The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[utilitarian]

Ms. Forever, the very pretty Chinese woman, does his experiments for him.  There is a video of her on this topic in an earlier post.

Bill

I think she does some silly thing with a magnet at the end of a string, which does not prove anything.  That scallywag Tseung has her doing bad science!

[Rosphere]

scallywag

Milk out nose. 
Oh.  I mean, now, now, play nice; no name calling please.  Silly names count too, I think.

[ltseung888]

Ms. Forever, the very pretty Chinese woman, does his experiments for him.  There is a video of her on this topic in an earlier post.

Bill

I think she does some silly thing with a magnet at the end of a string, which does not prove anything.  That scallywag Tseung has her doing bad science!

Dear utilitarian,

Please stick to Physics.  I do not want to get into insult training.

There are two types of motion to be considered in the case of the simple pendulum.

The first type is Pull the Pendulum to a reasonable height and let go.  The Pendulum will swing.  You are right that in this case, there is NO Lead Out of gravitational energy during the swing.  It is the simple harmonic motion.  You can use the simple concept of potential energy converting into kinetic energy in the analysis.  There is no addition of energy of any type.

The second type is Applying the Lee-Tseung Pull (I use this term because some Forum Members misunderstood the concept of a Pulse Force.  They misunderstood the physics difference of a Punch and a Push!).

The Lee-Tseung Pull starts with:
(1) A small Horizontal Pull to move the Pendulum slightly to the LHS.  The Pendulum rises slightly in height.  Energy is imparted and stored in the Pendulum System.  The Horizontal Work (and hence energy) is done by the Horizontal Pull.  The Vertical Work (and hence energy) is done by the Tension of the String.  There is no swinging motion of the Pendulum yet.  The Pendulum bob is displaced.  Thus there is no harmonic motion at this point.  There is ONLY application of Forces (Horizontal Force supplied by the scientist, Weight and Tension of the String).  Any analysis MUST involve these three forces.

(2) The Pendulum Bob is let go.  If there were no losses, it would swing to the mirror position on the RHS.  During the swing, no gravitational energy is Lead Out.  The Energy in the Pendulum system is the energy supplied by the initial Lee-Tseung horizontal Pull and the Lead out gravitational energy of the string in Step (1)

(3) At the highest position on the RHS, the Bob will momentarily pause and change direction.  At the instant of pausing, the Lee-Tseung Pull is applied.  The direction of the Pull is no longer horizontal but perpendicular to the radius or tangential.  This Lee-Tseung Pull will have both vertical and horizontal components.  The Lee-Tseung Pull vertical component + the vertical component of the Tension of the String will be equal to the Weight.  Thus both Lee-Tseung Pull and the Tension of the String will do work (or add energy to the pendulum system).

(4) Let us discuss up to this point first before more complications.

Lawrence Tseung
Consideration of the Lee-Tseung Pull Leads Out More Physics

[ltseung888]

?.. In order to do any dynamic analysis we need more information about this pulse force and how it is applied.  Is it applied by an elastic collision at a=0?  (This sounds like what is meant by, "pulse.")  ***No ***

Assuming that it is an elastic collision at a=0, what happens to this Lead Out energy when the angle peaks and then returns to a=0; is it Lead Back In energy?  If the Lead Out energy is Lead Back In then how can we exercise any claim upon it to do our bidding?  *** No, No , No ***
?..
Rosphere--break time

Dear Rosphere,

You are right.  If you do not agree with slide 3, there is no point moving on.  I now realize why it was so easy at Tsing Hua University with their top professors and students.  They had the material weeks ago and then I was physically presenting.  Misunderstandings were clarified in minutes.

To be specific, the Pull is NOT an elastic collision.  (Wrong assumptions often lead to confusions and dead ends.) The Pull is a Lee-Tseung Pull with changes in direction at the highest position on the LHS or on the RHS.  The Ideal Pull is perpendicular to radius or tangential.

I shall discuss this in great depth before moving on.  (There is no point in moving on without thorough understanding.)  If you are impatient, read reply 643, the attached file titled Cosmic_Energy_Machines3.doc.

Lawrence Tseung
Wrong assumptions often lead to confusions and dead ends.

[tinu]

Excellent work, Rosphere!
I refer mostly to the chart, which is eloquent for why there is no subject to be seriously discussed into this thread.

Thank you. 

After accepting that 'Hori energy' equation is wrong, notice that the values in the chart makes no physical sense. The computed ratio means total energy spent divided by the energy that goes into vertical lift (increase in potential energy). No physical significance whatsoever. No overunity either, just misuse of equations.

But if one reverses the ratio presented in the chart, now the new values would mean potential energy gained versus total energy spent. This may be useable for mental exercises. So, as example let?s take the angle =9.48. One has to spend 1.628 Joule to bring the weight from vertical to that angle, by pulling with a CONSTANT force of 9.882 Newton. By the end of the movement he finds that only 0.819 Joule were actually used for lifting the weight (this amount goes into potential energy). Well?! Is some energy being lost?! Where did the other half of the energy go?! The answer is very simple: it went into kinetic energy. And the pendulum will further move up by itself due to its stored kinetic energy.

Note the word ?constant? above written in capitals. It is important because the simple equations Mr. Tseung uses are no longer valid if the force is not kept constant. Because of that initial assumption already made, any distractions derived from pulsed forces and similar ?improvements of theory? can not be discussed under the above mathematical treatment (which, I must stress again, it is physically wrong.). But the required mathematical analysis never came and I suspect it will never do.

Hope I made myself clear,
Tinu

I recall some of what I had learned back in college; statics, dynamics, kinetic energy, and potential energy.  Although his equations and his numbers in slide 3 did match-up to my results, mostly, I should not have moved on to slide 4 until I was comfortable with the origin of his equations.

Regarding my chart: the Fx and Fy equations are mine, based on a static system at each angle.  (I did the static Free Body Diagram in my head looking at slide 2.)  As you can see, Fx is not constant.  We can imagine holding a suspended mass off vertical with our finger; it does not require much force at small angles; we feel very little pressure.  At larger angles, the horizontal force required to hold the mass off vertical is noticeably higher and more painful on the finger.  (Notice I did not write, "push," or, "move," but, "hold."  Fx and Fy are static forces in my chart.)  Our experience jibes with the numbers in my Fx column.

I must admit, I did not make a F.B.D and sum all of the forces and moments to equal m*a and I*alpha.  Although I did not have a warm-fuzzy about the validity of the horizontal and vertical energy equations, I did not look them up as you appear to have done.

I can not agree with you either, at this point, because I have not dug into it for myself.  However, whatever cracks may exist in slide 3 seem to grow into caverns reaching out to slide 4.  And these caverns hearken back to my insecurities about slide 3, where I suspect that you may be right about the validity of the Cartesian separation of this "pulse" force.

In order to do any dynamic analysis we need more information about this pulse force and how it is applied.  Is it applied by an elastic collision at a=0?  (This sounds like what is meant by, "pulse.")

Assuming that it is an elastic collision at a=0, what happens to this Lead Out energy when the angle peaks and then returns to a=0; is it Lead Back In energy?  If the Lead Out energy is Lead Back In then how can we exercise any claim upon it to do our bidding?

It must be Lead Back In because swing sets are not banned from playgrounds, (what would happen to Johnny returning with 50% more energy at each pass?)

If this pendulum is set into motion and we wish to make charts showing energy movement between the system and the environment then we need to be clear about what is happening at what time and define our cycle.  Splitting the motion up into its two Cartesian parts and saying, "then this happens with one of them," seems odd.

I can not buy into slide 4 at this time without more details.  The jury is still out on slide 3. 

On the other hand, I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Perhaps this pendulum example was hastily put together and may not lend itself well to explain this Lead Out theory.

Rosphere--break time

Fx is indeed not constant in your chart and it is well computed, depending on the angle. But when choosing any single line in the chart and sticking to it, Fx is assumed to be constant when HE is computed (HE=FxLsin(a); you take Fx from the fourth column and multiply it with the displacement ? second column, hence the work is computed assuming a constant force from zero angle to the given value. A correct computation would involve integration.)

Anyway, I?d like to say that I appreciate a lot your reasoning and overall fine logic. I mostly like in particular the following part:  ?However, whatever cracks may exist in slide 3 seem to grow into caverns reaching out to slide 4.?
Well, HE is one of such crack and then the bottom conclusion is the second crack. One should read ? Thus 2 parts of supplied total energy is continuously and cyclically transferred by the pendulum between potential and kinetic energy and there is a particular angle for which potential energy is exactly half of the total energy supplied.? instead of  ?Thus 2 Parts of Supplied Horizontal Energy leads out approximately 1 Part Vertical Energy?. Nothing is being lead out. Only caverns, indeed!

You are on the good path, like utilitarian that came lately and like many others who came by. I?m confident you?ll get the whole picture soon, with or without my further opinions.

Energy from ?still air? is a similar story. Unfortunately for the naives, the device works but it is the equivalent of a pulley system: water can be pumped at high heights but in less quantity. Increase the height and eventually the quantity diminish to zero. No overunity ever proved, experimentally or mathematically. But the same trickery and/or misuse of elementary physics is employed in selling the ideas to the credulous masses.

The ?machine? as Mr. Tseung pompously like to name it in ?If the Displacement is not in the same direction as the Force, no work is done.  This means a horizontal force cannot do work in the vertical direction unless a machine is used to change the direction of the Force.? needs not be more than the mere string into this case or a simple pulley in the general case.
We?ve been through this issue several times but we still move in circle.  And unfortunately I don?t have much time to explain it over and over. I don?t want to make a fixation out of it and, even more important, I don?t want to post here too often because I have the strong feeling that Mr. Tseung does not wish anything more than eternally perpetuating the current thread, for reasons that are blurred to me but I suspect they are quite obscured. I?ll definitely answer to your direct questions but I?ll limit my posts unless the things depart too far from reality and unjustified optimism reaches alarming levels. Please note that Mr. Tseung has a formal training in physics (although not-practiced, though) and due to that training he can be very slippery to the non-physicists. Luckily I am a physicist too and, unfortunately for him, my ?kung fu? is, lets say, aaa? juuust ?a little better? than his rusty one. 

Have a nice day,
Tinu