The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[chrisC]

Dear Hans,

Can you help to educate bill, chrisC and utilitarian first?  Their posts will only disrupt our ‘intelligent’ discussions.

Thank you.

I'm sure the only animal that will perhaps equate you with 'intelligence' is the sacrificial turkey. We'll we know what happens to Turkeys and why their brains are different from normal people. Don't you old Tseung?

cheers
chrisC

[parisd]

I came on this forum and especially on this thread to read the discussions around lee-Tseung. I have a powerpoint presentation from him that I found on an other website that is quite curious; he is refering to MIT, Top scientists, former university professors,... and start his presentation with a simple triangle of force and a quick and wrong conclusion that a secondary school pupil would find as a non sense. Nevertheless there may really be a real thing that works below his poor presentation but I dont have the courage to go through the 300 pages of this thread to find it.

No explanation in the pdf about the relation between his motor and the reverse spool on a glass of water, some mention about pulse and insistance about recuperation of gravitational energy when the prototype of motor seems to use magnets.

I went on youtube where I found his videos that are worse than I could imagine, I see him playing like a child with a bottle of water conviced to have a flying saucer, I saw the reverse spool on a glass of water but in the powerpoint presentation it need 4 people and on the video only 2 people and curiously the botton of the video is cut (!?),

I should mention that I found one interesting video, the mass that give energy falling down then come back to his initial position simply by the archimede force of water.

So my question to the incredibly high numbers of readers of this thread;
Do we have in front of us a genious that does not succeed to communicate his discovery, or a master of bullshiting, or may be a guy who is laughing of all the overunity adepts ??

[Top Gun]

He never correctly measures input energy, because he fails to account for the energy required to lift the bob.  He simply assumes there is none, because the whole push is horizontal.  His reason for this is that a horizontal push cannot move a bob upwards.  He refuses to recognize a pendulum as a simple machine - an inclined plane.  He never adequately explains why.

Please prove to us that the pendulum is same as an inclined plane.

I may even learn something.

[Pirate88179]

@ TopGun:

OK.  I pointed this out hundreds of pages ago.  The movement of the pendulum is not exactly like an inclined plane, but it is very close.  For every movement caused by the horizontal force, you get a movement of both horizontal and vertical.  The only difference is that the inclined plane's movement is linear and the pendulum's is an arc, so the math is different but, for all practical purposes, they are the same.

Bill

[TinselKoala]

Before we get too far into the "change of subject" most conveniently tossed in, let's get back for a moment to JLN's replication of Bull's work, which is nearly exactly LTseung's experiment001.

This experiment failed to support the LTLOT.
JLN's analysis is correct.

What is wrong with JLN's experiment, what is wrong with his analysis, and why doesn't it apply to your "flying saucer"?

Here's something to consider: F=d(mv)/dt, (The ball's momentum decreases slowly--where do you think it goes? It goes into increasing the momentum of the container, to which the soft wall is attached.) So when the ball hits the soft wall it is decelerated slowly, with little force. But by Newton, this force is also felt in the opposite direction, by the container wall, and the momentum is transferred, albeit slowly. The ball hits the padded wall and decelerates, but the padded wall plus all the mass attached to it, accelerates, preserving total momentum. The KE energy loss in compressing the padding is very small compared to the original KE of the ball. The ball is decelerated by a small force over a large time. The padding and the wall is accelerated by the same force over the same time. All the momentum that the ball originally had, is transferred to the system made up of the ball and the padded wall it's sticking to and whatever is attached to that wall--a much greater mass, so the acceleration is small (since A=F/m). Momentum is conserved, no matter how soft the wall or how slow the ball's deceleration. This is the basic inelastic collision model and it has been confirmed time after time after time. You cannot get out of bed without confirming it yourself.
The other wall undergoes an (EDIT)elastic collision and is easier to analyze, because the interaction can be modeled as instantaneous (even though it isn't.)
So on one side of the apparatus you have a momentum conserving collision that occurs over a relatively slow time and accelerates the housing in one direction, conserving the momentum initially imparted to the ball. The other side of the apparatus has a momentum conserving collision that happens "instantaneously" and accelerates the housing in the other direction, conserving momentum initially imparted to its ball. Even if the timing, forces, and distances of the two ball paths are different, as in the suggested case of asymmetric forces (which I tested in the videos by the way), the system's center of mass still won't move--because in that case, when the balls are launched asymmetrically, the housing moves immediately in the opposite direction, and this initial motion "evens out" the outcome, so that when averaged over time, the center of mass of the whole system still doesn't make progress.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding, for those who can't think properly about the kinematics.
So, it's a simple enough apparatus. Let the believers build one and show it hovering.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Alas, you cannot.
For, you see, LTseung, TopGun, Devil, I (and many others) have already proven you to be wrong.

(edited the usual typo)