Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets

[ltseung888]

Pure Magnetic motor with no battery?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3227d5Css

Wang Shenhe now has a potential competitor?

[XS-NRG]

It has a battery CLOWN you can hear the logic BEEP and the RELAY click when he turns it on.
Use your ears CLOWN.

He's a scam artist just like you are a CLOWN.

[ltseung888]

The Conclusive Experiments

The Almighty answers sincere prayers.  I have now identified qualified individuals and organizations to do the Conclusive Experiments.  The list of planned "conclusive" experiments may include:

1. Four or more tuning fork resonance experiments - conclusively demonstrate that energy from air is brought-in at resonance.

2. The pulsing pendulum - conclusively demonstrate that graviational energy is brought-in with the right pulsing frequency and amplitude.

3. The magnetic pulsing pendulum - conclusively demonstrate that magnetic energy is brought-in with better control.

4. The singing resonating transformer or toroid - conclusively demonstrate that magnetic energy can be brought-in at low frequency.

5. The pulse rotating wheel - conclusively demonstrate that the oscillation or vibration can be replaced by pulse rotation for greater efficiency. ( The Bedini wheel may be our example.  Sterling Allen is familiar with that device.)

6. The flux change device (FLEET or Forever Lead-out Electromagnetic Energy Transformer) - conclusively demonstrate that the Instantaneous Output Power is greater than the Instantaneous Power.  COP can be much greater than 1.  Best prototype has COP > 200 with careful tuning and feedback.

Experiment 1 and 4 are inspired by Observer. 

Here are the details of Experiment 1

Conclusive Experiments to show that Energy from the surrounding can be lead-out or brought-in. 


Experiment 1 â€" Four or more Tuning Forks in resonance

Proposed by: Lawrence Tseung     Date: December 15, 2010

Performed by:         Date: 

Objective:
1.   To show that the sound produced by two or more identical tuning forks on resonance boxes is louder and lasts longer than that from a single tuning fork.
2.   If true, ask the question â€" where does the extra sound energy come from?
3.   Can the extra sound energy come from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?
4.   Is it possible for the first vibrating tuning fork to lead-out the kinetic energy of the air molecules because it changes the random motion to an ordered pulse?
5.   Is it possible that the correct explanation of sound resonance is as follows:
A vibrating or oscillating source can induce ordered motion of the air molecules.  The ordered motion can use the kinetic energy inherent in the air molecules to do useful work â€" such as sympathetically vibrate the second, the third, etc tuning forks.

Equipment needed:
Basic â€" Four identical tuning forks mounted on separate resonance boxes, a striking hammer, a sound recorder or video camera, a clock or stop watch
Optional â€" Microphone connected to Oscilloscope for visual display, decibel meter, data logger and computer for comparative analysis.

Procedure:
1.   Place the first tuning fork alone in a quiet room.  Strike it with the hammer.  Record the loudness and duration of the sound.  The sound recorder or video camera should be placed approximately 50 centimeters from the tuning fork.
2.   If a video camera were used, it should show the readings on a clock so that the entire duration of the experiment can be accurately timed and displayed.
3.   If an Oscilloscope is available, do screen capture of the waveform.  Send the information to a data logger and computer for comparative analysis.  This is the reference curve.
4.   Repeat steps 1-3 at least 3 times to average out the difference due to different striking force.
5.   Place a second tuning fork next to the first tuning fork.  Adjust the distance and the orientation until the loudest sound is heard.  Then repeat steps 1-4 with the video camera placed approximately 50 centimeters form the first tuning fork.
6.   Compared the loudness and time duration of the sound produced in the two cases.
7.   Repeat steps 1-6 with the third, fourth, etc. tuning forks.

Comments:
1.   The minimum order from a manufacturer in China is 20 sets.  Each set consists of one tuning fork, one resonance box and one hammer.  Four sets are sufficient for this experiment.  However, it is a good idea to do a demonstration of all 20 sets in a quiet room.  That quiet room may act as a resonance chamber. 
2.   Once we agree on the details of the above experiment including who will do it; when to do it; where to do it; how to maintain it and how to distribute the 20 sets etc, we can order the units from the manufacturer.  The quoted price was US$200 including shipping costs.  That amount of money has already been raised by Todd.
3.   The significance of this experiment is to conclusively demonstrate that the additional tuning forks will produce louder and longer sounds.
4.   These louder and longer sounds will require additional energy other than that from striking the first tuning fork.
5.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the additional energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The vibration of the first tuning fork “pulse orders” the random motion of the molecules so that these molecules strike the other tuning forks at their resonance frequency.  Such action is similar to pushing a swing.  If the pushing or pulsing frequency is correct, the swing will go higher. If the frequency is not correct, the swing will not go much higher.
6.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the tuning fork itself is already an energy loopback system.  When it pushes air in one direction, the compressed air will help to push it back to the other direction.  (The stiffness of the fork is another important factor.)  For resonance systems, the amplitude of oscillation or vibration will rise exponentially at or near resonance.  This phenomenon can be explained easily if we assume that there is additional energy coming into the system.
7.   If the initial energy of the system is 1 and 0.X percentage units of energy are brought-in.  On successive feedbacks, the energy of the system will rise as (1+0.X)*(1+0.X)*(1+0.X)….
8.   Thus the lead-out or bring-in energy theory can explain the exponential rise in amplitude near or at resonance.
9.   If the phenomenon of tuning fork resonance is due to bringing-in of additional energy from the environment, can we extend the same concept to electrical circuit (e.g. LCR) resonance?
10.   In the case of electromagnetism, magnetic effects can be produced by an orbiting electron around the nucleus.  This is known as a magnetic dipole.  Such dipoles have energy but are normally orientated in random directions.  If some order is induced, is it possible to lead-out or bring-in such electromagnetic energy?

Thus if Experiment 1 is conclusive, the Lee-Tseung Lead-out Energy Theory may be correct.  The theory is called Lee-Tseung because Mr. Lee Cheung Kin, a retired missile expert from China, and Mr. Lawrence Tseung were the first ones to understand this and used the term lead-out energy in their PCT patent applications in 2005.

[ltseung888]

Additional Comments on Experiment 1

E1.  This experiment can be done by any secondary school student in any part of the World.  It is easy to replicate.  There can be no room for hoax.  The debunkers and insulters cannot possibly attack the validity of the experiment and the results. 

E2.  The experiment itself is simple.  The implication is immense.  If the result is as predicted â€" the sound is louder and lasts longer with additional tuning forks - that will mean more sound energy.  Where does this extra energy come from?

E3.  The Lee-Tseung Lead-out energy theory may be correct.  The kinetic energy of air molecules is brought-in.  If this is conclusive, it will change the entire teaching of resonance in Physics.  No one previously has proposed that extra energy will come into the system at resonance.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Have you read my post about resonance ? The main problem with resonance extraction is when you place a load R, the Q factor decrease, so the resonance is damped because R increase.
When a transformer or a coil is loaded L decrease (coz Lenz Law), even if well tuned at Fo. The big deal is how to extract power without disrupting the Q factor.
This is why conventional scientist said is impossible to extract power from resonance: the load R disrupt Fo and decrease the Q factor (so called overvoltage factor). Q factor is an energy amplification or your "Lead-Out energy" no matter.
Super conducting coil (R=0) can be the solution but they are very expensive and need constant cooling, (the energy can be took on the resonance extraction.)
Your tuning forks idea is not wrong but not true also, I have read on Wikipedia tuning forks have a Q of 1000 !!! this is exceptional.
But try to put a load (R) at one tuning fork by touching it with your hand.
The Q is literally destroyed and your tuning fork doesn't vibrate anymore...
End of story, no energy "created"...