Cosmic Energy Electricity Generators

[rlortie]

Ken,

By now you should have a .pdf in your private mail box.

Ralph

[ltseung888]

To rlortie,

Thanks you for solving Ken's problem.

I also asked my technical guys to unload the file to our website.

http://www.energyfromair.com/besslerwhe ... tseung.htm

I shall wait for your technical gurus to review the mathematics before posting the clarifications.

Without the theory that the Pendulum or the Overbalanced Wheel is an Over Unity Device of 1.5, there is no basis for any discussions.

[graham]

Mr Tseung, looking at your diagram labled : Figure 1 View showing the big Unbalanced Wheel with 67% feedback.

I see a problem .
You have a small diameter hub at the center of your main wheel with a belt or chain drive to similar sized wheel (6b) that is supposed to drive the main wheel via friction drive.

The angular velocity of the small wheel (6b) will be much lower than the angular velocity at the rim of the main wheel .
Therefore the only effect achieved would be a braking effect by the small wheel on the main wheels rim.

It cannot work !!

Graham

[ltseung888]

Question:

Will the WM2D simulation tool show that the pendulum or the overbalanced wheel as an Over Unity Device?

Any simulation tool uses the well established Laws and Concepts in Physics. Concepts that are new or not well accepted yet will not be included.

The Mathematical Proof that the Pendulum or the mother pushing her child on a Swing is an Over Unity Device of 1.5 is definitely new. It is being presented to other Physicists for peer review. We first mentioned it at the International Venture Capital Forum on April 6, 2006 in Shenzhen, China.

Did I mention that I had a BSc in Physics and a MSc in Aeronautics? I have complete confidence in my mathematical theory and the working prototypes - some of them improved from my suggestions. I welcome the serious, in depth double-check and analysis of the theory.

The simple answer to the above question in quote is NO. However, the WM2D tool can be improved to incorporate our theory later.

[LustInBlack]

TSeung, did you actually build what you show us ?!

If so, where is the picture!?



Stop wasting space, show proofs.

[ltseung888]

To Graham,

Mr Tseung, looking at your diagram labled : Figure 1 View showing the big Unbalanced Wheel with 67% feedback.

I see a problem .
You have a small diameter hub at the center of your main wheel with a belt or chain drive to similar sized wheel (6b) that is supposed to drive the main wheel via friction drive.

The angular velocity of the small wheel (6b) will be much lower than the angular velocity at the rim of the main wheel .
Therefore the only effect achieved would be a braking effect by the small wheel on the main wheels rim.

It cannot work !!

Great, we are getting meaningful discussions.

Note that in the design, when we start the device, there will be 3 obvious elements to turn the Wheel 1 clockwise:
(1) The Hand Crank 11
(2) The Friction Wheel 6b
(3) The Weight or Hole 7 that would make the Wheel Overbalanced.

Hidden behind is the gravitational energy lead out (Overbalanced wheel is like the Pendulum with Over Unity of 1.5)


Once the wheel is at a reasonable rotational speed, we can take away the Hand Crank 11. The two obvious elements and the hidden one would be more than sufficient to maintain rotation if 66.7% of the output could be fed back.

The size of the gears can be adjusted. We shall take on your suggestion of using large gears in the tests.

The experimental scientists (not me nor Lee Cheung Kin as we are theoretical scientists) decided to take on the challenge as a part time hobby on Aug 1, 2006. The believed that they could build the prototype well before October. We shall have the exact weight, radius and material used, etc published and demonstrated to the World.

We cannot publish the coming commercial product details but we can publish the details of this "toy".

[LustInBlack]

AHAhahahaha .. so we should wait 'til october to see a prototype is that it !?


So lame .

[graham]

The size of the gears can be adjusted. We shall take on your suggestion of using large gears in the tests.

I believe the friction wheel would have to be the same size as the main wheel. The friction wheel should have a central hub the same size as the hub on the main wheel with a belt or chain linking the two hubs.

I'm still not a believer but I have to admire your creative thinking Mr Tseung.

Graham

[ltseung888]

To Graham,

I believe the friction wheel would have to be the same size as the main wheel. The friction wheel should have a central hub the same size as the hub on the main wheel with a belt or chain linking the two hubs.

I'm still not a believer but I have to admire your creative thinking Mr Tseung.

Or Gear 5 can be bigger to reduce size of Wheel 6. The adjustment is so that the speed of rotation of the Wheel 1 matches the Friction Wheel 6b approximately. Friction Wheel 6b should be slightly faster but with the additional help from Weight or Hole 7, that may not be necessary.

This is also the reason that if fixed ratio gears are used all the way, the device is likely to jam. Selecting a Frictional Wheel or a Belt was not by accident.

Thanks.

[Michael]

The simple answer to the above question in quote is NO. However, the WM2D tool can be improved to incorporate my theory later.

So now it's your theory? What happened to chinas number one genius, your words.

[MrTim]

Given the energy-hungry state of China today (they are building one new coal-fired power plant on average every 2 weeks, for example), I find it hard to believe that the Chinese gov't wouldn't have swooped in and put their full scientific and industrial might behind developing Mr Tseung's device.
If they believed there was anything to it....

[LustInBlack]

Here is my simulation variation.

It's just a good brake ... 8]

Variation of weight/spring friction wheel does brake, more or less.

No Over Unity.
I don't even see OU when thinking about it.

I gave it all the chances in the world to work, positionning the weight at 1 o'clock, dropping a weight on the side of the wheel etc.


OH, and sure, patching a software with your "calculations" will make it works.. I am 100% sure.. I can do that too.. But put that in real life and it's just a powerful brake.. in fact, I'm thinking about patenting this as a good alternative brake for my car.

Think about it, Friction pads on the disc brakes of my car are not unlike your machine . . . . . . .

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph...

Thanks for emailing me the pdf file of Tseung's theory of this alleged overunity devices.


Mr. Tseung...

On page 6 of your pdf file you state:

I prefer not to go into overbalanced wheels with internal movements. I believe that they are not necessary and introduce unreliability.

Well, that internal movement for Bessler's wheels was what we all thought you would be revealing on August 3rd. So far, with the exception of the wheel that is supposed to drive itself, we have not seen anything that would pertain to Bessler's wheels.


From reading through your material, it seems that the core of your approach seems to be provided in the following:

Once you accept the above analysis, the rest is strictly mathematics.

(1) The angle a is given by tan(a) = 10/60 or 9.48degrees.
(2) The horizontal energy is F x Length x sin(a) =1.64703Length (in Newton-meters)
(3) The vertical energy is Mg x Length x (1-cos(a))=0.819411Length (in Newton-meters)

In other words 1.64703 units of supplied energy (horizontal) Leads out 0.819411 units of FREE energy (vertical)

The coefficient of over unity (COU) = total output energy / supplied energy =(1.64703 + 0.819411)/1.64703 =1.497508 =1.5 approximately!

Note that 2 units of Horizontal Energy Leads Out 1 unit of Vertical Energy approximately. All these 3 units of energy are stored or conserved in the Pendulum System. If the system is over 66.7% efficient, the system can supply FREE gravitational energy.

It sounds like you think that the "vertical" energy you calculate is somehow extra energy that shows up in the rising pendulum weight. But, in reality, that vertical energy was supplied completely by the horizontal force applied to the pendulum.

I think that your calculation of the "horizontal" energy is in error and there is, in fact, no difference between the "horizontal" and "vertical" energies in this system. That is, what you call the "horizontal energy" is the same as the "vertical" energy.

When the weight is allowed to swing back to its starting position, it will return the exact same amount of energy as was used to deflect it to whatever angle is was held at. Thus, the system should not be able to return any extra energy it obtained from gravity. It the system could actually return any extra energy, then one would expect a pendulum to reach a greater height with each swing which, of course, does not happen.


ken

[Thomas]

After all this time now, I have to put in my 2 cents.

THIS IS REALLY IRRITATING!

ItÂ’s not so much the technical data (or lack of it), or the strange ideas being presented, that are getting to me. ItÂ’s the way this is all coming down. I think this is some sort of elaborate game or joke by Itseung888, for what reason, I donÂ’t know. I think he may have some ulterior motive for trying to lead us on, but I canÂ’t figure out what it is.

Sorry... I just call them like I see them.

So this will be my last post on this thread, unless something fruitful materializes.

Tom

[ltseung888]

To ken_behrendt,

When the weight is allowed to swing back to its starting position, it will return the exact same amount of energy as was used to deflect it to whatever angle is was held at. Thus, the system should not be able to return any extra energy it obtained from gravity. If the system could actually return any extra energy, then one would expect a pendulum to reach a greater height with each swing which, of course, does not happen.

Note that our theory clearly states that the system could retun extra energy only if there were Pulse Force. Once you take away the Pulse Force, there would be no extra energy lead out.

Once you accept the above analysis, the rest is strictly mathematics.

(1) The angle a is given by tan(a) = 10/60 or 9.48degrees.
(2) The horizontal energy is F x Length x sin(a) =1.64703Length (in Newton-meters)
(3) The vertical energy is Mg x Length x (1-cos(a))=0.819411Length (in Newton-meters)

In other words 1.64703 units of supplied energy (horizontal) Leads out 0.819411 units of FREE energy (vertical)

The coefficient of over unity (COU) = total output energy / supplied energy =(1.64703 + 0.819411)/1.64703 =1.497508 =1.5 approximately!

Note that 2 units of Horizontal Energy Leads Out 1 unit of Vertical Energy approximately. All these 3 units of energy are stored or conserved in the Pendulum System. If the system is over 66.7% efficient, the system can supply FREE gravitational energy.

You get it exactly right. If the quoted analysis is wrong, all my posts would be total rubbish. However, the mathematics has been checked and accepted by many peer physicists. If you can pinpoint which part of the mathematics is in error, please let us know.

Mathematics does not lie. Every assumption adheres to the accepted Laws of Physics. Your assumption that the horizontal energy supplies the vertical energy is a "common misunderstanding" by people who did not analysis the mathematics.