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]

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 May God guide us all. Amen.

[ltseung888]

God is the Miracle Worker. Amen.

[Aaron]

non-equilibrium thermodynamics

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 Airkinetic 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. 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 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 energyIn 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.