The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[tinu]

High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.
A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.
A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory?
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult... 

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept.
It should add:
11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'. 

Tx,
Tinu

[ltseung888]

High-grade physics.
So far so good!

Then, there is also the fact that gravitational field is conservative!
This goes a little bit beyond high-grade?

Anyway, the attribute of being conservative means, in simple words, that no energy can be extracted from the field by a system moving in a closed loop.  A pendulum describes a closed loop. A rotating cylinder does the same. A system composed of two or more colliding pendulums also describes a closed loop.

A falling brick does not; that?s why it will crush your fingers. However, when raising the brick again to its initial height, you close the loop and that means that you have to put back the same energy as the one crushing your fingers?

So, the ?lead-out theory? is not a real theory because it just takes some simple high-grade equations, misuses them (elementary mistakes) and then reaches to a point that contradicts the very same starting basic theory?
Ooops! How can it be?!!!  Well, by mistakenly using physics, the final ?result? is invalid, of course.
But Mr. Tseung, in his presentation does not even reach a final result.
He makes several sudden jumps, up to the end, excusing that the calculus is difficult... 

My first issue related to the ?lead-out theory? was about correcting all of these mistakes, before everything else.
It remained unanswered up to this day, as it will probably remain ?Forever?.

And no, the above message does not clarify the physics concept.
It should add:
11) The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system is zero. No energy is extracted, neither is 'lead-out'. 

Tx,
Tinu

Dear Tinu,

When you use the statement that gravitational field is conservative.  I thought that you did not understand the concept that that statement only applies to a closed system.

But you also mentioned later that "The sum of 8 and 9 for any closed-looping gravitational system is zero."  That tell me that you probably  know the limitation of the statement (that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system).

This goes back to the hundreds of posts on CoP in the steorn.com/forum that we can never find a perfectly closed system for gravitation fields on Earth.  (Any moving star will have gravitational energy interchange with our Earth.  How can we find a closed gravitational system in such an environment?)

If I repost the dozens of CoP discussions from Steorn.com/forum again, would I be accused of repeat, repeat and repeat???  Please spend some time and read them. 

Thus I ignored the so called "advanced concept" that gravitational field is conservative in a closed system. (At least on our planet Earth.) If you can find one such system in reality, please educate me.  Thank you.

*** Just finished talking to a PhD candidate student majoring in Mathematics.  His understanding of a " conservative gravitatonal field" system is that the total gravitational energy of that system is unchanged or conserved.  If gravitational energy flows in and out from that system, that system cannot be closed.  A non-closed system cannot be conservation as there is loss or gain of the energy under consideration.  A closed-looped subsystem within such a "closed conservative system" must not in itself create or destroy energy.  If so, the "closed conservative system" can never be conservative.  (Imagine this closed-looped subsystem keep creating energy - how can the total system has the same energy?)

I am not sure whether that helps to clarify or confuse the issue for the average Forum participants.  However, some of the posts are intended for the top academics from Tsing Hua, Beijing, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Toyko Universities etc.  They may not read it now but I am sure that they will read it in the very near future when General Magnetic of China or other Companies demonstrate their Cosmic Energy Products. ***

Lawrence Tseung
Abstract Advanced Concepts Lead Out Confusion not only in the minds of laymen but also that of the top Physicists.  Every statement must be carefully qualified.

[tinu]

Dear Mr. Tseung,

?Conservative force fields and closed loops

A conservative force is one that does zero net work on a particle that travels along any closed path in an isolated system. A conservative force field can be represented as the gradient of a potential. Gravitational forces, electric forces, and magnetic forces are known to be conservative in a time-independent (static) field.
?
The work done in any closed loop shape, by such forces is independent on the path taken by the particle or charge and is equal to zero. This simply means that if a mass, electric charge or magnetic charge travels a closed loop in a static gravitational, electric or magnetic field respectively, it can never gain energy, or do any useful work. The work done in travelling from point X to Y, is always equal and opposite to the work done in travelling from point Y back to X. ?
http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.

The limit in which gravitation is not conservative is in parts at E-12, as G variation is shown to be (dG/dt)/G ≤ 8E-12/year. Into this limits, energy can be extracted according to all known principles and laws. However, such a variation is way too small and too slow to be of any use. In fact, it can barely be measured using standard lab techniques and it is more mathematically deduced from observations within our solar system. On paper, however, machines can be imagined and I?d have nothing against them, in principle. But in practice it would require moving masses of billions of tons with no friction and loses; it?s simply not feasible.

Also, why bother to go that far at distant stars?
Use the Moon to extract energy: raise a body during the night when the Moon is above and let it fall when the moon is on the opposite side of the planet. This would also make a workable gravitational engine but only on paper. In practice it is also not feasible, unless, of course, converting the effects manifested on such large masses as those equivalent to a whole ocean? Tidal generators? Clicks heard?
Note that a whole sea is not enough for exploiting such effects! An ocean does it but not a sea?

Is this the line you try to pursue?
All the above facts are well known to me.
Still:
1. They are not feasible from any practical point of view.
2. They are not related in any way with the ?lead-out? theory, as you present it.

From the point of view of lead-out theory, the gravitational field of Earth can be considered static, hence conservative and all systems can be regarded as gravitationally isolated. This approximation is excellent, in the above presented limits.
If your pendulum weights as much as an ocean, then go on. Just state it and go on. I?ll follow your way of thinking. I?ll even accept a weight of a small ocean.
But if your pendulum weights less than the above, then accept that the gravitational field is conservative and forget about any variation of G.
Alternatively, I?ll even accept a ?mechanism? to vary G locally, if you can point toward one. Can you?

Tx
Tinu

[ltseung888]

Dear Mr. Tseung,

http://www.blazelabs.com/n-ixion.asp

The lecture then goes on. It?s pretty educative; you may want to read it all.
.....

Tx
Tinu

Dear Tinu,

Thank you for your education.  I now know where you come from.  The lecture tries to promote zero point energy ZPE.  As I understand it, ZPE so far has NOT been accepted by mainstream science.

The Lecture states the First Law of Thermodynamics in a different way than what I learned at University over 40 years ago.

The first law states: In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. It simply means that the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. This is the only thermodynamic law that is NOT statistical, and thus is considered the only secure law of present science. In physics, this is known as the law of conservation of energy of isolated systems. N?ether's Theorem, states that if a system has a particular symmetry, there is a quantity associated with that symmetry that is conserved. By this theorem, the principle of conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations, that is symmetry in time. The conservation of energy law does not apply to systems which are not symmetrical upon time translation or reversal.

In many places, the lecture states the importance of isolated or closed systems.  For example, I quote:

It is not usually stressed enough, the fact that there is a very fundamental assumption in these laws, even in the first most 'secure' law of thermodynamics, or what we usually refer to as COE (conservation of energy). They ASSUME a closed system, and are born out of pure mathematics or statistical work, unprovable in the real world. Unprovable, because no one has yet been able to isolate a closed system. We are not even sure that the universe as a whole can be regarded as a closed system, which is a strict requirement for the conservation of energy law! In fact principles such as uncertainty, and entanglement, would seem to indicate that either it is impossible for a truly closed system to exist, or that our idea of a closed system is not taking into account other phenomena or energy exchanges which cannot be easily or possibly isolated from our systems. For example, one might consider a mechanical engine as a closed system, and finds out that it's impossible to get two similar efficiency readings. This could for example be due to changes in external ambient temperatures which were not taken into account in the first place. So, in such a case, our sun must be taken account as part of this example. But, still, we find that even at absolute zero kelvin, the ground state energy does not go to zero, and this means that other yet unknown energy sources must be taken account, or at least have their existence accepted by mainstream science, which is currently not the case. And that's why the list of anamolous effects in science is getting longer year after year.

I respect your support of ZPE.  However, I believe the Lee-Tseung theory is much easier to understand.  It can be applied much easier to the known working Cosmic Energy Machine Prototypes.  You may feel that I misused the Laws of Classical Physics.  That may be a valuable point for deeper understanding.  However, the top Professors at Tsing Hua, Beijing, Harvard and MIT did not raise that point as objection.  They only said that "this will require more research".  Lee-tseung-Wang were made guest lecturers at Tsing Hua University.  That fact demonstrated that some top academics were willing to investigate the Lee-Tseung theory further.

You did a good job in stressing that we need to use the correct units of force, work and energy.  Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
ZPE supporters Lead Out heated discussions with the Lee-Tseung supporters.

[tinu]

I do not support ZPE, in particular.
(And I?m sorry but I have to run for now. Real life, real business?)

Still, you have in my above post at least clear examples of workable-in-principle devices, and clear values, supported by known facts and a description that is understable by just everyone reading here.

Try doing the same.

1. Try conceiving and posting a principle experiment. I have even offered before to build it and to test it for you.
Pulsed pendulum is not working. That?s all.

2. Try developing and posting a correct theory
Not only units of force, work and energy are wrong, but the equations are wrong, in the way they were used. And I do not ?feel it?. They are literarily wrong. I won?t post it again; it?s already here, right into this thread.

3. Try showing the limits in which the above 1 and 2 applies, at least the way I did it.

Then, there will be a solid base for discussing.
Right now, there is almost nothing.

Keep in touch,
Tinu