The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[TinselKoala]

In this article, you can even see the "flying saucer" design. But it's a sphere...
http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm

Interesting that Bull's analysis of his system is virtually identical to LTseung's. He even confounds force and energy and momentum in the same way.
But he predicts the device will move in the other direction!
That is, Bull's device was supposed to move in the direction of the soft impact, not the hard impact.

[chrisC]

In this article, you can even see the "flying saucer" design. But it's a sphere...
http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm

Interesting that Bull's analysis of his system is virtually identical to LTseung's. He even confounds force and energy and momentum in the same way.
But he predicts the device will move in the other direction!
That is, Bull's device was supposed to move in the direction of the soft impact, not the hard impact.

Thank you TinselKoala for those links. Maybe we'll now have the Lawrence-Bull flying saucer that flies in both directions at the same time?

Now, the BULL is suddenly looking very real!

cheers
chrisC

[Top Gun]

In this article, you can even see the "flying saucer" design. But it's a sphere...
http://www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm

Interesting that Bull's analysis of his system is virtually identical to LTseung's. He even confounds force and energy and momentum in the same way.
But he predicts the device will move in the other direction!
That is, Bull's device was supposed to move in the direction of the soft impact, not the hard impact.

Dear TinselKoala,

Glad that you are actually discussing physics.  Unfortunately, you thought that the Bull's analysis is virtually identical to Ltseung's.  You did not read the analysis carefully.  I am reproducing the words here below.

This elementary form of reaction motor operates on a principle that has long been neglected by engineers, but which Bull believes can be applied in aircraft and other vehicles. It depends upon the difference in effectiveness of two ways of transmitting energy, which can be termed impact and impulse. If a weight is thrown against a solid wall, it is stopped by impact, and much of its energy is wasted in distorting the weight and wall and in producing heat. However, if the weight is thrown against a spring fastened to the wall, it is stopped by impulse, the spring conserving the energy of the moving weight and transmitting the resulting force, with little loss, to the wall. Tests have shown a weight will yield three times more force by impulse than by impact.

Bull assumes that the spring fastened to the wall will conserve the energy of the moving weight and if energy is conserved, the force will be larger.  In reality, the spring is compressed.  The time for the velocity to go from v to 0 is longer.  The actual force acting on the wall is less (Force = rate of change of momentum). 

Bull further assumes that if the weight hitting a solid wall is stopped by impact, much of its energy is wasted in distorting the weight and wall and in producing heat.  In his actual experiment, the shape of the weight or the wall hardly changed.  The weight may even bounce back.

One proper way to increase the difference of the two sides is:
(1)   Use a damper or shock absorber to get rid of the energy and prolong the change of momentum as much as possible. (The essence of the Lee Cheung Kin improvement).  This replaces the padded surface.
(2)   Use non-deformable material to have the highest rate of change of momentum on the unpadded surface.

Bull failed in his device while Lee succeeded because of the above proper way.

Other possible ways to increase the difference of the two sides include:
(1)   Use weights of different value; the momentum (m1 x v1 = m2 x v2) will be the same even though m1 is different from m2.  The property of impart with different velocities are different.  (This is mentioned in the Bull article.)
(2)   Use asymmetric pulsing.  Lee Cheung Kin and team also used this trick.  The French pulsing device is an example.  Different Chinese Inventors will show other asymmetric pulsing devices shortly.

Bull almost succeeded â€" except that he did not understand that the force striking the surface is equal to the rate of change of momentum.  He wrongly assumed the major factor was - if energy were conserved, the force would be greater.  He designed his device based on the wrong theory.  The outcome is a device that failed to fly.  Lee and team used the right theory and the result is - a device that can be demonstrated in front of the White House to President Obama!

All the above discussions and demonstration devices cannot match the actual flying saucers classified as top secret by the USA, the Chinese Governments etc.

[Top Gun]

It took Lawrence Tseung many months to distinguish the Lee-Tseung theory from others.  The term used is lead-out-energy machines.  The machines are NOT perpetual motion machines that create energy from nothing.

With the so-called flying saucer technology, there should be a new term.  The basic theory is - generate unbalanced forces from within a system for the purpose of propulsion.  It is not reactionless drive.  It is not inertial propulsion system.

The new term can be:
Lee-Tseung Internal Unbalanced Force
Lee-Tseung propulsion system
Lee-Tseung Unbalanced Force from Within
Any Other Suggestions?

[TinselKoala]

You still don't get it. Setting aside your flawed kinematic analysis for a moment, let's consider this:

I have shown you multiple systems that, if the LTLOT were true, would perform differently than they do. Each time I have shown you a failed demonstration or given you links to prior art and research, you say, "Well, that experiment is different, or not properly done, etc.." But what you fail to realize is that you are narrowing the predicted range of applicability of the LTLOT.

Apparently it is only supposed to work in a device EXACTLY as shown in your repeated illustration. No other, similar, devices will illustrate the LTLOT, according to you.

But I put it to you, that even if the device was constructed exactly as you have shown, it would fail the hovering test. You will then respond that there was something wrong with the experiment.

Your "theory" is not falsifiable, because you will not specify an exact hypothesis, and you will not accept null results as being correct or applicable. Therefore it is not scientific, and is of no further interest to me.

When you can show a video of your experiment001 device hovering in mid-air, then you may presume to correct my kinematics. Not before.

"Lee and team used the right theory and the result is - a device that can be demonstrated in front of the White House to President Obama!"
If you are talking about a flying machine that operates on the LTLOT and not aerodynamics, this is simply a lie.