The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[nightlife]

I checked a couple things and I was right about the pressure. It does not create more volume but restricting the volume creates more positive pressure.

I also found out that it will only work up to a height of around 33 feet above the higher supply. I am not sure if the one way valves would make a difference or not, tseung888 may know about that.

Based on that theory and the possibility of being able to use one way valves, ltseung888 may be right. All in all, it does make for a interesting experiment.

[ltseung888]

Warning from Lee Cheung Kin

Rife discovered that every virus, bacterium, parasite and other pathogen is particularly sensitive to a specific "frequency" of sound and can be destroyed by intensifying that frequency until it literally explodes - like an intense musical note that can shatter a wine glass! To "disintegrate" the microbes, Rife invented a Beam Ray machine (now known as a Rife machine), the forerunner of today's Global Wellness? Plus instrument.

Lee warned that the ?frequency? could be a ?Lee-Tseung? type pulse that provides energy to the vibrating virus cell.  That type of pulse can kill virus.  It can also kill good human cells.  If not careful, a researcher might accidentally build a machine with infinite energy generating these human killing pulses.  The Human Race might be wiped out before we know why.  This could be a theme for a science horror movie.

I believe the top-secret researchers of many countries already know this ?death ray? technology.  It was not that dangerous before because these researchers did not have infinite Cosmic Energy Machines to play with.  Turning off power means stopping of the killer rays.  Cosmic Energy Machines can Lead Out the infinite energy of the universe.

[ltseung888]

Violation of Second Law of Thermodynamics

This part is strictly for the Physicists who might be consultants to the Chinese, the USA or other Government Officials.  Few non-Physicists even know or care what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

A quick reference is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

The second law traces its origin to French physicist Sadi Carnot's 1824 paper Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, which presented the view that motive power (work) is due to the fall of caloric (heat) from a hot to cold body (working substance). In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.

There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

The air+water air pump experiment does not violate the Second Law because the system is NOT a closed or isolated system. 

[acp]

Be careful !!!!!!!   You have no idea of the danger a wet tissue presents.

[Koen1]

Dear Keon1,

Yes, mr Tsuegn?

I would like to settle one issue after another.  In Physics or Mathematics, sometimes when you do not understand one section, you will not be able to follow the next section.  This is why some students find Physics and Mathematics difficult.  (For example, if you do not understand addition, you will not be able to follow multiplication).

You don't say. Don't use that condescending tone, I'm not retarded or anything.

In the case of delivering air+water to a great height with an air pump and one-way valves, a physicist must be totally satisfied that the experiment is absolutely correct and verifiable because of its implications.  Hans says that it is a hoax or fraud without replicating the experiment.

Because you refuse to give exact specs of the experiment! If you refuse to provide all exact details, how do you propose it be replicated? No, what Hans has done is analyse the little clear info we have been able to drag out of you, and conclude that if that is really all and there are no details that you omitted, it seems impossible, based on his experience with pressurised airflow through a standing water column, and other experience he picked up during his work as an engineer.
Actually amazing that you are now the one whining about him not actually replicating your claimed experiment, in the light of our many requests for clearly detailed info on the experiment and your own continued refusal to provide these details.
You do realise that you're trying to throw stones while living in a glass house, so to speak?

The challenge to the Forum Members is for some of you to actually do the experiment.

No, you don't understand how this works:
YOU claim that it works, YOU claim the experiment was a grand success pumping water up 10 times the height the pump should allow.
Then it is also YOU who should provide convincing proof. It is YOUR job to do the experiment, record measurements, and present all this evidence in a very clear and detailed manner.
Only then should replications be made, and only after successfull replications can we conclude that we now not only have your own proof, but also independent replication, which is another form of proof.
But the main point it that YOU are the one making the claims, and YOU should substantiate them.
It is NOT right to claim an effect and then insist that others do your experiment because you choose to ignore or dismiss their requests for proof.

Without absolute confidence in the experimental result, further discussion will be pointless and more confusing.

Well then finally give us some proof then! I'm really starting to lose my patience with you, old man!
Come on then, grab a digital camera and film your experiment!
Show us video of the setup, the pumps, the pumping action, the water+bubbles going up, the valves working, the amount of water collected at the top, the measurements of exactly how much water went in at the bottom and came out at the top, the measurements of how much energy (electrical or otherwise) was used to pump the air+water up, etcetera etcetera. Simply film every single thing, and film the various sections in function. That should prove convincing enough.
But nooooooo, you refuse to do so eh? You're probably going to pretend I didn't post this message again, eh? Even worse, you're probably going to point the finger at us again and say that we should do the experiment you refuse to prove to us.

Lawrence Tseung
Absolute confidence in the experimental result is necessary for understanding its profound Physics Implications.

And will you please stop signing your posts with those pretentious quasi-smart oneliners? They're damn annoying!
Maybe that is the latest hype in China, but it irritates the heck out of me. If you want to say something, then just say it.