Author Topic: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier (Read 25345 times)

laci · « **Reply #15 on:** May 26, 2008, 12:23:43 PM »

@Hans,

The cartoon is definitely witty, but Noodledick is getting even worse - if that is possible at all -;

he is fast becoming our everyday lough.

But, I suppose, from his coordinate system we all have a screw loose. Sometimes I feel sorry for

him...

laci

magnetmotorman · « **Reply #16 on:** November 14, 2008, 04:37:59 AM »

Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 02:54:20 PM

Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.

1.   This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2.   This oscillator also works on principle of pendulumÃ¯ÂÅ . There is a huge fulcrum. On one side you have a heavy hammer and on other side you have a pendulum which weighs equally as hammer. When pendulum is set in motion and it gets in resonance then at a small moment of time when it is at its pick displacement, it becomes weightless. Thus the total weight is transferred to the hammer and its produces a large force. Now if you apply just enough force to keep the pendulum overcoming frictional and resistive forces, which is going to be very small, then you have got tremendous work at a very small expense. If you device a system that utilizes this work done to give small fraction of it back to move the pendulum, there you go! You have a system with 12 COP. Amazing isn?t it?
3.   FALLACY: Now read a Lever system properly. What is a lever? Archimedes was the first to explain the principle of the lever, stating:
"Weights at equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is at the greater distance."
The point where you apply the force is called the effort. The effect of applying this force is called the load. The load arm and the effort arm are the names given to the distances from the fulcrum to the load and effort, respectively. Using these definitions, the Law of the Lever is:
Load arm X load force = effort arm X effort force. When 2 things are balanced, when a 1 gram feather for instance is balanced by a one kilogram rock on a lever the feather would go up and the rock would go down, but if a 1 kilogram rock was balanced by a 1 kilogram rock, the lever would be in the middle.
4.    In other words, if the system is perfectly balanced, even applying a small load on one side can lift up the other side. So now can we say, that see I am moving a rock of 100 kg with a force of say 1 kg? No.
5.   Now in Milkovic system, as the weight of hammer and weight of pendulum are equal, the fulcrum is in the middle. Now according to the principle of lever, even a small force is going to move the hammer. I did not understand use of pendulum there. If instead of pendulum, I have a counter weight, I am going to get same effect. Only thing is that I will have to pull counterweight vertically and if it?s a pendulum, I will use horizontal force.
6.   Remember, the main work of balancing the large weight is done by the counter weight and not by the small force I am applying. I am using lever because it will be easier for me to move this weight with a small force. BUT NO MATTER HOW SMALL THIS ADDED FORCE IS, IT?S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ?EXTRA? OR ?ADDITIONAL? FORCE. If you do not supply this additional force, the weights will balance each other and system will come to equilibrium and it will come to full stop.
7.   The added force is doing only the additional work and exactly that much extra work is what you are getting. So there is practically ?NO WAY? to generate this additional force from the system itself and ?CLOSE THE LOOP?.
8.   Principle of lever is in use for long time and many industries use it every day and every minute. For example you have Pulley system, fly presses etc which do the same work. A man who can not lift 500 kg weight with his own hands, can lift is easily with pulley. So will it be wise to say that he is working with over unity?
9.   And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10.   Any one has better solution or explanation than this?

What a really stupid post!

The best words: "I did not understand use of pendulum there."

Obviously "NO MATTER HOW SMALL, THIS ADDED FORCE (the counter weight) IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN 'EXTRA' OR 'ADDITIONAL' FORCE." And...? What is the point?

Dear little ignorant, a counter weight is not a "force", it is a weight. In electricity terms: tension. To move "current" trough this "tension", is called "power".

The two stages pendulum just get that: to move that potential force.

And yes, IT DOES CLOSES THE LOOP. The loop is just there, at the counter weight!, its movement. Up an down, up and down, up... a closed and "unlimited" loop. Why unlimited? Because, the load over the "load arm", does not affect the movement of the first stage pendulum, and the amount of the free source of energy is lower than output force. The full loop can be closed easily, because the nature of both forces is the same: mechanical. This is also called "free energy".

See the video again, and try again.

utilitarian · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2008, 02:45:19 AM »

Quote from: emmanux on November 14, 2008, 04:37:59 AM

Dear little ignorant, a counter weight is not a "force", it is a weight. In electricity terms: tension. To move "current" trough this "tension", is called "power".

Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views, I am sure you have a "closed loop" perpetually moving Milkovic device to show us. What, you don't?

tagor · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2008, 08:30:44 AM »

Quote from: emmanux on November 14, 2008, 04:37:59 AM

Because, the load over the "load arm", does not affect the movement of the first stage pendulum,

this is absolutely false , you are totaly wrong

magnetmotorman · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2008, 05:26:56 PM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 15, 2008, 02:45:19 AM

Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views, I am sure you have a "closed loop" perpetually moving Milkovic device to show us. What, you don't?

Absolutely yes! I will show it this next year.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2008, 07:28:43 PM »

Why not show it now?

Is it because it exists so far only on paper, but you are sure it will work as you planned, because of your careful analysis?

OK.

But if you do have it now, I encourage you to show it, because otherwise not many will believe you.

I certainly don't.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2008, 07:44:03 PM »

Funny, Lawence Tseung (Of Lee-Tseung fame) says he will have a working device next year also. Of course, he has said that now for the last 5 years so, I am not holding my breath.

Bill

magnetmotorman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2008, 08:37:07 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 17, 2008, 07:28:43 PM

Why not show it now?

Is it because it exists so far only on paper, but you are sure it will work as you planned, because of your careful analysis?

OK.

But if you do have it now, I encourage you to show it, because otherwise not many will believe you.

I certainly don't.

I am rebuilding a self destroyed prototype.

Believe what you want.

I say rightly I will show next year, because I'm poor, work hard to survive, have family, and many responsibilities. Certainly I want to show these discoveries to the world, more than you want, but with a budget almost equal to zero, it is not a fast thing.

Greetings...

PS:

Quote

Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views

"Ignorant" is not an insult, I am ignorant in many matters, like everybody.

Nabo00o · « **Reply #23 on:** May 22, 2009, 07:53:08 PM »

Guys, I don't really know about much about the lead out theory since its just too lengthy for me to read

However I know that the 2 stage oscillator works. As of yet no one (as we know of) has made a version of it which closes the loop, that however does not mean that it is impossible.

What I would wish you all could do is not to look specifically at the machine build by Milkovic, but instead to look at the principle which he utilizes in it. "Resonance is a strange effect" as man on youtube said, "it causes overunity". Allthough I don't completely agree with this statement, it will amplify any oscillation being consumed in the resonant oscillator.

In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU you can see the common Milkovic oscillator being used with both with a pendulum and a spring.

The principle in work here is resonance combined with a 2-stage separation of the input and output.
This will change the relationship between load and the lowering of the energy stored in the oscillator, which will act most efficient when the load is the largest. This is a completely reversed situation compeered to the normal operation of any machine which oscillates. Normally a wheel for example, will retain most of its energy when it has the lowest amount of load connected to it.

This principle of resonance is also what powers the rotoverter, and can lower the amperage draw immensely while it still keeps the same speed at a specific load.
And long before the rotoverter or the milkovic pendulum was invented, the principle of resonance powered amplification has and is still being used in most of our common and uncommon acoustical instruments.

Have you ever wondered why your classical guitar has a large volume of space inside it?
It is because it amplifies specific frequencies of the original driving sound from the strings on the guitar.
Inside the case of the guitar standing waves will form, which will like any other oscillator increase the amplitude of the vibration when a signal at its resonant frequency is produced.

Since the the wooden walls of the case acts just like the hinge which the pendulum is connected to, vibration induced on the wood and then transformed into sound waves will not result in an equal loss of energy stored inside the the guitar. This can be confirmed with an electrical guitar which do not posses any substantial amplification tendency of sound.

By first ringing the string a couple of times to hear how high the volume of the strings are, you can then compeer it to placing the neck of the guitar towards something which has a lot of surface and also a good sound quality, like wood. This can be you door, wall or any other object which you would like.
What I can guarantee you though is that the sound produced with an acoustical amplifier will be much larger than without one. And then you can begin to wonder why this is happening.

Walter Lewin (think that's his name anyway) at MIT did a similar experiment with a tuning fork over a sound box, and to everybody's astonishment the sound volume increased insanely high!
He didn't say much more about it, but told the students that of course it would be drained much faster, but that is actually not the case! As a matter of fact, placing a tuning fork on a sound box will make the bottom of the fork more stable, and will thus make the oscillation slighly more efficient.
Same thing goes for the string on a guitar when you add the case, the sound will be ten times or more larger but the strings will ring for just as long or longer.

Those of you who are genuinely interested in this fact and wants to understand how and why the Milkociv pendulum works, this is it....

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2009, 12:22:04 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 17, 2008, 07:44:03 PM

Funny, Lawence Tseung (Of Lee-Tseung fame) says he will have a working device next year also. Of course, he has said that now for the last 5 years so, I am not holding my breath.

Bill

His flying saucer was to have made its debut over the Beijing Olympics remember?

Maybe the MIB's took it

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2009, 12:26:21 AM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on May 22, 2009, 07:53:08 PM

Guys, I don't really know about much about the lead out theory since its just too lengthy for me to read

However I know that the 2 stage oscillator works. As of yet no one (as we know of) has made a version of it which closes the loop, that however does not mean that it is impossible.

What I would wish you all could do is not to look specifically at the machine build by Milkovic, but instead to look at the principle which he utilizes in it. "Resonance is a strange effect" as man on youtube said, "it causes overunity". Allthough I don't completely agree with this statement, it will amplify any oscillation being consumed in the resonant oscillator.

In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU you can see the common Milkovic oscillator being used with both with a pendulum and a spring.

The principle in work here is resonance combined with a 2-stage separation of the input and output.
This will change the relationship between load and the lowering of the energy stored in the oscillator, which will act most efficient when the load is the largest. This is a completely reversed situation compeered to the normal operation of any machine which oscillates. Normally a wheel for example, will retain most of its energy when it has the lowest amount of load connected to it.

This principle of resonance is also what powers the rotoverter, and can lower the amperage draw immensely while it still keeps the same speed at a specific load.
And long before the rotoverter or the milkovic pendulum was invented, the principle of resonance powered amplification has and is still being used in most of our common and uncommon acoustical instruments.

Have you ever wondered why your classical guitar has a large volume of space inside it?
It is because it amplifies specific frequencies of the original driving sound from the strings on the guitar.
Inside the case of the guitar standing waves will form, which will like any other oscillator increase the amplitude of the vibration when a signal at its resonant frequency is produced.

Since the the wooden walls of the case acts just like the hinge which the pendulum is connected to, vibration induced on the wood and then transformed into sound waves will not result in an equal loss of energy stored inside the the guitar. This can be confirmed with an electrical guitar which do not posses any substantial amplification tendency of sound.

By first ringing the string a couple of times to hear how high the volume of the strings are, you can then compeer it to placing the neck of the guitar towards something which has a lot of surface and also a good sound quality, like wood. This can be you door, wall or any other object which you would like.
What I can quarantine you though is that the sound produced with an acoustical amplifier will be much larger than without one. And then you can begin to wonder why this is happening.

Walter Lewin (think that's his name anyway) at MIT did a similar experiment with a tuning fork over a sound box, and to everybody's astonishment the sound volume increased insanely high!
He didn't say much more about it, but told the students that of course it would be drained much faster, but that is actually not the case! As a matter of fact, placing a tuning fork on a sound box will make the bottom of the fork more stable, and will thus make the oscillation slighly more efficient.
Same thing goes for the string on a guitar when you add the case, the sound will be ten times or more larger but the strings will ring for just as long or longer.

Those of you who are genuinely interested in this fact and wants to understand how and why the Milkociv pendulum works, this is it....

You really should study some acoustics, If you did you would not be talking such obvious nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

Nabo00o · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2009, 12:50:42 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 23, 2009, 12:26:21 AM

You really should study some acoustics, If you did you would not be talking such obvious nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

Hans if you had actually tried out more things than you talk about, then maybe you would actually have better insight into the workings of nature. The only reason to why you say that I am talking nonsense is because you haven't tried any of the simple experiments I have told you. If you had then you would have concluded with the opposite.

You like many MANY others, is what makes a world of free energy very hard to reach.
Even if not with purpose, you are in this and many other topics actually suppressing technologies which could be revolutionary if they worked and were not discouraged and laughed at from the beginning.
You think you know it all, or at least you think the scientific establishment which you lends your trust knows all, well they really don't!

I can tell you what the biggest stumble block for todays science and culture is, it is not the lack of intelligence, it is the ignorance and the lack of humbleness.
I myself am not one of the brightest at all, but from the beginning when I began my research on energy and its possible suppression I had an open mind, and decided to put the truth before my goals, even if I would conclude that free energy is impossible.

And Hans, you continue to do what you have done for a good while now, you criticize people, not by pointing out where they are wrong, but by calling them names, accusing them of being an complete idiot, and generally fronting a very bad example of what the spirit on this forum should be.

So if you have a specific problem about something I or anybody else claim, can't you instead point to the problem?

Lastly, I still hope this is a forum where we want to find the truth and not just go after the popular opinion.

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:16:31 AM »

Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.

Bobbotov · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2009, 01:21:15 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 23, 2009, 01:16:31 AM

Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.

And you do a fine job too. Level headed, pragmatic and precise.

Nabo00o · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2009, 02:27:00 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 23, 2009, 01:16:31 AM

Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.

Hans von Lieven

BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.

Sorry about my rash conclusions of you as a person, generalizations is never a good thing....

Btw I went to that site of yours, and damn... I mean, this is just the kind of thing that I'm really interested in, acoustics and its effect. I have never really looked into Keely before, though I've heard of him in several occasions.

I don't want to start any unnecessary flame war here, I'd just wish you could have looked into some simple effects of resonance which I hold exists in all acoustical resonators.

My comparison of the Milkovic pendulum and a resonator is because I see them both working by the same principle, by the use of resonance as a tool to free more useful energy to you than what you put in.

Please, I want this to go as tidy and correct as possible, because I now care a lot about getting this field into research. If not much, couldn't you take of a few minutes of your time just to test my theory?
I'm sure you got something musical lying around, and if not you could probably find an instrument somewhere else to test this on.

My main point: Acoustical resonators does not focus or direct sound waves (to any substantial degree), but they do amplify them, with the use of standing waves and other means.

Thank you for you time

Edit: Btw, I'm bookmarking you site

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier (Read 25345 times)

laci

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

magnetmotorman

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech ampli

utilitarian

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech ampli

tagor

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech ampli

magnetmotorman

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech ampli

TinselKoala

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

Pirate88179

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

magnetmotorman

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech ampli

Nabo00o

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

hansvonlieven

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

hansvonlieven

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

Nabo00o

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

hansvonlieven

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

Bobbotov

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier

Nabo00o

Re: Fallacies in Lee?Tseung Lead Out theory &Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mech amplifier