The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ramset]

IM sorry   I am traveling till tommorow   in brief I agree with KOEN and would like to see this turn into a reality             If he can be made to understand he  can explain it to others/myself  thank you Chet

[Cap-Z-ro]

No one but me is responsible for my conduct and my actions:


A Nag...?

Jeez,...I'm just looking for a little civility amongst the good members here...is that too much to ask, I ask you...?

And not to be a nag...but this will make the second time that I make a request for anyone to provide an upside to bashing other members.

And also...not to be a basher either, I will restrain myself from bashing anyone for ignoring my 2 requests for justification, by not providing rationale for their bashing.

Its a lot easier to just move on when you do not receive coherent responses from someone...unless of course you are into the drama scene.

Its taken a while, but I've also learned to go where the winds of life blows me, and to just do what comes naturally, and things seem to fall in place rather nicely.

Plus, I don't find myself getting aggravated very much anymore.

Regards...

[shruggedatlas]

@chrisC, Please explain why the Physics is wrong in this slide?  Take your time and consult your  physics teachers or friends before answering.  If you can find fault with this slide, we all can learn.

Mr. Tseung/Top Gun/Devil:

Slide 10 merely shows a pendulum vertical and still.  You claim there is a force there of 60 units, both down and up.  There is nothing wrong with this slide.  The problem everyone has is the conclusions you draw later.

Since you are a fan of referring to posts by number, I shall refer you to post 18 by tinu.  He explains in detail what is wrong with the conclusions you draw, and the fact that you confuse units of  mass and force are just the beginning.  So, until you can refute the other points raised by tinu, do we need to go further?  The slides he refers to were in a different document, so the numbering is off, by they equate pretty well with the new slides you present.  Here is the quote:

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?

[SeanTheLight]

Slide 10 is an easy one.

Force = mass x Gravity

Spring energy in the string is equal to the force causing it, so Tension must also be 60 units of force at rest.

The ball is mass (string is massless for the sake of ease of computation), Gravity is exerted from top to bottom in the slide. Gravity pulls the ball until an equal force is achieved (tension in the string). At this time, Tension in the string is the balance to the force of the ball (mG), so must be exerting a pull force of 60 to the ball (balancing the 60 units of force exerted by weight). Total energy calculated at any point in the pendulum at rest, is 60 units of force. Force acting on the ball (mG) is converted into spring energy (stretch/pull) in the string until the pendulum is given kinetic energy.

Is that correct?

I am not well educated, but am fairly comfortable with lessons on things I do not currently understand.

[ltseung888]

Slide 10 merely shows a pendulum vertical and still.  You claim there is a force there of 60 units, both down and up.  There is nothing wrong with this slide?..

Dear shruggedatlas,

Thank you for reproducing the post by Tinu.  Tinu was right in stating that kg is the unit for mass and not force.  Thus in the new slide, I corrected that mistake.

So you and many others now agree with the corrected Slide 10.  Simply stated, Slide 10 cannot be wrong with the present understanding of both mathematics and physics.

I shall wait for more comments ? especially from those who may disagree with Slide 10 (chrisC?) before re-discussing Slide 11.

The previous mistake I made was pumping out too much information at one time.  I could not tell which specific part the forum members did not understand.  My experience at Tsinghua and Shenzhen Universities were very favorable.  The individuals who spoke to me after the seminars seemed to understand the 3 slides perfectly.

Please comment again after I re-discuss Slide 11.  Comment again after I re-discuss Slide 12.  Hopefully the tiny step approach will help in the Internet Forum environment.