The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Koen1]

Tseung, you're still not answering shruggedatlas's question at all.

The question was: Explain to us how the "bottle experiment" supports your suggested "ufo experiment"?
The "answer" you gave is basically "spin the bottle and you'll see". That's not a proper answer to the question.

Now let's look at that post 1165 you keep pointing out.
The document claims to describe a proof of concept antigrav drive. Yet it does not describe what you expect to happen,
why you expect it to happen in proper physics terminology, nor does it provide any supporting facts nor electrical effects that lead you to believe the device will function as effective electromagnetic "lead out" device.
Please, don't just dump a scetch with some vague claims and try to use it as some form of "proof".
At least explain how and why you think it will work.
And I mean really explain it, not just summing up the theory you came up with, and not just repeating that we should start spinning bottles and upturning chairs.

What I see in your design is this: a "device A" consisting of a crude permanent magnet motor in the bottom half of the device, and its driving circuitry in the top half.
The bottom part has a rotating magnet set into a "grove" (? you probably mean "grOOve", and not a path lined with trees?). I assume you somehow fix it to this groove so that it actually moves, which could be done using bearings or something like that... One could of course also mount the magnet onto a wheel so that it can rotate. I don't see any description of the manner in which the magnet is fixed to move in the groove, so there's a point of improvement for your document already; but let's assume you are using one of the ways I described here just now. Any of these will create physical friction, causing whatever energy the magnet might have or receive to decrease by the amount of the friction. Ergo the magnet will always move with less energy than was put into the driving coils. There we have energy loss no.1.
Then, you're driving the electromagnet coils by pumping hV pulses through them, which are generated by circuitry in the top half of the device. As everybody knows, any circuitry and wiring has energy losses due to resistance, and coils also show back emf etc, which all in all account for more energy loss, and again the energy input into the circuitry and coils will be higher than any energy received/collected from them. So again, output<input, loss no.2.
To top it off, you are using batteries to power the entire thing. Meaning you had to charge the batteries, so that they contain enough electrical energy to power the circuitry. All battery charging devices need more power to charge them than they put out when discharged. Except perhaps for Bedini's back-poppers, but those are patented by Bedini and many a replication of those failed, so they're slightly iffy and in any case not usable as basis for your "lead out" theory beecause Bedini and Bearden already patented the process. So we're left with conventional battery charging, which again has output<input, and again we have energy losses, loss no.3.
So looking at the energy use, it seems very clear that we have frictional losses in the rotation of the permanent magnet, and electrical losses in the circuitry, coils, and the batteries themselves. All this energy needs to be put in before the device is activated, and the battery will run out due to the operation of the device.
And the result will be a permanent magnet moving along a circular track.

Now let's look at that magnet. You don't describe how the magnet is oriented exactly; does the pm's north pole face inward, outward, or perpendicular to the center of the circle? This is not clear in your picture.
Nevertheless, a moving permanent magnet in any of those configurations can be made to rotate as you describe it, using the right voltage pulses at the right time.
However, this is nothing new, and a great many people have rotated and been rotating permanent magnets on wheels in any of the described orientations for decades (over a century, at least), in various ways. And whether they used electromagnets to push or pull the pm rotor around, or rotated it by direct application of outside force, the end result up to now has never been anti-gravity. I repeat, not one experiment in which a simple setup like this, with a spinning/rotating permanent magnet, has shown antigravity.

Also, you claim this "experiment" is a practical electrical application of your "lead out" theory... If so, then why do we only see energy being used?
You have stated many times that you can "lead out" energy from gravity... But all you show here is a system where we PUT IN energy...
And I'm not even counting the claimed yet unsupported antigrav effect... Let's assume that in some mysterious manner the device will counter gravity;
then the device is still losing energy that was originally put in to the batteries. That sounds more like "leading energy IN to gravity"... I don't see anything coming OUT.

How is that device anything other than a nice way of wasting battery power?

[Devil]

1165, like everything else you have ever written, is unsubstantiated theory.  Can you explain how your water bottle experiments support your flying saucer theory, since your theory relies on nothing being ejected from the craft?

Dear shruggedatlas,

I better give you some knowledge before you become a devil worshipper.  You must do the water bottle experiment yourself before you can appreciate it.  If you do not trust your own judgment, get a few more friends to repeat it.

The objective of the water bottle experiment is to determine which result is correct:
(1)   On release of the water bottle, you tend to be jerked in the direction of motion of the bottle.
(2)   On release of the water bottle, you remain perfectly stationary.
(3)   On release of the water bottle, you will experience the reaction.  You tend to be jerked in the opposite direction of motion of the bottle.

Please post your result before I give the correct physics explanation. 

Lawrence Tseung
It is impossible to teach a person addition if he does not know how to count.

shruggedatlas,

You still have not knelt down before me.  I am going to show you how stupid you are.  Tseung has set you up.  Choice (1) is the obvious answer.  He has done that experiment dozens of times.  He had Forever and Bill Fung repeat it for him and put the video on youtube.

Many stupid non-physicists would wrongly apply the Law of Action and Reaction without doing the experiment.  They would choose (3).  They thought that the rocket uses action and reaction.  The above spinning water bottle would use the same principle.  Tseung obviously know the answer. 

If Tseung put himself in a cage that can slide easily, the water bottle will hit the cage and produce a force in that direction.  The cage will slide in the direction of the hit.  That is the essence of his experiment in 1165.

For the top physicists at Area 51 or in Nanjing, such is child?s play.  Your question just gave Tseung a chance to show off.  You cannot destroy or discredit him on stupid experiments that he has done dozens of times.

Hans committed that stupid mistake.  You are extremely foolish if you repeat it.

[Koen1]

Devil,

you seem intent on calling everyone stupid,
yet suspiciously you seem to support Tseungs claims...
Very odd behaviour, since Tseung still has not provided any credible information, and the others who you call "stupid" have.
Tseung still has not proven anyone here wrong, and he still hasn't proven his own claims to be correct.
He has, however, proven his own logical reasoning to be flawed, or at least uncoherent.

I cannot help to lean toward the conclusion that you are in fact yet another of mr Tseungs multiple personas.
Your last post, using similar unsubstantiated forms of claimed proof and similarly inconsistent indications of previous posts by Tseung,
support that conclusion.

The persona Tseung must remain in character, so he cannot call people names, and so he has/you have made up a new persona
under the name Devil; as Devil he can insult people, annoy them enough to make them go away, thereby seemingly substantiating
Tseungs still unproven claims...
It is quite sad to see how an old demented chinaman tries to gain support by posting messages as 10 different persona's, ranging from himself, through a CIA hooker, to the devil himself.
It's amusing to a point, but also sad.

As for your claim of the "cage" sliding... Classic, but apparently missed by you...
Imagine a box with a cannon in it. The box is on a frictionless surface. The cannon is on the left side of the box, and the box is balanced. The cannon fires its cannonball to the right with a total of X force. This will cause the box to move to the left, just as much as the ball moves to the right. Then the ball slams into the right wall of the box, transferring its kinetic energy to the box. Since the energy contained in the motion of the ball is equal to the energy contained in the motion of the box, and oppositely directed, the box will 'feel' a net force of zero. The box will not move in the direction that the ball was fired.
In specific constructions that use air pressure and pistons, along with surface friction, it may be possible to get a tiny amount of motion out of a similar setup; but in such cases the motion is in the opposite direction, and also not in the direction of fire.
And in all these examples we are in fact consuming quite a lot of energy just to fire the mechanism, with hardly any reaction. We would be better off applying this nergy directly to friction-based push, which would move the box a lot more... And never will this be over unity, or "lead out" as Tseung likes to call it.

All this is actually quite futile still, since the 1156 post does not in any way explain why the "device A" would move upward at all.
All we have is a magnetic pulse motor. Magnetic pulse motors are not exactly known for their antigravity properties.
... gee... can't help but think you must be the one feeling stupid now.

[ltseung888]

Dear Koen1,

You sure can write.  I shall answer your posts one at a time.

This post is related to your doing the 4 legged stool experiment.

You said that you and your friends did the experiment (or played the game). Did you do the part from walk to run?  Did you do the part from run to fly?  Did you do it with one finger each in contact with the stool?  Make sure you do it with all the safety precautions. I do not want any of you getting hurt.

Please video that experiment for us.  Make sure you film the shape of the water vortex.  You may use color water for better results.  When I know how much of the experiment you did, I can answer correctly.

[Koen1]

Dear Koen1,

You sure can write.  I shall answer your posts one at a time.

Great, thanks. But why do you ignore shruggedatlas's question, and also my backing up of that question, yet again?
It would be nice if you'd answer that too...

This post is related to your doing the 4 legged stool experiment.

You said that you and your friends did the experiment (or played the game). Did you do the part from walk to run? 

Yes, we did in fact run around in a circle, pushing the stool legs.

Did you do the part from run to fly?

You're not seriously suggesting that you yourself started flying when you were pushing a chair, are you??
Of course we did not fly. People in this reality do not fly, mr Tseung. The animals that do that are called birds, and they don't have fingers to push the chair.

Did you do it with one finger each in contact with the stool?

Yes we did push with one finger per person. 

Make sure you do it with all the safety precautions. I do not want any of you getting hurt.

We were very carefull not to strain a finger. We also took breaks every half hour to have a drink. Come on man, get real... Safety precautions and people getting hurt pushing a chair? Maybe we Europeans are just a bit less fragile than you Chinese people?

Please video that experiment for us.  Make sure you film the shape of the water vortex.  You may use color water for better results.  When I know how much of the experiment you did, I can answer correctly.

Why don't you film the experiment properly then? all I saw from your side is an extremely crappy video showing someone pushing a chair leg with a finger, and a very vague shot of the chair resting on top of a bowl of water. I never saw a vortex in your video. I never saw you fly either, by the way.
Why should I have to provide footage of your experiment? Do your own work.
If the experiment had yielded some interesting effect, which was not to be expected, then perhaps I might have been inclined to film it.
But nothing special happened at all.

And I have asked this before and will ask again, since you never eally answered the question before:
What exactly is this "experiment" supposed to prove?
Is it supposed to prove that people can push chairs? I guess not, but you never said what it was supposed to prove...
Is it supposed to prove that people spinning a container of water can cause the water to move around inside the container?
That doesn't really have anything to do with the 4-legged stool then, does it?
Or is it meant to show that you can create a sort of vortex in the water, when the container is rotated using periodic pushes?
If the latter is the case, then why do you not simply say so? And what exactly is so fantastic about making water move?

Our 'replication' of the stool "experiment", and subsequent "experimentation" with the bowl of water on a turn-table, clearly showed
that the movement of the water is directly related to the material the bowl is made of, the shape of the bowls inner surface, the speed at which the bowl is rotated, and the manner of inducing said rotation (a steady push generating constant rotation gives a more steady waterflow, while periodic pushes make small waves and seem to generate a vortex-like current in the water.) This all depends on the combination of these factors.
Now if you can describe in greater detail what exactly we should be looking for and what effect this should have, maybe we can try again...
I mean, if you want people to properly replicate your experiment, then give a proper, clear, and complete description of it.
A good example of your typical incomplete and unclear manner of presenting your "experiments" is the ufo document. It is a nice pointer, but it lacks most important information to actually do the experiment...