The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

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.

[gyulasun]

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

[ltseung888]

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.

[tinu]

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

[ltseung888]

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.