The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[langley]

Are you making a pass at me Mr. Bill, you handsome devil you.

I love the little messages you are sending me via PM. Don?t stop, and who knows, maybe one of these days when I get a little time for myself we can have a drink or two and discuss the plight of your paddle.

At the moment I am just too tied up with the Who Flung Dung experiments.

Kiss Kiss

Mingmei

[Koen1]

@gaby: Do you mean to say you take any of Tseungs stuff seriously?

oh, yes very seriously.

Then perhaps you can explain in proper English and in a way that actually makes any sense,
how the "Tseung" UFO propulsion is supposed to work? Tseung himself seems unwilling or
unable to do any proper explaining, he just shouts a lot about how great he is.

Oh sure.

If you have a desk chair with wheels you can wave your arms in the air and make it roll forwards. This is the main principal of inertial propulsion.

Except that that has to do with the difference between one the one hand the momentum transfer  created by suddenly stopping your arms or moving them sihnificantly slower in one direction, in other words a form of asymmetrical regauging, and on the other hand the relative fiction/resistance of your weight against the floor.
You will see that it doesn't work if the floor+wheel set has zero friction.

Exactly half way John Searl's old/long video he explains his version. You can find my explanation / implementation here.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/gdewilde-anti-gravity
gabydewilde - gde wilde anti gravity

Well I'm sorry but I see not viable mechanisms there. I see some wishfull thinking, and some unsupported ideas that
do seem to be somewhat similar to Tseungs claims, which are also unsupported by evidence and just nice ideas.
I mean, come on, that "stay in the air" thing? You must be kidding. You seriously believe that you can make a wheel
float in the air by accellerating it during one half of its rotation, and decellerating it during the other half?
Jeez... I knew the level of education had dropped in the past decades, but this is taking that to a whole new level...

The lifter technology is doing just about the same thing only on nano-scale.

Really?
Amazing.
So the Lifter is not just an electrokinetic thruster that uses quite a bit of energy to generate a slight space/time curvature which causes
the thing to move?

Surely you see the flaws in his "spinning the bottle" non-experiment?

No, I'm afraid it is exactly as simple as you think it is.

Well, in that case, you are saying that I am right and the bottle experiment does not prove Tseungs idea.

So, either Tseung is a genius or the rest of the planet is just dumb.

Hahaha, you do realise that is exactly what many crazy people say? "I'm not crazy, the rest of the world is!"

It does work.

http://www.google.com/search?q=inertial+propulsion

see?

Nope, not on google, sorry. But Check out Naudins info on inertial propulsion: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm
This is one of the best types that is actually replicated: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/TIE.htm

But now it seems you are digressing into plain inertial propulsion systems.
What Tseung keeps shouting is not "I think I have a usefull inertial propulsion system", for if he did, we could simply discuss it.
Or at least, we could if Tseung ever actually discusses things, instead of pointing toward an earlier and unclear post and then
claiming that it is a lucid description.
In any case, what Tseung claims is not "inertial propulsion".
Tseung claims "Free Energy from Still Air" and extraction of energy from gravity.
From there he stepped up his claims and now he claims he can not only extract (or in his extremely silly terminology "lead out")
energy from gravity, but he can even somehow use this to produce "UFO propulsion".
From there he goes all out and leaves all technology behind, focusing on fantasy sociao-economic developments in China.

The point is not just that he refuses to clearly describe what exactly he is talking about,
he also very clearly started out claiming to be able to describe how to extract energy from gravity without ever really describing it,
but now he's ending up with claims about "UFO propulsion" with only a silly bottle swinging experiment, without indicating
clearly how it relates to his original free energy claim, and without any proper proof.
Think about that bottle "experiment". How does that "prove" anything, in your view?
What does it prove? That we can catapult a bottle away by imparting rotational momentum to it? fine.
So are you going to fill your "UFO" with tons of bottles and "swing" them all out the bottom of your "UFO"?
Oh no, I forgot, Tseung was planning to make a magnet rotate round 2 electromagnets inside a circular path,
and that would mysteriously create antigravity for some unknown reason, no explanations necessary and
no questions to be asked. :? That just doesn't "fly", scuse the pun.

[Koen1]

I don't remember inviting you to debunk the concept in general?

Nor do I recall inviting you to start getting angry at people for not swallowing Tseungs highly dubious nonsense. Yet you do. Don't play holier than thou, gaby.

I already know all the arguments why it should be condemned a Newtonian impossibility.

Great. Then we can skip those. You should then realise that what we want is clear and proper proof, if only theoretical, that Tseung can really produce over unity by extracting energy from gravity, and that shows how this relates to the "UFO propulsion" he also claims, and then to show us how exactly this "propulsion" works, instead of just shouting "it works!" a lot and showing us pictures that don't prove anything. It is apparently easy for Tesung to produce tons of pictures that don't make clear what his exact point is, and it seems easy for him to spew tons of useless speculative socio-economic fantasies about China, but just explaining his entire path of reasoning from his claimed free gravity energy transducer to his claimed "UFO propulsion" is suddenly too difficult?
And you show the same behaviour to a degree: you start blaming Shruggedatlas and Chris for not googling for and clicking links, and not wanting to make the effort of studying inertial propulsion, but at the same time you yourself do not want to make the effort of explaining the concept. If it's so simple, as you seem to imply, then it should be easy to explain. And it should be easy for you, convinced as you seem to be of the validity of all of Tseungs claims, to find a few pictures or docs that clearly
show the mechanisms and theory involved, and the proof of the pudding too. But you don't.
Seems to me like a typical matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

Here, this you should have found in stead of making up nonsense.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7189261369558468761

Unfortunately that is a typical example of the periodic asymmetry in a friction-based impulse drive... Which supports Shruggeds comment.

(blabla) Look how they all worship Newton, it's obvious they are not likely to wake up any time soon. yeah... this "other people" haven't begun doing stuffs? ha-ha?? Perhaps the CIA stole their brain? What do you think?

I think you are seriously way too focused on discrediting Newton and his "worship". Fork Newton.
I'm not into FE/OU research because I love Newton or anything like that. But I am also not going to flip to the diametrically opposed camp
and deny Newtonian physical analysis simply because I would like it to be different.
The solution to this is: empirical evidence.
If you are so convinced of some effect that is impossible according to Newtonian physics, then BUILD IT AND TEST IT.
Empirical testing. Tangiable evidence. That's the basis of scientific advancement.
So far I see you do a whole lot of talking, drawing, and (wishfull) thinking, but I don't see you building any devices.
I see no empirical tests of anything with your name on it.
At least Newton did some experiments which can be replicated and his calculations in respect to those experiments
can be empirically confirmed.
And even Tseung has managed to get some poor Chinese girl to do his beach-pumping and bottle-swinging for him, which
although not convincing are at least empirical proof of Chinese people, beach pumps, and bottles with strings on them
actually existing.
What do you have to show, besides your drawings and ideas?

So except for the fact that you have some kind of problem with established physical "laws" and are easily convinced by
the flawed argumentation of a chinaman, you also seem to go out of your way to find things that may seem to partly fit
concepts Tseung mentioned... But you prefer to deny critical analysis over wishfull thining. The fact that you deny that
the inertial propulsion units you referred to all work because of friction (/resistance/surface tension/viscosity, all corners of the same
tablecloth so to speak) only serves to prove this.

[shruggedatlas]

Please consult a physicist friend.  Ask him what is meant by
Force = Rate of change of momentum.

I just do not know how to explain to layman such kindergarten physics concepts.

Perhaps I did not use the correct terminology in my earlier post.

Yes, I agree with your definition of force.  For example, gravity is a force and causes a rate of change in momentum (i.e. acceleration) by a free-falling object.  However, that does not get you where you want to be. 

In space, let's say you take two objects of equal mass, but one is soft like a nerf ball and the other is a hard baseball.  You hurl the two objects toward each other with equal speeds, so you have the very large nerf ball and the small baseball on a collision course.  After the two objects collide, I predict that neither will continue any forward motion.  Based on your theory, however, the baseball should continue forward.  Is that correct?

[Cap-Z-ro]

" What an amazing coincidence...its long been my fantasy to escape to another planet with a cuppla oars. "


I'm afraid I also may be guilty of a lack of clarity in my previous post as shown above.

It wood appear I should have placed special emphasis on the word 'oars'...for the personified meaning intended.

Regards...


ps:

Oh...and by the way to avoid having to make any disclaimers...any alleged pm's from me to any of the 'Mingmei's' or 'Forever' will have occurred in the reality of the storyline only...and not in real time.