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 33 Guests are viewing this topic.

shruggedatlas

Quote from: ltseung888 on August 29, 2007, 10:26:29 PM
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Forever

I have put a lot of explanation of the Liang video as doc format in the following.

http://rapidshare.com/files/52197342/liangcar.doc.html


Enjoy it!!  ;D :D :)

Humbugger

Quote from: shruggedatlas on August 29, 2007, 11:07:07 PM
Quote from: ltseung888 on August 29, 2007, 10:26:29 PM
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger

Forever

I have put in much detail in the attached file related to the Tsinghua electricity magnifier.;D

It is very similar to the Chas Campbell device from Australia. The Tsinghua video was done on 4 January 1996.  ;D

Enjoy it! :)

ltseung888

Quote from: shruggedatlas on August 29, 2007, 11:07:07 PM

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

When we apply this Law, we need to consider a closed system. We must consider the Total Energy Going into this system (The Input Side).  There may be work done; energy loss (e.g. energy changed to heat); and Energy Going out from this system.

Mathematically, the following equation is useful to us:
The Total Energy In = The Total Energy Out (include work done, loss)

In the case of a boat in calm water and good sunshine, the Total Energy Going into the system should be (at least):
(1) Human Muscle Energy
(2) Energy due to Sunlight (a form of electromagnetic wave)
(3) Energy due to Wind (assumed none in calm waters)
(4) Energy due to Current (assumed none in calm waters)
(5) Energy due to gravitational attraction (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)
(6) Energy due to electron motion (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)

Now, focus on the concept of a closed system.  A person might know a little about science.  He might ignored items (2) to (6) because he could not use them.  He might wrongly apply the CoE and concluded that he must use muscle energy to move the boat.  He might even wrongly claim that he was in a closed system.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  A top scientist looking at the above scenario will say, "The boat is NEVER in a closed system."  The person should never claim that he applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in a closed system.

If a way were found to use (2) Sunlight, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (5) Gravitational Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (6) Electron Motion Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

Please go to the Http://www.steorn.com/forum and search for CoE under topics.  Thousands of posts were devoted to this topic.  You can refine the search by looking at the ltseung888 posts.

Regards and enjoy your reading,

Lawrence Tseung
CoE questions Lead Out thousands of posts in the Steorn Forum
Compressible Fluids are Mechanical Energy Carriers. Air is not a fuel but is an energy carrier. (See reply 1097)
Gravitational or Electron Motion Energy can be Lead Out via oscillation, vibration, rotation or flux change systems.  We need to apply pulse force (Lee-Tseung Pulls) at the right time. (See reply 1106 and 2621)
1150 describes the Flying Saucer.  This will provide incredible prosperity.  Beware of the potential destructive powers.