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: 525496
  • *Total Topics: 15645
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 22

Author Topic: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory  (Read 1748318 times)

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #225 on: August 30, 2007, 05:07:07 AM »
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #225 on: August 30, 2007, 05:07:07 AM »

Offline Forever

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #226 on: August 30, 2007, 10:32:34 AM »
I have put a lot of explanation of the Liang video as doc format in the following.

http://rapidshare.com/files/52197342/liangcar.doc.html


Enjoy it!!  ;D :D :)

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #227 on: August 30, 2007, 10:48:13 AM »
Mass and Energy are constantly being interchanged.  If the entire Universe is dynamic, I do not see an exhaustion of gravitational energy."

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #227 on: August 30, 2007, 10:48:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Forever

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #228 on: August 30, 2007, 12:27:22 PM »
I have put in much detail in the attached file related to the Tsinghua electricity magnifier.;D

It is very similar to the Chas Campbell device from Australia. The Tsinghua video was done on 4 January 1996.  ;D

Enjoy it! :)

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #229 on: August 30, 2007, 10:24:51 PM »

This is my entire point.  If gravitational energy cannot be exhausted, then extracting energy from gravity does violate the principle of COE.  Where is the extra energy coming from, if no matter or other type of energy is being depleted?

If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.  I would be skeptical of the design, but hey, if it works, then I am wrong.  What I am objecting to is the dishonesty of claiming your theory does not violate the principle of CoE, when it clearly does.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

When we apply this Law, we need to consider a closed  system. We must consider the Total Energy Going into this system (The Input Side).  There may be work done; energy loss (e.g. energy changed to heat); and Energy Going out from this system.

Mathematically, the following equation is useful to us:
The Total Energy In = The Total Energy Out (include work done, loss)

In the case of a boat in calm water and good sunshine, the Total Energy Going into the system should be (at least):
(1) Human Muscle Energy
(2) Energy due to Sunlight (a form of electromagnetic wave)
(3) Energy due to Wind (assumed none in calm waters)
(4) Energy due to Current (assumed none in calm waters)
(5) Energy due to gravitational attraction (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)
(6) Energy due to electron motion (*** this was often ignored as non-relevant)

Now, focus on the concept of a closed system.  A person might know a little about science.  He might ignored items (2) to (6) because he could not use them.  He might wrongly apply the CoE and concluded that he must use muscle energy to move the boat.  He might even wrongly claim that he was in a closed system.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  A top scientist looking at the above scenario will say, "The boat is NEVER in a closed system."  The person should never claim that he applied the Law of Conservation of Energy in a closed system.

If a way were found to use (2) Sunlight, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (5) Gravitational Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

If a way were found to use (6) Electron Motion Energy, CoE would not be violated.  It was never applicable in the first place!

Please go to the http://Http://www.steorn.com/forum and search for CoE under topics.  Thousands of posts were devoted to this topic.  You can refine the search by looking at the ltseung888 posts.

Regards and enjoy your reading,

Lawrence Tseung
CoE questions Lead Out thousands of posts in the Steorn Forum

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #229 on: August 30, 2007, 10:24:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #230 on: August 31, 2007, 07:15:21 AM »
Quote
If you want to go ahead and say that your theory violates the principle of conservation of energy, then fine, say that.

Dear shruggedatlas,

Let me first state CoE as I understand it.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can only change from one form to another.  I agree with this statement.

Science is not a state of agreement, you need to empirically observe stuffs and make the evidence hold with the claims. Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO but the likes of such is not something you can just agree with but something that requires to be understood first. One can not agree with something one does not understand.

I don't understand it at all. - LOL - I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me. I'm thus not really in title to say I support this theory or that I reject it. I'm still looking for someone who can explain the logical gist I seem to be missing.

Do you really understand the theorem?

Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #231 on: September 01, 2007, 04:28:06 AM »
I have put further discussion related to CoE in:

http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=240#240

Have fun.  ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #231 on: September 01, 2007, 04:28:06 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #232 on: September 01, 2007, 05:21:57 AM »

Shrug...

Have you not yet perceived that in this thread sensible logical argument is simply ignored and answered with further irrational claims (usually involving cute stories, Chinese cartoon characters and enormous disappointing downloads)? 

It's no use here to ask for actual information or to make eloquently clear arguments.

Humbugger

These eastern philsophers obviously think they still live in the Confucian era where poetry and play acting are sufficient to impress the masses about their supposedly fool-proof postulates.

The real world is very different. The western world measures real values through a rigorous process of substantiating proofs. These guys are NUTS!

I wouldn't take these dreamers and delusionists seriously.

cheers
chrisC

Offline Mr.Entropy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #233 on: September 01, 2007, 05:26:31 AM »
Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #233 on: September 01, 2007, 05:26:31 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: The Conversation of Energy
« Reply #234 on: September 02, 2007, 01:37:35 AM »
Conversation of energy floats on Noether's theorem's constantaneous symmetries stuffs which may not seem to represent the real flow of reality IMHO
[...]
I have asked a lot of people online how this theorem explains the universe and it makes no sense to me.
[...]
Is there any skeptic available who can explain it in simple words to an idiot like myself? Where in the formula does the miracle happen? ???

Well, Gaby,

Energy is not what it used to be, and the law of conservation thereof no longer tells us very much about the universe at all.  As you say, the law derives from Noether's theorem.  This is a mathematical theorem, i.e., it's about math, not physics.  It works like this:

Lets say you have a system (the universe, or any isolated system) whose state can be represented by some number of variables.

You have a set of mathematical rules, the "laws of physics", that describe how the system evolves from one state to future states.

If those laws have a representation in Lagrangian mechanics (a particular way of expressing them as the minimization of an integral over time) AND those laws are time-invariant (state q0 at t=0 evolves to state q1 at t=1 means that state q0 at t=x evolves to state q1 at t=x+1, for all x), THEN, by Noether's theorem, there is a quantity (some function of the system's state variables) that those laws will keep constant in the system over time.

That quantity is what we call energy these days...  REGARDLESS of which laws we're using or what variables we're including in the isolated system.

As we discover and modify our physical laws, our best definition of energy -- what it actually is that is conserved, i.e., that function of the state variables we're considering -- changes.  Most famously, when we consider E=mc^2, it now includes mass.  It includes a lot of things, but as long as we can find a Lagrangian formulation for our laws of physics, then there is SOMETHING we can call energy that is conserved over time.

So when some physicists tell you that they have faith in the conservation of energy, they're telling you that:

a) They accept the mathematical proof of Noether's theorem; and

b) They believe that the laws of physics will continue to be expressible in a time-invariant Lagrangian form.

And they'd probably be right.  The thing is, of course, that this "energy" that is conserved isn't the energy we learned about in grade school, i.e., the "ability to do work".  It is some "bunch of stuff" plus the "ability to do work", and if that bunch of stuff includes something we don't care about that can be reduced without significant bounds, well, then the "ability to do work" can grow without significant bounds for "free".

So, even if the laws of physics don't allow for "free energy" today, as long as we continue to discover new things about the universe, the definition of "energy" will continue to change, and you can have hope that free energy will emerge as a possibility even though the law of conservation of energy remains inviolate.


Hope that helps,

Mr. Entropy

Yeah, that was way out there dude. hehehe Weiw It like confirms all my prejudgements I was trying to suppress. I thank you for the accurate layman explanation.

As an inventor things just don't get pseudoscientific enough for me.

I will explain even tho I know the consequences :D The thing is zero point energy proves that an equilibrium doesn't exist. The system may want to go there but it never actually gets there. ha-ha!

If we are not going to honestly measure the flows of our so called energy content at each stage of the translation but rather assume it's always the same we are never going to figure it out.  Maybe it was not the physics idea to ignore how the universe works. Maybe we are just spinning some old wheel?

I will tell you that every reaction that ever happened in this universe influenced every other reaction, every particle was a crucial ingredient to make it the way it is today. Analog is really analog and nothing else. One should appreciate what analog means.

What it means is best illustrated with an example.

Say you drop a stone 10 kg from a height of 73 cm.... ..... then that changes everything! The planet will resonate as a whole, the solar system will then vigorously shake as a direct result thereof! Then the galaxy! And eventually you will have absolutely changed the universe as a whole! Nothing will ever be the same again. Equilibrium just doesn't happen in a million years.

So I envision the whole principal of equating things to be wrong. Say there are 3 or more sides to an equation, all with a starting figure and a constant factor of change. Like 3 or more magnets magnetising each other. We already have perpetual motion at the micro and the macro scale. This cant be that hard? LOL! Unless of course everyone is trained to be ignorant up to the point of aggressively attacking the innocent and harmless inventors. Like that the person ain't going to figure out anything, it's not like I have to guess to know. :(

You know that Lenz law stuffs right? What my most limited understanding can bake of it is that if an electromagnet is attracting a permanent magnet it is squeezed together. If it's repelling one it's wants to expand.

 [- +] (-) squeeze

 [- +] (+) expand

But what if we make a 3 way equation and have the electromagnet both pull and push at the same time!

[- +] (+) [- +]

Now we get 2 times the work and most of the coil is outside the permanent magnetic flux. It just doesn't draw more current and it doesn't create less electromagnetic flux either.

http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/wesley-gary

It's a little less complicated as the Newman motor, Joe Newman used 1 magnet with the coil around it, that way there are 4 interactions with the magnets for each pulse.

Jet, if everything really has to be conservative.... Take a coil and a pm, you get just as much energy back into the coil as that what you put in to attract the pm. There is no way of getting the pm off the coil without making this electricity. The kinetic energy loss from departure is the same as the gain from approach. No energy was used but the mass sure moved, people also call this SMOT ramps (adds pun) There is not much to equate with 3 points of interaction. The reaction forces are very different in size as that what goes in. It may just be a hypothesis I can show you quite good proofs of it. ;)

Thanks again for explaining the theorem.


Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #235 on: September 02, 2007, 02:28:40 AM »
Getting ready for the Chas Campbell Device Videos from Ash:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg46913.html#msg46913

*****
Hi Lawrence,
many thanks for posting this video (on Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier) and all your explanation.

Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?

Unfortunately form this video you can not see any
output versus input measurements, so
we have to believe you that it is the way you claim it.

Is anybody working now still on this principle  in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?

Many thanks for bringing news from the China energy research to
over here.
As China is a very big country and is in need now for very big energy
to continue its modernisation growth
it would be good if your industry would use green energy instead of polluting
fossil fuel energy...

So please try to spread the word in China about free energy and alternative
technology by inviting many Chinese people who can speak English
to come over here.
Many thanks for your great efforts.
Regards, Stefan.
*****
Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?

(1) The initial reaction from the Scientific Establishment was that the Inventor was only "stealing" electricity from the local electricity company.
(2) The inventor was over 80 years old and did not have a strong academic training.  He initially refused to show the details inside the cylinders.  That caused much distrust and conflict with the Tsing Hua University Professors.
(3) Initial effort without detailed information on the cylinders could not reproduce the result.  There were much speculation just like what is happening on this overunity forum.
(4) When Tsing Hua University could not come up with a good theory to explain the source of energy, it was in a state of "research".
(5) Tsing Hua University accepted the Lee-Tseung theory in one day after Lee Cheung Kin and myself went to Beijing and provided the detailed explanations in Oct 2006.

Is anybody working now still on this principle  in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?

(1) When Lee-Tseung went to Tsing Hua University, we also brought Wang Shum Ho.  Wang had a very interesting invention using the coupling of ferro-liquid and rotating permanent magnets.  That invention could generate 5 KW of electricity. (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/wang3a.htm)
(2) Tsing Hua University then thought of putting the two inventions together.  5KW x 30 = 150 KW.  That amount of power would be sufficient for most villages and small factories.
(3) On January 15, 2007, the Wang device was demonstrated in front of 5 Chinese Officials.  Dozens more demonstrations followed.
(4) In June 2007, Wang informed me that a Chinese Company (General Magnetic 磁普) had been formed.  The initial target was to raise RMB6 billion but they got RMB13 billion in a matter of hours. 
(5) General Magnetic got a number of Cosmic Energy Machine projects together.  Wang was made one of the nine vice presidents.
(6) Lee Cheung Kin devoted his effort in China to convince the top Academics that the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory could explain all the known Cosmic Energy Inventions (or Over Unity Inventions).  Six were conclusively demonstrated in China.  He got invited to Japan to consult on the flux change only device.
(7) I continued the posting outside China and worked on the theory of the Magneto Propulsion Unit (MPU) for the Flying Saucer.  To my amazement, there was the Nanjing UFO video on youtube.  That was an almost exact implementation of the Woo-Fong-Tseung patent.

*** I believe General Magnetic plans to go International IPO in 2008.  There will be multiple Products before the IPO.  The known working prototypes include: EBM, Japanese Flux Change Device, Liang Car, Chao Car, Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier, 225 HP Pulse Motor, Wang Shum Ho Device, (Nanjing Flying Saucer?), and many variations of the Magnetic Pulse Motors.   From our misdealings with CIA or the Like, we believed that USA knew all the above.  The unannounced (top secret) funding in USA is likely to be much more than RMB13 billion.

Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell Leads Out the first conclusive OU demonstration supported by the overunity forum members.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #235 on: September 02, 2007, 02:28:40 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Mr.Entropy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
Re: The Conversation of Energy
« Reply #236 on: September 03, 2007, 04:55:32 AM »
But what if we make a 3 way equation and have the electromagnet both pull and push at the same time!

[- +] (+) [- +]

Now we get 2 times the work and most of the coil is outside the permanent magnetic flux. It just doesn't draw more current and it doesn't create less electromagnetic flux either.

You've gotta give the physicists their due.  Getting free energy is impossible as long as nature works according to the known laws of physics.  This can be proven mathematically, and physicists do that math, so believe them when they tell you it is so.  (Don't listen to the foul-mouthed skeptics, though -- they don't know what they're talking about any more than you do).

What that means is that it's NO GOOD doing thought experiments, trying to find some arrangement of stuff that makes free energy according to the known laws of physics.  There are no such arrangements.  If you think you imagine some way that the laws allow it, like the example above, then you're just mistaken (no shame in that!) and you might want to figure out why it isn't so.

With the particular example above, it's because the forces on the electrons moving in the coil from each of the nearby magnets add linearly, i.e., the effect of magnet1 + magnet2 is the same as (effect of magnet1) + (effect of magnet2).  Since the energy you get out or put in as the coil moves is proportional to the total force, the energy effects from both magnets are also simply added.  If you can't get free energy out of 1 magnet, then you can't get it out of 2 or any number of them.

This is called linear superposition, and many physical laws work that way.

So, trust the physicists to tell you the implications of the known laws of physics.  If you want to find free energy, you must do real experiments, and you must observe something that behaves COUNTER to the known laws or that just isn't adequately covered by the known laws.  And by the principle of superposition, the laws that describe magnetism, gravity, kinetics, etc., cover all configurations of the basic elements, no matter how many there are, or how cunningly they are arranged.

Quote
It's a little less complicated than the Newman motor [...]

You know, I generally like the free energy believers a lot more than I like the skeptics.  It breaks my heart that they can get so confused.

I've seen several Newman demos, for example, and it's clear that he just doesn't know what power is.  He's worked so hard on those demonstrations, but they show nothing.  It's tragic, whether he has anything or not.

I hope somebody has something.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
The Conservation of Energy
« Reply #237 on: September 03, 2007, 05:12:18 AM »

What that means is that it's NO GOOD doing thought experiments, trying to find some arrangement of stuff that makes free energy according to the known laws of physics. 

.....

I've seen several Newman demos, for example, and it's clear that he just doesn't know what power is.  He's worked so hard on those demonstrations, but they show nothing.  It's tragic, whether he has anything or not.

I hope somebody has something.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy


Dear Mr. Entropy,

I noticed that you are new to this forum.  But from your posts, I believe you do have a much stronger Physics and Mathematics background than most.

My goal is to benefit the World.  I welcome you to comment on the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.  If you desire to have less "noise", we can go to http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=18 where I have moderator privilege.

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

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg40843.html#msg40843

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung
« Last Edit: September 03, 2007, 07:39:40 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #238 on: September 03, 2007, 10:46:10 AM »
Welcome aboard, Mr. Entropy!
My full respects to your posts and views!


I noticed that you are new to this forum.  But from your posts, I believe you do have a much stronger Physics and Mathematics background than most.

My goal is to benefit the World.  I welcome you to comment on the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory... 

Yes, finally that?s a good point, Mr. Tseung.
A rare good point...

Hopefully Mr. Entropy will have a look at your work (http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/Taiwan2a.files/frame.htm) and post a second opinion.
Mine is the same as previously posted here and it will ever be so. You twist around and massacre known and simple equations (it?s the same with the water-air-pump, not just with the so-called ?lead-out? theory), making a lot of elementary but also subtle mistakes, probably at least some on them purposely done to fit your obscure purposes.

Maybe you want to ?test? also Mr. Entropy? lol

Tinu

Offline sevich

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory
« Reply #239 on: September 03, 2007, 02:46:44 PM »
I don't understand as to why Stefan hasn't shut down this topic/thread ? ..... so much talk and boastfulness by Itseung888 with no proof to back it up ? ...it's just going on and on and on and on...

what's my point you may ask ?  ........well, nearly every idea on this forum Itseung888 will describe as incorporating HIS "lead-out theory" and...bla...bla...bla...

I really admire Stefans patience with (Itseung888)...I also try to familiarize myself with the sad reality of this hopeless episode/situation. Getting way out of human control in that (Itseung888) was allowed to leave (lead-out) the state psychiatric ward, cell block No 6.  While feeling extremely cold, suicidal and hungary (Itseung888) stumbling along highway 101 helplessly but desperetly finds a new meaning of life and somehow discovers "lead out theory".  Whilst squatting at the local library he stumbles across overunity.com. Ahha!!...now he can release all his (free Neg energy) & psycotic fantasies of gradour to the poor and unsuspecting. In a desperate bid to offload all his bubbling bullshit which was just under the surface waiting for a presidential release. FINALLY it needing to free itself whilst ignoring and reckelesly infecting the rest of the innocent "overunity.com" populase.........bla...bla...bla...

hope i'm not out of line? :P



« Last Edit: September 03, 2007, 03:34:11 PM by sevich »

 

OneLink