another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

It appears you know as little about the Internet as you know about the law.  What the hell is an "IP Provider?" 


And you go on to say "any other member using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of each name used".  You mean if someone else is sneaking into Rosemary's house and using her computer to post on overunity.com?


And good luck subpoenaing those IP records.

Well Counselor, since you are giving legal advice here.... what does your legal dictionary call it when a person seeks to obtain a monetary award under false pretenses, by making false claims and failing to provide supporting evidence of his claims?

[TinselKoala]

"This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you..."

Idiot.

YOU HAVE GOT EVERY PROBE GROUND FROM EVERY CHANNEL ON EACH OSCILLOSCOPE AS WELL AS THE FUNCTION GENERATOR CONNECTED DELIBERATELY TO THE SAME POINT ON THE CIRCUIT BOARD.

Under those circumstances it matters not one whit whether one of the devices has an isolated power supply. ALL YOUR PROBES AND INSTRUMENT GROUNDS ARE CONNECTED TOGETHER, INCLUDING YOUR FUNCTION GENERATOR's "minus" LEAD.

[powercat]

Yes indeed.  It would be WONDERFUL if he were taking some direct action.  What he's actually DONE is to ask me to appoint his attorney.  Which is rather confusing.  I'm yet to find out what papers he's sent to me.  But I'll let you all know tomorrow. It's a holiday today.  I'm rather afraid that he's not going to make it to Court.  Which would be a shame.  I am most anxious to defend our INFINITE COP claim in Court.  It would be a triumph.  I'm hoping that constant reminders of this undertaking of his will eventually get him to lay some sort of charge against me.  Possibly for libel?  LOL

Regards
Rosie Pose.

I find your obsession with Fuzzy as ridiculous as your stubbornness to carrying on regardless with your claim,
despite all the credible evidence against you, very few people even come to your defence and the majority of the ones that do are suspiciously new members.

I note from your response that you avoided the second part of my post, so here it is again.
How strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary says many many untrue things in that post of hers. Here's just one:

Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 07:54:00 AM

The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.

Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Please watch this video carefully, with liberal use of your "pause button" if you can find it, Rosemary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

0.21 : a diagram is shown that is not the diagram of the circuit being shown... it does not show the reversed mosfet which results in the ACTUAL circuit being the one with the Q1-Q2 crossover.

0.42-44  That is either the GATE pin or the SOURCE pin of that mosfet connected to the point F in the circuit. The DRAIN is the middle pin. Since the GATES of all the other mosfets have a red sleeve on them, this is probably the GATE of that mosfet there connected to the point labelled F on the board. Also, the diagram shows the FG's output connected to point C. But the actual board shows the red alligator clip from the FG is actually connected to point F, not point C. (0:42).

1:42 and on.
Presenter says "and F would be the common drain"  which is shown clearly on the diagram to be CHANNEL 4, the green trace on your famous oscilloscope. Or is that wrong too? What do YOU claim the green trace shows?
What other signal from your circuit would require an AC coupling setting at 100 volt per division?

And the "small ticks" that I  speak of are evident to ANYONE WHO HAS EVER USED AN OSCILLOSCOPE TO MAKE QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS. You should have your glasses checked. The screen is crossed by two white lines, horizontal and vertical that meet in the very center. These are the SCALE DIVISIONS and the "divisons" refer to the Major divisions, the big ticks, and the minor divisions, of which there are FIVE PER MAJOR DIVISION are indicated by "small ticks" across the white lines. As anyone who UNDERSTANDS an oscilloscope can tell you, ROSEMARY you willfully ignorant liar.

Of course it's nearly impossible to tell what is hooked up to what in that presentation ... just that there are errors.


The rest of her comments about my trace analysis are similarly... LIES.

[eatenbyagrue]

Well Counselor, since you are giving legal advice here.... what does your legal dictionary call it when a person seeks to obtain a monetary award under false pretenses, by making false claims and failing to provide supporting evidence of his claims?

I see you are hinting at fraud here, but fraud requires several specific elements.  I can only intelligently speak about Texas law, but I suspect many jurisdictions are similar.  One element is that the representation made must be false.  And I suppose the entire point of this thread is the debate on this topic, so I am not going to try to decide that one. 

But even if you can show that Rosemary's claims are false, and there seems to be much spirited debate on this matter, the other critical element as it applies to this case is that the defendant must know that the representation is false (or be very reckless about it).  So the question is, is Rosemary knowingly misleading anyone.  It appears to me that she is an earnest inventor trying to prove up claims she honestly believes are true.  I suspect you disagree, but proving it is another matter.


Oh, and another required element is that the plaintiff must rely on the false representation to its detriment.  I have not seen any of you actually rely on what Rosemary is saying.  You contest her claims every step of the way.  So I say, no fraud case here!