The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

While Mr. Tseung and Mr. Lee Cheung Kin was preparing for a (1) News Conference in December 2004 to announce this very significant breakthrough (Energy from Still Air) , they got word of another invention ? the Dr. Liang Sing Yan Car that did not require any fuel. 

Unfortunately, that Inventor, Dr. Liang employed (2) agents to get funds for him using illegal means.  Furthermore, Dr. Liang did not understand the true energy source of his invention and insisted on the (3) use of ?Perpetual Motion Machine? that violated the Law of Conservation of Energy.  His agents were jailed and his prototype was impounded. 

He also put in (4) self-destruction mechanism in his prototype.  When the authorities dissembled his prototype, the prototype self-destroyed.  He had no working device to support him and knowledgeable scientists all rejected his explanation of the workings of the prototype.  His theory was a mixture of the (5) Chinese Philosophy of Yin-Yang and the Western theory of Relativity.

Comments:

(1) News cuttings are still available.  Our US visitor can verify that on Friday.

(2) We learned from that lesson.  We seek funding from the Chinese Government.  It took longer but the effort was worth it.

(3) We did not claim to have built "perpetual motion machines".  We claimed that we could Lead Out energy from gravitational or electron motion energy that already surrounded us.  We never violated the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Our Cosmic Energy Machines use existing energy and never create or destroy energy.  Our Cosmic Energy Machines are NOT perpetual motion machines.

(4) We never need to protect ourselves with "self-destruction" mechanism.  We never build a working machine ourselves.  We just supply the theory and the improvement suggestions to other OU developers.

(5) We base our theory on solid Physics and Mathematics.  If we are wrong, the entire Physics and Mathematics foundations are wrong.  We do not need to introduce mysterious concepts that only the inventor understands.  (That is the problem of the EBM device.)

Lawrence Tseung
Learning from past mistakes Leads Out New Approach.

[ltseung888]

Great, you will show him how to spin a chair using no discernable source of energy except for his hand.  I take it you are still afraid to test your own theory on pendulums and Lee-tseung pulls.

I think I have to be not so polite.

(1) I do not think you have a formal Physics Training.

(2) In Physics, when we cannot test the effect of a single action, we can still test the effect of "collective actions".  From the result of the "collective actions", we can conclude that the proposed single action is correct.

(3) A single Lee-Tseung Pull cannot be tested with existing technology (unless you are brilliant enough to suggest one).  However, the "collective action" can be easily tested.

(4) The "collective action" is to Lee-Tseung Pull or Pulse Rotate a wheel or a cylinder.  The much higher quantity of Lead Out Energy can be demonstrated.  Examples are rotating magnets in magnetic fields.  The much publicized Joseph Newman and the Bedini Machines are examples in USA.

(5) If you refuse to believe the Joseph Newman or the Bedini Machines, you can wait for the Wang Shum Ho Electricity Generator Product.  (Some people still do not believe the US landed humans on the moon.  I just argued with one who refused to believe China sent back 3-dimensional pictures of the moon!) I treat such as seeds on rocks. 

(6) I repeat - any OU invention using oscillation, vibration, rotation or flux change potentially verifies the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.  The Hungarian EBM machine is the most powerful validation at present.  It already verified the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory. 

Why should I be so stupid as to try to do a single Lee-Tseung ideal pull?
If I cannot convince a seed on rock, who cares?

Lawrence Tseung
Communicating with non-Physicists could be painful.

[utilitarian]

(3) A single Lee-Tseung Pull cannot be tested with existing technology (unless you are brilliant enough to suggest one).  However, the "collective action" can be easily tested.

Yes, I can suggest one.  Take a pendulum.  On one side, where the ball starts, mount a spring.  Allow the spring to launch the ball.  This is the push/pull that assists the pendulum bob on the way down, like your theory demands.  If the ball has to be moving already, that's fine, just let the ball go and an instant later, let the spring go.

The energy in the spring can be precisely measured beforehad.  So all you have to do is mark where the ball rises on the opposite side.  If it is only as much as can be accounted for by the energy in the spring, then there was energy lead out.  If more, then you are correct.

I may not be a an "educated" physicist like you, but I remember from high school that the scientific method has four steps.

1.  Observation.  What have you observed that disobeys the current laws of physics.  The punching bag 40 years ago?
2.  Hypothesis.  Well, you got that one - that energy is being lead out.
3.  Prediction.  Based on that hypothesis, other pendulums ought to be have in similar manner.
4.  Experimentation.  This is the key.  You first have to test for the opposite of 3 to try to disprove your own hypothesis.  I bet you have not done this.  All you have done is try to prove 3 through calculations.  So you have commited the fallacy of affirmation.  Worse, you have not even done your own experimentation. 

As far as I am concerned, you are still stuck at step 3.  This is a very early step in the scientific method, and not worthy of publication.  This apparently you do not care about.  You can make fun of me for not being a scientist, but it is you who ignores the scientific method.  The test I proposed, while not completely trivial to perform, is definitely doable.

Let me know when you get to step 4 in high school science.

[ltseung888]

More Comments on the Ideal Lee-Tseung Pull Spreadsheet on Reply 758.

(1) The spreadsheet focused on the final COP value.

(2) The actual lead out energy is proportional to M (mass), L (length) and g (gravitational constant.)

(3) Thus to Lead Out more energy, we can:
      (a) Increase the Mass.  The Mass should be concentrated at the rim. 
      (b) A Cylinder is best.  The 225 HP and Liang Pulse Motor use cylinders.
      (c) Increase the Length or the Radius of the cylinder. 
      (d) The large Bessler or the improved Bedini wheel are good examples.
      (e) If Magnetic field is used, the effective g can be very large.
      (f) The direction of effective g can be changed.

(4) It should be clear that the Lee-Tseung Pull must be applied at the correct specific time.  This clearly shows the importance of tuning or the use of a program to adjust input according to external load. Examples include the 225 HP, Liang, Tsing Hua devices.

(5) Trying to verify the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory with a single pull is likely to be a waste of time.  The collective effect of the Lee-Tseung Pull has already been verified by the Newman, Bedini and EBM machines. 

Lawrence Tseung
Watering seeds on fertile soil.

[utilitarian]

(5) Trying to verify the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory with a single pull is likely to be a waste of time.  The collective effect of the Lee-Tseung Pull has already been verified by the Newman, Bedini and EBM machines. 

Interesting, so even though the Lead Out effect is clearly noticeable in the punching bag scenario, where the athlete only gives the bag two or three pushes, a single Lee Tseung pull is not going to be perceptable and is a waste of time to try?  This makes no sense and is in direct contradiction to your most recent spreadsheet, where, let's see, the perfect Lee-Tseung pull at 10% will give a COP of 1.878.  At a less perfect angle say between 10 and 40 degrees, the COP still exceeds 1.5.  Wow!  How is that a waste of time?  Don't be so negative.  Let's get to it.

Now, in what way is my spring experiment incorrect?  Why will it not lead out energy?  We have everything you asked for.  The ball is on its way down and is given a gradual (not a violent colliding) push by the spring in the direction it is going.   We can even wait until the ball hits 10 degrees before releasing the spring.  (Of course, for comparison, we will only measure the energy left in the spring once it passes the point where it makes contact with the ball).  Where am I mistaken?