The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[Mr.Entropy]

Hi Lawrence,

The first topic I would solicitate your opinion on is:
The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.

Well, you are quite right that the boat is not a closed system, and that the law of conservation of energy does not imply that the man must row.  The scenario elegantly shows how we can misinterpret our own ignorance as a limit imposed by nature.

The analysis of a horizontal force applied to a pendulum, however, although it appears to be based on classical mechanics, does not faithfully apply those laws of physics.  In particular, "energy" is a scalar quantity -- it does not have horizontal and vertical components.  If you were to do the experiment outlined, you would find first that the pendulum's weight continued to rise after you finished applying the force, until its momentum was exausted.  At this point, you would find that the gravitational potential energy in the weight is equal to the energy you added by applying the force, and that would probably tip you off that what you are calling vertical and horizontal energy are, in fact, just different ways of calculating the same quantity.

It is as I said before -- you can't beat the physicists using their own laws of physics.  They know how those laws work better than you do.  You'll have to find an observable phenomenon that contradicts or trancends those laws.

But enough debunking... I don't enjoy debunking.  Instead, I'll use this opportunity to bemoan the increasing prevalence of a terrible condition that I call "Keats' Disease".

I refer to an affiliction that primarily afflicts intellectuals.  It is a belief that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty", and that "That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know".

The most famous sufferer was the great Greek philosopher Aristotle.  He was a great thinker who had a bad thought -- he thought he could do physics without doing experiments, because he thought he could judge the truth of his theories by their beauty and the beauty of their logical interactions with his various prejudices.  In accordance with his affliction, he wrote several books about the laws of the nature that were held in high esteem by entire civilizations until they were later found to be useless and worse, because, well, he just made them up!

Over time it has become clear that a person can believe anything -- any theory at all is believable -- as long as it is beautiful in the context of his other ideas about nature, morality, theology, etc.  He can believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  (He might even belive that beauty = truth, while simultaneously acknowledging that one is subjective, and that the other is not!)  You need only examine the fundamental world-view of whatever political movement you disagree with to see how widespread this problem is today.  Even then, you'll see only half of it.

So, what are we do to about this?  Again, I emphasize that the people with this tendency to believe beautiful things are NOT STUPID.  They're not even a minority.   It may even be that we are ALL afflicted to some degree. We are certainly all affected.  It is imperative, therefore, that we vigilantly guard against this tendency in ourselves, and work against the rising tide of this terrible disease using the only treatment that is known to be effective -- the scientific method.  It may not be truly applicable to the softer sciences, but for practical physics it works!  Theories can be mercilessly tested, and discarded when they fail to predict real observations.  This is the only way we know how to protect ourselves from beautiful falsehoods, while simultaneously embracing the truths.

--
Mr. Entropy

[ltseung888]

Hi Lawrence,

The first topic I would solicitate your opinion on is:
The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.

Well, you are quite right that the boat is not a closed system, and that the law of conservation of energy does not imply that the man must row.  The scenario elegantly shows how we can misinterpret our own ignorance as a limit imposed by nature.

The analysis of a horizontal force applied to a pendulum, however, although it appears to be based on classical mechanics, does not faithfully apply those laws of physics.....
--
Mr. Entropy

Dear Mr. Entropy,

Thank you for your opinion on The boat in calm water and good sunshine scenario.  You arrived at the same conclusion as the Professors and Research Students at Tsing Hua and Beijing University.

Before we discuss the second topic of the Pulsed Force on the Pendulum, I would like you to have access (at least in video form) of the WORKING prototypes.  The Professors at Tsing Hua University have seen and have access to these prototypes.  The videos and their pointers are on previous posts of this thread.

The three working prototypes I would like you to view first are:
(1) The Wang Shum Ho device (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm)

(2) The Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier - similar to the Chas Campbell device except that it used cylinders and could magnify the input 30 times.  The video was taken on Jan 4, 1996. 

(3) The Dr. Liang Xingren Car.  This car used ICs to pulse rotate the Cylinder and the axle.  Chao Ching San improved it with banks of batteries so that it can climb higher slopes than 23 degrees.  The Liang Car video was taken in 2003 and the Chao video was taken in 2006 by CCTV10.

Email me if you have difficulty in finding these three pieces of information.  (I do not want to put you in the position of having less information than the Tsing Hua Unversity Professors and Research Students before the full discussion.)

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung

[ltseung888]

Chas Campbell Devices

Chas Campbell has two devices.  One is a Bessler type perpetual motion wheel with moving balls.  One is the Electricity Magnifier.

This is a perfect test for the Lee-Tseung Theory outside China.  We can help to improve both devices with suggestions - giving out the theoretical explanations using the Lee-Tseung Theory at the same time.

It will be done in a step-by-step fashion in this forum.  The total overview and various predictions will be in the http://forum.go-here.nl.  This is done to benefit the World.

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Devices Lead Out Fun for Tseung and Benefits to the World

The first step or suggestion in improving the Chas Campbell Gravitational Wheel is
(1) Put Mass on the rim of the wheel. 
(2) The Lee-Tseung theory predicts that more gravitational energy will be Lead Out via the Pulsed Rotation if the mass is concentrated at the furtherest point - the rim.
(3) Many inventors who do not understand the Lee-Tseung theory go for larger wheels.  This has the effect of putting more mass at the further point.
(4) The Bessler Wheel is a double wheel with wood at the rim to hide the workings.  In really, Bessler unknowingly put more mass on the rim.
(5) Once the mass at the rim is increased, the pulsing or resonance frequency will change.  Another round of tuning from the beginning will be required.

This is the first suggestion on improving the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel.  To the engineering type who plan to replicate and improve the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel in this forum, please consider this improvement suggestion.

Lawrence Tseung
The first improvement step to the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel Leads Out more work for the Engineers.

[gaby de wilde]

But enough debunking... I don't enjoy debunking. 

You have no idea how annoying it really is. I will give you a good tip so that you don't have to appear a debunker. Personally I will refer to every comment as nonsense as long as it does not repeat the question. If anyone is going to give a description of a device and it's the same as their description of any other device then the person is a spammer.

Yes, yes, we know your god is real because it says so in your bible. But in order for others to respect your religion you should fist stop bothering other people with it. There is nothing interesting in such comments you see. This is a very stupid way of communicating and physics is full of this very kinds of stupidity. Any comment that tries to describe whole tribes of people while attributing specific emotional disorders is in fact a pure insult.

You may think I'm overreacting but I'm actually not talking about my research to anyone anymore. It's always the same bullshit they say.

So you better not think I take it mildly when you call me crazy and delusional again. I think it's a revolting personality trait, we need to get rid of this part of you before we can talk about anything.

Behave yourself will you?

I will tell you physics is just an art. It's nothing more as an art. You are not the superior artist. You are just another physicus. Very smart people overall, but most are not very creative by understatement.

Learn more => think less about it

If anyone should correct anyone to attribute proper respect it is the academic ranting about all other artists who should be corrected. The academicus should behave himself like an adult.

What kind of world do you think we get if all knowledgeable people act like little children? Well look around you? Good, point made.

You should buy some watter colors and a set of screwdrivers first, then some hammers. First go learn the basics of art. Your mental disorder looks exectly the same as mine looks from where you are sitting. hahaha!

But no offence intended!! I just want to share how crazy your things look from here! Of course you are wrong and I am right from my angle. The way peeps keep spamming everything said about free energy with the laws of thermodynamics is evident on it's own. And I really don't care it's the millions of you against lille oll me. I know when I'm right. If Aristoteles didn't accomplish anything, then why are you talking about him?  Why was his work so memorable? Why are you so impressed with his art? Could it be because it showed theoretical physics requires debugging like any other software? Perhaps his lesion was even more general?

Now I personally know debugging is not done though denial of the existence of the bugs. Stacking irrational functions is what others skilled in the art of programing call bloatware. So your software is a bloated boob. The computertechnical philosophical term is N3WB1E or N00B. It sounds rather manchildish again but it does cover the load. hahaha

[Theory = true] so  [machine = not real] Is nonsense!

[machine = real] so [theory = nonsense] on the other hand does give a realistic picture of the world.

By no means can you give any tribute to the laws of physics in advance then do nothing. I have hundreds of years of hard evidence of you ignoring perpetual motion devices. You didn't look so you can never claim non of them worked.  Even when we assume non of them where real this method is still erroneous. You have guessed they all didn't work.

The inventors community is like an input device. So you can either fail to configure it or you can make it evident there really is no signal. But you cant leave it disconnected claiming there is no signal. That's just rubbish talk man! LOL !

Physics and it's ancestors have been twisting peoples words for hundreds of years! Most disrespectful behaviour! Hardly something one can base any conclusions upon. For a hundred years you have chanted the mantra "non of the devices where real". But I can prove that 95% was never looked at so this claim is extremely fraudulent.

Here we go:

Anyone can create pages about anything on wikipedia as long as the information is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. NOW THIS MEANS NOT EVEN THE SMOT HAS A DECENT PAGE. Because there was never any science done on ANY free energy device in history. You have never looked!! Can't you see how crazy you all are? ah?? Don't you know about the law of supply and demand? 

Common, point your finger at me and call me names? we all know you want to?

The U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror  $3.4 billion on energy research  And you cant even produce one single document describing Stan Meyers water full cell. Not one page of decent documentation you have. And this you want to base your "non of them where real" claim upon? Highly fraudulent, most insulting to Mr Meyer?

I will assume I'm right until anyone explains where I am wrong.

Call me crazy.

Sublimate nuclear waste eh?
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl

What do you mean non where real? What do you have to show for your claims?

So, you understand this makes for kind of a weird online experience with all you "experts" all over the web. I think I'm going more insane by the day but not as a result from the original thought....

LOL !

[shruggedatlas]

You may think I'm overreacting but I'm actually not talking about my research to anyone anymore. It's always the same bullshit they say.

Now how did you get all that from Entropy's post?  He did not say one insulting or even critical thing about you or any of your ideas.