another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

I have just confirmed with our attorneys.  No papers yet from Glen Lettenmaier.    I got the distinct impression he mentioned he'd sent something.  But then again he claimed I'd only sent him a post box number.  Which - to put it politely - is not consistent with the fact.  Here again is that address that you can all see how anxious I am that he is thoroughly enabled when it comes that class action of his.

Physical Address
Suite 2, Frazzitta Business Park
Cnr Lubbe & Langeberg Roads
Durbanville 7550
Postal Address
P.O.Box 3584
Durbanville 7551 

And Glen, feel free to access the email address as detailed in that PM Glen Lettenmaier.  It will be more than enough for these purposes.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

NICE TRY ROSIE ...

I'm waiting a response from Stefan on what action must be taken here ......

As I said over and over I'LL say it again, being you fucking cant read.

It will be done on my time table not yours .....


IT WILL BE AT LEAST A YEAR !!!


IDIOT !!!!

[TinselKoala]

Please refer to the attached image ainslie_scopeanal1.jpg below. These notes apply to the indicated features of the scope trace.

1) The dashed line of the upper moveable cursor, at the top of the Trace 1 oscillations, at about 4 small ticks above the baseline, or about +800 mV
2) The bottom level of the Trace 1 (CVR) signal, at about 3 1/2 small ticks below the CH 1 baseline, or about -700 mV-- it would have been very nice to have the bottom moveable cursor positioned here instead of at some useless place on the bottom of the screen.
3) The CH 3 voltage level, at just over 6 minor ticks above its baseline (4), indicating battery voltage of just over +60 volts (50 volts per major division, five minor ticks per major division, so 6 small ticks = 60 volts.)
4) The CH 3 zero volts baseline symbol.
5) The CH 2 baseline zero volts symbol. CH 2 represents the Gate signal. The channel is set to 2 volts per major division.
6) The oscillation mean amplitude on CH 2. Oscillates around a value 5 minor ticks BELOW the baseline, or - 2 volts. The peaks go from about -1 to about -2 1/2 volts or a bit more. Either the mosfets ARE NOT GETTING ENOUGH CHARGE to switch, AND/OR the FG's output voltage is being pulled down by the low impedance of the circuit.

EDIT TO ADD: I at first thought that the negative pulse would mean that only the Q2 mosfets (edit, sorry) in the corrected circuit diagram would switch. But by experimentation I found that, with offset settings of the FG combined with the load caused by the circuit's connections, the mosfets could switch at the "zero" INDICATED level of the FG's output if the amplitude was set high enough. I think this is because of the current path through the FG's impedance. My FG has a 50 ohm impedance, but the data sheet for the INSTEK GFG-8216A ,which I believe is the unit in Rosemary's video, has something I don't understand where the impedance should be listed: www.tequipment.net/pdf/Instek/GFG-8216A_datasheet.pdf.

7) The baseline  but NOT zero volt level for the DRAIN TRACE, scope CH 4. Since this trace is AC coupled and at 100 volts/div we don't know what the voltage level actually is here, but we can tell that the oscillations on the drain go about 6 or seven minor ticks, for a peaktopeak swing of 70 volts, being generous. This trace "should" be sitting on top of the battery voltage; in other words, had DC coupling been used and if there was enough screen room, we'd see the straightline average of this trace sitting at 60 volts above its zero level.
8 ) The display box indicating the channel sensitivities in volts PER major scale division.
9) The scope is attempting to calculate parameters of a very FAST signal from a SLOW display. It may be using its full sample rate to do this, or it may not. The slight negative value here is what Rosemary THINKS is confirmation of her conjecture that the batteries are recharging... a "reversed current flow". Actually it is no such thing at all, as many people have tried to explain to Rosemary.
10) The volts per division setting for CH 4, the GREEN trace, the common DRAIN trace.
11) The symbol indicating that this channel is AC COUPLED.
12) The scope here is complaining about the NOISE on the signal of CH 3, the battery voltage, the purple trace, indicating that it cannot get a reliable reading because of the NOISE.
13) The horizontal timebase setting: 40 milliseconds PER major horizontal scale division. This of course applies to the whole display.
14) The SCALE DIVISIONS. Major and minor ticks across these white lines indicate voltage and time according to the settings PER major division. These are extended to a grid across the whole screen, which unfortunately the presenters chose not to display.
15) The trigger setting: Trigger on CH 2, as is proper, at a rising slope of signal, at a level of 1.52 volts. Here again we see evidence that the FG is being loaded down by the circuit, I think, because the signal never gets to + 1.52 volts on the trace, yet the scope is triggering stably. Or... a possibility I just considered... maybe the display is stopped. The LeCroy in the video, connected in parallel, certainly is NOT triggering stably.
16) The dashed line of the bottom horizontal moveable cursor, in a useless location on the screen
17) The cursor data box, showing the "delta t" between the two vertical cursors, which are correctly positioned across one full waveform. So a frequency of 1 cycle PER 100 milliseconds translates to 10 Hz.. that is, ten cycles PER second.... which is very slow in my opinion, and makes the 1.5 MHz oscillations look like nothing more than a big blur.
18) A "minor" or small "tick" or scale division on the vertical scale.
19) A "major" or big tick or scale division on the vertical scale.
20) The righthand vertical moveable cursor.
21) The lefthand vertical moveable cursor.
22) The scope's trigger point in time.
23) The small blue arrow indicates the scope's trigger voltage and channel. What's triggering it? The blue trace never gets this high. Is the Tek scope smarter than its users? In this case, I think it is... or either it could be simply stopped, displaying a static screen... which might be another little mendacity of the video.

Note that you have NEVER seen an explanation like this of ANY scope traces that Rosemary has provided. And that's because she doesn't bother to understand what's being shown. This scope trace, far from being the "evidence" for overunity, is rather another nail in the coffin of Rosemary's claims.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,
I rather suspect that Glen Lettenmaier has not actually got that team of attorneys to attend to this class action.  In fact I'd be inclined to suspect that it was all just a rather empty threat.  Otherwise he needs to find himself a new set of attorneys.  Because a year is far in excess of what's required.  His complaint - though rather confusing - is clear.  He has stolen our paper through the simple expediency of stating under oath that the Scribd publication is his exclusive property and work.  And for this he needs must bring a class action to bear against me to assert his sole rights to access and publish that paper.  I'd say it would take all of about an hour and an attorney's clerk to manage the paper work.  Frankly Glen, I get the distinct impression that your own team of attorneys are simply not taking you seriously enough.  If I were in your shoes I'd sack them.  Find a new team.  But DON'T expect me to nominate them for you.  It's not acceptable protocol.  In fact I think it would be construed as 'prejudicial'?  Something like that.  LOL.  Certainly not usual practice for the Defendant to nominate the Plaintif's attorney.  Never heard the like. 

Rosie Pose.   

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys,
I rather suspect that Glen Lettenmaier has not actually got that team of attorneys to attend to this class action.  In fact I'd be inclined to suspect that it was all just a rather empty threat.  Otherwise he needs to find himself a new set of attorneys.  Because a year is far in excess of what's required.  His complaint - though rather confusing - is clear.  He has stolen our paper through the simple expediency of stating under oath that the Scribd publication is his exclusive property and work.  And for this he needs must bring a class action to bear against me to assert his sole rights to access and publish that paper.  I'd say it would take all of about an hour and an attorney's clerk to manage the paper work.  Frankly Glen, I get the distinct impression that your own team of attorneys are simply not taking you seriously enough.  If I were in your shoes I'd sack them.  Find a new team.  But DON'T expect me to nominate them for you.  It's not acceptable protocol.  In fact I think it would be construed as 'prejudicial'?  Something like that.  LOL.  Certainly not usual practice for the Defendant to nominate the Plaintif's attorney.  Never heard the like. 

Rosie Pose.

Rosemary ..... whats required for MY lawsuit should not concern you other than when your receive it.

It will be factual and correct unlike anything you have done in your entire lifetime.

Do your ............ Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

I don't care ..... why don't you answer TK on your fraudulent video

MAKE YOUR GRAND CHILDREN  "PROUD" !!!!

[TinselKoala]

It is also to be noted that whenever Rosemary is refuted by references or even by conversations with the person involved himself, she simply ignores the refutation and continues on.

25.6 million Joules.
"PER" never means a division operation.
Powercat endorses her claims.
FTC confirmed her COP figures.
The green trace is not the common drains and has nothing to do with her circuit or claims.

And many many more of her claims like those above have been UNDENIABLY refuted, with references -- so she just moves on and refuses to discuss the refutations, while still making the same tired old mendacious claims.