Mehess Motor

[ltseung888]

Dear Humbugger,

I am not sure whether you are one of the paid professional debunkers.

Please try to debunk the 'boat in calm water and good sunshine' scenario.  You may consult your professors at MIT, Harvard, Stanford etc. first.

The use of the Law of Conservation of Energy as a roadblock to hinder the Cosmic Energy Machine developers has been removed.

You are encouraged to use the forum.go-here.nl for background and more detailed information.  If you are not worried about me moderating your posts, post there.

Regards and have fun,

Lawrence Tseung

[Humbugger]

Larry...

Nobody pays me and I don't have any desire to suppress any great new workable idea or concept.  I really don't like all the people pretending they know some great and special information when they really don't.  So many are encouraging foolish ways of thinking and foolish ideas that simply do not work and never will.  I don't like that.

I notice that your reply totally ignores the simple basic issues I bring up, as if I had said and asked nothing.  If you will take the time to comment on my points and observations and answer my simple questions, I might take your suggestion and read up on your theories and, if they seem flawed, attempt to point out the flaws. 

But what would be the point if all you will do is ignore any critical comment or question as if it were never made and respond completely off subject as you have done here?

"The use of the Law of Conservation of Energy as a roadblock to hinder the Cosmic Energy Machine developers has been removed."  Personally, I do not agree with this statement but, for purpose of scientific discussion (do you know how to do that?) let us say it were true.  My questions would be...

1) When was it removed and by whom?

2) What then is the roadblock now pray tell?  Where are the working machines that all these conquerors of the laws of nature for the past hundreds of years have given us?  I'm just as tired of buying gasoline and paying electric bills as everyone else!

3) What can I do to help get us there faster? 

Right now, since I see nothing yet that appears to have any real chance of working, the only thing I can do is point out the obvious reasons why certain poorly-thought-out approaches won't work.  What is so wrong with that?  That's what science is, for the most part!  You propose theories and then try every known way to break them! 

The way fake science works is that theories are proposed as if they were proven fact (often proclaimed to be by the proposing guru) and then the mob clamors to immediately build machines that use the theory, always with insufficient hard information from the theory guru.  Usually, the "new principal" involved is magical and must be taken purely on faith.  Enormous and unending confusion results and no two attempts at "reproduction" are the same; none ever actually work.

Anyone who questions the theory using anything like reason or logic or simple mathematical proof is moderated out, shouted down with emotionally-based arguments, shunned and accused of being a professional debunker working for big energy or big brother or just glossed over and ignored. 

When the theory and the resulting machines have been given plenty of development time (often decades) and cannot be made to work or produced readily, the next guru pops up and the process begins anew.  The skeptic is never given credit for being correct in the end.  No science is accomplished or technological art pushed forward.  Nothing is learned.

Like Bill (and all the others) despite his utter and dismal failure to deliver what he over and over assured us was factual, simple, a unique exclusive breakthrough and oh so easy, he still will not admit that he ljust plain lied or made any particular mis-measurement or deluded himself and publicly stretched the truth.  He has no idea where his mistakes in thinking were!  I'm just trying to help on that.

Now, Larry, it seems like what you are saying is that Bill's machine, up until now, was good but didn't have the secret ingredient for OU, which your suggestions will provide.  Am I hearing that right?

Humbugger

[ltseung888]

Larry...

Nobody pays me and I don't have any desire to suppress any great new workable idea or concept.  I really don't like all the people pretending they know some great and special information when they really don't.  So many are encouraging foolish ways of thinking and foolish ideas that simply do not work and never will.  I don't like that.

I notice that your reply totally ignores the simple basic issues I bring up, as if I had said and asked nothing.  If you will take the time to comment on my points and observations and answer my simple questions, I might take your suggestion and read up on your theories and, if they seem flawed, attempt to point out the flaws. 

But what would be the point if all you will do is ignore any critical comment or question as if it were never made and respond completely off subject as you have done here?

"The use of the Law of Conservation of Energy as a roadblock to hinder the Cosmic Energy Machine developers has been removed."  Personally, I do not agree with this statement but, for purpose of scientific discussion (do you know how to do that?) let us say it were true.  My questions would be...

1) When was it removed and by whom?

2) What then is the roadblock now pray tell?  Where are the working machines that all these conquerors of the laws of nature for the past hundreds of years have given us?  I'm just as tired of buying gasoline and paying electric bills as everyone else!

3) What can I do to help get us there faster? 

Right now, since I see nothing yet that appears to have any real chance of working, the only thing I can do is point out the obvious reasons why certain poorly-thought-out approaches won't work.  What is so wrong with that?  That's what science is, for the most part!  You propose theories and then try every known way to break them! 

Humbugger

1) When was it removed and by whom?
Please read the Lee-Tseung PCT patent information (PCT/IB2005/000138) published on July 27, 2006 available for public viewing at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb.  The inventors were TSEUNG Lawrence Chun Ning and LEE Cheung Kin.

2) ... Where are the working machines...?
One of the working machines is that by Wang Shum Ho.  Please read http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm.  The detailed description and component pictures are available.  The device was demonstrated in front of 5 Chinese Officials on Jan 15, 2007.  Wang is now Vice President of a RMB$13 billion (1 USD = 7.7 RMB) Company.

3) What can I do to help get us there faster?
Play the role of devil's advocate.  Keep asking pointed questions.  Detect any misconceptions, typos etc.  Try to break the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory and the 'boat in calm water and good sunshine' scenario.  (You will be better than the top professors at MIT and Harvard if you can do that.) We can leave Bill's thread and use forum.go-here.nl.  When we have something significant, post on Bill's thread again.

I shall answer the other questions in the forum.go-here.nl.  I have moderator privilege there so that we can organize and re-organize the information to our liking.

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung

[Humbugger]

Larry...

Do you intend insult by saying I should correct typos?  Is this your response to the "energy and time" comments?  This, you are saying, was a typo on your part?  I recall one post of Bill's where he was claiming his machine "produced 50,000 volts per" week month year, whatever.  Then he later corrected that to 8,600 volts, claiming it was "a typo".  It was obviously not a typo...but rather a confused miscalculation.

The point is, peoples' words reveal their misconceptions.  It seems Bill spent a lot of time calculating dv/dt (time rate of voltage change) as if it, by itself, were some kind of meaningful measure of energy.  When words are what we are using to communicate concepts, a good effort should be made to use the correct words. 

Your "typo" regarding time and energy is far too familiar and common to be a true typographical error.  Bill made the same error frequently.  People doing energy research should not be guilty of confusing voltage, current, power, energy and time in their writings.  When they do, and I point it out, I am doing far more than helping them edit.  I am pointing to underlying confusion that is at the root of the very problem.

I went and looked at the two documents you suggested.  They are both entirely without merit as far as clearly describing any reproducible device or revealing any new natural laws or refuting any old ones.  Neither really proposes any particular theory that I can detect or argue the merits/flaws of, pro or con.  It's gibberish.

I am happy that Mr. Wang has a new job in a big company.  How that in any way proves he has invented a working free energy machine does not compute.  When I can buy one and try it out or read about other people doing so happily, I might believe.  Seems he's been working the idea for 30 years already...where's the machine?

[Nastrand2000]

I'm sure bill if refining his capturing technique, and this would be why there has not been other statements. Hummbugger likes to stir the pot, tho what he says generally is truth but without the tact that most people have come to accept. He's generally right, but with a sharp tongue, and does not understand how to get his point across without pissing people off.
Jason