The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Top Gun]

(2)  Another analogy, and I am sure this was raised earlier, given 2000 posts, but bear with me, as I am not clear on this. 

Scenario A:  You take a pendulum, start it horizontal, let go, and let it drop and then rise on the opposite side.  What is the difference during the upswing between this and:

Scenario B:  Take a pendulum at rest (ball is at bottom) and give it a push exactly equal to what it would experience at that point had you done Scenario A.

I hope you see what I am getting at.  If there is no functional difference for the ball during the upswing, then it would be trivial to test whether or not energy is lead out.  If the ball gets to a higher point then where you dropped it from, then energy is lead out.  Otherwise, no energy is lead out.

I welcome your comments.

Dear utilitarian,

I hope you do not mind my answering this for you instead of Tseung.  He is still busy working out how to do a "pulsed half pipe".

In Scenario A, I assume that you did not put any tension on the String when you let go and that the bob was in the same horizontal position as the pivot.  The tension in the string will increase as the bob falls and ?pulled? towards the vertical.  In other words, the tension in the string is zero to begin with.  I would propose that the bob would not rise to the exact horizonal position.

In Scenario B, I assume that you push or kicked the bob so hard that it acquires a high velocity and reaches the same horizontal position as the pivot.  The tension of the string cannot be zero in this case.  In other words, this case has potential energy of the risen bob PLUS tension energy of the string.  This Scenario B has MORE energy than Scenario A.

I welcome your comments to my reply.  This is getting much more interesting than seeing insults.

[ltseung888]

In Scenario A, I assume that you did not put any tension on the String when you let go and that the bob was in the same horizontal position as the pivot.  The tension in the string will increase as the bob falls and ?pulled? towards the vertical.  In other words, the tension in the string is zero to begin with.  I would propose that the bob would not rise to the exact horizontal position.

Dear Top gun,

I just repeated the following experiment in my living room a number of times.

I raised the pendulum bob to an almost horizontal position without stretching the string but enough force to make it straight.  I then let go and see if it will swing back to exactly the same horizontal position.

The result - it does not.  It is significantly lower.

I then examined the subsequent swings.  The height risen to at the second, third, fourth time appeared to be the same.

I observed it with the naked eye and I might even have been psychologically  brainwashed.  I would like to ask you or any of the forum members with better equipment (e.g. camera with good scaled background) to repeat this experiment.  This is significant in that it proved that there might indeed be tension energy.  (I suspect so because the string I used is stretchable in practice though not by much).

[utilitarian]

I think I have explained it the best I can.  Why don't you two collaborate and set up an experiment that demonstrates what you are talking about.  A simple video demonstration of a pendulum behaving in overunity fashion will answer all questions.  I am surprised that after years of research, you do not have a simple video recording of this phenomenon.

[ltseung888]

I think I have explained it the best I can.  Why don't you two collaborate and set up an experiment that demonstrates what you are talking about.  A simple video demonstration of a pendulum behaving in overunity fashion will answer all questions.  I am surprised that after years of research, you do not have a simple video recording of this phenomenon.

We do not need to do it.  Milkovic of Russia has done it for us.  You can search his name in this forum to get information about his device.  I believe his device have been mentioned and analyze more than once in this particular thread using the Lee-Tseung theory(2000 post by now).

Please see:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.0.html

The topic:
12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
? on: November 30, 2006, 11:11:41 PM ?

When someone has done the hard work, give him credit.  There is no need to do it ourselves again.

[Koen1]

I raised the pendulum bob to an almost horizontal position without stretching the string but enough force to make it straight.  I then let go and see if it will swing back to exactly the same horizontal position.

The result - it does not.  It is significantly lower.

Yes, of course. That's what we've been saying all along, but you have been claiming it does not, and even that
you can extract energy from it and still have it swing to the same height. Yes, ok, you add a "lee-tseung push"
but also a "lee-tseung pull" and the energy "lead out" is supposed to be greater than the energy put in,
so we can safely subtract the two and we are left with your claim that you can extract energy from a pendulum
while it keeps swinging, and needs no additional energy input.
You have now finally observed this to be incorrect. You see, that's what empirical testing is for. To show when your
fantasies don't match reality. 
Will you now finally admit your claims are invalid? I suspect not.

I then examined the subsequent swings.  The height risen to at the second, third, fourth time appeared to be the same.

I seriously doubt that. It is a well known fact that a pendulum is a very efficient oscillator and can swing for a really long time,
and it is very likely that your eyes are simply not sensitive enough to observe the minute difference in real height the pendulum bob
reached during those first few swings, when obviously hardly any energy had escaped due to friction etc. But the energy contained in the
fourth swing was definately less than that contained in the first, and so was its swing height. Had you used some proper measuring equipment
you could have measured this, or you could simply have let the pendulum swing for 100 times instead of only 4.
... are you seriously saying you never worked it out for more than a couple of swings?

I observed it with the naked eye and I might even have been psychologically  brainwashed.  I would like to ask you or any of the forum members with better equipment (e.g. camera with good scaled background) to repeat this experiment. 

Right.
So once again we have to prove your claims to support your theory and your patent applications, while you
who present your theory and have been claiming it to be tru for ages now,
refuse to do any proper testing and cannot relay any form of proof whatsoever?
So basically you're saying "I have a theory and I know it is true and correct, and now I'll allow you to prove my theory for I have zero proof myself."
Wow man. That's great.
Obviously everyone can see why you're shouting you will save the world from the energy crisis etc and turn it into a antigravity-UFO-
powered utopia? 

This is significant in that it proved that there might indeed be tension energy.

No, it proved that you have zero proof. It may at best be significant to show if your observations are correct. The observations which
you yourself doubt for good reason, and which you should repeat with proper instrumentation and measurement over far more than four
little swings of the pendulum, so far do not prove anything at all.

(I suspect so because the string I used is stretchable in practice though not by much).

Yes, that's better: you SUSPECT there MIGHT be something going on.
Don't go yelling you have proven what you have not proven.

We do not need to do it.  Milkovic of Russia has done it for us.

No, that is incorrect.
Milkovic has been working on HIS OWN devices using his own views and theoretical interpretation.
Do not try to shift responsibility for providing evidence of YOUR claims onto Milkovic!
You must defend and prove your own claims!
You cannot come here and shout that you have your great theory and you know how to produce OU,
and then when people want you to prove it suddenly point toward someone else and say "he proved it"
and claim that dismisses you from any responsibility to prove your own claims!
... Why do you insist on hiding behind others? Prove your own claims, man!
Or finally admit that you cannot.
It is like with the patent authority that dismissed your application on the grounds of it being not scientifically sound:
you can whine all you want, but if you had any proof you would simply present it and not need to whine.
The fact that you keep whining and still cannot present any proof of your claims, and perhaps also a little
the fact that the patent authority dismissed your claims for the same reasons as people here don't swallow it,
makes me think you are full of crap.