The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Kul_ash]

.....Thats why again and again I am saying, if you just consider three simple forces without the frame of pendulum and what happned before, then pendulum3 is right.

But unfortunately your analysis shows what happened before is the result of your current position and it is totally not accepted! .....

Dear Kul_ash,

I shall repeat the correct physics and mathematics again.  When we are just given two end points – Point A and Point B, we can detect a difference in Energy and hence conclude that work must have been done.

However, different work could have been done using different scenarios.  We can restrict the path to that of an arc.  However, if we are allowed to assume a different force function, the work done and energy spent in different scenarios will be different.

For example, in the case of Pendulum10.jpg, the tension of the string is deliberately kept to 0 until the very end.  The externally applied force is vertical and then slowly moved towards the RHS to follow the arc.  At the very end, the external force is shifted in direction to that of horizontal.  In this particular case, all the externally supplied energy goes into the vertical work done in raising the bob. 

Now I have modified pendulum14.jpg to pendulum21.jpg.  The pulley is set to a position below horizontal at the beginning (dY) and kept at that position until the bob has been raised almost to the final position.  Since the external force during this period never had an upward vertical component, it cannot contribute to the leverage in raising the bob.

At the very end, the pulley and the 10-unit weight are raised back to the horizontal position.  This vertical work done in raising the 10 unit weight (+ the weightless pulley) though the vertical distance dH +dY is much less than (60*dH).

Hope this shows that Â"leverageÂ" is not a factor in this case of the simple pendulum under a Lee-Tseung Pull.  Have I confused you???

Ha ha ha! I seriously started doubting your understanding of Physics now. Please refer to figure below. No matter what is the position of pulling side in a lever, "torue" would always have the same direction. So from where ever you pull the string, the opposite side will always go up. Simple torque.
And please I can not keep on pin pointing such obvious mistakes from your newer diagrams every time. Please fix the pull once for all! Because every time you produce new diagram of your pull, filled with so many basic mistakes. I have no patience now to correct each and every one.
It shows  clearly that you are not sure how to pull your pendulum and you are basing your theory on completely imaginary pulls. I do not understand why?

[Top Gun]

Please refer to figure below. No matter what is the position of pulling side in a lever, "torue" would always have the same direction. So from where ever you pull the string, the opposite side will always go up.

Dear Kul_ash,

I do not see how "torque" enters into the case of a simple pendulum under the first Lee-Tseung Pull in slide 3 or pendulum08.jpg.

Please educate us.  May be we can all learn something???

[Kul_ash]

Please refer to figure below. No matter what is the position of pulling side in a lever, "torue" would always have the same direction. So from where ever you pull the string, the opposite side will always go up.

Dear Kul_ash,

I do not see how "torque" enters into the case of a simple pendulum under the first Lee-Tseung Pull in slide 3 or pendulum08.jpg.

Please educate us.  May be we can all learn something???

So are we back to pendulum08.jpg now? 
So should I consider that you are giving up with pendulum14.jpg and pendulum21.jpg as they have torque? (If you do not understand where the torque in these two figures come from, open any book of applied mechanics or ask me)
If you accept, I will "educate" you about pendulum08 with obvious mistakes!

[Kul_ash]

Any way, I will go ahead with pointing "Obvious" mistakes in your pendulum08.jpg

If you look closely, your knot has moved in perfectly horizontal plane as shown by you. Your length from support to knot is constant. Now if your length from support to knot is constant and movement is radial, how come knot has a same height in both the positions? Will it not go up?
Even if I consider somehow, you manage to put knot on same horizontal plane at same height as initial and final, then if length of knot to support is constant, shouldn't be the bob also be at the same height as initial? Is that possible in radial movement? Is that happens in zero level physics? The "trick" you have used in pendulum08.jpg is that you have shown perfect horizontal movement of knot that means knot to support distance is constant in both cases, then you have shown angular movement, but to show bob got lifted, you have altered the height of bob from knot! Is this your way of proving something "theorotically"?
If that is a mistake in drawing and knot "has moved upwards" then its following radial movement, won't it have a torque? If you are drawing incorrect figures, how am I suppose to show you the real physics in it?

[Top Gun]

May I present some physics.

In physics, a torque is a vector that measures the tendency of a force to rotate an object about some axis (center). The magnitude of a torque is defined as force times the length of the lever arm (radius).

In the case of a pendulum under the first Lee-Tseung Pull, the forces are at equilibrium.  In the vertical direction, the force due to the weight Mg is exactly balanced by T1cos(a).  Thus the effective force to ?rotate an object? is zero.  In the horizontal direction, the force due to the external horizontal force F is exactly balanced by T1sin(a).  Thus the effective force to ?rotate an object? is zero.

The Physics tells us that there is no net torque and thus no rotation in the case of Slide 3 or Pendulum08.jpg.  Can any one find error in the above physics logic???