Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets

[ltseung888]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

i wonder if Tseung will take the time to scroll down on the page above to the section marked "Electrical power".....and.."Instantaneous electrical power"..and,,"Peak power and duty cycle" ??

if he does...maybe he might see the error of his ways

Dear rave154,

Thank you for pointing to the definition in Wikipedia.  I am reproducing the graph here.

There is absolutely no misunderstanding or error on my part.  The instantaneous power is the product of the instantaneous voltage x the instantaneous current.  The oscilloscope can display the instantaneous voltage form directly.  It can also display the instantaneous current via the voltage across a 1 ohm resistor.  Most oscilloscopes can also display their product to show the instantaneous power.

My understanding has no conflict with that defined in Wikipedia.  Please check with any Physics or Electrical Engineering Professor at any top universities.

Prof. T is right: “Posting on the Internet is not equivalent to publishing in a scientific journal for vigorous peer review.”

Posting on the Internet is to establish proof that the concept or theory was conceived on a certain date.  Comments from non-qualified individuals are not important. But they help to establish the time frame.  Disputes on who conceived the idea first will come sooner or later.

Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory is absolutely correct.  Will it be called Lee-Tseung, Newman, Bedini, Liang, Steven Mark, HKU, UCI, MIT or Nikola Tesla theory???

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

[XS-NRG]

That is so WRONG

[ltseung888]

Sound intensity is defined as: The sound power per unit area.

A microphone does not measure sound intensity, rather it measures sound pressure level, or SPL. This may make the energy test and calculation invalid. You need sound pressure and particle velocity to obtain sound intensity. I = p x v.

A higher SPL reading on the microphone does not mean that the particle velocity did not decrease, because you have not measured it. CoE implies that the particle velocity would decrease if SPL increased, in order to maintain the same energy.

Don't confuse resonance with a systemic gain in energy, because it is not. What you are observing is a more efficient transference of energy from one place to the other, and back again. This does not imply that WORK is being accomplished in the process, because it may not be. It depends on the "load" seen by the "system".

For example: The charge stored in one capacitor can be efficiently transferred to another capacitor of equal value via a low loss inductor, and this transfer can occur back and forth and be "prolonged" for quite some time, indefinitely if the inductor were completely lossless. However, if there are no losses or "loads", there is absolutely no work done in the process.

With two tuning forks, there is air resistance which is lossy (i.e. a load), and the fact that unless the tuning forks are separated exactly by a whole multiple of the wavelength, there will be destructive interference between them.

There is a whole lot more to this than you may realize, and you have not come forward with what your ultimate point is in all of this anyway? Surely, you are not implying that two tuning forks in resonance is a free energy device, or that free energy can be extracted from it somehow? 

.99

Dear poynt99,

Let me help Observer to state his claim.  The theory may later be named after him!

The Observer Hypothesis is: “There is Unrecognized Source Energy (USE) coming into play when two identical tuning forks are placed next to each other and only one is struck.  The resulting sound is louder and lasts longer.”

The Tseung modification is: “At sympathetic vibration or resonance between two tuning forks, there will be lead-out or bring-in energy from the surrounding environment.  The total energy of the two tuning fork system is larger than that supplied by striking the first tuning fork.”
The bring-in energy is likely to be similar to that of the pulsed oscillating pendulum â€" gravity.  The vibrating air will undoubtedly play a part as it is the medium to transmit the pulsing.

We can discuss and do experiments later.  But this date (Dec 4, 2010) will be recorded as the definitive Observer Hypothesis establishment date.

Any theoretician quoting the two tuning fork example having Unrecognized Source Energy (USE) will be too late.  (The ones who discovered this before today may still be valid contestants.)

I may as well state the more general Tseung Hypothesis: “In any resonance phenomenon, energy from the surrounding will be lead-out or brought-in into the system.  With proper feedback, the amplitude of oscillation or vibration will show exponential increase.  One can build bring-in energy machines using this phenomenon.  Such machines will not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.”

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

[chrisC]

Dear poynt99,

...
We can discuss and do experiments later.  But this date (Dec 4, 2010) will be recorded as the definitive Observer Hypothesis establishment date.
..
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

Well, either the rest of the learned people on this forum are complete idiots  and you're God's gift to the world, or you're simply completely idiotic and delusional, down to your bones! One clown is bad enough, we don't need two! 

cheers
chrisC

[XS-NRG]