The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[atomicX]

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?

cheers
chrisC

I don't know, do you?

Top Gun,

I felt that I gave you an impossible question.  You won't be able to explain it. The thurst equation Ft=mv shows that with momentum conserved, when F goes up t must go down and vice versa.  Therefore, under conventional equations, you will not be able to solve it.  I am confident that the experiment shows a different result so stick with the experiment. 

[Top Gun]

Top Gun,

I felt that I gave you an impossible question.  You won't be able to explain it. The thurst equation Ft=mv shows that with momentum conserved, when F goes up t must go down and vice versa.  Therefore, under conventional equations, you will not be able to solve it.  I am confident that the experiment shows a different result so stick with the experiment. 

Your question is not impossible.  It is related to the field of inertia propulsion systems.  In fact it is another misunderstanding from the mainstream science.  Let me quote from Wikipedia.:

Reactionless drive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article deals with debunked claims to have produced a reactionless drive. For examples of theoretically possible drives that do not require a reaction mass, see Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program.

A reactionless drive or inertial propulsion engine (also reactionless thruster, reactionless engine, and inertia drive) is any form of propulsion not based around expulsion of fuel or reaction mass - the name comes from Newton's Third Law of Motion, usually expressed as, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Such a drive would use a hypothetical form of thrust that does not require any outside force or net momentum exchange to produce linear motion. While such a device may not necessarily violate the law of conservation of energy,[citation needed] it would appear to violate conservation of momentum, a fundamental principle of all current understandings of physics, and is therefore considered by most physicists impossible to construct outside of science fiction.

All devices that have been claimed to be reactionless drives and tested under controlled conditions have failed and are found to rely on a non-linear effect of the supports they sit on. Some examples include devices that inch along a tabletop or when floating in water, but stop working once they are suspended or in vacuum.
The classic example was the patented Dean drive, named after Norman L. Dean, which gained considerable publicity in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in the columns of John W. Campbell, editor of Astounding Science Fiction magazine. Authors in the science-fiction genre have continued to make considerable use of the concept. For example, the Basestar in Battlestar Galactica, impeller-driven ships of the Honorverse and some ships in Larry Niven's Ringworld all use reactionless drives.

There are hundreds of such devices, but the most common is the oscillation thruster, which uses friction to transfer momentum to the device. Misconceptions as to how these devices work have led to people believing they are building reactionless drives - when in reality they are not. Another class of similar devices uses interaction with the air in a similar manner. As such they are not economic breakthroughs, as wheels and propellors are far more efficient ways of moving a vehicle in reaction to air or ground.

In most cases the devices in question are supported by a single inventor. Often, some people involved in the creation and promotion of the device (namely the inventor) blame "Big Science" for the failure of the idea to take off.

Let me explain the juicy details in the following posts.

[Top Gun]

Inertia Propulsion Systems Continued.

As mentioned in Tseung's Book, a 13 year old girl, Wini Woo, who never heard of reactionless drive said that she could produce a flying saucer.  Her reason was that if the effective gravitational constant could be increased in the magnetic pendulum example, it could also be decreased.  Decreasing to zero means hovering in mid-air.  Decreasing to negative means rising up.

That particular part cannot be wrong theoretically or experimentally.

Tseung got his friend, Bill Fong to do some elementary experiments.  The quick and dirty experiment was to place a fireworks rocket in a closed container.  Ignite the fireworks rocket in the closed container and see if there is any motion.  The quick and dirty experiment was far from perfect as the container was not perfectly closed because the fuse was ignited from outside.  The container was suspended by a string in mid-air.  The result was a small but observable motion of the container.

Tseung, Bill Fong and Wini Woo filed for a China patent immediately.  That information is available to the General Public in the China Patent Database.

More to follow.

[Top Gun]

Inertia Propulsion Systems Continued.

Tseung then checked the patent databases and found that there were close to 100 inertia propulsion patents in the US patent database alone.  He thought that it would be accepted easily.

Lee Cheung Kin contacted his friends in the Chinese Military and was told that inertia propulsion systems were impossible as outlined in Wikipedia.  Lee and Tseung had fierce arguments and Lee decided not to get involved in the impossible flying saucer project.

Tseung was convinced because he saw the movement of the closed container.  That could not be due to friction or reaction with air.  (Lee argued that the tiny opening allowing the fuse and the expanding air to come out is responsible for the observed motion.)  It is a classic case of seeing the same thing but giving different interpretations.

More to follow.

[Top Gun]

Inertia Propulsion Systems Continued.

Tseung came up the silly picture in Flying-saucer001.jpg.  He argued that the two balls could fly away in opposite directions with equal momentum.  The top ball hitting the padded surface will impart less force to the spacecraft than the bottom ball. There will be a net downward force on the spacecraft.

The physics of that argument cannot be wrong.  Force = Rate of change of momentum.  The padded surface will increase the time of change of momentum and thus produce less force on the spaceship.

The actual experiment is experiment001.  Tseung did not do the experiment himself but he got a top professor in electromagnetism at Tsinghua University to do it.  It took that professor about 2 hours.

More to follow.