Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[skcusitrah]

skcusitrah/hartisucks, you really don't know much about forum code and how it stores information in a database do you? 'predating' is as simple as you... you simply edit the timestamp in the database.  sql is NOT difficult, nor impossible.
ie: 'UPDATE table_name SET column1=value, column2=value2,...WHERE some_column=some_value'

A hack such as wilbyinebriated may be able to edit the date on a post, but it's not likely the EF admin went to such trouble. For what? Speculating that they did is almost laughable. And your layman poster would not have this access.

[Pirate88179]

Anyone who knows what they are doing can get access.  It is really not all that hard as Wilby has said.

Bill

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A hack such as wilbyinebriated may be able to edit the date on a post, but it's not likely the EF admin went to such trouble. For what? Speculating that they did is almost laughable. And your layman poster would not have this access.

We'll never know skcusitrah.  You may very well be as right as wrong.  But don't accuse either Harvey or Glen of being 'laymen' posters.  In any event, the simple point is that the question is irrelevant provided I keep the details of the resistor and the housing to ourselves - as required.  I really don't think that there's any aspect of this simple technology that can still be 'claimed' or 'patented'.  But I also think it's as well to exercise a little caution.  It's not happy experience to firstly disclose my technology to the public - then have it replicated  - and then hear that the replicators now consider it their discovery.  Why?  Why do they want this ownership?  Unless they intend some kind of intellectual property rights. 

But DO NOT assume that EF.Com Admin are not actively assisting in this effort to lose association of my name with that technology.  They most CERTAINLY are.  That worries me more than Glen or Harvey.  The more so as the evidence is that they've rather co-operated in 'losing' ALL the work that I've done, or 'burying' it.  But - there could possibly be a motive.  Aaron subscribes to the electron currrent flow and I suspect his books are based on this.  I know he presumes to teach the public on matters scientific.  In any event I think I was too much in the face of Bedini followers and such like and there's no question the theses are diametrically opposed.  I've got emails on record where Aaron has advised me that I 'had no right' to reference the thesis in our 'paper'.  Why he should see fit to comment is beyond me.  But that seemed to be a privotal complaint. 

But Guys, doesn't all this strike you as odd?  We have two forums - apparently dedicated to OU technology.  And we have at least one over unity technology that stands up to the most stringent scrutiny based, as it is, on equally stringent measurment protocols.  But I read on both threads the fact that notwithstanding this, the vast majority of the members here consider that OU has NEVER been breached.  I read things like 'show me proof'.  Or.  'There is absolutely no evidence'.  Whole threads dedicated to discussions on 'whether it can be achieved' - or others with partial explanations why perpetual motion can NEVER allow more energy into a system.  It's everywhere.  It's as if this entire dedicated year of disclosure and replication on this technology was also entirely a waste of time.  It would have been so nice if there had - at least - been some 'public' acknowledgement on these forums.  The joke of it is that the interest has now spread to the public and mainstream that there is more tangible evidence of interest there than here.  Has this over unity drive now served its purpose and spent it's own energy?  A spent force?  I certainly hope not.  It's still much needed - on so many levels.  But it would be as well to 'lead' the acknowledgement of evidence - rather than otherwise.  Else - these forums will become a 'bigger' joke than mainstream's early refusal to look at the evidence.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  I also need to add this.  I thought - some time back - that the resistors themselves could, indeed, still be patented.  Apparently not - unless they incorporate heretofore unknown methods of construction and winding.  But, having said that, it may yet be possible to 'copyright' or claim some kind of uniquenes if such is possible.  But - frankly - I cannot see enough variation here to ever warrant a patent. 

Effectively therefore, there's absolutely NO reason to keep the resistor details from the public.  Yet I will do so - just in case either Glen or Harvey claim 'prior art' knowledge - for whatever nefarious purpose.

Regards,
Rosemary

[nievesoliveras]

Most people die trying to get a patent, other people just sell their products adding the words "Patent Pending".

Jesus