Lee ? Tseung ?Lead out Gravitational force? theory!
1. This theory is so wrong it its assumptions that you do not have to even think much about it. But I wanted to do my own analysis to find out fallacy in this theory.
2. Here in this theory the new term ?Lead out Gravitational Energy? is used. The author is claiming that this is the additional energy given to the pendulum system when a pulse force is applied. This energy is an excess energy and it is available freely to do the extra work. In other words it is a ?Perpetual Motion Machine?.
3. Now please refer to http://rapidshare.com/files/107462223/New_Energy_V8.PPT.html , for details and latest explanation provided by author.
4. Slide no. 3 is the basic of this theory. So read it carefully. It has been shown as displaced pendulum having F as horizontal force and mg as a weight of pendulum bob. Now Author claims this is a ?Pulse Force? or in other words a force given in very short duration of time and is not continuous.
5. Now if the force is not continuous and it is applied when pendulum is stationary, then it will be used to overcome the initial inertia of pendulum bob, gravity, air resistance and friction at the joint. When these all forces are overcome, remaining force will be converted in giving kinetic energy to the system and hence the work done by the Pulse force F is done. Remember, it is not a continuous force. This force is gone, done with!
6. Now when pendulum will arrive at the shown position, it would be the maximum displacement it can achieve by the provided force F.
7. FALACY: If the force is already consumed in doing work against gravity, inertia, air resistance, friction and providing kinetic energy to the system, how come it is again shown as ?F? even in displaced position? It is NOT A CONTINUOUS FORCE. Even if we consider intermediate position, this F would be way smaller than the initial F because it?s already consumed in doing so much work.
8. So according to his force calculations:
Horizontal Force = F x L sin a = 0 x L sin a = 0
Vertical force = m x g x vertical displacement = mgh = Potential energy.
Pulse force F is utilized in giving Potential energy to system and Total energy in system at that position is equal to PE. That?s it! There is unfortunately no miracle and there is nothing called as Lead energy. Author is considering non existing force and thus he is getting additional energy in his calculations.
9. So the basis of this whole theory it self is wrong. No wonder, author is getting extra energy in the system, the so called ?Lead Out Gravitational Energy?. Because he does not want to let go of the initial pulse force F. Author is so eager to get the ?free energy? and make a world go mad after his theory, that he is not even ready to write a simple basic principles of Physics.
10. In reality, if the pendulum is stationary, then it will need a huge force even to move it. In normal working of pendulum system, we lift it a bit and let it acquire PE and then release it. If we try to add Pulse force when system where PE is 0 and KE is max i.e. the vertical force, it will put system completely out of balance.
11. Consider the example of Child?s Swing. Parents push the swing when it is at pick. They first apply continuous force to lift the swing to a certain height and then release it and keep on adding energy to it to keep it moving. Now consider a situation when parents just give the initial jerk to the pendulum and let go. What will happen? Nothing the swing will be out of balance for a while, move a bit and then would stop. Have you ever seen any magical energy that will still keep moving this swing?
12. Additional ?Lead Out Energy? obtained by author is thus based on Bogus theorem and does not even validate as ?may be possible? situation.
13. Gravitational force is the attraction force and it will attract you no matter what if you are not able to provide force to overcome it. To overcome Gravity, you need tremendous force like the one given to Rockets. If gravitational energy is attraction force then why would it give you force to overcome itself as per Author?s theory? That will possibly defy all the laws of gravity.
14. So in all this is a theory completely based on incorrect assumptions and author should either prove, how he is getting same F at displaced position or scrap his theory in Toto.
Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.
1. This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2. This oscillator also works on principle of pendulumïÂÅ . There is a huge fulcrum. On one side you have a heavy hammer and on other side you have a pendulum which weighs equally as hammer. When pendulum is set in motion and it gets in resonance then at a small moment of time when it is at its pick displacement, it becomes weightless. Thus the total weight is transferred to the hammer and its produces a large force. Now if you apply just enough force to keep the pendulum overcoming frictional and resistive forces, which is going to be very small, then you have got tremendous work at a very small expense. If you device a system that utilizes this work done to give small fraction of it back to move the pendulum, there you go! You have a system with 12 COP. Amazing isn?t it?
3. FALLACY: Now read a Lever system properly. What is a lever? Archimedes was the first to explain the principle of the lever, stating:
"Weights at equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is at the greater distance."
The point where you apply the force is called the effort. The effect of applying this force is called the load. The load arm and the effort arm are the names given to the distances from the fulcrum to the load and effort, respectively. Using these definitions, the Law of the Lever is:
Load arm X load force = effort arm X effort force. When 2 things are balanced, when a 1 gram feather for instance is balanced by a one kilogram rock on a lever the feather would go up and the rock would go down, but if a 1 kilogram rock was balanced by a 1 kilogram rock, the lever would be in the middle.
4. In other words, if the system is perfectly balanced, even applying a small load on one side can lift up the other side. So now can we say, that see I am moving a rock of 100 kg with a force of say 1 kg? No.
5. Now in Milkovic system, as the weight of hammer and weight of pendulum are equal, the fulcrum is in the middle. Now according to the principle of lever, even a small force is going to move the hammer. I did not understand use of pendulum there. If instead of pendulum, I have a counter weight, I am going to get same effect. Only thing is that I will have to pull counterweight vertically and if it?s a pendulum, I will use horizontal force.
6. Remember, the main work of balancing the large weight is done by the counter weight and not by the small force I am applying. I am using lever because it will be easier for me to move this weight with a small force. BUT NO MATTER HOW SMALL THIS ADDED FORCE IS, IT?S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ?EXTRA? OR ?ADDITIONAL? FORCE. If you do not supply this additional force, the weights will balance each other and system will come to equilibrium and it will come to full stop.
7. The added force is doing only the additional work and exactly that much extra work is what you are getting. So there is practically ?NO WAY? to generate this additional force from the system itself and ?CLOSE THE LOOP?.
8. Principle of lever is in use for long time and many industries use it every day and every minute. For example you have Pulley system, fly presses etc which do the same work. A man who can not lift 500 kg weight with his own hands, can lift is easily with pulley. So will it be wise to say that he is working with over unity?
9. And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10. Any one has better solution or explanation than this?
That is an excellent analysis. Thank you for bringing clarity to these muddled concepts.
I think if there were any real justice in the world, this topic should be exactly twice the size of Lawrence's topic. There is so much muddled physics, math, and general overall hogwash there. I just attend for the comedy.
Bill
Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 07:21:27 AM
Lee ? Tseung ?Lead out Gravitational force? theory!
1. This theory is so wrong it its assumptions that you do not have to even think much about it. But I wanted to do my own analysis to find out fallacy in this theory.
2. Here in this theory the new term ?Lead out Gravitational Energy? is used. The author is claiming that this is the additional energy given to the pendulum system when a pulse force is applied. This energy is an excess energy and it is available freely to do the extra work. In other words it is a ?Perpetual Motion Machine?.
3. Now please refer to http://rapidshare.com/files/107462223/New_Energy_V8.PPT.html , for details and latest explanation provided by author.
4. Slide no. 3 is the basic of this theory. So read it carefully. It has been shown as displaced pendulum having F as horizontal force and mg as a weight of pendulum bob. Now Author claims this is a ?Pulse Force? or in other words a force given in very short duration of time and is not continuous.
5. Now if the force is not continuous and it is applied when pendulum is stationary, then it will be used to overcome the initial inertia of pendulum bob, gravity, air resistance and friction at the joint. When these all forces are overcome, remaining force will be converted in giving kinetic energy to the system and hence the work done by the Pulse force F is done. Remember, it is not a continuous force. This force is gone, done with!
6. Now when pendulum will arrive at the shown position, it would be the maximum displacement it can achieve by the provided force F.
7. FALACY: If the force is already consumed in doing work against gravity, inertia, air resistance, friction and providing kinetic energy to the system, how come it is again shown as ?F? even in displaced position? It is NOT A CONTINUOUS FORCE. Even if we consider intermediate position, this F would be way smaller than the initial F because it?s already consumed in doing so much work.
8. So according to his force calculations:
Horizontal Force = F x L sin a = 0 x L sin a = 0
Vertical force = m x g x vertical displacement = mgh = Potential energy.
Pulse force F is utilized in giving Potential energy to system and Total energy in system at that position is equal to PE. That?s it! There is unfortunately no miracle and there is nothing called as Lead energy. Author is considering non existing force and thus he is getting additional energy in his calculations.
9. So the basis of this whole theory it self is wrong. No wonder, author is getting extra energy in the system, the so called ?Lead Out Gravitational Energy?. Because he does not want to let go of the initial pulse force F. Author is so eager to get the ?free energy? and make a world go mad after his theory, that he is not even ready to write a simple basic principles of Physics.
10. In reality, if the pendulum is stationary, then it will need a huge force even to move it. In normal working of pendulum system, we lift it a bit and let it acquire PE and then release it. If we try to add Pulse force when system where PE is 0 and KE is max i.e. the vertical force, it will put system completely out of balance.
11. Consider the example of Child?s Swing. Parents push the swing when it is at pick. They first apply continuous force to lift the swing to a certain height and then release it and keep on adding energy to it to keep it moving. Now consider a situation when parents just give the initial jerk to the pendulum and let go. What will happen? Nothing the swing will be out of balance for a while, move a bit and then would stop. Have you ever seen any magical energy that will still keep moving this swing?
12. Additional ?Lead Out Energy? obtained by author is thus based on Bogus theorem and does not even validate as ?may be possible? situation.
13. Gravitational force is the attraction force and it will attract you no matter what if you are not able to provide force to overcome it. To overcome Gravity, you need tremendous force like the one given to Rockets. If gravitational energy is attraction force then why would it give you force to overcome itself as per Author?s theory? That will possibly defy all the laws of gravity.
14. So in all this is a theory completely based on incorrect assumptions and author should either prove, how he is getting same F at displaced position or scrap his theory in Toto.
Kul_ash, you have dug a big hole yourself. The more you dig, the deeper it will go. May be even to my home.
I do not want you as a visitor. So I am giving you a rope to climb out.
You stated ?
Now Author claims this is a ?Pulse Force? or in other words a force given in very short duration of time and is not continuous. Tseung defined the ?pulse force? as Lee-Tseung Pulls at the right time. These pulls would be repeated.
You can claim that you never read through the over 2,000 posts. Thus you never knew the Tseung?s special definition of ?Pulse Force?.
You can then claim that Tseung misused the term and thus confused you. Once the confusion is cleared, there cannot be anything wrong with the Tseung mathematics and physics. Now I have given you the rope. Are you going to climb out???
Quote from: shruggedatlas on April 15, 2008, 02:18:23 PM
That is an excellent analysis. Thank you for bringing clarity to these muddled concepts.
shruggedatlas, consult your physics friends before you call some Physics analysis excellent. I do not want you in my home either. Do not climb down the hole with Kul_ash. Help him to get up!!! Tell him the Lee-Tseung pull is not a collision.
Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 08:54:20 AM
Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.
1. This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2. This oscillator also works on principle of pendulum.....
9. And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10. Any one has better solution or explanation than this?
Kul_ash, when you climb up from the hole, you will be able to use the Lee-Tseung theory to explain the real physics and mathematics of the Milkovic toy.
Milkovic did not understand the Lee-Tseung theory at the time he provided the huge "mathematical explanation". Hopefully, he is wiser now after he and his friends at Archimedes have a chance to digest the Lee-Tseung theory. (or read and filtered through the 2000 posts in this forum.)
You can even help him to improve his toy - use pulsed rotation. If you do not like the word pulse, you can invent a word such as
Kul_ash impartation of energy. You can confuse someone else!!!
Quote from: Devil on April 17, 2008, 09:05:22 PM
Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 08:54:20 AM
Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.
1. This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2. This oscillator also works on principle of pendulum.....
9. And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10. Any one has better solution or explanation than this?
Kul_ash, when you climb up from the hole, you will be able to use the Lee-Tseung theory to explain the real physics and mathematics of the Milkovic toy.
Milkovic did not understand the Lee-Tseung theory at the time he provided the huge "mathematical explanation". Hopefully, he is wiser now after he and his friends at Archimedes have a chance to digest the Lee-Tseung theory. (or read and filtered through the 2000 posts in this forum.)
You can even help him to improve his toy - use pulsed rotation. If you do not like the word pulse, you can invent a word such as Kul_ash impartation of energy. You can confuse someone else!!!
Ha ha ha ha! That was funny ;D Actuallu you know why I want to prove these guys wrong Devil? Because I have my own OU theory which is very radical and I do not want any competition and want world to focus only on my technology!!! ::)
Quote from: Devil on April 17, 2008, 09:05:22 PM
Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 08:54:20 AM
Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.
1. This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2. This oscillator also works on principle of pendulum.....
9. And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10. Any one has better solution or explanation than this?
Kul_ash, when you climb up from the hole, you will be able to use the Lee-Tseung theory to explain the real physics and mathematics of the Milkovic toy.
Milkovic did not understand the Lee-Tseung theory at the time he provided the huge "mathematical explanation". Hopefully, he is wiser now after he and his friends at Archimedes have a chance to digest the Lee-Tseung theory. (or read and filtered through the 2000 posts in this forum.)
You can even help him to improve his toy - use pulsed rotation. If you do not like the word pulse, you can invent a word such as Kul_ash impartation of energy. You can confuse someone else!!!
And don't waste a rope! Give me a ladder. This rope could be and should be used to make a pendulum and generate more and more free energy! ;)
@ Kul_ash:
Wow! Does your theory contain ideas that have no basis in known, and unknown physics? Will you make up alter-egos in an attempt to explain it to us? Will you contradict yourself while explaining this theory to us? Do you think you can continue to explain your theory to us without ever attempting the most simple of experiments that might prove, or disprove, your theory? Will your theory contain words that physicists have used for years but yet you redefine their meaning to fit your theory? (ie continuous pulse) If so, I am looking forward to hearing about it and maybe you can get the Chinese government to send top officials to meet with you...and if you are really lucky, you might even get to meet the famous Professor Whoflungdung. What an honor that would be. I envy you.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 18, 2008, 02:32:34 AM
@ Kul_ash:
Wow! Does your theory contain ideas that have no basis in known, and unknown physics? Will you make up alter-egos in an attempt to explain it to us? Will you contradict yourself while explaining this theory to us? Do you think you can continue to explain your theory to us without ever attempting the most simple of experiments that might prove, or disprove, your theory? Will your theory contain words that physicists have used for years but yet you redefine their meaning to fit your theory? (ie continuous pulse) If so, I am looking forward to hearing about it and maybe you can get the Chinese government to send top officials to meet with you...and if you are really lucky, you might even get to meet the famous Professor Whoflungdung. What an honor that would be. I envy you.
Bill
Yep! It contains all the spice required! ;) I am looking forward to meet Professor Whoflungdung. I can show him my machine working. About the ego, some how my machine seems to have it a lot! If any one asks me questions and make a mockery of it, then it just stops working. :-[ May be some one like Professor Whoflungdung who won;t make any nasty comment about my machine, it will work! 8)
Quote
The essence of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory
When a sideward pull is applied to a simple pendulum, the lead out gravitational energy is equal to the vertical component of the tension of the string times the vertical component of the displacement. So long as there is tension on the string, gravitational energy will be Lead Out. The ideal Lee-Tseung Pull is when the direction of pull is tangential.
æŽè"£å¼•å‡ºåœ°å¿ƒå¼•åŠ›ç†è«–çš,,ç²¾è¦
當æ"ºå‹•å™¨è¢«æ‹‰å'æ—é,Šæ™,，引出çš,,地心引力能é‡æ˜¯ç‰æ–¼ï¼šç¹©æ‹‰åŠ›çš,,åž,直數值乘繩ä½ç§»çš,,åž,直數值ã€,åªè¦ç¹©æœ‰æ‹‰åŠ›ï¼Œåœ°å¿ƒå¼•åŠ›ä¾¿å¯è¢«å¼•å‡ºã€,最佳çš,,æŽè"£æ‹‰åŠ›çš,,æ–¹å'是å'Œç¹©çš,,åŠå¾'æˆ90度(切線) ã€,
To debunk the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory, the debunker has to debunk the Law of Parallelogram of Forces; resolution of force and displacement vectors into vertical and horizontal components and vector arithmetic. No scientists from MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Paris, Tokyo Universities or similar will put their heads on the chopping block.
The challenge will come from stupid, ignorant or paid debunkers. Humans are self-centered ? believing that they are equal to God and Me. In reality, they dug up harmful chemicals from the ground to generate pollution. Clean, abundant and easy-to-use energy has been available since the dawn of Universe.
Even when Tseung stupidly spelled out the theoretical basis and over 300 inventors stumbled on the solution, the foolish human race still covered their eyes with smear, insults and lies.
The Milkovic 2-stage oscillating pendulum works according to the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory. It is a piece of cake. It can be used as a demonstration or as a toy. Trying to use it to solve the Energy Crisis is stupid.
All humans should kneel before me daily and recite:
It is the vertical component of the tension times the vertical displacement that gives the work done by Gravity.
G'day all,
This is how it works:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2794.0%3Battach%3D17563%3Bimage&hash=5cd45d573550c84c1bad0778e9f73a97e3b1d36a)
The Lee-Tseung Pull wins again!
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 24, 2008, 07:56:01 PM
G'day all,
This is how it works:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2794.0%3Battach%3D17563%3Bimage&hash=5cd45d573550c84c1bad0778e9f73a97e3b1d36a)
The Lee-Tseung Pull wins again!
Hans von Lieven
ha ha ha, perfect scientific explanation! :)
@ Hans:
Now this I understand. Thank you for making it clear.
Bill
@Hans,
The cartoon is definitely witty, but Noodledick is getting even worse - if that is possible at all -;
he is fast becoming our everyday lough.
But, I suppose, from his coordinate system we all have a screw loose. Sometimes I feel sorry for
him...
laci
Quote from: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 08:54:20 AM
Veljko Milkovic?s Two Stage Mechanical Amplifier System.
1. This so called amplifier is supposed to be producing 12 times more work than the work provided. Please read http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm for further details.
2. This oscillator also works on principle of pendulumïÂÅ . There is a huge fulcrum. On one side you have a heavy hammer and on other side you have a pendulum which weighs equally as hammer. When pendulum is set in motion and it gets in resonance then at a small moment of time when it is at its pick displacement, it becomes weightless. Thus the total weight is transferred to the hammer and its produces a large force. Now if you apply just enough force to keep the pendulum overcoming frictional and resistive forces, which is going to be very small, then you have got tremendous work at a very small expense. If you device a system that utilizes this work done to give small fraction of it back to move the pendulum, there you go! You have a system with 12 COP. Amazing isn?t it?
3. FALLACY: Now read a Lever system properly. What is a lever? Archimedes was the first to explain the principle of the lever, stating:
"Weights at equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is at the greater distance."
The point where you apply the force is called the effort. The effect of applying this force is called the load. The load arm and the effort arm are the names given to the distances from the fulcrum to the load and effort, respectively. Using these definitions, the Law of the Lever is:
Load arm X load force = effort arm X effort force. When 2 things are balanced, when a 1 gram feather for instance is balanced by a one kilogram rock on a lever the feather would go up and the rock would go down, but if a 1 kilogram rock was balanced by a 1 kilogram rock, the lever would be in the middle.
4. In other words, if the system is perfectly balanced, even applying a small load on one side can lift up the other side. So now can we say, that see I am moving a rock of 100 kg with a force of say 1 kg? No.
5. Now in Milkovic system, as the weight of hammer and weight of pendulum are equal, the fulcrum is in the middle. Now according to the principle of lever, even a small force is going to move the hammer. I did not understand use of pendulum there. If instead of pendulum, I have a counter weight, I am going to get same effect. Only thing is that I will have to pull counterweight vertically and if it?s a pendulum, I will use horizontal force.
6. Remember, the main work of balancing the large weight is done by the counter weight and not by the small force I am applying. I am using lever because it will be easier for me to move this weight with a small force. BUT NO MATTER HOW SMALL THIS ADDED FORCE IS, IT?S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ?EXTRA? OR ?ADDITIONAL? FORCE. If you do not supply this additional force, the weights will balance each other and system will come to equilibrium and it will come to full stop.
7. The added force is doing only the additional work and exactly that much extra work is what you are getting. So there is practically ?NO WAY? to generate this additional force from the system itself and ?CLOSE THE LOOP?.
8. Principle of lever is in use for long time and many industries use it every day and every minute. For example you have Pulley system, fly presses etc which do the same work. A man who can not lift 500 kg weight with his own hands, can lift is easily with pulley. So will it be wise to say that he is working with over unity?
9. And because of not understanding this simple logic, Milkovic is ?STILL NOT ABLE TO CLOSE THE LOOP.? He has provided a huge mathematical explanation which I did not understand because of my simple analysis.
10. Any one has better solution or explanation than this?
What a really stupid post!
The best words: "I did not understand use of pendulum there."
Obviously "NO MATTER HOW SMALL, THIS ADDED FORCE (the counter weight) IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN 'EXTRA' OR 'ADDITIONAL' FORCE." And...? What is the point?
Dear little ignorant, a counter weight
is not a "force", it is a weight. In electricity terms: tension. To move "current" trough this "tension", is called "power".
The two stages pendulum just get that: to move that potential force.
And yes, IT DOES CLOSES THE LOOP. The loop is just there, at the counter weight!, its movement. Up an down, up and down, up... a closed and "unlimited" loop. Why unlimited? Because, the load over the "load arm", does not affect the movement of the first stage pendulum, and the amount of the free source of energy is lower than output force. The full loop can be closed easily, because the nature of both forces is the same: mechanical. This is also called "free energy".
See the video again, and try again.
Quote from: emmanux on November 13, 2008, 10:37:59 PM
Dear little ignorant, a counter weight is not a "force", it is a weight. In electricity terms: tension. To move "current" trough this "tension", is called "power".
Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views, I am sure you have a "closed loop" perpetually moving Milkovic device to show us. What, you don't?
Quote from: emmanux on November 13, 2008, 10:37:59 PM
Because, the load over the "load arm", does not affect the movement of the first stage pendulum,
this is absolutely false , you are totaly wrong
Quote from: utilitarian on November 14, 2008, 08:45:19 PM
Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views, I am sure you have a "closed loop" perpetually moving Milkovic device to show us. What, you don't?
Absolutely yes! I will show it this next year.
Why not show it now?
Is it because it exists so far only on paper, but you are sure it will work as you planned, because of your careful analysis?
OK.
But if you do have it now, I encourage you to show it, because otherwise not many will believe you.
I certainly don't.
Funny, Lawence Tseung (Of Lee-Tseung fame) says he will have a working device next year also. Of course, he has said that now for the last 5 years so, I am not holding my breath.
Bill
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 17, 2008, 01:28:43 PM
Why not show it now?
Is it because it exists so far only on paper, but you are sure it will work as you planned, because of your careful analysis?
OK.
But if you do have it now, I encourage you to show it, because otherwise not many will believe you.
I certainly don't.
I am rebuilding a self destroyed prototype.
Believe what you want.
I say rightly I will show next year, because I'm poor, work hard to survive, have family, and many responsibilities. Certainly I want to show these discoveries to the world, more than you want, but with a budget almost equal to zero, it is not a fast thing.
Greetings...
PS:
Quote
Since you are bold enough to call others ignorant who do not agree with your views
"Ignorant" is not an insult, I am ignorant in many matters, like everybody.
Guys, I don't really know about much about the lead out theory since its just too lengthy for me to read ;D
However I know that the 2 stage oscillator works. As of yet no one (as we know of) has made a version of it which closes the loop, that however does not mean that it is impossible.
What I would wish you all could do is not to look specifically at the machine build by Milkovic, but instead to look at the principle which he utilizes in it. "Resonance is a strange effect" as man on youtube said, "it causes overunity". Allthough I don't completely agree with this statement, it will amplify any oscillation being consumed in the resonant oscillator.
In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU) you can see the common Milkovic oscillator being used with both with a pendulum and a spring.
The principle in work here is resonance combined with a 2-stage separation of the input and output.
This will change the relationship between load and the lowering of the energy stored in the oscillator, which will act most efficient when the load is the largest. This is a completely reversed situation compeered to the normal operation of any machine which oscillates. Normally a wheel for example, will retain most of its energy when it has the lowest amount of load connected to it.
This principle of resonance is also what powers the rotoverter, and can lower the amperage draw immensely while it still keeps the same speed at a specific load.
And long before the rotoverter or the milkovic pendulum was invented, the principle of resonance powered amplification has and is still being used in most of our common and uncommon acoustical instruments.
Have you ever wondered why your classical guitar has a large volume of space inside it?
It is because it amplifies specific frequencies of the original driving sound from the strings on the guitar.
Inside the case of the guitar standing waves will form, which will like any other oscillator increase the amplitude of the vibration when a signal at its resonant frequency is produced.
Since the the wooden walls of the case acts just like the hinge which the pendulum is connected to, vibration induced on the wood and then transformed into sound waves will not result in an equal loss of energy stored inside the the guitar. This can be confirmed with an electrical guitar which do not posses any substantial amplification tendency of sound.
By first ringing the string a couple of times to hear how high the volume of the strings are, you can then compeer it to placing the neck of the guitar towards something which has a lot of surface and also a good sound quality, like wood. This can be you door, wall or any other object which you would like.
What I can guarantee you though is that the sound produced with an acoustical amplifier will be much larger than without one. And then you can begin to wonder why this is happening.
Walter Lewin (think that's his name anyway) at MIT did a similar experiment with a tuning fork over a sound box, and to everybody's astonishment the sound volume increased insanely high!
He didn't say much more about it, but told the students that of course it would be drained much faster, but that is actually not the case! As a matter of fact, placing a tuning fork on a sound box will make the bottom of the fork more stable, and will thus make the oscillation slighly more efficient.
Same thing goes for the string on a guitar when you add the case, the sound will be ten times or more larger but the strings will ring for just as long or longer.
Those of you who are genuinely interested in this fact and wants to understand how and why the Milkociv pendulum works, this is it....
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 17, 2008, 01:44:03 PM
Funny, Lawence Tseung (Of Lee-Tseung fame) says he will have a working device next year also. Of course, he has said that now for the last 5 years so, I am not holding my breath.
Bill
His flying saucer was to have made its debut over the Beijing Olympics remember?
Maybe the MIB's took it
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Nabo00o on May 22, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
Guys, I don't really know about much about the lead out theory since its just too lengthy for me to read ;D
However I know that the 2 stage oscillator works. As of yet no one (as we know of) has made a version of it which closes the loop, that however does not mean that it is impossible.
What I would wish you all could do is not to look specifically at the machine build by Milkovic, but instead to look at the principle which he utilizes in it. "Resonance is a strange effect" as man on youtube said, "it causes overunity". Allthough I don't completely agree with this statement, it will amplify any oscillation being consumed in the resonant oscillator.
In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjZ5wpzhwtU) you can see the common Milkovic oscillator being used with both with a pendulum and a spring.
The principle in work here is resonance combined with a 2-stage separation of the input and output.
This will change the relationship between load and the lowering of the energy stored in the oscillator, which will act most efficient when the load is the largest. This is a completely reversed situation compeered to the normal operation of any machine which oscillates. Normally a wheel for example, will retain most of its energy when it has the lowest amount of load connected to it.
This principle of resonance is also what powers the rotoverter, and can lower the amperage draw immensely while it still keeps the same speed at a specific load.
And long before the rotoverter or the milkovic pendulum was invented, the principle of resonance powered amplification has and is still being used in most of our common and uncommon acoustical instruments.
Have you ever wondered why your classical guitar has a large volume of space inside it?
It is because it amplifies specific frequencies of the original driving sound from the strings on the guitar.
Inside the case of the guitar standing waves will form, which will like any other oscillator increase the amplitude of the vibration when a signal at its resonant frequency is produced.
Since the the wooden walls of the case acts just like the hinge which the pendulum is connected to, vibration induced on the wood and then transformed into sound waves will not result in an equal loss of energy stored inside the the guitar. This can be confirmed with an electrical guitar which do not posses any substantial amplification tendency of sound.
By first ringing the string a couple of times to hear how high the volume of the strings are, you can then compeer it to placing the neck of the guitar towards something which has a lot of surface and also a good sound quality, like wood. This can be you door, wall or any other object which you would like.
What I can quarantine you though is that the sound produced with an acoustical amplifier will be much larger than without one. And then you can begin to wonder why this is happening.
Walter Lewin (think that's his name anyway) at MIT did a similar experiment with a tuning fork over a sound box, and to everybody's astonishment the sound volume increased insanely high!
He didn't say much more about it, but told the students that of course it would be drained much faster, but that is actually not the case! As a matter of fact, placing a tuning fork on a sound box will make the bottom of the fork more stable, and will thus make the oscillation slighly more efficient.
Same thing goes for the string on a guitar when you add the case, the sound will be ten times or more larger but the strings will ring for just as long or longer.
Those of you who are genuinely interested in this fact and wants to understand how and why the Milkociv pendulum works, this is it....
You really should study some acoustics, If you did you would not be talking such obvious nonsense.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 22, 2009, 06:26:21 PM
You really should study some acoustics, If you did you would not be talking such obvious nonsense.
Hans von Lieven
Hans if you had actually tried out more things than you talk about, then maybe you would actually have better insight into the workings of nature. The only reason to why you say that I am talking nonsense is because you haven't tried any of the simple experiments I have told you. If you had then you would have concluded with the opposite.
You like many MANY others, is what makes a world of free energy very hard to reach.
Even if not with purpose, you are in this and many other topics actually suppressing technologies which could be revolutionary if they worked and were not discouraged and laughed at from the beginning.
You think you know it all, or at least you think the scientific establishment which you lends your trust knows all, well they really don't!
I can tell you what the biggest stumble block for todays science and culture is, it is not the lack of intelligence, it is the ignorance and the lack of humbleness.
I myself am not one of the brightest at all, but from the beginning when I began my research on energy and its possible suppression I had an open mind, and decided to put the truth before my goals, even if I would conclude that free energy is impossible.
And Hans, you continue to do what you have done for a good while now, you criticize people, not by pointing out where they are wrong, but by calling them names, accusing them of being an complete idiot, and generally fronting a very bad example of what the spirit on this forum should be.
So if you have a specific problem about something I or anybody else claim, can't you instead point to the problem?
Lastly, I still hope this is a forum where we want to find the truth and not just go after the popular opinion.
Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com (http://keelytech.com) and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.
Hans von Lieven
BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 22, 2009, 07:16:31 PM
Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com (http://keelytech.com) and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.
Hans von Lieven
BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.
And you do a fine job too. Level headed, pragmatic and precise.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 22, 2009, 07:16:31 PM
Before you come to rash judgments about what people have studied and experimented with check out my website http://keelytech.com (http://keelytech.com) and you will find out that I have been working with acoustics and resonance for many years.
Hans von Lieven
BTW. I ALWAYS point out where the flaws are and where people are wrong in their assumptions. Look at my posts.
Sorry about my rash conclusions of you as a person, generalizations is never a good thing....
Btw I went to that site of yours, and damn... I mean, this is just the kind of thing that I'm really interested in, acoustics and its effect. I have never really looked into Keely before, though I've heard of him in several occasions.
I don't want to start any unnecessary flame war here, I'd just wish you could have looked into some simple effects of resonance which I hold exists in all acoustical resonators.
My comparison of the Milkovic pendulum and a resonator is because I see them both working by the same principle, by the use of resonance as a tool to free more useful energy to you than what you put in.
Please, I want this to go as tidy and correct as possible, because I now care a lot about getting this field into research. If not much, couldn't you take of a few minutes of your time just to test my theory?
I'm sure you got something musical lying around, and if not you could probably find an instrument somewhere else to test this on.
My main point: Acoustical resonators does not focus or direct sound waves (to any substantial degree), but they do amplify them, with the use of standing waves and other means.
Thank you for you time :D
Edit: Btw, I'm bookmarking you site ;)
I am glad you like my site. Just a couple of comments.
In all the work I and others have done, mostly by experiment and measurement I have never found an increase in energy, ie amplification. Just like you I was looking just for that, because like you I was taken in by common mis-conceptions.
You will find that if you strike one tuning fork and bring another one close to it the second one will start vibrating. When measured however, in spite of what your senses appear to tell you the amplitude of both forks is exactly half of that of the first fork before the second one got into play. Both forks, in other words, share the energy of the first. There is no increase in the overall energy released into the environment.
In a trumpet for instance, the small sound produced by the mouthpiece causes oscillations in the entire air column inside the instrument. Again there is no increase in energy except a perceived one.
To explain this, strike a small drum with X force.
The drum will vibrate and produce a sound. If you now strike a kettle drum with exactly the same amount of force it will sound much much louder. Measurement however reveals that the amount of acoustic energy released is exactly the same.
In the small drum much of the energy manifests itself in harmonics that are inaudible (beyond 20,000 cps) In the kettle drum most of the generated spectrum is within hearing range, hence the difference.
The same thing happens with a string without a resonating body or cavity.
As far as the Milkovic device is concerned resonance does NOT come into play.
The oscillations in the Milkovic device are chaotic! In a chaotic system resonance does not occur except for spurious moments, which are always detrimental or antagonistic.
I will explain this further if you wish.
Hans von Lieven
Thank you for replying in a positive and constructive way, I do however feel that I still have some specific points where I do not agree/or understand you.
Okey first about the tuning forks you are probably right, although I would really have liked to see those measurements you are talking about, If they are available of course. Another thing about tuning forks is weather they are connected physically at their handle or weather they are just mutually affecting each other by sound waves in the air.
But now to the important part. You want to explain all the "perceived" increase in volume mainly as an effect of increasing the audible harmonics of a given sound, but then lowering the inaudible ones. I can agree that it would to a certain extend give the impression of an actual increase in total sound volume.
However, what I am experiencing and experimenting with tells me that is not a situation where unheard harmonics suddenly increase their level. This increase (which I btw can confirm is quite huge) can be done with a pure sine wave induced by a load speaker, thus hindering or completely destroy the notion that some harmonics was lowered while some was increased.
The order which I am talking about here which I can easily judge by listening, is probably somewhere from 5 to 10 times as loud a sound, and as you probably know, sound volume is logarithmic, and so a doubling of sound volume requires ten times as much energy.
The resonator which I have used to test this several times is a really small trumpet like instrument, combined with an ear bud (you know those small headphones you can stick in the ear), and a sound generation program which I have on my computer.
Edit: Also, I would say that Milkociv's pendulum requires resonance. If the driving energy supply to the pendulum was not in resonance with its mass and spring strength it would not create any useful oscillation.
As also previously stated, I have tested some string instruments which doesn't originally have an attached resonator, and so the volume from the strings are pretty low. But by simply allowing the part of the string instrument which doesn't have a lot of mass (and so not a lot of inertia) and where the strings are connected to simply touch another object, be it a table, preferably made of wood, and many other objects, the sound volume can increase many times.
Again, you can hear that there isn't that much more harmonies that are being represented, but simply that the main fundamentals of each strings receive quite a big boost.
I think this is on topic because acoustics is very much related to mechanics, which is of course the category that the Milkovic pendulum goes under.
Quote from: Nabo00o on May 26, 2009, 05:16:25 AM
As also previously stated, I have tested some string instruments which doesn't originally have an attached resonator, and so the volume from the strings are pretty low. But by simply allowing the part of the string instrument which doesn't have a lot of mass (and so not a lot of inertia) and where the strings are connected to simply touch another object, be it a table, preferably made of wood, and many other objects, the sound volume can increase many times.
Again, you can hear that there isn't that much more harmonies that are being represented, but simply that the main fundamentals of each strings receive quite a big boost.
I think this is on topic because acoustics is very much related to mechanics, which is of course the category that the Milkovic pendulum goes under.
Its all about impedance matching.
In acoustics, the travelling soundwaves are composed of pressure and wind.
Musical instruments use matched resonators to transform the energy from the source impedance to the free air impedance.
RF Transmitters optimize their performance by means of an electrical resonator network which matches the ouput impedance of the transmitter to the input impedance of the antenna which is matched to the impedance of em transmission in space.
If the impedances doesnt match, a part of the energy is reflected back gets destroyed or recycled, or is causing standing waves.
Well are you telling me that it is only as little as 1:8 of the energy input which turns into audio in a normal loud speakers? Because that is around the level of amplification (if you turn the 8 and 1 around) that I am reaching with a simple conical resonator. I've also heard from someone that the amount of energy used to power radio transmitter does not correspond to the power leaving the LC circuits...
I must admit though that the concept of impedance matching is new to me :D
Quote from: Nabo00o on May 26, 2009, 01:55:05 PM
I must admit though that the concept of impedance matching is new to me :D
Ok, lets start with an oscillating string.
Take a string, fix it at the endpoints.
Depending on the tension you will see a standing wave with varying frequency f.
The oscillation is terminated on both ends (low - almost zero impedance - in this case we call impedance the factor formed of displacement(moved mass) divided by torque at this point.
In the middle of the string, the displacement is maximum - the impedance is maximum, the torque is lowest.
Now you couple this swinging string with wire or whatever to another resonator which can be another string.
You will find out that you can transfer the most energy between those 2 systems if they are connected at the points where they have the same impedance.
Take a violin - the bridge couples the energy at the right point into the resonator.
I have a kind of cheap "electric" violin - and the problem here is that the resonator normally "sucks" energy from the oscillating string. Because an electric violin has no resonator - I have the problem of lots of displacement - which finally lowers the tone if too much excited.
In RF you have the same story, in this case the impedances is formed of voltage and current - or electrical vs. magnetic field.
In Air-Acoustic - same story.
In the nearfield of a subwoofer - you have lots of displacement / wind.
It takes a few meter until this wind ends up as stable soundwave.
Again the energy is composed/represented in 2 components forming an impedance.
Every time an oscillating energy is forced from one impedance to another you experience reflection if the 2 impedances are not the same.
You can even apply that to optics (.....) and lots of other things.
Impedance matching optimizes the efficiency - but is never OU.
In case of the Milkovic device, the lever matches the impedance between the low weight pendulum with lots of displacement to high weight hammer with less displacement.
If the setup is optimized - both sides can exchange energy with minimum losses.
rgds.
Quote from: fritz on May 27, 2009, 04:11:39 AM
In case of the Milkovic device, the lever matches the impedance between the low weight pendulum with lots of displacement to high weight hammer with less displacement.
In the Milkovic setup, the hammer operates at an even fraction of the driving pendulum (frequency).
A non-sinusodial or even "square" part of this oscillation (if hammering) contains a high amount of 2nd order harmonics which (can be) are reflected and feed back to the driving oscillation.