The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[shruggedatlas]

I shall ask for the opinion of the other forum members whether I should repeat the correct interpretation of the Lee-Tseung theory again here.

Are you the only one who does not understand it?  Your use of the multiple pendulum to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung theory demonstrated some "non-thorough" understanding of the Lee-Tseung theory.

May be it is better for someone who understand the Lee-Tseung theory to post a reply to you.

Edited to add:

(1) May be it is a good time to ask the members whether they think your pendulum toy experiment can be used to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung Theory?

(2) Whether a two pendulum swing necessarily has higher efficiency than a one pendulum swing according to the Lee-Tseung theory?

(3) Are there better experiments that can prove or disprove the Lee-Tseung Theory conclusively and settle the issue forever?

Lawrence

Good luck getting answers on that one.  Why don't you just answer #3 yourself and post the results, preferably a video along with explicit instructions on how to replicate.  Your powerpoint presentations of still pictures are not very convincing.   Oh wait, you are not "good with tools," right, so there is nothing you can do, right? 

I wish you would not hide behind your age.  My father is your age, if not older, and he is still very active.  You do not seem disabled in any way.  The tenets of your theory would not require anything complicated.  Put your theory to use and show us something, or we will conclude you are a simple con man.

By the way, what are your credentials?  You consider me unqualified because I am a lawyer, but most of us are hobbyists here.  Where did you study and what professional work have you performed in the real world?

[tinu]

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I know that Lawyers...

Lawyer's interpretation of a scientific statement may Lead Out total misinterpretation.

If I was you, I wouldn?t put much emphasis on the scientific part and on its strength, Mr. Tseung.
You know why?

Shruggedatlas is right.
Suffice to lower the amplitude of two colliding pendulum and voila, the ratio of pulse duration over the swing duration increases, hence the significance of pulsed force increases.

Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead Out  during the application of the Pulse Force.  .

Exactly: For low amplitudes, pulsed force duration is significant.
And where is the lead out energy? Nowhere.

Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!

There is no need to rethink. The colliding pendulum decreases their amplitudes up to the point where CoP=1.5 applies, according to you. At that point, the system should keep moving forever. Wishes?

Shruggedatlas is very right.
No matter how low the lead-out energy is, if it?s there the system of two colliding pendulums should swing longer before its energy is dampened. Of course, if that ?lead-out? energy is significant, the system should accelerate. But the simple fact that there is a pulsed force which is significant according to your previous definitions and, despite of that, the system swings for a shorter time, means that the ?lead-out? energy, as marvelous as it may be, it does not exist, or if it does, it amounts exactly zero. 

I shall better wait for the person who ?understands the Lee-Tseung theory to post a reply?.

I shall also wait for the passing week during which you are supposed to correct your mistakes and to eventually present support/opinions from Professors.

Meanwhile, please enlighten us:

Are you the only one who does not understand it?  Your use of the multiple pendulum to "prove or disprove" the Lee-Tseung theory demonstrated some "non-thorough" understanding of the Lee-Tseung theory.

And please explain also how it comes that a cup of water full of pulse-forced molecules does not boil itself?

Tinu

P.S.: How is your ?kung fu? today, Mr. Tseung?

[ltseung888]

.....

By the way, what are your credentials?  You consider me unqualified because I am a lawyer, but most of us are hobbyists here.  Where did you study and what professional work have you performed in the real world?

Dear Lawyer shruggedatlas,

I shall answer this question first.  If you had the time and patience searching the Steorn Forum, you could have found the answer.

But since I do not have the patience to search it myself, I am going to reproduce it here for you.

(1)   B.Sc. Physics, Leeds University, England (Date omitted but you can check)
(2)   M.Sc. Aeronautics, Southampton University, England (Date omitted)
(3)   Two Granted US patents on Guaranteed Reliable Broadcast used on Internet. (you can search the US patent database using Lawrence C. N. Tseung as inventor.)
(4)   Quoted in Prof Andrew Tenanbaum?s Book on Network Operating Systems as one of the important contributors in this field (Internet).
(5)   International Software Manager for Digital Equipment Corporation, once the number one minicomputer company and the Number 2 Computer Company after IBM.
(6)   Wrote the first Email program using DECnet in the 1970s on the PDP-11.
(7)   Taught the first group of Chinese Computer Engineers in 1980 on RSX11M and DECnet.  Invited as guest lecturer to Beijing to talk about Networks.
(8 )   After retirement, took up the M.Sc. research on Using Kinetic Theory of Gases to explain Lift and Drag.  Presented at the Aeronautics University of Beijing in 2004.  That was the start of the Energy from Still Air invention.
(9)   Focusing on Cosmic Energy Inventions since 2004.  That was the start of the Lee-Tseung Theory.  Many pending patents ? now donated to the Chinese People.
(10)   Present ? Benefit the world with Cosmic Energy Machines and the Flying Saucer (Lee manage the China and Japan area, Tseung the rest of the World.)

Lawrence Tseung
Relevant Question Leads Out the qualification of Tseung as a trained Physicist.

[ltseung888]

Let us now focus on:
Message reply 423 of this thread - the desk pendulum toy.

I first pulled up all the pendulums except for one, and I observed a single pendulum in motion and measured its angles over time and also measured how long the pendulum took to stop.  Next, I allowed two pendulums to drop, set them in motion, and watched them collide into each other over time.  What I noticed that the two pendulums maintained their energy pretty well, but not as long as the single pendulum.

Per the lead out theory, even a single pulse should "lead out" gravitational energy.  I understand that my experiment is not perfectly precise.  However, based on Lawrence's theory, there should be an extra 50% energy gain from the pulse force.  Yet the paired pendulums, pulsing into each other at regular intervals, cannot beat a single pendulum for energy efficiency.

I will get a video camera and record this and post it up sometime, and hopefully that will be the end of this.  (Or maybe a powerpoint presentation of still pictures, like the bowl of water experiment - that will prove it for sure!)  Maybe Ms. Foreven Yuen can confirm as well, since I know that Lawrence is "not good with tools" and therefore cannot actually put anything he claims into practice.

In a single pendulum experiment, it is almost impossible to time the stop time.  When the amplitude is tiny, we can observe a ?jerky? movement.  When do you consider the correct stop time?  I have the Forever setup in my living room.  The stop time reading for a single pendulum away from magnetic material varied from 2.34, 3.16, 2.16, 2.42, 2.38.  The above are actual stopwatch readings taken on the spot. (2.34 = 2 minutes 34 seconds)

When you let two pendulums drop together, I assume that you release them from the same side.  One will act as wind-shield for the other and reverse role when swinging direction changes.  That is the reason you see the ?collision over time?.  If you use such inexact experiments to Complete and utter refutation of the lead out theory, what can I say?

@Tinu

Shruggedatlas is right.
Suffice to lower the amplitude of two colliding pendulum and voila, the ratio of pulse duration over the swing duration increases, hence the significance of pulsed force increases.

One important fact in Physics with pendulums is that the period is independent of amplitude.  In Layman terms, the time taken for one complete swing is the same.  The swinging arc (amplitude) can be higher or lower.  The above supporting statement from tinu seems to violate this fact in Physics. 

Or tinu is thinking shruggedatlas dropping the pendulums in opposite directions to collide into each other?  The Physics of colliding spheres in real life is too complex for me to analyze.  The losses due to sound, deformation, etc. are almost impossible to model.  May be the genius in tinu can enlighten us.

Lawrence Tseung
Pendulum Desk Toy Leads Out good discussions but it does not seem to have any relevance in the proving or disproving of the Lee-Tseung Theory.

[Mr.Entropy]

Remember to read that gravitational energy is only Lead OutÃ,  during the application of the Pulse Force.Ã, 

The moment that the Pulse Force stops, no more gravitational energy is Lead Out.

Please rethink your pendulum toy experiment in the light of the above full statements.Ã,  The CoP = 1.5 applies to the tiny portion of the period of the oscillation during the impact of the Pulse Force!!!

w.r.t shrugged's toy, in its intended mode of operation:

During the application of the pulse force, even though it is of short duration, the entirety of the kinetic energy from one pendulum is transferred to another.Ã,  A CoP of 1.5 would, therefore, see the second pendulum with 50% more energy than the first.Ã,  Why is this not the case?