The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Top Gun]

Top Gun,

I understand the features you proposed.  Mybe you did not understand my point. I'm worrying about the safety of the pilot.  I understand we can stand in a space ship that travel at the speed of light.  But from the speed of light to a complete stop in 2 or 3 second require method of protecting everything inside the spaceship.  I know that you just want to propose your theory so my concern require much engineering.  To me we should extend the ability to control not only large inertia but also generate a minute force field within. But like I said, let the engineer do that. 

I did not get mess up with flying saucer and free energy.  Though a lead out machine must be present inside the spaceship.  I also believe in inertia propulsion and professor Laithwaith's works.  To me lead out energy can be extend to and extract from linear motion and not restricting to circular motion.  Thought it could be related since we're talking from normal object scale to atomic scale. 


Bill,
Thanks for the detail information.  You are correct that airplanes cannot use rudder to manuver, such a force would only result in stalling the airplane.  I believe Top Gun point is the concept between mass ejecting and interia propulsion.  Thanks for the clarification.

Safety of the pilot - you are ahead of me.  I just focus on getting the craft up, hover and move with remote control at present.  I am happy to get the craft flying in a stadium.

airplanes cannot use rudder - thanks for the clarification.  They still use wings or aerodynamic surfaces to generate lift and manuver.  They still need air except those that rely on 'rocket' power.

[Top Gun]

I also believe in inertia propulsion and professor Laithwaith's works.

Dear atomicX,

Please explain inertia propulsion for the benefit of some forum members here.

I am not familiar with professor Laithwaith's work.  Please explain more.  Thank you.

[Pirate88179]

Quote from AtomicX


"Bill,
Thanks for the detail information.  You are correct that airplanes cannot use rudder to manuver, such a force would only result in stalling the airplane." 

This is not correct either.  To "Stall" an airplane is actually where the flow of air over the airfoil (wing) is at a high enough angle of attack (to the relative wind) to disrupt airflow over the wing.  The wing loses lift and hence the term...it "stalls", meaning, it no longer produces lift.

The use of the rudder could NEVER stall an aircraft.  Actually, in the case of a near stall condition, the rudder is used to keep the aircraft from entering a spin.  The use of ailerons would produce asymmetric drag which could induce the spin so the rudder is used instead.

Bill

[atomicX]

Bill,

To me the wording is just a reference point.  A sudden change in large drag force is stall to me.  I know each area define it differently and I don't really pay attention to the details.  So you probably gets it more accurate.  Thx

Top Gun,

I read the story of gyroscopic propulsion.  He proposed that intertia propulsion can be achieve with gyroscopic force.  I looked at some technical drawing but still having trouble to understand it fully.  I've done some gyroscopic experiment myself and verify that pulsing a gyroscope indeed give a 90 degree force.  Its direction is much complicated and under research.  I see your drawing on your intertia propulsion concept.  It's linear and much more simple.  However, you failed to mention why it works. You said two balls hitting different elasticity surface give rise to a net force.  The force hitting the soft surface is smaller than the hard surface.  How are you going to explain the timing?  The time for the small force is larger for the big force.  So they are balance out. 
I have my own solution, but I want to hear yours.  Thanks

[chrisC]

Quote from AtomicX


"Bill,
Thanks for the detail information.  You are correct that airplanes cannot use rudder to manuver, such a force would only result in stalling the airplane." 

This is not correct either.  To "Stall" an airplane is actually where the flow of air over the airfoil (wing) is at a high enough angle of attack (to the relative wind) to disrupt airflow over the wing.  The wing loses lift and hence the term...it "stalls", meaning, it no longer produces lift.

The use of the rudder could NEVER stall an aircraft.  Actually, in the case of a near stall condition, the rudder is used to keep the aircraft from entering a spin.  The use of ailerons would produce asymmetric drag which could induce the spin so the rudder is used instead.

Bill

Seemed like the snake oil peddler really doesn't know much about anything at all.
Doesn't it seemed ridiculous that if the Commies really had spectacular "flying saucer" technology they will actually demonstrate it in a soccer stadium? Hahaha what a dork!

China is as large as the USA in land area and they don't have a similar area 51 type facility? Plus they need a no-name deluded 'scientist' with no 'O'-level qualifications to tell the world of the technology used in their super-duper flying saucer?

All adds up to a bad fiction novel written by some snake oil salesman.

cheers
chrisC