The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[atomicX]

@ AtomicX:


Lawrence has created alter egos and frequently posts to himself.  A lot of the "insults" you refer to are actually the Devil (Lawrence) and Lawrence (Lawrence) and Top Gun (Lawrence) arguing with each other.  You will see many, many days when all of the posts are from these manifestations of Lawrence's ego.  Oh, and there were many others, who could forget Maj. Todd Hathaway? Forever also gets an honorable mention. (Also Lawrence)


Bill

So you assumed all these nicks are ltseung talking to himself?  I find that absurd.  They are clearly different people. 

@AtomicX

Tseung888, TopGun, Devil, Forever, Critic and now AtomicX?
Take your medication.

cheers
chrisC

Do you see what I mean now?

[utilitarian]

Dear utilitarian,

You still have not grasped the picture.  I insist:

1.   Here is my theory that can explain the workings of over 200 OU devices.
2.   These should be called lead-out-energy devices and not Over Unity devices.  I do not need to build one more.
3.   If you want, Forever Yuen can do some additional proof-of-concept experiments for you.  They can conclusively prove the correctness of my theory.
4.   Here is the plan on how the world can benefit with lead-out-energy and flying saucers.  Both USA and China have such devices but kept them as top-secret.
5.   OK.  There are some inventors that have simple inventions that can be reproduced.  Here are the theory, design diagrams, pictures or videos. 
6.   China now has 15 replications of the Wang device.  Chinese Engineers have produced a flying saucer prototype that is flying in a Stadium within 6 months.  In USA, many have replicated the Bedini device.  The OU inventors’ efforts are not in vain.

The latest development is that â€" President Obama is more likely to disclose the top-secret of lead-out-energy machines and flying saucers than President Bush.  Give him a chance.  I am willing to help him.

Lawrence Tseung
Director, Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited.

On the contrary, there is not a single working OU device.  Not 200, not 20, not 1, but zero.  Even Bedini, arguably the most famous "OU" inventor, admits that his device is not over unity.  So your theory cannot be applied to a single working device.

Second, despite your numerous experiments, you have yet to stage a single demonstration of any effect that cannot be explained by conventional physics.  From the spinning bottle to the spinning stool.  All of these are easily explained by current science, and your lead out theory is not required.  If you can demonstrate any effect that violates what physics currently teaches us, please go ahead. 

Surely, you should have at least finished the development of your perpetually spinning padded wheel.  That was a very simple concept - why does it not work?  Have you abandoned it?

[atomicX]

I went re-examine the slices of the pendulum. 

There is a mistake is labeling.  Namely the unit does not match between mass and force.  However, this is no big deal.  The mathematical described for the displacement and work is correct.  I did not check the calculation for correct numerical, but if the number is correct as approximately ration of 2, then those equations are valid by mathematics.

Now, tinu has pointed out that this pendulum is still under motion in the time of calculation and thus the equation cannot be account for work-energy assumption.  I disagree.  Assume that the initial condition of the pendulum is at rest and being hit with a force.  At the maximum height when the pendulum stop, there is no kinetic energy, thus these equations are valid. 

However, even if the equation is valid, we will have to let the experiment do the reality test.  For example, we know spring force is kx where k = spring constant and x is the displacement.  This equation is linear in mathematic and calculation and it is valid, but we know in reality it does not follow a linear prediction.  Mr. ltseung, I just hope that you're right. 

[utilitarian]

So you assumed all these nicks are ltseung talking to himself?  I find that absurd.  They are clearly different people. 
Do you see what I mean now?

Tseung himself admits in his e-book that Top Gun and Devil were alter egos.  And it is obvious that Critic is too - Tseung does not deny it, and the writing style is identical.  Who else bolds and underlines constantly?

[utilitarian]

I went re-examine the slices of the pendulum. 

There is a mistake is labeling.  Namely the unit does not match between mass and force.  However, this is no big deal.  The mathematical described for the displacement and work is correct.  I did not check the calculation for correct numerical, but if the number is correct as approximately ration of 2, then those equations are valid by mathematics.

Now, tinu has pointed out that this pendulum is still under motion in the time of calculation and thus the equation cannot be account for work-energy assumption.  I disagree.  Assume that the initial condition of the pendulum is at rest and being hit with a force.  At the maximum height when the pendulum stop, there is no kinetic energy, thus these equations are valid. 

However, even if the equation is valid, we will have to let the experiment do the reality test.  For example, we know spring force is kx where k = spring constant and x is the displacement.  This equation is linear in mathematic and calculation and it is valid, but we know in reality it does not follow a linear prediction.  Mr. ltseung, I just hope that you're right. 

You certainly have the right idea that an experiment is key, but here is what you will find.  For every experiment you stage that shows no evidence of any lead out energy, Lawrence will nitpick about how something or other is not quite right.  However, he will never stage his own experiment to prove what he is claiming.