Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 894021
  • *Total Topics: 15711
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory  (Read 1776566 times)

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #630 on: November 15, 2007, 04:40:28 AM »
You claim to hold an M.Sc. from Southampton University in aeronautical engineering.....

EDIT; In case you don't have the address handy   alumni@soton.ac.uk  They are waiting to hear from you.

Thank you Hans.  I managed to contact the alumni.  I look forward to meeting the many "lost" professors and friends.  This time, I can proudly tell them the correct theory of aerodynamics - using the kinetic theory of gases in motion as explanation. 

From that, I discovered how to extract energy from still air.

The latest and greatest will be the Cosmic Energy Machines and the Flying Saucer.  I am confident that they can understand my explanations better than many forum members.

Lawrence Tseung
Educated Friends from same environment Leads Out appreciation of the Lee-Tseung theory and the Flying Saucer.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #630 on: November 15, 2007, 04:40:28 AM »

Offline chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #631 on: November 15, 2007, 06:58:12 PM »


....
  I am confident that they can understand my explanations better than many forum members.

Lawrence Tseung
Educated Friends from same environment Leads Out appreciation of the Lee-Tseung theory and the Flying Saucer.

But then they may be normal folks like us? Certainly don't discount that possibility!

cheers
chrisC

Offline luciferlam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #632 on: November 20, 2007, 07:34:30 PM »
Halo Mr.Tseung,

I have read the information of your designed system from the site.
http://www.energyfromair.com/PressA.htm
http://goldfield123.freehomepage.com/photo.html

I m interesting and want to investigate of your system though I'm not the professor or expert.
I want to ask few question to you.

Is your system can operate without any battery or electric power?
When the water is flowing through the pipe from button to the top, is the water flow's speed fast and the power strong?
Have you used your system providing power for any electric equipment in the real life?
Have you made any improvement or upgrade for your system?
If do, can you provide its information on internet?

Thankyou for reading my message.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #632 on: November 20, 2007, 07:34:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #633 on: November 20, 2007, 11:50:07 PM »

I want to ask a few questions...

(1) Is your system can operate without any battery or electric power?

(2) When the water is flowing through the pipe from button to the top, is the water flow's speed fast and the power strong?

(3) Have you used your system providing power for any electric equipment in the real life?

(4) Have you made any improvement or upgrade for your system?
If so, can you provide the information on Internet?

Thank you for reading my message.

Answers:
(1)   The first demonstration of the concept was via a beach pump.  The beach pump was used to get air into the system and then Lead Out its energy.

(2)   The beach pump could deliver water to 8 floors (approximately 25 meters).  This has been replicated in at least 8 locations to my knowledge.  I encourage others to repeat the experiment and improve on it.  I focus on theory and I am more interested in the direct way of extracting energy from gravity.

(3)   I have not used it to generate power myself.  In theory, the raised water can flow down; turn a turbine and generate power for the air pump plus more.  If one tower is not sufficient, we can use the ?Pull water technique? as described in the original Koo accident to raise water+air to an even greater height.

(4)   I do not do experiments myself.  Mr. Terry Cheung et al set up the demonstration system at Tai Po, Hong Kong.  That system used a HK$300 air pump (rated at one-tenth horse power) to deliver water to 4 floors.  The air+water mixture can be seen in a transparent pipe section.  The water+air flow was estimated to be greater than one-tenth horse power.  However, that was not enough to feedback the air pump because of energy losses.  Mr. Raymond Ting developed an one-inch pipe delivery system.  He is in contract negotiation at present.  I shall let him disclose such information himself.

Attached is the updated file for those who are not familiar with the Extracting Energy from Still Air Concept.

Offline Rosphere

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #634 on: November 21, 2007, 03:29:21 AM »
@ltseung888,

I began reading about your Lead-Out Theory this evening.  I started to read some items that you had posted way back in July, (when I was not active on this forum.)  I followed your link to http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm.

On this page I found some equations and values.  So, I generated a spreadsheet using this data, (and some stuff I picked at Lawrence Tech.,) in order to better consider the two energy terms.  As you can see, I have the spreadsheet calculating values at each one degree.

I then inserted a couple rows at the 9.48 degree value given at the web site; the top of which showing what the force would be at this given angle, 9.882 kg, and the one below is the value also given at the web site, 10kg.

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7.0;attach=14550;image)

As I wrote, I only started reading/studying this evening.  So far, so good.  Your numbers in this example jibe with my spreadsheet,... mostly.  I would not bring this up if the ratio had been given as 2.000.  However, as you can also see from the spreadsheet, this ratio approaches 2 as a limit going back to the zero angle.  I know it is not much above the limit, but it is the fact that it is above the limit that compels the anal retentive nature in me to point this out to you.  That is all.  Do with it what you will.  :)

I plan to continue reading more about your theory over the next few days.  What I have read, so far, is making sense.

Thank you for sharing with this forum.  :D

Rosphere--better late to the party then never


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #634 on: November 21, 2007, 03:29:21 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosphere

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #635 on: November 21, 2007, 05:25:53 AM »
@ltseung888,

Maybe because it is past my bedtime, but I am having a hard time making solid connections between these two steps:

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7.0;attach=14552;image)

Slide 4. shows the 2 units of feedback, implying a dynamic system.  If so, from what bounds; is it starting from rest at a=0, up to some point a, and back to rest at a=0, where the velocity at the start and end of the cycle is zero?

Or, is it one cycle in a continuous movement where initial and final velocities do not equal zero?

Maybe a good nights sleep will help me see it tomorrow.  :-\


Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #636 on: November 21, 2007, 04:24:02 PM »
@ltseung888,

Maybe because it is past my bedtime, but I am having a hard time making solid connections between these two steps:

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7.0;attach=14552;image)

Slide 4. shows the 2 units of feedback, implying a dynamic system.  If so, from what bounds; is it starting from rest at a=0, up to some point a, and back to rest at a=0, where the velocity at the start and end of the cycle is zero?

Or, is it one cycle in a continuous movement where initial and final velocities do not equal zero?

Maybe a good nights sleep will help me see it tomorrow.  :-\



Note that 2 parts of horizontal pulse energy leads out 1 part gravitational energy. (In diagram labelled 3)

The energy equation (In diagram labelled 4) is effectively:

   2 parts Input horizontal pulse energy
      + 1 part Lead Out gravitational energy
= 3 parts Output Energy (if there were no loss)

Then from the Output, 2 parts are fed back as Input horizontal pulse energy

The above equation repeats.

The presentation slides assumes someone knowledgeable is presenting them.  May be the description file is better.  It is also updated to show the best pulse force (not horizontal but perpendicular to radius).
   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #636 on: November 21, 2007, 04:24:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #637 on: November 21, 2007, 09:07:45 PM »
@ltseung888,

I began reading about your Lead-Out Theory this evening.  I started to read some items that you had posted way back in July, (when I was not active on this forum.)  I followed your link to http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm.

On this page I found some equations and values.  So, I generated a spreadsheet using this data, (and some stuff I picked at Lawrence Tech.,) in order to better consider the two energy terms.  As you can see, I have the spreadsheet calculating values at each one degree.

I then inserted a couple rows at the 9.48 degree value given at the web site; the top of which showing what the force would be at this given angle, 9.882 kg, and the one below is the value also given at the web site, 10kg.

...

As I wrote, I only started reading/studying this evening.  So far, so good.  Your numbers in this example jibe with my spreadsheet,... mostly.  I would not bring this up if the ratio had been given as 2.000.  However, as you can also see from the spreadsheet, this ratio approaches 2 as a limit going back to the zero angle.  I know it is not much above the limit, but it is the fact that it is above the limit that compels the anal retentive nature in me to point this out to you.  That is all.  Do with it what you will.  :)

I plan to continue reading more about your theory over the next few days.  What I have read, so far, is making sense.

Thank you for sharing with this forum.  :D

Rosphere--better late to the party then never




Excellent work, Rosphere!
I refer mostly to the chart, which is eloquent for why there is no subject to be seriously discussed into this thread.

Please take a look much earlier into this thread, close to its beginning: I?ve explained that what Mr Tseung calls ?Horizontal energy? is, in fact, the total spent energy. (That?s a very elementary fact.) It is total energy because there is no way one can horizontally deviate the weight from vertical without lifting it. Lifting <is achieved because of> / <it is a consequence/ a constraint of using> the rigid string BUT the energy comes from the pulling person.
 
After accepting that 'Hori energy' equation is wrong, notice that the values in the chart makes no physical sense. The computed ratio means total energy spent divided by the energy that goes into vertical lift (increase in potential energy). No physical significance whatsoever. No overunity either, just misuse of equations.

But if one reverses the ratio presented in the chart, now the new values would mean potential energy gained versus total energy spent. This may be useable for mental exercises. So, as example let?s take the angle =9.48. One has to spend 1.628 Joule to bring the weight from vertical to that angle, by pulling with a CONSTANT force of 9.882 Newton. By the end of the movement he finds that only 0.819 Joule were actually used for lifting the weight (this amount goes into potential energy). Well?! Is some energy being lost?! Where did the other half of the energy go?! The answer is very simple: it went into kinetic energy. And the pendulum will further move up by itself due to its stored kinetic energy.

Note the word ?constant? above written in capitals. It is important because the simple equations Mr. Tseung uses are no longer valid if the force is not kept constant. Because of that initial assumption already made, any distractions derived from pulsed forces and similar ?improvements of theory? can not be discussed under the above mathematical treatment (which, I must stress again, it is physically wrong.). But the required mathematical analysis never came and I suspect it will never do.

Hope I made myself clear,
Tinu

Offline RD Edwards

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #638 on: November 21, 2007, 09:45:27 PM »
Linda:
Thank you! You are eloquent, and right to the point. Thank you for your well thought out questions to "Dr' Tseung.

"Bunkers" with zero Credibility get that way by Leading Out Bunk in Too Many Simultaneous Conflicting Statements and Directions

freaking hilarious, thanks:)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #638 on: November 21, 2007, 09:45:27 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #639 on: November 22, 2007, 02:00:46 AM »

Please take a look much earlier into this thread, close to its beginning: I?ve explained that what Mr Tseung calls ?Horizontal energy? is, in fact, the total spent energy. (That?s a very elementary fact.) It is total energy because there is no way one can horizontally deviate the weight from vertical without lifting it. Lifting <is achieved because of> / <it is a consequence/ a constraint of using> the rigid string BUT the energy comes from the pulling person. ***This is where you were taught wrong.***

*** Vertical Work cannot be done by a Horizontal Force without a machine to convert its direction. ***


Dear Tinu,

I finally know where you have the misunderstanding.  In Physics, we have the following Newtonian Equations:

(1)   Work done = Force x Displacement (Vector Mathematics)

(2)   Both Force and Displacement are vector quantities meaning that they have direction. 

(3)   If the Displacement is not in the same direction as the Force, no work is done.  This means a horizontal force cannot do work in the vertical direction unless a machine is used to change the direction of the Force.

(4)   Work done is associated with Energy.  Work is a scalar quantity.  So is Energy.

(5)   In the case of the first pull of the pendulum by a Horizontal Force, there are three Forces on the Pendulum. Namely Horizontal Force, Tension in the String and Gravitation Force or the Weight.

(6)   In Physics, we have to consider the effect of these Forces  on the Pendulum.  The Weight can be considered constant.  The Horizontal Force is externally applied.  I assume that we can be extremely clever and keep it perfectly horizontal and constant.  The Tension of the Rigid String will vary.  It will definitely be greater than the Weight. 

(7)   When three forces act on an object in a two-dimensional plane as in the simple pendulum with a pull, we can use the Parallelogram of Forces  to calculate the resultant force.  We can examine the work done  by each of these forces.

(8 )   If we can apply a perfectly Horizontal Force, we can never do vertical work without some kind of a machine  as required by the Laws of Physics.

(9)   When we examine the ?machine elements? in a simple pendulum, we can easily see that the increased tension of the String  is responsible in lifting the Weight.  This is the Lead Out  Energy.

(10)   Such Physics Laws and their applications cannot be wrong.  One can improve the analysis by considering the best pull force.  The best pull force is not horizontal in all cases.  In fact it is perpendicular to the Radius or Tangential to Motion.

Let us focus on the Physics and drop the Insult Training.

Lawrence Tseung
Vertical Work cannot be done by a Horizontal Force without a machine to convert its direction.   A machine can be a pulley, an inclined plane etc.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 02:46:23 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline Rosphere

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #640 on: November 22, 2007, 02:26:03 AM »
Excellent work, Rosphere!
I refer mostly to the chart, which is eloquent for why there is no subject to be seriously discussed into this thread.
Thank you.  :)
Quote
After accepting that 'Hori energy' equation is wrong, notice that the values in the chart makes no physical sense. The computed ratio means total energy spent divided by the energy that goes into vertical lift (increase in potential energy). No physical significance whatsoever. No overunity either, just misuse of equations.

But if one reverses the ratio presented in the chart, now the new values would mean potential energy gained versus total energy spent. This may be useable for mental exercises. So, as example let?s take the angle =9.48. One has to spend 1.628 Joule to bring the weight from vertical to that angle, by pulling with a CONSTANT force of 9.882 Newton. By the end of the movement he finds that only 0.819 Joule were actually used for lifting the weight (this amount goes into potential energy). Well?! Is some energy being lost?! Where did the other half of the energy go?! The answer is very simple: it went into kinetic energy. And the pendulum will further move up by itself due to its stored kinetic energy.

Note the word ?constant? above written in capitals. It is important because the simple equations Mr. Tseung uses are no longer valid if the force is not kept constant. Because of that initial assumption already made, any distractions derived from pulsed forces and similar ?improvements of theory? can not be discussed under the above mathematical treatment (which, I must stress again, it is physically wrong.). But the required mathematical analysis never came and I suspect it will never do.

Hope I made myself clear,
Tinu

I recall some of what I had learned back in college; statics, dynamics, kinetic energy, and potential energy.  Although his equations and his numbers in slide 3 did match-up to my results, mostly, I should not have moved on to slide 4 until I was comfortable with the origin of his equations.

Regarding my chart: the Fx and Fy equations are mine, based on a static system at each angle.  (I did the static Free Body Diagram in my head looking at slide 2.)  As you can see, Fx is not constant.  We can imagine holding a suspended mass off vertical with our finger; it does not require much force at small angles; we feel very little pressure.  At larger angles, the horizontal force required to hold the mass off vertical is noticeably higher and more painful on the finger.  (Notice I did not write, "push," or, "move," but, "hold."  Fx and Fy are static forces in my chart.)  Our experience jibes with the numbers in my Fx column.

I must admit, I did not make a F.B.D and sum all of the forces and moments to equal m*a and I*alpha.  Although I did not have a warm-fuzzy about the validity of the horizontal and vertical energy equations, I did not look them up as you appear to have done.

I can not agree with you either, at this point, because I have not dug into it for myself.  However, whatever cracks may exist in slide 3 seem to grow into caverns reaching out to slide 4.  And these caverns hearken back to my insecurities about slide 3, where I suspect that you may be right about the validity of the Cartesian separation of this "pulse" force.

In order to do any dynamic analysis we need more information about this pulse force and how it is applied.  Is it applied by an elastic collision at a=0?  (This sounds like what is meant by, "pulse.")

Assuming that it is an elastic collision at a=0, what happens to this Lead Out energy when the angle peaks and then returns to a=0; is it Lead Back In energy?  If the Lead Out energy is Lead Back In then how can we exercise any claim upon it to do our bidding?

It must be Lead Back In because swing sets are not banned from playgrounds, (what would happen to Johnny returning with 50% more energy at each pass?)

If this pendulum is set into motion and we wish to make charts showing energy movement between the system and the environment then we need to be clear about what is happening at what time and define our cycle.  Splitting the motion up into its two Cartesian parts and saying, "then this happens with one of them," seems odd.

I can not buy into slide 4 at this time without more details.  The jury is still out on slide 3.  :-\

On the other hand, I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Perhaps this pendulum example was hastily put together and may not lend itself well to explain this Lead Out theory.

Rosphere--break time
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 04:04:53 AM by Rosphere »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #640 on: November 22, 2007, 02:26:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #641 on: November 22, 2007, 02:45:19 AM »

(9)   When we examine the ?machine elements? in a simple pendulum, we can easily see that the increased tension of the String  is responsible in lifting the Weight.  This is the Lead Out  Energy.

You are making the high school mistake of misinterpreting the nature of a tension force.  Yes, tension force exists when you are pulling an object, and in that situation, the tension force is responsible for moving whatever weight you are moving.

In your example, the tension of the string has nothing to do with lifting the weight, because no one is pulling the string to get the weight to move.  The weight is being lifted because someone pushed on it.  The string is responsible for the vector, that is all.  Had the string not been there, the object would just cruise off into space until it falls or is captured and abducted by the CIA or the Like.  Either way, the energy in the overall system would not change.

Lawrence, I suggest you whip out the old Beginning Physics and look at the chapter on ropes and pullies.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #642 on: November 22, 2007, 03:05:55 AM »

(9)   When we examine the ?machine elements? in a simple pendulum, we can easily see that the increased tension of the String  is responsible in lifting the Weight.  This is the Lead Out  Energy.

You are making the high school mistake of misinterpreting the nature of a tension force.  Yes, tension force exists when you are pulling an object, and in that situation, the tension force is responsible for moving whatever weight you are moving.

In your example, the tension of the string has nothing to do with lifting the weight, because no one is pulling the string to get the weight to move. 

*** In Physics, gravity can be the equivalent of a person pulling. ***

The weight is being lifted because someone pushed on it.  The string is responsible for the vector, that is all.  Had the string not been there, the object would just cruise off into space until it falls or is captured and abducted by the CIA or the Like.  Either way, the energy in the overall system would not change.

Lawrence, I suggest you whip out the old Beginning Physics and look at the chapter on ropes and pullies.

Dear utilitarian,

Let us focus on Physics  and forget the Insult Training.  In Physics, there is a force (Tension of the String) and a vertical displacement (Pendulum lifted upwards).  The Tension of the String can be resolved into vertical and horizontal components.

The vertical component of the Tension of the String has done work.
 Work = force x displacement (Vector Mathematics)
 Vertical Work  = Vertical Component of Tension of String x raised height

I am sure this is Physics.  Work has been done by the Tension of the String.  

Or Energy has been supplied by the String.  Where does the String get its Energy - partly from the horizontal pull and partly from gravity.  Gravitational Energy is Lead Out and stored into the pendulum system!!!

Lawrence Tseung
Let us focus on Physics.

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #643 on: November 22, 2007, 03:31:35 AM »

Dear utilitarian,

Let us focus on Physics  and forget the Insult Training.  In Physics, there is a force (Tension of the String) and a vertical displacement (Pendulum lifted upwards).  The Tension of the String can be resolved into vertical and horizontal components.

The vertical component of the Tension of the String has done work.
 Work = force x displacement (Vector Mathematics)
 Vertical Work  = Vertical Component of Tension of String x raised height

I am sure this is Physics.  Work has been done by the Tension of the String.  

Or Energy has been supplied by the String.  Where does the String get its Energy - partly from the horizontal pull and partly from gravity.  Gravitational Energy is Lead Out and stored into the pendulum system!!!

Lawrence Tseung
Let us focus on Physics.

This is nuts, and I cannot believe I am bumping your retarded thread to post a response.  The only energy the string has in your experiment is gravitational potential energy.  That is, if the CIA or the Like were to cut the string, it would fall to the ground.  I suspect you are talking about something else.

This is so basic.  A pendulum is simple harmonic motion.  There is constant exchange between potential and kinetic energy, all originating from the intial push.  The string does not factor into it, except to direct the motion.

This is the craziest thing I have ever heard of, and easily disproven.  Just give a swinging bob a precisely measured push on the way down.  Then measure how high it gets before it changes direction.  If the increase in height is more than what can be accounted for by the single push, you have overunity.  If not, shut up about this and never mention this nonesense again.

I wager you have never performed this simple experiment.  If you have, show us a video or tell us where a video of such an experiment can be observed, and then we will all be converts to Lead Out.  Until then, it is all talk.  You are very good at talk, but not proof.


Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #644 on: November 22, 2007, 04:26:15 AM »
Ms. Forever, the very pretty Chinese woman, does his experiments for him.  There is a video of her on this topic in an earlier post.

Bill

 

OneLink