PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2018-08-19, 09:01:59
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - kinetic energy of air molecules  (Read 15449 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
This topic will focus on the leading-out or bringing-in of energy from still air.

From the standpoint of the well-known kinetic theory of gases taught at secondary physics classes, air consists of molecules moving in space.  These molecules collide with one another in a random fashion.  They also collide with the walls of any container.  The force of collision gives rise to the pressure of gases.  These molecules are moving and thus have kinetic energy.

In an imaginary box containing 60 molecules, we can imagine that on average, 10 molecules move in the +X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions.  The forces or pressures in all these directions are equal.  No net work can be done.

However, if 15 molecules now move in the +X direction and 9 molecules move in the -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions, the pressure in the +X direction is much higher.  Work can be done.  However, the sum of the kinetic energy of these 60 molecules can remain unchanged.  The random motion is changed into an ordered motion.  The energy used to change the random motion can be very different from the now useful work that can be done.  Thus the always available kinetic energy of air molecules can be made to do useful work  The Law of Conservation of Energy will not be violated.

The first conclusive experiment with two or more (four recommended) tuning forks tries to show that the louder and last longer sound energy cannot come from the striking of the first tuning fork alone.  (The most impressive will be the resonance of 20 tuning forks to be captured on a video.)  Energy must come from somewhere.  The Tseung hypothesis is that the vibrating tuning fork will change the random motion of the air molecules into some pulsed order.  These pulsed ordered molecules can then push other tuning forks similar to pushing the swing.  The correct pushing frequency will excite these other tuning forks into sympathetic vibrations.  The extra energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

This new understanding of resonance is very important.  The Tseung hypothesis essentially says that any motion or vibration can change the random motion of the air molecules.  A pure frequency vibration such as that from a tuning fork will change the random motion into an ordered pulsing motion.  This ordered pulsing motion is responsible for doing the useful work (pulsing other identical tuning forks).  The extra sound energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the system is NOT a closed system.  Theoretically, the sound can be transmitted all over the world with diminishing amplitude. 
   
Group: Guest
"The first conclusive experiment with two or more (four recommended) tuning forks tries to show that the louder and last longer sound energy cannot come from the striking of the first tuning fork alone."

This will be quite difficult to show convincingly by way of a U-tube video, I think.  *Where is the microphone?  **Who controls the volume control?  Acoustics is not my forte, but I think I'd only be convinced if the "louder and last-longer" sound were demonstrated in person with a calibrated B&K sound pressure meter in an anechoic chamber. with the group of tuning forks closely gathered together and the microphone relatively far away.

" Theoretically, the sound can be transmitted all over the world with diminishing amplitude" 

All sounds are always transmitted all throughout the atmoshere with diminishing amplitude.  ***What is theoretical about this?

*** I am using the moderator privilege to reply to this and other posts.  This is much easier than quoting the post pages later.

*The microphone is placed at a fixed distance from the first tuning fork.

**The volume control will be fixed for all the 1-20 tuning fork experiments.

***The theoretical part is that the molecules interacting with the tuning forks will change their random order and molecular velocity.  This change will be propagated with diminishing influence similar to the ripple effect.

Lawrence the Moderator


« Last Edit: 2011-01-20, 18:03:49 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence:

Quote
However, if 15 molecules now move in the +X direction and 9 molecules move in the -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions, the pressure in the +X direction is much higher.  Work can be done.  However, the sum of the kinetic energy of these 60 molecules can remain unchanged.  The random motion is changed into an ordered motion.  The energy used to change the random motion can be very different from the now useful work that can be done.  Thus the always available kinetic energy of air molecules can be made to do useful work  The Law of Conservation of Energy will not be violated.

You are wrong here.  If work is actually done then the sum of the kinetic energy of the 60 molecules will not remain unchanged, the sum will decrease.  The 15 molecules moving in the +X direction hit the wall and the wall moves so work is done.  Therefore the 15 molecules will bounce back from the wall with less energy than they had when they first hit the wall.  Therefore the temperature of the gas will go down.

*** We are not doing work yet.  The imaginary box represents the ability to do work.

Quote
The energy used to change the random motion can be very different from the now useful work that can be done.

This is a puzzling statement that I cannot understand.  What "energy used to change the random motion" are you talking about?  I cannot envision any mechanism that changes the random motion of the molecules presumably to make them move in the +X direction so they hit the wall.  Nor can I envision what source of energy you are making reference to here, where it comes from, or how it acts.

*** The simple open cone that will speed up the air velocity at the smaller area end is an example.

Quote
Thus the always available kinetic energy of air molecules can be made to do useful work  The Law of Conservation of Energy will not be violated.

If the available kinetic energy of the air molecules does useful work they will slow down.  Indeed the Law of Conservation of Energy will not be violated.  If the gas does some work then the kinetic energy in the gas goes down.  The total amount of will be conserved:  the lower energy in the gas plus the work done will be equal to the initial amount of energy in the gas.

*** If the system is not closed, the slowed down molecules will pick up energy from other colliding molecules.  The slowing down will not be shown as drop in temperature.

Quote
The Tseung hypothesis is that the vibrating tuning fork will change the random motion of the air molecules into some pulsed order.  These pulsed ordered molecules can then push other tuning forks similar to pushing the swing.  The correct pushing frequency will excite these other tuning forks into sympathetic vibrations.  The extra energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

There is no extra energy in this case.  When you strike one *or many* tuning forks you are putting energy into the system.  That energy is then transmitted into the air as sound energy, and there are losses in the form of heat in the tuning forks themselves.  Ultimately the energy that becomes sound energy in the air becomes heat also which is dispersed over a wide area.

*** we always strike only the first tuning fork.  The other tuning forks will go into sympathetic vibration.  The resulting sound of the systems (1,2,3,4…20) will be louder and last longer.  The loudest and longest will be the 20 tuning fork system when only the first tuning fork is struck.

If four tuning forks take much longer to decay in their oscillations it does not mean that there is any extra energy.  This problem can be looked at from an energy transfer rate (a.k.a. impedance matching) perspective.  The energy output as sound by tuning fork A can go two places, 1) into the air to ultimately become widely dispersed heat energy, and 2) it can be transferred into tuning fork B and stored temporarily in tuning fork B.  So it might take much longer for four tuning forks to transfer their stored energy into the air as sound because the rate of transfer of the energy into the air is reduced because some of the energy is being transferred into the the other tuning forks in the vicinity.  There is no extra energy anywhere in a setup like this and the kinetic energy of the air molecules has nothing to do with this phenomenon.  *Again, if hypothetically the kinetic energy of the air molecules did have something to do with a hypothetical phenomenon like this, then the temperature of the air would have to decrease as you extracted kinetic energy from the air molecules.

*** The temperature drop is theoretically there.  But is it large enough to be experimentally measurable???

Quote
The Tseung hypothesis essentially says that any motion or vibration can change the random motion of the air molecules.  A pure frequency vibration such as that from a tuning fork will change the random motion into an ordered pulsing motion.  This ordered pulsing motion is responsible for doing the useful work (pulsing other identical tuning forks).  The extra sound energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

*Sorry but your hypothesis is incorrect.  The random motion of the air molecules and the sound waves that are induced in the air as a medium for transferring energy have nothing to do with each other.  There is no extra sound energy to be found and existing kinetic energy of the air molecules will essentially remain unchanged as sound waves pass through the air assuming you are looking at the average kinetic energy of the air molecules over a short interval of time compromising at least one period of the sound wave.

*** My hypothesis does not violate any Laws of Physics.  It explains many things. 
1.   Why the resulting sound is louder and last longer.
2.   The general concept of resonance – extra energy comes from the surrounding.  That basic Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory opens the door for inventions that can demonstrate that Output Energy can be greater than Input Energy.  Extra energy comes from the surrounding.
3.   The resonance behavior in general (exponential rise in amplitude) can be explained if we assume external energy is brought-in if the frequency is correct.
4.   Always remember the example of pushing the swing at the right time.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-01-20, 18:21:50 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Guest
This topic will focus on the leading-out or bringing-in of energy from still air.

From the standpoint of the well-known kinetic theory of gases taught at secondary physics classes, air consists of molecules moving in space.  These molecules collide with one another in a random fashion.  They also collide with the walls of any container.  The force of collision gives rise to the pressure of gases.  These molecules are moving and thus have kinetic energy.

In an imaginary box containing 60 molecules, we can imagine that on average, 10 molecules move in the +X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions.  The forces or pressures in all these directions are equal.  No net work can be done.

However, if 15 molecules now move in the +X direction and 9 molecules move in the -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions, the pressure in the +X direction is much higher.  Work can be done.  However, the sum of the kinetic energy of these 60 molecules can remain unchanged.  The random motion is changed into an ordered motion.  The energy used to change the random motion can be very different from the now useful work that can be done.  Thus the always available kinetic energy of air molecules can be made to do useful work  The Law of Conservation of Energy will not be violated.

The first conclusive experiment with two or more (four recommended) tuning forks tries to show that the louder and last longer sound energy cannot come from the striking of the first tuning fork alone.  (The most impressive will be the resonance of 20 tuning forks to be captured on a video.)  Energy must come from somewhere.  The Tseung hypothesis is that the vibrating tuning fork will change the random motion of the air molecules into some pulsed order.  These pulsed ordered molecules can then push other tuning forks similar to pushing the swing.  The correct pushing frequency will excite these other tuning forks into sympathetic vibrations.  The extra energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

This new understanding of resonance is very important.  The Tseung hypothesis essentially says that any motion or vibration can change the random motion of the air molecules.  A pure frequency vibration such as that from a tuning fork will change the random motion into an ordered pulsing motion.  This ordered pulsing motion is responsible for doing the useful work (pulsing other identical tuning forks).  The extra sound energy comes from the existing kinetic energy of the air molecules.

There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the system is NOT a closed system.  Theoretically, the sound can be transmitted all over the world with diminishing amplitude. 

Your hypothesis that 'any motion or vibration can change the random motion of air molecules' is hardly an hypothesis.  It's a reasonably well established fact.  *Your explanation regarding air molecules in a container is a not appropriate.  That will simply reach a state of best balance and likely not move once it's settled after any kind of disturbance.  I think Brownian motion is only applicable when there's the introduction of a charged material to the 'mix'.  And the 'pressure' inside that container will not induce a movement - even if its pressure is greater than the atmospheric pressure around the container.  It will, effectively, be a closed system.  And a closed system will find a best balance in line with the Laws of Entropy' and then just stay put.

*** The gas molecules are in an imaginary container.  That container allows the molecules to bombard each other and go in and out of the container.  The “snapshot” can always see the 60 molecules with their directions of motion simplified.

But I think I see where you're going with this.  You're suggesting that if you ordered that movement from a resonating source - then you'd extrapolate work.  *And the fact that the twentieth fork in a line of tuning forks would also then be the loudest and last the longest - is some evidence that there's an exponential increase in that work.   I would suggest that if you induce ripples in a pond by throwing pebbles into a single point - then the outer ripple will eventually become a splash.  That's why the 20th tuning fork will be louder for longer.  It's just the happy recipient of more resonance from the 19 preceding resonating frequencies.  I think the real question, with respect, is what actually makes sound?  And the sum of air molecules bumping into each other doesn't cut it as an answer. 

*** The much louder and longer sound is from all tuning forks in sympathetic vibration when only the first is struck.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-20, 18:29:11 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Conclusive Experiments to show that Energy from the surrounding can be lead-out or brought-in. 


Experiment 1 – Four or more Tuning Forks in resonance

Proposed by: Lawrence Tseung     Date: December 15, 2010

Performed by: ???        Date:  ???

Objective:
1.   To show that the sound produced by two or more identical tuning forks on resonance boxes is louder and lasts longer than that from a single tuning fork.
2.   If true, ask the question – where does the extra sound energy come from?
3.   Can the extra sound energy come from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?
4.   Is it possible for the first vibrating tuning fork to lead-out the kinetic energy of the air molecules because it changes the random motion to an ordered pulse?
5.   Is it possible that the correct explanation of sound resonance is as follows:
A vibrating or oscillating source can induce ordered motion of the air molecules.  The ordered motion can use the kinetic energy inherent in the air molecules to do useful work – such as sympathetically vibrate the second, the third, etc tuning forks.

Equipment needed:
Basic – Four identical tuning forks mounted on separate resonance boxes, a striking hammer, a sound recorder or video camera, a clock or stop watch
Optional – Microphone connected to Oscilloscope for visual display, decibel meter, data logger and computer for comparative analysis.

Procedure:
1.   Place the first tuning fork alone in a quiet room.  Strike it with the hammer.  Record the loudness and duration of the sound.  The sound recorder or video camera should be placed approximately 50 centimeters from the tuning fork.
2.   If a video camera were used, it should show the readings on a clock so that the entire duration of the experiment can be accurately timed and displayed.
3.   If an Oscilloscope is available, do screen capture of the waveform.  Send the information to a data logger and computer for comparative analysis.  This is the reference curve.
4.   Repeat steps 1-3 at least 3 times to average out the difference due to different striking force.
5.   Place a second tuning fork next to the first tuning fork.  Adjust the distance and the orientation until the loudest sound is heard.  Then repeat steps 1-4 with the video camera placed approximately 50 centimeters form the first tuning fork.
6.   Compared the loudness and time duration of the sound produced in the two cases.
7.   Repeat steps 1-6 with the third, fourth, etc. tuning forks.

Comments:
1.   The minimum order from a manufacturer in China is 20 sets.  Each set consists of one tuning fork, one resonance box and one hammer.  Four sets are sufficient for this experiment.  However, it is a good idea to do a demonstration of all 20 sets in a quiet room.  That quiet room may act as a resonance chamber. 
2.   Once we agree on the details of the above experiment including who will do it; when to do it; where to do it; how to maintain it and how to distribute the 20 sets etc, we can order the units from the manufacturer.  The quoted price was US$200 including shipping costs.  That amount of money has already been raised by Todd.
3.   The significance of this experiment is to conclusively demonstrate that the additional tuning forks will produce louder and longer sounds.
4.   These louder and longer sounds will require additional energy other than that from striking the first tuning fork.
5.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the additional energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The vibration of the first tuning fork “pulse orders” the random motion of the molecules so that these molecules strike the other tuning forks at their resonance frequency.  Such action is similar to pushing a swing.  If the pushing or pulsing frequency is correct, the swing will go higher. If the frequency is not correct, the swing will not go much higher.
6.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the tuning fork itself is already an energy loopback system.  When it pushes air in one direction, the compressed air will help to push it back to the other direction.  (The stiffness of the fork is another important factor.)  For resonance systems, the amplitude of oscillation or vibration will rise exponentially at or near resonance.  This phenomenon can be explained easily if we assume that there is additional energy coming into the system.
7.   If the initial energy of the system is 1 and 0.X percentage units of energy are brought-in.  On successive feedbacks, the energy of the system will rise as (1+0.X)*(1+0.X)*(1+0.X)….
8.   Thus the lead-out or bring-in energy theory can explain the exponential rise in amplitude near or at resonance.
9.   If the phenomenon of tuning fork resonance is due to bringing-in of additional energy from the environment, can we extend the same concept to electrical circuit (e.g. LCR) resonance?
10.   In the case of electromagnetism, magnetic effects can be produced by an orbiting electron around the nucleus.  This is known as a magnetic dipole.  Such dipoles have energy but are normally orientated in random directions.  If some order is induced, is it possible to lead-out or bring-in such electromagnetic energy?

Thus if Experiment 1 is conclusive, the Lee-Tseung Lead-out Energy Theory may be correct.  The theory is called Lee-Tseung because Mr. Lee Cheung Kin, a retired missile expert from China, and Mr. Lawrence Tseung were the first ones to understand this and used the term lead-out energy in their PCT patent applications in 2005.

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Your hypothesis that 'any motion or vibration can change the random motion of air molecules' is hardly an hypothesis.  It's a reasonably well established fact.  Your explanation regarding air molecules in a container is a not appropriate.  That will simply reach a state of best balance and likely not move once it's settled after any kind of disturbance.  I think Brownian motion is only applicable when there's the introduction of a charged material to the 'mix'.  And the 'pressure' inside that container will not induce a movement - even if its pressure is greater than the atmospheric pressure around the container.  It will, effectively, be a closed system.  And a closed system will find a best balance in line with the Laws of Entropy' and then just stay put.

But I think I see where you're going with this.  You're suggesting that if you ordered that movement from a resonating source - then you'd extrapolate work.  And the fact that the twentieth fork in a line of tuning forks would also then be the loudest and last the longest - is some evidence that there's an exponential increase in that work.   I would suggest that if you induce ripples in a pond by throwing pebbles into a single point - then the outer ripple will eventually become a splash.  That's why the 20th tuning fork will be louder for longer.  It's just the happy recipient of more resonance from the 19 preceding resonating frequencies.  I think the real question, with respect, is what actually makes sound?  And the sum of air molecules bumping into each other doesn't cut it as an answer. 

Dear aetherevarising, MileHigh and others,

Let me clarify some confusion here. 

The first confusion is the concept of air in a container.  In my theoretical model, that is an imaginary cubical container.  Molecules can cross the walls of this imaginary container.  There may be collisions of the molecules but the net result of the collisions can maintain a net of 15 molecules moving in the +X direction and 9 molecules in the –X, +Y, -Y, +Z and –Z directions.

This actually brings us to the extremely important but rarely appreciated concept of velocity.  With a solid, when we give it a velocity V, all molecules of the solid will acquire this velocity V because the molecules of a solid are rigidly bounded to each other.
With a liquid or a gas, this is different.  In the particular case of a gas, the molecules can freely move.  NOT every molecule need to acquire this extra velocity V.

In fact, the 15 molecules move in the +X direction example explains the well-know Bernoulli’s effect – when a fluid moves in the +X direction, the pressure it exerts in the Y and Z directions will be less.  This effect has been used to explain why airplanes fly for decades.  (More on this later.)

The secondary confusion is the twentieth tuning fork.  We are not talking about the twentieth tuning fork sounding louder and lasts longer than the first tuning fork.  We are talking about the resulting sound of the twenty tuning forks together sounding much louder and last longer even though we strike only the first tuning fork.

In other words, if the first tuning fork is struck alone with no other tuning forks, the sound lasts X1 seconds.  When we place a second tuning fork in sympathetic vibration, the sound lasts X2 seconds if we repeat the experiment by striking only the first tuning fork.  X2 will be greater than X1.  We can repeat the experiment for 3,4…20 tuning forks.  X20 will be the longest.  (The sound of 20 tuning forks in sympathetic vibration is also much louder.)

Please wait for this simple but conclusive experiment.  Then ask the question – where does the extra sound energy come from?  In all cases, we strike only the first tuning fork and the Input Energy should be the same within experimental errors??? 

Some people may argue that the louder sound is just a more efficient conversion of the striking energy.  For two tuning forks, this may sound plausible.  For twenty???

I firmly believe that my explanation of the extra energy comes from the surrounding air molecules is correct.  The explanation does not violate any Laws of Physics.  In vigorous scientific investigation, if an explanation does not violate the Laws of Physics, it should be treated with respect.  It will acquire the status of hypothesis to be further verified by experiments.

May God open our eyes and minds.  Amen.
   
Group: Guest
Conclusive Experiments to show that Energy from the surrounding can be lead-out or brought-in. 
Objective:
1.   To show that the sound produced by two or more identical tuning forks on resonance boxes is louder and lasts longer than that from a single tuning fork.
2.   If true, ask the question – where does the extra sound energy come from?
3.   Can the extra sound energy come from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?
4.   Is it possible for the first vibrating tuning fork to lead-out the kinetic energy of the air molecules because it changes the random motion to an ordered pulse?
5.   Is it possible that the correct explanation of sound resonance is as follows:
A vibrating or oscillating source can induce ordered motion of the air molecules.  The ordered motion can use the kinetic energy inherent in the air molecules to do useful work – such as sympathetically vibrate the second, the third, etc tuning forks.
I think we need to clarify certain things here.  *Are each of those more than four tuning forks encased in their own resonance boxes?  Or are you putting more than four tuning forks in a single box?  If the former I would suggest you've got a linear increase in volume and efficiency.  If the latter then you've got an exponential increase based on the well known wave function.  They will reinforce or cancel out depending on the condition of resonance.  It is the splash as apposed to the pond ripple.  What am I missing?

Basic – Four identical tuning forks mounted on separate resonance boxes, a striking hammer, a sound recorder or video camera, a clock or stop watch
Optional – Microphone connected to Oscilloscope for visual display, decibel meter, data logger and computer for comparative analysis.
*OK - here's the answer.  More boxes with one fork per box?

Procedure:
1.   Place the first tuning fork alone in a quiet room.  Strike it with the hammer.  Record the loudness and duration of the sound.  The sound recorder or video camera should be placed approximately 50 centimeters from the tuning fork.
2.   If a video camera were used, it should show the readings on a clock so that the entire duration of the experiment can be accurately timed and displayed.
3.   If an Oscilloscope is available, do screen capture of the waveform.  Send the information to a data logger and computer for comparative analysis.  This is the reference curve.
4.   Repeat steps 1-3 at least 3 times to average out the difference due to different striking force.
It would any way be preferred to apply a mechanical strike. Should be easy to set up.

5.   Place a second tuning fork next to the first tuning fork.
Again.  *Do you mean a second box?  Or fork?  You've given yourself a certain amount of license in this constant interchange in your test apparatus.
*** a second tuning fork on its own resonance box.

Adjust the distance and the orientation until the loudest sound is heard.  Then repeat steps 1-4 with the video camera placed approximately 50 centimeters form the first tuning fork.
6.   Compared the loudness and time duration of the sound produced in the two cases.
7.   Repeat steps 1-6 with the third, fourth, etc. tuning forks.

1.   The minimum order from a manufacturer in China is 20 sets.  Each set consists of one tuning fork, one resonance box and one hammer.  Four sets are sufficient for this experiment.  However, it is a good idea to do a demonstration of all 20 sets in a quiet room.  That quiet room may act as a resonance chamber. 
2.   Once we agree on the details of the above experiment including who will do it; when to do it; where to do it; how to maintain it and how to distribute the 20 sets etc, we can order the units from the manufacturer.  The quoted price was US$200 including shipping costs.  That amount of money has already been raised by Todd.
*I get it that you are providing the apparatus to anyone who undertakes the test and hoping to be taken up on this?
*** No.  Only ONE group will get the apparatus and they will produce the video for all.  That ONE group is likely to be an investor.  He said that he was happy to provide the US$200 provided that he was the one to strike the tuning fork in the video.  That is fine with me.

3.   The significance of this experiment is to conclusively demonstrate that the additional tuning forks will produce louder and longer sounds.
4.   These louder and longer sounds will require additional energy other than that from striking the first tuning fork.
I would agree that you should get sound that is louder and will last longer depending on whether you are using more forks in a single container or whether you are using more boxes with only 1 fork per box.

*** more boxes with only 1 fork per box.

5.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the additional energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The vibration of the first tuning fork “pulse orders” the random motion of the molecules so that these molecules strike the other tuning forks at their resonance frequency.  Such action is similar to pushing a swing.  If the pushing or pulsing frequency is correct, the swing will go higher. If the frequency is not correct, the swing will not go much higher.
Well.  Your hypothesis will certainly *comply to Mainstream Theory on the same subject.  What am I missing?  I would have thought this is a well known effect of resonance. 

*** See MH posts.  He does not believe additional energy comes from the surrounding.

6.   Mr. Lawrence Tseung hypothesized that the tuning fork itself is already an energy loopback system.  When it pushes air in one direction, the compressed air will help to push it back to the other direction.  (The stiffness of the fork is another important factor.)  For resonance systems, the amplitude of oscillation or vibration will rise exponentially at or near resonance.  This phenomenon can be explained easily if we assume that there is additional energy coming into the system.
Lawrence.  *Resonating conditions are KNOWN to introduce more energy into a system.  It's been known since Roman time when it was observed that soldiers marching, in step, across a bridge could set up frequencies that were so profound that the entire bridge would self destruct.  And in the light of other such catastrophes even as late as our Century merely re-inforces this fact.  What you are claiming is that the movement of air molecules increases that phenomenon.  It does not.  Air only acts to dissipate the phenomenon by moving it through a wider and wider area.  Thank God.  Else a small and eccentric ticking of your average metronome could potentially establish resonance in the air that would liquidate all matter. The resonating condition is confined to the resonating material.  It's effects are only ever dispersed through space whether or not that space has air molecules.  And it can only ever be heards as 'sound' IF there are air molecules or water or some such material medium.

*** Talk to MH.

7.   If the initial energy of the system is 1 and 0.X percentage units of energy are brought-in.  On successive feedbacks, the energy of the system will rise as (1+0.X)*(1+0.X)*(1+0.X)….
8.   Thus the lead-out or bring-in energy theory can explain the exponential rise in amplitude near or at resonance.
I'm reasonably certain that you can call this a 'lead-out' or 'bring-in' or both.  Or anything at all.  It's just a different way of saying that something is dispersing through space which is more or less how mainstream would describe it.  To call it something else is not a rediscovery.  It's just a different term.

9.   If the phenomenon of tuning fork resonance is due to bringing-in of additional energy from the environment, can we extend the same concept to electrical circuit (e.g. LCR) resonance?
Now you're onto different ground.  *If this is correct and resonance requires air molecules - then you'd need to explain how resonating frequencies can travel through the vacuum of space where there are no air molecules.  You see this?  How would your average signal reach us from our satellites let alone distant signals from Voyager - if it relied on air molecules.  And all such signals depend on switching systems and subtle froms of resonance.

*** Sound cannot travel through vacuum.
*** LCR resonance does not lead-out kinetic energy of molecules.  It leads out electron motion energy!

10.   In the case of electromagnetism, magnetic effects can be produced by an orbiting electron around the nucleus.  This is known as a magnetic dipole.
*What is known as a magnetic dipole?  The electron?  It's nucleus?  The magnetic field?  What magnetic effect?

*** An electromagnet can be produced by passing current through a coil.  An electron is a negatively charged particle.  When it orbits around the nucleus, it acts like current passing through a coil.  That is regarded as the smallest possible magnet or dipole.

Such dipoles have energy but are normally orientated in random directions.
I have never heard of a magnetic effect being random.  And nor have I heard that the movement of the particles in an atom are random.  On the contrary.  They're known to follow some essential order that is inviolate.  All that is acknowledged is that the velocity of the electrons are such that they can only be seen. or conceived of, as a 'cloud'.

*** Read the Bohr Atom from a Google search. 

If some order is induced, is it possible to lead-out or bring-in such electromagnetic energy?
Again.  I no longer know what you're trying to say.  I've lost the plot.  Are you trying to suggest that the movement of air molecules is factored into this effect?  Or are you saying that as air molecules resonate so can electric energy resonate?  I would have thought that this last point is self-evident.  There are many who have achieved a resonating frequency on their circuits.  And it is absolutely NOT explained as a sound wave albeit that sound is a consequence of certain resonating frequencies. 

*** I think you confused LCR resonance with sound resonance. 

Thus if Experiment 1 is conclusive, the Lee-Tseung Lead-out Energy Theory may be correct.  The theory is called Lee-Tseung because Mr. Lee Cheung Kin, a retired missile expert from China, and Mr. Lawrence Tseung were the first ones to understand this and used the term lead-out energy in their PCT patent applications in 2005.
*Are you asking Open Source to validate a thesis or a patent?  And if this explanation is the full context of that application - then I wonder if it's either been approved or registered - with respect?  To me it seems a complicated way of getting the 'lead out' / 'lead in' terminology accepted when resonance describes it so much more comprehensively.  A new term on a well known concept does not require new science.  It just needs to be copyrighted - if indeed it would be worth adopting at all.  I think we need to establish whether it is worth adopting.  To my mind it rather confuses things.
***I am here to share information.  Physics Concepts cannot be patented.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-20, 18:50:31 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Guest

The secondary confusion is the twentieth tuning fork.  We are not talking about the twentieth tuning fork sounding louder and lasts longer than the first tuning fork.  We are talking about the resulting sound of the twenty tuning forks together sounding much louder and last longer even though we strike only the first tuning fork.
Lawrence.  This is a well known effect of resonance.

Please wait for this simple but conclusive experiment.  Then ask the question – where does the extra sound energy come from?  In all cases, we strike only the first tuning fork and the Input Energy should be the same within experimental errors??? 
Of course we'll wait.  But you seem to think this test would represent conclusive proof.  Frankly I would be fascinated to see this.  I'm always intrigued with conditions of resonance.

Some people may argue that the louder sound is just a more efficient conversion of the striking energy.  For two tuning forks, this may sound plausible.  For twenty???
Frankly I'd be surprised if 20 did not sound louder and last longer than 1 or even 2.

I firmly believe that my explanation of the extra energy comes from the surrounding air molecules is correct.  The explanation does not violate any Laws of Physics.  In vigorous scientific investigation, if an explanation does not violate the Laws of Physics, it should be treated with respect.  It will acquire the status of hypothesis to be further verified by experiments.
With respect.  Air molecules do not increase the sound.  It only disperses this.  And we must be thankful for this.  Else every resonanting sound condition would potentially liquidate our entire earth.  I'm afraid if you're suggesting that isolated air molecules can resonate to generate rather than disperse energy then we'd be in deep doo doo.

May God open our eyes and minds.  Amen.

Indeed.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
We now try to explain the concept of increasing the ordered motion per unit imaginary cube without necessarily increasing the energy input.

I hope the attached diagram is obvious without any explanation here.

The resulting faster velocity air (more ordered) can do more work per unit imaginary cube.

God has given almost inexhaustible energy to surround us in the form of kinetic energy of gas molecules.  Are we that stupid not to understand and use it?  The traditionally trained scientist may not understand it.  How about the open minded forum members here?

Can we lead-out or bring-in such energy???
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Some background and additional information on the kinetic theory of gases

It looks like some forum members might have forgotten the kinetic theory of gases as taught in High School Physics.  Some are totally ignorant of the extension of that theory to moving fluids.

I shall list some references here:

1.   The basic kinetic theory of gases as taught in High School Physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

The kinetic theory of gases describes a gas as a large number of small particles (atoms or molecules), all of which are in constant, random motion. The rapidly moving particles constantly collide with each other and with the walls of the container. Kinetic theory explains macroscopic properties of gases, such as pressure, temperature, or volume, by considering their molecular composition and motion. Essentially, the theory posits that pressure is due not to static repulsion between molecules, as was Isaac Newton's conjecture, but due to collisions between molecules moving at different velocities.

While the particles making up a gas are too small to be visible, the jittering motion of pollen grains or dust particles which can be seen under a microscope, known as Brownian motion, results directly from collisions between the particle and gas molecules. As pointed out by Albert Einstein in 1905, this experimental evidence for kinetic theory is generally seen as having confirmed the existence of atoms and molecules

2.   The extension – Kinetic Theory of Gases in Motion:
http://goldfield123.freehomepage.com/Lawrence3.htm

Abstract:  We reexamined fluid mechanics using the concept of velocity. Velocity in a fluid is different from that of a solid because velocity of a solid can be produced in only one way – giving the same velocity component to every molecule.  In a fluid, there are other ways – by changing the shape of the flowing pipe or controlling the inlet or outlet valves.  These other ways of changing the velocity have different properties and some may be attributed to changing the number of molecules moving in the X direction without adding the same velocity component to every molecule.  This phenomenon can affect the number of molecules moving or colliding in the Y and Z directions (thus changing the pressure in these directions).
   
Experimentally, we demonstrated that “push” and “pull” to produce the same velocity in water had different characteristics.  The concept of relative velocity in fluids must be reexamined with important consequences in the design of water and wind tunnels.  The more ideal aircraft is the Flying Saucer.  The Flying Saucer with engine power to provide the centripetal force for turning is much better than the existing aircraft using the tailfin.  The spiral take-off and landing of a Flying Saucer can take on most of the functions of a helicopter.

The additional information here is the leading-out or bringing in of the molecular velocity of these air molecules to do useful work.  One particular application is to deliver water to great heights with very much reduced energy.  The fluid in this case is a mixture of air and water.  Some of the energy of air is used.  The resulting exiting gases is cooler.  The most important equation are::

Energy of Gas In (Ein) = Volume In (Vin) x Pressure In (Pin)
Energy of Gas Out (Eout) = Volume Out (Vout) x Pressure Out (Pout)

Ein can be greater than Eout.  That difference is the energy supplied by the still air (or energy from the kinetic energy of the air molecules).

A description of the water+air pump is described in:
http://www.energyfromair.com/StillAir%20Paperfor%20ITF.htm

The reason why that the water+air pump technique is not used in ordinary households is the damaging effect of water hammering.  If there were air bubbles in the water pipes, a loud noise and a shaking effect may be experienced.  The result is damage to the pipe system and the building itself.  In special applications where the water+air will flow 24 hours a day such as the China project of transporting water from the South to the North, the water hammering is not a problem.

In addition the common water+air jet used for street clean also uses this technology.  On the toy scale, the supersoaker water guns or water rockets already use some energy from still air in their operation.

   
Group: Guest
We now try to explain the concept of increasing the ordered motion per unit imaginary cube without necessarily increasing the energy input.
*Just out of interest - who is the WE that you reference.  It has implications of endorsements and schools of thoughts and sundry collaborations that need to be explained, if you're going to reference the 1st person plural - all all.  If that 'we' is actually just you then I wonder at your use of the royal plural.  If there are others - then let us know who they are - unless, of course, they'd rather not be named.  In which case  Lawrence?  Are borrowing endorsement of an IMPLIED general 'school of thought' or that 'collaboration' when the truth is that you're actually ON YOUR OWN.  Nothing wrong with independent thought.  Just acknowledge it for goodness sake.

*** Mr. Lee Cheung Kin and a number of Researchers who would like to keep their identity secret for now.

*** (will be deleted) Regarding that imaginary cube.  Is the proposed 'ordered motion' also imaginary?  And what energy do you input?  Imaginary energy?

The resulting faster velocity air (more ordered) can do more work per unit imaginary cube.
No question.  If you apply a 'faster velocity air' - then you get wind.  And wind can certainly perform work.  No need to isolate that phenomenon in an imaginary cube.  And I very much doubt that one needs to be a 'free energy enthusiast' to get endorsement here.

God has given almost inexhaustible energy to surround us in the form of kinetic energy of gas molecules.  Are we that stupid not to understand and use it?
*I think only YOU can answer this.  I think wind is used widely and well.  Perhaps not widely enough?  Is that your point?  In which case we are, possibly, that stupid.  But I'm resonably certain that we can understand it.

*** We do not need wind to use the molecular energy!

The traditionally trained scientist may not understand it.  How about the open minded forum members here? [/b]
Nope.  I'm not a traditionally trained scientist - God forbid - and I like to think that I'm open minded.  And I'm absolutely certain that we can access and use the properties of wind as well as just about any material - atomic or particulate.  But I absolutely DO NOT agree that any gas or gaseous molecule is able to generate a self resonating frequency - if indeed that's your point.  The best it can do is dissipate this.   

Can we lead-out or bring-in such energy???

*Not sure of your terminology.  If by 'lead out' 'lead in' you mean can the air be resonated?  Yes is the short answer.  Can it generate a self sustaining resonating condition?  No - is the short answer.

*** No.

Lawrence - we're all fascinated by - or I should say - I'm fascinated by new ideas and new models and new thinking.  It's my entire obsession.  But I absolutely fail to understand what you're getting at.  Your terms, at best, are confusing.  Just try this again.  A simple point that we can get to grips with.   Are you talking self resonance in gaseous molecules?  Self resonance in gaseous atoms?  Self resonance in the atmosphere?  What?  Are you suggesting we apply this to an enclosed space - to open space - from and by sound - or applied kinetic energies?  Or are you using the imaginary box to apply exclusively to electric energy and somehow this is just an analogy of sorts.   I hope you see the difficulties that I'm having.  I'm a bit of a literalist - which is my own personal downfall.  But I cannot understand you points.  At all.  And it's not without due effort.

*By the way - these posts of mine were deleted?  Not sure what happened.  It's a comfort to see that you've re-instated them.  Presumably then you're still open to discussion.

*** I shall let you know ahead if I intend to delete any or part of any posts.

Rosemary
« Last Edit: 2011-01-20, 19:00:19 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Guest
Get him Rosemary! get him... ;D ;D ;D

It's nice to see you two safe and sound  :)
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
I finally got the Four Tuning Forks on Resonance Boxes to do the conclusive experiments.

The scenario under discussion was:

Can 2, 3, 4 or more tuning forks sound louder and last longer than when 1 is struck alone?  Will use of 3 sound louder than 2?  Will use of 4 sound louder than 3?  Will the placing of multiple tuning forks at 1/4 wavelength apart in an enclosed tube or toroid sound much louder and last much longer?

The first three scenarios were preliminarily confirmed today with actual experiments as shown in the following two diagrams.  The Winscope program from Electronic Snap Kit 303 (purchased from Radioshack) was used to display the amplitude of the Sound at a fixed location from the tuning forks.  Initially, only Tuning Fork B was struck.  Then another tuning fork D was placed at approximately ¼ wavelength apart (19.6 cm) and the resulting sound was louder and lasted longer (as demonstrated in all Physics Classes on sound resonance.)

The placing of the resonance box is important.  The best position is for the open end of the boxes facing each other.  However, even if the two boxes are placed parallel to each other, the resulting sound was still louder and lasted longer than when 1 was alone.

The first “Good” position is shown in the diagrams.  It was a very convincing experiment.  Unfortunately, there were certain valid scientific objections.

1.   We could not absolutely prove that the striking force used was identical every time.  (Some one may be able to suggest a good solution???)

2.   The Winscope program could not do an on-line capture.  We need to use another program that can display the amplitude and shape of captured sound waves.  This should not be a big problem.

3.   For my purpose, I just look for a comparison.  Thus I do not need to be exact on the measurement of the sound energy.  Some Universities may want to improve on this.

The First Divine Revelation is once more confirmed.  The experiment is definitely scientific and can be repeated at all teaching Universities with 4 or more identical tuning forks on resonance boxes, a microphone and a computer program that can display the sound waveforms.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The best configuration so far.

I recommend that all overunity conferences or seminars to include the above experiment or video.  The exact position of the resonance boxes can be marked clearly.  Particpants can hear for themselves the differences in sound and see the waveforms on large displays.

All doubts on Divine Revelation 1 will be removed.  Amen.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The longest sound (not loudest) so far on Aug 20, 2011

See the attached diagram.

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The loudest sound so far on Aug 20, 2011

See the attached diagram.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
I now have the equipment from China delivered to USA.

1.   I have the signal generator that can provide a constant sound in both frequency and amplitude.  The output was put directly to the speaker unit from the Electronic Snap Kit 303.

2.   The output from the speaker was picked up by an ordinary microphone and fed into the computer with the Winscope program also available from the Snap Kit.

3.   The first diagram shows the set up and the peak-to-peak value (white arrowed line).  That peak-to-peak value represent the voltage detected and can be treated as an indicator of sound amplitude.

4.   The second diagram shows what happens when a resonance box is brought close to the speaker.  The sound heard is louder.  The white arrowed line is much longer.

5.   The resonance box is a passive element that will not supply energy by itself.  Where does the extra sound energy come from???

{b] Divine Revelation 1 further confirmed. [/b]

The focus will now be on Multiple LCR resonance setups.
« Last Edit: 2011-08-22, 05:39:00 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ArMECVmOP4

Youtube video - using glass cup as resonance box.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The air+water pump device requires a 24 houe continuous operation to prevent water hammering.  It cannot be used in the average home.  The only application I knew was the "Southern Water to North" project in China.

It looks like we may have a possible application in "turning sea water into ordinary water".  The air saturated water may even have other added benedits.

Blessed is the Almighty.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The air+water pump was first deminstrated in Dec 2004.  I now treat this as the First Divine Revelation.

The physics is as follows:

1.   If you have a U-tube, on one side, you place water.  On the other side, you put oil.  The resulting oil column will be higher as its density is lower than water,
2.   What happens if one side is water and the other side is “air+water”?  The obvious answer is that the air+water column will be much higher.
3.   If the Air+water column is allowed to overflow, the air and water will separate.  The water will be at a much greater height and thus will flow down with increased potential and kinetic energy.
4.   The air coming out can be at a lower temperature.  This means some energy is extracted from air.  This extracted energy contributes to raising the air+water to the greater height.
5.   If the system is non-static – such as using an external air pump to create the air+water movement, will this pump need less power to pump air+water to a given height?
6.   One-way valves can be optionally introduced to help the flow of the air+water column.  If this matches the pulse pumping action of the air pump, a high efficiency can be produced.
7.   In other words, the air pump can help to lead-out or bring-in the energy of air to help in the operation.  The surrounding will be cooler.

The experiments by Dr. Raymond Ting of China indicated that with the right set up, the energy required to pump a given amount of water to a given height can be one-sixth of the conventional pure water pump.  The drawback is that a continuous operation is needed.  A stop and go operation would introduce water hammering that could be destructive to the pumping system and the surrounding structures.

Can you think of any operation that will require a 24 hour continuous pumping operation?

Thanks to Engineer Julia Wu in raising this possibility.  Amen.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The simple conceptual picture of the air+water pump set up
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Lucky Break???

Meeting with the Engineers

After I emailed the simple conceptual diagram out, I was invited to an informal meeting with some engineers.

Engineer A: “Have you patented this invention?”

Tseung: “I treat this as Divine Revelation 1.  I do not need more money or fame.  It will be disclosed to the World Free.”

Engineer B: “Exactly what are you claiming?”

Tseung: “The first claim is that the use of the air pump can deliver air+water  to a greater height.”

Engineer A: “I think we all accept that.  It is obvious and obeys simple Physics Laws.  The density of the air+water mixture is less than that of water.”

Tseung: “The second claim is that when the air bubbles rise, they encounter less pressure and expand.  During the expansion, the temperature will drop according to the Gas Laws.  Thermal energy will then come in from the surrounding.  This thermal energy helps to raise the water to a greater height.  This is what I call lead-out or bring-in energy from the environment.”

Engineer B: “Let us think this through.  I accept that the air bubbles will rise on the LHS limb.  They will not flow back downwards to the RHS limb.  Will they expand and cool the surrounding?  Have you taken any temperature measurements?”

Engineer A: “That should be an easy experiment.  We can do that easily.  My gut feel at present is that the surrounding temperature will drop.”

Tseung: “In that case, do you accept that thermal energy comes in from the surrounding environment?”

Engineer A: “I know that you believe in leading-out or brining-in energy from the environment.  I reserve my opinion at this point.”

Engineer C: “I shall have a deep well in my farm.  Can we use your technology to pump water up?”

Tseung: “This is a matter of using compressed air to bring water up.  There is a commercial product known as the Brumby Pump from Australia.  Their website is brumbypumps.com.”


Engineer C: “If they already have a commercial product, what are you really claiming?”

Tseung: “Their product will bring water or air+water up but they do not claim that they can use energy from the environment.  In fact, much energy could have been lost if excessive compressed air were used.”

Engineer A: “Let us simplify the discussion.  In raising a given amount of water to a given height, the energy required is mgh where m is the mass of water, g is the gravitational constant and h is the height.  It does not matter the method you use.   That is the minimum energy you must provide. Agreed?”

Engineer B: “Brilliant.  If there were no energy from the environment, the Law of Conservation of energy dictates that minimum. If Tseung can show an invention using less than that amount of energy as input, he can conclusively claim that energy from the environment has been used.”

Engineer C: “We shall be happy to devote some of our time to perfecting such a lead-out energy machine.”

Tseung: “This will require much tuning to get the right water flow, air flow, pipe diameter and water tank height.  Much will depend on the efficiency of the air pump also.”

Engineer A: “That will keep you occupied in your retirement.  I do not mind dropping–by occasionally to do some brain-storming or even tighten a few screws here and there.”

May God provide His Divine Guidance!
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Lucky Break???

Prof. C: “If you are correct, all pumping of water may be replaced by air+water pumping.   From the point of view of leading-out or bringing-in of energy, this may represent a major breakthrough.  That is scary.”
« Last Edit: 2011-11-03, 02:32:56 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Lucky Break???

I had a good conversation with Scientist P.  The supposed 10 minute introduction of the air+water pumping system turned to over 1 hour.  The major points are summarized here.

1.   There is little doubt that adding air into a water column will make the effective density less.  The resulting air+water column will be higher.  This is obvious from the standard Physics Laws and from actual experiments.

2.   There is little doubt that the air bubbles will rise and expand.  That will cool the environment and heat energy will come in from the environment.

3.   How much heat energy will come in?  This is the most important question and will dictate whether an air+water system is practical. 

4.   The ram pump was once very popular as it uses running stream water or small water height to raise water to a higher level.  However, it was replaced by the electrical pump which was more convenient.  From the fuel economy point of view, the ram pump is still better.  Will the air+water pumping system suffer the same fate?

5.   To raise a given amount of water to a given height may be a good question.  The air+water system may be better.  But if we add the requirement of “in a given time”, the picture may change.  Much more data is needed.

More work and more fun.  May God help us.  Amen.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
God sends His Angels.

One came in the form of Patrick Kelly.  He sent me the information related to the Tariel Kapanadza TPU as attached.  One of the techniques in hunting for resonance was outlined.  Please read that information carefully.  That will save us much time in the “hunt”.

The other Angel came in the form of Scientist S.  Scientist S confirmed the workability of the air+water pumping system.  He sent me the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCXulNWtYms.  I do not need to do the proof-of-concept experiment any more.  The task becomes getting data for actual water height, water mass, rate of flow, diameter of pipes and air-flow rate.  The goal is to check whether we can achieve the claim by Dr. Raymond Ting that for some conditions, the energy required to raise a given amount of water to a given height via the air+water technique is only one-sixth that of the conventional water pumping system.

Praise the Lord.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2018-08-19, 09:01:59