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 46 Guests are viewing this topic.

TinselKoala

Thank you for your advice.
But I must ask, did you not hear, or not understand, or perhaps not believe, the part in the video where I explain that I tried several different core materials? Perhaps I didn't mention soft iron, I cannot recall, but I certainly did try it. The magnets stick quite well to the iron, and current strong enough to dislodge them would melt my apparatus, in addition to magnetizing the iron.
The outcome of the experiment will be the same, however. There is no asymmetric thrust available from this type of apparatus, unless it is allowed to push against a surface with friction.

Top Gun

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 28, 2008, 11:37:11 PM
Thank you for your advice.
But I must ask, did you not hear, or not understand, or perhaps not believe, the part in the video where I explain that I tried several different core materials? Perhaps I didn't mention soft iron, I cannot recall, but I certainly did try it. The magnets stick quite well to the iron, and current strong enough to dislodge them would melt my apparatus, in addition to magnetizing the iron.
The outcome of the experiment will be the same, however. There is no asymmetric thrust available from this type of apparatus, unless it is allowed to push against a surface with friction.

Thank you for your clarification.  My understanding of producing an electromagnet is for the copper wire to wrap tightly arround the soft iron core.  That is different from putting soft iron loosely inside a solenoid.  The configuration essentially separates the device into two separate tubes.  I only saw your material move freely within one tube.  Am I mistaken?

The other point I would like to comment is applying asymmettic pulsing to a pendulum.  If the frequency of the pulse is not in resonance with the natural frequency of the pendulum, the magnitude of the swinging would not be higher.  This can be confirmed by anyone skilled in the playground swings.

We can ask Forever and other teams to check out the natural frequency of the pendulum configuration and apply the asymmetric pulse accordingly.

hansvonlieven

Quote from: Top Gun on November 29, 2008, 12:27:57 AM

The other point I would like to comment is applying asymmettic pulsing to a pendulum.  If the frequency of the pulse is not in resonance with the natural frequency of the pendulum, the magnitude of the swinging would not be higher.  This can be confirmed by anyone skilled in the playground swings.

We can ask Forever and other teams to check out the natural frequency of the pendulum configuration and apply the asymmetric pulse accordingly.


G'day all,

Perhaps at this stage it would be of help to point out that if you apply asymmetric pulses to a pendulum it is no longer a pendulum but becomes simply a weighted lever. The inability to distinguish between the behaviour of the two would guarantee an F in O-level physics.

Forever would be well advised to repeat the standard experiments in this area before pontificating on ridiculous propositions.

Pendulum physics, as well as the behaviour of levers, are very well understood by standard science and don't need re-defining.

Hans von Lieven
When all is said and done, more is said than done.     Groucho Marx

Top Gun

There seems to be some confusion when Tinselkoala failed to perform Experiment001 as defined.  The latest is a weighted lever.

I shall reproduce Experiment001 and compare it with Experiment001b.  In Experiment001b, we take the device and suspend it in a pendulum fashion.  The one-time pulse is applied.  The expected motion of the pendulum is shown.

Experiment001b is easy to perform after Experiment001 has been successfully performed.  Experiment001 is done on a flat smooth, horizontal surface.

Hope this clarifies the Experiments.

utilitarian

Quote from: Top Gun on November 29, 2008, 04:00:18 PM
There seems to be some confusion when Tinselkoala failed to perform Experiment001 as defined.  The latest is a weighted lever.

I shall reproduce Experiment001 and compare it with Experiment001b.  In Experiment001b, we take the device and suspend it in a pendulum fashion.  The one-time pulse is applied.  The expected motion of the pendulum is shown.

Experiment001b is easy to perform after Experiment001 has been successfully performed.  Experiment001 is done on a flat smooth, horizontal surface.

Hope this clarifies the Experiments.

I have a question.  Why are you making it so needlessly complex, if you claim it is so simple.  Why even have the bottom half of the device?  Just pound the ball upwards, and you will not need to "dampen" or "dissipate" anything on the bottom end.  Makes about as much sense as anything else you have written.