The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Pirate88179]

Gee, for an attorney, she makes a lot of sense. (smile)

Bill

[tagor]

The piston is basically a modified pendulum.  I have attached a drawing, though I am sure you all are familiar.  With the thousands (millions?) of manhours spent on perfecting the hybrid engine (Prius,

there was  650 millions of car in 2005

so I take 700 millions of car for the math , if they have 4 cylinders
this is 2800 millions of pendulum

if the motor of a car run at 3000 RPM and if we start all these cars
potentially it is : 3000 x 2800 millions = 8400000 millions or 840 billions of OVERUNITY UNIT
so this a big revolution in the energy of th earth !!

so the co2 is never more a problem

[Freezer]

It's OK that timing is important, but "resonance" is not a time.  At what time can a pulse be applied to a pendulum so that you get more energy out than you put in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r003GmW4ZrM

Moreover, there are many instances in modern technology where this Lead Out theory, if true, would have already lead engineers to develop overunity devices.  For example, take the internal combustion engine.  The piston is basically a modified pendulum.  I have attached a drawing, though I am sure you all are familiar.  With the thousands (millions?) of manhours spent on perfecting the hybrid engine (Prius, etc.), and all the effort made to convert mechanical enegry to electrical and vice versa, don't you think someone would have observed and said "Gee, when the spark ignites and the piston is on the way down, we get alot more energy that way - more than we put in.  Screw gasoline; maybe if we just hook the battery up to the engine and make it push the pistons, we have enough power to recharge the battery PLUS move the car."  It is inconceivable that with the meticulous testing that has been done on engines over decades, that something like this could have been missed.  I cannot believe I have wasted time analyzing this. 

Why did GM get rid of the electric car?  Take a look at that video.

What if our science is a tad bit wrong, wouldn't that handicap all those who hold it so sacred, and set in stone.  If you want an example of technology being surpressed, just look at the U.S. military.  They have the most current, up to date technology that no one in the public realm sees.  Quote from Ben Rich - "Father of Stealth technology"

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity"

"We now have the technology to take et home"

There's three shades, white, gray, and black programs.  The x-33 being a white program in that its known and information is available.  The f-117 would be a gray program today, being that its known, but signature characteristics are secret.  In a black program they don't even acknowledge it exists period.  Point being is these guys are light years ahead of mainstream science.  There scientific laws are probably a lot different from whats in the books.  Look at the B-2 stealth.  The leading edges of its wings are electrically charged to produce an anti-gravity effect.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/laviolette-b2-bomber.shtml

As Stanton Freidmon said, every scientist in his day thinks they know all there is too know, and history would tell us they're always wrong.  I just think its wrong to think that, if this was true and free energy was possible, we would already have people building it.  They are building it, just behind closed doors, away from they public eye.  The U.S. military sets aside something around the order of 40 billion dollars, annually.  Multiply that by 50 years...  Their secrecy is paramount, anyone not convinced, just take a trip to area 51.    They have great stuff there that would change the world instantly, and they purportedly spend more money to keep it secret than on the programs themselves.  You'd be surprised at what x-military disinformation officers have to say.

[hansvonlieven]

You have me confused, let me clarify.

You claim if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus there will be more energy in the system than you put in and this is the energy that you can Lead out.

Is THAT what you are saying?

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans,

To be more exact, I am saying:

(1) There is gravitational field surrounding us all the time.
(2) You can use this gravitational energy.
(3) if you apply say pulses into a system such as a pendulum or a flywheel cylinder and if those pulses are in phase with the natural resonance of the apparatus, gavitational energy can be Lead Out.
(4) There will be more energy in the system than you put in.
(5) In the particular case of a pendulum being pulled by a horizontal force, approximately 1 part of gravitational energy can be lead out when you apply 2 parts of horizontal energy.

The details are already posted from the beginning of this thread.  Please read them carefully.

(Pulse Force = Periodically repeatable force  in this context.)

Yes, that was exactly my point when I said:

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.

Now, please don't misunderstand me here, I do not have a problem with that. When it comes to resonant circuits it has been my observation that many phenomena cannot be explained in strict Newtonian terms. It is possible to create acoustic and electric circuits that will exhibit more energy than you put in, the surplus energy coming from resonant fields in the vicinity that interact with the apparatus.

Where I do have an issue is with your statement that this applies to a pendulum and to a flywheel.

THAT has never been observed or demonstrated in a verifiable fashion.

How you can LEAD OUT energy from still air is another puzzle that you claim but don't explain.

Hans von Lieven

[ltseung888]

.....
How you can LEAD OUT energy from still air is another puzzle that you claim but don't explain.

Hans von Lieven

Let us answer the easy one first.

If you read the first post of this thread, it will lead you to

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2621.msg40277.html#msg40277

From that, you can get the TPU_Theory1.5.doc file.

In chapter 3, the Technique of Extracting Energy from Still Air is described.

The TPU_Theory1.5.doc further explains the Lead Out theory.  Please read it carefully.