thankfully.  Were they caught and executed I hope?

And the only other thing that has ever held anyone back over there is this idea that you shouldn't build and sell the machines to provide free energy until the theory is understood?  Wow, that would never happen in America.  Even if you have a working machine and know how to build more no problem, in China you must wait until the theory catches up?  And now, finally, thanks to you, the Grand Unified Pulsed Gravitational Lead Out Theory of All Free Energy Inventions Past Present and Future has explained everything and production has begun in full swing, right?

So we should expect these machines to start arriving real soon all over the world in great quantities and for very low prices, I guess.  I'll be checking at WalMart and Home Depot.  Seems like there are finally no more obstacles in the way.  Maybe Ashtweth should move to China and set up his non-profit over there.  He and everyone else have been having a heck of a time for the last several hundred years getting these new inventions going mostly because of the damn governments and big oil men wrecking everything and killing all the great inventors.  I know because I read all about it on his website.  You just don't have that problem over in China, it seems.  And now you have gifted the world with your theory, so there are no more problems!

Oh, the only one is maybe quality control.  I've been hearing a lot about that lately in regards to China.  Guys getting executed and other guys hanging themselves in their businesses after bringing shame upon China.  Just please try to get them to use paint that has no lead in it or there will be trouble for sure when the free energy machines start arriving in the USA. 

Maybe it's the CIA sneaking the lead into the paint?  Did you think of that?  Maybe they are trying to ruin the reputation of Chinese goods because they know the free energy machines cannot be held back any longer since your theory has explained them all so completely now.  I bet that's it.

So, Lawrence, I guess the bottom line is, once again, it's all about keeping the LEAD OUT!   ::)



Humbugger  ~  Always Trying to Help Figure Out What's Really Going On Here

P.S.  I like your attitude too:  "(Expect many posts from the debunkers.  That will add favor to the drama.)"  Did you mean "favor" or "flavor"?  I'm going to sit back and watch, I think, unless someone asks for my opinion.  Ashtweth doesn't like me and he just hates it and gets very upset when I ask questions.  He thinks I'm an oil man but really I'm not.  I'm getting kind of "suppressed", I guess.

Right now I have to put the laptop away because the doctor is going to take some stitches out of my shoulder.  I think they put some kind of chip in there.  They told me it was "abnormal cells" they had to remove but I'm betting it was one of those CIA chips they were putting in, really.  Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on September 14, 2007, 01:29:51 AM
@Lawrence

So...the CIA came into China and posed as the Chinese government to suppress free energy machines?  Wow...what an operation!  But you were not fooled, thankfully.  Were they caught and executed I hope?
...

Now you know why this guy is NUTs!

chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 14, 2007, 05:57:29 AM
So...the CIA came into China and posed as the Chinese government to suppress free energy machines?  Wow...what an operation!

What do you mean? We found them running concentration camps in Poland? Abduct EU citizens? haha??

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

wow what an operation? eh humpy?

Reality can be such a fish-slap in the face eh?

The real suppression is done by idiots screaming down all inventors. I don't have to explain this to you? You know your job description. inventors have better things to do as to be debunked by you. You are much to good at it. It's not worth the effort.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 14, 2007, 06:36:16 AM
So...the CIA came into China and posed as the Chinese government to suppress free energy machines?  Wow...what an operation!

What do you mean? We found them running concentration camps in Poland? Abduct EU citizens? haha??

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

wow what an operation? eh humpy?

Reality can be such a fish-slap in the face eh?

The real suppression is done by idiots screaming down all inventors. I don't have to explain this to you? You know your job description. inventors have better things to do as to be debunked by you. You are much to good at it. It's not worth the effort.

What a fantastic leap in logic.  CIA has secret detention camps, therefore it also wastes its time impersonating Chinese politicians to thwart a free energy demonstration in China by a completely unknown researcher, despite the fact that every other free energy demonstration in the history of the universe has been a total failure.  (Oh wait, except the ones they secretly sabotaged, right?)

I also find amusing your picking and choosing of when to use mainstream media as a valid source.  Apparently it is fine to support this position, but you are absolutely convinced that mainstream media is in cahoots with the CIA and the Bush administration when it comes to anything related to 9/11, and nothing they publish on that subject can be trusted at all, and moreover, they have no motivation at all to publish the real story and are really just all paid puppets of evil Bush.

And finally, do you really think that something as revolutionary as free energy can be "suppressed" by "shouting" on an Internet forum?  Since when has a huge furor to silence something actually accomplished this goal.  Inevitably, when you tell someone they should not be watching or listening to or reading something, that something becomes manifold more popular, because everyone wants to know what all the fuss is about.  The only time that open criticism of something results in silence is when the critic is obviously correct and there really isn't anything else to say on the matter.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 14, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
G'day all,

The day the CIA starts taking the theories of a certain Lawrence Tseung seriously and starts considering them as a thread, on that day all of us are in deeeeeeep shit.

I know the CIA is run by lunatics, but thaaaaat crazy????    Heaven forbid :-)

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on September 14, 2007, 08:00:53 PM


My own experience in China with the Chinese Officials is actually very positive.  Lee and I were able to meet the top Officials in the China Patent Office.  They were very eager to listen to our theory.

We got great reception at Tsing Hua University - the top University in China responsible for evaluating perpetual motion patent applications.  We were made guest lecturers.

The real bad experience in suppression was from what I called CIA or the Like.  They tricked us in believing that they represented the Chinese Government and got us to disclosing every technical detail.  They also got us to explain the working of a 225 HP Pulse Motor developed in USA.  The device was working for 15 years but the inventor could not figure out the source of energy.
....

Lawrence Tseung

Here we go again! I can't believe you're either very delusional or very stupid. Oh, now the CIA tricked you into .....Maybe it's all in your mind? Get some psychiatric help.

Oh, also try to get a life Lawrence. Spend time with your grandchildren. The world is begging for a different interpretation than your crap out nonsense and did any other top tier universities in the western world invite you to lecture at their institutions?

You're really looking more and more silly with every new post!

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Unicron on September 14, 2007, 08:39:51 PM
Can the personal bashing please stop! for anny who makes a personal insult, "It takes one to know one"
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 14, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
G'day all,

Sorry Unicron, but this isn't really personal bashing. When you or I, or Lawrence for that matter, make silly statements about physics or CIA involvement or anything else on an open forum such as this we lay ourselves open to criticism.

The only way Lawrence has to avoid this kind of response is to stop making idiotic and arrogant statements.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Unicron on September 14, 2007, 10:46:32 PM
ok, agree
Title: The Lee-Tseung Theoretical Pulse Motor
Post by: ltseung888 on September 15, 2007, 01:08:21 AM
I shall start a thread on the design principles of the Lee-Tseung Theoretical Pulse Motor.  The thread will be in the http://forum.go-here.nl

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=265#265

Quote
Gaby has done a great job in collecting many inventions with OU claims. His posts in this topic on Pulse Motors are stimulating.

My focus is somewhat different. I would like to apply the Lee-Tseung Theory to design the best Pulse Motor  possible. I would not build the motor myself as I am not skilled in the use of tools. Others have a chance to shine.

The goal of this thread is:

(1) Explain how the Gravitational and Electron Motion Energy  is Lead Out in the Pulse Rotation.

(2) Identify the various factors that will affect the Lead Out efficiency.

(3) Show how the known devices  such as the Newman, the Bedini, the 225 Horse Power Pulse Motor, etc fit into the above scheme.

(4) Discuss how to incorporate the Flying Saucer Concept  into the pulse motor. (magneto propulsion unit). I shall make comparison with the John Searl Devices.

(5) The knowledge is expected to Benefit the World. However, I expect debunkers and others with less noble intentions to jump in and disrupt the discussion as in other open forums.

I shall use my moderator privilege  to delete, modify or ban disrupting posts. Please do not post in this thread of the forum.go-here.nl if you object. Thank you.

I am making the thread sticky first so that enough information may be pumped in to start reasonable discussions.

Edited: A friend advised me to have an open thread  such as this one to accept all input including insults.  There is the sticky thread that I can use to organize my own and other useful comments.  These useful comments can come from the open thread.  I shall give it serious consideration.

Lawrence Tseung
Benefiting the World Leads Out necessary measures to ensure "focus on the technology"
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 15, 2007, 05:43:31 AM
G'day all,

I shall start a thread on the design principles of the Lee-Tseung Theoretical Pulse Motor.
My focus is somewhat different. I would like to apply the Lee-Tseung Theory to design the best Pulse Motor  possible. I would not build the motor myself as I am not skilled in the use of tools.


Nuff said, isn't it, This is the first time he admits to being an armchair physicist.

If you cannot prove your theory by experiment you are talking iffy stuff, if not rubbish.

I guess that disqualifies me from the forum moderated by him. Only TRUE BELIEVERS welcome? Can't have heresy now, can we??

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 04:03:59 PM

Boat in Calm Water and Good Sunshine Scenario

The Patent Offices and the Scientific Community used the Law of Conservation of Energy as a roadblock for perpetual motion machines (PPM) for centuries.  The Law of Conservation of energy essentially says that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  It can only change from one form to another.  If the source of energy of an invention cannot be identified, the invention is likely to be classified as the impossible PPM.

Are you really to dumb to understand this Hummpy & hansie? Maybe you can start with explaining what you are trying to acomplish in this discussion? You seem to be spending your time on spewing nonsense.

What is the goal in this?

road?block
   1. A barricade or obstruction across a road set up to prevent the escape or passage, as of a fugitive or enemy troops.
   2. An obstruction in a road, as fallen rocks or trees.
   3. Something, such as a situation or condition, that prevents further progress toward an accomplishment.

http://www.answers.com/roadblock&r=67
roadblock: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 16, 2007, 08:35:53 AM
Dear Gaby,

I have completed the first draft of the Lee- Tseung Theoretical Pulse Motor. It is in http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=265#265

I have also included guidelines to build the flying saucer. Let us get ready for the cheers and jeers.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulses will lead out strong emotions.   :o
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on September 16, 2007, 08:50:42 AM
I have read through the material related to the Lee-Tseung Theoretical Pulse Motor guideline and the flying saucer information. I found it quite easy to follow.

In the Chinese saying(知易行難) knowing how to build something is easy, actually building it may meet with unexpected difficulties. I believe it would be a very difficult task to build such a device in one?s garage. It would be better to have an university environment or similar research facilities.

The flying saucer will be much easier if we have a working pulse motor product. If the right opportunity comes, I would like to participate.  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Magnetic pendulum interactions.
Post by: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 12:17:12 PM
Continued from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487

Try to use shorter length (approximately 30 cm).
Understood. (知道了)

Quote
Forever Yuen used disc magnets with hole in the middle costing USD0.5.  I believe your magnets are much stronger.
As it happens, my friend has some ceramics with a hole in but he forgot to bring them here over the weekend as he'd intended.
If my results still conflict after using shorter lengths, I'll see if magnets with a hole in make any difference... I don't expect that they will, but then without testing I couldn't be too sure.

Quote
Since you are using fishing lines, you can put a fishing pole on top of two Chairs.
Correction - Sm0ky2 used fishing line. I don't have such a thing. I was using string which I had pre-stretched.

Quote
There should not be other objects (especially magnetic or iron) to upset the experiment. (I believe Forever used non-stretchable strings.)
I made sure that there was nothing ferrous (or even aluminium) anywhere near the swing.
The chair mentioned in my previous post is a wooden one.

Quote
I shall wait for you and others  to repeat the experiment.  If the results were still inconclusive, I would ask Ms. Forever Yuen to repeat and video the experiment next Sunday  (or during her holidays).
I'd like to see the experiment but I don't think you really need to trouble Yuen Xiaojie.
If I still cannot reproduce her findings after a couple more attempts, then maybe she can demonstrate what a dumbass I am and show me how it's done.

By the way... I saw one of your videos on YouTube...
The one with the weighted float on a chain, being dropped into a tank of water and rising up the column of water.

Now, that's clever thinking but it leads to the question...
"Did you figure a way of retrieving the float from the top of the column and cycling it back down the chain again ?"

You have an airtight gate at the bottom and one at the top, right ?
Thus, you can open either gate without losing the head of water, but not both at the same time.

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: Magnetic pendulum interactions.
Post by: ltseung888 on September 17, 2007, 02:04:35 PM
[
Continued from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487

Try to use shorter length (approximately 30 cm).
Understood. (知道了)
...

If I still cannot reproduce her findings after a couple more attempts, then maybe she can demonstrate what a dumbass I am and show me how it's done.

I am sure you will succeed.  The students at Tsing Hua University repeated it with no problem.  Looks like you can speak and write Chinese.  Welcome.

Quote
By the way... I saw one of your videos on YouTube...
The one with the weighted float on a chain, being dropped into a tank of water and rising up the column of water.

Now, that's clever thinking but it leads to the question...
"Did you figure a way of retrieving the float from the top of the column and cycling it back down the chain again?"

You have an airtight gate at the bottom and one at the top, right ?
Thus, you can open either gate without losing the head of water, but not both at the same time.

The RoadRunner..

If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim  by the inventor.  The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed.  However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume.  When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall  - with volume equal to that of the Float.

It was displayed as a warning to the experimenters who did not have a solid theory.  The poor inventor "demolished" his house and spent years for a ?scientific lesson.?

Lawrence Tseung
Not knowing the theory Leads Out high Pulse Rates when the phenomenon is explained.
Title: Re: Magnetic pendulum interactions.
Post by: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 03:03:31 PM
I am sure you will succeed.  The students at Tsing Hua University repeated it with no problem.
I share your optimism... It's not rocket science...


Actually, rocket science, I can manage... Making a magnetic pendulum without busting my magnets... That's a tougher task...  ;)


Quote
  Looks like you can speak and write Chinese.  Welcome.

Looks can be deceptive... ;)


I only understand a little. I'm probably better at writing it than speaking it... Wo shi ying guo ren !!!
It's not easy for ying guo ren... In English, tone is used to change the emphasis of a sentence, almost never to change the meaning of a word. You can imagine that I usually get my tones completely wrong and chong guo ren look at me as if I've just arrived from Mars... For all the good it does, I might just as well be speaking a Martian dialect !

Quote
If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim  by the inventor.  The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed.
Oh... That's sad.
I couldn't read enough of the Chinese subtitles to understand the meaning of the video.
I was going to ask my wife to read them for me.... Ying wei ta shi chong guo ren.

Quote
However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume.  When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall  - with volume equal to that of the Float.
Yes, of course. I hadn't thought of that.... ooops... neither had he.
However, surely all is not completely lost if the net amount of energy gained from the system is more than the amount of energy gained from running that volume of water through a water-wheel...?
That's assuming that he has a pressurised water supply as is the norm for households in the West, and I assume in most developed areas of China too. Not so handy in those rural areas where the only source of water is a well and it needs pumping or carrying !!

Ha... And of course, it's not scalable... There is a limited height to which the atmosphere will support a column of water, so it's not as if he could simply build it taller to gain more energy on the ride down the chain.

There's that problem with 'thought experiments' again.
The guy is in a stiff situation though... He's done all the 'thought experiments' he can.
I guess he didn't have access to complex and accurate simulation software in which he could have modelled his idea... His only recourse would be to build it and try it out... and only then does he find the snag...

I feel sad for the guy. I hope he managed to salvage something workable from the situation.

Quote
It was displayed as a warning to the experimenters who did not have a solid theory.  The poor inventor "demolished" his house and spent years for a ?scientific lesson.?

Then, may I suggest that you include a translation of the subtitles in the video description ?
Most Westerners wouldn't recognise one character from another and even those who are studying Chinese may have difficulty in following the subtitles.
Like me, they may look at the video thinking "What a great idea !" and not think past the problem of the loss of volume.

I guess it's becoming fairly obvious now that I'm not Humbugger, but just so that you can share my amusement, I'll send you a message from within YouTube and you will understand why I was saying to Zero that I would leave him with absolutely NO DOUBT that I am who I claim to be.

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 04:00:35 PM
[
By the way... I saw one of your videos on YouTube...
The one with the weighted float on a chain, being dropped into a tank of water and rising up the column of water.

Now, that's clever thinking but it leads to the question...
"Did you figure a way of retrieving the float from the top of the column and cycling it back down the chain again?"

You have an airtight gate at the bottom and one at the top, right ?
Thus, you can open either gate without losing the head of water, but not both at the same time.

The RoadRunner..

If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim  by the inventor.  The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed.  However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume.  When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall  - with volume equal to that of the Float.

I thought this was a very inspiring device. Just looking at it leads out hundreds of other ideas. Last night I figured out that lifting objects takes about 100/1 of the energy as that what is released when lowering it. It appears to me that Milkovic's device is very inefficiency with 12:1 it can be hundreds of times better as that. lol This of course sounds so ridiculous I will  try to debunk it myself the coming few days, if I cant find the bug I will put myself up for review. Eh, I mean the hypothesis. lol

The hypothesis would mean the energy in the flotation device is not in the vertical pull but in the water displacement while the module floats upwards. The shape of the module alone should be able to make the whole column of water rotate and do so most violently. If the pressure is inserted in a rotating shape it will try to continue this motion. The whirling column sucks the water out of the floatator. The flotator it-self pushes most linearly against the water above it. (Like a standing wave should)

We can thus put many hundreds of kilos of water into motion by pushing the flotator though it. Putting the flotator though additional times will make it whirl faster. Now where it gets quite weird is that the module can sail downwards on the whirl again. Still not overunity but already a weird thing to see.

Now pay attention to the pressure difference between the fluid at the rim of the tub and the fluid in the center of it! Floating at the outside means something entirely different as floating in the center.

If  (hypothetically) the tube would be spinning fast enough we could drop the flotator thought the center as there would be nothing but air there.

By creating concave in the tube we can force the inner flow to go downwards and the outer flow upwards. It was really helpful to see the video while thinking about this.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-engine
gabydewilde - vortex engine

The device must also replenish it-self with rainwater. Vortexing water is incredibly good for all life around it. Anyone already knows how bad water is when you leave it standing still for some time. Leave it alone long enough and it will kill everything. Why do you think showers feel so good? Because it's bad for you? lol

I hear you thinking "why is Gaby now rambling away about biology, isn't he confusing enough the way he is?"

The point is quite simple, Stan Meyer said all bonds in nature hold vibrations, (vibrations are energy) when you break something then this energy becomes available in the environment. So a vortex engine needs to grind down water clusters and micro organisms! Even the slightest vortex will do this.

Victor Schauberger promised us that removing all the small natural vortexes would leave nature with only the really really big one's. All the energy we pump into the environment will come back at us at some later stage either as a whirling mountain creek or as a massive hurricane.

No, I would like to see 100 "unworkable" flotation machines. And if the researcher wants to pull down his house to make such video for me I think that's a bit over the top but it shows most respectable effort.

:)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 04:27:22 PM
nm
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 04:36:34 PM
Gaby, you're so funny !!
I'm going to have to send you the same YouTube message as I've just sent to ltseung888 so you can share the amusement.

I'll let Zero in on the joke... Eventually...

After he's suffered enough rides up and down an elevator shaft whilst standing on a set of bathroom scales... ;)

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 05:05:24 PM
What do you mean by that?  It should be equal, shouldn't it?  After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction.  If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

I'm guessing that you've not seen the video.
A weighted float is attached to a chain. It descends under gravity, turning a generator as it goes.
At the bottom, it's dropped into a pool of water where it then bobs up into a column of water in a big tube. It rises all the way to the top of the column so it doesn't need to be lifted all the way back up to the top of the run. At most, it needs to be lifted a foot or so, out of the column and back onto the chain where it makes its descent once more.
It really is quite an ingenious idea (apart from one or two... urm... minor flaws) much like many OU attempts.

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 05:46:20 PM
What do you mean by that?  It should be equal, shouldn't it?  After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction.  If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

I'm guessing that you've not seen the video.
A weighted float is attached to a chain. It descends under gravity, turning a generator as it goes.
At the bottom, it's dropped into a pool of water where it then bobs up into a column of water in a big tube. It rises all the way to the top of the column so it doesn't need to be lifted all the way back up to the top of the run. At most, it needs to be lifted a foot or so, out of the column and back onto the chain where it makes its descent once more.
It really is quite an ingenious idea (apart from one or two... urm... minor flaws) much like many OU attempts.

The RoadRunner..

Yes, I have seen the video, and I guess the main problem is the volume of water is not replaced.  But I see now that you are probably right, and Gaby was joking with the 100:1 comment, so I withdraw what I said.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 05:51:08 PM
Yes, I have seen the video, and I guess the main problem is the volume of water is not replaced.  But I see now that you are probably right, and Gaby was joking with the 100:1 comment, so I withdraw what I said.

Ah... I see... Sorry.
I thought I was being helpful and that you'd not seen the vid.   :-[

I think Gaby needs to get a licence for that sense of humour, though. Brandishing it around in public like that, he's going to do someone an injury... ;)

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 06:08:28 PM
What do you mean by that?  It should be equal, shouldn't it?  After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction.  If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

My hypothesis is that A pendulum is an incredibly innefficient machine. Most of the gravitational energy is destroyed on the way down. Something like 95% of it.  The gravitational wave can do MUCH more work as just accelerate a body by such little amount. But the more we try to accelerate a mass the less efficiently we can convert potential into motion.

The bob may store a little bit of the gravitational potential, most of it is just destroyed. Mass does not like being accelerated quickly. This means the less we try to accelerate the bob the less energy it costs. The slower the mass moves downward the more gravitational potential we can obtain from the system.

Everyone knows that a longer string also makes the pendulum swing much longer.

I've created a 50 kg pendulum with 2.5 meter string and it never stops moving. It always moves at least 1 mm every 1.58520476 sec. At the moment it waves about 5 mm from left to right. I guess this is the same energy as we need to move 5 kg over 50 mm or 1 kg over 250 mm? And 250 gr over a meter? I really don't see the 250 grams swing a meter from left to right without some energy source.

Moving a big mass slowly leads out much more gravitational potential as moving a small mass quickly. It's silly but gravitational potential, the more load you put on it the longer you can use it. We all know how time works? no?

Dropping the bob seems the worse way to lead it out.  :D

We can do much better as that.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 06:17:32 PM
My hypothesis is that A pendulum is an incredibly innefficient machine. Most of the gravitational energy is destroyed on the way down. Something like 95% of it.  The gravitational wave can do MUCH more work as just accelerate a body by such little amount. But the more we try to accelerate a mass the less efficiently we can convert potential into motion.

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. 

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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 11:24:26 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  :D

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

There are reproductions you know?

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 18, 2007, 12:39:50 AM
Wow, Gaby.
I am so glad I saw that video.
I was thinking to myself that someone should give that guy a medal... But I notice that they have... more than once !!!

We need more people like him...

Striving for a world where brilliance is welcomed, encouraged and rewarded rather than feared oppressed and punished.

Simple, elegant and incredibly inspiring !!

Demo machines made from bits of old bikes... LOL !!!

I love the Eastern-bloc thinking at times...

There's a well-known story, it may be myth but it's often repeated and even if untrue, it illustrates the mentality.

The USA developed a pen for use by their astronauts. It writes in almost any gravity condition, won't leak, doesn't smell inky (remember in a space-craft, you're breathing recycled air so anything that smells will saturate the volume very quickly) and so on and so on... It cost them $$$$$$$$$ to develop and when US representatives met with Russian representatives, they presented them with one of these pens and told them of their proud accomplishments in managing to develop such a device.
The Russian reply was, "Ah yes. We use pencils !"

The RoadRunner..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 18, 2007, 01:21:21 AM
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  :D

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.  :)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 18, 2007, 02:19:39 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..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 18, 2007, 02:23:39 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..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven 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. :-)
Title: Comparing the Pulse Motor and Chas Campbell with Mr. X
Post by: ltseung888 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).
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 19, 2007, 01:09:34 PM
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..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: 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.

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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: RoadRunner on September 21, 2007, 02:09:31 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..
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Calculations based on the Liang Xingren Car
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 24, 2007, 09:03:15 AM
Dear Hans,

Referring to your post on
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg51224.html#msg51224

I know that you must be frustrated  without having an actual Over Unity Car, Generator or even a Toy to play with right now.  Hopefully, the wait  should not be too long.  If you cannot wait, please pay a visit to the EBM machine in Hungary now (http://www.gammamanager.com).

As agreed with the Inventors, I can only used published data in this Open Forum, I am going to refer you to the Published Patent Document of Dr. Liang Xingren translated by Ms. Forever Yuen. 

She has consented to do her Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment and the Wang Four Legged Stool Experiment on video.  You can see that she is charming and beautiful.  That should satisfy your doubt ? whether she is real?

I am showing the pointers to the various translated pages of the Liang Patent here.

Page 1
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45192.html#msg45192
Page 2
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45197.html#msg45197
Page 3
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45474.html#msg45474
Page 4
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45479.html#msg45479
Page 5-7
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg45650.html#msg45650

Please read Page 5-7 of the Liang Xingren patent for the actual Horse Powers, dimensions etc.  In 1993, the engine weighted 635 Kg and generated 92 Horse Power.  In 1997, the engine weighted 211 Kg and generated 144 Horse Power.  In 1998, the engine weighted 28 Kg and generated 188 Horse Power.  These figures are taken from the published China Patent Documents.

If you doubt the Patent Documents, I advise you to wait until the Chao or Liang Cars are actually on the Market.  You can then buy or rent one to test the actual figures.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulse Rotation improvement in the Liang Car Leads Out higher efficiency

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 24, 2007, 02:39:45 PM
Please look at the thread on New Order at:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13

"Mr. Tseung, can you describe the New Order for us? Let us assume that there is infinite energy and that Flying Saucer is available."

.....
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 24, 2007, 06:25:33 PM
Please look at the thread on New Order at:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13

"Mr. Tseung, can you describe the New Order for us? Let us assume that there is infinite energy and that Flying Saucer is available."

.....

Mr. Tsueng, no offense, but please stop it with this stuff.  You are not helping or being constructive.  All your arguments are becoming very circular and nonsensical, as you continue to quote yourself but add nothing new.  I read a little of the thread you link, and it is sheer fantasy.  You bounce around from wild ideas about Democracy to flying saucers to god-knows-what.  This is not science.

Your main claim, as I see it, is that at high rotational speeds, applying pulse energy to a flywheel or whatever will produce overunity.  You have yet to substantiate this claim with anything conclusive, and no one has has been able to verify what you say through experiments.  You apply your Lead Out theory to failed devices like the Chas Campbell gravity wheel and just about everything else under the sun, and this does nothing to gain traction for your theory, but quite the opposite.  When the devices you talk about clearly fail to work, it does not say much about Lead Out.

So please, when you have something concrete to show us, we will be all ears, but no more theory.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 25, 2007, 12:09:17 AM

Your main claim, as I see it, is that at high rotational speeds, applying pulse energy to a flywheel or whatever will produce overunity. 

....
.

Dear shruggedatlas,

I know that you are a lawyer trying to understand and argue on Physics Theories.  If I were to argue legal issue with you with my scientific background, I would definitely show much ignorance and misunderstanding. 

But your posts do serve a very useful purpose.  They show the generalization and hence misconception of the whole theory by the layman. 

As Lee Cheung Kin put it: "Why do you want to educate the unknowledgeable and the non-believers?  What good will it serve if they are convinced?  China has accepted the theory and is pouring resources to implement it.  The skeptics will be convinced automatically when the products come out.  Why waste time and energy?"

My answer is: "My posts are to benefit the World.  There will be a mixed open audience.  In the Bible, there was a parable from Jesus on sowing seeds.  Some would fall on rocks; some amongst thorns; some on sand; some would fall on fertile soil and bear fruit."

The correct scientific statement to your one line statement:

Quote
Your main claim, as I see it, is that at high rotational speeds, applying pulse energy to a flywheel or whatever will produce overunity

should be:

Quote
Pulsed Rotation will Lead Out Gravitational or Electron Motion Energy

Thus for the Chas Campbell or other gravity wheel to have a chance to work, they must have certain characteristics:

(1) Have mass concentrated at the rim. The working devices (Wang, Liang, 225 HP Pulse Motor) all use cylinders. Chas Campbell can improve his wheel easily by adding weights at the rim!

(2) A larger wheel effectively has more mass closer to the rim.  Thus Bessler, Newman and EBM used large wheels.  Chas Campbell uses a reasonable size wheel already.  After the improvement in (1), he should go for larger wheels for further improvement if necessary.

(3) The Pulsing Mechanism will have frequency characteristics.  Thus tuning is required.  If someone hit on the right configuration and achieved Over Unity, it is important to replicate exactly.  A better way is to mass-produce a product with exact material, dimensions etc.  (This can wait until a working prototype is verified.)

(4) The Wheel or Circular Motion has the feedback feature.  The Pulsed Rotation Leads Out gravitational energy resulting in faster rotation. The rate of rotation and hence the amount of energy lead out can be increased with an effective increase in the gravitational constant G.  This means Chas Campbell can put magnets at the rim of his wheel to increase the mass.  He can also put some stationary magnets placed at certain angles (possibly with additional shielding) to help to increase the effective G.  Such arrangement is similar to the Wang device and the Sun et al device shown on youtube.

To a lawyer, the above 4 points may mean nothing.  To the top students and professors at Tsing Hua University, they would have provided good guidelines for further research.  To Chas Campbell, they should be a useful revelation.

The CIA or the Like group once told me: ?Keep this top secret.  It may do the World much harm if it falls to the Wrong Hands.?  I do not believe in the CIA or the Like group any more.  I am convinced my posts will benefit the World.  You do not need to read them if my posts annoy or upset you.

Lawrence Tseung
Misconception of Pulsed Rotations Leads Out  mental blackout
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 25, 2007, 12:23:28 AM
G'day Lawrence and all,

I asked yo a specific question, the above post only gives generalities but answers nothing.

Here it is again.

G'day Lawrence and all,


Assume that such energy can be drained or supplied within x sec, power  in Newton-meter/second (watt)"         
4884.15252      if x =    3


and

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

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung


What data lead to this rather wild speculation? What kind of energy are you talking about and how do you arrive at the formula?

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 25, 2007, 02:03:36 AM
G'day Lawrence and all,

I asked you a specific question, the above post only gives generalities but answers nothing.

Here it is again.

G'day Lawrence and all,


Assume that such energy can be drained or supplied within x sec, power  in Newton-meter/second (watt)"         
4884.15252      if x =    3


and

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

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung


What data lead to this rather wild speculation? What kind of energy are you talking about and how do you arrive at the formula?

Hans von Lieven

I believe your one specific question  is the underlined.  The specific answer is - data is from the Published Liang Xingren China Patent.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 25, 2007, 03:30:54 AM
Sorry Lawrence,

What I have seen of that is little more than fanciful speculation. There is no scientific basis to this patent and most others for that matter.

I want to see an experiment that can be duplicated and will verify the data, everything else is a pipedream. Anyone can quote an obscure patent in a foreign language as a source. If you were to believe the hundreds of perpetual motion machines and magnet motors that have been patented as proof and accepted their validity we would not have the kind of technology we enjoy. The patent registers are full of unworkable devices.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 25, 2007, 05:18:17 AM
Sorry Lawrence,

What I have seen of that is little more than fanciful speculation. There is no scientific basis to this patent and most others for that matter.

I want to see an experiment that can be duplicated and will verify the data, everything else is a pipedream. ***You will be able to buy or rent a Product from China.  The preliminary time is before end of 2008.*** Anyone can quote an obscure patent in a foreign language as a source. If you were to believe the hundreds of perpetual motion machines and magnet motors that have been patented as proof and accepted their validity we would not have the kind of technology we enjoy. The patent registers are full of unworkable devices.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

I have more confidence in the Liang Xingren patent than many others because:

(1) I spent a day talking to Dr. Liang myself.  There were much good exchange of ideas and experience.  Dr. Liang is much more intelligent than most members in this forum.  He could understand and interact intelligently with me!

(2) Prof. Woo, one of the retired top scientists who helped to develop the Chinese Atomic Bomb, confirmed that he examined the car and drove it.  He was satisfied that it was not a hoax.  He took the information to Harvard and MIT universities in early 2005.  Prof. Woo is working on a Pulse Motor Cosmic Energy Machine himself.  I had confirmation from a friend at MIT that: ?This is worth looking into.?

(3) Lee and I were at Tsing Hua University and confirmed that they did examine the car.  Dr. Liang even had a meeting with the then President of China. The Professors and Researchers agreed that the car moved but could not accept the Dr. Liang theory of Ying-Yang.  If Dr. Liang had said that he could not explain the source of energy and asked for cooperation, he would have already obtained support from the top Academics in the 1990s.

(4) Lee Cheung Kin spent one week working with Mr. Chao Ching San who improved the Liang Car.  Lee drove the car himself.  He took various readings when the car was going downhill, on level road and in climbing up slopes.  He was satisfied that the bank of batteries kicked in only on climbing up slopes.  The engine recharged the batteries on downhill or on level roads.  The most important statement he made was that the charging of batteries was adjustable.  The Officially Certified number of 8.02 KWH per 100 kilometers could be improved to 0 or even negative.  (He had the air conditioning on while driving the car.)  The reason for not fully charging the batteries is political ? getting the car certified as an electric car for production. 

I know that it is frustrating for you not to have a working Over Unity Car, Generator or a Toy to play with now.  If you are in Europe, close to Hungary, please visit the EBM machine  (http://www.gammamanger.com).  My contact in China who went to visit the laboratory was convinced that it was no hoax. 

*** I do not know your background.  If you were a professor at a top university in the World, you might be invited as a guest to visit the Energy Research Laboratories in China.  Lee Cheung Kin saw many prototypes including those of Newman, Bedini etc.  He said that there were teams on every well-known OU inventions.  You can always wait for the actual products. I am stating the facts now.  The Proof will be in the Products. ***

I am glad that your posts give me a chance to clarify the many subtle points.  Please do more.  Ms. Forever Yuen will do her magnetic pendulum and the Wang experiments shortly.  These two experiments will become ?classics? for all Cosmic Energy Research in the future.  We want to benefit the World with our knowledge.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Strong Pulses or Comments from intelligent skeptics Lead Out  more detailed replies.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 25, 2007, 05:43:55 AM
G'day Lawrence,

How many times do I have to tell you, I am not interested in anecdotal evidence and academic credentials, I simply want to see something verifiable.

Very little in the way of usable technology has come from academia. They get their Nobel prizes for explaining what someone else has achieved not for having done it, as a rule.

Tell your people in China, if they exist, to publish an experiment that verifies their claims, and their peers, perhaps even including me, will give them credibility. Until then it is just a lot of hot air.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Seeds on fertile land?
Post by: ltseung888 on September 26, 2007, 05:22:37 AM
Seeds on fertile land?

Got a phone call from a Provincial Chinese Official.

Official: ?I got your information via the Internet.  The Lee-Tseung theory and the various Cosmic Energy Inventions interested us.  We would like to work with you.?

Tseung: ?You mean that you actually read the posts  on the Over Unity and Forum.go-here.nl?  They are in English.?

Official: ?We have young scientists  who can read and write English.  We tried to contact Dr. Liang Xingren without success.  (He does not use the Internet!) How is you technology compared with his??

Tseung: ?We focus on the theoretical aspects  of Cosmic Energy Machines.  Our theory can be applied to over 100 OU inventions in China and probably another 200 OU inventions Worldwide.  We can explain and improve all these published inventions.  You should contact Lee Cheung Kin as he is in charge of all development within China.?

Official: ?We are aware of Mr. Lee Cheung Kin.  Some of our scientists worked with him years ago in the Military Laboratories.  We shall fly to Hong Kong and discuss possible cooperation opportunities.?

Lawrence Tseung
Internet Posts Lead Out high pulse heart beat from Provincial Officials.
Title: More seeds on fertile soil?
Post by: ltseung888 on September 27, 2007, 02:07:13 AM
From Ash,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg51527.html#msg51527

Quote
UPDATED-Typos and grammar is being fixed, Lawrence's info has been added to the Panacea page on Chas, also we will look at time for testing Lawrence Tseung's suggestions and data and report back for te board.

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ChasCampbell.htm

Lawrence Tseung
Suitable Pulsing Leads Out possible resonance making one  + one greater than 2.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 27, 2007, 07:17:38 AM

My answer is: "My posts are to benefit the World.  There will be a mixed open audience.  In the Bible, there was a parable from Jesus on sowing seeds.  Some would fall on rocks; some amongst thorns; some on sand; some would fall on fertile soil and bear fruit."

That is interesting that you claim to want to benefit the world.  Here is a post you made on Steorn's forum in response to another poster, who expressed an interest in taking your ideas to the next level.  (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=38371&page=2 (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=38371&page=2))

Quote
I have talked to Wang and Lee. They have also consulted their backers including some Chinese Officials.

We are not interested in close door sessions any more. We shall not sign any NDAs after the last CIA or Like wasting of time and destruction of credibility. We can openly discuss the terms on the Internet - in this forum for all to see.

Our terms are:

(1) Any team really interested in investing in the Wang Device must be screened by the Commerical Unit of the Chinese Intelligence. This means the Company or individuals must provide enough background information to pass the security clearance. They must have evidence to show that they could at least invest US$100 million. A sum of US$1 million must be deposited with an International, well known Investment Bank.

(2) They will then be coming to China to see the Wang Device either as individuals or as teams. They will pay for the travel and accommodation expenses themselves (or deducted from the US$1 million deposit). The demonstration will consist of assembling the Wang Device from basic components and checking the electrical energy output. The participants will have a chance to Do It Yourself (DIY). They may take pictures or videos and publish it anywhere including the Internet.

(3) The place for the demonstration will be at Tsing Hua University, Beijing or another place to be specified.

(4) Preliminary discussions can be anywhere in the World. The Final Negotiation will be in China (most likely Beijing) with presence of Chinese Officials. This is already a high visibility project in China.

(5) The above are the collective thoughts of Wang, Tseung and Lee. They do not represent the position of the Chinese Government. If you or anyone else is interested, reply openly in this thread.

Lawrence Tseung
Honest negotiation Leads Out Internet Discussions

So, are you trying to benefit the world, or are you trying to secure $1 million from some sucker before even showing them anything?
Title: Reply to the Seeds on Fertile Soil.
Post by: ltseung888 on September 27, 2007, 10:33:38 AM
Reply to the Seeds on Fertile Soil.

Dear Ash,

I have completed my preliminary thoughts  on the Chas Campbell Snooker Ball Device.  I believe that it might work  as two coupling systems.  One is the large wheel (with weights added at the rim.)  That will help to keep a high rate of rotation even if a small amount of energy is drained.

The other is the smaller wheel to lift the balls back to the required height.  The Lead Out energy at high rotational rate may be able to do it.  However, the engineering obstacles are not easy to overcome.

My recommendation is to focus on the working, already demonstrated 225 HP Pulse Motor.  It has the best chance of success at present.  We can all learn much more.

The CIA or the Like group may be upset  but I just treat them as seeds on rocks.

Lawrence Tseung
Seeds on Fertile Land Leads Out  strong pulse of support.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 27, 2007, 10:39:27 AM
LOL

I really think this ground is becoming more "fertile" by the minute.

Hans von Lieven

Fertiliser on ground Lead Out much awaited Results
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on September 27, 2007, 07:59:19 PM

My answer is: "My posts are to benefit the World.  There will be a mixed open audience.  In the Bible, there was a parable from Jesus on sowing seeds.  Some would fall on rocks; some amongst thorns; some on sand; some would fall on fertile soil and bear fruit."

That is interesting that you claim to want to benefit the world.  Here is a post you made on Steorn's forum in response to another poster, who expressed an interest in taking your ideas to the next level.  (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=38371&page=2 (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=38371&page=2))

Quote
I have talked to Wang and Lee. They have also consulted their backers including some Chinese Officials.

We are not interested in close door sessions any more. We shall not sign any NDAs after the last CIA or Like wasting of time and destruction of credibility. We can openly discuss the terms on the Internet - in this forum for all to see.

Our terms are:

(1) Any team really interested in investing in the Wang Device must be screened by the Commerical Unit of the Chinese Intelligence. This means the Company or individuals must provide enough background information to pass the security clearance. They must have evidence to show that they could at least invest US$100 million. A sum of US$1 million must be deposited with an International, well known Investment Bank.

(2) They will then be coming to China to see the Wang Device either as individuals or as teams. They will pay for the travel and accommodation expenses themselves (or deducted from the US$1 million deposit). The demonstration will consist of assembling the Wang Device from basic components and checking the electrical energy output. The participants will have a chance to Do It Yourself (DIY). They may take pictures or videos and publish it anywhere including the Internet.

(3) The place for the demonstration will be at Tsing Hua University, Beijing or another place to be specified.

(4) Preliminary discussions can be anywhere in the World. The Final Negotiation will be in China (most likely Beijing) with presence of Chinese Officials. This is already a high visibility project in China.

(5) The above are the collective thoughts of Wang, Tseung and Lee. They do not represent the position of the Chinese Government. If you or anyone else is interested, reply openly in this thread.

Lawrence Tseung
Honest negotiation Leads Out Internet Discussions

So, are you trying to benefit the world, or are you trying to secure $1 million from some sucker before even showing them anything?

Not at all, you are just some sucker. What he means is that your claiming to be an investor will not be enough. Given it's the investors who always scam every one, not the inventors this is a most reasonable request. If the invention doesn't work there should not be any problem withdrawing your funds again. Perendev has like a train of wannabe investors ringing at their door.

It's up to you and me to try and obtain some of the intellectual properties though decent and reasonable methods. This type of tech is worth at least 10 million, if it's very efficient or easy to produce the price goes up to many billions of euros.

This topic is about the lead out theory. I'm not interested in reading some suckers complaints about it.

As if anyone would give anything to a complaining person? ROFL

Hey you sucker can I borrow some money from you?

Would you pull out your wallet if the question is phrased like that?



nonsense leads out more nonsense.


Title: More seeds on fertile soil?
Post by: ltseung888 on September 27, 2007, 08:37:38 PM
More seeds on fertile soil?

Quote
Hi, my name is xxx, I?m electric engineer, actually I?m working at electrical interprise of my city, Cienfuegos, Cuba. I?m very interest at about free energy, I have read many literature about it two years ago, I believe that it is  posible to make device of free energy. I have many ideas in my head but I can not to make anythings practical, because of  to factor tiempo, though I?m organize my job and my time for this proposes.
 
I would like to meet you, because you have experience at this theme, consider me a friend.
 

Dear xxx,

I do not answer private emails.  However, you are welcome to post here.  We want to benefit the World.  International cooperation is always welcome.

Lee Cheung Kin and myself are old and retired.  We focus on the theory and encourage others to build the prototypes.

Please share your thoughts and comments on this forum first.  May be we can organize a team to build the prototypes later.

Lawrence Tseung
International Interests justify the excited pulses.  This will Lead Out  international cooperation
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on September 27, 2007, 10:56:16 PM
Theory of the Simple Gravity Motor  as described in:

http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

In this invention, the Pulse Force comes from the eight hammers.  In one revolution, there are eight Pulses.  The above information describes the construction material, the dimensions etc.  However, it avoided the question of stating how long the rotation lasted.  The one who posted it said:

Hi ltseung, Ive been reading your posts trying to understand, and a lot of it sounds interesting. 

I've always believed people didn't give this gravity motor enough attention.  People always seem to build it the same way, thus repeating the errors.  This motor incorporates a heartbeat in a way, or more so a wobble motion.  I've seen weird effects with my failed magnet motor attempts, but noticed that in some instances the wobble motion or in my case the instability caused different results.  For instance in one of my setups, when the rotor came into a stator array, the initial magnet would cause the rotor to wobble or bounce up and down and it would get through the sticky point.  After I made it more stable, which eliminated the wobble, it wouldn't get through anymore.  There was a magnet motor on youtube, which is posted somewhere here.  It was the one where the guy used a brush, computer fan and tape.  I noticed in one of his comments he stated the even though the video didn't show it, the rotor was shaking up and down or wobbling as it spun (makes sense, if you have a computer fan to look at you will see that the bearing allows for this wobble).  This gravity setup seems like it would feed off that wobbling motion.  In my mind I see this working if it was built to good tolerances. I think this would be a great design to try and see if it works, thanks for posting.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: FreeEnergy on September 28, 2007, 12:05:04 AM
Theory of the Simple Gravity Motor  as described in:

http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

In this invention, the Pulse Force comes from the eight hammers.  In one revolution, there are eight Pulses.  The above information describes the construction material, the dimensions etc.  However, it avoided the question of stating how long the rotation lasted.  The one who posted it said:

Hi ltseung, Ive been reading your posts trying to understand, and a lot of it sounds interesting. 

I've always believed people didn't give this gravity motor enough attention.  People always seem to build it the same way, thus repeating the errors.  This motor incorporates a heartbeat in a way, or more so a wobble motion.  I've seen weird effects with my failed magnet motor attempts, but noticed that in some instances the wobble motion or in my case the instability caused different results.  For instance in one of my setups, when the rotor came into a stator array, the initial magnet would cause the rotor to wobble or bounce up and down and it would get through the sticky point.  After I made it more stable, which eliminated the wobble, it wouldn't get through anymore.  There was a magnet motor on youtube, which is posted somewhere here.  It was the one where the guy used a brush, computer fan and tape.  I noticed in one of his comments he stated the even though the video didn't show it, the rotor was shaking up and down or wobbling as it spun (makes sense, if you have a computer fan to look at you will see that the bearing allows for this wobble).  This gravity setup seems like it would feed off that wobbling motion.  In my mind I see this working if it was built to good tolerances. I think this would be a great design to try and see if it works, thanks for posting.

agreed
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 28, 2007, 12:27:40 AM
Theory of the Simple Gravity Motor  as described in:

http://theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/newclaims/GravityMotor/gravity_motor.htm

In this invention, the Pulse Force comes from the eight hammers.  In one revolution, there are eight Pulses.  The above information describes the construction material, the dimensions etc.  However, it avoided the question of stating how long the rotation lasted.  The one who posted it said:

Fascinating, this device was first described and drawn by Bessler himself in his book Maschinen Traktate.
There is indeed nothing new under the sun :-)

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on September 28, 2007, 05:24:10 AM
Given it's the investors who always scam every one, not the inventors this is a most reasonable request. If the invention doesn't work there should not be any problem withdrawing your funds again.

You are a fool.  How do the investors scam anyone?  They are the ones putting up the money.  It's the inventors who are putting up wild claims.  You do realize that to date, no free energy technology exists, right?  Therefore, anyone who has ever put up any money for free energy, by definition, has been scammed.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 28, 2007, 06:46:20 AM
Perhaps not so,

Shruggedatlas you obviously are not aware of the momentous discoveries that were made at the National Tsing Hua University. or for that matter of Dr.Liang (Xingren ?) who invented the famous Liang car, not to mention the 200 OU projects that are being conducted in China and are benefiting from Lawrence's Lead Out Theory.

After all the National Tsing Hua University is the MIT of China and a most reputable seat of learning where China's top future scientists and engineers are being trained.

Shame on you Shruggedatlas.

Pity that no-one I have contacted at Tsing Hua has ever heard of Lawrence Tseung or his Lead Out Theory. Must be the language barrier.

Hans von Lieven

Modest investigation Leads Out no discernible Credibility
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on September 29, 2007, 12:10:43 AM
Perhaps not so,

Shruggedatlas you obviously are not aware of the momentous discoveries that were made at the National Tsing Hua University. or for that matter of Dr.Liang (Xingren ?) who invented the famous Liang car, not to mention the 200 OU projects that are being conducted in China and are benefiting from Lawrence's Lead Out Theory.

After all the National Tsing Hua University is the MIT of China and a most reputable seat of learning where China's top future scientists and engineers are being trained.

Shame on you Shruggedatlas.

Pity that no-one I have contacted at Tsing Hua has ever heard of Lawrence Tseung or his Lead Out Theory. Must be the language barrier.

Hans von Lieven

Modest investigation Leads Out no discernible Credibility

Hans,
If you contacted Tsing Hua and they have denied knowledge of Lawrence and Lead Out that certainly creates a huge doubt about credibility.  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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 03:59:55 AM
G'day jeffo and all,

I do not claim to have contacted everyone at Tsing Hua, all I have done is contact a few people myself and via a Chinese lecturer, who lectures  here in Sydney, a man who speaks the language and also has a few contacts there. We have not been able to locate anyone who had knowledge of these matters.

What I am saying is NOT definitive, the absence of proof never is.

There may well be someone there who takes this thing seriously, I don't know. All I know is that this is a reputable institution who does not endorse things lightly without a lot of proof.

Let Lawrence come up with some contacts there and their status at Tsing Hua, in other words not the janitor.

Then we can verify his claims. Until then we are pissing in the wind.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 04:09:30 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 05:33:40 AM

I think Hans was asking for the name and postion of someone to verify...nothing provided here! (*** Be more careful in your reading.)

I especially loved the picture where the CIA guy has little horns on his head!  Lawrence never quits and yet never gives us any actual information. (*** Be more and more and more careful in your reading.)

Hissyfit

Dear Hissyfit,

Please read my posts VERY carefully.  You happen to pick a picture with the Prof. in charge at Tsing Hua University in the middle (fifth from the LHS).  His Chinese Name is 趙大慶.  I deliberately avoided English translation as I could get that wrong.

Hans knows some Chinese Lecturers from Tsing Hua University.  These Lecturers can surely read Chinese.  They can find the name and position of professor 趙大慶 from the University Website.  They can talk to Professor 趙大慶 directly and confirm that Lee-Wang-Tseung gave a Cosmic Energy Machine Lecture at Tsing Hua University.

Hans finding and confirming will have much more weight  than I repeating myself a million times.  Let him do some work.

Lawrence Tseung
Careless readers Lead Out  higher pulse rate from the old Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 05:46:09 AM
Yes but what are those things sticking out of that CIA guy's head, Lawrence?

He was trying to be funny.  He said that his technology was from Mars.  Nobody on Earth could understand it.

(Lee-Tseung-Wang and Tsing Hua are exceptions) ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 05:51:31 AM
And which one are you in the picture Lawrence??

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 06:14:18 AM
withdrawn pending further enquiry
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 29, 2007, 06:17:31 AM
I don't know.  I have to say that I'm with Hans on this one.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 29, 2007, 06:21:15 AM
It seems that every "official" and every "professor" shown in these cartoon pictures has had his name, position and university affiliation redacted from the document.  How very odd.  I think Hans was asking for the name and postion of someone to verify...nothing provided here!

You can go here:

http://me.tsinghua.edu.cn/english/4faculty.htm#Z

and click on Zhao Daqing, the professor in the institute of materials processing and automation.

That guy is in a picture with Lee and Tseung.

If you're calling around at TsingHua, be sure to call the one in china:

http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/eng/index.jsp

and not the one in taiwan:

http://www.nthu.edu.tw/index-e/index.htm

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy.

Ps.  I love your username, hissy.  It leads out amusing caricatures of goth kids and emo bands.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on September 29, 2007, 06:23:32 AM
Yes but what are those things sticking out of that CIA guy's head, Lawrence?

Oh, those things sticking out of that CIA agent's head are what actually causes Lawrence to hallucinate! When he's near the CIA guy that's when virtual reality becomes reality.... and we begin to hear all these Lead Out crap!

Time to lead out some reality check. Don't waste your time on Lawrence's BS.

Cheers
chrisC

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 29, 2007, 06:35:01 AM
Correct Entropy, here is the picture from the website.

I'll have my Chinese mate give him a call. At least that checks out.

Hans von Lieven
Title: The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 10:13:01 AM
The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment

I took part in the Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment this afternoon.  The results were extremely conclusive. 

With a 25 cm magnetic pendulum, the number of oscillation per 30 second are:

(1) with no other magnetic material around   31 times
(2) With repulsion  25 times
(3) With attraction 41 times

The videos is being edited by Ms. Forever Yuen.  The exact size and type of magnets, string length, the arrangement etc. will be available on the video.  The position of the bottom magnet can change the repulsive or attractive force.  The above results were obtained when distance of bottom magnet and pendulum is approximately 10 cm.

These results conclusively confirm  that the effective gravitational constant g can be changed.  If we can Lead Out Energy from Gravity, we can also Lead Out Energy from Electron Motion (Magnetic field).

You are welcome to repeat  the experiment.  The results may vary somewhat with the type of magnets.  However, the general trend should be the same.  There is no fear of challenge of results as this experiment can be repeated thousands of times worldwide.

Lawrence Tseung
Forever Yuen experiment Leads Out confirmation of change of effective g.  This will increase the happy heat beat (pulse).
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 12:49:30 PM
Phone call with Chan

Chan: "You put pictures and photos on the Internet to prove that you lectured  at Tsing Hua University.  Why is that your Lee-Tseung theory cannot convince  the Forum Members?"

Tseung: "Forum Members are not professors from MIT.  They tend to believe in authorities than in themselves.  Many of them have little knowledge of physics.  Physics concepts and mathematical proof would confuse them more."

Chan: "I better tell you the truth.  I do not totally understand the Lee-Tseung theory also.  If the top professors at Tsing Hua, MIT or Harvard Universitis are convinced, I shall be happy to accept the Lee-Tseung theory as scientific doctrine.  If they keep quiet, I keep quiet.  If they say no, I shall run away from you."

Lawrence Tseung
Academic authorities Lead Out support.  They pulse out acceptance from the General Public.
Title: Re: The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: tagor on September 29, 2007, 01:38:59 PM
The exact size and type of magnets, string length, the arrangement etc. will be available on the video. 
where is the video?
Title: Re: The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 29, 2007, 05:42:36 PM
With a 25 cm magnetic pendulum, the number of oscillation per 30 second are:

(1) with no other magnetic material around   31 times
(2) With repulsion  25 times
(3) With attraction 41 times

Yes, of course, but you should really mention that this has nothing to do with free energy, because you know that there are people in this forum who will assume otherwise.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: ltseung888 on September 29, 2007, 09:04:45 PM
With a 25 cm magnetic pendulum, the number of oscillation per 30 second are:

(1) with no other magnetic material around   31 times
(2) With repulsion  25 times
(3) With attraction 41 times

Yes, of course, but you should really mention that this has nothing to do with free energy, because you know that there are people in this forum who will assume otherwise.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Dear Mr. Entropy,

Thank you for finding Professor Zhao in the Tsing Hua University website.  That should settle the matter (Top academics in China know the Lee-Tseung patent and theory) forever.

I thought you might be one of the few who could really understand the significance of the Ms. Forever Yuen experiment.

Her experiment looks simple and innocent.  However, it is the foundation of the Flying Saucer Patent  from Ms. Wini Woo.  It is also the link  between Leading Out Energy from Gravity and Leading Out Energy from Electron Motion.

In other words, to understand Cosmic Energy Machines (or free energy), one must thoroughly understand the significance  of the Ms. Forever Yuen experiment.

Should I stop here or repeat myself again on the detailed explanation???

@tagor,
I decided to hold off on the video and let someone else from this Forum confirm the result. Let them shine.  We look for the doers to join the experimental team later.  (Letting Hans confirm the Lee-Wang -Tseung Lecture at Tsing Hua University is much more fun and convincing than my writing about it a million times.)

Lawrence Tseung
The Ms. Forever Yuen experiment has no pulse  to Lead Out  the gravitational energy but it is the key to understanding the Lee-Tseung patents and the more advanced Flying Saucer technology.
Title: Re: The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: tinu on September 29, 2007, 11:49:59 PM
In other words, to understand Cosmic Energy Machines (or free energy), one must thoroughly understand the significance  of the Ms. Forever Yuen experiment.

Should I stop here or repeat myself again on the detailed explanation???

There is no particular significance of Ms. Forever?s experiment. At least not for trained people. The significance of this very simple experiment is well known since Galileo (approx.1600), even before Newton.
Anyway, you are welcome to put a decent and throughout explanation regarding its ?new significance?, if you have such an explanation.

Tseung: "Forum Members are not professors from MIT.  They tend to believe in authorities than in themselves.  Many of them have little knowledge of physics.  Physics concepts and mathematical proof would confuse them more."

Don't bet much on any of the above.  ;D
Please rest assured, you and all the readers, that there are enough trained people inhere to follow your equations and explanations. Fell free to go all the way your scientific backgrounds allow you to do it. Many people addressed the same invitation but it never happened for you to properly reply.

These results conclusively confirm  that the effective gravitational constant g can be changed.  If we can Lead Out Energy from Gravity, we can also Lead Out Energy from Electron Motion (Magnetic field).

Lawrence Tseung
Forever Yuen experiment Leads Out confirmation of change of effective g.  This will increase the happy heat beat (pulse).

The ?effective gravitational constant? is denoted by G not by g in the mainstream science. Either you made a huge confusion/mistake about it due to lack of proper formal training or you deliberately throw around with various mixed physics notions as no one be able to follow those posts neither to criticize them. Either way, it is wrong, scientifically and/or ethically.

Regardless of the above, please define the ?effective gravitational constant? your way and post your full mathematical analysis. I?ll comment on it at that time.
At this point I?ll just say it loud and clear for everyone: no, you CAN NOT lead out Energy from Gravity. It never ever resulted you can!

Chan: "I better tell you the truth.  I do not totally understand the Lee-Tseung theory also.  If the top professors at Tsing Hua, MIT or Harvard Universitis are convinced, I shall be happy to accept the Lee-Tseung theory as scientific doctrine.  If they keep quiet, I keep quiet.  If they say no, I shall run away from you."

Mr. Chan, you seem to be a very rationale person. My full respect to you!
And take good care.  ;)

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 12:02:01 AM
G'day Lawrence and all,

Is this the type of experiment Ms. Forever Yuen is doing. She could have spared herself a lot of trouble and instead purchased this rig from the overunity store where it is sold as a toy.

Hans von Lieven

Overunity Toy Leads Out massive Breakthrough in OU

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 30, 2007, 01:04:02 AM
Hans:

Those have been around since I was a kid...(long time ago ha ha) I remember playing around with one when my Father worked at Bell Labs in NJ.  This is what he is talking about?  The "big" break-through? I am going to have to go back and read all of the posts on this but, if this is really what it is........let China have this "advanced" technology.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 30, 2007, 01:09:37 AM
The Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment

I took part in the Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment this afternoon.  The results were extremely conclusive. 

With a 25 cm magnetic pendulum, the number of oscillation per 30 second are:

(1) with no other magnetic material around   31 times
(2) With repulsion  25 times
(3) With attraction 41 times

The videos is being edited by Ms. Forever Yuen.  The exact size and type of magnets, string length, the arrangement etc. will be available on the video.  The position of the bottom magnet can change the repulsive or attractive force.  The above results were obtained when distance of bottom magnet and pendulum is approximately 10 cm.

These results conclusively confirm  that the effective gravitational constant g can be changed.  If we can Lead Out Energy from Gravity, we can also Lead Out Energy from Electron Motion (Magnetic field).

You are welcome to repeat  the experiment.  The results may vary somewhat with the type of magnets.  However, the general trend should be the same.  There is no fear of challenge of results as this experiment can be repeated thousands of times worldwide.

Lawrence Tseung
Forever Yuen experiment Leads Out confirmation of change of effective g.  This will increase the happy heat beat (pulse).

Yep, Sounds to me like this is what he is talking about :-)

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 30, 2007, 01:23:02 AM
I recall hearing that if someone built a large enough version of this that the rotation of the earth would keep it moving forever. How large, I have no idea.  My thoughts are that the wind would actually have more of an effect upon it than the rotation. I may order the "toy" from the website.  I love to look at stuff like this and I think it stimulates my mind to working on more practicle devices. (In my opinion)

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on September 30, 2007, 01:28:30 AM
Hans:

Those have been around since I was a kid...(long time ago ha ha) I remember playing around with one when my Father worked at Bell Labs in NJ.  This is what he is talking about?  The "big" break-through? I am going to have to go back and read all of the posts  on this but, if this is really what it is........let China have this "advanced" technology.

Bill

Dear Bill,

Now you have the incentive to reading the posts carefully.  Please focus on just the following point for now:

(1)   A pendulum with no pulse force  can be analyzed with the simple law of conservation of energy.  At any point in time, the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy are equal.

  mgh + 1/2 * m *v *v = constant

(2)   When a pulse force is applied, how should the analysis be done?  Can we apply the Law of parallelogram of forces?  Will this pulse force supply energy to the system?  Will the tension of the string contribute to the resulting forces and the resulting energy?

I believe a good write-up from you is better than me repeating the same analysis a million times.

@hans,
Thank you for your information about the toy.  I shall try to buy it (and improve it to illustrate Leading Energy out from Gravity as well as Leading Energy out from Electron Motion.)

Lawrence Tseung
Analyzing one Pulse at a time  Leads Out  easier understanding for the Forum Members.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 30, 2007, 03:16:07 AM
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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on September 30, 2007, 08:50:19 AM
G'day jeffo and all,

I do not claim to have contacted everyone at Tsing Hua, all I have done is contact a few people myself and via a Chinese lecturer, who lectures  here in Sydney, a man who speaks the language and also has a few contacts there. We have not been able to locate anyone who had knowledge of these matters.

What I am saying is NOT definitive, the absence of proof never is.

There may well be someone there who takes this thing seriously, I don't know. All I know is that this is a reputable institution who does not endorse things lightly without a lot of proof.

Let Lawrence come up with some contacts there and their status at Tsing Hua, in other words not the janitor.

Then we can verify his claims. Until then we are pissing in the wind.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,
Thank you for the clarifications, and for not making a definitive claim without supporting proof.  You do, as always, raise valid points here which if answered with facts will take us closer to some sort of conclusion. 

It had been my previous opinion that Lawrence must be relaying accurate information about his relationship with Tsing Hua, based on the assumption that it would surely not take long for someone to discover if faked.  Your comments raised the suspicion, and I guess we'll have to await further information.  I don't feel comfortable discrediting him, although obviously in the context of these forums, establishing credibility is the responsibility of the person making claims.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on September 30, 2007, 09:02:35 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on September 30, 2007, 10:43:29 PM
(1)   A pendulum with no pulse force  can be analyzed with the simple law of conservation of energy.  At any point in time, the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy are equal.

  mgh + 1/2 * m *v *v = constant

(2)   When a pulse force is applied, how should the analysis be done?  Can we apply the Law of parallelogram of forces?  Will this pulse force supply energy to the system?  Will the tension of the string contribute to the resulting forces and the resulting energy?

You asked someone else, but I'll answer, anyway.

If you apply a pulse force F (vector) to the pendulum bob while it moves through a displacement D (vector), you do work equal to F dot D, and you should find then find that the total energy in the pendulum has changed by exactly that amount.  If you find that the new total energy exceeds to old total energy by more than that, then congratulations -- you have an overunity device. Note that this does not have anything to do with the tension on the string.

For a pulse force, F is typically very large, and D is typically very small, and this makes it very difficult to measure F dot D directly.  Instead, what you want to do is charge some small resevoir of potential energy, like a spring or a capacitor (but not a battery) or a lifted weight, and expend that energy into the pendulum with a pulse.  It's easy to measure the energy in the original charge, and if you're careful about your engineering, you can ensure that that energy is transferred to the pendulum efficiently.

Measuring the total energy in the pendulum is also problematic if you're adding magnets and stuff, but one way that works is to pick some point in the pendulum's swing (like the bottom) and measure its velocity there before and after the pulse.  The difference is the amount of energy you have added to the pendulum.  Without magnets and stuff, it's easier -- just measure the difference in the height of the pendulum's swing and use mgh.

I'm going to actually propose an experiment in another post...

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Footnote:  In cartesian coordinates, where vectors F and D are (Fx,Fy) and (Dx,Dy), F dot D = Fx*Dx + Fy*Dy.  This is equal to length_of_F * length_of_D * cos(angle_between_F_and_D).

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 01, 2007, 09:22:20 AM
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

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 01, 2007, 03:07:31 PM

(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)


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?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 01, 2007, 05:10:21 PM

(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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 01, 2007, 10:24:58 PM
Lawrence:

I think I follow you and agree to a point.  In your system of the suspended pendulum, I understand and agree with the equalibrium of the three balanced forces at a given point.  You mentioned the initial "push" as being controlled by the experimenter, and that the pulses could be timed in such a way as to produce resonance, which I also agree with.  The example posted earlier about the child in a swing and a small force (push) timed and repeated correctly can send the child in the swing to great heights and velocity.  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.  Of course, this example does not involve magnets or magnetic fields.

So, my question is, given that the correctly timed pulses are an efficient way of propelling the child to great swinging arcs, but, they none the less represent no more than the total energy in the system, where or how does any additional energy come into the picture?  I appreciate your patience in your explanations.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 02, 2007, 12:15:00 AM
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. ;D

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.  :D 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?

Quote
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. ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 12:15:04 AM

.... can send the child in the swing to great heights and velocity.  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. 

......

Bill

Dear Bill,

I was taught incorrectly as well.  However, I had my lesson in a painful way.  When I was still a naughty boy (almost half a century ago), I pushed the punch bag a few times and then stood there for it to knock me down.  The punch bag was a few hundred kilograms.  The force knocked me a few meters away and down.

I was convinced that my couple of pushes could not have provided the force or the energy to give me so much pain.  However, my physics teacher  told me the same thing as your teacher (The sum of energy of the few pushes added together was the culprit.)

It took me 50 years later  to realize that I was taught the wrong thing.  (Thanks to Lee waking me up at 7:30 am from the hotel.)  I actually Lead Out some gravitational energy in each of the pushes.  The culprit was the sum of my energy and the Lead Out gravitational energy!

If I did not believe  in my physics teacher, the Lee-Tseung theory would have been out over half a century ago!

Lawrence Tseung
Believing the teacher blindly Leads Out  wrong results even though the Pulses provided the painful lesson.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 02, 2007, 01:38:09 AM
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.  :D 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 02, 2007, 01:40:16 AM
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
Title: The Ms. Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 02:15:24 AM
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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 02, 2007, 03:35:12 AM
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.

Right let the displacement D represent the path of the pendulum bob durring the application of the pulse force. Assuming that the displacement D is small enough, since a pulse lasts only a moment, we can consider D to be a straight line and the forces below to be constant over the time when the pulse is applied.  Otherwise we'll have to integrate:

During the pulse time, we have a force due to gravity (Fg), a force due to the tension on the string (Fs) and the applied pulse force (Fp).  By the law of the parallelogram of forces, as you say, these add vectorially, so that the work done by the combination of those forces is W = (Fg + Fs + Fp) \dot D

The \dot product is distributive over addition, so W = (Fg \dot D) + (Fs \dot D) + (Fp \dot D), and we can consider each of these independently:

(Fg \dot D) is the work done by gravity.  If the bob is moving up, Fg and D are in opposing directions and this is negative.  work is done against gravity and stored as potential energy by the increase in the bob's height.

(Fp \dot D) is the work done by the pulse force.  You will probably apply the force in the direction that the bob moves, speeding it up, so this will be positive.  This work will be stored as an increase in the speed and kinetic energy of the pendulum.

(Fs \dot D) is the work done by the tension on the string.  Since the force is applied at a right angle to the direction of motion, Fs \dot D is zero, and the string does no work.

That's the conventional analysis.  What in here is incorrect?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 03:47:39 AM
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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 06:09:26 AM
Right let the displacement D represent the path of the pendulum bob during the application of the pulse force. Assuming that the displacement D is small enough, since a pulse lasts only a moment [1], we can consider D to be a straight line and the forces below to be constant over the time [2] when the pulse is applied.  Otherwise we'll have to integrate:

During the pulse time, we have a force due to gravity (Fg), a force due to the tension on the string (Fs) and the applied pulse force (Fp).  By the law of the parallelogram of forces, as you say, these add vectorially, so that the work done by the combination of those forces is W = (Fg + Fs + Fp) \dot D

The \dot product is distributive over addition, so W = (Fg \dot D) + (Fs \dot D) + (Fp \dot D), and we can consider each of these independently[3]:

(Fg \dot D) is the work done by gravity.  If the bob is moving up, Fg and D are in opposing directions and this is negative.  work is done against gravity and stored as potential energy by the increase in the bob's height.

(Fp \dot D) is the work done by the pulse force.  You will probably apply the force in the direction that the bob moves, speeding it up, so this will be positive.  This work will be stored as an increase in the speed and kinetic energy [4]  of the pendulum.

(Fs \dot D) is the work done by the tension on the string.  Since the force is applied at a right angle to the direction of motion, Fs \dot D is zero[5],  and the string does no work.

That's the conventional analysis[6].  What in here is incorrect?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Let us discuss your assumptions point by point.
[1]We assume that the Pulse Force is controllable by the Engineer.  It can be as short or as long as desired.  In this case of the first application on the stationary pendulum, we assume that the Pulse Force is long enough to let the pendulum swing fully to its new position.  At the new position, the pendulum stopped momentarily to change direction to swing back.

[2] The forces are constant over time. 

The Gravitational Force (Fg) can be regarded as constant as the mass and the gravitational acceleration (g = 9.8 m/s/s) can be regarded as constant during this first pulse and swing.

The Horizontal Pulse Force (Fp) can be regarded as constant because this is under the control of the Engineer.  We assume the ideal situation of capable of turning the Force on and off.

The Tension in the String (Fs) unfortunately, cannot be regarded as a constant.  Before the application of the Pulse Force (Fp), Fs = Fg.  When Fp is being applied, Fs MUST change.  At the new momentary stationary position, Fs must be equal and opposite to the resultant force of Fp and Fg.  Thus this particular assumption is incorrect.

[3] We cannot consider them independently if Fs is a function of Fp and Fg.  Thus this particular assumption is incorrect.

[4] As we stated, the final position for this analysis is the momentary stationary position.  There is NO velocity  and hence no kinetic energy.  This particular assumption is incorrect.

[5] Fs \dot D is zero  You are making the assumption that the force vector Fs is always at right angles to the displacement vector D.  In constant circular motion such as the Earth going around the Sun, this is correct.  However, in accelerating and decelerating circular motion, this is incorrect.

[6] Thus the so called conventional analysis as outlined by you have many  incorrect assumptions.

As you have rightly pointed out, without the use of Integrals, we have to make certain assumptions and simplifications.  These assumptions and simplifications may be inexact or even incorrect.  Arguing over inexact or incorrect assumptions will waste much energy and time.

I shall try to explain the Integral Assumption  in the next post.  It will be edited from the notes made after the discussions at Tsing Hua University.

Lawrence Tseung
Simplified Analysis Leads Out  incorrect assumptions.  It increases the Pulse rates of all involved.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 02, 2007, 07:57:04 AM
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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 08:47:53 AM
Lawrence:
.....

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

Bill

Dear Bill,

That is why it is extremely important  to actually do the Ms. Forever Yuen Experiment.  I shall explain the Lee-Tseung theory based on the results.  Those results can be reproduced  easily worldwide.

If you have two magnets, a string and a stop watch, you can repeat it yourself.  The significance will be explained in the coming posts.

I managed to dig up some notes from my Tsing Hua Trip.  One of the possible integral treatment is now attached.  Improvement and further editing may still be required.

Lawrence

Actual Experiments Lead Out verifiable experiments.  The fast heartbeats or pulses may go back to normal.
Title: The patent exchange document
Post by: ltseung888 on October 02, 2007, 11:35:45 PM
The attached patent exchange document  It was used by us to argue our case with the PCT patent office.

I have edited the patent exchange document to focus on:

(1)   Gravitational energy can be lead out by a horizontal pulse force  exerted on the pendulum bob from the stationary position (first pulse , Figure A1)

(2)   Gravitational energy can be lead out by a non-horizontal pulse force exerted on the pendulum bob when the bob swings to its highest position (second and subsequent pulses. Figure A2)

(3)   Gravitational energy can be lead out by any pulse force  (may not be most efficient) exerted on the pendulum bob. (Figure A3)

(4)   Examples of working prototypes (Figure B1, B2 etc.)

(5)   The key point is Pulse Force can Lead Out Gravitational Energy.

Hope that document helps in the understanding.
Title: Shielding
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 02:01:47 AM
Shielding

The concept of shielding is extremely important.  It is tied with the concept of CoE.

For example, if we could do gravitational shielding (which is NOT possible), we could:
(1)   Shield and raise a weight up to height h.  The effective g is much less than 9.8m/s/s.  The energy required is much less than mgh
(2)   Take away the shield and let the weight drop down to do work.  The energy that can be used is mgh.
(3)   Repeat from (1) and we have created a perpetual motion machine.

However, we know that we could do magnetic shielding or electrostatic shielding  (e.g. with Mu-metal or flux change in coil).  What does it mean???  Are we creating energy or just Leading Out Energy???

Lawrence Tseung
Shielding Leads Out  the possibility of perpetual motion machines.  This increases the Pulse rate.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 03, 2007, 03:46:16 AM
We assume that the Pulse Force is long enough to let the pendulum swing fully to its new position.  At the new position, the pendulum stopped momentarily to change direction to swing back.

Well, OK, but that is not a pulse force.  It takes a long time to get to the point at which it stops.

Quote
At the new momentary stationary position, Fs must be equal and opposite to the resultant force of Fp and Fg.

That is incorrect.  If the total force were zero, the bob would remain still instead of accelerating downward.

Quote
You are making the assumption that the force vector Fs [from the string] is always at right angles to the displacement vector D.  In constant circular motion such as the Earth going around the Sun, this is correct.  However, in accelerating and decelerating circular motion, this is incorrect.

As as long as the string is taught (and not stretchy), regardless of the accelerating or decelerating motion, the motion is at a right angle to the force from the string.  Strings are honest, in that they always point in the direction they are pulling!  And circular motion is always at a right angle to the radius.  That is why the string does no work (pulse force or not), why the lorentz force does no work, why the coriolis force does no work, etc.

Quote
As you have rightly pointed out, without the use of Integrals, we have to make certain assumptions and simplifications.  These assumptions and simplifications may be inexact or even incorrect.  Arguing over inexact or incorrect assumptions will waste much energy and time.

Well, I was talking about a pulse force.  What I said is also true for every tiny moment during the application of a longer horizontal force.  The integration is simply summing up all those little zeros to find that the string, in total, does zero work.

When I initially read your post, Lawrence, I was quite dissappointed to find that you had spoken so clearly, but incorrectly above.  You have certainly seem to have visited some knowledgeable people at Tsing Hua University -- people who certainly know what I'm talking about, and would not normally countenance those kinds of errors.

Is it possible that, before you started talking to them, you actually showed them something that worked?  That would cause them to be somewhat respectful, mistakes or no...  Perhaps you did.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: The significance of the Ms. Forever Yuen Experiment
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 04:12:30 AM
The significance of the Ms. Forever Yuen Experiment

Many of you have downloaded the PowerPoint presentation file of Ms. Forever Yuen.  Some may have repeated the experiment.  Some may have taken out the toy purchased from the Over Unity.com store.  Some may ask ? it is so simple, what is its significance?

Before I answer that, I shall quote a few significant experiments in history:

(1)   Galileo experiment of a feature and a rock falling at same rate in vacuum.  Previously, people believed in Aristotle?s words that a heavier object falls faster.

(2)   Newton?s Apple.  Millions and generations of people have seen objects falling to the ground.  Who established the foundation of Modern Physics?

(3)   Lee-Tseung Pulsed Pendulum.  Millions and generations of people have pushed the swing.  How many realized that the Push or Pulse could lead out Gravitational Energy?
 
(4)   Ms. Forever Yuen Magnetic Pendulum Experiment.  A toy is already available from the Over Unity.com store.  How many people realize its significance.

I shall list the significance of the Ms. Forever Yeun Magnetic Pendulum Experiment here:

(1)   We can Lead Out Electron Motion Energy  (magnetic portion) by superimposing magnetic fields on gravity fields.

(2)   We can Lead Out Electron Motion Energy (magnetic portion) even without  having any gravitational field.

(3)   We can use the repulsion property  of the magnetic field to reduce the effective gravitational constant g from 9.8m/s/s to 0 or even negative.  This means we can make a device float or rise.

(4)   We can make the magnetic field in any direction  ? not just towards the center of the Earth.  Our Cosmic Energy Machine can orientate in any direction.

(5)   We can turn the magnetic field on or off.  The magnitude of the field can be many times  that of Gravity.  This gives rise to the Magneto Propulsion Unit that can power the Flying Saucer.  Nothing needs to be ejected out.

(6)   Our new space ships can be totally self-contained.  (Food, energy etc could be recycled.  Nothing needs to be ejected for traveling).

(7)   There will be a New Order for the World.  It is no longer the survival of the fittest.  Even the weakest can destroy Earth totally.  This will force the New Order of Mutual Respect and Coorperation.

Lawrence Tseung
Ms. Yuen experiments Lead Out New Order.  The Pulse Rate of World Development will be much faster.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 09:46:06 AM

Is it possible that, before you started talking to them, you actually showed them something that worked?  (*** They already have working prototypes on Cosmic Energy Machines for years.) That would cause them to be somewhat respectful, mistakes or no...  Perhaps you did.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy


Dear Mr. Entropy,

Before our visit, they already read everything about the Lee-Tseung Patent and Theory.  I believe the China Patent Office also talked to them first.  Remember we went up on their invitation.  They paid for lodging and meals.

In their possession and knowledge are the working prototypes of:
(1)   The Electricity Magnifier  that could magnify the Input 30 times for over 10 years. None of their top people could explain why.  You can check the video on this thread.  They knew about it since 1996.

(2)   The Dr. Liang Xingren patent and the Car.  Some of their professors sat on the car, drove it and looked for engines or other sources of energy.  What they saw was what was described in the Published Patent.  You can check the video and the Translated Patent on this thread.  They accepted that the Car worked but disagreed with the Ying-Yang explanation.  They sat in the car in 2000.

(3)   The Chao Ching San Car.  The car was driven 1500 km to Beijing with news coverage.  One of them was CCTV10, the Official Chinese News Agency. Tsing Hua University was one of the consulted parties  on the certification.  The Beijing Journey was in April 2006.

Our first meeting with them was in July 2006.  More meetings were in September and October 2006.

They probably have many more  since they are the Consultants the China Patent Office used on New Patents. I personally knew that they had full information of the above three.  We discussed those three inventions in our meetings.  In their words, "The Lee-Tseung theory is the only theory at present  that can explain the energy source of the three above inventions. "

Once we explained the boat in calm waters and good sunshine, they immediately knew that the CoE was never violated  in the Lee-Tseung Theory.  All they need to do was to focus on the Lead Out  concept.  They did the Wang four-legged stool experiment  during our meeting in our presence.  They mentioned that they also did the equivalent of the Ms Forever Yuen magnetic pendulum experiment.   

Thus, it was very easy for us to discuss the theory with them.  They said that they would perfect the theory and write the scientific papers.  I took some notes and left the vigorous proofing of the Integral to them. (The CIA or the Like screwed things up for us ? you can read that story on this thread and on the Wang Invention http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3.htm).

We are extremely confident  that we are right because we have already worked with a number of inventors who could not identify the source of energy of their inventions.  We used the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory to explain and improved their inventions.

Lawrence Tseung
Having a working prototype  generating electricity in front of you Leads Out a different prospective.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 03, 2007, 12:42:20 PM
Mr. Tseung,

Now I have a very clear picture of your skills. They are very basic in physics, well below high-grade level.

You might have catch me in a bad day but I?d say it?s definitely time for you to revise your background and stop claiming non-sense ?supported by? outrageous elementary mistakes.

You say that

"?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)
?
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."

and from your file (Integral.doc file) where you also say that

"Component B is the Horizontal Energy Component expressed as
    Integral(T1(x)sin(a)dx) 
where T1(x) is the varying tension of the string as a function of the x position variable
Angle a is the varying angle due to the swing
dx is the horizontal displacement"

I simply deduce that you assume that the above vector forces (1+2+3) sum zero.
This is an elementary mistake (they obviously do not sum zero) and you need to go back and read again Newtonian mechanics.
That's BASICS, Mr. Tseung! Well below high-grade!

Actually, you very clearly show again your low level of physics understanding, by mistakenly saying (Integral.doc file) that
?T1(x)sin(a) is effectively equal to Fp (Horizontal Pulse Force).?

That?s lack of basic knowledge, Mr. Tseung. The correct equation is
Fp-T1(x)sin(a)=m*acc
See? Newton. In it?s simplest form.
Any astute 14-15 years old student understands it from the first glance. You don?t.  ;D

You might have been lectured in some universities but guest lecturers are common and they do not prove a thing. It doesn?t mean that any of those guest lecturers are somehow competent. It is just a leisure course for summer time and/or on other various occasions. Such lectures usually cover marginal subjects. That?s for clarifying another issue.

So, I stongly suggest you stop posting non-sense.

That?s because, basically I do not understand how you can have the guts to impertinently come in front of the world when you know that your intellectual skills and training in physics and math do not value much at all!  ???
You also drag a fine person along ? Ms. Forever. Let her study real things and let her make a valuable and solid life!

I'm sorry to say it frankly, but your ?science? is crap.
(Actually you said it first in your equations.
I just used my physics knowledge to translate it in common language that everyone can understand.)

So, your 'kung-fu' is very weak, Mr. Tseung.
Very, very weak?

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 12:53:14 PM
Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your insults.  Please do it more,  I need that as training for my coming meetings.

Someone asked - Who is my partner?

The simple answer is God (may that be Jesus, Budda or Allah).  With God as a partner, I can think big.  I can let others shine.

Lawrence
God as Partner Leads Out  peace.  The heart will not Pulse that much unnecessarily.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 03, 2007, 01:05:39 PM
Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your insults.  Please do it more,  I need that as training for my coming meetings.

Lawrence

Please correct your equations.
They are the real insults!

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 01:59:31 PM
Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your insults.  Please do it more,  I need that as training for my coming meetings.

Lawrence

Please correct your equations.
They are the real insults!

Tinu

Dear Tinu,

Let me quote steorn:

All great truth start as blasphemies.

I shall let my errors or mistakes if any  to be seen by the World.  The Professors and Students at Tsing Hua University already promised to correct and improve  them.  Let them shine.

In discovering something new, not every path is a straight line.  Falling flat with face covered in mud is to be expected.

Lawrence Tseung
Showing one's possible errors Leads Out  lesson for the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 03, 2007, 02:11:36 PM
Let me quote steorn:

All great truth start as blasphemies.

I shall let my errors or mistakes if any  to be seen by the World.  The Professors and Students at Tsing Hua University already promised to correct and improve  them.  Let them shine.

In discovering something new, not every path is a straight line.  Falling flat with face covered in mud is to be expected.

Lawrence Tseung
Showing one's possible errors Leads Out  lesson for the World.

All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw, Annajanska, 1919

Great words.  I do believe this is the case, as It's hard to throw away what you believe as truth, but as we have seen in history, our reality has changed, and things we thought as fact were actually wrong.  How soon can we as a society change our ways before it becomes too late?  I believe we are nearing that time, if not already surpassed it.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 03, 2007, 02:22:37 PM
Dear Tinu,

Let me quote steorn:

All great truth start as blasphemies.

I shall let my errors or mistakes if any  to be seen by the World.  The Professors and Students at Tsing Hua University already promised to correct and improve  them.  Let them shine.

In discovering something new, not every path is a straight line.  Falling flat with face covered in mud is to be expected.

Lawrence Tseung
Showing one's possible errors Leads Out  lesson for the World.

 :'( ..."Touche, pussycat!"

How about talking ?kung-fu? instead of poetry?   ;D
Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 03, 2007, 03:14:20 PM
All great truth start as blasphemies.

You conveniently forgot the rest of the quote rom Mr. Shaw: "But not all blasphemies become great truths."

Anyway, as soon as you mentioned flying saucers and new world order, I think it should be pretty apparent to everyone what's going on.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 03, 2007, 03:22:33 PM
All great truth start as blasphemies.

You conveniently forgot the rest of the quote rom Mr. Shaw: "But not all blasphemies become great truths."

Anyway, as soon as you mentioned flying saucers and new world order, I think it should be pretty apparent to everyone what's going on.

Flying saucers?  What?  Tell me what's going on.  I'm always interested when someone mentions flying saucers.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 03, 2007, 03:33:24 PM
All great truth start as blasphemies.

You conveniently forgot the rest of the quote rom Mr. Shaw: "But not all blasphemies become great truths."

Anyway, as soon as you mentioned flying saucers and new world order, I think it should be pretty apparent to everyone what's going on.

Flying saucers?  What?  Tell me what's going on.  I'm always interested when someone mentions flying saucers.

See reply 395.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 04:21:03 PM
All great truth start as blasphemies.

You conveniently forgot the rest of the quote rom Mr. Shaw: "But not all blasphemies become great truths."(*** You will see the great truth as Cosmic Energy Machine products soon - before end of 2008 as a likely date.***)

Anyway, as soon as you mentioned flying saucers and new world order, I think it should be pretty apparent to everyone what's going on.

Flying saucers?  What?  Tell me what's going on.  I'm always interested when someone mentions flying saucers.

Dear Freezer,

See:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=273#273

and the related post on the Pulse Motor.

The basic Flying Saucer technology  is described there.

There will be seeds on rock; seeds on sand; Seeds amongst thorns. I hope that there are seeds on fertile soil.

Lee Cheung kin and I are too old to "grow".  Please use the knowledge to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Flying Saucer Concept in the right hands Leads Out  great benefits to the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 03, 2007, 06:47:55 PM
Mr. Tseung,

Now I have a very clear picture of your skills. They are very basic in physics, well below high-grade level.


That?s lack of basic knowledge, Mr. Tseung. The correct equation is
Fp-T1(x)sin(a)=m*acc
See? Newton. In it?s simplest form.
Any astute 14-15 years old student understands it from the first glance. You don?t.  ;D

...

So, I stongly suggest you stop posting non-sense.

That?s because, basically I do not understand how you can have the guts to impertinently come in front of the world when you know that your intellectual skills and training in physics and math do not value much at all!  ???
You also drag a fine person along ? Ms. Forever. Let her study real things and let her make a valuable and solid life!

I'm sorry to say it frankly, but your ?science? is crap.
(Actually you said it first in your equations.
I just used my physics knowledge to translate it in common language that everyone can understand.)

So, your 'kung-fu' is very weak, Mr. Tseung.
Very, very weak?

Tinu


Tinu:

Thank you for your posting. I have tried to 'insult' Lawrence a long time ago but he is obviously on his hobby horse.

Hahaha! Why did it take 28 pages of postings for this crap head to continue his self-proclaim egoistic discoveries?

Move on, nothing to see here. Just a waste of time. Now he's dragging God's name into his equations to imply whatever flaws in his argument, he is doing this for the sake of humanity.

Regards

chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 03, 2007, 08:07:20 PM
.....

Thank you for your posting. I have tried to 'insult' Lawrence  a long time ago but he is obviously on his hobby horse.

Hahaha! Why did it take 28 pages of postings for this crap head to continue his self-proclaim egoistic discoveries?

Move on, nothing to see here. Just a waste of time. Now he's dragging God's name into his equations to imply whatever flaws in his argument, he is doing this for the sake of humanity.

Regards

chrisC

Dear chrisc,

Please insult me more.  I badly needed that training for my coming meetings.  I may have to go to the next step - allowing people to insult me via webcam. 

I need God to be on my side to calm and control  me in actual face-to-face meetings.  CIA and the Like got me last time.

Thanks for your past insults.  You are welcome to pile on more.

@Tinu,

I shall wait to answer the incorrect formulae  after a week or so of comments.  I shall even request one of the Professor Friends to comment on them.  Arguing technical assumptions over the Internet is much more difficult than face-to-face in lecture rooms.

Lawrence Tseung
God as Partner Leads Out infinite courage.  The blood pressure will not go up with high pulses.
Title: Focusing back on the technical issues
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 01:22:53 AM
Reviewed the Progress of Sun et al.  For details, see:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=298#298

The major new idea was from Sun.

"We need to have a sensor element to detect the lowering of speed of the cylinder due to external load. This is key to our programming control. This will be a major requirement in our New Pulse Motor."

Lawrence Tseung
Detecting the slowing down of the Cylinder Leads Out  programming control of the Pulses.
Title: Re: Focusing back on the technical issues
Post by: chrisC on October 04, 2007, 01:31:39 AM
.......

"We need to have a sensor element to detect the lowering of speed of the cylinder due to external load. This is key to our programming control. This will be a major requirement in our New Pulse Motor."

Lawrence Tseung


Dear Lawrence:

You really don't need a new sensor! What you really need is some (new) common sense and not to make a fool of yourself anymore with more crap. Are you really schizophrenic? I mean seriously....

regards
chrisC

ps: please see a doctor soon.
Title: Cosmic Energy Machine Conference
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 03:50:21 AM
Cosmic Energy Machine Conference

The following idea was from Sun and Chan.

Sun: "It looks like that many people are still skeptical on the feasibility of Cosmic Energy Machines.  We can hold a conference in China and invite the inventors to display their inventions.  If there is sufficient interest, I do not mind doing the organizing.?

Chan: ?I support the idea.  We can sell our Cosmic Energy Toys.  It is a good business opportunity.?

Tseung: ?Can you get enough Cosmic Energy Machine Products to display?  What are the Stars of the show??

Sun: ?We can start contacting the known inventors.  You can help in your posts at the various forums.  The moment one or more Cosmic Energy Machine Products are introduced in China, there will be a tidal wave  of interest and support.  We can get prepared first.?

Lawrence Tseung
Ideas from Sun and Chan Lead Out  this post.  The coming strong pulses are likely to be Cosmic Energy Products from China.
Title: The famous Wang Shum Ho 4-legged stool experiment
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 05:54:30 AM
The famous Wang Shum Ho 4-legged stool experiment

Thanks to Ms. Forever, I have now edited the attached PowerPoint file and downloaded the video to youtube.

This experiment is significant in that
(1) Force applied to circular motion will make it rotate faster.
(2) Bowl of water will rotate like a vortex and will remix when hitting the top.
(3) Changing the water to ferro-magnetic fluid and using rotating magnet to replace humans Leads Out Electron Motion Energy (magnetic)
(4) This coupled with solid magnet rotation (e.g. David Hamel) produces the Wang Electricity Generator.
(5) David Hamel information is available on
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/david-hamel/?v=rNNDT5Ge8YA
Wang information: http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3.htm

*** The special feature of the Wang Generator is that no starting batteries needed.  A slight hand rotation is sufficient to help it rotate to its maximum designed speed!

Enjoy it.

Lawrence Tseung
4-legged stool experiment Leads Out  the Wang Generator.  It is a coupling of two systems: pulsed ferro-liquid rotation and pulsed solid magnet rotation.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 04, 2007, 07:23:42 AM
G'day all,

Here is my very last post on the subject.

I heard back from Tsing Hua alright. They do know of him and his theories. When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories and had projects that involved his ideas they became suddenly very polite and evasive.

How very Chinese.

I leave you to judge what this means.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 04, 2007, 08:40:17 AM
G'day all,

Here is my very last post on the subject.

I heard back from Tsing Hua alright. They do know of him and his theories. When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories and had projects that involved his ideas they became suddenly very polite and evasive.

How very Chinese.

I leave you to judge what this means.

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans:

Thanks for the investigative report. It's so Chinese that the gentlemen does not seemed to understand, perhaps the blow smoke gets back to his eyes and clouded his imagination even more so?  That is SAD!

Thanks for the update. My last post too. Goodnight people.

chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 10:16:40 AM
G'day all,

Here is my very last post on the subject.

I heard back from Tsing Hua alright. They do know of him and his theories. When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories and had projects that involved his ideas they became suddenly very polite and evasive.

How very Chinese.

I leave you to judge what this means.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your efforts.  You have scored many points in your credibility.  We know that you do follow through with your words.

The reply from Tsing Hua is what I would have expected.  They can confirm facts without getting into trouble.

They do know of him and his theories  ? is a fact.

When they have to commit the reputation of Tsing Hua, they might get into trouble. They had to be polite but evasive.

When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories ? involves the reputation of Tsing Hua.  They had to be evasive.  If they were convinced that it was total nonsense, they would not be ?polite?.

At least the photos of Tseung Lecturing at Tsing Hua are not hoaxes.  My friends and relatives who received hard copies could breath happily.  Thank you, Hans.

Lawrence Tseung
Confirmation from Hans Leads Out  credibility of Tseung presenting at Tsing Hua University.  The other Pulses will be related to actual academic papers, conferences or product prototypes.
Title: Wang device as academic project?
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 12:13:52 PM
Private Email from a  Reader:  I do not answer private emails.  So I answer it openly here.

Quote
I have just read about the invention of Mr. Wang Shum Ho. I am a Pakistani student studying in final year, Electrical Engineering, University Of Engineering and Technology, xxx.
 
I want your permission to implement  this technology as a final year project, because I hope to get funds. In addition, I may find some difficulties while studying this technology in detail.
In that case, I may want your assistance.

My reply:

The Wang Shum Ho device has moved into the "certification stage" in China.  If you build the device as an academic research, there should be no financial conflicts.
 
I shall only disclose the "public Knowledge".   You are encouraged to use the overunity forum or forum.go-here.nl.

I encourage you to share your research results in this thread  to benefit the World..

Lawrence Tseung
Final Year Project Leads Out  knowledge and benefits to the World.  We can consider it as an International Pulse.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 04, 2007, 10:11:49 PM
An important meeting today.

The key factors for the success of this meeting are:

(1) Good presentation on the Lee-Tseung Theory
(2) Discussion of the various working prototypes
(3) Identifying the products to develop
(4) Evaluate the talent, time and resources needed
(5) Spread the message of benefiting the World

We expect much insults.  Hope the training in this forum helps.

Lawrence Tseung
God as partner Leads Out  great plans.  The Pulses will resonate all parts of the Earth.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 05, 2007, 12:35:05 AM

Dear Freezer,

See:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=273#273

and the related post on the Pulse Motor.

The basic Flying Saucer technology  is described there.

There will be seeds on rock; seeds on sand; Seeds amongst thorns. I hope that there are seeds on fertile soil.
Lee Cheung kin and I are too old to "grow".  Please use the knowledge to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Flying Saucer Concept in the right hands Leads Out  great benefits to the World.


On the "forum" it says:

Quote
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Not much of a FORUM, is it??

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 05, 2007, 01:28:10 AM
On the "forum" it says:

Quote
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Not much of a FORUM, is it??

Hans von Lieven


oh, the idea of the forum was for you to register.

http://forum.go-here.nl/profile.php?mode=register&agreed=true

But you are right, people are far to lazy for this... so anonymous posting is now enabled, should be fun right? lol

Going to make a backup now.  (http://forum.go-here.nl/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on October 05, 2007, 02:12:59 AM
Greetings all this was given to me by our on line university Author Patrick Kelly

"If I understand Lawrence Tseung's theory correctly, the main "lead-out" of gravitic free-energy is from each IMPACT of a weight (or thrust) in the direction of rotation.  In other words, a smoothly rotating flywheel has no free-energy gain while a pulsed flywheel has serious energy gains.  Yes, providing a weight imbalance will cause the wheel to rotate but for generating serious drive power, the wheel has to be subjected to pulsing.  You see this in the John Bedini scaled up self-runner which has kilowatts of excess power thanks to being driven by a pulsed DC motor, and to a lesser degree in the Adams motor with its lightweight rotor.  The heavier the rotor and the greater its diameter, the greater the free-energy gain from gravity.

If Lawrence's theory is correct, then it is a major step forward in the free-energy scene.  The Chinese developments seem to show that his theory is correct."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 05, 2007, 03:27:09 AM
I have the perfect and most simple overunity device, attached, per the "Lead Out" theory.  We have pendulums feeding each other a pulse force.  Now, on to power my house with it.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2007, 03:32:21 AM
@Shruggedatlas:

Wow!  The pulses lead out the energy from the pendulum spheres.  Please be careful to not burn your house down with all of that excess energy. It might be hard to contain.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 05, 2007, 09:33:22 AM
Hold your horsies Bill and Shruggedatlas, stop poking fun at poor Lawrence.

He is right, you know.

Consider this:

Spin a flywheel faster and faster and faster, it starts creaking and you go still faster and faster, it starts to wobble but you still don't stop until BANNNNGGGGG the whole shebang explodes and bits of shit fly all over the place.

What has happened?

Well. you see there are three forces at work here. The Centripetal Force, The Centrifugal Force and the Lead Out Force.

At first the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are in balance and the wheel spins quite happily. As the wheel gathers momentum the Lead Out Force starts becoming more and more prominent until it Leads Out all the particles in the flywheel away from the centrum into eternity.

This is the hidden energy Lawrence talks about, which will propel his flying saucer called Winnie Woo.

Hans von Lieven

Energy hidden in Flywheel will Lead Out Winnie Woo into Universe Out There
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 05, 2007, 02:41:57 PM
An important meeting today.

The key factors for the success of this meeting are:

(1) Good presentation on the Lee-Tseung Theory
(2) Discussion of the various working prototypes
(3) Identifying the products to develop
(4) Evaluate the talent, time and resources needed
(5) Spread the message of benefiting the World

We expect much insults.  Hope the training in this forum helps.


The meeting lasted from 9:30 am to 7 pm.  Thanks to the insult training on this forum, I was able to keep my calm in front of all the bullets.

Some of the bullets were from senior engineers in the Top Research Institutes including some from the China Space Program.

They were all smiles  at the end.  They were happy to try out the Flying Saucer concept.  Some wanted to implement the Wang generator and the Pulse Motor.

Thanks once more.  I do not mind insults.  They are good for the soul.

Lawrence Tseung
Insults Lead Out calmness at important meeting.  The heart will not pulse uncontrollably.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 05, 2007, 03:27:17 PM
Thanks once more.  I do not mind insults.  They are good for the soul.

Lawrence Tseung
Insults Lead Out calmness at important meeting.  The heart will not pulse uncontrollably.

Its good that you can let these wasteful comments bounce off.  They are cheap-shots, after all just some person you can't see, pecking from a far like some sniper in the dense foliage. 

I read in one of your post from the other forum that this powerful technology of free energy shouldn't be implemented before the world can be at peace.  I agree, however what if it becomes too late, and we destroy the environment.  Obviously if we trash the environment to such a point there will be major consequences.  It seems like this is already occurring to some degree with weather changes, atmospheric changes,  and weird things happening with animals, insects and other lifeforms.  I think one of the hardest thing is not to create free energy but to get it out into the open.  I guess its not such a hard task compared to making peace around the world.  That would take a miracle.  We have been fighting each other throughout history, what could possibly change that around?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Paul-R on October 05, 2007, 04:13:59 PM
Hold your horsies Bill and Shruggedatlas, stop poking fun at poor Lawrence.

He is right, you know.

Consider this:

Spin a flywheel faster and faster and faster, it starts creaking and you go still faster and faster, it starts to wobble but you still don't stop until BANNNNGGGGG the whole shebang explodes and bits of shit fly all over the place.
[/u]
You should have balanced it properly.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 05, 2007, 06:46:07 PM
Hold your horsies Bill and Shruggedatlas, stop poking fun at poor Lawrence.

What are you verbally menstruating now Hans boy??

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 05, 2007, 06:47:48 PM
On the "forum" it says:
Quote
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Not much of a FORUM, is it??

Hans von Lieven

On your site I read this:
http://www.keelytech.com/
HANS VON LIEVEN
Quote
I was born in 1939 in a small rural town in Germany. My family was not wealthy, though we were not poor by any stretch of the imagination. I hold a degree in mechanical engineering, majoring in physics. I do not want to give my credentials here, judge me by my work, not by what you think my professional status might be.

Now retired, I live in Sydney, Australia, where I have been for many years

In the early 1970's I read Clara Bloomfield Moore's book about Keely. I was instantly intrigued. The various accounts of Keely and his achievements seemed to be full of contradictions.

On one hand he appears to be some metaphysical dreamer, yet the machines he built and the methodical thoroughness with which he conducted his experiments belie this.

Having read much of Clara Bloomfield Moore's writings she strikes me as a silly woman with too much education and too much money, incapable of having an original thought of her own, the type that Helena Blavatsky cultivated and filled with her peculiar brand of metaphysical crap.

To get to know Keely as a man and technician meant I had to bypass much of her account and rely on things he said and on the evidence provided by a number of photographs of his devices, as well as contemporary newspaper articles.

Having a reasonable grounding in technical and scientific subjects as well as musical theory I judged the man as an honest researcher trying to come to grips with problems and phenomena well outside the scientific understanding of his time and having to work with comparatively primitive research instruments barely suitable for the task he had set himself.

That he achieved something at all is staggering.

But did he?

Keely built a bewildering array of massive machines with almost unbelievable precision. He demonstrated his devices in his laboratory and on exhibitions repeatedly. No-one understood how they worked, and his explanations, couched in an obscure terminology, only helped to spread the confusion.

History has labelled him a fraud, though he was never caught doing anything fraudulent.

I have endeavoured to look at his machines in the light of today's understanding of science, paying scant attention to his theories and his metaphysical model.

Working mainly with photographs and descriptions of his machines, his stated observations of unexplained phenomena and his account of technical difficulties met on the way, I have come up with some startling revelations that seem to indicate that Keely's technology is real.

I leave it for you to judge.

The following paper is still very much work in progress and there is much to be done yet. Any comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome.

But no more talk.

Here it is.

To contact me click here.

not much of a website now is it?


Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 05, 2007, 06:51:16 PM

On this page it even says:

http://www.keelytech.com/qa.html

This section is not activated yet.

You are a BS talker.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 05, 2007, 07:05:38 PM
On your site I read this:

http://www.keelytech.com/
HANS VON LIEVEN

I was born in ...quote]

not much of a website now is it?

Load of BS

Are you kidding or just doped too much already?


On this page it even says:

http://www.keelytech.com/qa.html

This section is not activated yet.

You are a BS talker.

Drink less; not only you can?t see well but your face is already falling apart.

Hold your horsies Bill and Shruggedatlas, stop poking fun at poor Lawrence.

What are you verbally menstruating now Hans boy??

Better get yourself a job, looser. And get some education too. Or vice-versa, for better chances. 

By the way, what?s your main qualification, ?magnet-man (in repel mode) go-there??
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 05, 2007, 08:15:01 PM

I read in one of your post from the other forum that this powerful technology of free energy shouldn't be implemented  before the world can be at peace.  I agree, however what if it becomes too late, and we destroy the environment.  Obviously if we trash the environment to such a point there will be major consequences.  It seems like this is already occurring to some degree with weather changes, atmospheric changes,  and weird things happening with animals, insects and other lifeforms.  I think one of the hardest thing is not to create free energy but to get it out into the open.  I guess its not such a hard task compared to making peace around the world.  That would take a miracle.  We have been fighting each other throughout history, what could possibly change that around?

We have been talking about controlled, slowly released  infinite Cosmic Energy Machines.  Some brilliant readers may have guessed the undiscussed.  Some area 51 type top secret  organizations might be implementing them already.

That is why I want to introduce New Order now.  Please see:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=13
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 05, 2007, 08:46:03 PM
Sharing some juicy discussions:

"When you push a stationary pendulum horizontally, it will rise up.  I cannot dispute that.  But I am saying that the energy required to raise  up comes from the horizontal force.  Nothing is Lead Out.  This is the conventional teaching."

"Conventional teaching also says a horizontal force cannot do work in the vertical direction unless some kind of machine is used to change its drection?  What kind of machine is hidden behind the simple pendulum?"

"I can accept that we are immersed in gravitational fields.  I can even accept that we are interchanging gravitational energy with one another all the time.  But I cannot accept that the simple pulsed pendulum  has a COP of greater than 1."

"I can follow your line of reasoning.  However, if you are right, I have to re-learn  everything.  My electrial engineering training tells me that I have to find fuel  for my generators.  You are telling me that I can use gravitational energy that is free.  You are telling me that I can even use Electron Motion Energy  when I am in outer space.  It was a shock to me when I first read the information.  I am still shaking from that shock."

"You mean that US, USSR, China have been wasting billions on their space programs.  You mean a Flying Saucer with your type of descriptions could replace them all."

"We have been doing Energy Research for over 10 years.  We focused on wind, solar, tidal and other renewable sources of Energy.  What would happen to our funding if your technology is correct?  Does it mean that we have to study and implement your Lee-Tseung theory for us to survive?"

"Even though I do not agree with your theory totally, I consider that this is a worthwhile trip for me."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 05, 2007, 10:01:01 PM
Sharing some juicy discussions:

"When you push a stationary pendulum horizontally, it will rise up.  I cannot dispute that.  But I am saying that the energy required to raise  up comes from the horizontal force.  Nothing is Lead Out.  This is the conventional teaching."

"Conventional teaching also says a horizontal force cannot do work in the vertical direction unless some kind of machine is used to change its drection?  What kind of machine is hidden behind the simple pendulum?"

"I can accept that we are immersed in gravitational fields.  I can even accept that we are interchanging gravitational energy with one another all the time.  But I cannot accept that the simple pulsed pendulum  has a COP of greater than 1."

"I can follow your line of reasoning.  However, if you are right, I have to re-learn  everything.  My electrial engineering training tells me that I have to find fuel  for my generators.  You are telling me that I can use gravitational energy that is free.  You are telling me that I can even use Electron Motion Energy  when I am in outer space.  It was a shock to me when I first read the information.  I am still shaking from that shock."

I had a teacher who would scream at anyone who wasn't one hundred percent sure of what he said. He  didn't just limit this to students. If you would ask him a question after class he would rage about how stupid you are. He would explain everything 2 times with loud voice.

One day I ask him if change of flux is that what powers a transformer. Then what happens if we cut the power at the peek of the wave? Don't we get more flux change that way? And I repeated the drawings he made on the board showing him how much the flux changes. He laughed, I never seen him laugh like that. Then he said he wasn't suppose to teach stuff like that. It appeared very weird to me as I was initially convinced I didn't understand the class. But now he gave me the impression I had magnificently cornered him down using his own words?  WTF? I mean he looked as if he just heard the best joke in his career. He refused to explain and said I understood it more then enough for now. It was probably one of the weirdest conversations I've ever had. The tiran now send me off without answers? WTF?? Why didn't he scream as usual? He was more like hiding behind his desk now? I'm still looking for the answer to this very day.

So far I found all those people building pulse motors... ROFL! Leaves me very little hope to ever find the answer to my erroneous view. Who posted that scope shot with the reed strapped parallel onto the coil? That was exactly the picture I had in mind. :D Lets search for it.  :)

Quote
"You mean that US, USSR, China have been wasting billions on their space programs.  You mean a Flying Saucer with your type of descriptions could replace them all."

"We have been doing Energy Research for over 10 years.  We focused on wind, solar, tidal and other renewable sources of Energy.  What would happen to our funding if your technology is correct?  Does it mean that we have to study and implement your Lee-Tseung theory for us to survive?"

"Even though I do not agree with your theory totally, I consider that this is a worthwhile trip for me."
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 06, 2007, 01:04:45 AM
Greetings all this was given to me by our on line university Author Patrick Kelly

"If I understand Lawrence Tseung's theory correctly, the main "lead-out" of gravitic free-energy is from each IMPACT of a weight (or thrust) in the direction of rotation.  In other words, a smoothly rotating flywheel has no free-energy gain while a pulsed flywheel has serious energy gains.  Yes, providing a weight imbalance will cause the wheel to rotate but for generating serious drive power, the wheel has to be subjected to pulsing.  You see this in the John Bedini scaled up self-runner which has kilowatts of excess power thanks to being driven by a pulsed DC motor, and to a lesser degree in the Adams motor  with its lightweight rotor.  The heavier the rotor and the greater its diameter, the greater the free-energy gain from gravity.

If Lawrence's theory is correct, then it is a major step forward in the free-energy scene.  The Chinese developments seem to show that his theory is correct."

Dear Ash,

I almost overlooked your post.  Patrick Kelly is one of the few who grasped the idea.  A smooth rotating  flywheel will not lead out gravitational or electron motion energy. An object travelling with x velocity along a straight line will continue forever if there were no external force (Newton's Laws of Motion).  In circular motion, a spinning object with x rpm will spin forever if the centripetal force does not change.  No energy is needed to keep the velocity  or the rpm x!

The Pulse will accelerate the rotation of the cylinder.  There is energy gain in the acceleration. The drawing out of energy by external load or friction will decelerate the rotation of the cylinder.

The gain in energy is partly from the Pulse and partly from the Lead Out energy.

I am glad that the Bedini scaled up self-runner can confirm that.  I shall contact him and produce a win-win.

Thank you for your posting.

Lawrence Tseung
International coorperation Leads Out  benefits to the World. My underlining Lead Out and Pulse did have seeds in fertile soil.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc on October 06, 2007, 01:22:04 AM
Everyone, I can't speak for others, but I would appreciate if the personal attacks, silly remarks, and insults on this topic come to an end.  I'm not requesting this because of support for Lawrence, but because it personally offends me to have to read such dribble on a web site dedicated to science.  Some of these unfortunate remarks are coming from people who I have come to respect for their intelligent contributions to this community. 

Please, you can disagree, be sceptical, even critical as a part of this process.  But lets not degrade this topic, or any topic on this web site.  If this trend continues here, it can only lead to discouraging and deterring good minds from contributing to an extremely important human endeavour.  The behavior on this topic impacts the overall quality of this site.

Lets moderate our activity, so Stephan won't have to.  And so that this community has a chance to show how a worldwide opensource team can produce amazing innovations.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 06, 2007, 01:50:51 AM
@jeffc

Point taken.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: jeffc 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
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: shruggedatlas 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.
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: ltseung888 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
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: shruggedatlas 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?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu 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?
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: Let us now focus on:
Post by: ltseung888 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.
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy 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?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 07, 2007, 07:17:35 AM

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?


Mr. Entropy,

With your participation, we hope the discussions will be more in line with known Physics concepts.  Let me describe the intended mode of operation first. 

Mode 1: Move One Pendulum  to a position on the LHS, keeping the strings tight and leave the other four pendulums in the vertical position. I shall called them A,B,C,D,E for ease of description. A is the pendulum on the LHS.  When A is let go, it will collide with the 4 stationary pendulums (B,C,D,E).  After the collision, A will be stationary; E will swing to approximately the same mirror position as A on the RHS.  On swinging back, E will collide with the 4 stationary pendulums (D,C,B,A).  After collision E will be stationary, A will swing to approximately its original position  (minus a little bit because of air resistance and other losses).

I shall pause for your reply.  In this way, we can proceed slowly but surely.  Yell if you do not agree with any of the statements.

(to be continued)

Lawrence Tseung
Participation of Mr. Entropy Leads Out  discussions based on known Physics Laws.
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: jeffc on October 07, 2007, 08:36:58 AM

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?

Valid points, indeed.

Regards,
jeffc
Title: Re: Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory
Post by: jeffc on October 07, 2007, 08:47:04 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.


These should be easy enough to validate I would think.  Thank you Lawrence.
Title: Re: Let us now focus on:
Post by: tinu on October 07, 2007, 11:22:15 AM

@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. 

You know well that the formula (period independent of amplitude) is just an approximation, valid for very small angles.
In practice always an increase of frequency over time is measured. This is a simple experiment, I am sure Ms. Forever can do it for you, if needed.

Tinu
?Use of approximations and incorrect equations does not Lead Out Gravitational Energy.?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 07, 2007, 04:34:31 PM
In Mode 1: (singl pendulum swing in intended mode)

Step 1 ? Pendulum A was pulled to the LHS.

This can be done by a horizontal force (pulse or no pulse) Fp.  Energy enters the Pendulum A system by the Integral (Fr dot ds) from vertical  stationary lowest point position to maximum LHS position.  Fr is the resultant force at any time on the Bob of Pendulum A; ds is the displacement at the corresponding time; dot denotes vector mathematics.  This integral is a result of work = Force x Displacement.  Fr may vary at the different displacement points ds.  If we know the exact shape of the Fr function, we should be able to calculate the integral.  It does not matter whether the Pendulum Bob is accelerating, deceleration, stationary or in motion.

In this part, we can indeed apply the mathematics of the Lead Out  Theory.  The Horizontal Force Fp, the Weight of the Bob Fg and the Tension of the String Fs will all have influence on the Bob.  These three forces will form the resultant force Fr.

The Resultant Force Fr at the starting position before the application of the horizontal force is 0.  Fg=Fs.

The Resultant Force Fr at the ending position (maximum LHS) before the release of the horizontal force is also zero.  Fg dot Fp = Fs  (Three forces at Equilibrium).

The Energy imparted or provided to the Pendulum A system at this point (first pulse) is the sum of (the horizontal energy Fp x horizontal displacement + Fg x Vertical displacement.)  The relationship between these two energies is roughly 2 parts horizontal to 1 part vertical.  This is the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

(to be continued)

Lawrence Tseung
First Pulse on the toy is pulling Pendulum A to the LHS.  This Leads Out gravitational energy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 08, 2007, 12:56:25 AM
The Energy impacted at this point (first pulse) is the sum of (the horizontal energy Fp x horizontal displacement + Fg x Vertical displacement.)  The relationship between these two energies is roughly 2 parts horizontal to 1 part vertical.  This is the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "impacted", but no.  The energy you've put in is Fp x horizontal displacement OR -Fg x vertical displacement, i.e., you don't add them, because they are different ways of measuring essentially the same thing.  The Fp x horizontal displacement is you spending energy.  The Fg x vertical displacement is the pendulum storing that energy.  If you do add them, you'll get zero, since Fg x vertical displacement is negative -- the push is down, but the motion is up!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 02:24:53 AM
The Energy imparted or provided to the Pendulum A system   at this point (first pulse) is the sum of (the horizontal energy Fp x horizontal displacement + Fg x Vertical displacement.)  The relationship between these two energies is roughly 2 parts horizontal to 1 part vertical.  This is the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "impacted", but no.  The energy you've put in is Fp x horizontal displacement OR -Fg x vertical displacement, i.e., you don't add them, because they are different ways of measuring essentially the same thing.  The Fp x horizontal displacement is you spending energy.  The Fg x vertical displacement is the pendulum storing that energy.  If you do add them, you'll get zero, since Fg x vertical displacement is negative -- the push is down, but the motion is up!


Dear Mr. Entropy,

Thank you for your reply.  You should be proud of your reply.  It was the same as one of the top professors at Harvard University in early 2005.

He said that we double accounted the energy terms.  His reasoning was basically similar to yours.

I shall pause for a day or so.  I shall dig up the notes on how Professor  Woo, the Chinese Scientist who helped to create the Chinese Atomic Bomb, answered this issue.

I am glad that the discussions are getting more and more scientific now.  Thanks to jeffc.

Lawrence Tseung
Intelligent thinking Leads Out question of double accounting.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 09:33:59 AM
Quote
My notes from early 2005 ? things may have changed since then.

Prof H: ?I believe you might have done double accounting.  In the pendulum example with a horizontal force, the vertical energy gained is supplied by the horizontal force.  This is the Law of CoE.?

Prof Woo: ?But the two components (vertical and horizontal) of the Integral (Fr dot ds) from vertical position to maximum LHS position do not have to be equal mathematically.  If the two quantities are different, there could not be double accounting.?

Prof H: ?If they are not equal, then energy must come from somewhere.  If we consider the simple pendulum with a horizontal force as a closed system, there is no external energy supply.  The Law of CoE demands that these two terms must be equal.?

Prof Woo: ?I have been thinking about this for the last few months.  We all accept that the pendulum in the new-elevated position before swinging has potential energy equal to mgh.  However, it also has moved horizontally.  That displacement must require energy, as there is tension in the string countering the movement.  I believe the vertical and horizontal energy terms should be added.  They are different and there is no double accounting.?

Prof H: ?If gravitational energy can be Lead Out  by the simple pulsed pendulum, it will rewrite all textbooks.  I need working, demonstrated prototypes in our hands  before we discuss this topic further.?

Prof Woo: ?I have the Lee-Tseung theory  and patent application information.  They claimed that pulsed oscillation could lead out gravitational energy.  They quoted a Dr. Liang Xingren Car that used ICs to pulse rotate  a cylinder to Lead Out Gravitational Energy.  I met Dr. Liang and drove the car myself.  I am satisfied that the car did not use any conventional energy supply.  I could not explain the source of energy for the Liang Car.  The Lee-Tseung theory could explain it.  This is the reason I am here.?

Prof H: ?Are you saying that the CoE law has been broken and can be verified totally?  We have to be extremely careful with such statements.  Let us have more evidence and working demonstrations in our hands before we do anything.?

(Prof Woo since then has been working on a Pulse Device  with his team.)

Dear Mr. Entropy,

So you see that a top professor at Harvard University has the similar concern and mental attitude as you.  Unless he has a working prototype in his hands, he will not discuss the issue further.  If he accepts the Lead Out  theory without absolute and undisputable proof, he would put his reputation and possibly the entire Harvard University Reputation at stake.

The fortunate thing is ? there are many working prototypes  already - some inside China and some outside China. 

I shall finish discussing the desk pendulum toy first  before focusing on the working prototypes.  If there are issues we do not agree on, we just lay them out  in the open and deal with them later.  (May be after a working prototype is in your hands.)

Scientific Progress and Benefits to the World does not need to stop if we do not agree!

(to be continued)

Lawrence Tseung
Even a top professor needs a working model in his hand to Lead Out  further discussion of Cosmic Energy Machines.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 10:49:15 AM
In Mode 1 : (singl pendulum swing in intended mode)

Step 2 ? Pendulum A was released from the LHS.

Pendulum A now swings back  from the maximum displacement position on the LHS and gets ready to collide  with pendulums B,C,D,E.

No horizontal force is applied during this step.  Thus no gravitational energy is lead out.  The same Integral can be used - Integral (Fr dot ds).  The starting position is Pendulum A at the maximum displaced point on the LHS and the ending position is just before collision.

Fr is the resultant force at any time on the Bob of Pendulum A; ds is the displacement at the corresponding time; dot denotes vector mathematics.  This integral is a result of work = Force x Displacement.  Fr may vary at the different displacement points ds.  If we know the exact shape of the Fr function, we should be able to calculate the integral.  It does not matter whether the Pendulum Bob is accelerating, deceleration, stationary or in motion.

In this step, there are only two forces on Pendulum A.  They are Force due to Weight Fg and Force due to Tension of the String Fs.  Pendulum A will swing faster in a circular motion.  If there were no friction or air resistance, the total energy acquired by Pendulum A (Etotal) remains unchanged.  However, Pendulum A acquires its maximum velocity just before collision.  Both the CoE and the Lee-Tseung predict and agree on this.

Lawrence Tseung
Agreement at this step Leads Out faster pace.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 11:10:30 AM
In Mode 1 : (single pendulum swing in intended mode)

Step 3 ? Pendulum A collides with Pendulums B,C,D,E and imparts or transfers its energy totally to Pendulum E assuming negligible loss due to sound and heat.

This collision step is the one that may cause confusion.  Some readers want to consider this as a Pulse Force as defined in the Lee-Tseung theory.  However, this collision force does not involve any gradual change  in the tension of the string to do work or to Lead Out Gravitational Energy.  It is more like an Energy Transfer process as mentioned by Mr. Entropy.  The total energy of Pendulum A is transferred  to Pendulum E.  Pendulum E can be thought of as the replication of Pendulum A. (If there were no Pendulums B,C,D,E, Pendulum A will continue swinging.  Now Pendulum E swings  instead of Pendulum A.)

Such a collision is not considered a Pulse Force as required in the Lee-Tseung Theory.  It is only an energy transfer  process.  No gravitational force will be Lead Out.

Lawrence Tseung
A Collision Process can be an Energy Transfer Process.  It is not a Pulse Force that Leads Out Gravitational Energy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 11:52:04 AM
In Mode 1 : (single pendulum swing in intended mode)

Step 4 ? Pendulum E acquires the Energy of Pendulum A and swings to the RHS.  The circular motion slows down until it is at the maximum displaced position on the RHS.

No horizontal force is applied during this step.  Thus no gravitational energy is lead out.  The same Integral can be used - Integral (Fr dot ds).  The starting position is Pendulum E at the lowest point and the ending position is the maximum displaced position on the RHS.

Fr is the resultant force at any time on the Bob of Pendulum A; ds is the displacement at the corresponding time; dot denotes vector mathematics.  This integral is a result of work = Force x Displacement.  Fr may vary at the different displacement points ds.  If we know the exact shape of the Fr function, we should be able to calculate the integral.  It does not matter whether the Pendulum Bob is accelerating, deceleration, stationary or in motion.

In this step, there are only two forces on Pendulum A.  They are Force due to Weight Fg and Force due to Tension of the String Fs.  Pendulum A will swing slower in a circular motion.  If there were no friction or air resistance, the total energy acquired by Pendulum E from Pendulum A (Etotal) remains unchanged.  Both the CoE and the Lee-Tseung predict and agree on this.

Quote
In the Lee-Tseung Theory, the best time  to apply another Pulse Force is when Pendulum E is at its maximum displaced position.  The highest CoP is achieved not by a horizontal force but by a force tangential to the just stopped circular motion.

When Pendulum E stops to change direction, a Pulse Force can be applied as stated above.  This will further increase the Tension of the String.  Three Forces Fg, Fs and Fp are once more at work.  Gravitational Energy is again Lead Out.

When Gravitational Energy is Lead Out, the maximum displaced position of Pendulum E increases.  Both the additional Pulsed Energy and the Lead Out Gravitational Energy enter the Pendulum E system.

This is one way of producing the resonance condition as required in the Lee-Tseung Theory.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulling Pendulum E at its highest RHS position Leads Out  resonance condition.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 08, 2007, 12:03:06 PM
Such a collision is not considered a Pulse Force as required in the Lee-Tseung Theory.  It is only an energy transfer  process.  No gravitational force will be Lead Out.

Lawrence Tseung
A Collision Process can be an Energy Transfer Process.  It is not a Pulse Force that Leads Out Gravitational Energy.


Finally, that?s a major conclusion!
It was about the right time for you to admit it.

It would be nice the agenda further includes a clear example of a Pulse Force as required by the Lee-Tseung Theory followed by a full mathematical analysis.

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 08, 2007, 04:39:15 PM

Such a collision is not considered a Pulse Force as required in the Lee-Tseung Theory.  It is only an energy transfer  process.  No gravitational force will be Lead Out.

Lawrence Tseung
A Collision Process can be an Energy Transfer Process.  It is not a Pulse Force that Leads Out Gravitational Energy.


What is the difference between a pulse force and a mere energy transfer process?  ANY physical application of pulse force is also an energy transfer process (I won't speculate about magentism here, because I am not knowledgable).  What more is required beyond a transfer of energy?  You yourself proudly cite an example where you punch a punching bag a few times, and then are surprised by the knock-back force.  You claim this knock-back force is an example of lead out energy at work.  Why do your few punches lead out energy, but my few pendulum knocks do not? 

It appears that make an arbitrary differentiation here but not in other situations in order to prevent my experiment from invalidating your theory.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 06:16:53 PM

Such a collision is not considered a Pulse Force as required in the Lee-Tseung Theory.  It is only an energy transfer  process.  No gravitational force will be Lead Out.

Lawrence Tseung
A Collision Process can be an Energy Transfer Process.  It is not a Pulse Force that Leads Out Gravitational Energy.


What is the difference between a pulse force  and a mere energy transfer process?  ANY physical application of pulse force is also an energy transfer process (I won't speculate about magentism here, because I am not knowledgable).  What more is required beyond a transfer of energy?  You yourself proudly cite an example where you punch a punching bag a few times,(*** Please note that I used the word push and not punch) and then are surprised by the knock-back force.  You claim this knock-back force is an example of lead out energy at work.  Why do your few punches lead out energy, but my few pendulum knocks do not? 

It appears that make an arbitrary differentiation here but not in other situations in order to prevent my experiment from invalidating your theory.

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

Please note the seemingly innocent use of the word punch instead of push changes the physical process totally.

May be Mr. Entropy can enlighten you more.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tinu on October 08, 2007, 06:26:29 PM
It may follow another 30 pages from your side of ?Push/Punch Forces Leading Out Gravitational Energy? but take good care.

Once you admitted that pulse force is not of any good, the path ahead is very short, Mr. Tseung. ;)

Tinu
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 08, 2007, 06:32:44 PM
Please note the seemingly innocent use of the word punch instead of push changes the physical process totally.

May be Mr. Entropy can enlighten you more.

How so? I believe the lawyer is correct.  A punch is a force of short duration -- exactly as we have with the pendulum.  Energy is transferred via a short, but very powerful applied force, and this is entirely consistent with the definition of the word "pulse".

Is there some finess you could add to the definition of "pulse" that makes it clear why a punch doesn't qualify?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 08, 2007, 07:04:19 PM
So you see that a top professor at Harvard University has the similar concern and mental attitude as you.  Unless he has a working prototype in his hands, he will not discuss the issue further.  If he accepts the Lead Out  theory without absolute and undisputable proof, he would put his reputation and possibly the entire Harvard University Reputation at stake.

Prof H is too polite to call Prof. Woo an idiot, and ended the conversation quickly to avoid wasting more of his time.

Quote
The fortunate thing is ? there are many working prototypes already - some inside China and some outside China. 

Ah, yes.  The difference between Prof H. and I is that I have hope for overunity.

However, while there may be working overunity prototypes, they do not prove your theory unless your theory is simply that overunity is possible.

If your theory is useful at all, then it makes quantifiable predictions about overunity effects that can be tested.  So far, you have quite annoyingly made testable, quantifiable predictions about non-overunity effects, and untestable, unquantifiable predictions about overunity effects.  If that is all you have to offer, then your theory is useless.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 09:36:36 PM
G'day Lawrence and all,

I have promised Jeff to be a good boy and keep my sarcasm to myself, so I will confine myself to asking a couple of questions that are bothering me in relation to your "Lead Out Theory"

If I understand your theory correctly, what you are saying is that Newton is wrong when he says that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.

In effect what you state is that the reaction to an action contains more energy and that the difference between the two can be "lead out" to produce work.

This is one hell of a big statement which is at loggerheads with everything we know and have established by experiment over a very long time regarding these phenomena.

You also have stated elsewhere that there are 4 new forms of energy known to Chinese researchers, presumably Lead Out Energy is one of them.

Which raises the question, what energy are we talking about.

You call it cosmic energy. Are we to understand that we are talking here about something along the lines of "pyramid energy" or "radionics energy", you know the stuff that can only be detected by using a pendulum or a dowsing rod and even then only by specially gifted people.

I am not a physicist as you claim to be. I am only a retired humble engineer (physics major at that) with over 40 years in the field. I have worked with flywheels, levers, gears, pendula etc in the course of my work. I also consider myself a rather observant man when it comes to machinery. It amazes me to learn from you that I have failed all these years to observe even a shadow of the phenomena you are talking about. It also amazes me that my teachers at university, both in Germany and Australia have to this day not come to grips with pendulum and flywheel physics and have been teaching us erroneous bullshit. It must be a conspiracy, or we are all idiots (Sorry Jeff)

Hans von Lieven

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 10:24:00 PM
Please note the seemingly innocent use of the word punch instead of push changes the physical process totally.

May be Mr. Entropy can enlighten you more.

How so? I believe the lawyer is correct.  A punch is a force of short duration -- exactly as we have with the pendulum.  Energy is transferred via a short, but very powerful applied force, and this is entirely consistent with the definition of the word "pulse".

(*** May be I should have used the word "periodically repeated" instead of the word "pulse" ***)

Is there some finess you could add  to the definition of "pulse" that makes it clear why a punch doesn't qualify?


Dear All,

Let me give an example of how the handling a fast moving object A towards a stationary object B affects the result.

The various ways of handling the situation include:

(1)   Send a missile to destroy object A.  Only the tiny pieces would hit object B.
(2)   Attach a device to object A.  The Device will try to slow object A?s velocity to 0.
(3)   Attach a device to object A.  The Device will push A 90 degrees in direction of motion. This will effectively deflect object A and even turn it 180 degrees without slowing it down.

We can all see that the results are different.

Let me apply the analogy to the Pulse Force required to Lead Out Gravitational Energy in the case of the Pendulum.

(1)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the maximum height position, Pull to give it additional height and/or tension of the string.
(2)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the lowest position with maximum velocity, increase its velocity.  The Pulse Force must be in the direction of the velocity.
(3)   When the Pendulum Bob is at any intermediate position, increase its velocity in its direction of motion.

These three ways will add additional energy to the Pendulum System.

If we do the following:

(1)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the lowest position with maximum velocity, apply a force in the opposite direction to motion (essentially slowing it down), Energy is effectively subtracted from the Pendulum Bob in terms of sound, heat, friction, deformation etc.
(2)   When the Pendulum Bob is at any Intermediate position, decrease its velocity in the direction of motion.  This will have the same effect as in (1).
(3)   The case of changing a Pull to a Push when the Pendulum Bob is at its maximum displaced position is a very special case.  Energy can be added in both situations.

One of the qualifying conditions in the Lee-Tseung theory is that the Pulse Force must be applied at the right time (normally at resonance).  We quoted the case of the swing.  In order for it to swing high, we must push it at the appropriate time.  Otherwise addition of energy will slow it down!

I hope this explanation will clarify the ?required pulse at the right time? in the Lee-Tseung theory.  It is NOT any pulse at any time.

Lawrence Tseung
The pulse in the right direction at the right time leads out gravitational energy.  Any Pulse at any Time is likely to lead out nothing.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
.....

You also have stated elsewhere that there are 4 new forms of energy known to Chinese researchers, presumably Lead Out Energy is one of them.

Which raises the question, what energy are we talking about.
.....

Hans von Lieven



I shall answer this one first as it is the easiest.  These 4 forms of new energy are:

(1) Energy from Still Air
(2) Energy from Gravitation
(3) Energy from Electron Motion (magnetic)
(4) Energy from Electon Motion (Electric or Electrostatic)

Thanks for reading the hundreds of posts in steorn.com.

Lawrence Tseung
Simple direct questions Lead Out easy direct answers
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 10:59:00 PM
Sorry Lawrence,

This was NOT what I asked. I did not ask where you want to get the energy from. I asked WHAT they are, mechanical energy, atomic energy electric energy, heat or what?

You say they are new FORMS of energy. When queried you tell me where you intend to get it.

I want to know the behaviour of these new forms of energy, how they interact with matter, how they are measured etc. etc.

Please answer the question.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 11:03:36 PM

If I understand your theory correctly, what you are saying is that Newton is wrong when he says that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. (*** That is not what I am saying.  May be you have not understood my theory correctly)

In effect what you state is that the reaction to an action contains more energy and that the difference between the two can be "lead out" to produce work.....

Hans von Lieven



Dear Hans,

Now I shall answer the more difficult question.  The first part is easy.  I never  said that Newton is wrong in stating that action = reaction.

The second part is not about reaction having more energy. 

It is about in some specific situations, a periodically repeated (pulse) force can lead out energy (gravitational or Electron Motion) in oscillating, vibrating or rotating systems. 

In these specific situations, The Input Energy to a defined system must include the Applied Energy + the Lead Out Energy. 

Please do not twist my words.  You are obviously encouraged to apply the Lee-Tseung theory to phenomena of your choice.  That is good science.  However, do not post - Tseung says Newton is Wrong!

Lawrence Tseung
(Pulse = Periodically Repeated) Leads Out  a better understanding of the Lee-Tseung Theory
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 11:09:57 PM
if input energy equals applied energy plus lead out energy, where is the gain that you claim??

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 11:21:32 PM
Sorry Lawrence,

This was NOT what I asked. I did not ask where you want to get the energy from. I asked WHAT they are, mechanical energy, atomic energy electric energy, heat or what?

You say they are new FORMS  of energy. When queried you tell me where you intend to get it.

I want to know the behaviour of these new forms of energy, how they interact with matter, how they are measured etc. etc.

Please answer the question.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

Sorry that I misunderstood your question.

I probably confused every one when I stated that there were 4 different new ways to use Cosmic Energy.  I did not imply that  4 new FORMS of energy  had been discovered by me or by Mr. Lee.

We define Cosmic Energy as Energy that is abundant, free, non-polluting and available to us anywhere, any time.  They include Still Air, Water, Gravity, Magnetic, Electric (grouped as Electron Motion) energies.

So I repeat in here.  Tseung did not discover 4 Forms of new energy.  Lee-Tseung discovered ways to use 4 types  of energy. (Still Air, Gravity, Magnetic, Electric).

Hope that answers the question and clears the confusion.

Lawrence Tseung
4 ways to use existing Energy Leads Out  confusion of 4 Forms of new energy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 11:24:38 PM
if input energy equals applied energy plus lead out energy, where is the gain that you claim??

Hans von Lieven

The Lead Out Energy is the Gain. 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 11:29:29 PM
On that you will get no argument from me, man, since times immemorial has relied on nature to supply his needs.

There is nothing new in that, we do it every day.

So what you are saying is that you have discovered new ways to tap into nature's energy flows.

Very good, if true.

Give us a demonstration.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 11:35:30 PM
You have me confused, let me clarify.

You claim if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus there will be more energy in the system than you put in and this is the energy that you can Lead out.

Is THAT what you are saying?

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: maxc on October 09, 2007, 12:37:47 AM
Hi all,
I can't remember where but i read that avalanches can sometimes fall faster than terminal drop speeds.
Is that true?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 09, 2007, 01:30:03 AM
Hi all,
I can't remember where but i read that avalanches can sometimes fall faster than terminal drop speeds.
Is that true?

It is true in the following situation:

(1) A snow ball moves downhill gathering speed.

(2) It hits a stationary object, imparting some of its energy to the object.

(3) The object acquires an initial velocity before "going" or rolling down the hill.

This object indeed can travel well ahead of the snow ball and may even achieve speed faster than free fall.

This may seem off-topic.  But I shall bring it back to the "imparting of energy"  discussions later on.

Lawrence Tseung
Different ways of imparting energy leads out deeper understanding of Physics.  We cannot classify any collision as a Pulse (periodically repeated) Force.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 09, 2007, 01:39:46 AM
You have me confused, let me clarify.

You claim if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus there will be more energy  in the system than you put in and this is the energy that you can Lead out.

Is THAT what you are saying?

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

To be more exact, I am saying:

(1) There is gravitational field surrounding us all the time.
(2) You can use this gravitational energy.
(3) if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel cylinder and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus, gavitational energy can be Lead Out.
(4) There will be more energy in the system than you put in.
(5) In the particular case of a pendulum being pulled  by a horizontal force, approximately 1 part of gravitational energy can be lead out when you apply 2 parts of horizontal energy.

The details are already posted from the beginning of this thread.  Please read them carefully.

(Pulse Force = Periodically repeatable force  in this context.)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 09, 2007, 03:45:56 AM
(*** May be I should have used the word "periodically repeated" instead of the word "pulse" ***)

So, the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.  What about the second pulse?  When does the free energy start?  How do the initial pulses change the system so that subsequent pulses suddenly become overunity events?

Quote
One of the qualifying conditions in the Lee-Tseung theory is that the Pulse Force must be applied at the right time (normally at resonance).  We quoted the case of the swing.  In order for it to swing high, we must push it at the appropriate time.  [... mistake deleted...]

I hope this explanation will clarify the ?required pulse at the right time? in the Lee-Tseung theory.

It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 09, 2007, 05:52:40 AM
(3) if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel cylinder and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus, gavitational energy can be Lead Out.

Are you talking about the Schumann Resonance?

I've always liked this gn0sis video.
schumann resonance (http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=96)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 09, 2007, 06:35:27 AM
(*** May be I should have used the word "periodically repeated" instead of the word "pulse" ***)

So, the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.  What about the second pulse?  When does the free energy start?  How do the initial pulses change the system so that subsequent pulses suddenly become overunity events?

Quote
One of the qualifying conditions in the Lee-Tseung theory is that the Pulse Force must be applied at the right time (normally at resonance).  We quoted the case of the swing.  In order for it to swing high, we must push it at the appropriate time.  [... mistake deleted...]

I hope this explanation will clarify the ?required pulse at the right time? in the Lee-Tseung theory.

It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?


I think Tseung is playing games.  He keeps narrowing the definition, making it harder to disprove the theory.  With the new narrow definition, he now has an out to just about any demonstration.  The pat answer in case of failure will be that the pulse was not applied at the appropriate time, or not at resonance, or something like that.  Even the punching bag scenario becomes slippery.  If another boxer does not notice this phenomenon - oops, didn't push the bag correctly.

Franky, I do not understand why the motion state of the pendulum matters to the Lead Out equation.  What difference does it make whether one of the pendulms is stopped?  The tension of the string is still there to "lead out" gravitational force, just like it is there during "resonance" or when the pendulum is moving forward or whatever.  I understand that a force applied against on object which is moving towards it is unlikely to generate a perpetual motion situation, but energy should still be "lead out", and we should notice an overall energy gain.

Moreover, there are many instances in modern technology where this Lead Out theory, if true, would have already lead engineers to develop overunity devices.  For example, take the internal combustion engine.  The piston is basically a modified pendulum.  I have attached a drawing, though I am sure you all are familiar.  With the thousands (millions?) of manhours spent on perfecting the hybrid engine (Prius, etc.), and all the effort made to convert mechanical enegry to electrical and vice versa, don't you think someone would have observed and said "Gee, when the spark ignites and the piston is on the way down, we get alot more energy that way - more than we put in.  Screw gasoline; maybe if we just hook the battery up to the engine and make it push the pistons, we have enough power to recharge the battery PLUS move the car."  It is inconceivable that with the meticulous testing that has been done on engines over decades, that something like this could have been missed.  I cannot believe I have wasted time analyzing this. 

This leads me to conclude that the Lead Out theory is either a con (note that Tseung has asked for a million dollars in the past), or just plain delusion.

And Mr. Tseung, please stop referring to the "hundreds of posts" of yours in the Steorn forum.  This was not a genuine discussion.  This was a thread where you took on no less than 8 different personas and basically held a discussion with yourself.  Why you made it so obvious by signing off with your patented "Lead Out" phrases, I cannot fathom.  Here is the thread:

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821 (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=43821)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 09, 2007, 06:53:17 AM
Not to mention the flywheel in every vehicle shrugged atlas :-)

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on October 09, 2007, 07:35:33 AM
Hi Lawrence thanks for that information I have totally changed the web page and added new informaiton.

I have also forwarded to Patrick Kelly, As a result of  the time needed here to get to technical stuff due to what Jeff describes, please contact me via Email in future.

regards
Ashtweth

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2007, 08:05:34 AM
Gee, for an attorney, she makes a lot of sense. (smile)

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tagor on October 09, 2007, 11:44:14 AM
The piston is basically a modified pendulum.  I have attached a drawing, though I am sure you all are familiar.  With the thousands (millions?) of manhours spent on perfecting the hybrid engine (Prius,
there was  650 millions of car in 2005

so I take 700 millions of car for the math , if they have 4 cylinders
this is 2800 millions of pendulum

if the motor of a car run at 3000 RPM and if we start all these cars
potentially it is : 3000 x 2800 millions = 8400000 millions or 840 billions of OVERUNITY UNIT
so this a big revolution in the energy of th earth !!

so the co2 is never more a problem
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 09, 2007, 11:54:02 AM
It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r003GmW4ZrM


Moreover, there are many instances in modern technology where this Lead Out theory, if true, would have already lead engineers to develop overunity devices.  For example, take the internal combustion engine.  The piston is basically a modified pendulum.  I have attached a drawing, though I am sure you all are familiar.  With the thousands (millions?) of manhours spent on perfecting the hybrid engine (Prius, etc.), and all the effort made to convert mechanical enegry to electrical and vice versa, don't you think someone would have observed and said "Gee, when the spark ignites and the piston is on the way down, we get alot more energy that way - more than we put in.  Screw gasoline; maybe if we just hook the battery up to the engine and make it push the pistons, we have enough power to recharge the battery PLUS move the car."  It is inconceivable that with the meticulous testing that has been done on engines over decades, that something like this could have been missed.  I cannot believe I have wasted time analyzing this. 

Why did GM get rid of the electric car?  Take a look at that video.

What if our science is a tad bit wrong, wouldn't that handicap all those who hold it so sacred, and set in stone.  If you want an example of technology being surpressed, just look at the U.S. military.  They have the most current, up to date technology that no one in the public realm sees.  Quote from Ben Rich - "Father of Stealth technology"

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity"

"We now have the technology to take et home"

There's three shades, white, gray, and black programs.  The x-33 being a white program in that its known and information is available.  The f-117 would be a gray program today, being that its known, but signature characteristics are secret.  In a black program they don't even acknowledge it exists period.  Point being is these guys are light years ahead of mainstream science.  There scientific laws are probably a lot different from whats in the books.  Look at the B-2 stealth.  The leading edges of its wings are electrically charged to produce an anti-gravity effect.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/laviolette-b2-bomber.shtml

As Stanton Freidmon said, every scientist in his day thinks they know all there is too know, and history would tell us they're always wrong.  I just think its wrong to think that, if this was true and free energy was possible, we would already have people building it.  They are building it, just behind closed doors, away from they public eye.  The U.S. military sets aside something around the order of 40 billion dollars, annually.  Multiply that by 50 years...  Their secrecy is paramount, anyone not convinced, just take a trip to area 51.  ;)  They have great stuff there that would change the world instantly, and they purportedly spend more money to keep it secret than on the programs themselves.  You'd be surprised at what x-military disinformation officers have to say.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 09, 2007, 10:38:00 PM
You have me confused, let me clarify.

You claim if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus there will be more energy  in the system than you put in and this is the energy that you can Lead out.

Is THAT what you are saying?

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

To be more exact, I am saying:

(1) There is gravitational field surrounding us all the time.
(2) You can use this gravitational energy.
(3) if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel cylinder and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus, gavitational energy can be Lead Out.
(4) There will be more energy in the system than you put in.
(5) In the particular case of a pendulum being pulled  by a horizontal force, approximately 1 part of gravitational energy can be lead out when you apply 2 parts of horizontal energy.

The details are already posted from the beginning of this thread.  Please read them carefully.

(Pulse Force = Periodically repeatable force  in this context.)

Yes, that was exactly my point when I said:

If I understand your theory correctly, what you are saying is that Newton is wrong when he says that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.

In effect what you state is that the reaction to an action contains more energy and that the difference between the two can be "lead out" to produce work.


Now, please don't misunderstand me here, I do not have a problem with that. When it comes to resonant circuits it has been my observation that many phenomena cannot be explained in strict Newtonian terms. It is possible to create acoustic and electric circuits that will exhibit more energy than you put in, the surplus energy coming from resonant fields in the vicinity that interact with the apparatus.

Where I do have an issue is with your statement that this applies to a pendulum and to a flywheel.

THAT has never been observed or demonstrated in a verifiable fashion.

How you can LEAD OUT energy from still air is another puzzle that you claim but don't explain.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 03:04:53 AM
.....
How you can LEAD OUT energy from still air is another puzzle that you claim but don't explain.

Hans von Lieven

Let us answer the easy one first.

Quote
If you read the first post of this thread, it will lead you to

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2621.msg40277.html#msg40277

From that, you can get the TPU_Theory1.5.doc file.

In chapter 3, the Technique of Extracting Energy from Still Air is described.

The TPU_Theory1.5.doc further explains the Lead Out theory.  Please read it carefully.

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 03:15:12 AM
It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r003GmW4ZrM

Dear Freezer,

I love your video.  If possible, can you produce one with a punch bag and show:

(1) A little boy punching it.  It hardly moved.
(2) The same little boy pushing it like a swing.  The multiple pushes will increase the amplitude of the swing.
(3) Let the swinging punch bag hit a dummy (use a dummy to avoid hurting the little boy.  Or you may find a special actor).

Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
The experiment done by the naugthy Tseung 50 years ago Leads Out  the use of infinite gravitational energy for Mankind.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 03:29:05 AM
(*** May be I should have used the word "periodically repeated" instead of the word "pulse" ***)

So, the first pulse does not add more energy  that you put in.  What about the second pulse?  When does the free energy start?  How do the initial pulses change the system so that subsequent pulses suddenly become overunity events?

Dear Mr. Entropy,

I am glad that we found our disagreement so early.

If I am not mistaken, you have concluded that the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.

The Lee-Tseung Theory DEMANDS that the first pulse (periodically repeatable force) add more energy and Lead Out some gravitation energy to the pendulum system.  Two parts horizontal energy Lead out one part gravitational energy.

Am I mistaken in your conclusion???

Lawrence Tseung
Disagreement on the First Pulse Leads Out roadblock in discussing Second and subsequent Pulses.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 03:35:05 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas link=topic=2794.msg53646#msg53646

..... The piston is basically a modified pendulum. 


Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

My scientific training does not agree with

"The piston is basically a modified pendulum."

Sorry.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 10, 2007, 03:56:39 AM
I think Tseung is playing games.  He keeps narrowing the definition, making it harder to disprove the theory.

I don't mind a narrow definition, as long as it's well defined.  If he'd just settle on something testable, I'd test it and know one way or the other.  Or he could end up defining his theory as untestable, and therefore unusable in practical scenarios, in which case we could just ignore it.  The problem is that Lawrence isn't doing either of those things.  He doesn't seem to have the math or physics required to do either of those things, but he does seem to learn quickly.  I will correct him some more, in the hope that he will soon learn enough to say something physically meaningful (correct or not) about overunity.

And you could be right, of course -- he could just be playing games.  That would be a bit sad, because "hold yourself and your friends up to ridicule for as long as you possibly can" doesn't sound like a very fun game, but it wouldn't bother me otherwise.  One does not come to an overunity forum expecting reasonable discourse. ;-)

Quote
I do not understand why the motion state of the pendulum matters to the Lead Out equation.  What difference does it make whether one of the pendulms is stopped?

At the moment, there is no Lead Out equation, because the equations provided so far have been nonsensical.  In the absense of that, why wouldn't the motion state make a difference?  We are talking about new unwirtten physical laws, after all.  Maybe it only works on Tuesday during an eclipse?  Who's to say except Lawrence?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 10, 2007, 04:01:28 AM
If I am not mistaken, you have concluded that the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.

No, that's what you said.  I said "why not a punch", and you said "periodically repeated", implying that one punch won't do.  If one pulse will do, then, again, what is it about a punch that doesn't qualify as a "pulse" that leads out gravitational energy?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 10, 2007, 05:07:27 AM
It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r003GmW4ZrM

Dear Freezer,

I love your video.  If possible, can you produce one with a punch bag and show:

(1) A little boy punching it.  It hardly moved.
(2) The same little boy pushing it like a swing.  The multiple pushes will increase the amplitude of the swing.
(3) Let the swinging punch bag hit a dummy (use a dummy to avoid hurting the little boy.  Or you may find a special actor).

Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
The experiment done by the naugthy Tseung 50 years ago Leads Out  the use of infinite gravitational energy for Mankind.

Closest I could find  ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uY77ffkgo4&mode=related&search=

This guy seems to think he can get more out than in from this pendulum motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XVuMdSro4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgnxMqVAFKM
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 10, 2007, 05:22:24 AM
It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r003GmW4ZrM

Dear Freezer,

I love your video.  If possible, can you produce one with a punch bag and show:

(1) A little boy punching it.  It hardly moved.
(2) The same little boy pushing it like a swing.  The multiple pushes will increase the amplitude of the swing.
(3) Let the swinging punch bag hit a dummy (use a dummy to avoid hurting the little boy.  Or you may find a special actor).

Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
The experiment done by the naugthy Tseung 50 years ago Leads Out  the use of infinite gravitational energy for Mankind.

Closest I could find  ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uY77ffkgo4&mode=related&search=

Now I understand.  It is Lead Out energy that make Kung Fu strong.

In all seriousness, the proposed test is ridiculous.  Of course the bag will knock the little boy or stand-in dummy back.  Unfortunately it will tell us nothing about whether any energy was lead out, or whether the knock-back is merely the result of the many pushes.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 07:11:17 AM
If I am not mistaken, you have concluded that the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.

No, that's what you said.  I said "why not a punch",  and you said "periodically repeated", implying that one punch won't do.  If one pulse will do, then, again, what is it about a punch that doesn't qualify as a "pulse" that leads out gravitational energy?


Thank you, Mr. Entropy.  Now we focus on the question whether a punch qualifies as a pulse in the Lee-Tseung theory.

My simple answer is NO.  NO. NO, NO and NO.

The reasons are:
(1)   To Impart energy to a swing and to Lead Out gravitational energy, we must allow the String of the Pendulum to move/swing and gradually increase  its tension.  During this gradual increase, the Law of Parallelogram of Forces can be applied.  It is the application of this Law that Leads Out gravitational energy.  No energy should be wasted on collision sound or deformation of the sand or similar material inside the punch bag.

(2)   In punching the punch bag, the force is applied quickly.  The rate of change of momentum is intended to be as fast as possible.  (In Physics terminology: Force is the rate of change of Momentum.)  We want the punch to exert the maximum force  on the opponent! The sand or similar material in the bunch bag will deform to absorb the energy.  The best punch is that the String barely moved.

(3)   If the punch is very slow - to become a push, the String of the Punch bag will move.  The Punch bag system then simulates a Pendulum.  (Pushing a person is very different from punching a person.)

Hope the reasons are clear.

@Freezer,

In Kung Fu, we want the opponent's organs to deform to "absorb our energy".  The evil intention is to destroy his muscles and/or organs and not to push him away.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 10, 2007, 07:34:08 AM
Does it relate to tossing a bowling ball?  Surely most of us couldn't  throw a bowling ball that far, but if we slowly build up momentum we can launch it fairly fast.  Its hard to think of something similar that relates to daily life.

I think whats happening in the kung fu video is similar.  The guy can't immediately force the weight to move, he has to build up the momentum in order to move the weight at the end.  I wasn't concentrating on the impacting of the bell.

For the OU believers, Newton said, if nothing else, for every action there is a reaction.  We work from there.

Watch at 7:40.  Exception to the rule?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMzHTERr-E&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ecc on October 10, 2007, 08:25:08 AM
Bruce DePalma et al discovered  in 1974 that a spinning steel ball would show different rates of rising and falling  when accellerated upwards or falling downwards compared to a non spinnig ball.   

In 1977 he wrote a paper: "Understandig the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment"  which says in conclusion:

>The availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating object with a non-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one. <

link: http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall(Understanding).html (http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall(Understanding).html)

Lawrence, do you think this matches with your theory?

Cheers

ecc

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 09:10:18 AM
Bruce DePalma et al discovered  in 1974 that a spinning steel ball would show different rates of rising and falling  when accellerated upwards or falling downwards compared to a non spinnig ball.   

In 1977 he wrote a paper: "Understandig the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment"  which says in conclusion:

>The availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating object with a non-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one. <

link: http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall(Understanding).html (http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall(Understanding).html)

Lawrence, do you think this matches with your theory?

Cheers

ecc



Dear ecc,

Your post is very relevant.  In the Lee-Tseung theory, an unbalanced rotation with axle in the horizontal direction is regarded as an extension of the pulsed pendulum.

It will Lead Out gravitational energy in a similar way as the pulsed pendulum.

If we imagine putting a small weight on a previously balanced wheel, when the small weight goes up, it will try to decelerate the wheel.  When it comes down, it will try to accelerate the wheel.

The Pulse is then 1 per revolution.  The Pulse rate  is then rotational speed dependent.  We can Lead Out more gravitational energy!

If this pulse is produced by a moving wieght instead of a stationary weight, the arrangement is similar to the Bessel Wheel, the Chas Campbell and other gravity over unity inventions.  There is a fixed frequency relationship in order to achieve the over unity phenomena.

I shall wait  until the discussion on the desk top pendulum toy finishes before starting this one.

Lawrence Tseung
Spinning objects, especially unbalanced rotation, can be considered as Pulse (periodic repeatable) Leading Out gravitational energy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Forever on October 10, 2007, 11:22:05 AM
I 'm with Mr. Tseung and we discussed what is the best device to demonstrate the lead out theory.

Probably the best device is the "ideal" pulse motor. This ideal pulse motor is effectively one slice of the 225 HP pulse motor developed originally in USA. Since it is an already proven and demonstrated device, the risk will be relatively low. If we develop it as a pure academic exercise to illustrate the Lee- Tseung Theory with no financial benefits, we should not run into patent lawsuits.

Please see the description of the pulse motion in http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=84

When we have a working pulse motor generating approximately 20 HP forever, there will be little doubt on the validity of the Lee-Tseung Theory. I?m sure Mr. Tseung will be talking about the theory while some of you are building it. I do not expect success at the first try. However, I expect much fun.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ecc on October 10, 2007, 01:52:36 PM
Lawrence,

I found some more information which may be related and in of support your theory, at least in my understanding. Quotes are from David Wilcock's ''Divine Cosmos".

First more to the DePalma experiments:

>Data of Dr. Bruce DePalma?s Spinning Ball Experiment from Hoagland?s 1992 UN Briefing
A perfect example of harnessing torsion waves by rotation was discovered completely independently by Dr. Bruce DePalma.... Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force. The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics. The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus ?soaking up? more of this energy than its counterpart ? energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth. With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.<

The Russsian researcher Dr. N. A. Kozyrev developed extremly sensitive detectors for Torsion fields, for example a spinning gyroscope suspended from a vibrating string. The influence of and/or change in the torsion field - Lead In ? - would upset the balance of the detector.

>Furthermore, without any knowledge of Kozyrev?s work, in 1989 G. Hayasaka and S. Tekeyuchi discovered similar weight-loss effects with rotating 150-gram gyroscopes, and more recently obtained success by dropping the gyroscopes between two precision laser beam detectors. (Remember that a gyroscope that is being weighed in a rotating and non-rotating state will not show any measurable weight changes unless an additional process is introduced such as vibration, movement, (in this case dropping,) heat conduction or electric current transition.) The results of Hayasaka et al.?s study, conducted on behalf of the Mitsubishi corporation, actually did make it into the mainstream media, surprisingly enough. Furthermore, they did indeed attribute their results to the effects of torsion fields. Many other researchers such as Dr. S.M. Polyakov, Dr. Bruce DePalma and Sandy Kidd have independently discovered gravitational changes with gyroscopes, but it appears that most of them have not fully understood the fluidlike nature of the aether, which always travels in the spiraling movement of torsion waves.<

Further confirmation of the Lead In - Lead Out  theory? What are your thoughts?

Cheers

ecc
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 02:50:43 PM
Dear ecc,

Thank you for the additional information.  I am extremely confident of the Lee-Tseung theory because it leads naturally to the development of the Flying Saucer.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNR0hgqFnw4

I am reasonably certain that both China and USA know the Lee-Tseung patents and have been working on them since at least 2005.  The UFO that appeared in Nanjing, China in August 2006 is likely a man-made object along our patents.

The early concepts of anti-gravity has already been turn into working prototypes.

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Freezer on October 10, 2007, 03:18:32 PM
Dear ecc,

Thank you for the additional information.  I am extremely confident of the Lee-Tseung theory because it leads naturally to the development of the Flying Saucer.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNR0hgqFnw4

I am reasonably certain that both China and USA know the Lee-Tseung patents and have been working on them since at least 2005.  The UFO that appeared in Nanjing, China in August 2006 is likely a man-made object along our patents.

The early concepts of anti-gravity has already been turn into working prototypes.

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung

The U.S. military has been working of UFO technology since the 1940's.  Most of which was started by Hitlers scientists.

Nasa provides us with great UFO videos, you should have a look at the film "The Case for NASA ufos," on google.

Some clips -

This one slows down. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pawTzpNKW4

You can see these pulsing in a fibonacci curve wave pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox6BtwDmm3c

This one appears from thin air. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBA7zaB9ZKw

Ralph Ring and Otis Carr built a flying saucer decades ago, piloted by thought and brainwaves.

Interview with Ring -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8949307179416464163&q=project+camelot&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7




Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 10, 2007, 04:21:16 PM
[My simple answer is NO.  NO. NO, NO and NO.

The reasons are:
(1)   To Impart energy to a swing and to Lead Out gravitational energy, we must allow the String of the Pendulum to move/swing and gradually increase  its tension.  During this gradual increase, the Law of Parallelogram of Forces can be applied.  It is the application of this Law that Leads Out gravitational energy.  No energy should be wasted on collision sound or deformation of the sand or similar material inside the punch bag.

(2)   In punching the punch bag, the force is applied quickly.  The rate of change of momentum is intended to be as fast as possible.  (In Physics terminology: Force is the rate of change of Momentum.)  We want the punch to exert the maximum force  on the opponent! The sand or similar material in the bunch bag will deform to absorb the energy.  The best punch is that the String barely moved.

(3)   If the punch is very slow - to become a push, the String of the Punch bag will move.  The Punch bag system then simulates a Pendulum.  (Pushing a person is very different from punching a person.)

That's interesting, because in the go-here forum, you say:

Quote
How to Pulse:

One example is the Adam flow nemo?s Pulse Motor described on this same section of this forum. It uses the term Drive Coil to indicate that Current is passed to the Coil to change it to have Electromagnetic Properties. The central disc has permanent magnets and the interaction of the Drive Coil and the permanent magnets will cause rotation of the disc.

It uses the term Pickup Coil to indicate that electricity can be induced when the inner disc with permanent magnets rotates.

The Drive Coil and the Pickup Coil can be the same coil. (e.g. Newman motor) They can be different. (e.g. 225 HP Pulse Motor).

There can be different arrangement of the Magnetic Field. The Adam flow nemo?s Pulse Motor using disc with permanent magnets inside and small coils on the outside facing each other. The Newman Motor has rotating permanent Magnets totally inside one large Coil.

The Adam flow Nemo?s Pulse Motor can rotate upto 4,000 rpm. If two Drive Coils pulse to rotate the disc, the number of pulses per minute is effectively 8,000.

You you seem to think that 8000 pulses per minute (with each pulse being 1/133 of a second) is a way to lead out energy.  How is a pulse that is 1/133 of a second in duration any different from a punch?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 08:22:26 PM

The U.S. military has been working of UFO technology since the 1940's.  Most of which was started by Hitlers scientists.

Nasa provides us with great UFO videos, you should have a look at the film "The Case for NASA ufos," on google.

Some clips -

This one slows down. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pawTzpNKW4

You can see these pulsing in a fibonacci curve wave pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox6BtwDmm3c

This one appears from thin air. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBA7zaB9ZKw

Ralph Ring and Otis Carr built a flying saucer decades ago, piloted by thought and brainwaves.

Interview with Ring -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8949307179416464163&q=project+camelot&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7


Dear Freezer,

I enjoyed the interview with Ralph Ring video.  It took over an hour.  There were not much technical data but I am not worried.  I believe the Lee-Tseung theory  and knowledge of the working 225 HP Pulse Motor will get us there.

It confirmed that someone in USA worked on the Flying Saucer with some success.  The USA Military wanted to keep it a secret.  It explained why some posts here were scientific junk trying to discourage work in this area.

The good thing is that China now knows how to build the Flying Saucer.  In my case, it started with a 13 year old girl, Ms. Wini Woo.  All she did was to point out to me that the effective gravitational constant can be zero or negative.  The change in effective gravitational constant can be demonstrated easily with the Ms. Forever Yuen experiment.  I have already outlined the theory.  It is a matter of who will build it for the benefit of the World.  (The top-secret research establishments have already build it.)

Lawrence Tseung
The Ralph Ring Video confirmed and Lead Out  the fact that the USA Government already know how to build the Flying Saucer.  We are only playing the catch-up.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 08:43:48 PM
.....

You you seem to think that 8000 pulses per minute (with each pulse being 1/133 of a second) is a way to lead out energy.  How is a pulse that is 1/133 of a second in duration any different from a punch?

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 10, 2007, 10:38:02 PM
G'day all,

The idea of driving a motor with pulses is nothing new, in fact it is common technology. With the popularisation of electric hand drills in the 1960's there was a demand to have a drill with variable speeds as the mechanical gear boxes allowed only for two speeds, any attempt to add more gears resulted in an unwieldy device that became quite useless because of its weight and dimensions.

Before I get into how it was done in the end I better explain how these drills work, for those of you that are unfamiliar with the technology.

An electric hand drill has an AC/DC motor that drives it. As such it employs brushes, anchor windings and so forth, unlike pure AC motors which do not have brushes but rely on the 50 or 60 Hz phase supplied by the grid. AC/DC motors were chosen because of their superior torque.

At first it was tried to add a rheostat into the circuit, which slowed the motor down alright, but decreased the torque to such an extend that the drill was next to useless except for some applications that did not require high torque or large speed variations such as dental drills and sewing machines.

In the 1970's someone had a smart idea, which was soon taken up by industry and is now standard. Instead of choking the current into the machine with a resistor, pulses were fed into the motor instead. Developments in the semiconductor industry allowed for a circuit that could feed the full power of the battery or grid into the motor in short, variable bursts instead. Although there was a decrease in speed, the torque remained largely intact.

No-one has ever reported any gain in ENERGY with these device.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 10, 2007, 11:46:20 PM
.....

You you seem to think that 8000 pulses per minute (with each pulse being 1/133 of a second) is a way to lead out energy.  How is a pulse that is 1/133 of a second in duration any different from a punch?

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.

You are using circular reasoning.  I am asking you what are the characteristics of a pulse that leads out energy.  You are saying in essence is that a pulse that leads out energy is a pulse that passes and leads out energy.

Damage is merely a factor of how strong the objects are relatively.  In the desk toy example, one pendulum does not damage the other.   The impact is brief, similar to the 1/133 of a second in the example you bring up, so I fail to see the difference.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2007, 11:51:41 PM
G'day all,

The idea of driving a motor with pulses is nothing new, in fact it is common technology. With the popularisation of electric hand drills in the 1960's there was a demand to have a drill with variable speeds as the mechanical gear boxes allowed only for two speeds, any attempt to add more gears resulted in an unwieldy device that became quite useless because of its weight and dimensions.

Before I get into how it was done in the end I better explain how these drills work, for those of you that are unfamiliar with the technology.

An electric hand drill has an AC/DC motor that drives it. As such it employs brushes, anchor windings and so forth, unlike pure AC motors which do not have brushes but rely on the 50 or 60 Hz phase supplied by the grid. AC/DC motors were chosen because of their superior torque.

At first it was tried to add a rheostat into the circuit, which slowed the motor down alright, but decreased the torque to such an extend that the drill was next to useless except for [1]some applications that did not require high torque  or large speed variations  such as dental drills and sewing machines.

In the 1970's someone had a smart idea, which was soon taken up by industry and is now standard. Instead of choking the current into the machine with a resistor, [2]pulses were fed into the motor instead. Developments in the semiconductor industry allowed for a circuit that could feed the full power of the battery or grid into the motor in short, variable bursts instead. Although there was a decrease in speed, the torque remained largely intact.

[3]No-one has ever reported any gain in ENERGY with these device.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

Thank you for a most valuable post.
[1] The Pulse Motor  does require high torque and variable speed to function.  Your explanation is one of the simplest and clearest.

[2] Pulses were used.  An engineer or technician found a solution to solving a problem.  He proceeded to patent and market it.  He was not a theoretician.  He would not sit down with a fishing pole and spent months developing a theory. 

[3] Someone did report that gain in ENERGY could be produced from Pulses.  The poor Joseph Newman spent years fighting the US patent office trying to get a US patent.  He demonstrated his primitive motor ? mainly using it to recharge old batteries.  However, he successfully demonstrated that he could get useful power without depleting the batteries for many years!  He tried to explain it with some gyroscopic theory and recharging by EMF.  Now he knew the Lee-Tseung Theory.  He would be on his way to improve it.  Many others such Bedini, Adams followed.

Mr. Sung Tin Fat in China reported the gain in ENERGY and got a China Patent in early 1990.  He got the Patent by demonstrating a working device.  He tried to explain the source of energy as from the magnetism of the permanent magnets.

Dr. Liang Xingren used IC pulses to rotate the inner cylinder and achieved car engines that could generate 188 HP.  The details were in his patent (translated by Ms. Forever Yuen in this thread).  The car was demonstrated in front of many persons.  The main technical downfall is that it Lead Out gravitational energy and thus could not climb up steep hills.

Mr. Chao Ching San improved the Liang Car with banks of batteries.  Mr. Chao and team drove 1,500 KM to Beijing and got Certified as Electric Car needing 8 KWH per 100 KM.  Details are also available on this thread.

*** If there were no more questions on the simple pulse pendulum, I shall proceed to describe how to build the ?ideal pulse motor?  theoretically.  It has already been built by the CIA or the Like in USA.  Multiple similar projects started in China.  I shall add elements to improve it to a Flying Saucer.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 11, 2007, 12:03:31 AM
.....

You you seem to think that 8000 pulses per minute (with each pulse being 1/133 of a second) is a way to lead out energy.  How is a pulse that is 1/133 of a second in duration any different from a punch?

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.

You are using circular reasoning.  I am asking you what are the characteristics of a pulse that leads out energy.  You are saying in essence is that a pulse that leads out energy is a pulse that passes and leads out energy.

Damage is merely a factor of how strong the objects are relatively.  In the desk toy example, one pendulum does not damage the other.   The impact is brief, similar to the 1/133 of a second in the example you bring up, so I fail  to see the difference.

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.

In Lawyer's terms:
(1) You punch someone, you go to jail.
(2) You push someone, you get a warning.

Your not understanding physics (failing to see) is tolerated.  I shall proceed knowing that you are struggling to follow.  It is impossible to provide years of technical training in a few posts (or hundreds, thousands).
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 11, 2007, 01:25:07 AM
G'day Lawrence,

I wouldn't be so keen to quote Joseph Newman as support of my theories if I were you. The guy has not an enviable reputation. His so called devices have been kicking around for years and the only beneficiary of his ideas was him, by extracting money from gullible investors.

I do not claim to have a direct line to God, as he claims, nor am I in the habit of "marrying" eight year old girls forcing Child Protection Agencies to step in and remove the child to safer surroundings. Perhaps that disqualifies me from judging his so called efforts.

As to the Chinese patents, all we have is anecdotal evidence which appears very thin if looked at in the harsh light of reality.

I would require a lot more than that to be convinced that there is surplus energy in "Pulse Power".

As to Bedini and Adams, after decades of trying various configurations no real replicable results have been achieved there either.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 11, 2007, 02:04:59 AM
Attached is the first draft document for discussion of the "ideal Pulse Motor".

It will be revised many times before actual impementation.  It is for those who are willing to take up the challenge of "experimental physicists".  There are no materials list, no circuit diagrams, no step-by-step instructions and no teachers to hold hands when there are problems.

The top Universities and Research Establishments in China already took up the challenge.  You can just wait for their results.  (If you are associated with the CIA or the Like, you may be able to get their working model.)

If you want to have fun, please feel free to contribute.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 11, 2007, 03:16:39 AM
.....

You you seem to think that 8000 pulses per minute (with each pulse being 1/133 of a second) is a way to lead out energy.  How is a pulse that is 1/133 of a second in duration any different from a punch?

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.

You are using circular reasoning.  I am asking you what are the characteristics of a pulse that leads out energy.  You are saying in essence is that a pulse that leads out energy is a pulse that passes and leads out energy.

Damage is merely a factor of how strong the objects are relatively.  In the desk toy example, one pendulum does not damage the other.   The impact is brief, similar to the 1/133 of a second in the example you bring up, so I fail  to see the difference.

Punch = pass energy to another object.  May even damage it.
Pulse (Lee-Tseung) = pass and lead out energy into same system.  Make sure no harm is done.

In Lawyer's terms:
(1) You punch someone, you go to jail.
(2) You push someone, you get a warning.

Your not understanding physics (failing to see) is tolerated.  I shall proceed knowing that you are struggling to follow.  It is impossible to provide years of technical training in a few posts (or hundreds, thousands).

You attempt to dumb things down for me does not help.  I am not much more removed from this field than you are, despite your claims to be a physicist.  If your resume is accurate, the only credential you have that bears on this discussion is your BS in Physics, acquired 50 years ago.  What else is there, an MS in Aero?  This is not aeronautics.  And professionally, you worked with computer networks.  So please, do not pretend you are a life long physicist.

Second, you did not answer the question.  If a 1/133 of second pulse leads out energy, why does the collision of one pendulum into a still pendulum not qualify as a pulse that leads out energy?  Neither sphere takes any damage.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Mr.Entropy on October 11, 2007, 03:30:23 AM
(3)   If the punch is very slow - to become a push, the String of the Punch bag will move.  The Punch bag system then simulates a Pendulum.  (Pushing a person is very different from punching a person.)

Hope the reasons are clear.

Ok, so you want a gentle force applied through a significant portion of the travel.  How about this:

- a pendulum with a 20g weight and a 20cm string is raised 10cm to a 60 degree angle off vertical and held in place.

- a spring is compressed 3cm, storing 2 mJ of energy, and held against the pendulum weight in such a way that it pushes along the pendulum's direction of travel.

- the pendulum weight is released while other side of the spring is held in place.

- the spring contributes 2 mJ of energy to the pendulum, the pendulum swings down and up to a maximum height of .... what?

CoE says 20cm above the bottom of its travel.  What do you say?
 
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 11, 2007, 03:51:30 AM

If a 1/133 of second pulse leads out energy, why does the collision of one pendulum into a still pendulum not qualify as a pulse that leads out energy?  Neither sphere takes any damage.

In Physics, consider the momentum of the two spheres before and after the collision.

Before:
Momentum of Pendulum A = m x maximum velocity
Momentum of Pendulum E = 0
Total net momentum = m x maximum velocity

After:
Momentum of Pendulum A = 0
Momentum of Pendulum E = m x maximum velocity
Total net momentum = m x maximum velocity

There is transfer of momentum (and hence energy) from Pendulum A to Pendulum E.  However, there is no external energy input  to lead out  gravitational energy.

In the 1/133 second Pulse (periodic repeated), we use electromagnetic attraction or repulsion to input external energy  to the rotating cylinder.  This additional energy input will lead out both gravitational and electron motion energy.

May be the use of the term Pulse is causing too much confusion.  We can invent a new word - Lee-Tseung Impartation of energy or something.  (This was suggested in the steorn.com forum.)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: armagdn03 on October 11, 2007, 04:31:06 AM
sorry to but in, but I do believe lifting the first sphere and giving it gravitational potential energy qualifies as adding energy to the system. unless you mean to say that energy must be added at the time of implulse,
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on October 11, 2007, 05:00:57 AM
Hello Mr. Lawrence,
there is a company in Germany: "Power Hybrid"
Their selling objects are based by the inventions from Mr. Manfred Sonntag(Duisburg).

Mr. Sonntag converted a conventional IC-car to an hybrid-car,
at first this seems not special,
but the electric-motor as electric drive,he got from a washing-machine !
+/-  3 KW max.,for a washing-machine-motor,do you agree ?

The experimental REVA NGX showed an electricity consumption of 24 KWH for 200 KM,
less 6 KWH power recuperation,
this means 18 KWH for 200 KM range or 9 KWH for the 100 KM range !

Why do you think that your example of the 8 KWH/100 KM ,Mr. Chao Ching San`s car, is so special ?
KG weight of the car, max. speed - extraordinary ?

Sincerely
              de Lan?a
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 11, 2007, 06:09:05 AM
G'day Lawrence,

What gives with these idiotic power point presentations that many cannot read. Post what you have to say in such a way that people with less resources than you can understand what you are saying.

Or, are you afraid to publish your ideas like everyone else??

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 11, 2007, 06:17:13 AM
Hello Mr. Lawrence,
there is a company in Germany: "Power Hybrid"
Their selling objects are based by the inventions from Mr. Manfred Sonntag(Duisburg).

Mr. Sonntag converted a conventional IC-car to an hybrid-car,
at first this seems not special,
but the electric-motor as electric drive,he got from a washing-machine !
+/-  3 KW max.,for a washing-machine-motor,do you agree ?

The experimental REVA NGX showed an electricity consumption of 24 KWH for 200 KM,
less 6 KWH power recuperation,
this means 18 KWH for 200 KM range or 9 KWH for the 100 KM  range !

Why do you think that your example of the 8 KWH/100 KM ,Mr. Chao Ching San`s car, is so special ?
KG weight of the car, max. speed - extraordinary ?

Sincerely
              de Lan?a


Some other Figures include maximum speed 102 KM/Hr; rechargeable range 550 KM. 

The extraordinary feature is that the rechargeable function  is adjustable!  The energy consumption can be adjusted to 0KWH or even Negative (providing electricity such as air conditioning). 

It was a political decision  to adjust the consumption to 8KWH/100KM.  Lee Cheung Kin spent a week working on this and was satified that the car engine was similar to the Liang IC Pulse Driven cylinder.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 11, 2007, 07:26:35 AM
G'day all,

I am sorry but someone here has got his wires crossed. The hybrid car by Manfred Sonntag does NOT run on electricity.The washingmachine motor is there as an auxiliary drive mechanism that contributes to the motion of the vehicle during times of PEAK DEMAND.

In his original car that meant that the petrol consumption went from 8l/100 km  to  6l/100km.

That in itself is quite an achievement though nothing of the order of what is claimed here.

In the proposed production version a Peugeot 407 is being converted which changes the petrol consumption from the standard 9.6l/100 km to 8.1l/100 km.   Source:   http://www.swr.de/rasthaus/archiv/2006/02/18/beitrag4.html 

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 11, 2007, 10:06:36 AM
Hello Mr. Lawrence,
there is a company in Germany: "Power Hybrid"
Their selling objects are based by the inventions from Mr. Manfred Sonntag(Duisburg).

Mr. Sonntag converted a conventional IC-car to an hybrid-car,
at first this seems not special,
but the electric-motor as electric drive,he got from a washing-machine !
+/-  3 KW max.,for a washing-machine-motor,do you agree ?

The experimental REVA NGX showed an electricity consumption of 24 KWH for 200 KM,
less 6 KWH power recuperation,
this means 18 KWH for 200 KM range or 9 KWH for the 100 KM  range !

Why do you think that your example of the 8 KWH/100 KM ,Mr. Chao Ching San`s car, is so special ?
KG weight of the car, max. speed - extraordinary ?

Sincerely
              de Lan?a


Some other Figures include maximum speed 102 KM/Hr; rechargeable range 550 KM. 

The extraordinary feature is that the rechargeable function  is adjustable!  The energy consumption can be adjusted to 0KWH or even Negative (providing electricity such as air conditioning). 

It was a political decision  to adjust the consumption to 8KWH/100KM.  Lee Cheung Kin spent a week working on this and was satified that the car engine was similar to the Liang IC Pulse Driven cylinder.


Lawrence, Lawrence,  you told a few little liesies here didn't you? Considering the car runs on a conventional petrol motor your description of it and the assessment of the mysterious Lee Cheung Kin is all bullshit as is probably the mystery car from Mr. Liang.

As to a political decision to hide that the car was running on nothing, naughty naughty Mr. Tseung.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: tagor on October 11, 2007, 11:55:17 AM
G'day Lawrence,

What gives with these idiotic power point presentations that many cannot read. Post what you have to say in such a way that people with less resources than you can understand what you are saying.

Or, are you afraid to publish your ideas like everyone else??

Hans von Lieven

the same power point into html presentation
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 11, 2007, 01:43:56 PM

Lawrence, Lawrence,  you told a few little liesies here didn't you? Considering the car runs on a conventional petrol motor your description of it and the assessment of the mysterious Lee Cheung Kin is all bullshit as is probably the mystery car from Mr. Liang.

As to a political decision to hide that the car was running on nothing, naughty naughty Mr. Tseung.

Hans von Lieven


Attached is a picture with the mystrious Lee Cheung Kin on the RHS.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on October 11, 2007, 07:22:27 PM
Good morning Hans von Lieven,
your Peugeot 407 numbers are refering only a disk modification:
www.espa-system.de/echo.asp
this is not an hybrid-equipment !

Parallel or seriell hybrid ?
http://www.swr.de/rasthaus/archiv/2006/07/29/print3.html

" Manfred Sonntag, Hybrid Erfinder:
..... Tricks auf Lager:
1. ........................ ."   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, only the electro-motor as drive !
So,only, the washing-machine-motor as max. power  need reference !

Sincerely
              de Lan?a
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 11, 2007, 09:23:05 PM
G'day Lanca,
It says in the article about the car:

Manfred Sonntags Fiesta hat gleich vier Tricks auf Lager:
Manfred Sonntag's Fiesta has four tricks up its sleeve.

1. Der Fiesta kann - sofern die Extra-Batterie im Kofferraum voll ist - ausschlie?lich mit Hilfe des Miele-Motors anfahren, ohne Sprit zu verbrauchen.
1.  The Fiesta can - as long as the extra battery in the boot is fully charged - start on the Miele Motor (Washing machine motor) alone without using any petrol.

2. Der Elektromotor unterst?tzt beim Beschleunigen den Benziner, was auch wieder Sprit spart.
2. The electric motor aids during accelleration the petrol motor, which also saves petrol.

3. Bei jedem Bremsvorgang wird die Extra-Batterie von einem Dynamo geladen.
3. Each application of the brakes charges the extra batteries via a generator.

4. W?hrend der Fahrt kann Manfred Sonntag auf Autogasbetrieb umschalten. Bei Kosten von nur 54 Cent pro Liter Autogas f?hrt er f?r weniger als 3 Euro 100 Kilometer weit.
4. During the journey Manfred Sonntag can switch to LPG. At a cost of only 54 cents per liter of LPG he drives on less than 3 Euro per 100 km.

My comments:

There is NO new technology here, just a clever arrangement of a petrol motor and an electric auxiliary. Every driver knows that starting a motor car and rapid acceleration uses dis-proportionally more petrol than cruising. By having the electric motor step in at those times considerable savings can be made in the petrol consumption. No magic tricks, no energy from nowhere just plain old clever arrangement of existing technology. The battery is recharged using some of the otherwise wasted energy when the brakes are applied. The car at no time drives on the electric motor alone.

Btw. anfahren in this context means start, and not drive. I have left the German text intact to show that I have not taken any liberty with the translation.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: lancaIV on October 11, 2007, 10:14:00 PM
No, I am not writing about a new technology !

And the article describes " start and drive", but with 1 battery as electricity source,
also only a very short range is possible , included  the recharging/lost recuperation !
Better reference:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE4128297&F=0
description: page 1,line 52 to page 2,line 12 !

My intention/proposal is to know :  the real  KWH/100 KM consume, with convenient conditions ,
car weight/seats and speed related!
                               
www.loremo.com  : there is a electricity consume estimation of 2 KWH/100 KM ,(FORUM,e-Loremo)
another example: www.mcn.org/a/omni/ElectriliteM2.htm   "ELECTILITE"

   
S
  dL

Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 12, 2007, 08:49:11 PM
Now I would like to comment on the controversial subject  of why many Over Unity Developers failed despite years of hard work. Let me start with Joseph Newman.

(1)   Joseph Newman found that rotating a magnet inside a coil seemed to produce extra energy.  The same Coil could be used as Drive Coil and Pickup Coil.  The Pickup Coil could recharge dead batteries.

(2)   Joseph Newman demonstrated that he could drive a heavy vehicle from batteries recharged by his motor.  The batteries did not get depleted.  He concluded that he achieved over unity.

(3)   The tests by external experts were the simple checking of Output Power against Input Power.  When External Load was increased, the rotational speed  of the Newman Motor would decrease.  This decrease would cause a drop in Output Power generated.  Without the program  to adjust the Output Power to External Load, the Newman Motor would fail such conventional tests.

Thus from the standpoint of the Lee-Tseung Theory, the Newman Motor can be improved as follows:

(1)   Newman Motor is just a pulsed (periodic repeated) rotation  in a magnetic field with axle in the horizontal direction.  Thus both gravitational and electron motion (magnetic) energy can be Lead Out.

(2)   The Lead Out energy was fed back via the Pickup function of the Coil to recharge the batteries and more.  CoE was never violated.

(3)   For the Newman Motor to become a useful electricity generator, it must be able to adjust its Output Power according to External Load.  One simple way is to change the current to the Coil to keep the magnets rotating at approximately the same speed.

(4)   Once the mechanism in (3) is added, the Newman Motor can pass the conventional tests as an Electricity Generator.

(5)   The better way is to have multiple Drive and Pickup Coils for greater range and control ? the ?225HP Pulse Motor?.

*** Edited to add:
Almost all the known Magnetic Rotational Devices can be improved with the above recommendation.  It should now be clear to all testers that treating the invention as a black box  and measuring the Output Power to Input Power would fail to give the invention justice.   

Thank you to Ash et al for doing the Chas Campbell tests.  I realized the above only after carefully studying and re-studying the reports and videos.  The fishing definitely helped.
***

Lawrence Tseung
Knowing the Lee-Tseung theory thoroughly Leads Out  easy improvement for the Newman and other magnetic rotation Motors.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 13, 2007, 07:01:07 AM
Comments from one of the top research institutes in China.

I shall present their comments in Chinese first.  Ms. Forever Yuen or some of you may translate it into English later.  The quick summary is that they believed in the validity of the Lee-Tseung theory.  They would like to work with  Lee-Tseung and other interested parties to benefit the World.

1.   Ã¤Â¹â„¢Ã¦â€“¹å¾ž?打秋千的奧秘?開始,深入淺出地講解了?宇宙新能源?的發展和多樣性;地球引力能動力機和發電機的原理、實驗證明和計算方程式,獲取地球引力場能量和磁場能量的方法,通過理論分析國內外發明專利,證明李、蔣先生的基礎理論研究具有無可爭辯的示範證明和可靠依據。
       Ã¤Â¹â„¢Ã¦â€“¹è¡¨ç¤ºå°‡å”助甲方全面瞭解國內外?宇宙新能源?的研製開發情况,提供?宇宙新能源?相關情報資料,以便甲方深入瞭解?宇宙新能源?情况。

2.   Ã§â€Â²Ã¦â€“¹èªçˆ²ï¼šæŽã€è”£å…ˆç”Ÿçš„?宇宙新能源?? 基礎理論研究,爲人類大規模利用宇宙新能源奠定了科學、堅實的理論基礎,將徹底爲人類解决能源緊缺、環境污染嚴重的重大難題、實現人類多年來尋求的,而且是取之不盡、用之不竭、廉價環保的新能源理想。這是一項世紀性的大發現,是驚天動地的偉大發明創新。在21新世紀裏,這種免費環保的?宇宙新能源?必將全面取代現代人類使用的、有損環保的?化石燃料能源?。這場新世紀的能源革命必將會在各個領域引發一場新的技術革命,從而改變人類現有的生存模式,促使人類進入個全新的現代化時代。願與乙方長期密切合作。爲?宇宙新能源?的推廣應用産業化、全球化作出貢獻。

3. ?宇宙新能源?的研究、開發是個非常龐大的系統工程。必須團結?宇宙新能源?發明者一起攻克實用化、産業化的難題;必須運用現代研究、設計手段(包括現代試驗、製造、檢測技術)對應用設計做大量細緻、艱苦的研究工作。從有較好基礎的産品開始,獲得應用突破,實現産業化。總結設計規律和製造工藝規範,然後逐步推廣。
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 13, 2007, 08:46:05 AM
I would like to meet Ms Forever Yuen.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 13, 2007, 09:00:12 AM
Comments from one of the top research institutes in China.
....

Isn't it comical to think that such and such advanced research institutes would like to work with Mr. Tseung....

but there are no names and no top notched researches or name brand person willing to state publicly they think Mr. Tseung really has something worthwhile to share with the world?

You would think that Einstein was welcomed with open arms because really had something to prove. The same cannot be said of Mr. Tseung's theories.

All we hear is Mr. Tseung's own mind games. Are these research institutes real or they think he's nuts and too 'Chinese' to acknowledge?

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 13, 2007, 09:12:17 AM
G'day all,

Here is my very last post on the subject.

I heard back from Tsing Hua alright. They do know of him and his theories. When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories and had projects that involved his ideas they became suddenly very polite and evasive.

How very Chinese.

I leave you to judge what this means.

Hans von Lieven

Quote
All we hear is Mr. Tseung's own mind games. Are these research institutes real or they think he's nuts and too 'Chinese' to acknowledge?

cheers
chrisC

G'day Chris,

Tsing Hua is real, in fact it is considered the MIT of China. As to the rest, that was my impression.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 13, 2007, 09:19:15 AM
G'day all,

Here is my very last post on the subject.

I heard back from Tsing Hua alright. They do know of him and his theories. When asked if Tsing Hua endorsed his theories and had projects that involved his ideas they became suddenly very polite and evasive.

How very Chinese.

I leave you to judge what this means.

Hans von Lieven

Quote
All we hear is Mr. Tseung's own mind games. Are these research institutes real or they think he's nuts and too 'Chinese' to acknowledge?

cheers
chrisC

G'day Chris,

Tsing Hua is real, in fact it is considered the MIT of China. As to the rest, that was my impression.

Hans von Lieven

G'day Hans,
Oh, I do know TsingHua as the MIT of China. I've been on their campus too.
It's just that this guy blows so much smoke and there's no one out there who's brave enough to come out and actually endorse his teachings. Not one!
So, is this guy so full of himself or has some mental issues? You have to decide. I've seen enough of the BS.

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 13, 2007, 12:19:31 PM
I have started a new thread  at forum.go-here.nl where I have moderator privilege.  The title of the thread is:
 Building the "theoretical ideal pulse motor".

The web address is:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=308#308

Please be warned that I shall edit or delete posts without notice.  If you object to that, please use the thread here.

I found that free speech produces too much noise for the old Tseung.  He gets distracted from the technical discussions.

Lawrence Tseung
Too much noise Leads Out  Tseung to use his moderator privilege in forum.go-here.nl.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 14, 2007, 12:22:01 AM
I have started a new thread  at forum.go-here.nl where I have moderator privilege.  The title of the thread is:
 Building the "theoretical ideal pulse motor".

The web address is:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=308#308

Please be warned that I shall edit or delete posts without notice.  If you object to that, please use the thread here.

I found that free speech produces too much noise for the old Tseung.  He gets distracted from the technical discussions.

Lawrence Tseung
Too much noise Leads Out  Tseung to use his moderator privilege in forum.go-here.nl.

Hahahaha! Old Tseung, you are so funny! Who needs to go to yet another forum where you can edit out other people who disagree with you? My goodness! Times have changed since you were a young man. We live in a democratic society where freedom of speech and freedom to question may not be part of your old teachings.

Sorry, but times really have changed. The commies in China may not think so and I am sorry to see the amount of western education you had in the UK and US somehow somehow did not mean much to you?

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Alas, but that's so true.

cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 14, 2007, 12:41:23 AM
Quote
Please be warned that I shall edit or delete posts without notice.  If you object to that, please use the thread here.

I found that free speech produces too much noise for the old Tseung.  He gets distracted from the technical discussions.

Lawrence Tseung
Too much noise Leads Out Tseung to use his moderator privilege in forum.go-here.nl.

Editing other people's posts????   Naughty Naughty Mr Tseung!

If you stopped telling lies and talked some sense instead of bullshit you would not need to!

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: shruggedatlas on October 14, 2007, 12:41:37 AM
Hahahaha! Old Tseung, you are so funny! Who needs to go to yet another forum where you can edit out other people who disagree with you? My goodness! Times have changed since you were a young man. We live in a democratic society where freedom of speech and freedom to question may not be part of your old teachings.

Sorry, but times really have changed. The commies in China may not think so and I am sorry to see the amount of western education you had in the UK and US somehow somehow did not mean much to you?

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Alas, but that's so true.

cheers
chrisC

I think he has been editing out comments very well.  All that is left on that forum are his own postings.  Very clean and no "noise!"
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 14, 2007, 12:57:09 AM
Some initial thoughts after reading the Adams Motor.

So the poor Adams also have bad experience with CIA or the Like.  I suppose that I got off lightly with that encounter.

Lawrence Tseung
Adams experience Leads Out sympathy from Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 14, 2007, 04:16:35 AM
I think people should have more mercy on their reed switches. :D
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 14, 2007, 11:23:54 PM
I think people should have more mercy on their reed switches. :D

See:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=314#314

Quote
.....

Is it possible that the Lee-Tseung theory can improve the many known Cosmic Energy Inventions via just one simple suggestion??? Introduce the Input-Output adjustment mechanism or program!!!  

Lawrence Tseung
Gaby?s Mercy Plead Leads Out the daring thought from the old Tseung.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 17, 2007, 06:20:40 PM
See http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=99&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
Quote

I can now describe how Cosmic Energy can be Lead Out from:
(1) The first push of the pendulum from rest position to LHS  
(2) The second pull from the maximum position on LHS
(3) The third pull after the pendulum swings to the maximum position on the RHS
(4) The subsequent repeat of (2) and (3)
(5) The extension to Magnetic Fields (Electron Motion)
(6) The extension to Electric Fields (Electron Motion)
(7) The extension to unbalanced rotations
(8 ) The extension to pulsed balanced rotations
(9) The extension to flux change systems
(10) The extension to Flying Saucers

It was like building the jigsaw puzzle. Lee and I had the basic idea. As we put in additional pieces, the picture becomes clearer and clearer. 

Step (1) The first push of the pendulum from rest position to LHS

We can clearly apply the Vector Mathematics of Integrals to this situation. This case has the horizontal force  applied all the way. We can use the Law of parallelogram of forces. We can resovle the displacement into the vertical and horizontal components. We can also resolve the force  into the vertical and horizontal components.

This analysis shows that some energy must come from the tension of the string. (Hroizontal force without the use of machines such as pulleys, levers etc. cannot do work in the vertical direction.)  

This "string energy" is the Lead Out Gravitational Energy.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 18, 2007, 02:10:33 AM
Main desktop PC attacked by Virus.

Using backup.

Main focus will be at forum.go-here.com.  The first 4 steps have been outlined there.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 18, 2007, 03:02:01 AM
Main desktop PC attacked by Virus.

Using backup.

Main focus will be at forum.go-here.com.  The first 4 steps have been outlined there.

Lawrence:

Just for a moment, I thought we were not going to enjoy your delusions anymore; since there were no posts from you the last few days!

I sure was dissapointed! I am sorry to hear about the (CIA laced) virus. It's OK to imply the CIA and the like are out to get your computer. We'll understand.

Cheers

chrisC
Title: Physics and Mathematics Challenge
Post by: ltseung888 on October 18, 2007, 10:05:45 AM
From: http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=334#334

Quote from: ltseung888
Quote from: Anonymous
Dear Mr. Tseung,

If the first Push provides a COP of 1.5, how about the second Pull, the third and subsequent Pulls?

This is an excellent question.

I shall simplify it with an actual example.  Let us assume:

(1) The Pendulum has swung to an angle of 30 degrees on the LHS.
(2) The Pull Force will further increase the angle from 30 degrees to 32 degrees.
(3) You may use further simplifications but please state them,

We should be able to use the Law of Parallelogram of Forces to this particular situation.  It may not be an exact solution.  The approximation will give us much additional insight.

Any one willing to take on this challenge?
Title: Re: Physics and Mathematics Challenge
Post by: ltseung888 on October 19, 2007, 07:00:46 AM
From: http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=334#334

Quote from: Anonymous
Dear Mr. Tseung,

If the first Push provides a COP of 1.5, how about the second Pull, the third and subsequent Pulls?


The COP in this case of a 30 degree Pull for 2 degrees is 1.70.  See attached file.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 22, 2007, 02:29:25 AM
Quote
I can now describe how Cosmic Energy can be Lead Out from:
(1) The first push of the pendulum from rest position to LHS
(2) The second pull from the maximum position on LHS
(3) The third pull after the pendulum swings to the maximum position on the RHS
(4) The subsequent repeat of (2) and (3)
(5) The extension to Magnetic Fields (Electron Motion)
(6) The extension to Electric Fields (Electron Motion)
(7) The extension to unbalanced rotations
(8 ) The extension to pulsed balanced rotations
(9) The extension to flux change systems
(10) The extension to Flying Saucers

The description of the first step is:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=320#320

The description of the last step is:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=354#354

It is a great feeling that there were no disrupting posts for a few days.  The use of a separate forum with moderator privilege is highly recommended.

Lawrence Tseung
Lack of disrupting posts Leads Out clear presentation of ideas
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: chrisC on October 22, 2007, 02:34:38 AM
Quote
I can now describe how Cosmic Energy can be Lead Out from:
........

It is a great feeling that there were no disrupting posts for a few days.  The use of a separate forum with moderator privilege is highly recommended.

Lawrence Tseung
Lack of disrupting posts Leads Out clear presentation of ideas

Look at it another way. No one gives a hoot about delusional posts with 'moderator' privileges! You're answering your own posts! Some kind of odd humor you have Mr. Tseung.

Cheers
chrisC
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 22, 2007, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: forever
Comments on balanced rotations

1.The best way of leading energy out from a pendulum is to apply a pull force perpendicular to the direction of the moving arc.

2.Intuitively, I believe the best way to lead out energy from a rotating cylinder is also to provide forces perpendicular to the direction of movement.

3.This means applying the force tangentially.

What do you think about my intuition?

Dear Forever,

I love your intuition.  I am going to open your posts for comments from all.
More details are in http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=344#344.

Your intuition simplifies development for many Over Unity Inventors.  There is no more need for guessing.  Just apply tangential force to rotations.

Lawrence Tseung
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 22, 2007, 07:13:05 AM
I would still like to meet Forever.  Even though she is probably smarter than me.

Bill
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 22, 2007, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: forever
Comments on balanced rotations

1.The best way of leading energy out from a pendulum is to apply a pull force perpendicular to the direction of the moving arc.

2.Intuitively, I believe the best way to lead out energy from a rotating cylinder is also to provide forces perpendicular to the direction of movement.

3.This means applying the force tangentially.

What do you think about my intuition?

Dear Forever,

I love your intuition.  I am going to open your posts for comments from all.
More details are in http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=344#344.

Your intuition simplifies development for many Over Unity Inventors.  There is no more need for guessing.  Just apply tangential force to rotations.

Lawrence Tseung

What utter rot,

I don't know who MS. Forever Yuen is, presumably just an other one of Lawrence's alter egos. No Lawrence, don't post another picture anyone can post a picture and say it is real only because it shows some attractive Chinese lady.

Whatever the story, real or not, neither of you has an elementary grasp of physics.

Every engineer knows, and I don't mean because they read it in a book but because they WORK with such things every day, that if you apply a force perpendicular to the natural movement of a body, its movement becomes erratic and it starts losing energy.

This is true for wheels, pendula and anything else that moves.

Neither of you understand the basics of motion, I suggest you go back to school and learn something about physics before you publish stuff like this.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 24, 2007, 02:39:42 AM

Every engineer knows, and I don't mean because they read it in a book but because they WORK with such things every day, that if you apply a force perpendicular to the natural movement of a body, its movement becomes erratic and it starts losing energy.

This is true for wheels, pendula and anything else that moves.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

I believe that every Engineer also knows something about Newton's Laws of Motion.  An object traveling in a straight line with velocity v will continue traveling with velocity v if there were no other forces acting on it.

In Circular Motion, there will be centripetal force acting perpendicular to direction of motion. Even though there is a force, no work is done because there is no displacement in the direction of the force.

For the Lee-Tseung theory to be applicable, we need the Pulse (periodic Push or Pull) to do work to Lead Out Gravitational or Electron Motion Energy.  When we apply it to the circular motion of a pendulum or a rotating wheel, the wheel has to accelerate and decelerate.  This is the phenomenon of ?if you apply a force perpendicular to the natural movement of a body, its movement becomes erratic and it starts losing energy.?  The Lee-Tseung Pull or Push is to try to spin the wheel faster (accelerate) and let the Output Energy to slow down the wheel (decelerate).

Most Engineers were trained to try to achieve balanced rotation. For example, to balance a wheel, they put small weights at the rim to ensure balance and constant velocity rotation.  This is totally different from the Lee-Tseung Requirement of ?Letting the periodic Pull or Push (Pulse)? to do work to Lead Out Gravitational Energy.

What you regard as Engineering Stupidity and Nonsense is vital to the design of the Cosmic Energy Machines.  The Wang Device is the clearest example of unbalanced rotation.  Details in http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm.


Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 24, 2007, 02:59:33 AM
You are dreaming Lawrence'

When you apply a pulse (any pulse) perpendicular to motion you slow the body in motion down. Brakes operate in such a way. There is no lead out energy in applying a brake.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 24, 2007, 03:22:35 AM
It's easy to power a device with gravity.

Why haven't you figured it out jet Hans?
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 24, 2007, 03:30:32 AM
I believe that every Engineer also knows something about Newton's Laws of Motion.  An object traveling in a straight line with velocity v will continue traveling with velocity v if there were no other forces acting on it.

It's cute but it's WRONG!!

An object can only travel if there are other bodies.

If there is nothing else then there is no motion.

A universe demands 2 objects to have the motion phenomenon.

And objects erect gravitational fields.

1+1=2

So there is no linear motion there where there are no other forces.

Which means an object traveling over a curved line will go WAY BEYOND velocity V

End of story!

My space ship gets there 1000 years before yours does. ROFL!!!
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 24, 2007, 08:45:29 AM
You are dreaming Lawrence'

When you apply a pulse (any pulse) perpendicular to motion you slow the body in motion down. Brakes operate in such a way. There is no lead out energy in applying a brake.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

You have to read my posts carefully.  Do not try to twist them.

You can lead out gravitational energy by spinning a wheel with its axle horizontal faster.  There must be acceleration for the tangential force to do work and impart energy to the spinning wheel system.  The most common implementation is via magnetic or electromagnetic means.

You cannot lead out gravitational energy by braking it to cause it to run slower.  You can, however, convert the spinning energy into electrical energy by braking it or via pickup coils.

When we spin a wheel faster, we do not apply force perpendicular to its motion.  We apply the force "in the direction of rotation".

@Gaby,

Thank you for giving me moderator privilege at forum.go-here.nl.  It really helped.

Lawrence Tseung
Careful reading Leads Out useful knowledge to the World.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: hansvonlieven on October 24, 2007, 11:00:57 AM
I believe that every Engineer also knows something about Newton's Laws of Motion.  An object traveling in a straight line with velocity v will continue traveling with velocity v if there were no other forces acting on it.

Can you hear yourself Lawrence?

You are the one telling me that by applying a perpendicular force  (or pulse if you wish), which is acting against the direction of motion you gain energy.

All that will do is COST you energy. Nothing to lead out there but losses.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 24, 2007, 11:29:55 AM
@Gaby,

Thank you for giving me moderator privilege at forum.go-here.nl.  It really helped.

Lawrence Tseung
Careful reading Leads Out useful knowledge to the World.

Oh, don't thank me, thank you for sharing all the theories inventions and phylosophies. You've created so much documentation I cant keep up just reading everything.

It's time for us to get more organisation into the documentation. I don't exactly know how jet but a few pages with links sorted by subject would be good.

It's also desireable to have the documentation under named url's in basic html. That way my server doesn't have to do anything to serve the information. It's quite labor intensive but the result is very nice from the readers perspective. We should make it easy to look things up. Here is an example.

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/liang-xingren
Dr Liang - MAGNETMOTOR.GO-HERE.NL

I'm sure you wrote more about Dr Liang as just that post but it's kind of hard to find at the moment.  Hans is not going to bother searching for it if we cant even find it ourselfs.

I seem to have misplaced our list of inventors, or more like lost it in the forum some place. (haha) I'm sure I can digg it up.

I've also made this page btw

http://forum.go-here.nl/recent

:-)
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 24, 2007, 11:32:02 AM
Can you hear yourself Lawrence?

You are the one telling me that by applying a perpendicular force  (or pulse if you wish), which is acting against the direction of motion you gain energy.

All that will do is COST you energy. Nothing to lead out there but losses.

Hans von Lieven

When did I say - applying a perpendicular force  (or pulse if you wish), which is acting against the direction of motion you gain energy.

If I said such nonsense, I should be detained in class if I were in my early teens.  Did the CIA or the Like modified one of my posts???

Please indicate the source of such nonsense.  Thank you.

Lawrence
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 24, 2007, 12:47:49 PM
.....
The real problem for us is that the Chinese patent system is very
difficult to deal with. The patent number you quoted was not recognised.
I am sure it exists; I cannot find anything from that web site.

If you want to help us replicate, then we need the claims in English,
along with the rest of the document and the drawings. That would
be very helpful.
Paul.

Hi Paul,

While I do agree with you wrt what you wrote above, those Chinese patents that are AVAILABLE via the internet at EPO do NOT always include drawings or in other cases claims or even descriptions.  Let me show you an example of that of Lawrence: he wrote the Number as 01123526.6 in his last but one mail, where he also gave the link to the Chinese Patent database and wrote the inventor was Liang Sing Yan.

First, here is a link that takes you to the English language user intro page of the same Chinese Patent database Lawrence gave: http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/
(You can also reach this if you use the link by Lawrence and click on 'English' icon at the upper right side corner.)
Second, copy and paste the Number 01123526.6  BUT OMIT decimal .6  so that you search for 01123526 only! ALSO, choose Application Number from the choices under it.
Third, by entering these two and click Go, you receive a new page with 1 result:
ID  App. No.   Title
1  01123526   Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle   

and you can click on the title to see some data and the patent Abstract in English:

Title: Cosmic gravity energy acceleration motor vehicle
 Application Number:  01123526  Application Date:  2001.07.30
 Publication Number:  1400384  Publication Date:  2003.03.05
 Approval Pub. Date:    Granted Pub. Date:   
 International Classifi-cation:   F03G7/00
 Applicant(s) Name:  Liang Xingren
 Address:  450052
 Inventor(s) Name:   
 Attorney & Agent:   
Abstract
     In a stainless steel cylinder the intelligent chip and intelligent integrated circuit chip and respectively mounted on its two sides, the centre of the stainless steel cylinder is equipped with a shaft connected with external load, said stainless steel cylinder is connected with external load by means of wire, so that said load which does not use any fuel and can start said cosmic gravitational force energy perpetual motion machine can be rotated. Said invention is applicable to various vehicles, and its volume is small, weight is light and it has no pollution.  

Now the important thing is you can see the Publication Number:1400384 and if you place CN as a start: CN1400384 you have got the patent number known by EPO! And if you search this CN1400384 at EPO patent number search you will find it but no any description, claims or drawings except the the same Abstract text, that is all!

Notice that the Applicant Name is Liang Xingren AS known by EPO!  Lawrence knows this as Liang Sing Yan. (Maybe Xing= Sing?)
If you search for the name Liang Xingren at EPO you end up with some 14 very interesting patent titles but no any drawings, in some cases even no description in Chinese either!
For instance I would rather read his thoughts and solutions on this patent: Gravitational energy generator  (Application Number: 200510132560   Publication Number:1841912 i.e. CN1841912)   
It is possible the Chinese Patent Office did not issue the full patent outside of China??

Regards
Gyula

This was an interesting tutorial. If only I knew how to write Chinese names properly I would have a lot to write about. ^_^ I guess much work remains for us Lawrence. Not one of the inventors you mention seems to enjoy much attention online. But I cant read Chinese of course. Do they get much publicity?

Also, could you try look into the Chinese history of perpetual motion for us? I've found so much stuff it's just silly.

Like those high tech bicycles we have today actually had their first prototypes appear back in 1700. The more popular bike frame we have today is quite an oddball compared to it's much more comfortable ancestors. There use to be the same luxurious decoration on cars as on bikes. Soft seats and copper klaxon's!

The Dutch had pretty much tried every possible kind of bike. Fast and comfortable did not combine in the public opinion for some weird reason. The bicycle races banned the fast bikes for not being bicycle enough. Today people still think the bike they see in the tour the France is a really good bike. While in fact a real human powered vehicle can go over 2 times as fast!

They lie to us all the way obviously.

The Chinese had rockets thousands of years ago. There has to be some forgotten perpetual motion myth for us to decode? A number of interesting jet really old Indian designs have surfaced.  There seems to be no time or part of the world where this wasn't investigated?

Or have they been removed from history again? :-[
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: ltseung888 on October 24, 2007, 01:41:11 PM
Gaby,

There were indeed stories of perpetual motion machines in China since ancient times.

There are a few that I could quote on top of my head:

(1) The 15 bucket water wheel.  七上八落的水車  This water wheel was supposed to have 7 buckets going up and 8 coming down.  This water wheel could raise water up from a lake or pond with no water movement.  The details of the construction was lost but I am confident that it could be reproduced.  I did the first draft of a possible design using the Lee-Tseung theory on the train from Beijing back to Hong Kong in 2006.

(2) The wooden ox and the floating horse.  三國時代的木牛流馬 These devices were supposed to be produced during the war periods of the Three Kingdom.  The wheels were not circular.  They were unbalanced wheels!  I am confident that they could be reproduced.  They were slow even though that they moved "automatically" with some guidance.  The Lee-Tseung theory indeed could be used to help to recreate these devices.

(3) There are over 60 China Patents or Applications related to perpetual motions if you do a patent search using the Chinese Characters of Perpetual Motion Machine 永動機.  Some other China Patents did not use the term 永動機 but from their descriptions, it was obvious that they implied Perpetual Motion.

(4) Lee Cheung Kin and I appeared in front of the China Patent Office to explain our Lee-Tseung theory.  We got good reception (and recommendation to visit Tsing Hua University).  I am confident that the China Patent Office has extremely competent Scientists who can follow our explanations.

(5) The recent meeting with the top research institutes confirmed my belief.  China just sent its Moon Exploration Rocket this evening (live on the 6:00pm News in Hong Kong).  One of their representatives told us that they had strong interest in our technology.  (I hope China will send a Flying Saucer to the Moon first.)

Lawrence Tseung
The many know-it-all  debunkers in the West Lead Out high roadblocks for the Cosmic Energy Developers.
Title: Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
Post by: gaby de wilde on October 24, 2007, 03:25:57 PM
Gaby,

There were indeed stories of perpetual motion machines in China since ancient times.

There are a few that I could quote on top of my head:

yeah, I'm having a hard time looking inside your head. hehehe I knew it was in there some place tho.

Quote
(1) The 15 bucket water wheel.  七上八落的水車  This water wheel was supposed to have 7 buckets going up and 8 coming down.  This water wheel could raise water up from a lake or pond with no water movement.  The details of the construction was lost but I am confident that it could be reproduced.  I did the first draft of a possible design using the Lee-Tseung theory on the train from Beijing back to Hong Kong in 2006.

Thats exactly what we are looking for! This goes up fast  and down slow. If anything a clue of unballanced rotation is provided right here.

Quote
(2) The wooden ox and the floating horse.  三國時代的木牛流馬 These devices were supposed to be produced during the war periods of the Three Kingdom.  The wheels were not circular.  They were unbalanced wheels!  I am confident that they could be reproduced.  They were slow even though that they moved "automatically" with some guidance.  The Lee-Tseung theory indeed could be used to help to recreate these devices.