The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

I agree.
Show us these claimed "10 million experiments", well documented please.
Because so far all we got from Tseung was crappy pictures of people
swinging a bottle around on a string, a low quality video of some rotating
contraption, and zero actual proof. And it took us ages before he even
came up with that stuff.
Which is a bit odd for a theory based on "10 million experiments",
you must admit. Ten million invisible and undocumented experiments,
maybe? Could be, but that's obviously worth nothing as proof.
And where are those tons of reknowned physicists who Tseung claims
support his theory? Should be easy to get one to talk about such
a cutting edge breakthrough as extracting energy from gravity.

No, so far I have only seen proof that "Tseung"
a) talks a lot but makes little sense
b) has a flawed understanding of physics
c) has no proof of his claims at all
d) has the weird tendency to post as other people, which
sub 1) makes one wonder if "Tseung" really exists
sub 2) makes one question "Tseung"s sanity
e) refuses or is unable to show any experimental proof for his theory
f) attempts to use invalid arguments and invalid applications of formulae to support his claims
g) is very quick on launching megalomaniacal fantasies about his fame, heroism, and future greatness
h) always dismisses others valid objections with invalid arguments implying the others lack of
knowledge
i) always ignores valid indications that his own knowledge of physics appears to be flawed, even if
his mistakes are very clearly pointed out

Good luck trying to get him to face up to his own fallacies, Kul_ash!

[Top Gun]

Let me focus back on Pendulum08.jpg.  This is effectively the parallelogram of forces experiment taught and done in Physics.  There is no motion in the starting position A and there is no motion in the ending position B.  The experimental results cannot be wrong.  The theory of parallelogram of forces cannot be wrong.  Over 10 million such experiments have been done ? by almost every physics student worldwide.

Now I want to focus on Pendulum12.jpg.  The same 10 million students can do this experiment.  The difference between Pendulum12.jpg and pendulum08.jpg is that the work done by the constant force F can be measured.

From the mathematical analysis, we can find out that
(1) The increase in potential energy of the weight/bob = mgh = Mg x dH   The height dH can be measured experimentally by marking the lowest point of the weight at position A and then marking it again at position B.  The weight Mg can be weighted with a precision scale.
(2) The work done by the constant Force F can be determined by the change of potential energy of the small weight.  The Force F is the small weight and that can be weighted with the same precision scale.  The displacement is the vertical distance traveled by the small weight.  Mathematically, we can calculate that to be (dH + dX).  Thus the work done by the external force = F x (dH +dX)

It is clear that (1) and (2) are different. 
Or Mg x dH is not equal to F x (dH+dX).

The common wrong assumption by the members of this forum and many scientists who did not do the analysis is ? the increase in potential energy of the pendulum must come entirely from the external energy supplied.  This simple experiment can conclusively prove that they are wrong.

I shall pause here for more bullets and cannons.

[utilitarian]

It is clear that (1) and (2) are different. 
Or Mg x dH is not equal to F x (dH+dX).

You are repeating yourself now.  Please break out of this loop.

1.  Work equals force times distance, correct?
2.  The bob did not move straight up, correct? 
3.  The bob moved in a circular arc, correct?
4.  Multiply force times the length of the arc, and you will get the total work done by the pulse force.  Correct?

The you can compare that to mgh where m=mass of bob.

Why is this so hard?

[Top Gun]

It is clear that (1) and (2) are different. 
Or Mg x dH is not equal to F x (dH+dX).

You are repeating yourself now.  Please break out of this loop.

1.  Work equals force times distance, correct?
2.  The bob did not move straight up, correct? 
3.  The bob moved in a circular arc, correct?
4.  Multiply force times the length of the arc, and you will get the total work done by the pulse force.  Correct?

Then you can compare that to mgh where m=mass of bob.

Why is this so hard?  ***Integral calculus is never easy.

Dear utilitarian,

1.  Work equals force times distance, correct?
     Correct if vector mathematics used.

2.  The bob did not move straight up, correct? 
     Correct

3.  The bob moved in a circular arc, correct?
     Correct but the motion is not at constant velocity.  It accelerates at the beginning and decelerates at the end - to a complete stop at Position  B.

4.  Multiply force times the length of the arc, and you will get the total work done by the pulse force.  Correct?  Incorrect!!!

Both Force and Displacement are vector quantities.  You have to consider their directions.  The correct mathematical representation should be

The integral of F.ds  from point A to point B. 

Note the dot notation.  The general form of this integral says that F can be any function (need not be constant in magnitude or direction) and ds is an infinitely small increment.  The path can be anything - not necessarily an arc.  The general form is indeterminate.  We have to know the actual F function and the actual path before we can work out this integral.

In other words, we can have different functions of F and we can get different results of work done even though the path is an arc.  Different work means different energy.  The more advanced form of mathematics and physics says that even though the bob moves from Point A to Point B, different work (or different energy) can be involved.

Am I confusing all the forum members who have no formal training in integral calculus???

[Pirate88179]

@ Top gun:

No, but you are confusing some of us by indicating that you are going to pull a rabbit out of your ass. (mathematically speaking)  I can't wait to see the numbers on this one.

Bill