The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

Just received the following information from Mr. Raymond Ting who built a prototype system using energy from still air.

His protoype won the Silver Award in the 16th China Invention Conference (see diagram).

Comparison with existing technology was that his prototype system used 1/6 the electrical power to deliver the same quantity of water to the same height at the same time.

The Email of  ââ,¬Å½Raymond Tingââ,¬Å½ is nicepark@netvigator.com.  His English is not good.  You may cc me (ltseung@hotmail.com) so that I can help him.

[Evil Roy Slade]

Mr ltseung888

Well done to Mr Ting.

1.  Why does such a prestige Chinese certificate have an English heading?

2. Why is the chinese portion of the text written across the page instead of vertical columns.

3. Can you translate what the certificate says into English because I think my chinese friend here cannot read his own language very well.

Thanks,

ERS

[Koen1]

Well mr Tseung, thank you for finally posting some clearer experimental data.
It is too bad that you clearly say "Improvements using electric pumps, better one-way valves, better and wider tubes, etc will not be shown as that would reveal too much and endanger the on-going negotiations.", as that seems to indicate you are not prepared to show us any actual data using some exact parameters, like the exact type and power of the electrical pump used, etc.
In that context it is a bit odd that you state the following a little later:
"For reliable data, we used the electric air pump in the steady state.  We could measure the Input Pump Energy in various ways.  The rough one is its rated power x time.  The more accurate one is to use additional volt and amp meters.  Thus we can determine the Input Energy Ein reasonably accurately.  The output energy Eout is calculated from mgh where m = mass of water transferred at the same time interval, g = gravitational constant and h = height elevated.
Once we found that Eout can be greater than Ein, we claimed success."

So you claim success based on an experiment of which you will not provide actual proof nor exact description?
Why exactly are you attempting to convince people that your theory is correct, if you will not give exact experimental data in fear that it "might endanger on-going negotiations"? So you are in negotation with some party about this, and you will not give us clearer info because of that, but still you're trying to convince us?
That doesn;t make much sense... Either you want to share it with us and the world, like you have suggested by posting your UN letter, and like is suggested by your continued posting on various fora, OR you want to market it directly and therefor not share your exact info. You cannot do both at the same time; you cannot share your information while keeping it secret; you cannot try to get us excited by suggesting you want to give information and at the same time clearly say you do not want to give more detailed information.... That's blowing hot air...

"I did not do the part where we allowed the elevated water to flow down to drive an electricity generator.  Hopefully, the generator would supply enough power to drive the air pump and more." 
This is an odd statement, since you also claim that "his prototype system used 1/6 the electrical power to deliver the same quantity of water to the same height at the same time"...
If you know for certain that the pumping of an equal amount of water to an equal height takes 1/6th of the energy it would normally take, then obviously having that amount of water run down through a second pump in the normal fashion should output 6 times as much (not counting friction).
If it is in fact a certainty that an equal amount of water can be pumper up using 1/6th the energy, then why do you say "hopefully"? You should be certain.
Unless of course you are in fact a lot less certain that it really does take 1/6th the energy... Which would mean you're trying to convince us that it might be 1/6th the energy, but you're not sure, so you HOPE that the output will show that...
What is it?
Are you certain, or are you hoping?


"We also learned the technique of Leading Out energy from gravity directly.  Those Cosmic Energy Machines are much more efficient."
Now THAT is something we all want to hear about!
Much more interesting than your kindergarten waterpump "experiment".
Please explain to us this technique of "leading out" energy from gravity directly!
Especially since they are apparently much more efficient.
I can't speak for the others, but I for one would prefer to build a much more efficient direct gravity convertor over the construction of a fairly dodgy and still not exactly clear waterpump game...
Come on, share details on this direct gravity conversion technology, please.
Forget about convincing us of your boat on the water analogies and other things that apparently helped you but confuse us, and just give us a full and total, detailed and exact description of this direct gravity conversion technology, if only a basic experimental setup?

[ltseung888]

Well mr Tseung, thank you for finally posting some clearer experimental data.
.....

The exact data showing Eout > Ein belongs to the experimenters.  One of them is Mr. Raymond Ting.  It is him (or others who built and obtained test data) who can tell the World the exact data.

I repeat ? I am the theoretician that conceived the experiment.  I built the set up as shown in this thread with great difficulty and danger to myself.  Other good experimenters already built better working systems that could be scientifically tested.  The equipment and test data belonged to them.

It is up to them to decide what and how much they want to share with the World.

Or

Any one can design, build and obtain test data.  They, as owner of that data, can disclose such data to the World.

Lawrence Tseung

[ltseung888]

Cry for Help

I finally realized I could not explain reply 643 and 758 to the non-Physicists on the internet.  Can any one help?  Help! Help! Help!

Thank you in advance.

Lawrence Tseung
Saying more Leads Out more confusion.