Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

Started by ltseung888, July 20, 2007, 02:43:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 26 Guests are viewing this topic.

gaby de wilde

Quote from: ltseung888 on September 17, 2007, 08:04:35 AM
[
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 06:17:12 AMBy the way... I saw one of your videos on YouTube...
The one with the weighted float on a chain, being dropped into a tank of water and rising up the column of water.

Now, that's clever thinking but it leads to the question...
"Did you figure a way of retrieving the float from the top of the column and cycling it back down the chain again?"

You have an airtight gate at the bottom and one at the top, right ?
Thus, you can open either gate without losing the head of water, but not both at the same time.

The RoadRunner..

If you read the comments from ltseung888 on that video, you would find that the video was a demonstration of a FAILED claim by the inventor.  The inventor "demolished" his house to get his invention installed.  However, he failed to realize that the Float has certain volume.  When the Float is taken out, the water level will fall - with volume equal to that of the Float.

I thought this was a very inspiring device. Just looking at it leads out hundreds of other ideas. Last night I figured out that lifting objects takes about 100/1 of the energy as that what is released when lowering it. It appears to me that Milkovic's device is very inefficiency with 12:1 it can be hundreds of times better as that. lol This of course sounds so ridiculous I will  try to debunk it myself the coming few days, if I cant find the bug I will put myself up for review. Eh, I mean the hypothesis. lol

The hypothesis would mean the energy in the flotation device is not in the vertical pull but in the water displacement while the module floats upwards. The shape of the module alone should be able to make the whole column of water rotate and do so most violently. If the pressure is inserted in a rotating shape it will try to continue this motion. The whirling column sucks the water out of the floatator. The flotator it-self pushes most linearly against the water above it. (Like a standing wave should)

We can thus put many hundreds of kilos of water into motion by pushing the flotator though it. Putting the flotator though additional times will make it whirl faster. Now where it gets quite weird is that the module can sail downwards on the whirl again. Still not overunity but already a weird thing to see.

Now pay attention to the pressure difference between the fluid at the rim of the tub and the fluid in the center of it! Floating at the outside means something entirely different as floating in the center.

If  (hypothetically) the tube would be spinning fast enough we could drop the flotator thought the center as there would be nothing but air there.

By creating concave in the tube we can force the inner flow to go downwards and the outer flow upwards. It was really helpful to see the video while thinking about this.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-engine
gabydewilde - vortex engine

The device must also replenish it-self with rainwater. Vortexing water is incredibly good for all life around it. Anyone already knows how bad water is when you leave it standing still for some time. Leave it alone long enough and it will kill everything. Why do you think showers feel so good? Because it's bad for you? lol

I hear you thinking "why is Gaby now rambling away about biology, isn't he confusing enough the way he is?"

The point is quite simple, Stan Meyer said all bonds in nature hold vibrations, (vibrations are energy) when you break something then this energy becomes available in the environment. So a vortex engine needs to grind down water clusters and micro organisms! Even the slightest vortex will do this.

Victor Schauberger promised us that removing all the small natural vortexes would leave nature with only the really really big one's. All the energy we pump into the environment will come back at us at some later stage either as a whirling mountain creek or as a massive hurricane.

No, I would like to see 100 "unworkable" flotation machines. And if the researcher wants to pull down his house to make such video for me I think that's a bit over the top but it shows most respectable effort.

:)
blog  | papers | tech | inventors  | video


RoadRunner

Gaby, you're so funny !!
I'm going to have to send you the same YouTube message as I've just sent to ltseung888 so you can share the amusement.

I'll let Zero in on the joke... Eventually...

After he's suffered enough rides up and down an elevator shaft whilst standing on a set of bathroom scales... ;)

The RoadRunner..

RoadRunner

Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 10:27:22 AMWhat do you mean by that?  It should be equal, shouldn't it?  After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction.  If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

I'm guessing that you've not seen the video.
A weighted float is attached to a chain. It descends under gravity, turning a generator as it goes.
At the bottom, it's dropped into a pool of water where it then bobs up into a column of water in a big tube. It rises all the way to the top of the column so it doesn't need to be lifted all the way back up to the top of the run. At most, it needs to be lifted a foot or so, out of the column and back onto the chain where it makes its descent once more.
It really is quite an ingenious idea (apart from one or two... urm... minor flaws) much like many OU attempts.

The RoadRunner..

shruggedatlas

Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 10:27:22 AMWhat do you mean by that?  It should be equal, shouldn't it?  After all, a pendulum, where an object is essentially just lowered and lifted, could in theory run forever if it were not for friction.  If it took 100 times more energy for the pendulum to swing up, compared to the kinetic energy gained on the way down, it would make barely one swing.

I'm guessing that you've not seen the video.
A weighted float is attached to a chain. It descends under gravity, turning a generator as it goes.
At the bottom, it's dropped into a pool of water where it then bobs up into a column of water in a big tube. It rises all the way to the top of the column so it doesn't need to be lifted all the way back up to the top of the run. At most, it needs to be lifted a foot or so, out of the column and back onto the chain where it makes its descent once more.
It really is quite an ingenious idea (apart from one or two... urm... minor flaws) much like many OU attempts.

The RoadRunner..

Yes, I have seen the video, and I guess the main problem is the volume of water is not replaced.  But I see now that you are probably right, and Gaby was joking with the 100:1 comment, so I withdraw what I said.