The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

Hi Lawrence,

Thank you for your opinion on The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.  You arrived at the same conclusion as the Professors and Research Students at Tsing Hua and Beijing University.

Before we discuss the second topic of the Pulsed Force on the Pendulum, I would like you to have access (at least in video form) of the WORKING prototypes.  The Professors at Tsing Hua University have seen and have access to these prototypes.  The videos and their pointers are on previous posts of this thread.

You make me wonder what I'm getting myself into, but OK, I've got the videos.
Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Dear Mr. Entropy,

Great, you have the videos.  Let us assume that these videos are not hoaxes.

(1)   In the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier, the input power was magnified 30 times via a ?3 cylinder type device?.  The axle of rotation was horizontal.  When the axle were tilted, the magnification decreased.  Prototypes of this Electricity Magnifier exists today and at least one of them has been used in a factory environment for over 11 years.  The Chas Campbell Device works in the same way and is being investigated by Ash and other members of this forum.  I am absolutely sure that the Chas Campbell Device works.  Chas Campbell is willing to disclose the details of his invention and I am confident that I can propose improvements. (Knowledge of a superior device helps.)

(2)   The Wang Shum Ho device.  This device is unusual, as it needs no starting motor and no input power.  It uses the coupling of two mechanisms.  One is a ferro-liquid rotation.  A ferro-liquid is caused to rotate via a rotating magnet in a magnetic field.  The ferro-liquid will form a vortex and hit the top of the container. Such motion will cause the ferro-liquid to ?remix?.  The video shows that such a mechanism by itself can rotate for a long time.  The other is the solid magnet rotation.  When these two mechanisms are coupled to enhance and complement each other, the resulting is a permanently rotating device that can generate electricity.  This device was demonstrated on January 15, 2007 in front of 5 Chinese Officials.  The result was that Wang became vice president of a RMB13 billion Company (General Magnetic 磁æâ,,¢Â®).  This Company gathered a number of Cosmic Energy Machine Projects.  The plan was to go International IPO in 2008.  The Publicity and Product Introduction plans will come from the PR section of this Company.  My first confirm dealing with the Chinese Officials was October 2005 when we met the Senior Officials in the China Patent Office in Beijing.  Lee Chung Kin and I were able to convince them that our Cosmic Energy Inventions did not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

(3)   The Dr. Liang Xingren Car and later improvement by Chao Ching San.  The full Liang China Patent information was translated by Ms. Forever Yuen.  The China Patent disclosed that the Pulse Rotation was achieved via programmed Intelligent Chip and Integrated Circuits.  We are confident that it used Gravitational Energy because it had the problem of tilting similar to (1).  Chao improved it with banks of batteries.  The Chao Car has been certified by the Official Chinese Electric Car Authorities and is entering the mass production mode.  The same principle is being applied to small electricity power plants.  There are still some technical problems to overcome.  Lee Cheung Kin spent one week early 2007 working with Chao.

Now, imagine that you are one of the Tsing Hua University professors with access to the three above inventions.  (I believe they also have access or have visited the EBM machine in Hungary.)  How would you attempt to explain the source of energy of these devices?

(The answer and tone will set the stage for the detailed juicy discussions to follow.)

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Solid Experimental Prototypes Lead Out the juicy coming Meaningful theoretical discussions

[Mr.Entropy]

Now, imagine that you are one of the Tsing Hua University professors with access to the three above inventions.  (I believe they also have access or have visited the EBM machine in Hungary.)  How would you attempt to explain the source of energy of these devices?

Hi Lawrence,

That's a very entertaining question!  If I had access to working overunity prototypes, then "explaining" the source of energy for these devices would be the last thing on my mind for quite some time.  It would be the final step in a journey that would go something like this:

1) First, I would perform a lot of tests to ensure that the prototypes were actually overunity devices, so that I could be sure I wasn't wasting my time.  I would isolate them from the environment as well as I could, ensure that they can run on their own power, and extract enough work from them running on their own power to be sure that they weren't simply depleting some energy storage device like a battery.  The electricity magnifier would need a feedback circuit so that it could run on its own power.  If the car normally depletes its battery, then it would need a generator on the wheel and a feedback circuit to charge the battery or a capacitor to prevent that depletion.

If I couldn't extract sufficient energy at sufficient power levels from any of the devices, then I would put those devices aside.

Lets assume that they work.

2) If I was satisfied that I had in my possession a device that violated the laws of physics that I know about, i.e., that behaves contrary to the under-unity predictions of those laws, I would then attempt to isolate the anomalous effect.

The process I would follow is basically one of structural and temporal decomposition.

Structural decomposition would involve finding the specific parts of the device that are behaving counter to the predictions of physics.  It starts with the whole device, and proceeds recursively.  We know that maginfier is overunity, so either the motor part or the generator part must be over unity.  I'd test them independently, and continue this decomposition down to the smallest set of anomalous components I could find.

Temporal decomposition would consist of measuring the state of the device or a part of the device as completely as possible at frequent and precise intervals to isolate the specific moments when the measured evolution of the device deviates from the evolution predicted by current physics.   Oscilloscopes and high-speed photography are good tools for this.

Having found the specific anomolous event, then I'd create a simple, repeatable experiment that demonstrates the anomalous effect, i.e., the violation of the current laws of physics.  Note that this is not a set of instructions about how to build a perpetual motion machine.  It's a set of instructions about how to reproduce and measure the anomaly that makes perpetual motion possible.

3) Given the repeatable experiment, I would examine variations.  How does the effect change when I change various components or the relationships between them?  I would collect a lot of data, and document the procedures required to reproduce it.  By examining variations, I would determine which aspects of the repeatable experiment are important, and try to come up with a mathematical model that predicts the anomalous behaviour based on those variables.

4) Then it would be a good time to publish so that others could do it too, and to broadly patent classes of devices that rely on the anomalous effect.  I'd want to call it the "Entropy Effect", but that would probably just cause confusion :-)

5) Given a working mathematical model, I would use it to design practical devices, and start a company to manfacture and sell them, hire a company to do so, or license the patents with clauses that deny exclusivity to licensees that fail to bring products to market effectively.

6) Finally, when the press starts to call, and asks "so how does it work?", I'd have to think of a good answer that would paint a picture in the minds of laymen that wasn't entierly inconsistent with the mathematical model of the anomalous effect.  This is what most people would call the "explanation".

7) Eventually, some physicist would integrate the mathematical model, or an approximation of it, into the theoretical framework of modern physics, ensuring that there was still a Lagrangian form.  This would change the working definition of energy by introducing a new term that they would call the "whatever" potential, that could actually take on negative values and be reduced boundlessly.  They would then say that these overunity devices work by converting whatever potential energy into useful work, thereby "explaining the source of energy" for these devices.

I hope that answers your question.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[shruggedatlas]

Dear shruggedatlas,

The Lee-Tseung theory demands a Pulse Force to Lead Out gravitational or electron motion energy.  Your thought example does not provide the Pulse Force.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulse Force Leads Out Gravitational and/or Electron Motion Energy

And this is why the lead out theory is complete drivel.  According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy.  So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!  And Mr. Tseung claims a 1.5 to 1 efficiency rating too boot, so this should be very easy to set up.  A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much.

Come to think of it, we already have something like this in the form of desk toys.  I am referring to the set of 5 or 6 steel balls suspended on strings that hit each other.  According to the lead out theory, this device should produce infinite energy, and we know this is not true.  All this toy is really, is pendulums and pulsed forces.

Is a simple pendulum clock overunity?  I believe there are pulsed forces applied to the pendulum to keep it in motion.

Now, having debunked the lead out theory, is there really any merit to anything else?

[tinu]

Wait, shruggedatlas; maybe you?ve not heard about the ?boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario?!
Mr. Tseung will soon post about it, explaining it in great detail.
Then about the OU devices and then about the 5 Chinese Officials and not to forget the Tsing Hua University and its famous professors. Did I mentioned the rumors about Nobel prize nomination? What about the philosophical discussions between student A, handsome B, scientist C and investor D? And that vice president of one company? And about the great investments opportunities. Not to forget the way ?lead-out theory? explains all the phenomena into this world, especially those that are not even proved to be real?
Lol!

Then Mr. Tseung will start over and over again. Endlessly, like a moebius coil.
This is not fun. It?s really sad. It?s like a broken machine, like an erroneous software endlessly looping.

Shruggedatlas, your post will remain unanswered, although you are perfectly right. Or, it will happen this way maybe exactly because you are right.
I?ve raised similar issues, much earlier into this thread. Check them if you want.
I?ve asked fair questions. I?ve shown elementary mistakes. Mistakes not just about physics and equations but about elementary logic. Then I?ve pointed toward the stupidity of the whole thing.

It?s pointless. Let him looping and dreaming on.
Speaking alone or just with himself is something that to Mr. Tseung will not be an impediment at all. He already has an extensive experience into this area as well as in creating various accounts just to post and to create a so-called ?dialogue?.

I post here now just for the record. There are plenty of innocents out-there reading this thread. They should find such post here before making their own minds. (Otherwise it would be so easy to mislead a lot of persons?)

Have a nice day,
Tinu

[ltseung888]

Dear shruggedatlas,

The Lee-Tseung theory demands a Pulse Force to Lead Out gravitational or electron motion energy.  Your thought example does not provide the Pulse Force.

Lawrence Tseung
Pulse Force Leads Out Gravitational and/or Electron Motion Energy

And this is why the lead out theory is complete drivel.  According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy.  So one kid pushing another on a swing is an overunity device?  There is a pulse force and a pendulum, after all.  If this was true, it would be trivially simple to construct an overunity device.  Just have a pendulum and a hammer hitting it from one end.  Then use the excess force of the pendulum to retrigger the hammer, and presto!  And Mr. Tseung claims a 1.5 to 1 efficiency rating too boot, so this should be very easy to set up.  A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much.
.....

Now, having debunked the lead out theory, is there really any merit to anything else?

Dear shruggedatlas,

There are a few point you and many others might have overlooked.

(1) "According to the theory, a pulse force acting on a pendulum produces excess energy."  When you use the word "produce", most people will think that we "create" energy.  That is a direct violation of the Law of Conservation of energy.  I have used the term "Lead Out" again, again, again and again.  Lead Out uses the existing gravitational energy that is already there.  Thus there  is NO violation of CoE.

*** one tiny misunderstand or misuse of the word "produce" distorts the entire theory.

(2) "A 150% efficiency rating is so great, we do not even have to worry about friction much." You should also quote the qualifying sentence.  Gravitational Energy is Lead Out only during the application of the Pulse Force.  In the case of a mother pushing a child on the swing, the time during which the pushing is applied (Tpush) is short compared with the total time of one swing or oscillation (Toscillation).

*** (Tpush) << (Toscillation)  That is the reason for multiple pulse points on a wheel (e.g. Liang Xingren IC motor and the 225 Pulse Motor.)

I can appreciate the difference in actually presenting the information in a Lecture Room with interactive questions compared with passive reading of information on the Internet.  Very slight misconceptions not immediately  clarified could lead to total misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

However, I do appreciate the posts from shruggedatlas.  They help to pinpoint some of the misconceptions.  Thank You.

Lawrence Tseung
Slight misconception Leads Out major misunderstanding.