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

[fuzzytomcat]

Since you are making a timeline , include this one too http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644  .

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Hi IceStorm,

...... Thanks so much for the link ..... I forgot that at the Naked Science Forum http://www.thenakedscientists.com that Rosemary was a member there, named witsend posting in a thread called "a circuit that produces overunity results" ...... this was the first forum she posted in.       Some great stuff there !!               Here's a few 

witsend
Link to this post 255616
02/06/2009 18:56:14 »
   
I really don't understand this.

'Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.'
From Madidus_Scientia

I have always assumed that the energy was coming from the battery.  Where else?  Except that we've also done experiments on ac utility supply sources with the same benefits.

witsend
Link to this post 255635
02/06/2009 21:15:18 »
   
Hi sophiecentaur - so glad you're still awake.  Still reeling at Madidus_Scientia's dismay that the thread survived longer than anticipated.  What a cheek.  So glad you answered my current problem.  I'm going to have to study it though.  I can't quite get my head around it.

Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.  I only know its used in the switching circuitry - why I don't know. But would the use of the capacitor satisfy the need for a flow of magnetic fields as detailed?  I'm entirely out of my depth.  Is the idea to use this device instead of the battery?  If so - yet again you guys are asking for a perpetual motion machine.  Then I really do not see the point.  I do NOT have a perpetual motion machine.  But I'll look at your comments again.  Just remember.  I've got a standard circuit and measurement of energy delivered is also measured using classical analysis.  Why must I do more than this?

I've been trying to work out the difference between the mass required by nuclear energy compared to the mass required for a battery to see if I can answer that earlier question as to whether or not nuclear energy conforms to second law of thermodynamics.  But I'm struggling here.

Thanks for answering this.  By the way - regarding infinite energy - I think I see the relevance.  It's probably to do with that post regarding zipons in the toroid - influencing particles at faster than light speed.  I only wanted to point out that - given that velocity - it's reasonable to assume the 'effect' would appear to be simultaneous.  I don't believe in infinity.  Only because I can't get my head around it.  I need boundaries - all over the place.

witsend
Link to this post 255644
02/06/2009 21:53:49 »
   
No, I really do not know what a capacitor is.  You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry.  I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring.  It was just a means to an end.  My only interest is in physics.

I'll have to figure out how to get the Naked Science Forum postings in with the others .....

Best Regards,
Glen


.

[Harvey]

Ok guys, that is a bit confusing 

Out of the 5 different patent applications that I know Rosemary has filed, this one clearly shows a capacitor after the bridge rectifier. There is no other Applicant or Inventor named in the application except Rosemary.

http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_2.JPG

How could she invent this in 2002 but not know what a capacitor is in 2009?

Are the patent laws different there where you can take a design from someone else and put your name on it? Here in the US the design engineer must be named in the patent.

Or was she just playing forum games when she repeatedly stated that she did not know what a capacitor was or how it worked but secretly understood it? 

I spent quite a bit of time working with her and discussing capacitance. I don't know if she ever understood what I was explaining but she did tell me that she is a copyist by trade and that she hired technicians and engineers to build her circuits. So I suppose it is possible she copied their schematics and filed the applications without really knowing what she was filing.

The real time line goes back before 1998 however. You will find De Beer's Intellectual Property fellow, Kevin Peter Ashby associated with this application:
http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_1.JPG

By this time, Rosemary already had time to show her drawing to the professors, get rejected by them and have the circuit built by a local engineer she got out of her phone book. I haven't really looked that deep into the matter, but I did hear that one of the technicians on that project was found dead back then right in the middle of trying to get a patent and go into production. It was deemed suicide? Rosemary will have to fill in the details on all that and provide the time line, I never took it any farther than suspecting Big Oil.

It would seem that once the IP was secure, all that was needed next would be to find a developer to create applications for the proposed technology. That's where publication comes in, Quantum of 2002, to get the word out. Please note, that this is not the NTSA Quantum Magazine many of us are familiar with, but instead it was Crown Publications Quantum local to South Africa. That whole exercise failed to produce the expected results. Rosemary was expecting to have a path beat to her door, but instead she was met with skepticism and outright avoidance. While her apparatus was singing away at the Science Center display, not one academic would come to look at it. So from 2002 onward it appeared that the world was not interested.

But there is interest, and once TK created the thread here and a thread was setup at EF that interest flourished.

But I cannot help wondering. This dynamic individual that boldly defames the names of those who work with her, who against the odds hires engineers to make a circuit she thought of, just stops and gives up? How can this be? Surely, if there was no outside interest wiling to apply the technology she could have hired engineers to do that for her as well. Why did she stop there? After all, she has the first patent application on file, her IP was secure. Why not go straight to manufacture? She has named many possible applications for the proposed technology, but none have been developed after all these years  I come from a world where ideas become realities in weeks and months and consumers are putting them to use. Something is missing here and it is not money. If I can believe the emails from Rosemary she has plenty of that available to her by would be investors. No, what is missing everywhere along this time line, is definitive proof. So far I have nothing that I can take into Cal-Tech or JPL and say, "Test this, it demonstrates a COP > 17 and I would like your confirmation". Or even something I could give to the Orion Project to test and evaluate in their lab. All of us in the Open Source community are ready and willing to make immediate application of "proven" technology that meets the claims of COP > 17. And here we are, at this end of that time line asking "where's the proof?".

Is Glen's test #13 the ONLY data the open source community has to support this technology?

Will anyone else besides Gad show their results?

What does "Open Source" mean as it relates to this technology?

What part does "first to market", "first to publish" and "first to file" play in the IP associated with this?

Is it possible to get the Open Source community to design applications and then later impose royalties if they go to market? If so, what would need to be in place first? What would need to be hidden?

Obviously I have more questions than answers regarding the bigger picture, but I do know precisely how Glen's circuit works. 

[exnihiloest]

...
No, what is missing everywhere along this time line, is definitive proof.
...
"where's the proof?"
...

I agree. I remember the Naudin's lifter (a conventional device that at the begining was pretended to be anti-gravity). After 2 or 3 years, there were hundreds of independent replications all over the world, and there was no doubt it worked.
Why not the same with Rosemary Ainslie's device which is simpler than the lifter, and several years after the patent? Why nobody replied "yes I did" when I asked if some one here had successfully duplicated the device? Because contrarily to the lifter, no one succeeded. To draw the conclusion is obvious.

[poynt99]

Why not the same with Rosemary Ainslie's device which is simpler than the lifter, and several years after the patent? Why nobody replied "yes I did" when I asked if some one here had successfully duplicated the device? Because contrarily to the lifter, no one succeeded. To draw the conclusion is obvious.

The circuit is simple yes, but performing proper measurements and obtaining reliable data to work with is not so straight forward, and that is the essence of the problem.

Further adding to the problem, is what constitutes a valid replication? This has never been adequately clarified to my satisfaction, and in fact liberal amounts of scorn have been issued to those deviating slightly from published diagrams. And now, as before, there is talk that the replication does not need to be exact, and that AC power supplies are in fact valid as an example. Another is the resistor design. Surely the one being used in Rose's new heater is drastically different from the one Glen used in test #13, however it must be deemed valid if Rose and her team are currently using it.

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

I see that Rosemary is back in her "safe haven" where shes a moderator ( with a edit & delete button ) in a dedicated thread to her ongoing nonsense, and is spouting her PATENT and PATENT APPLICATION understanding again plus the ongoing attempts of everyone on earth stealing whom ever actually designed circuits in her documents.

I would assume most would know you put your information on the web without any restrictions with copyrights, all rights reserved or trademark notices like myself does, the public can use it with no strings attached except for grouse misrepresentations it's in the public domain any patents are out of the question.    The "Mosfet Heating Circuit" is not patentable !!

I have made comments at Energetic Forum on Patents ..... and how there stolen from the inventor .....

http://www.energeticforum.com/90969-post21.html

Hi everyone,

There is one "exclusive" draw back to having the big alternative energy device when doing a patent .... and at the present time there is some 5,000 odd that has been taken by this amendment added in the late 1950's :suprise:

United States Patent Law: Title 35, Part II, Chapter 17, Sections 181-188   (page 44 of 88)

35 U.S.C. 181 Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent.

Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of an application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter.
Whenever the publication or disclosure of an invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent, in which the Government does not have a property interest, might, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Patents, be detrimental to the national security, he shall make the application for patent in which such invention is disclosed available for inspection to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the chief officer of any other department or agency of the Government designated by the President as a defense agency of the United States.
Each individual to whom the application is disclosed shall sign a dated acknowledgment thereof, which acknowledgment shall be entered in the file of the application. If, in the opinion of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or the chief officer of another department or agency so designated, the publication or disclosure of the invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent therefor would be detrimental to the national security, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or such other chief officer shall notify the Commissioner of Patents and the Commissioner of Patents shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires, and notify the applicant thereof. Upon proper showing by the head of the department or agency who caused the secrecy order to be issued that the examination of the application might jeopardize the national interest, the Commissioner of Patents shall thereupon maintain the application in a sealed condition and notify the applicant thereof. The owner of an application which has been placed under a secrecy order shall have a right to appeal from the order to the Secretary of Commerce under rules prescribed by him.
An invention shall not be ordered kept secret and the publication of an application or the grant of a patent withheld for a period of more than one year. The Commissioner of Patents shall renew the order at the end thereof, or at the end of any renewal period, for additional periods of one year upon notification by the head of the department or the chief officer of the agency who caused the order to be issued that an affirmative determination has been made that the national interest continues to so require. An order in effect, or issued, during a time when the United States is at war, shall remain in effect for the duration of hostilities and one year following cessation of hostilities. An order in effect, or issued, during a national emergency declared by the President shall remain in effect for the duration of the national emergency and six months thereafter. The Commissioner of Patents may rescind any order upon notification by the heads of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued that the publication or disclosure of the invention is no longer deemed detrimental to the national security.
(Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat. 1501A-566, 582 (S. 1948 secs. 4507(7) and 4732(a)(10)(B)).)

Sections 182 through 188 are really interesting !!

Good Luck !!

Best Regards,
Glen

What has been avoided by Rosemary Ainslie is in any response in her "Intellectual Property Rights" as a INVENTOR of PATENT APPLICATIONS that are in her name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognizedâ€"and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights  to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

PROBLEM - How can a INVENTOR without the knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit INVENT a electronic circuit for a PATENT ?? and how can someone claim INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as Rosemary Ainslie does on that electronic circuit ??

Regards,
Glen

.