The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[chrisC]

Well, first of all, "lead out" is not a physics term.  You just made that up.  You still have to prove your hypothesis, and it is not proper in any scientific field to use your own hypothesis in support of it.

Lead Out was translated from the Chinese term 引出.  Lee Cheung Kin was the first person to use this term.  We struggled over many terms - including "extract", "use existing", "Lee-Tseung out" etc. 

....
For the moment, please accept the term Lead Out so that we can continue our discussion.

How about, for the moment, we substitute 'Lead Out' as Bull Shit?

That is really what it is without scientific proofs that can be experimentally verified. So far, after over 120 pages of your constant nonsense, did you see any real scientist supporting your postulates?

Instead, you continue with your junkie science and messed up physics.

cheers
chrisC

[ltseung888]

I think you overlooked something, Mr. Tseung.  A pendulum, even when let go and no longer pushed, is still (1) generatic kinetic energy on each downswing.  So forget what happens on the downswing.  Let's focus on (2)the upswing component, where  the "lead out" process happens after all.  As the bob finishes the downswing and begins the upswing, it has a certain amount of kinetic energy.  (3)This kinetic energy is no different than a "pull," and it results in the bob moving out horizontally and vertically in a circular fashion.  So (4) why does a bob eventually lose energy?  (5)Shouldn't there be a 50% energy gain in each swing?

Let me answer you point-by-point using Physics.
(1) generate kinetic energy on each downswing.  The correct physic statement is that the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the downswing.  No new energy comes in.

(2) the upswing component, where  the "lead out" process happens after all.  This statement is totally incorrect.  The "Lead Out" process happens at the end of the upswing if we apply a Lee-Tseung Pull at that instant.  The upswing component never Leads Out any energy.

(3)This kinetic energy is no different than a "pull".  This statement is totally incorrect.  A "pull" is an external force adding energy to the system.  Slowing down or changing the kinetic energy to potential energy will not add energy to the system.

(4) why does a bob eventually lose energy?  The bob eventually loses energy because of air resistance and friction at the pivot.  Some energy is passed to the air and some is used to overcome friction.

(5)Shouldn't there be a 50% energy gain in each swing?  No, No, and No.
Vertical Energy or gravitational energy is Lead Out only if you have the Lee-Tseung Pull at the uppermost part of the swing. 

I have to admit that you really tried.  You will get the correct understanding sooner or later.  It will be sooner if you have a Physicist friend helping you.

[shruggedatlas]

You have already stated that the output is two parts horizontal + one part vertical.  The two parts horizontal is the input.  Thus two units IN and three units OUT.  I thought that is as clear as it can be. 

The horizontal pull is the force we give to the system.  Its energy is the INPUT energy.

It is not at all clear.  For all we know, there could be 4 parts horizontal energy being put in, with only 2 horizontal and 1 vertical out.  Maybe if you actually made the effort to use real weights and measurements, like I suggested, we would not have this confusion.

Anyway, I do not think I want to discuss this with you anymore. You use too much circular reasoning, and it is frustrating.  I also do not appreciate being told to talk to a physicist friend.  I am discussing this with you, and if you do not care to explain yourself, then you can just have your other personas for company.  I'm done.

[ltseung888]

I understand and agree with the statements 1-5. 6 puzzles me slightly, wouldn't the pendulum act as a lever when T = mG? Does a lever not require vector arithmetic?

All 6 have been evaluated and agreed to by one of my university student friends, so I am willing to move forward to slide 12.

Please get your university student friends to confirm the correctness of slide 12.

The magic of the Lee-Tseung theory and the solution to the World Energy Crisis lie in these three slides.

[Koen1]

I completely agree with Shruggedatlas.

It is not at all clear.  For all we know, there could be 4 parts horizontal energy being put in, with only 2 horizontal and 1 vertical out.  Maybe if you actually made the effort to use real weights and measurements, like I suggested, we would not have this confusion.

Indeed.
For someone who is constantly acting as if he is lecturing others and pointing out that they
are wrong, you are very good at overlooking your own enormous errors.
If you insist Shrugged use 100% correct terminology to formulate a statement that is very clear,
then why do you not use a proper unit of measurement instead of talking about "units of energy",
and why fo you not indicate very clearly how much energy is input and how much is output?
Only now, after Shrugged brought it up, do you tell us how many of your mysterious fantasy "units"
of energy was supplied as input...

Anyway, I do not think I want to discuss this with you anymore. You use too much circular reasoning, and it is frustrating.  I also do not appreciate being told to talk to a physicist friend.  I am discussing this with you, and if you do not care to explain yourself, then you can just have your other personas for company.  I'm done.

Well there you go Tseung, another victory for you.
I'm starting to get fed up with your behaviour as well, think it may be time to leave you alone here...