The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Bessler007]

www.green-salon.com

The 2008 Alternative Energy Partnership Conference (AEPC 2008) will be held on June 28-29 at Jarboe's Mill, 29880 Three Notch Road, Charlotte Hall, MD.   

From Lawrence Tseung

I shall send two presentations to you first.
(1)   Energy from Still Air
(2)   Energy from Gravity and Electron Motion

Dear Todd,

Attached is the first paper - Energy from Still Air.  I made some minor modifications from the original paper in 2004.  You may send it out for peer review now.  If needed, I can do more polishing.

If the reviewers do not object, I am quite happy to have their reviews published in this forum for all to learn.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
Compressive Fluid may not be a fuel but is definitely a mechanical energy carrier.

I'd like to review some points.

• 
  Previously, scientists did not consider the energy from still air.  Even though they knew that air went into a system and then came out from the system, they ignore the energy from such air.   They mistakenly thought that since air itself is not a fuel, it could not supply energy to the system.

Why should a premise of "energy from still air" use as an example air "moving" through 1/2 a venturi?  Also, if anyone mistakenly thought air couldn't supply energy to a system what are pneumatic tools about?

From your equations in the conclusion:

• The equation for the energy carried in is
  Energy_airin = Pressure_in x Volume_in
  
• The equation for the energy carried out is
  Energy_airiout = Pressure_out x Volume_out

Since your conclusion is there's more energy exiting than entering:

Energy_airin < Energy_airiout

therefore:
Pressure_in x Volume_in <Pressure_out x Volume_out

I think you're really saying:

Pressure_in < Pressure_out
. . . Since the Volume_in = Volume_out I think the terms can cancel.



I'm sure some of the energy is going to be "hot air"

This is such a long thread I couldn't read it all.  If anyone made these points just post where the response is.  Thanks.

Bessler
mib HQ

[Pirate88179]

Previously the scientists did not consider the energy from 4-legged stools.  Or, water bottles hung from a string.  Or, beach pumps. They did not consider this because, there IS NO ENERGY to be gained from these devices.  Thank you.

Bill

[ltseung888]

I'd like to review some points.
From your equations in the conclusion:

• The equation for the energy carried in is
  Energy_airin = Pressure_in x Volume_in
  
• The equation for the energy carried out is
  Energy_airiout = Pressure_out x Volume_out

**1** Since the Volume_in = Volume_out I think the terms can cancel.

Since your conclusion is there's more energy exiting than entering:

**2**Energy_airin > Energy_airiout

I think you're really saying:

**3**Pressure_in < Pressure_out
. . . since volumes are equal and can cancel.

Bessler
mib HQ

Dear Bessler007,

I did not make mistakes in the formulae.  There is no need to correct them.

**1** Since the Volume_in = Volume_out  I think the terms can cancel. 
I did not make that assumption.  Physics requires that in a steady state system, mass must be conserved.  Mass cannot disappear into thin air.  However, there is no requirement for volume conservation.  Remember that air is compressible (or volume can change.)

**2**Energy_airin > Energy_airiout 
I changed it back to the correct form.  If more energy goes in and less come out, some must be used to do work.  I am in fact using the Law of Conservation of Energy correctly.  That work is Energy from Still Air.  The Engineers need to focus on this simple point in the design of their Energy from Still Air Machines.

**3**Pressure_in < Pressure_out
. . . since volumes are equal and can cancel.
Please do not make the assumption that volumes are equal.  See **1**.

Lawrence Tseung
When the devil arrives, he brings posts with intelligent statements.  Meaningful discussions can be conducted.

[ltseung888]

The KeelyNet and Creative Sciences people totally missed the boat.  They were looking for the magic in the workings of the engine.  The actual source of energy is from the rotation of the cone or disk leading out gravitational energy.  Any stupid closed loop system can do the trick.

Dear Devil,

Are you actually supporting the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory?

Lawrence

[Bessler007]

ltseung88,

Boyle described the relationship between volume, pressure and temperature.  The only differing aspect of your idea is the claim somehow there's energy in the air.  You haven't made that point.

When I mistakenly made the point the volumes were equal I meant to say that every molecule of air entering would also be exiting.  Because the velocity is greater at the exit the volumes aren't that different.  Your paper lacks actual empirical values.  Air just moves faster at the smaller orifice.

The idea of compressing air into 1/2 a venturi only heats the air as it compresses.  It would take energy to cause that compression but the energy isn't in the air.  It's in the mechanical apparatus doing the compression.

Your 1/2 of a venturi is a fire hose nozzle with an increased velocity at the smaller orifice.  This isn't an earth shattering conclusion and doesn't speak to the idea there is more energy in the air entering the nozzle.  I repeat you have not made your point.

Bessler
mib HQ