The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

@ltseung888:
there we go again...

Yes, yes, we know you are convinced of your own "theory" and that you consider the non-proof that you presented in those posts to be true proof.
And we know you are easily excited about nothing.
This session of blowing your own horn only serves to support that observation.
Your continued refusal to attempt to prove your own hypothesis and insistance that haphazard and totally unscientific "experiments" which are in fact more akin to toddlers play have now reached a limit. To me, this was the final drop.
All you seem to be intent on doing is posting a lot of empty statements and non-supported claims, and most of all telling everyone how great your "theory" is without actually showing anyone a real theory.
Unless you finally start serious discussion on this topic, I will not post again. Well, maybe to laugh at you, the silly tenacious old chinese fool.

Nonsense statements like "sowing the seeds" don't serve anyone either. Do you really think that we need you to "sow the seeds" of belief in the possibility of over unity? If that were the case, then what do you think people were doing on a web forum called Overunity.com long before you ever posted anyhting?
You're making a mockery of yourself, posting dumb things like that.
We already believe OU is possible. We're here to discuss practical ways of doing so.
Perhaps for you it is a huge breakthrough to consider the possibility of open systems and OU devices, and perhaps that is why you coin this realisation a "theory", but it's not. And we certainly didn't need you to point out the possibility of OU, using gravity or whatever source.

Now for the very last time I shall attempt to explain to you why your "theory" is not one, and what the problem is with your postings.
The method to reach a theory, which is a usefull and testable model of reality in a certain specific aspect or field, is as follows:
1) Observations of anomalies: people observe processes or phenomena in the world around them that do not accord with the established theory at the time. (If there was no theory on the subject, that leads to the same effect)
2) Hypothesis: a preliminary "theory" is formulated that accounts for and/or explains the observed anomaly. This hypothesis should allow for empirical testing, which means one must be able to design an experiment by which the hypothesis can be tested, and which differs from the observations we already had (otherwise we'd only be confirming that our observation was correct, but that says nothing about the hypothesis being true or false).
3) Empirical testing: an experiment is designed and conducted based on the hypothesis, so that the new test measurements can prove the hypothesis correct of false.
4) Theory: IF and only if the empirical tests are passed, which means the predictions made on the basis of the hypothesis are proven to be correct, then the hypothesis may be considered to be a theory. So only AFTER proving it to be true and real can we call it a theory.

Even you must understand that you have performed phases 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. You have observed anomalous effects in various claimed OU devices and non-OU but still interesting devices, which is phase 1. Then you have thought about these and made a spreadsheet based on your thoughts, which you somehow consider to be a theory. In fact, it is not even a proper hypothesis. It is an analysis and mathematical extrapolation, at best. It is not a hypothesis because you do not explain anything, nor give clearly formulated arguments, nor use an accepted logical deductive sequence, and because apparently you cannot base an emperical experiment on your hypothesis. Apparently your hypothesis is untestable, or at least you refuse to show how.
Well, that makes for a shaky phase 2 at best.
Now you need to perform phase 3, which is to present an experiment which will produce measuements that do accord with the anomalous observations but not with established theory, and which is based on your hypothesis. You structurally refuse to do that and defer responsibility for this phase to either the people who made the devices you used in your phase 1, or to inventors yet to come who might build something like them.
This will NEVER get you to phase 4, where your hypothesis is proven correct, accepted, and turns into actual accepted theory.

And it is not because we do not wish to learn how your claimed "theory" works, but mostly because YOU refuse to validate your own "theory".
As long as you refuse to do that and only post suggestive messages, you are making a fool of yourself.

[ltseung888]

@ ltseung888,

Can't the "lead out" theory also be applied to electrical components, specifically a capacitor and inductor in parallel, oscillating energy back and forth between them?   

Yes.  Energy can be Lead Out from oscillating, vibrating, rotating systems via Pulses (or Lee-Tseung Pulls) from gravitational and electron motion fields.

Electron Motion fields include magnetic, electrostatic, electric fields.

Reply 643 and 758 explained that.  I realized few forum members understand those two files.  I accepted that the members are not the students and professors at Tsing Hua University - they understood it easily.

Since Output Energy = Input Energy + Lead Out Energy, Output Energy can easily be greater than Input Energy.  COP can be greater than 1.

Many OU inventors have demonstrated that already.

Your particular example can be applied to obtaining electromagnetic energy via the antenna with tuning circuits.

[chrisC]

,,,, Who else in the scientific world is in such an envious position?"

Plenty in mental institutions all over the world!

cheers
chrisC

Lol! Chris!
one flew over the cuckoos nest type thing

Good one Keon1!
One of my all time favorite movies when I was younger. Which one of those resembles Lawrence?
Danny Devito? I want my cigarettes!!! Give him his damn cigarettes! Give Lawrence his damned Lead Out Theory!

[usama salah]

hi all
i'm not expert or scientist and hardly understand english but still have a good mind
so
i have 5 stupid questions:
1- is it a perpetual motion claim?
2- can you replicate this experiment without using air pump?and what is the source of power that you actually use to pump air or water , i don't think you will do that manual?
3- can you use other materials rather than water ( solid maerials) and lift it up?
4-at reply 826 i see your device at a vertical position but can it work at horizontal position with a little change of its design and using the same theory?
5- this experiment used  gravity as a source of its power as i understood it, so can it worked under water where there is also gravitation power?
if all the answers are yes, thin congratulation , you have a very powerful motor and new theory of energy power

again sorry for pore language and my misunderstood

[Grumpy]

@ ltseung888,

Can't the "lead out" theory also be applied to electrical components, specifically a capacitor and inductor in parallel, oscillating energy back and forth between them?   

Yes.  Energy can be Lead Out from oscillating, vibrating, rotating systems via Pulses (or Lee-Tseung Pulls) from gravitational and electron motion fields.

Electron Motion fields include magnetic, electrostatic, electric fields.

Reply 643 and 758 explained that.  I realized few forum members understand those two files.  I accepted that the members are not the students and professors at Tsing Hua University - they understood it easily.

Since Output Energy = Input Energy + Lead Out Energy, Output Energy can easily be greater than Input Energy.  COP can be greater than 1.

Many OU inventors have demonstrated that already.

Your particular example can be applied to obtaining electromagnetic energy via the antenna with tuning circuits.

Thanks Much! 

I just wanted to confirm that.  I will go back to the replies and see the explanations.