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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sit down with a cuppy and see what you think.....

J.

LOL.  I have NEVER heard of a cuppy?  Tried looking it up and apparently it's definition is 'shaped like a cup'.  Perhaps J. who is edging ever nearer to the truth of this identity    - I think?  is also rather confused with idiomatic English.  I believe the term you are looking for is 'cuppa'.  And only you would recommend that our readers here sit down with a cup of tea or even a double gin and tonic - to consider anything as facile and vacuuous as your 'self quoted' nonsense.  But again.  Dear readers - if there are any at all who follow this appalling thread - I am delighted, flattered beyond belief, intrigued, happy to be associated with Leedskalnins work in any context at all.  And I must thank Truthbeknown for this constant association.

It seems there is some benefit after all in his inabiity to vary either his posts or his confusions.  LOL. 

Rosemary

[Harvey]

Hi All,

My prior posts in this thread have dealt primarily with the truthful and accurate historical events related to Glen's work and Rosemary's attempts at attaching her flavor of Leedskalnin's thesis to that work in post during the writing of the defunct and rejected paper she now passes off as "For Peer Review" illegally on Scribd by including the IEEE logo and watermark without written permission from IEEE and all authors as required.

However, this thread is a NEWS thread, not a history thread. Therefore an ALL CALL for data is issued for any and all OPEN SOURCE replicators working on this circuit to post their results and make them available for us all to benefit from, as Glen has.

I openly request that Rosemary and her team fall in line here and post their data and results along with all supporting documentation. To date, we have nothing from them even though their testing has been ongoing from before Glen's and continues after Glen's. The original claimed accreditation appears to be bogus with no substantiating documentation and my private contact with ABB said he he has worked there over 20 years in the department responsible for such testing and never heard of Rosemary Ainslie. So I don't know what to think. How can she continue to boast OPEN SOURCE when she withholds EVERYTHING? Even her original Quantum stuff was full of errors. The resistor was wrong, the circuit was wrong, the capacitors in the circuit were wrong etc. And the data collection was done by her with crude equipment and was not even charted correctly - the time frames in her chart are incorrect and it went to print that way. CLEARLY, we need NEW data and information from her team if she intends to keep boasting open source.

To that end, as of right now, the only person I am aware of that is currently active in testing this circuit is Gad. And as a point of current NEWS he has posted his preliminary results in comparing the energy of his batteries to the heat dissipated in the calorimeter. Here is the link:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-5.html#post114690

I know Rosemary keeps letting her ego and her thesis get in the way of making progress here, but we need to set those two things aside and move forward toward trying to prove the COP>17 claim. Without that proof, the thesis is defunct. With that proof, the thesis is at best a consideration of ONE of the possible explanations for the energy, if it truly exists as claimed. I have been one of the few most intimately associated with the workings of this circuit and as of yet I still await definitive proof of anything over unity.

I don't harbor any malice toward Rosemary even in the face of all her abuse and unsubstantiated attacks. I've simply learned to accept that she is who she is and I have learned to ignore her in that regard as I would any other Super-Troll. She has one goal in this thread and that is to bury Glens requests for answers under pages of rhetoric. She certainly has mastered that art as can be seen in all of her threads. So if you see a flurry of posts from her, simply go back to the beginning of the flurry and see what's she's trying to bury there and ask yourself why.

===============

Gad, if your reading here too - keep up the good work. We are hopeful that the increased voltage will get us into the same result range that Glen has shown.

Respectfully,

Harvey

[Rosemary Ainslie]

There seems to be some confusion here.  Apparently there is now a call for NEWS - where I rather think the two of you were obsessively centred on HISTORY and, in truth - a re-write of history. 

If you want news then you must solicit that from the members here.  I have NO intention of posting any of our results on this thread - EVER.  Alternatively you will need to show us some of your own tests.  LOL.  It all seems to have come to a grinding halt.  We, on the other hand are forging ahead - delayed for these last few weeks because of Student exams.  What exactly are either you or Glen doing here?  Apart from giving Gad the BAD advice that proliferates on your own thread at EF.Com?

And Harvey - it was you and Truthbeknown aka 'J'  who lapsed into that absurd treatise on the thesis and your own particular account of the 'effects' based as they are on POSITRONS.  LOL.  And I think it was and is Glen who not only initiated this thread but has monopolised it with his tediously long list of unsubstantiated allegations in blocked links - lest the truth in fact be known.  So.  To try, retrospectively to assert another theme on this parody is somewhat unilateral and entirely off topic. Certainly it was and is NOTHING to do with NEWS.  Indeed.  It's all 'old hat' and is boring us all with its repetition.

Rosemary

BTW here is that LINK
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

I am looking forward to your denial of your claims and involvement in this paper - that I can prove you the liar that you are.  I believe, if you look at this text - there was NEVER ANY QUESTION AS TO THE EFFICACY OF THE TECHNOLOGY NOR THE RESULTS THAT YOU YOURSELF DETERMINED.  There is nothing you can do that will effectively rewrite this history nor alter these results - albeit that they rather conflict with your current agenda.  Your hope, like Glen's was that Scribd would believe your claims that Glen held SOLE COPYRIGHT.  What a joke.

ADDED

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

As you all can see in every one of Rosemary's reply's the immediate responses to other members postings, 99% of the time quick attacks or misrepresentations and allegations of everyone else's imagined wrong doing.

Rosemary's "OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

witsend
Senior Member
        
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

Rosemary Ainslie has been withholding "EVERYTHING" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community


I also will add as per Rosemary Ainslie's Quote .... it has been checked by EE's   even at universities http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html   ( July, 13 2009 ) ....


And why after fourteen days or two weeks of possession of the new oscilloscope not one scope wave form image or test data file has been publicly released yet of "anything" related to the experimental device "nothing" at all ??


and it has been checked by EE's .....Why is the Testing and evaluation being done by "STUDENTS and not EE's  ??  , or at least someone experienced in data collection and where is the testing and evaluation documentation all the EE's did ??


even at universities ....... which Universities ?? and where is there testing and evaluation documentation of the experimental device from these Universities ??


Why is the new testing and evaluation being done with a inferior "LECROY" 300 series oscilloscope and not something better than the Tektronix TDS 3054C used in Tests #1 through Test #16 and the Tektronix DPO 3054 used on Tests #17 through Tests #22 in my tests. The unit you propose to use has half the accuracy and data capturing ability's.


ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED

.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

This is my last post on this thread.  It is utterly distasteful to even read here - let alone comment.

For any who need to be reminded - bear in mind that Glen has a paper published on Scribd that attests - unequivocally - to a COP>7. And Harvey, who actively tried to sabotage that paper - was personally responsible for writing two entire sections of it's total of 7 - I think it is.  Under normal circumstances one does not collaborate in the submission of a paper without first being fully conversant with the facts in that paper.  One is expected, at the very least, to stand up in support of the experimental findings and their conclusions.  That Harvey assumes the right to deny his earlier attestations - is because Harvey has absolutely no accreditation.  If he were more familiar with academic protocol he would have known this.  And, without this knowledge, he has NO IDEA of the damage that he's done to his scientific credibility - amongst those many academics and experts who are fully aware of this half-witted vacillation.  It's the ultimate scientific 'no no'.  A kind of scientific heresy.  Just MUST NOT BE DONE.  One does not, as a rule, submit a paper and then deny the context of that paper.  It's tantamount to a public declaration of deceit.

Not only did he submit the paper - thereby attesting to the accuracy of those experimental results,  but he did so 'posing' as 'first author'.  This drew the immediate attention of those editorial staff whose concerns are ALWAYS that first author submit or appoint the submission's author.  And no-one had appointed Harvey.  Therefore did they refer it back to me.   Yet more evidence of how little he understands about the protocols related to the submission of papers.  Any such efforts are seen as FRAUDULENT and, indeed, Harvey here committed fraud.

But here's the point.  There is NO WAY that those experimental results can retrospectively be denied unless the method of extrapolating the data was deliberately and fraudulently managed.  In as much as you CANNOT fake the data from that Tektronix - then you may all rest happy that the results were EXACTLY as that data showed.  The evidence that they howl for is available.  It's just no longer easily referenced due to Glen's interventions.

Niether Harvey nor Glen seem to know how to conduct themselves professionally.  And I have been advised that by even commenting on this thread I am doing myself and my good name no good at all.  The time has therefore come when I must entirely divorce myself from this sad initiative.  Let them both do their damndest.   So.  I'm out of here.  If their nonsense becomes too patently nonsense then I'll refute it on my own thread.  That, at least, is still being followed by people of discernment. 

I only ask that you keep the knowledge of that COP>7 near and close to your hearts. Just know that the EVIDENCE of breaching those unity barriers has been conclusively achieved however loudly or sadly they retrospectively deny this.  And whatever they have to say in their attempts at damaging my good name - it's irrelevant.  Only those test results matter.  Do NOT let them convince you that they are faulted.  I assure you that it is entirely due to those results that we have been able to get access to campus to develop this technology further.  For that I have Glen's efforts to thank.  But that's precisely where my thanks begin and end.  It is my considered opinion that he is a scoundrel second only to Harvey in lack of principle, manners, good taste, moderation or honesty.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

And just as a final reminder - you may want to read here - my faithful account of my association with a troll - or, in fact, a super troll.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL