The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

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

Dear Freezer,

I love your video.  If possible, can you produce one with a punch bag and show:

(1) A little boy punching it.  It hardly moved.
(2) The same little boy pushing it like a swing.  The multiple pushes will increase the amplitude of the swing.
(3) Let the swinging punch bag hit a dummy (use a dummy to avoid hurting the little boy.  Or you may find a special actor).

Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
The experiment done by the naugthy Tseung 50 years ago Leads Out the use of infinite gravitational energy for Mankind.

[ltseung888]

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

So, the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.  What about the second pulse?  When does the free energy start?  How do the initial pulses change the system so that subsequent pulses suddenly become overunity events?

Dear Mr. Entropy,

I am glad that we found our disagreement so early.

If I am not mistaken, you have concluded that the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.

The Lee-Tseung Theory DEMANDS that the first pulse (periodically repeatable force) add more energy and Lead Out some gravitation energy to the pendulum system.  Two parts horizontal energy Lead out one part gravitational energy.

Am I mistaken in your conclusion???

Lawrence Tseung
Disagreement on the First Pulse Leads Out roadblock in discussing Second and subsequent Pulses.

[ltseung888]

..... The piston is basically a modified pendulum. 

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

My scientific training does not agree with

"The piston is basically a modified pendulum."

Sorry.

[Mr.Entropy]

I think Tseung is playing games.  He keeps narrowing the definition, making it harder to disprove the theory.

I don't mind a narrow definition, as long as it's well defined.  If he'd just settle on something testable, I'd test it and know one way or the other.  Or he could end up defining his theory as untestable, and therefore unusable in practical scenarios, in which case we could just ignore it.  The problem is that Lawrence isn't doing either of those things.  He doesn't seem to have the math or physics required to do either of those things, but he does seem to learn quickly.  I will correct him some more, in the hope that he will soon learn enough to say something physically meaningful (correct or not) about overunity.

And you could be right, of course -- he could just be playing games.  That would be a bit sad, because "hold yourself and your friends up to ridicule for as long as you possibly can" doesn't sound like a very fun game, but it wouldn't bother me otherwise.  One does not come to an overunity forum expecting reasonable discourse. ;-)

I do not understand why the motion state of the pendulum matters to the Lead Out equation.  What difference does it make whether one of the pendulms is stopped?

At the moment, there is no Lead Out equation, because the equations provided so far have been nonsensical.  In the absense of that, why wouldn't the motion state make a difference?  We are talking about new unwirtten physical laws, after all.  Maybe it only works on Tuesday during an eclipse?  Who's to say except Lawrence?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Mr.Entropy]

If I am not mistaken, you have concluded that the first pulse does not add more energy that you put in.

No, that's what you said.  I said "why not a punch", and you said "periodically repeated", implying that one punch won't do.  If one pulse will do, then, again, what is it about a punch that doesn't qualify as a "pulse" that leads out gravitational energy?