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 69 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mr.Entropy

Quote from: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 12:16:53 PM
Please note the seemingly innocent use of the word punch instead of push changes the physical process totally.

May be Mr. Entropy can enlighten you more.

How so? I believe the lawyer is correct.  A punch is a force of short duration -- exactly as we have with the pendulum.  Energy is transferred via a short, but very powerful applied force, and this is entirely consistent with the definition of the word "pulse".

Is there some finess you could add to the definition of "pulse" that makes it clear why a punch doesn't qualify?

Mr.Entropy

Quote from: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 03:33:59 AM
So you see that a top professor at Harvard University has the similar concern and mental attitude as you.  Unless he has a working prototype in his hands, he will not discuss the issue further.  If he accepts the Lead Out theory without absolute and undisputable proof, he would put his reputation and possibly the entire Harvard University Reputation at stake.

Prof H is too polite to call Prof. Woo an idiot, and ended the conversation quickly to avoid wasting more of his time.

Quote
The fortunate thing is ? there are many working prototypes already - some inside China and some outside China. 

Ah, yes.  The difference between Prof H. and I is that I have hope for overunity.

However, while there may be working overunity prototypes, they do not prove your theory unless your theory is simply that overunity is possible.

If your theory is useful at all, then it makes quantifiable predictions about overunity effects that can be tested.  So far, you have quite annoyingly made testable, quantifiable predictions about non-overunity effects, and untestable, unquantifiable predictions about overunity effects.  If that is all you have to offer, then your theory is useless.

hansvonlieven

G'day Lawrence and all,

I have promised Jeff to be a good boy and keep my sarcasm to myself, so I will confine myself to asking a couple of questions that are bothering me in relation to your "Lead Out Theory"

If I understand your theory correctly, what you are saying is that Newton is wrong when he says that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction.

In effect what you state is that the reaction to an action contains more energy and that the difference between the two can be "lead out" to produce work.

This is one hell of a big statement which is at loggerheads with everything we know and have established by experiment over a very long time regarding these phenomena.

You also have stated elsewhere that there are 4 new forms of energy known to Chinese researchers, presumably Lead Out Energy is one of them.

Which raises the question, what energy are we talking about.

You call it cosmic energy. Are we to understand that we are talking here about something along the lines of "pyramid energy" or "radionics energy", you know the stuff that can only be detected by using a pendulum or a dowsing rod and even then only by specially gifted people.

I am not a physicist as you claim to be. I am only a retired humble engineer (physics major at that) with over 40 years in the field. I have worked with flywheels, levers, gears, pendula etc in the course of my work. I also consider myself a rather observant man when it comes to machinery. It amazes me to learn from you that I have failed all these years to observe even a shadow of the phenomena you are talking about. It also amazes me that my teachers at university, both in Germany and Australia have to this day not come to grips with pendulum and flywheel physics and have been teaching us erroneous bullshit. It must be a conspiracy, or we are all idiots (Sorry Jeff)

Hans von Lieven

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

ltseung888

Quote from: Mr.Entropy on October 08, 2007, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: ltseung888 on October 08, 2007, 12:16:53 PM
Please note the seemingly innocent use of the word punch instead of push changes the physical process totally.

May be Mr. Entropy can enlighten you more.

How so? I believe the lawyer is correct.  A punch is a force of short duration -- exactly as we have with the pendulum.  Energy is transferred via a short, but very powerful applied force, and this is entirely consistent with the definition of the word "pulse".

(*** May be I should have used the word "periodically repeated" instead of the word "pulse" ***)

Is there some finess you could add to the definition of "pulse" that makes it clear why a punch doesn't qualify?


Dear All,

Let me give an example of how the handling a fast moving object A towards a stationary object B affects the result.

The various ways of handling the situation include:

(1)   Send a missile to destroy object A.  Only the tiny pieces would hit object B.
(2)   Attach a device to object A.  The Device will try to slow object A?s velocity to 0.
(3)   Attach a device to object A.  The Device will push A 90 degrees in direction of motion. This will effectively deflect object A and even turn it 180 degrees without slowing it down.

We can all see that the results are different.

Let me apply the analogy to the Pulse Force required to Lead Out Gravitational Energy in the case of the Pendulum.

(1)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the maximum height position, Pull to give it additional height and/or tension of the string.
(2)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the lowest position with maximum velocity, increase its velocity.  The Pulse Force must be in the direction of the velocity.
(3)   When the Pendulum Bob is at any intermediate position, increase its velocity in its direction of motion.

These three ways will add additional energy to the Pendulum System.

If we do the following:

(1)   When the Pendulum Bob is at the lowest position with maximum velocity, apply a force in the opposite direction to motion (essentially slowing it down), Energy is effectively subtracted from the Pendulum Bob in terms of sound, heat, friction, deformation etc.
(2)   When the Pendulum Bob is at any Intermediate position, decrease its velocity in the direction of motion.  This will have the same effect as in (1).
(3)   The case of changing a Pull to a Push when the Pendulum Bob is at its maximum displaced position is a very special case.  Energy can be added in both situations.

One of the qualifying conditions in the Lee-Tseung theory is that the Pulse Force must be applied at the right time (normally at resonance).  We quoted the case of the swing.  In order for it to swing high, we must push it at the appropriate time.  Otherwise addition of energy will slow it down!

I hope this explanation will clarify the ?required pulse at the right time? in the Lee-Tseung theory.  It is NOT any pulse at any time.

Lawrence Tseung
The pulse in the right direction at the right time leads out gravitational energy.  Any Pulse at any Time is likely to lead out nothing.
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.

ltseung888

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 08, 2007, 03:36:36 PM
.....

You also have stated elsewhere that there are 4 new forms of energy known to Chinese researchers, presumably Lead Out Energy is one of them.

Which raises the question, what energy are we talking about.
.....

Hans von Lieven



I shall answer this one first as it is the easiest.  These 4 forms of new energy are:

(1) Energy from Still Air
(2) Energy from Gravitation
(3) Energy from Electron Motion (magnetic)
(4) Energy from Electon Motion (Electric or Electrostatic)

Thanks for reading the hundreds of posts in steorn.com.

Lawrence Tseung
Simple direct questions Lead Out easy direct answers
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.