The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[TinselKoala]

Let's indeed be scientific.
"If, and only if, the LTLOT is true and correct, the magnet device referred to in Experiment001, constructed as TopGun will specify, will behave as follows: (fill in the blank, TopGun)."
A statement of this form is a scientific hypothesis, and is the basis for any rational experimentation.
I'm still waiting for such a statement from the LTLOT proponents.
Please note that if the behavior of any such device can be explained, or modeled, fully by conventional theory, then the LTLOT will not be supported.
Now, I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. Pictures and data, that is.
Those who know me, know that I put my money, my tools, and my expertise "where my mouth is"--that is, in addition to my occasional "jokes" I build and test real stuff, and have been doing so for many years.
I won't do TopGun's research for him (unless I get paid for it at my usual rate). But I would be happy to see his data, videos, and drawings of his actual apparatus, along with details of the test procedure he followed, in order to reproduce his results as exactly as I can.
Or cannot, as the case may be.
And there are indeed other alternatives than those you have listed in your post, TopGun. Such as, get off your high horse and do some experimentation yourself, or at least do some reading in the field so that you can see that these devices and ideas are not new and have been tried  before, many times, with only illusory success--that is, none.

[chrisC]

Let's indeed be scientific.
....
A statement of this form is a scientific hypothesis, and is the basis for any rational experimentation.
.... get off your high horse and do some experimentation yourself, or at least do some reading in the field so that you can see that these devices and ideas are not new and have been tried  before, many times, with only illusory success--that is, none.

@TinselKoala

Well said. No sane person needs 83 pages of delusional writings to try ptove their point. What we have here is a 'scientist' from the hospital of delusional science where drills are not required for experimentation!

cheers
chrisC

[utilitarian]

Let's indeed be scientific.
"If, and only if, the LTLOT is true and correct, the magnet device referred to in Experiment001, constructed as TopGun will specify, will behave as follows: (fill in the blank, TopGun)."
A statement of this form is a scientific hypothesis, and is the basis for any rational experimentation.
I'm still waiting for such a statement from the LTLOT proponents.
Please note that if the behavior of any such device can be explained, or modeled, fully by conventional theory, then the LTLOT will not be supported.
Now, I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. Pictures and data, that is.
Those who know me, know that I put my money, my tools, and my expertise "where my mouth is"--that is, in addition to my occasional "jokes" I build and test real stuff, and have been doing so for many years.
I won't do TopGun's research for him (unless I get paid for it at my usual rate). But I would be happy to see his data, videos, and drawings of his actual apparatus, along with details of the test procedure he followed, in order to reproduce his results as exactly as I can.
Or cannot, as the case may be.
And there are indeed other alternatives than those you have listed in your post, TopGun. Such as, get off your high horse and do some experimentation yourself, or at least do some reading in the field so that you can see that these devices and ideas are not new and have been tried  before, many times, with only illusory success--that is, none.

I will point you to the most demonstrative thing Tseung has ever published.  First, he rigs up a spinning clear plastic square with guides for steel balls to bounce back and forth while the wheel spins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1P3TGhJiF0

Then he compares this to an identical setup, except that balls bounce against a padded surface on one end of the guide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zykButGc22U

To his credit, he tries to be fairly precise with the initial energy imparted, by using a falling weight to initiate the spin.  In the padded setup, the wheel spins longer, and he concludes he is on the right track. 

What he fails to include is a simple control spin, where the ball is held completely in place and does not bounce at all.

[chrisC]

....

I feel that the photos from Lee Cheung Kin are not hoaxes.  They do not violate any laws of physics.

I too feel the photos are not hoaxes. How can they? Layered Objects badly done on Photoshop are still static objects and those don't violate any laws of physics. Well said old Tseung.

cheers
chrisC

[TinselKoala]

@utilitarian: Thanks for posting those videos. I presume the hypothesis under test is something like, "If the LTLOT is true, then the device with the padded walls will run longer than the one with the hard walls", of course with a bit more detail to flesh it out.
I must admit I am impressed by the effort, if not the execution. As you say, the control experiment with the balls fixed in place is absolutely necessary. Multiple trials in each configuration, with averaged times compared, is also standard procedure, as I'm sure you appreciate. My hypothesis is that anything that allows the balls to move subtracts energy from the wheel's rotation, and since the padding damps the motion of the balls, less energy is subtracted, so the padded wheel might run longer for this reason alone. Consider the case where the padding is so much that it prevents the balls from moving at all--this, by my hypothesis, should produce the longest runtimes. Perhaps this is why this control experiment isn't shown: it certainly was done, these fellows aren't exactly dummies. But since it produced (probably) the longest rundown times of all, and that doesn't conform to the LTLOT, it was discarded as being "flawed" or a bad trial or something.
Now, to the videos themselves: 
It is clear to me that the second wheel, the padded one, is turning faster from the start, and I believe I can see why. Look very carefully at the instant of the weight release. In the first video it looks like the suspension string hangs up a bit and the weight doesn't release cleanly but actually holds back the wheel slightly as the weight is dragged off the airbag. In the second video the weight is released cleanly and the wheel is initially spinning just a bit faster. (These kinds of things are why multiple trials are necessary.) This could partially account for the difference in run-down times, on top of the effect of moving the balls around subtracting energy from the rotation.
I've done a few of these types of tests myself, you can download a typical video from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug
It has since been pointed out to me that the residual velocity of the weight may not be the same at every release; that is, if the wheel is going faster or slower at the instant of weight release, the weight starts free-falling with different amounts of initial KE, which means it deposited different amounts of energy in the wheel before release. This is another effect (source of error) that must be accounted for in these types of tests, and can actually be quite large if the wheel's rotational moment of inertia is varied much from condition to condition.