The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTEzNjA1MDQ=.html%20http://www.lzzl.net.cn/xiangmuxinxi/jingpinxiangmuzonghui/120081027/1101936.html

This is another TV news station reporting on the same Lead-Out Energy Machine from China.

The inventor groups are working with us because we can explain the source of their energy.   The Tong Wheel demonstrated in Hong Kong was broadcasted all over China.  The publicity helped to bring other inventors to us.

Lead-Out Energy Theory cannot be wrong.  The gravitational energy lead-out by a horizontal force on a pulled pendulum is equal to the vertical component of the tension times the vertical displacement.  So long as there is tension on the string, gravitational energy can be lead out.  The ratio of vertical energy lead out (gravitational energy) over the supplied horizontal energy is roughly 0.5.  In other words, roughly 2 parts of horizontal energy can lead out 1 part of gravitational energy.

The Law of Parallelogram of Forces cannot be wrong.   The Law of Conservation of Energy is not wrong â€" only misapplied by uninformed persons.

The paid debunkers, jeerers and insulters helped us to get more publicity.  The more they shouted, yelled and screamed, the more we benefited.  They are already on my ignore list.  They could not possibly affect me psychologically.

My vote is â€" leave them on the forum.  Let them scream their non-sense more.  That helps to draw in the crowd.  We need the publicity.  We have two working OU devices that can be demonstrated now.  With more publicity, we shall have more.  China will have dozens if not hundreds of OU devices in the near future.  The Lead-Out Theory will be used to explain their source of energy.

[Pirate88179]

Lawrence:

With all due respect sir, if you withdraw your offer of the course for $20,000 USD for a device that has not been replicated or proven to date, then a lot of folks here will settle down.  This is my only complaint with your theory.  Normally, folks don't sell stuff related to a theory, only proven devices.

I am not making any judgments on your device or your theory, only that you are willing to take money from folks BEFORE anything is proven about it.

Please reconsider this and I think it might go a long way to helping you take less abuse, and possibly add more credibility to your theory.

Respectfully,

Bill

[ltseung888]

Lawrence:

With all due respect sir, if you withdraw your offer of the course for $20,000 USD for a device that has not been replicated or proven to date, then a lot of folks here will settle down.  This is my only complaint with your theory.  Normally, folks don't sell stuff related to a theory, only proven devices.

I am not making any judgments on your device or your theory, only that you are willing to take money from folks BEFORE anything is proven about it.

Please reconsider this and I think it might go a long way to helping you take less abuse, and possibly add more credibility to your theory.

Respectfully,

Bill

Bill,

You do not understand Hong Kong.  If you do not talk about money, you are a FAKE!  I don't care about insults and abuses from the Forum members here.  They help to generate publicity.  They have attracted attention from Beijing and many influential people in Hong Kong.  The Steorn demonstration also helped.

Encourage them to yell and scream.  Encourage them to pour out more non-sense.

[Paul-R]

if you withdraw your offer of the course for $20,000 USD for a device that has not been replicated or proven to date

What I think we have here, Bill, is Lawrence charging a lot to industrial "early adopters", and saving back information in order to give them exclusivity in return for their investment.

If this investment technology simply doesn't work, then they can use legal remedies on the grounds that the product sold was not fit for purpose (or whatever is the local legal equivalent to this phrase).

It is to be able give this competitive edge that we, in this forum, are not getting the whole picture.

[ltseung888]

What I think we have here, Bill, is Lawrence charging a lot to industrial "early adopters", and saving back information in order to give them exclusivity in return for their investment.

If this investment technology simply doesn't work, then they can use legal remedies on the grounds that the product sold was not fit for purpose (or whatever is the local legal equivalent to this phrase).

It is to be able give this competitive A that we, in this forum, are not getting the whole picture.

Dear Paul-R,

You are right.  One cannot teach someone how to repair a car if there were no cars to disassemble.  Similarly, we cannot teach you how to tune a Lead-Out Energy Machine without making one available.