Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[hansvonlieven]

OK Top Gun,

Assuming I buy your calculation, how do you propose to harvest the 50% overunity, feed some 2% back into the system to keep it going and then drive something with the balance?

Please supply a concept diagram of a machine that can do this.

Hans von Lieven

As I said in this earlier post of mine. Forget about maths. Just give us a concept drawing of how you intend to harvest and use the surplus lead out energy. We will do the rest.

We will build it (I am sure we can find someone somewhere who can use a drill), show it to the world, and validate the Lee-Tseung theory of hobgoblins and tooth fairies.

Furthermore we will, upon successful completion, lobby strongly for a Nobel Prize for those two outstanding pioneering physicists that have saved the world.

Fair enough? Let's see the drawing.

Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

@ Hans:

Please do not forget the research and hard work of Professor Whoflungdung.  If there is a Nobel prize for this, he should be included.

Bill

[ltseung888]

Dear All,

Please see the two videos produced by Mr. Tong Pochi in Hong Kong.
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5ObshvNx0
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=-TfwKBdmRao

and the following pictures:
    

There are three basic components:
(1)   Battery supply pack
(2)   Timer Control unit
(3)   The Experiment001 device with an electromagnet in the middle and two permanent magnets in two copper (non-magnetic) tubes.

The purpose of the experiment is to check out the Lee-Tseung theory of using unbalanced forces generated from within for the purpose of propulsion.  More experiments may be needed but the two above videos and pictures do demonstrate the possible correctness of the theory.

Lee Cheung Kin and his Chinese Military friends have produced a working, hovering prototype.  However, there may be difficulty in demonstrating that openly to the World.  Details in: http://hk.gecocities.com/winghang20022002/Flying_Saucer.htm (You need to use Internet Explorer to view it.)

Lawrence Tseung
Director, Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited

[TinselKoala]

Please note that this is EXACTLY as I predicted:

The device was not shown to hover--because it cannot.

The device was not shown to make progress on a proper frictionless surface--because it cannot.

The device was not shown to maintain a sideways displacement when suspended as a pendulum--because it cannot.

The device WAS shown to inch along on a table top, and no control experiments were done (or shown)---exactly in accord with friction and Newtonian kinematics.

"Lee Cheung Kin and his Chinese Military friends have produced a working, hovering prototype. " If that statement refers to a device that hovers and is propelled by the above device or a variant thereof, it is a baldfaced lie.

PROVE ME WRONG!!

So far, you have just proven me right, over and over....

[ltseung888]

Please note that this is EXACTLY as I predicted:

Please reproduce Experiment001.  Mr. Tong Po Chi in Hong Kong has done it.  Do you need help to repeat the experiment?

Some people now suspect you as one of those in a Blue Suit - trying to persuade the scientists not to develop the Flying Saucer.

I predict
(a) The "jumping" of the cylinder will be much higher with improvement.
(b) The pulse force or unbalanced force will be much larger with improvement.
(c) The pulse force upwards can be made to be steady with multiple cylinders.
(d) The steady force can be made greater than the weight of the device.  If the upward force can be greater than the weight, Newton's Laws say that the device will move upwards.
(e) Other devices using rotation, flux changes etc. will demonstrate that unbalanced forces can be produced from within.

There is no evidence to show that Lee Cheung Kin and team could not produce a hovering prototype so far.  They had 6 months and very significant resources.

Mr. Tong did the above part-time with zero outside financing and no helpers. 

[broli]

TK there's no way it would hover at such a low frequency. If Tseung is right the Force impulse is momentarily in order to to make it more constant one needs to augment the frequency.

Tseung certain people will keep criticizing even if the thing shot off to the moon in front of them  . Can I ask you to ask the sir who did the experiment for a request? Can he mount the setup on a flat wheel and run it. If you're right the wheel should spin in one direction. I think this would prove that there's a unidirectional net force?

[utilitarian]

TK there's no way it would hover at such a low frequency. If Tseung is right the Force impulse is momentarily in order to to make it more constant one needs to augment the frequency.

Tseung certain people will keep criticizing even if the thing shot off to the moon in front of them  . Can I ask you to ask the sir who did the experiment for a request? Can he mount the setup on a flat wheel and run it. If you're right the wheel should spin in one direction. I think this would prove that there's a unidirectional net force?

TK asked to see the device maintain a horizontal displacement if suspended.  I do not think that is too much to ask.  That is not nearly as difficult as hovering.

With regard to your idea of mounting it on wheels, I think you will notice that it will not move forward so well after that.

[TinselKoala]

TK there's no way it would hover at such a low frequency. If Tseung is right the Force impulse is momentarily in order to to make it more constant one needs to augment the frequency.
(snip)

So jack up the frequency, if you think that will help. Isn't that a function generator sitting there on the table?
Duh.

[TinselKoala]

Please reproduce Experiment001.  Mr. Tong Po Chi in Hong Kong has done it.  Do you need help to repeat the experiment?

Some people now suspect you as one of those in a Blue Suit - trying to persuade the scientists not to develop the Flying Saucer.

I predict
(a) The "jumping" of the cylinder will be much higher with improvement.
(b) The pulse force or unbalanced force will be much larger with improvement.
(c) The pulse force upwards can be made to be steady with multiple cylinders.
(d) The steady force can be made greater than the weight of the device.  If the upward force can be greater than the weight, Newton's Laws say that the device will move upwards.
(e) Other devices using rotation, flux changes etc. will demonstrate that unbalanced forces can be produced from within.

There is no evidence to show that Lee Cheung Kin and team could not produce a hovering prototype so far.  They had 6 months and very significant resources.

Mr. Tong did the above part-time with zero outside financing and no helpers. 

You are so silly. Keep twitching, it's fun to watch.

The demonstration came out EXACTLY as I predicted, and shows absolutely nothing new and absolutely nothing relevant to the LTLOT.
Do you need help to understand why?

As far as your "predictions" are concerned:
1) Of course it will.
2) There are NO unbalanced forces in your experiment.
3) No, it cannot. You will only succeed in dampening what movement there might be.
4) You have already shown that the upward "force" can be greater than the weight.  Unfortunately it still needs to push against something (the table). The device will NOT stay in the air above the table without bumping against it, no matter how strong the "unbalanced force" might be. PROVE ME WRONG. Get a bigger battery, a faster signal generator, a lighter tube and coil, do whatever you want. It still won't hover. PROVE ME WRONG. Your statement about what Newton's laws predict, is incorrect. Newton's laws predict what I, and others, have been saying about this device. It needs something to push against. PROVE ME WRONG.
5) No, they haven't and no, they won't.

(And btw over here they are called, "Men In Black", and if anyone is one, you are, because you are trying to get creative, intelligent and resourceful people to waste their time chasing rainbows. I am trying to get people to tell the truth and do science. You are lying and trying to "prove" your own pet theory. There's a big difference.)

[chrisC]

Please reproduce Experiment001.  Mr. Tong Po Chi in Hong Kong has done it.  Do you need help to repeat the experiment?

....
There is no evidence to show that Lee Cheung Kin and team could not produce a hovering prototype so far.  They had 6 months and very significant resources.
...

What Mr. Tong did proved absolutely nothing. If you are correct in your theories, just following TK's definitions you will be able to show us you're smarter than Newton and indeed should be awarded the Noble prize.

Just walk the talk but alas, you proved yourself to be a deluded LIAR and worst still, showed the world you're someone who CANNOT admit you're wrong despite being shown over and over again.

Even most idiots would know when to quit.....

cheers
chrisC

[Localjoe]

alert :- langley recently contacted me and said the professor is on a fecal rampage for new results ... this cant be good

[Top Gun]

Now I can start with the juicy discussions on Experiment001.

Before we go into the theoretical discussions, we can focus on the experimental results.

It is shown in the following diagram.

The movement is towards the unpadded surface.  In our case, it is towards the elastic collision surface.  (More on that later.)

To be continued.

[Top Gun]

Let me now discuss Experiment001 in separate stages.

The first stage is that both permanent magnets received the same magnetic repulsion and will fly off in opposite direction.  The net momentum of the device must be zero.

Tinselkoala failed to set up this part.  His magnets stuck together.  The probable reason is that his electromagnet is not strong enough or his permanent magnets were too strong and placed too close to the soft iron core.

In this first stage friction between the device and table plays no part.  The two magnets happily go on their opposite paths with the same velocity and momentum.

The net momentum of the device is still equal to 0.

[Top Gun]

In the next part, we need to introduce the concept of elastic and inelastic collisions.

In Physics, eleastic collision refers to the situation where there is no loss of kinetic energy - nothing is converted into heat or sound.  The object and the wall will not deform.  The solid surface is an approximation.  On hitting the surface, the velocity is reversed.  There is a change of momentum of the magnet from mv to -mv or (mv-(-mv)).  The value is thus 2mv.  The force F1 is given by the rate of change of momentum.  The value is 2mv/t1.  t1 is made to be as short as possible so that F1 is as large as possible.

This part can be considered alone.  Thus F1 can be determined.

In Physics, inelastic collision refers to the situation where there is loss of kinetic energy - much of it is converted into heat, sound or deformation.  The padded surface is an approximation.  On hitting the padded surface, the velocity is also reverse but its value will be much less (v1).  The value is (mv -(-mv1) or m(v+v1).  Since v1 is less than v, the change in momentum is less than 2 mv.  This value is less than the solid surface case.  The force F2 is the rate of change of momentum.  The valude is m(v+v1)/t2.  t2 is made to be as long as possible so that F2 is as small as possible.

The trick is to have the largest difference between F1 and F2.  This is the design principle.  The Bull and Naudin devices did not follow the above design principle and are thus useless devices.

[Pirate88179]

@ TopGun:

I am sorry to see that you still do not get it.  You are missing a fundamental part of all this.  Go ahead and suspend this in the air so it is free swinging and see what happens.  You won't because you already know.  Everyone already knows.  As I said before, unless you are planning to take the table with you into space, this will not work as a propulsion device.  I really wish it would, but, it won't.

Respectfully,

Bill