The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

gaby, looking at that picture and description I can't help but notice that:
first you describe how the flux between the attracting sides of the 2 magnets will cause the strip to move in that direction. Obviously we assume the strip to me magnetic.
Then you describe how the bottom magnet changes polarity.

but changing the polarity of the bottom magnet is going to require an energy input, right?
And would the energy gained from the strips motion be enough to reverse that polarity?
Seems to me that it would not...

Unless I am overlooking something?

[Koen1]

Okay now I've tried to figure out what exactly mr Tseung claims and what basis he has for this...

The story of pumping water with bubbles higher than normal water sounds credible though it is debatable if it could ever actually produce over unity...
After all, it is well known that introducing air bubbles in water lowers its mass to volume ratio which effectively should make it easier to lift a given volume.
But when you get the water+bubbles to the top of your setup, the air will be let out, which decreases the total volume again. The water that you then want to have flow down again should then drive a generator that would drive the pump? But the volume that you have running down is smaller even though the weight is higher, so effectively there should be no overall energy gain, should there?

Then there's the so-called 4-legged chair "experiment", which apparently consists of nothing more than pushing an upturned stool...
What is that supposed to prove? That 2 people can push agains a chair and make it move? I have to agree with Hans that that is one of the stupidest "proofs" ever presented. Where does pushing a chair turn into over-unity??

And now there are vague claims about some "anti gravity" experiment?
Can someone provide clear details of this experiment? A comprehensive and detailed description of the setup, the expected results, and the hypothesised effects responsible for them?
Something slighly more usefull than vague remarks about "tying a string to a bottle" perhaps? (anyone can tie strings to bottles, and this has never been considered "anti gravity", so statements like that amount to nothing.)
Something somewhat more clear that vague remarks about "spinning a magnetic ball (whatever that is) using magnetic forces" maybe?

@ ltseung888: And please don't attack other forum members because they righfully point out that nothing is actually explained at all and there are only a few silly so-called experiments that do not actually seem to prove anything yet.
Degrading remarks like "I do not believe you have a formal physics training" have no place in a discussion where you seem to be unable to provide conclusive proof of concept yourself. If you are so proud of being such a good "formally educated" physics man, then why is it so hard for you to properly and clearly describe and explain your ideas, instead of making claims based on your credentials? Besides, you flunked IQ tests untill you read up on how they worked and had figured out how to pass them, according to the "letter of recommendation". That is remarkable, because the average intelligent person does not need to know how the tests work and can be cheated in order to get a proper score...
In any case, it is simply not correct to dismiss peoples honest doubts in respect to your claims solely on the grounds that you feel you are better than they are because you have a piece of paper that says you have a degree. If you have said degree and are so much better at physics than the person who asked for explanation and proof, then it wshould be easy for you to give that explanation and proof in a clear and understandable manner. After all, you're so proud of being a great physicist? Then you should take pride in explaining your fantastic invention to people who want to understand it.

But instead, it looks like you are being overly secretive and seem unable or unwilling to actually discuss and explain your 'invention'.
You keep giving numbered short-lists of claims, but that's it. That doesn't help.
Oh, and by the way, how is the Bessler wheel a good example? Nobody knows how the Bessler wheel actually worked! If you claim that you do, then you should build one and become famous for being the only person since Bessler himself to construct one that works! Mentioning the Bessler wheel as a "good example" while no functioning version actually exists does not serve to support your credibility, sir!

Furthermore you keep suggesting that there is a functional example of "your" so-called "lead out theory" to be found in Hungary. You do not give any proof of that either.
When I seach the internet for documentation of this alleged Hungarian "lead out" machine, I find nothing whatsoever. No such device appears to exist.
Perhaps you should stop pointing towards this fairy tale device? Or if it does in fact exist, give a url where we can study docs and/or pics of it ourselves?

@utalitarian: I fully agree with your statement about the four steps of the scientific method. What I see here is a hypothesis with a few supporting observations, and some predictions based on the hypothesis, but no actual experimental proof.

@Forever: so if you are actually doing experiments, then why don't you explain a good experiment? You give the impression you know what mr Tseung is doing or trying to do, so why don't you give us the explanations he apparently cannot or will not give himself?

[utilitarian]

Dear Utilitarian,

Mr. Tseung asked me to answer your post.

1.   If you ask a small child to push a heavy punch bag, it will take him more than two or three pushes to have significant amplitude. In a single pull from the rest position (the first Lee-Tseung Pull) the swing angle will be small.

2.   I doubt we would use equipment the size of a punch bag.

3. Can you explain how you measure the exact energy of a spring and how it is attached to the pendulum bob?

4.   In Physics, work done (energy imparted) equals to force multiply by displacement (vector mathematics). This means a horizontal force cannot do vertical work unless a machine is used to change its direction.

5.   In your suggested first application of the Lee-Tseung Pull with a spring, how can you keep the spring perfectly horizontal? If you cannot, you can only rely on the final result when the forces are at equilibrium. If you use that final result, you are effectively using the parallelogram of forces. (We also use that in our spreadsheet.) 

I would like to see you design and perform your suggested experiment. Please post your video for our benefit. I hope to learn something from you.

Now I feel like I am teaching elementary things to you guys, who have been championing this theory for years, yet you do not know how to set up a simple experiment to test it.  I am not a physicist, and this is an experiment that another poster proposed, but you guys conveniently ignored.

First of all, who cares about the child and the punching bag?  You put up a spreadsheet saying that a perfect pull will have 180% efficiency.  These are your numbers.  How hard can it be to notice this type of gain?  Even if the pull is not perfect, a 150% efficiency is also easy to notice.

I do not have time to draw this out right now, but you have a spring mounted vertically on one side of the pendulum.  It is compressed up, so its force is downward.  You put the pendulum bob directly under it to start the experiment.  So the pendulum bob is at 90 degrees (or 270, whatever you want to call it), at rest.  You can either launch the spring and thereby send the ball flying immediately, or you can let the ball drop to 85 or 80 degrees or whatever and then launch the spring, which will catch up to the falling ball and give it a push on the way down.

The spring can be guided down a semicircular path, so that it makes proper contact with the falling bob, which is itself traveling in a perfect semicircle.

Measuring the energy in a spring is simple.  Why am I having to explain this to you guys?  Just mount the spring vertically and let it push up a weight.  Then do a mathematical calculation based on mass of the weight and the vertical distance the weight rises.  This will give you the energy in the spring.  For proper calculation, if the spring is let go an instant after the ball is, you will only want to only measure the energy the spring has at that point.

Now I know there will be some frictional losses, but if you claim 150 to 180 percent overunity, excess energy is easy to spot.  You know the energy in the spring and you know the mass of the bob, and based on that, you can calculate how high the bob will rise on the other side.  So, without friction, the bob should travel from 90 degrees to 270 degrees plus the height that the spring energy gives.  Anything in excess of that is your "lead out" energy.

Also, I have no intention of doing this or any other experiment for you.  My contention is that if you are serious about Lead Out, you must prove it.  Spinning plastic bottles on strings and spinning chairs with your fingers and even the magentic pendulum experiment does not further your theory one iota.  If you want to do experiments, do something useful like this.  Until then, no one will take any of this stuff seriously.  Even if the devices you mention like the Hungarian EBM and other things actually work (and there is zero credible evidence that they do), if you do not test your theory scientifically, there is no reason to believe that they work based on your theory.  This is not how science works.  There could easily be another explanation.  Just because the inventors do not have a theory does not mean your theory is the applicable one.  To be sure, you must break your theory down to its basic element, the Lee-Tseung pull, and demostrate the effectiveness of that single thing, and then you can show that the inventions use this basic element and this is why they work and so forth.

Again, why am I, a layman, explaining the scientific method to you guys?  This is something you should have mastered in high school.  Why are you utterly unwilling and/or unable to run a single experiment to verify your own theory that you have spent ungodly amounts of time working on?

[Eddy Currentz]

More Comments on the Ideal Lee-Tseung Pull Spreadsheet on Reply 758.

(1) The spreadsheet focused on the final COP value.

(2) The actual lead out energy is proportional to M (mass), L (length) and g (gravitational constant.)

(3) Thus to Lead Out more energy, we can:
      (a) Increase the Mass.  The Mass should be concentrated at the rim. 
      (b) A Cylinder is best.  The 225 HP and Liang Pulse Motor use cylinders.
      (c) Increase the Length or the Radius of the cylinder. 
      (d) The large Bessler or the improved Bedini wheel are good examples.
      (e) If Magnetic field is used, the effective g can be very large.
      (f) The direction of effective g can be changed.

(4) It should be clear that the Lee-Tseung Pull must be applied at the correct specific time.  This clearly shows the importance of tuning or the use of a program to adjust input according to external load. Examples include the 225 HP, Liang, Tsing Hua devices.

(5) Trying to verify the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory with a single pull is likely to be a waste of time.  The collective effect of the Lee-Tseung Pull has already been verified by the Newman, Bedini and EBM machines. 

Lawrence Tseung
Watering seeds on fertile soil.

Hi Lawrence,
I was thinking about your theory, among others, yesterday and it occurred to me that planetary orbits in our solar system are significant.
I find them significant because they are elliptical, rather than circular. This causes a couple of interesting effects. The velocity of a planet changes according to it's proximity to the sun during a cycle. The planet is "pulsed" by the gravitational field of the sun much like your flywheels are. The elliptical orbit also causes a constant shift in the diameter of the orbit, which changes the center of mass between the two bodies. I think the same sort of thing happens in a solid flywheel, only on a microscopic scale. 
I find the cosmos an excellent study in rotational physics. The shape of spiral galaxies tells us a lot about mass distribution and rotational dynamics. Spirals are just flat vortexes.
So many interesting things, so little time to explore! Hang in there and don't let the naysayers get you down.
Cheers,
Ted

[Koen1]

... and this has what to do with the "lead out" hypothesis?
Nothing?