The Lee-Tseung Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory

[ltseung888]

The Lee-Tseung Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory

I would like to bring your attention to a theory that explains why the Output Energy form many of the claimed overunity devices can be greater than the supplied Input Energy.

***
If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units. If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.

If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.

Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine. It does not violate any Laws of Physics.
***

For details, please see the locked teaching thread at:
Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - The locked teaching thread

[student8195]

Is there any relationship between X and Y?

You use X units of energy to bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding.

Is there a mathematical relationship between X and Y?

[ltseung888]

You use X units of energy to bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding.

Is there a mathematical relationship between X and Y?

There is no general mathematical relationship between X and Y.

Let us use the following scenario:

You have a ship that can burn wood as fuel. Your ship is on a lake full of logs, branches or other pieces of wood. You use X units of energy to get the logs etc. out of water. These logs can provide you Y units of energy to propel the ship. There does not need to be any mathematical relationship between X and Y. Preferably, Y should be much more than X.

Please continue with you intelligent questions.

[student8195]

There is no general mathematical relationship between X and Y.

Let us use the following scenario:

You have a ship that can burn wood as fuel. Your ship is on a lake full of logs, branches or other pieces of wood. You use X units of energy to get the logs etc. out of water. These logs can provide you Y units of energy to propel the ship. There does not need to be any mathematical relationship between X and Y. Preferably, Y should be much more than X.

Please continue with you intelligent questions.

With your definition, would an oil drilling operation be classified as a Bring-in Energy Operation?

You use X units of energy to drill a well to dig out Y units of oil energy.

[rave154]

TSeung, youve made enough of a fool of yourself of OU forum.....dont even think about bringing it here.,pul-ease

[quantumuppercut]

lol mr. Tseung

Rosemary 180 degrees out of phase on post 57 should clear your case.

DARK ENERGY NEW SCIENCE - by ROSEMARY AINSLIE

You should mass produce those negative resistance circuits once you mastered the art.

QU

[ltseung888]

With your definition, would an oil drilling operation be classified as a Bring-in Energy Operation?

You use X units of energy to drill a well to dig out Y units of oil energy.

I never thought of it that way.

Sure, if the device can tap into a large energy source, it can be treated as a Lead-out or Bring-in Energy device.

[Aaron]

paraphrasing open system thermodynamics?

The Lee-Tseung Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory

I would like to bring your attention to a theory that explains why the Output Energy form many of the claimed overunity devices can be greater than the supplied Input Energy.

***
If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units. If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.

If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.

Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine. It does not violate any Laws of Physics.
***

For details, please see the locked teaching thread at:
Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - The locked teaching thread

Lee Tseung,

I haven't followed your work at overunity.com but I will comment on
your exact points - and I know who student is.

1. "If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units. If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output."

The very concept of COP exists as a ratio between output and our
input NOT including environmental input. COP certainly exists because it
implies there is FREE environmental input.

If you account for X + Y input and compare that to the total output,
this is simply what EFFICIENCY already is. Efficiency is the ratio between
output compared to TOTAL input that includes OUR input +
ENVIRONMENTAL input.

If you put in 10 (x) and environment puts in 20 (x) total input is 30.
If total output is 30, that is 100% efficient. If output is 15, then it is
50% efficient. Efficiency is total output divided by total input.

If you divide total output 15 by 10 input (not including free environmental
input), then that is 1.5 or COP 1.5, which is a net gain in work compared
to what we put in.

So it is 50% efficient and has a COP of 1.5 since they define different
things as described above. So in the above example, there is 150%
in work done compared to what we put in (not 150% efficiency) just
1.5 COP. There is nothing that violates the laws of physics to have a
machine or system that produces more than WE put in as long as there
is environmental input (open system).

2. "If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use."

Of course if you have over 1.0 COP and are able to loop back enough to
make up the "losses", all the rest is continuously free and can keep itself
running - but seems to only be possible if the Y is perhaps 5-6 times OR
MORE than X in order to make practical use of it. But conceptually,
you're correct.

3. "Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine. It does not violate any Laws of Physics."

Being open systems, they do not violate non-equilibrium open
thermodynamics systems. They do however "violate" equilibrium closed
thermodynamic systems but of course they don't really because
conventional thermodynamics do not even apply to these open systems
so yes, they do NOT violate any laws of physics.

----------------------

That being said, everything you said is accurate. But if you're stating
this as your own theory, I'm not sure why since the very existence of
COP and non-equilibrium thermodynamics already implies and includes
everything that you are saying. It appears you are simply paraphrasing
very established principles, but I could be wrong.

[ltseung888]

The essence behind the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy Theory

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for your excellent comment. First correction is – Lee-Tseung actually refers to two persons – Mr. Cheung Kin LEE and Mr. Lawrence TSEUNG. Mr. LEE is a retired missile expert from China trained in USSR. He is still a part-time consultant to the Chinese Military. He was the first to suggest that the pulse-pushed pendulum could bring-in gravitational energy in Dec 2004.

Mr. TSEUNG (ltseung888) is trained with Western Education (B.Sc. in Physics and M.Sc. in Aeronautics). Mr. Tseung first proposed that the kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in. In other words, even if there is no wind, we can use the energy from Still Air. He and Mr. LEE teamed up in 2004. He did the mathematics of the pulse-pushed pendulum and concluded that gravitational energy could indeed be brought-in. In particular, two parts of horizontally supplied energy can bring-in one part of vertical energy. The vertical energy is the “free” gravitational energy brought-in via the tension in the string.

From that point in December 2004, the theory has been extended to cover not only energy from air, from gravity but also from electromagnetic fields (or more exactly from the electron motion of atoms).

As you quite rightly mentioned, if a system is OPEN and energy can be brought-in from the environment, there is no violation of the Laws of Physics. I call such devices Lead-out energy devices – that term was first used in our patent application. Later, we started using the term Bring-in energy after comments from some academics.

I would like to use this thread to describe exactly how:
1. Lead-out/Bring-in Energy Theory does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
2. How we can bring-in the kinetic energy of air molecules in Still Air.
3. How we can bring-in gravitational energy via the pulse-pushed pendulum.
4. How we can bring-in magnetic energy via the pulse-pushed magnetic pendulum.
5. How we can improve the efficiency via pulsed rotation.
6. How we can use flux changes and bring-in electron motion energy without mechanical moving parts..
7. When we have theoretically infinite energy, how we can achieve inertia propulsion without ejecting any hot gases. That will change the whole concept of propulsion and space travel.

Many claimed overunity inventions may actually be “bring-in” energy devices. They are theoretically possible. The Lead-out/Bring-in Energy Theory can help to suggest potential improvements on very strong scientific grounds.

When I posted in Overunity.com forum, there were much noise from the naysayers, insulters and trolls. I had to abandon the two threads I started. Hopefully, this forum is moderated and we can discuss the above topics in a manner that can benefit the World.

May God guide us all. Amen.

[ltseung888]

Open System that Brings-in environmental energy

Dear Aaron,

The other correction I would like to make is – I never regarded the Lead-out or Bring-in energy theory as my invention or my intellectual property. I treat it as a miracle or revelation from the Almighty.

To cut the story short, I had two strokes in the 1990s. At the worst time, I could only remember 4 digits. If you gave me your telephone number, I could never remember it without writing it down. My mouth was distorted and my speech was blurred. I had to take early retirement and moved to Hong Kong to live with my son.

I met a lady, Miss Unice Wong, who asked me whether I would like to try an experimental drug that was a combination of Western and Eastern medicine. I took it and spent three hours a day walking at the dam of a reservoir. Within a month, my memory returned. I could think and program easily again. I prayed and asked the Almighty what he wanted me to do with my new life. The answer was – tackle the energy problem.

I talked to Miss Wong and she said: “If you achieve nothing, there will be no loss to any one. If you achieve something, it would be a miracle. It will be an inspiration to China and the World.”

With that mindset, I restarted my work on my M.Sc. project – kinetic theory of gases in motion. With help from many “angels”, the breakthrough on bringing-in the kinetic energy of gas molecules in Still Air was achieved. The barriers kept falling down in front of us. I had to admit that the Miracle was done by the Almighty. I am just like the blind man who can now see. I am an instrument in the Miracle. I am a testimonial of the Miracle. The Miracle Worker is the Almighty.

If you think the “Lee-Tseung Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory” term is inappropriate, feel free to give it another more appropriate name. “Open System that brings-in environmental energy” may be a possibility.

God is the Miracle Worker. Amen.

[Aaron]

non-equilibrium thermodynamics

If you think the “Lee-Tseung Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory” term is inappropriate, feel free to give it another more appropriate name. “Open System that brings-in environmental energy” may be a possibility.

Thanks for the correction on the names.

I'm not saying the term is necessarily "inappropriate" - but all of these
concepts have already been described for many years by non-equilibrium
thermodynamics:
non equilibrium thermodynamics - Google Search

[ltseung888]

The simplification for clarity approach

Thanks for the correction on the names.

I'm not saying the term is necessarily "inappropriate" - but all of these
concepts have already been described for many years by non-equilibrium
thermodynamics:
non equilibrium thermodynamics - Google Search

When I wrote my first paper on bringing in Energy from Still Air in 2002, I did much background research. Apparently, no scientific paper in established Physics Journals nor posts on the Internet described that phenomenon.

My basic degree was in Physics and I know that there are two approaches to a technical problem. One approach is to put in as much technical jargon as possible so that many readers are scared to comment – terms such as non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Another approach is to simplify it in such a way that even the non-technical expert can get a clear overall understanding.

I am a believer in the latter approach. Thus instead of talking about extracting energy from non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, I shall talk about bringing-in the existing kinetic energy of gas molecules.

As an example, I would say the following:
1. Gas molecules can be imagined as moving balls colliding with each other and with the walls of the container. There are plenty of empty spaces between these molecules.
2. Since these molecules move, they possess kinetic energy (energy due to motion).
3. Pressure on a surface is a result of the bombardment of these molecules on the surface.
4. The experimental gas laws such as Boyles Law*, Charles Law** can be explained by the above theory. That theory is known as kinetic theory of gases. The kinetic theory of gases is taught in both Physics and Chemistry in High Schools.
5. ***Since the gas molecules have kinetic energy, we may be able to bring-in some of this energy into our device. Our device will not be the impossible perpetual motion machine. We do not create energy from nothing. We use the existing, abundant kinetic energy of the gas molecules. We do not need wind at all!

*Boyle’s Law states that for a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one doubles, the other halves).

**Charl’s Law states that at constant pressure, the volume of a given mass of an ideal gas increases or decreases by the same factor as its temperature on the absolute temperature scale (i.e. the gas expands as the temperature increases)

***The “inventions” will then explain the mechanisms of bringing-in such kinetic energy! The theoretical understanding is much clearer than a vague reference to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I shall expand on these mechanisms in the coming posts. Once the “environmental source of energy” is clear, our inventions will not be labeled as the impossible perpetual motion machines that violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

God has given us virtually infinite energy in the form of the kinetic energy of gas molecules. Can we understand and use it??? Amen.

[student8195]

Using the Kinetic Energy of gas molecules???

5. ***Since the gas molecules have kinetic energy, we may be able to bring-in some of this energy into our device. Our device will not be the impossible perpetual motion machine. We do not create energy from nothing. We use the existing, abundant kinetic energy of the gas molecules. We do not need wind at all!

I learned kinetic theory of gases in school. But no professor has taught us how to use the kinetic energy of gas molecules! How can it be done?

[ltseung888]

Bring-in the kinetic energy of air molecules via resonance

Bringing-in the kinetic energy of air molecules

Dear Student8195,

You learned the kinetic theory of gases in school. I am sure that you also learned the Law of Conservation of Momentum in your Physics. Please examine the following three scenarios:

1. A ball of mass m travelling horizontally with velocity v and collides with a stationary wall of mass M. The collision is elastic – meaning that there is no loss of energy. Assuming no loss due to air resistance and ignoring the vertical force and velocity components, the kinetic energy of the ball is 0.5*m*v*v. The momentum of the ball is +mv. After the collision with the stationary wall, the momentum of the ball is –mv. The kinetic energy of the ball is still 0.5*m*v*v.

2. Now the wall is moving with a velocity –V towards the moving ball. The collision is still elastic. What will happen to the velocity of the ball after the collision? The obvious answer is that the velocity will increase. Let us assume that the new velocity is v1. The new kinetic energy of the ball is 0.5*m*v1*v1. There is a gain of kinetic energy due to the collision. In other words, some energy is transferred from the wall to the moving ball.

3. Let us now reverse the direction of the moving wall. What will happen to the velocity of the ball after the collision? The obvious answer is that the velocity will decrease. Let us assume that the new velocity is v2. The new kinetic energy of the ball is 0.5*m*v2*v2. There is a loss of kinetic energy due to the collision. In other words, some energy is transferred from the moving ball to the wall.

You may say that the above is simple physics. There is no mystery or divine revelation. How can we extract the kinetic energy of air molecules with the above example?

You may also have learned about tuning fork resonance in physics. When you put two identical tuning forks on resonance boxes side-by-side and strike only the first tuning fork, the second tuning fork will pick up the vibration. The more technical term is sympathetic vibration. The resulting sound will be louder and last longer. If you put a third, fourth… nth tuning forks, the sound will be even louder and last even longer.

Does the resulting louder and longer sound imply more energy in the resonating tuning fork systems? If so, where does the energy come from?

My explanation is that the extra energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules!

The first tuning fork vibrates after being struck with a hammer. It acts like the moving wall. It imparts or absorbs energy from the moving molecules. The resulting energy of the many tuning fork system is NOT just that from the initial striking energy. Kinetic energy of air molecules is brought into the system. This is an example of an OPEN system bringing-in environmental energy.

The first tuning fork changes the random order of the air molecules into a pulsing order. This pulsing order excites the other identical tuning forks into sympathetic vibrations. An analogy is the simple swing – if you push it at the right frequency, it will swing much higher. If you push it at another frequency, it may not swing too high.

The magic is now revealed. The divine revelation is – scientists knew about tuning forks and resonance for centuries. They did not realize that the resonating tuning fork systems actually used the kinetic energy of the air molecules. In order to use such energy, a resonance condition must be found.

More to come.

God gives us almost inexhaustible energy in the form of kinetic energy of air molecules. We can use that anywhere on Earth. Amen.

[sucahyo]

Air molecule = hydrogen?

If hydrogen then by that theory we can also get extra kinetic energy from hydrogen oxide (water), hydro carbon (fuel), etc. As proof, people installing something weird on engine can have added power. Some able to run a car without consuming anything (Joe Cell).

Resonance may required, but the collecting/retainer part important too.