PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > ltseung888 > Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public
2024-05-18, 20:19:17
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public  (Read 25835 times)
Topic Options img
img  ltseung888
Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « on: 2011-03-19, 17:49:11 »
Group: Guest
This is the public thread.

Any one can post.  Please focus on the scientific aspect.  Personal attacks or insulting comments will be removed without notice.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #1 on: 2011-03-21, 01:37:22 »
Group: Guest
With the above assumption, the Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the momentum before collision must be equal to the momentum after collision.  Thus we have equation (1)

Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s    (the +ve and –ve signs are very important)

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the kinetic energy before collision must be equal to the kinetic energy after collision.  Thus we have equation (2)

0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s


In my understanding, the law of momentum conservation referring to the relative frame of reference while the energy conservation referring to the absolute frame of reference. 

Suppose a ball of mass M moving with velocity V in +X direction hitting a mass M at rest. 
The center of mass of the two ball system is moving at 1/2 V in the +X direction. 
Relatively, both ball is moving toward its center of mass at 1/2V.  After collision, both ball is moving outward its center of mass with 1/2 V . This satisfy momentum conservation. 
The center of mass velocity is unchanged with respect to absolute frame of reference before and after collision to satisfy energy conservation.
Combine both, we can see the moving ball stop and the rest ball now at V in +X direction.
This can be use to visually solve simple problem as a double check to the complicated math.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #2 on: 2011-03-21, 21:34:39 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011-03-21, 01:37:22
With the above assumption, the Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the momentum before collision must be equal to the momentum after collision.  Thus we have equation (1)

Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s    (the +ve and –ve signs are very important)

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the kinetic energy before collision must be equal to the kinetic energy after collision.  Thus we have equation (2)

0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s


In my understanding, the law of momentum conservation referring to the relative frame of reference while the energy conservation referring to the absolute frame of reference. 

Suppose a ball of mass M moving with velocity V in +X direction hitting a mass M at rest. 
The center of mass of the two ball system is moving at 1/2 V in the +X direction. 
Relatively, both ball is moving toward its center of mass at 1/2V.  After collision, both ball is moving outward its center of mass with 1/2 V . This satisfy momentum conservation. 
The center of mass velocity is unchanged with respect to absolute frame of reference before and after collision to satisfy energy conservation.
Combine both, we can see the moving ball stop and the rest ball now at V in +X direction.
This can be use to visually solve simple problem as a double check to the complicated math.

Dear GibbsHelmholtz,

Thank you for bringing out another approach.  In a way, I am glad that we have two different threads so as not to confuse the non-expert.

As you can see from the participants only debate thread, we do not need to introduce two different frames of reference.  It is simpler and can lead to very solid, conclusive results.  You can examine the equations and the spreadsheets in detail and confirm the correctness of the mathematics.

The implications of the results of the two equations will be of great interest.  I know that it is Divine Revelation and not Human Intelligence.  The tuning fork was invented 300 years ago.  String Instruments with resonance chambers were invented many more centuries ago.  Every one knew that a louder sound could be produced.

How is it possible that no scientists before Lawrence Tseung could pin-point the real source of energy?

Is it the arrogance of men that blinded their vision and innovation?  Amen.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #3 on: 2011-03-22, 09:04:11 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-21, 21:34:39
...
Is it the arrogance of men that blinded their vision and innovation?  Amen.


The "arrogance" of men is only the legitimate trust in themselves instead of deferring to vain occult powers. It is the key attitude of humanism, the only way for humans to solve their problems and to progress.
The best progress in Occident came at the Renaissance, when people understood that they don't need god to explain the world. Galileo's time was arrived.
I enjoy the later sentence from the astronomer and great mathematician Laplace, answering the Napoleon's question "and God?":
"Sire, I didn't need this hypothesis."  :)
Napoleon was amused and told the anecdote to another astronomer and also great mathematician, Lagrange, who said:
"Ah, it is a fine assumption; it explains many things."   
   
img  eatenbyagrue
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #4 on: 2011-03-22, 17:54:39 »
Group: Guest
Lawrence, why all this constant talk about god and the divine?  There is no place for religion in a scientific discussion - it only undermines your arguments, it does not strengthen them.

If you think otherwise, you will first need to prove that God exists, and only then can you use his existence as support for your theories, though you must then connect him to those somehow.
   
img  chrisC
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #5 on: 2011-03-22, 19:40:46 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-21, 21:34:39
Dear GibbsHelmholtz,

...

How is it possible that no scientists before Lawrence Tseung could pin-point the real source of energy?

..
This 'scientific' thread has a very simple explanation.
 Perhaps this Lawrence Tseung is no scientist! That would explain a lot.

cheers
chrisC

*** Warning - Personal Attacks are not allowed in scientific debates.  All such comments in future will be deleted without notice.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-22, 20:26:48 by ltseung888 »
   
img  muDped
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #6 on: 2011-03-22, 19:52:11 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011-03-22, 17:54:39
Lawrence, why all this constant talk about god and the divine?  There is no place for religion in a scientific discussion - it only undermines your arguments, it does not strengthen them.

If you think otherwise, you will first need to prove that God exists, and only then can you use his existence as support for your theories, though you must then connect him to those somehow.



We are literally surrounded by the proof that there
is a Supreme Being;  but we choose not to "see"
it.

Why do some find it distasteful or inappropriate to
gratefully acknowledge the presence of the Divine
One?

Can you prove that the Almighty One does not exist?

The Source of Love does not impose any constraints
on what we choose to do or to believe - we are free
to make those choices.  But, He does strongly encourage
us to show loving kindness to all and to stop doing what
is bad, for our own benefit.  And for the benefit of those
with whom we interact.

Has not "Science" become a religion unto itself?  With its
own hierarchy and its own "divine one?" 


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #7 on: 2011-03-23, 00:26:39 »
Group: Guest
@eatenbyagrue and Dumped,

In the acknowledgement of any achievement, it is customary to acknowledge the family, the friends, the previous scientists who laid the foundation, etc.

I looked at how I got my two strokes, lost my wealth, lost my wife, lost my self-confidence and was forced to retire early.  From the worst of the worst and from the deepest despair, I prayed for a Miracle.

The Miracle came.  I recovered on an experimental medicine that did not work for many others.  The Miracle continued.  I could observe simple, common events either alone or with others and solved the Energy Crisis of the World theoretically.

The tuning fork or any musical instrument with a resonance chamber was around for centuries.  The swing or the pulsed pendulum was around since the dawn of civilization.  Millions of people, including all the top scientists of the World, saw and touched them.  How is it possible that none of them understood and explained the correct theory?

To me, from the depth of my heart, I know that it is the continuation of a Miracle.  There are no scientists to acknowledge for the tuning fork or the swing.  They passed away centuries ago.  I have the strength to go on despite the poor eyesight, hearing and slow reaction because of FAITH.  The obstacles fell in front of me one-by-one over these many years of Energy Research.

I firmly believe that there is a difference between a Divine Revelation and a hard earned scientific discovery.  In my case, I was rescued from the dump of hopelessness.  I was shown the same phenomenon that millions had seen.  I was inspired to re-examine them using elementary Physics taught at all High School Physics.  How can a dejected, retired, old man with practically no resources beat all the scientists with vast resources?  How can this old man see what all others failed to see? 

I firmly believe in Miracles and Divine Revelations.  It occurred to me and is still continuing.  The Water has been turned into Wine.  I am just the first one to taste and testify.  Others will soon come and confirm.  They will help to serve this fine wine to the General Public.  Solving the Energy Crisis of the World is not an old, retired, dejected man.  It is God the Almighty.  Amen.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #8 on: 2011-03-23, 05:02:20 »
Group: Guest
Mr. Tseung,

After looking over at your energy calculation, I don't see anything wrong with the math.  I have one problem though.  You assumed that ball1/B1 with 1000 speed hit the left side of the moving piston while B2 with 1000 speed hit the right side of the moving piston;  both cases the piston is at the same velocity before being hit.  There is only one case that this happens and that is both balls hit the piston simultaneously.  I know you reasoned that at any time the left side is being hit just as much as the right side.   I do agree that the average hits per unit time are the same on left and right side, but not the "instantaneous" hit for I argued that no two events can happen simultaneously.  For example, if both balls moving at 1000 speed hit the moving piston at the same time, then left ball move 1200, right ball move 800, piston velocity unchanged.  However, when i calculate the case B1 hit, piston acquired new velocity, and ball two hit the new velocity piston... it appears that the piston will reach an equilibrium condition after so many non-simultaneous collisions.  Can you double check this? 

Thanks
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #9 on: 2011-03-23, 11:06:51 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011-03-23, 05:02:20
Mr. Tseung,

After looking over at your energy calculation, I don't see anything wrong with the math.  I have one problem though.  You assumed that ball1/B1 with 1000 speed hit the left side of the moving piston while B2 with 1000 speed hit the right side of the moving piston;  both cases the piston is at the same velocity before being hit.  There is only one case that this happens and that is both balls hit the piston simultaneously.  I know you reasoned that at any time the left side is being hit just as much as the right side.   I do agree that the average hits per unit time are the same on left and right side, but not the "instantaneous" hit for I argued that no two events can happen simultaneously.  For example, if both balls moving at 1000 speed hit the moving piston at the same time, then left ball move 1200, right ball move 800, piston velocity unchanged.  However, when i calculate the case B1 hit, piston acquired new velocity, and ball two hit the new velocity piston... it appears that the piston will reach an equilibrium condition after so many non-simultaneous collisions.  Can you double check this?  

Thanks

Dear GibbsHelmholtz,

Excellent observation.

If you look at the two ball figure, the result of the Piston velocity after collision was based on – after collision with B1 and then B2.  I already removed the need to consider “simultaneous hitting” in my mathematics.

You can use spreadsheet 1 to work out the Piston velocity after collision with B1 and then use that figure (99.9978) as the initial value of the Piston velocity before collision in spreadsheet 2.  In other words, replace the 100 value in cell F7 of spreadsheet 2 with 99.9978.  

Thank you for bringing it up.

When the water has been turned into wine, the server is not important.  All Physicists and Mathematicians will serve the same fine wine (agree on the same result).  Amen.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #10 on: 2011-03-23, 16:06:40 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-23, 11:06:51

 99.9978.  



I see, so the piston will eventually slow down to equilibrium.  I did the case when the piston is at rest.  My conclusion is that if the piston is below the equilibrium value, it will suck momentum from the molecules to achieve equilibrium.  If it is at higher, it will "ring down" to achieve equilibrium.  What interesting is that we're using pure elastic collisions yet it "ring down".  I'm thinking could this be the mechanism for friction... if so, then there appears to be a negative friction for the case of "ring up" to equilibrium.  We can also make the piston mass bigger to have a longer, more efficient energy transfer (I think this is what you meant when adding more forks". 
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #11 on: 2011-03-23, 17:43:57 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Dumped on 2011-03-22, 19:52:11
...
We are literally surrounded by the proof that there
is a Supreme Being;  but we choose not to "see"
it.
...

Can we be told how to plug the Supreme Being for free energy?
Does a little prayer work to switch on the device?
 :)
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #12 on: 2011-03-23, 19:51:57 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011-03-23, 16:06:40
I see, so the piston will eventually slow down to equilibrium.  I did the case when the piston is at rest.  My conclusion is that if the piston is below the equilibrium value, it will suck momentum from the molecules to achieve equilibrium.  If it is at higher, it will "ring down" to achieve equilibrium.  What interesting is that we're using pure elastic collisions yet it "ring down".  I'm thinking could this be the mechanism for friction... if so, then there appears to be a negative friction for the case of "ring up" to equilibrium.  We can also make the piston mass bigger to have a longer, more efficient energy transfer (I think this is what you meant when adding more forks". 

The “ring-down” or gradual “slow down” of the Piston is because the energy supplied by the Piston to the molecule is (1440000 -1000000) 440,000 units.  The energy supplied by the Molecule to the Piston is (1000000 – 640000) 360,000 units.  The net of 80,000 (440,000-36,000) must come from the Piston.  The system is an OPEN system.  The ball B1 carries the extra energy to the –X direction and never comes back.

One important aspect that most people missed is – The pulsed order molecular motion excites other tuning forks.  These tuning forks will send back a pulsing order molecular motion to excite the first tuning fork again.   If the arrangement is done right, the resulting sound may be louder and lasts forever.  But in most cases, the sound will just be louder and last longer.

In other words, the addition of one or more tuning forks may provide the “feedback mechanism” necessary for a continuous bring-in energy operation.

The interesting part of this exercise is the theory.  Energy can be brought-in at resonance.  The Theory is based on Newtonian Mechanics.   The practical device will be the electrical (LCR) resonance circuits bringing-in electron motion energy.
 8)
   
img  muDped
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #13 on: 2011-03-24, 00:15:10 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-23, 17:43:57
Can we be told how to plug the Supreme Being for free energy?
Does a little prayer work to switch on the device?
 :)



Those energy resources are abundantly located at every
part of planet earth;  all we need do is open our "eyes"
to see them and use our mental and physical attributes to
devise beneficial ways to utilize that energy.

Prayers must be made with humility and altruism;  whether
one will receive answers to prayers is very much dependent
upon one's motives.

It must be pointed out however that there is another "god"
who is temporarily the ruler of this present world.  This god
will hear prayers and may respond to requests too.

Again, it is all about motives and heart.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #14 on: 2011-03-24, 00:33:30 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-23, 19:51:57
  The ball B1 carries the extra energy to the –X direction and never comes back.

One important aspect that most people missed is – The pulsed order molecular motion excites other tuning forks.  These tuning forks will send back a pulsing order molecular motion to excite the first tuning fork again.   If the arrangement is done right, the resulting sound may be louder and lasts forever.  But in most cases, the sound will just be louder and last longer.

In other words, the addition of one or more tuning forks may provide the “feedback mechanism” necessary for a continuous bring-in energy operation.



Right, so we need this energy to come back + some extras.
I can see your argument about more separate forks to provide the "arrangement/ feedback mechanism".
So we can say the important key is that the "arrangement" has to bring back the energy + extras.
I think I have a clue of where this is going.  The "arrangement" such that to manipulate the phase relationship when collide and collisions will take one or more forks below its equilibrium.  I'll lock on that for now.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #15 on: 2011-03-24, 10:26:23 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Dumped on 2011-03-24, 00:15:10
Those energy resources are abundantly located at every
part of planet earth;  all we need do is open our "eyes"
to see them and use our mental and physical attributes to
devise beneficial ways to utilize that energy.

I see in your assertion no logical relation between possible hidden energy sources and a "Supreme Being", unless you name "supreme being" the ZPE or cold fusion or... "Maxwell demon"!   :)


Quote
Prayers must be made with humility and altruism;  whether
one will receive answers to prayers is very much dependent
upon one's motives.
...

I would be very interested about the measurement of prayer efficiency. Can you propose an experimental protocol?
As it is in war times that people pray the more, we have for the moment only an evidence of a possible reverse effect of prayers onto events   :)

A last point about "humility". The greatest discoveries in science appeared in Occident when human beings begun to think that they could act and think by themselves, without constantly referring to god. The modern science came from the trust of humans in their own potentiality. "Humility" is the contrary, a way for developing inferiority complexes. It has been used during centuries by the Catholic Church to maintain in its subjugation, the people minds. "Humility" should be dismissed in the scientific methodology, it is a negative attitude. Neither humility nor belief; modesty, conviction and trust are enough.

*** Warning:  This thread is not intended as a debate on religion.  Future such posts will be deleted without notice.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-24, 11:06:20 by ltseung888 »
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #16 on: 2011-03-24, 11:01:24 »
Group: Guest
Refering to:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=772.0;attach=4422

In the ideal case of an instantaneous collision, if the balls B1 and B2 hit the piston at the same exact instant of time, the piston motion is not concerned, because the forces that the balls apply onto the piston mutually nullify.
Therefore the balls bounce back with the same velocity, question of conservation of momentum, and the piston continues its way without disturbance. Momentum and kinetic energy are obviously conserved.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #17 on: 2011-03-24, 11:22:39 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-24, 11:01:24
Refering to:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=772.0;attach=4422

In the ideal case of an instantaneous collision, if the balls B1 and B2 hit the piston at the same exact instant of time, the piston motion is not concerned, because the forces that the balls apply onto the piston mutually nullify.
Therefore the balls bounce back with the same velocity, question of conservation of momentum, and the piston continues its way without disturbance. Momentum and kinetic energy are obviously conserved.


Dear exnihiloest,

You are making an assumption that the forces that the balls apply onto the piston mutually nullify.

It sounds logical but is it correct?

From Physics, Force can be expressed as the rate of change of momentum.  If the Piston is moving in the –X direction, will Ball B1 moving in the +X direction have the same rate of change of momentum as the Ball B2 moving in the –X direction?

Will a head-on collision be the same as a tail-hit in commonly observed car accidents?

Even if the collisions are simultaneous, the velocity of Piston will be a factor.  We still need to rely on the two equations of Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy.  The Ball B1 will still bounce away at a higher velocity.

I am glad that the debate is back to discussing Physics.

Edit:  By the way, in the case of a missed collision, the velocity, momentum and energy of the Balls and the Piston will be unchanged.  In our case, one might have mistaken Ball B1 as B2 and vice versa.  (It is a case of mistaken identity – not a result of collision!!!)
 ^-^
« Last Edit: 2011-03-24, 14:52:13 by ltseung888 »
   
img  eatenbyagrue
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #18 on: 2011-03-24, 20:53:02 »
Group: Guest
« Last Edit: 2011-03-25, 01:09:12 by ltseung888 »
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #19 on: 2011-03-25, 01:44:00 »
Group: Guest
I was working on slowing down the piston below its equilibrium state today.
 
 When at equilibrium, the momentum of the piston is equals to the ball momentum: Mv=mV
This sets the collision frame of reference static, therefore, colliding head on (180 degree out of phase) could not slow down the piston.
However, if we somehow collide them in phase (i.e. the ball hit the piston from behind), we can make the piston go above equilibrium.
There is no way to slow the piston below its equilibrium.  One can use a lower momentum state ball to slow the piston down, but we have no control over the environment.

What occurred interesting to me was the natural state of nature is 180 degree out of phase (equilibrium).  Could it be that current flow from negative to positive...
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #20 on: 2011-03-25, 10:17:23 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-24, 11:22:39
...
From Physics, Force can be expressed as the rate of change of momentum.  If the Piston is moving in the –X direction, will Ball B1 moving in the +X direction have the same rate of change of momentum as the Ball B2 moving in the –X direction?

F1=dp1/dt=d(m1*v1)/dt
F2=dp2/dt=d(m2*v2)/dt

(*** The two above equations are incorrect in the sense that the rate of change of momentum is NOT F1 = d( m1*v1)/dt.  The change of momentum is the final momentum – the initial momentum divided by time (assuming a constant force). 
*** Thus the rest of the calculation need re-examination.)

v1=v, v2=-v, m1=m2=m

F1 = d(m*v)/dt
F2 = d(m*-v)/dt = - F1

As F1=-F2 and the piston is at the position of the collision, the resultant force onto the piston is null.

Quote
Will a head-on collision be the same as a tail-hit in commonly observed car accidents?

Not at all the same case. In car accidents, momentum is not conserved, collisions are spread over time and not elastic. Thermal energy is involved in materials deformation.

Quote
Even if the collisions are simultaneous, the velocity of Piston will be a factor. 

This assertion is dismissed both by the math of classical mechanics and by experimental evidence.

(*** Sorry, please check your mathematics first.)

In a more general way of thinking, a mechanical system as that you propose can be described by a lagrangian, i.e. can be analysed according to the principle of least action. In this formalism (which is perfectly compatible with the other one), the formulation is not tied to any one coordinate system and shows also the conservation of quantities.
The possibility to describe a closed system with a Lagrangian (it is the case here as well as for any system with elastic collisions) dismisses all possibilities of extra energy.

(Edit:  the *** is used to show my comments.  LT)


« Last Edit: 2011-03-26, 21:10:12 by ltseung888 »
   
img  humbugger
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #21 on: 2011-03-26, 04:59:57 »
Group: Guest
Could it be that Lawrence bought his physics books at the...
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #22 on: 2011-03-26, 11:15:18 »
Group: Guest

ltseung888, would you be kind enough
1) to use correct and fair quotations in order your text to not be confused with mine, and we know who writes what?
2) to give your mathematics which should be far beyond the state of the art of conventional mathematics which is mine, so I'm very interested?

Thanks
   
img  poynt99
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #23 on: 2011-03-26, 14:06:58 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Lawrence,

Please respond to posts using another post and quotes as per normal. Do not edit someone else's post unless something that  goes against the OUR TOS needs to be removed. OFF-topic posts are also game for removal or course.

Thanks.

.99
« Last Edit: 2011-03-26, 21:20:53 by poynt99 »


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #24 on: 2011-03-27, 12:20:58 »
Group: Guest
Dear All,

I have now completed the simple computer model that conclusively showed that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance.  The random motion of air molecules can be changed into a pulsing order by the vibrating tuning forks to do work.  The energy is mainly from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0

I believe that the Steven Mark Device may be a case of two LCR circuits tuned to resonance.  That condition can bring-in electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons.  I have not done enough research into the Steven Mark device to tell whether such an assertion is true.  Your comments are welcome. O0

Steven Mark Device video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5483558279656482347#


Lawrence
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-18, 20:19:17