**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Glen.  You are labouring under a very critical misconception.  Why should ANYONE believe you when you delete CRITICAL data from open source forums.  There is NOTHING can justify it.  And by doing this you are withholding the 'advertising' which was and is the purpose of making that machinery available to you.  Not only that but you have breached an undertaking here and ASSUME that no-one within the Tektronix organisation is aware of that breach.  What you are trying to do is to establish that only YOU can disseminate this information.  You are wrong.

Indeed you have rather shot yourself in both your feet.  Because right now there is MUCH that is being progressed that will then draw the attention that YOU would otherwise have been able to enjoy.  Your behaviour has been scurrilous.  You do not own a monopoly on OU.  There is a systematic progress made by members on this forum that will ENTIRELY outshine whatever it is that you achieved.  What you omitted was due and proper acknowledgement as to where that information came from - which is  HUGE breach of Open Source commitments.  And then you proceeded to try and blacken my name to justify this obvious attempt at theft.  It is my opinion that you are a self-serving rogue who is trying usurp an authority on a technology that you do NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND.

It is all WAY TOO LATE.  Your moment to shine was LOST when you withdrew that information.  Open source requires ABSOLUTELY OPEN cards.  You have been trying to manipulate an advantage.  And that manipulation has been REALLY TRANSPARENT.  And Harvey did his part by systematically misrpresenting both my character and the thesis in the forlorn hopes of keep that understanding at as low a level as possible.  He is fully cogniscant of the thinking behind all this.  He dare not allow it to be made accessible or understandable.  No doubt because he, in turn, wants to steal the thesis. God knows how he can represent it on this thread as he has done when he authored it correctly in the addendum to that paper.  The two of you have over played your hands.  When you thought you were trumping you were playing the wrong suit.  Your objectives have been entirely DEFEATED.  I don't think either of you will EVER be able to stall or halt the progress of this technology.  Nor will either of you EVER be able to claim it as your own.  Nor will either of you be able to be the representative authority.  This circuit and everything on this forum is the property of the whole global population.  What we're dealing with is a FORCE.  No-one can patent a FORCE.  And nor can anyone OWN IT.

R

[poynt99]

I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

Rosemary

The critical aspect surrounding this circuit is indeed the measurement; good and appropriate measurement equipment. Understandably, most folks don't have expensive nor the required application-specific equipment at their disposal to do this testing properly.

Regarding this statement:

And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.

Could you please elaborate on what this means in terms of allowed variations in the circuit components, specifically regarding the switch, the power supply (battery or lab supply) and the inductive resistor?

Thank you,
.99

[fuzzytomcat]

Glen.  You are labouring under a very critical misconception.  Why should ANYONE believe you when you delete CRITICAL data from open source forums.  There is NOTHING can justify it.  And by doing this you are withholding the 'advertising' which was and is the purpose of making that machinery available to you.  Not only that but you have breached an undertaking here and ASSUME that no-one within the Tektronix organisation is aware of that breach.  What you are trying to do is to establish that only YOU can disseminate this information.  You are wrong.

Indeed you have rather shot yourself in both your feet.  Because right now there is MUCH that is being progressed that will then draw the attention that YOU would otherwise have been able to enjoy.  Your behaviour has been scurrilous.  You do not own a monopoly on OU.  There is a systematic progress made by members on this forum that will ENTIRELY outshine whatever it is that you achieved.  What you omitted was due and proper acknowledgement as to where that information came from - which is  HUGE breach of Open Source commitments.  And then you proceeded to try and blacken my name to justify this obvious attempt at theft.  It is my opinion that you are a self-serving rogue who is trying usurp an authority on a technology that you do NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND.

It is all WAY TOO LATE.  Your moment to shine was LOST when you withdrew that information.  Open source requires ABSOLUTELY OPEN cards.  You have been trying to manipulate an advantage.  And that manipulation has been REALLY TRANSPARENT.  And Harvey did his part by systematically misrpresenting both my character and the thesis in the forlorn hopes of keep that understanding at as low a level as possible.  He is fully cogniscant of the thinking behind all this.  He dare not allow it to be made accessible or understandable.  No doubt because he, in turn, wants to steal the thesis. God knows how he can represent it on this thread as he has done when he authored it correctly in the addendum to that paper.  The two of you have over played your hands.  When you thought you were trumping you were playing the wrong suit.  Your objectives have been entirely DEFEATED.  I don't think either of you will EVER be able to stall or halt the progress of this technology.  Nor will either of you EVER be able to claim it as your own.  Nor will either of you be able to be the representative authority.  This circuit and everything on this forum is the property of the whole global population.  What we're dealing with is a FORCE.  No-one can patent a FORCE.  And nor can anyone OWN IT.

R

WHAT HIDDEN AND DELETED FILES ??

Panacea-BOCAF On-Line University - (complete file)
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Rosemary%20Ainslie%20COP17%20Heater%20Technology.pdf  ( non-stop ongoing 290 page - 15.47MB PDF file )

Energetic Forum - "Mosfet Heating Circuits" (complete file)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html   ( February 06,2010 )

Open Source Reasearch and Development "LIVE" 24/7 web broadcasting (with video library)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video recordings of live broadcasts
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df  (Tektronix TDS 3054C - January 9, 2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_b2e705b9-bf90-4bee-8009-2b323d8bc7ae (Tektronix 2445A - January 24,2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646 (Tektronix DPO 3054 - January 31, 2010)

Microsoft SkyDrive Public - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Mosfet Heating Circuit (complete photo, image and data gallery)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

Microsoft SkyDrive - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Rosemary Ainslie (complete Quantum article data, patent applications information)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The critical aspect surrounding this circuit is indeed the measurement; good and appropriate measurement equipment. Understandably, most folks don't have expensive nor the required application-specific equipment at their disposal to do this testing properly.

Indeed.  But Poynty - the facts are that one only needs to access a scopemeter that can display the DC average voltage.  That way one can tune it to the required resonance.  Effectively you put your probes across the shunt and turn the dials until the DC value defaults to zero or negative.  That essentially is  ALWAYS needed - just to find the required resonance.  Hopefully, as this need becomes apparent to all our manufacturers of those scopes then?  Surely it doesn't take too much to add this function to your average scopemeter?  Surely?  I know nothing about the software required.  But, as I see it, it's not been made available precisely because, until now, there was no apparent requirement for this function. 

Regarding this statement:
Could you please elaborate on what this means in terms of allowed variations in the circuit components, specifically regarding the switch, the power supply (battery or lab supply) and the inductive resistor?

In terms of the circuits required - that's simple.  One can use feed back diodes to caps or to recharge other batteries - and on and on.  Golly Poynty.  It can even be applied to AC supply sources.  But that isn't the whole of the potential.  If there is this dark energy in conductive and inductive material then it's being grossly underused. 

I know I've not answered this well.  I'll try and get back here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[spinn_MP]

Lol...
Or, should I cry?

Somebody is joking, right?