The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[shruggedatlas]

You are correct in using a pulley to change a horizontal force to a vertical one.

But in the pendulum system, where are the pulleys or equivalent?

In the pendulum system, the string itself is the equivalent.  It acts identically to a curved incline plane, a basic machine, which allows a smaller force to lift an object it would otherwise not have been able to lift.

If you can explain how a pendulum is different from a curved incline plane for the purposes of a single pull, I would be happy to hear it.

[Pirate88179]

I'm sorry Lawrence.  The Professor Whoflungdung look-alike contest is closed.  The voting continues and the results will be known soon.  Nice try though.

Bill

[Kul_ash]

Dear Mr. Itseung,
Oh My God!! Are you writting your own Physics while writing your own theory? *** I do not need to!  They are already in O-level physics textbooks.  I only need to correct the misuse of the Law of Conservation of Energy when applied to the pendulum with a horizontal pull.

1. How can you apply a pure horizontal force to the radial motion? If you are going to lift the pendulum, then the force has to be tangential. Show me how you give simple horizontal motion to a swing!

2. You say first pull is horizontal and second pull is tangential and you all analysis depends on first horizontal pull. Where is the analysis of tangential force?

Dear Kul_ash,

I hope you do not mind my jumping in.  I could not resist a good technical debate.

I think you totally misinterpreted the Lee-Tseung Pulls.  Tseung did used the term ?pulse? at one time ? even in the PCT patent application.  You were not the first or the only one to raise strong objections to that term.

The term that may cause less confusion is the new term previously unknown in Physics ? Lee-Tseung Pull at the right time.  That Lee-Tseung Pull needs to be applied periodically.

Now to answer your specific question. 
(1a) How can you apply a pure horizontal force to the radial motion?
The first Lee-Tseung Pull is applied to the stationary pendulum.  We do not need to consider radial motion as we are using statics (or no motion physics).  There is no motion initially.  There is no motion at the highest displaced position on the RHS.   We are comparing the force, displacement, work, energy at the initial position and at this end position (maximum RHS position).

(1b) If you are going to lift the pendulum, then the force has to be tangential.
In the first Lee-Tseung Pull, the direction of the Pull is horizontal.  The direction of the String is vertical.  You may say that the initial force F is tangential. 

(1c) Show me how you give simple horizontal motion to a swing!
Go to the Park with a swing.  Bring your son or a child.  You can give an initial push or pull in almost any direction.  You may even try to push the swing vertically.  That might not cause any motion (if your upward force is less than the combined weight of the child and the swing).  However, almost any horizontal or inclined pull or push will move the swing from its initial rest position.

Concluding (1) ? In our analysis of the first Lee-Tseung Pull, we consider the force, displacement, work and energy at the initial rest position and at the new displaced position before we let go of the constant externally supplied force F. 

2. You say first pull is horizontal and second pull is tangential and you all analysis depends on first horizontal pull. Where is the analysis of tangential force?

Please read reply 1106 on page 28 of this thread.  The attached document is   Cosmic_Energy_Machines5.doc (259 KB - downloaded 20 times.)  Appendix A of this document discusses the tangential pulls.

If the first Lee-Tseung Pull can lead out gravitational energy, we need not confuse the members of this open forum with the more complicated second and subsequent pulls.  Those who have stronger mathematical background can read that attached document.  Research Students at Tsinghua University said: ?We can do it ourselves.?  You can double check the mathematics and ask for the detailed spreadsheet later.

Dear Top Gun,
1. I might not be as "Bright" as students in Tsinghua University but I "DO" understand basic Physics.
2. You and Mr. Tseung are so confused about the pull, push and constant force that you contradict youserf often.
3. As far as Mr. Tseung wrote in his earlier post that the first pull is constant. Now you tell me to go to part and try to push or pull child on swing in horizontal direction. My dear friend, tell me one thing, if I am going to apply a constant initial force, my hand are going to move radialy along the arc length of Pendulum. Will that be a constant horizontal force? I am applying initial pull because I want to raise the swing to a certain height to give it a momentum! "I AM DOING THAT WORK". According to your theory, I will be just moving it horizontally and "lead out" gravity will give it upward movement. Tell me how in the world is that possible? Have you yourself ever taken a child to a swing?  And now if you are talking just about the horizontal push, then it is same as the pulse force which is not constant force. Please make up your mind.
4. I think students in Tsinghua University  follow different physics than what world follows. I asked you if horizontal motion is going to give only horizontal work, then it means to overcome gravity, gravity itself helps you and give you 2 units. One to overcome itself and other to raise in height. Can you please enlighten me on this?
5. I also asked you that if mg is acting downwards, how in the world its giving you upwards movement? If you talk about parallelogram of forces, then you can not possibly get away from direction of forces. You have conviniently overlooked the direction of mg and shown mg is giving you upward motion. Do Students at Tsinghua University , youself and Mr. Tseung think this Physics is wrong and you need to write your own physics by changing direction of forces?
6. Has the thought occured to you that your initial pull "is" responsible for lifting the pendulum? Normal physics says, weight of the pendulum is going to pull it down and if you want to raise it you have to apply more force to overcome gravity. And isn't that specifically you are doing in your initial pull? Horizontal component of that force will be used to overcome the initial air resistance and to give horizontal displacement and vertical component of the force will be used to over come gravitational force and to give vertical displacement.
7. You really do not understand it or you just do not want to understand it and keep on saying that you have defeted Nature's law?
8. Are doing this just to save yourself from having red face infront of world scientific community or you really under some dillusion that you have got a brake thru?

I really do not see any reason to see your Cosmic machine analysis. It would not be any good to read a theory  if the basic assumptions themselves are soo wrong. Is that what is taught in Tsinghua University ? Please make no mistake in thinking that I do not understand advanced mathematics! But I am not going to go in any of that unless and until you make your basics clear.
It is very easy to write theories based on wrong assumptions. But it is you who should make attempts to change your assumptions if so many people show fallacy in them.
It is the precise reason, why you are not able to get any working machine and all you are doing is wasting your time on theories based on wrong assumptions!

[Top Gun]

3. As far as Mr. Tseung wrote in his earlier post that the first pull is constant. Now you tell me to go to park and try to push or pull child on swing in horizontal direction. My dear friend, tell me one thing, if I am going to apply a constant initial force, my hand are going to move radialy along the arc length of Pendulum. Will that be a constant horizontal force? I am applying initial pull because I want to raise the swing to a certain height to give it a momentum! "I AM DOING THAT WORK". According to your theory, I will be just moving it horizontally and "lead out" gravity will give it upward movement. Tell me how in the world is that possible? Have you yourself ever taken a child to a swing?  And now if you are talking just about the horizontal push, then it is same as the pulse force which is not constant force. Please make up your mind.

Dear Kul_ash,

Let us focus on Physics and Mathematics.  Do not add insults in your otherwise logical and high quality posts.

The first Lee-Tseung Pull analysis compares the Force, Displacement, Work and energy in the two positions.  Position A is the initial rest position.  That is Slide 2.  There are two forces Mg and T.  They are equal and opposite.  There is no displacement and no work and hence no energy.  This is used as a reference point.

Position B is the maximum RHS displaced position.  There are three forces: Mg, T1 and F.  These three forces are at equilibrium.  There is vertical and horizontal displacement.  Thus there is work done compared with Position A.  Work done implies energy supplied to the pendulum system.

All Mr. Tseung did was to apply O-level physics to the two positions.  Every equation and every step is produced in this improved presentation.

The park example is to show that any Pull or Push at any angle may be able to move the pendulum from the rest position.  However, those are not ideal Lee-Tseung Pulls.  They are not efficient or even negate the Leading Out of gravitational energy if applied at the wrong time.

Please discuss Slide 3 again.  Now you understand that Slide 2 and 3 (Plus 4,5 and 6) are used to compare the force, displacement, work and energy at two different positions.  Can you possibly find anything wrong with the mathematics and physics?

[Koen1]

@Kul_ash: You've figured out what the big problem is that most people have with Tseungs "theory".
I do not expect him to be able to give any proper explanation, he will probably do what he always does,
which is to keep repeating his claims without any proof, and to try and discredit you in various ways.
Oh, and "Top Gun" is just one of Tseungs alter egos that he uses to try to convince others that
his theory is not crazy. There's a few more. And don't be surprised if he conjures up a few non-existant
students having a fantasy discussion about himself either. I guess that's the Chinese way of convincing
people: pretending to be your own fanclub.

I can just see Tseung go to the park, walk up to a kid on a swing, and apply his constant push...
Can you imagine that? So he runs up to the swing, hits the kid full force, then keeps running
to maintain his constant force, and then "leads out" gravity flat on his face...
Just kidding.

No, really, I still don't see
A) how exactly this "constant force" is applied "at the right time", for any force applied only at a specific
point or period in time cannot be constant at the same time. Either it's constant, thus not periodical,
or it is periodical, thus not constant. Both is quite contradictory.
B) how exactly the alleged "lead out" energy is actually extracted from the pendulum setup
C) proof.

And as you will have noticed, "Top Gun" a.k.a. "Tseung" simply keeps repeating over and over again
that the slides, theory, applied formulae and calculations are correct.
But never does he actually conclusively prove his theory to be correct.
He only repeats his claims and dismisses or ignores valid objections and questions that do not
agree with him or his theory.
It is his standard tactic and he does not seem to understand that this does not convince anyone here.
We are not stupid, and he can keep shouting that he has found the goose with the golden eggs,
but if he never shows us the golden eggs then simply repeating the claim that he has them
will never convince anyone. But apparently he cannot understand that.