The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

Tseung, you forgot to replace the name of your persona Forever with your own.

And besides, for someone who claims to have to describe everything
according to correct physics terms before he is prepared to move
on to the next slide, it is remarkable that all of a sudden
apparently the claimed proof of the ball&padding idea is
presented in "rotation time".
Well, the rotation time may vary, that does not mean there is OU.
It merely means the rotation takes longer.
I can also make a ball roll down a ramp slower than it would normally,
using several means, from magnets to glue. That does not mean
I am producing OU.
Stop confusing the issue. It is not about how fast or slow your
contaption would rotate. It is about how much energy is put out
versus the energy input.
As far as I understand your proposed ball&padding idea, you are still
inputting energy to make the pipe or wheel rotate, you may just be getting
back a slighlty less immediate opposite reaction when the one ball
hits padding instead of hard surface, but you're still losing energy
from the friction and collisions and you still need to make the contraption
rotate before any balls drop at all.

[ltseung888]

I have put the video describing the experiment from Mr. T S Cheung on youtube.
.....
The video showing soft padding pointed to the advantage as suggested by Mr. T S Cheung. Mr. Cheung has improved the time to fifteen minutes. He is still working on further improvements. He might build a Bessler wheel.

Dear Forever,

Thank you for putting the videos for the Cheung experiments on youtube.  Those videos showed increased rotation time when one end is padded.  More work needs to be done.  However, the trend is in the right direction.

Thank you also for your research and detailed explanation of negative work.  The average physics student should have no difficulty with slides 10-12 now.  However, some forum members may need more help.  We shall wait for more comments from the forum members.

We are still waiting for reply from Prof Jian Lu as recommended by chrisC.  There is no hurry.  The correct theory always wins.  Galileo was right.  But it took the Church a few centuries before it accepted that it was wrong. 

Please keep up the good work.  You will be one of the best presenters of this new technology..

[utilitarian]

I have put the video describing the experiment from Mr. T S Cheung on youtube.
The first one has the ball hitting hard surfaces at both ends. The time of rotation was 2 minutes 35 seconds. The following link shows that video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1P3TGhJiF0
The second one has the ball hitting hard surfaces at one end and soft surfaces at the other. The time of rotation was 4 minutes 55 seconds. The following link shows that video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zykButGc22U&feature=related

You should do a run with tubes attached but the balls fixed in place so they cannot move at all.  That would be a proper control, which all scientific experiments should have.

[SeanTheLight]

After reviewing the tutor site, it seems appropriate to divide the forces up into an x/y/z system and then calculating individual forces. It looks to me then, slide 12 is completely correct, and I feel I am ready to move on to the next slide(s).

I'm still bothered by distance travelled in arc vs distance travelled as a sum of horizontal + vertical. The amount of energy required to lift an object 1m will always be the same though, so if in the end it has moved 1m vertically, why shouldn't you calculate it as a seperate movement? If it has also moved 4 meters horizontally, you add the energy it took to do that much work also.

Distance travelled (displacement) should be calculated along the actual path of displacement, not just in component parts. No energy was used to lift/move the bob in the area of the curve between actual path and calculated path, but this area still effects the displacement calculations. The connecting point between horizontal/vertical displacement, does not coincide with a point along the bobs path, but is still used to calculate work. You should ignore all of the area outside of actual path travelled, measure actual distance travelled, break that into its component horizontal/vertical -ratios-, and then use that ratio to calculate actual horizontal and vertical displacement along the curved path. There might be a loss of efficiency by doing this, since the "extra work" that was calculated by movement in an area that there was no actual movement, will be eliminated this way.

Still ready for more slides, here.   

[Koen1]

I have put the video describing the experiment from Mr. T S Cheung on youtube.

Oh really? So that explains why those videos are posted under the name "ltseung888"?
Do you often post under Tseungs name?
Oh, I forgot, you are Tseung, and you just made a little mistake in the text here,
revealing "forever" as a tseung alter ego.

Also, it is remarkable that you/Tseung claimed not to be able to operate a simple
drill, but now all of a sudden is able to construct a rotating 2-pipe model...
And still does not present it as proof for his theory here, still insists on sticking
with the drawings instead of showing any proof.
Then again, there is still no real proof: all we get to see is a contraption that
rotates a plate with two pipes on it, powered by a motor.
Yes, it does look like the contraption on the first video rotates
faster than the contraption on the second. But that is zero proof still.
It could be that you have simply switched the drive motor to a slower
speed. No way to tell from a video that only shows a rotating contraption
and a hand with a stopwatch in it. Nice to see that at least someone has
built a pipe with a ball in it, so at least someone is doing some actual
building instead of only spewing text. But it still proves nothing.
It may be that the motor needs slightly less energy to rotate the contraption
with padding on one side than it needs to rotate one without padding,
but it still needs more energy to make the thing spin than it outputs.
Show us a video of the thing hooked up to a motor/generator setup,
with multimeters or other clear measuring devices attached to the leads,
so we can see how much more output it produces than input used,
and we can finally see proof of the OU claims.
If you can afford a digital camera and flatscreen tv, you can afford a multimeter as well.

The video showing soft padding pointed to the advantage as suggested by Mr. T S Cheung. Mr. Cheung has improved the time to fifteen minutes.

What exaclty do you mean?
Do you mean the rotation time was slowed from 1 rotation per 2minutes30seconds to 1 rotation per 15 minutes?
That does not seem right, one rotation only takes about a second or two in those videos...
What is this rotation time?
Is it the length of time the contraption rotates after having been provided with a fixed amount of startup energy by the drive motor?
And how much energy was input with the drive motor, exactly?
Or was there no drive motor, and was it started by hand? If so, how did you make sure you input the exact same amount of energy?
And how much energy was that, exactly?
Let's assume a drive motor was not used and the exact same amount of energy was put in to make it rotate,
then obviously the padding would make the system lose less energy due to lower collision friction and lower
kinetic energy loss in the system itself, and the total amount of energy in the system would be lost slower than
in a system with high impact friction losses. And a wheel with zero balls and zero padding but the equal weight
would rotate even longer than the ball&padding contraption, because even less energy is lost in impact and
friction inside the rotating system.
That still does not mean the wheel can drive itself and provide OU. It just loses the energy that was originally
input slower, over a longer period. But it still loses it.
Where do you see any excess energy output in this contraption? I don't.

You can make a pebble roll down a mountainside by kicking it over the edge, and that pebble will take longer
to reach the ground than a pebble dropped vertically down a canyon of the same height, but you still need
to kick it over the edge, and you're still not getting out usefull energy.

He is still working on further improvements. He might build a Bessler wheel.

Great, if he posts actual pictures and not merely his drawings again. I'd love to see a working Bessler wheel.
Note: Bessler wheel, not "Tseung wheel".