The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[hansvonlieven]

ADDENDUM:

I meant to say that when I quoted the number of rotations achievable this was based on the weight attached to the wheel that drops into the cushion to guarantee an even starting point for the experiments. If he gives it a really hard push by hand unmeasured, and if he is strong, he might even manage 19 or 20 rotations :-)

Hans von Lieven

[ltseung888]

Tseung: ?The square wheel by itself without any attachment could rotate up to 16 minutes.  When we attached the two cylinders of 80% sand, we could get a rotational time of 30 minutes.  The sand moved inside the tube, providing the pulse.?

I did find one testable claim in all of what Tseung wrote.  See above quote.  I do not actually believe that this can happen, so if it does, that would be pretty amazing to me.  My prediction is that the moving sand will only hinder the wheel's rotation. 

The only thing that maybe was missed is that to have a proper test, there should be we exact same weights attached in the control experiment, but not containing sand.  Or perhaps for simplicity and to assure equal weight, fill empty space with cotton to prevent sand from moving.

What do you guys think?

The square "wheel" in question is  2' 6" X 2' 6" or thereabouts. It is made of !/4 inch plexiglass or some other acrylic sheeting, in other words it is light. It is also full of holes.

Now if someone were to design a rotating body aerodynamically worse than this one it would require a lot of inspired thinking.

The square edges cut into the air like a blunt knife, the holes create turbulence across the entire surface, the square shape creates an imbalance, all factors that waste a lot of energy. On top of that the wheel has little mass to store energy.

Such a wheel will NOT rotate on a shaft for 16 minutes, even with frictionless bearings, no matter how hard the push. He will be lucky to get 16 rotations, more likely around five. As to the addition of equally aerodynamically idiotic sand cylinders virtually doubling the run time this is just laughable and not worthy of serious comment

These data are plainly fictitious, which is about the worst thing anyone can do in science and our Mr. Tseung is guilty of it!

The data on the air pump are equally made up. I don't have enough time right now but I will furnish proof in a further post.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

How could you be so stupid of all people to say the figures are made up.  You know that I have the wheel in my living room.  A set of the beach pump and plastic box is with Mr. Ting.

When you guys ask for experimental data, I supply them.  You then without replicating the experiments and say those data are fake.

I just treat you as one of the CIA debunkers not worth dealing with any more.

Sorry.  Your credibility in my eyes is negative now.

Lawrence Tseung
People claiming eperimental data are fake without replicating any experiments are hoaxes and fraud.

[Evil Roy Slade]

@Hans
Sorry mate, the CIA debunkers cafe is rather full at the moment. Would you mind moving on to The Like Lounge next door?

@Tseung
Thankyou for giving me such a good laugh!

ERS

[ltseung888]

@Hans
Sorry mate, the CIA debunkers cafe is rather full at the moment. Would you mind moving on to The Like Lounge next door?

@Tseung
Thankyou for giving me such a good laugh!

ERS

Now I finished a nice dinner.  People are not too bad after all.  The CIA or the Like actually did me a favor.  Their involvement got the attention of the top Chinese Officials. 

When my theory is rock solid and my intentions to benefit the World are noble, why should I worry about the stupid debunkers.  They know that I can easily repeat the experiments and set up a webcam to show the World.  Why are they so stupid as to challenge the data???

Lawrence Tseung
Dealing with stupid bebunkers may make the genius stupid.  Ignore them is a better strategy.

[Koen1]

The square "wheel" in question is  2' 6" X 2' 6" or thereabouts. It is made of !/4 inch plexiglass or some other acrylic sheeting, in other words it is light. It is also full of holes.

Now if someone were to design a rotating body aerodynamically worse than this one it would require a lot of inspired thinking.

Rofl! You could not be more right, Hans! Nice formulation too.

The square edges cut into the air like a blunt knife, the holes create turbulence across the entire surface, the square shape creates an imbalance, all factors that waste a lot of energy. On top of that the wheel has little mass to store energy.

Exactly. A quick and dirty solution to make the motion more balanced and sustained might be to add weights to the rim so that it has a better flywheel-like effect. And what is the big brilliant insight our Chinese friends had? Indeed: adding weights to the rim in the form of sand-filled containers. The result? Exactly what we would expect: the terribly badly balanced wheel sustains a more balanced motion for a slightly longer period of time. Wow! What a discovery!

Such a wheel will NOT rotate on a shaft for 16 minutes, even with frictionless bearings, no matter how hard the push. He will be lucky to get 16 rotations, more likely around five. As to the addition of equally aerodynamically idiotic sand cylinders virtually doubling the run time this is just laughable and not worthy of serious comment

These data are plainly fictitious, which is about the worst thing anyone can do in science and our Mr. Tseung is guilty of it!

Hans, I do agree that mr Tseung is guilty of very bad science.
However, since I have not read exact decriptions of the material the square "wheel" is made of, nor of its weight/mass, nor of the exact force applied to the wheel to make it spin, I cannot judge whether or not it may have sustained 16 minutes of rotation. If they gave it a really hard swing to make it spin, and if they used extremely low friction (magnetic) bearings, it might have spun that long. Although realistically, if we look at the crappy material we have been shown in some of the pictures, it does seem extremely unlikely that they used such bearings. It seems most likely that the 16 minute rotation is not real, and that mr Tseung has been telling lies.
That said, let us assume such a "wheel" would rotate for X time before it stalls to a halt. Let us now assume we attach weights to the rim. Let us also assume these wieghts can be sand-filled cylinders. Obviously it would require a higher input energy to make the "wheel" with its increased mass rotate. I do not see any mention of this in mr Tseungs claimed account. The added weights would have a somewhat stabilising "flywheel" effect which might result in a total rotation time Y, where Y>X. But since Ein(X)<Ein(Y) it is debatable if that would result in any net gain. As far as I can figure it would not, so I must agree with you that the data appear to be entirely fictitious.

The data on the air pump are equally made up. I don't have enough time right now but I will furnish proof in a further post.

Well since mr Tseung also refuses to give proper information about the specs in that "experiment", and most of his argumentation is emotive instead of rational, it seems likely that all of his "data" is either intentionally false or incredibly flawed.
Example: we are told that there are 2 pumps. What capacity do they have? How much energy do they use to pump? How much energy does such a pump need to pump water, and how much to pump air? Are we talking about equal volumes of air and water being pumped, or are we talking about equal amounts of energy put into the pump?
How great is the exact volume of water pumped by the bottom pump, and how much is the exact volume of water collected in the top container?
None of these facts are provided.
The only things I have seen is a vague overall setup plan, pictures of a cheap plastic hand-pump, and overexcited mention of how much higher the water can be pumped.
Do you think mr Tseung, our selfproclaimed "formal physics educated" chinaman, does not understand that things don't work that way? It's not about how high the water can be pumped. It's how high an EQUAL AMOUNT of water can be pumped using an EQUAL AMOUNT of energy. If you can actually pump 1 liter of water up to 3 times as high using the same amount of energy, then it would be a proper and indeed very interesting experiment.
But there is nothing to suggest that is the case. After all, if we first had the lady in the waterpumping pics pump the one hand-pump with all of her weight depressed on it, and if she does the same later with two pumps simultaneously, then obviously the total energy put in should be the same, but we still don't know how much that is, and we also do not know how much of that energy input goes to the water pump and how much to the air pump. That the water is claimed to reach a greater height also does not say much, because it depends on how much water actually ends up in the container, not on how high the water surface level is raised. For a formally educated physicist it seems very strange not to use a pump that actually has a clearly indicated input energy and output force, but to opt for a cheap plastic hand-pump...

Anyway, if such a simple pump experiment shows 600% COP, as Tseung claims, then why is China not building huge big hydroelectric plants based on this principle? Everyone knows Chinas economy and with it its energy needs are growing extremely rapidly, and it is no secret that China has been trying to buy as much oil as they can, and that they have been building fossil fuel power plants for the past years to keep up with the energy demand.
Or if China's government is not interested yet, then at least mr Tseung and his friends could have been rich by now, building generators on this principle.
Instead mr Tseung chooses to flood multiple fora with his continued narcisistic nonsense, not making any money, and having to wear a crappy beach hat all day.
Clearly this OU waterpumping principle works...?!
Come on, really... If you had such a water pumping experiment that clearly showed 600% COP, then would you not almost immediately go out and buy a small hydroelectric generator (or build one using a waterwheel and a dynamo for example), hook the thing up, and celebrate your infinite OU device in function?
I certainly would! I would have my entire house hooked up to it within a few months, and celebrate my big breakthrough with all of my friends and a big bottle of champagne.
I would write a clear and detailed description of my setup and all of my measurements, and ask a handfull of physicists to witness it functioning and to check all my measurements. Not that a 600% output can be overlooked, but still. Then I would either patent it if I wanted to get rich, or I would share all these detailed findings with people in order to get free energy out there.
I would certainly not post half of it without the proof...