as per your request rosemary.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 23, 2010, 01:44:37 PM
as per your request rosemary.
Thanks Wilby. I'll try and get those posts across.
Kindest as ever.
R
_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 635
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #367 on: August 21, 2010, 09:56:57 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Glen has done nothing wrong and his data has been available for the public on the uni site ever since day 1. What a thread this is. I have been a neutral observer in the situation, the beef between people was escalated and not provoked by Glen. Those who dont focus on the technology will be kicked on the Ef.com, simple as that. Unless you were there and saw it all there is no way for you to judge.
If Stefan does not do it here, then good luck reading useless posts. Harvey, Aaron and Glen have done more to get the technology this far then any one. So far i dont see any practicality of not working independent with an open source circuit with this scenario. Glen is merely trying to warn what happened to him that's all. It back to the technology for us, no more needed to be said.
Ash
wilby - I'm not doing good here. Is there a way of doing this without it looking like my own post?
Sorry to impose like this.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
i don't think so rose. you may be able to use the quote function and then cut/paste the whole quote, but the post will be by you.
stefan can most likely move them while keeping the original posters name.
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 643
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #488 on: Today at 07:04:27 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 11:54:06 AM
Listen up BILL
Did you help write the IEE paper that has my name, Aaron, Harvey, Glen and Steve's name on it? NO?
Listen up ASHTWETH
Did YOU help write the IEEE paper that has your name on it? I THINK NOT. I am absolutely on record that you did not contribute ONE WORD to that paper. NOR does it have Aaron's name on it. Where did that come from? He had nothing to do with writing that paper. And you were only invited to be my submissions agent as is my right as first auhtor. BUT that's all you did. Or all you were invited to do. The thing is that you gave that right to Harvey. But please don't now pretend that you actually wrote any part of it. This is Open Source Ashtweth. We're interested in the TRUTH. And I'm tired of those many insinuations that you seem to rely on to make a point.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 11:54:06 AM
The warnings given to Rose are for a reason, she is not what you can know BUDDY , HENCE WHY getting banned and 5 people here attempting to make sure open source engineers dont get their time wasted and we have EVERY RIGHT to (as we were there) warn Rose not to cause slanderous distracting false posts of Glen and deviate from the technology
]
Not sure of the point here. I'm afraid you're babbling.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 11:54:06 AM
Wake up Bill, maybe ill give you time or day after i see you match what we did for 5 months with the IEE till then Buddy dont make me laugh and wake up AND READ .
I did not get her banned, i sated that already , you stupid XXX ..can you READ Bill ???
Ashtweth Palise.
Again - inarticulate babbling. You need to hold onto your head there Ashtweth. You're losing it
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 11:54:06 AM
Stefan i will be amending my recommendations,
I hope so Ashtweth. They need amendment. And what is this about 'recommendations'. We were given to understand that you INSTRUCT Stefan. Good heavens.
R
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 23, 2010, 02:05:36 PM
i don't think so rose. you may be able to use the quote function and then cut/paste the whole quote, but the post will be by you.
stefan can most likely move them while keeping the original posters name.
I'll just press on then. I'll just remove everything that Ash and Glen have written and then they can air their views here.
Thanks Wilby. Not sure that it's a good solution. But at least it will be off my thread. It's read by academics for heaven's sake. I just don't need that drivel.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
fuzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 281
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #476 on: Today at 01:52:51 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 12:58:39 PM
Bill you were wrong about Glen and you didn't read what was in front of you, your a waste of posts , my Motivation needs not to be conveyed to you, work on your comprehension skills then read the names on the IEEE paper good luck BUDDY,
R is for R it means R as used in READ. We learning yet? dont try and make me Fing laugh man its not funny
Glen should of not needed to defend himself you way past the 8 ball buddy, glad i found this out now. We will get back to the technology now, when you learn to read you can follow our progress
Ashtweth
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
;D
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 635
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #475 on: Today at 12:58:39 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Bill you were wrong about Glen and you didn't read what was in front of you, your a waste of posts , my Motivation needs not to be conveyed to you, work on your comprehension skills then read the names on the IEEE paper good luck BUDDY,
R is for R it means R as used in READ. We learning yet? dont try and make me Fing laugh man its not funny
Glen should of not needed to defend himself you way past the 8 ball buddy, glad i found this out now. We will get back to the technology now, when you learn to read you can follow our progress
Ashtweth
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 634
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #473 on: Today at 12:46:31 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 12:41:40 PM
Ash:
I am glad you are done with me...I was getting bored from your first lying post.
Bill
I hope you evaluate what you just did Bill, rejected 5 peoples requests and admin's request to progress with out interference, i certainly am discarding you from being any one with a sound mind or trust worthy
go read the IEEE paper, do the same then come and talk about me and others dont call me lier BUDDY you, you look even stupider then your contribution here
Sorry Bill, you screwed it your self
Ash
shruggedatlas
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 548
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #478 on: Today at 05:31:32 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: spinn_MP on Today at 05:05:43 PM
Hmm...
Since when the language spoken has anything in common with the possibility of "OU" claims?
You're one of the "innebriated" guy bots?
Jeeeez....
Nothing, I am just saying, if someone is not a native Engrish speaker, there is no sense in nitpicking spelling. You are right, OU is the main thing here.
fuzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 280
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #471 on: Today at 12:43:19 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on Today at 09:42:35 AM
I swear to you all, on my life, and by all that I hold holy, that the reason I was banned is because I posted that words to the effect that 'ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT LEEDSKALNIN'S WORK WILL FIRST HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE MIRACLE AT CORAL CASTLE'.
The post was deleted and I was banned. It's that simple. If you can find those buried threads of mine at that forum then look at my posts. They were ENIRELY INOFFENSIVE. ALL OF THEM. I saw to it - precisely because the threat of being banned was hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles. EF.com banned me because they were erroneously advised by Glen in a public post and in a private email that I had been banned from OU.com and from ALL OTHER FORUMS. They assumed that I would now be entirely OFF ALL PUBLIC FORUMS. They did not realise, and frankly nor did I, that Stefan had NOT banned me. He had simply locked my thread on APPLICATION FROM GLEN. Go figger.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Re: Open Source "duped"
« Sent to: hartiberlin on: February 06, 2010, 02:37:00 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote ReplyReply Save PMSave PM Remove this messageRemove
Hi Stefan,
The thread is locked right now because shes a moderator and can delete what ever she wants so I locked the thread and she hasn't figured out how to unlock it.
She always said she had everything taken but that's a untruth she needed a independent verification to make her Magnetic Field Model so it became the basis of the IEEE paper that ended up being rejected several times now the last time circumventing all the other authors in a submission she did at IEEE TIE with out our permission or approval of the document that ended up being a "Immediate Rejection" because of it's context. This would be authors Harvey, Jibbguy, Ashwelth of Pancea and myself a direct violation of IEEE rules of complete agreement of the text not happening and USA laws in falsifying documents. This has been verified by IEEE in a e-mail correspondence of her submittal.
She also misrepresented what the scope use was for on a "loaned" Tektronix TDS 3054C and a DPO 3054 stating it was lent on the basis of proving her theory for the thesis, the results were the recall of the equipment because of these two facts, there was no specific use in the agreement and the scopes could have been used as a TV there were no strings attached and the "loan" word was never to be mentioned as not to imply Tektronix was in the business of lending out equipment but was for Open Source research and development and it's gone now because of the squabbling, bickering and back biting going on at Energetic Forum " COP 17 | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 " thread right now.
Aaron has set up a by invitation board now so she cant post in it and is in the process of cleaning up the thread which will be lock when done so she has no sounding board.
I still would like to keep updates going on but I'm not sure how to handle this other than you possibly have time to contact the members mentioned including Aaron to verify what is being told you. I do have a e-mail from Lisa @ Tektronix giving me a heads up why the scope was wanted back and there staying away for awhile until she stops or has no place for the BS, I can forward this e-mail but Lisa wants this not to be use against Rosemary so they don't looked duped also in the end results so it would have to be in confidence.
So it's up to you what to do and if verification is needed e-mail addresses can be provided or you could use the OU messenger service .... your call
Best,
Glen
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 633
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #466 on: Today at 12:31:09 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Your not getting out of your behavior that easy ROSE
there are more then 5 members +Admin now that can testify to that.
I just found out From Aaron what you have been up too behind the scenes.
post open source info, do not push the slanderous disinfo button, you will have to answer for what you have done, if your still around even by then.
Glen, this one was for you
Ash
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 632
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #468 on: Today at 12:39:31 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 12:30:36 PM
Wow:
What a self important post that was. Are you done?
Again, you did not answer my original question of why are you here? Can you not answer this? Will you not? If Rose is insane and posting gibberish than, what do you care?
I do not expect any rational answers from you...I do not think you capable of that. Just continue on with your "nothing to see here" and keep posting which will tell others that here may be indeed something to see here.
What are you afraid of? Who do you work for really? The rest of us want to know.
And please stop your threats with Stefan. This got old before you even posted it. If you have this much power over all energy research forums, you would not have to make any threats.....right?
Thought so.
Bill
I am here to post the truth, and make sure the technology is focused on, not your lack of skills to read or slanderous posts against Glen,
We sort of made the only real difference hence why your name is not on the IEEE paper
However mine is and so is Glens
BUDDY
The novelty of helping you READ has worn off BILL
I am done with you, your wasting your own time.
Ashtweth
Report to moderator Logged
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 631
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #463 on: Today at 11:54:06 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Listen up BILL
Did you help write the IEE paper that has my name, Aaron, Harvey, Glen and Steve's name on it? NO?
Did you work with Rose LIKE FIVE OF US DID for 5 months and know whats going on no?
NO?
Do you know WHY Admin banned ROSE NO?
NO?
Your lack of taking in information ALREADY POSTED HERE BY TRUSTED MEMBERS does not match up to REALITY BUDDY.
You insulted Glen to, listen up FOOL,.
1) Glen is more of a man and contribution to this genre then you, dont insult him or question what 5 people and the energetic forum admin have already told you, or i can tell you your now going to end up being a laughing stock in this communty
The warnings given to Rose are for a reason, she is not what you can know BUDDY , HENCE WHY getting banned and 5 people here attempting to make sure open source engineers dont get their time wasted and we have EVERY RIGHT to (as we were there) warn Rose not to cause slanderous distracting false posts of Glen and deviate from the technology
I am running out of patience with reminding you of the facts of this BUDDY READ AND wake up, we are saying Rose got banned and we are focusing on the technology, Glen warned people for a reason.
Wake up Bill, maybe ill give you time or day after i see you match what we did for 5 months with the IEE till then Buddy dont make me laugh and wake up AND READ .
I did not get her banned, i sated that already , you stupid XXX ..can you READ Bill ???
Ashtweth Palise.
Stefan i will be amending my recommendations,
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 630
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #453 on: Today at 10:22:53 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen
One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums. Stefan can choose what he wants, it will effect what a lot of people who have witnessed you spread this disinformation feel
You got removed for a reason Rose and i dont want to hear your lies any more , and its not just me more thin 5 people can testify to your behavior you are giving us grounds to remove you TRY ME. Post one more thing insinuating that. We need it for our public records
Ashtweth Palise
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 653
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #453 on: Today at 10:39:07 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 10:22:53 AM
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen
One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums. Stefan can choose what he wants, it will effect what a lot of people who have witnessed you spread this disinformation feel
You got removed for a reason Rose and i dont want to hear your lies any more , and its not just me more thin 5 people can testify to your behavior you are giving us grounds to remove you TRY ME. Post one more thing insinuating that. We need it for our public records
Ashtweth Palise
Ashtweth - do your worst. If I am to be banned - then so be it. I realise how urgently you need to silence me. There are indeed 5 of you who will actively attempt it. The sad truth is that all five of you subscribe to the need to lead this OU drive when it is not yours to lead. It is frightening. Every member and every reader and, for that matter every citizen alive can choose to read and study the work of whoever they will. And you are rather underestimating the support I have. What you are trying to insinuate is that you lot have some kind of monopoly on these efforts. I have now been advised by many members that I should simply prevent you from posting here. I will make all such advisement available to Stefan should it be required to defend my membership. Meanwhile - PLEASE. Do your worst. I will not - at this stage in my life - succumb to threats - least of all from you. I am MORE THAN READY to fight my corner.
Rosemary
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 652
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #450 on: Today at 08:47:15 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Guys - I've woken up to another slew of nonsense. I'll deal with each point as appropriate.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 04:28:52 AM
Rose you can ask Stefan and other moderators of forums... if you do character abuse and do not stay on topic, then dont blame me when you get banned, EF.com already showed you this reality.
Ash
If 'character abuse' were the criterion to getting banned then you are GUILTY AS CHARGED Ashtweth. I believe it is YOU who insinuated publicly and ON MY THREAD that I am deluded, delusional, paranoid, mistaken, confrontational, culpable, debilitated, deranged, addled, to be ignored, to be dismissed and to be ABUSED. If that is not character assassination then I've truly lost the plot and you are right. I must therefore be delusional.
The thread topic is NOT about replications. How dare you impose your preferred theme on my work.
IF indeed, character assassination is the litmus to getting banned or not - then first on that list is you. Unless it is that this assumed POWER that you assure us you have - actually entitles only your rights to indulge in this blood bath. The rest of us must be quiet? While you set to and do your damndest?
I am absolutely NOT guilty of character assassination. I deal with proven facts. And when I state that Glen is a scoundrel I do it with this caveat. "It is my opinion that Glen is a scoundrel" There is no law in any land anywhere that I know of where one's opinion cannot be freely expressed - unless it's China or various autocracies in the Middle East or elsewhere. Which may explain why it is that our members here jealously guard their rights to freedom of speech. Clearly you look to deny these my rights.
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 629
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #445 on: Today at 04:28:52 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 08:14:33 PM
Guys, also, while I'm on the subject. It seems that Ashtweth has got some considerable clout with both the EF.com Admin and with OU.com. I get the distinct impression - actually because he claimed as much - that he need only say the word and anyone that he nominates will then be banned. Personally I find this troubling - in the extreme. I always thought that both forums were independently owned. It means that I will indeed need to get his approval to post and his approval on what I post. If this is true - then I wonder if Stefan could perhaps advise us - in due course - and when he returns from holiday. I think that if Ash is some kind of authoritative administrator or perhaps even a shareholder on both forums - then that should be more openly acknowledged by Stefan. At least then we'll all know.
I also get it that he feels free to advise you that I'm deluded, delusional, paranoid, troublesome, but somehow 'not ALL bad' and for that matter that there may even be some residual 'good' in me. Not only is this in rather bad taste but I very much doubt that he's a qualified practising psychologist or psychiatrist. Which means that his diagnosis is possibly flawed and may first require some professional support before I or anyone need get unduly alarmed. Quite apart from the excessive bad taste of his comments and his manner of relaying them - is the added indignity that I was obliged to endure while he determined the manner in which this thread needed to be conducted and the subject to be imposed on it. And all this under the imminent threat that I do not underestimate his power. He also advised Stefan - on an email copied to me - that his work has DWARFED my own contributions to OU. Here he's right. Everyone has dwarfed my own contribution. I have nothing to offer other than a reasonably clear insight into electric current flow. How that is eventually used is entirely not in my expertise. Truth is I'm expert at nothing.
But here's the point of this post. If he is right - and if indeed, he succeeds in getting me banned - then I have this to say in my defense. I am concerned that you are all fully alerted to the actual history of this technology and it's multiple and changing fortunes. It's been grossly abused. On and off these forums. Personally I see it as a measure of how desirable the technology is - in a kind of perverse and obscure way. But, in the event that I do disappear again - for those who I know follow these fortunes - then look for me on Scribd. Here too Glen posted that I had 'plagiarised' his work. Unhappily for Glen, they also investigated the allegation, as did our academics. And they too decided to ignore his complaints and then reposted our paper. It's unlikely he'll be able to intervene there again. They've got his number - so to speak.
I am not sure to what extent I've managed my warnings regarding Harvey and Glen but hope, that at it's least you all see some need to deal with their advances with a bit of circumspection. But it is already evident that the most of you already realise this. The truth here is that I am not qualified to tell you what they think or even what their intentions are. I only know that they lied to and about me, that they're lying about this technoly. Some of those lies I can prove. Others - based as they are on pure allegation - I can do absolutely nothing about.
But having said all that I think this subject can now be dropped. I feel better for airing my views on this subject. Unless I get another 'attack' from any of them I think this matter is entirely closed. And apologies for this diversion. I just felt that the 8 hour attack that I endured yesterday still needed a summation.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Rose you can ask Stefan and other moderators of forums... if you do character abuse and do not stay on topic, then dont blame me when you get banned, EF.com already showed you this reality.
Ash
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 653
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #471 on: Today at 06:18:36 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 10:22:53 AM
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen
One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums. Stefan can choose what he wants, it will effect what a lot of people who have witnessed you spread this disinformation feel
You got removed for a reason Rose and i dont want to hear your lies any more , and its not just me more thin 5 people can testify to your behavior you are giving us grounds to remove you TRY ME. Post one more thing insinuating that. We need it for our public records
Ashtweth Palise
Hi all. I'm not sure that it will serve any purpose but I'm going back to this post with specific reference to the following.
>One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums.
And this with specific reference to my right to defend myself in the face of an attack.
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen
The implication here is that I am lying and that Glen did not message the members here. I now have SUBSTANTIAL proof of all those messages and with everyone's permission will be forwarding these to Stefan when he returns from holiday. The only one I no longer have was the message he sent to Chet with that 'link' to an 'adult' site owned by someone called Fuzzy Tom Cat. It apparently featured someone called Ainslie. But, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary it seems that this was a result of one of those amazing co-incidences in this strange world of ours. Glen must have found himself in the grips of randomness - and a remarkable series of typing errors. One would need to be a fool to believe this. And, strangely Ash, Jibguy, Harvey et al - are entirely satisfied with Glen's denial of being the author or of sending the link. Which says much about their intellectual abilities. But - in all fairness - Glen did explain it as evidence that the name Fuzzy Tom Cat must be popular. I trust he sees now that it is not. And Ashtweth seems to think that Glen does not 'message' our members notwithstanding the evidence and their own statements to this effect. And then - I am accused of LYING when I mention this?
I may have said this already. But in case I haven't here it is again. It is my opinion that Glen is a scoundrel.
So. Moving on. Perhaps Ashtweth can advise me where exactly it is that I 'LIED' that now requires my BANISHMENT from public forums devoted to Free Energy?
Regards,
Rosemary
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 628
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #453 on: Today at 11:29:45 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Right now Rosemary your fate on the free energy forums is in question, Energetic forum adim , 5 individuals who have never seen your COP 17 replicated can testify to your questionable FALSE LIES and behavior(why Admin banned you) and WE are all putting a case to remove you from distracting open source engineers. Plus making them look stupid by questioning 5 people and admin from a forum.
Glen, Harvey, MYSELF, Aaron and jib (who you have offended with wasting time with false accusations and can all testify) have all testified to making this case now.I warned you to talk about technology and not make false assumptions. Just cause Stefan is behind the 8 ball ATM does not mean you will be tolerated.
It was recommended to Stefan that even after offending pioneers in the open source community and getting banned form the energetic forum that you ONLY discuss the technology, but you have no technology, no COP17 , your name is not in the mosfet heater circuit as i dont see you reproducing the same results, just causing slander and wasting posts
As a result I Will be recommending that if you dont reproduce what Glen has or Aaon has done, your slander and inaccurate false posts HERE are fare grounds to either being moderated or removed as it was already in EF.com fourm your time wasting which 5 people can testify too is of no use here, and your slander is going to result in more banning you.
Ashtwerth Palise
*
Google Search
Google
Custom Search
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 Go Down
* Reply
* Notify
* Mark unread
* Add poll
* Send this topic
* Print
Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder (Read 19197 times)
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 654
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #450 on: Today at 11:06:29 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: nievesoliveras on Today at 02:46:59 AM
At this time I cannot afford to buy such a scope.
I will see what happens.
Jesus
Hello Jesus. I realise these scopes are expensive. But you'll usually find that they're available at universities and technical colleges. Maybe take your rig there and ask if you can borrow their equipment? Most university colleges are happy to 'assist' if the interest is to further science. Just a thought.
But let me know if I can help in any way.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Report to moderator 198.54.202.250
Free Energy
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #450 on: Today at 11:06:29 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
Sponsored links:
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 654
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #451 on: Today at 11:08:18 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: vonwolf on Today at 04:46:58 AM
She's only defending herself you should be proud of your self you got her kicked off EF, now you want to follow her over here and threaten her. I guess all your talk of open source and freedom of speech don't apply to those that don't agree with you. It's very sad
Thanks for this Pete. All support much appreciated.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Report to moderator 198.54.202.250
Free Energy
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #451 on: Today at 11:08:18 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
Rosemary Ainslie
* Moderator
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 654
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #452 on: Today at 11:12:44 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: vonwolf on Today at 05:36:57 AM
Oh ya I'm high and mighty, your right you don't know me but that doesn't stop you from discounting anything I have to say.But ya I'm "high and mighty"
Pete
LOL. I think we're being assured here that the highest and mightiest is not about to brook competition. ;D
Pete - it's a tough world out there and right now there's a battle of representative authority on some rather desirable technology. And standing between that representative authority is myself and some earnest need to keep it open source. The more that rally the better. But I get it now that OU.com has some discerning readers and discerning members. It's a comfort.
Kindest again
Report to moderator 196.25.255.250
Pirate88179
* elite_member
* Hero Member
* ******
* Posts: 4608
* Attempting to know the unknown
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #453 on: Today at 11:35:49 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on Today at 10:22:53 AM
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen
One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums. Stefan can choose what he wants, it will effect what a lot of people who have witnessed you spread this disinformation feel
You got removed for a reason Rose and i dont want to hear your lies any more , and its not just me more thin 5 people can testify to your behavior you are giving us grounds to remove you TRY ME. Post one more thing insinuating that. We need it for our public records
Ashtweth Palise
I can't believe that your threats and disinformation are welcome here on OU dot com.
There were threats...call them what they are really. Have the guts to say what your posts really mean.
IF, as you say, there is nothing to see here, then why are you here? Why are you making these threats? If there is nothing to see here then just go away and let it be what it is.
I really do have to question your motives now....after reading your posts. This is getting beyond ridiculous. If everyone is wrong, and you are correct, then let it go and post somewhere else.
Why did you have to follow her over here to make your point? Was it not enough that you got her banned from the EF ?
What is your purpose here? Is it to suppress really good info? Is that what you are doing?
Or, is it something else that we do not know about?
If you do not agree with what Rose posts....move on and let it go. The fact that you CAN'T seem to do that speaks volumes to me...and many others.
Bill
Report to moderator Logged
Free Energy
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #453 on: Today at 11:35:49 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
fuzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 279
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #454 on: Today at 11:50:19 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Pirate88179 on August 22, 2010, 03:43:44 AM
First, I am not on anyone's "side".
Second, don't do what to Glen? He is the one pm'ing everyone about another forum member behind their backs saying terrible things and as a PI, I do recognize underhanded tactics when I see them. As I said before, this does not help his case at all, whatever his case may or may not be.
Also, no offense intended, but what part of "Glen please do not pm me ever again" has anything to do with you?
This is supposed to be open source and if pm'ing behind some member's back is part of the open source creed, I would like to see where that is written.
Again, no offense intended but I was not directing any of my posted comments at you.
Bill
Hi Bill,
You got the same PM as every one else .... and I hear some pride in your ability as a investigator ??? Did you by chance "look" at the links provided you ???
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie
http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html
Anyway .... Rosemary Ainslie is the "MODERATOR" of the thread here "EDIT" city and I said my piece at Energetic Forum and almost got banned there .... there were 7 people involved in the IEEE submittal she references how many have posted here in support of her ...... zero (0)
the best link, if you actualy read it ...
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes
Best Wishes
Glen
Report to moderator Logged
fuzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 279
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #455 on: Today at 11:53:09 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
----- Original Message -----
From: <info@esmhome.org>
To: <ainslie@xxxx.co.za>; <hwgramm@xxxxx.com>; <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxx.net>
Cc: <ashtweth@xxxxx.com>; <totl@xxxx.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:11 AM
Subject: Forum
Greetings,
Unfortunately, there are still numerous posts occurring on the forum
that contain unnecessary disagreements between certain members.
It is obvious that there are conflicts that are not going to be
resolved any time in the near future.
The forum is a place to share and learn. Questioning is fine if it is
done with respect, but we have seen that this is not what is happening
here.
It is possible to share your work without speaking of each other?s.
We ask from now forward that you do not reference or question the work
of each other (Rosemary, Harvey, FuzzyTomCat) in any posts on
Energetic Forum or via Energetic Forums Private Messaging.
To be quite clear, you are welcome to share your work, your ideas,
your results. Just do NOT reference each others work, ideas, results.
Each one of you is valued on the Forum, however, the Peace and good
nature of the Forum have been interrupted and this cannot continue.
There are four admins to the forum, Aaron is one of them, however he
has wisely recused himself on this matter. The three others admins
have made this decision.
To repeat, it is our place to make sure the good nature of the Forum
is maintained. We believe that is possible by simply posting about
your own work and in no way referencing (directly or indirectly)
anyone else with which you have a conflict.
If you do (reference anyone that you have a conflict with), you will
be banned.
Admin
uzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 278
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #454 on: Today at 11:50:19 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Pirate88179 on August 22, 2010, 03:43:44 AM
First, I am not on anyone's "side".
Second, don't do what to Glen? He is the one pm'ing everyone about another forum member behind their backs saying terrible things and as a PI, I do recognize underhanded tactics when I see them. As I said before, this does not help his case at all, whatever his case may or may not be.
Also, no offense intended, but what part of "Glen please do not pm me ever again" has anything to do with you?
This is supposed to be open source and if pm'ing behind some member's back is part of the open source creed, I would like to see where that is written.
Again, no offense intended but I was not directing any of my posted comments at you.
Bill
Hi Bill,
You got the same PM as every one else .... and I hear some pride in your ability as a investigator ??? Did you by chance "look" at the links provided you ???
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie
http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html
Anyway .... Rosemary Ainslie is the "MODERATOR" of the thread here "EDIT" city and I said my piece at Energetic Forum and almost got banned there .... there were 7 people involved in the IEEE submittal she references how many have posted here in support of her ...... zero (0)
the best link, if you actualy read it ...
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes
Best Wishes
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 627
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #444 on: Today at 04:27:13 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 22, 2010, 10:14:17 PM
this is merely your opinion and opinions are like arsholes... everyone has one, and everyone thinks everybody else's stinks.
i hope you won't mind then when i apply this ideal to all of the things you have talked about but never practically demonstrated...
why don't you step up? and as far as the ONLY WAY... do i even need to go into how fallacious this kind of wording is? enough with the NEVER and ALWAYS and ONLY hyperbole... ::)
have at it.
rosemary, i wouldn't worry too much about ashtweth. he thinks he holds more sway then he really does, and i doubt he holds any over stefan. even if he does, i can and will set you up with a forum that is most definitely not under the sway of anyone.
WilbyInebriated, my recommendations are just that to Stefan about keeping things on topic,something many better experimenters who contributed other than you including my self did for months which is why your reading about it today, so dont fool your self about what you think you know or think about me my friend,
Trust me on that
Ashtweth
i never trust anyone who says "trust me"...
fuzzytomcat
* Sr. Member
* ****
* Posts: 278
* Open Source Experimentalist
*
o View Profile
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #481 on: Today at 10:13:40 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 12:46:24 PM
Glen:
Congratulations, you are finally posting in the open instead of "secret" pms. You are actually maybe making some progress. This is much less underhanded than your previous attempts. I salute you for this giant step forward.
Bill
Hi Bill,
It appears my Posts are gone again but I took images of them for the record ..... I'll have to ask Stefan where these went ??
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/001_01_001.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/001_02_01.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/001_04_01.jpg
i googled 'ashtweth panacea' and what comes up right on the top???
Panacea and Ashtweth declare war on Bedini and Freidrich
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3371.0;wap2
it's a typical ashtweth rant, puffing up his chest and beating on it, saying 'look what i'm doing', 'i'm an altruist', 'what about the children' and making a general mess of things based upon what he was fed, but the ironic part is the apology by ash at the end where he talks about how "this does not make it right but should make me look like enough of an ass to never react the same way again." apparently it did not... as once again he is ranting and wrong.
my personal favorite part is how he calls rick friedrich "RICK HEAD" over and over and then tells him "don't put a mocking post in this group EVER again, your[sic] among MEN here mate."
::)
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 628
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #484 on: Today at 01:49:06 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Hi Greg /ALL
Some one like Omnibus with the needed scope, (a person who does not have 13 post behind him) could do well, we offer to send him a board as an independent and tune other boards for others, just a reminder that those who discuss the technology only and want to take us upon this offer will get results sooner, we are here to help tuning and Glen has the best experience so far. Mean time i am still trying to source a 200hmz scope to tune boards for others to test, its a very cheap circuit.
Ash
ashtweth_nihilisti
* Hero Member
* *****
* Posts: 627
* Open souce will free humanity
*
o View Profile
o WWW
o Email
o Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #487 on: Today at 06:45:14 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
* Modify messageModify
* Remove this messageRemove
* Split TopicSplit Topic
*
Quote from: gmeast on Today at 02:33:25 AM
Hi Ash,
not sure what's meant by "(a person who does not have 13 post behind him)" but anyhow, is there a board layout of Rosemary's circuit available? Has the precise design of the resistive heater/inductor been pinned down (diameter, wire size, turns, etc)? Also, there are several 'grades' of 555 timers available as well as the other parts. I know the circuit is simple, but I have seen (and so have you) what's supposed to be identical replications of other devices wherein one works and the other does not. Then someone finds (for example) that if they use a Fairchild part instead of a Texas Instruments part, it suddenly works.
I'm just trying to identify an inarguable methodology to further Rosemary's cause (in fact everyone's cause).
Just for the record, information was posted by me to Greg to help him with the circuit and was deleted by Rose.
This matter is currently being taken up with Stefan.Greg has answered on record testifying to this.
Ash
Ash:
Leave Stefan alone. The man is on a well deserved vacation ok? Do not bother him with your crap.
Thank you,
Bill
Is this the same Ashtweth Palaise that is over at Energetic Forum spouting crap constantly and supposedly runs the Panacea site? If so, I have to say that this guy is a total wanker and such a hypocrite who gets absolutely nothing done.
He spouts on about every woeful cause under the sun and how HE is going to be the saviour of the planet (talk about narcissim on a grand scale!). If he garners any critic for 'his' projects (which have been too many to count that have disappeared into the aether over the years ;D ), he will go off on a rant like a little child.
He does nothing of his own originality and when he finds something hoards it all to himself, acting all high and mighty LOL.
I have no time for wieners like that.
Peace all.
Electric Goose
Quote from: ElectricGoose on August 24, 2010, 02:03:15 AM
Is this the same Ashtweth Palaise that is over at Energetic Forum spouting crap constantly and supposedly runs the Panacea site? If so, I have to say that this guy is a total wanker and such a hypocrite who gets absolutely nothing done.
He spouts on about every woeful cause under the sun and how HE is going to be the saviour of the planet (talk about narcissim on a grand scale!). If he garners any critic for 'his' projects (which have been too many to count that have disappeared into the aether over the years ;D ), he will go off on a rant like a little child.
He does nothing of his own originality and when he finds something hoards it all to himself, acting all high and mighty LOL.
I have no time for wieners like that.
Peace all.
Electric Goose
That would be the same guy. Now he is trying to get Rose banned from this site as well.
Bill
Quote from: Jerry Volland on August 25, 2010, 08:14:48 PM
Hi Rose,
I've started a thread about this situation at the Heretical Builders forum. There are a few of us there who have also been banned from Energetic Forum, some indefensibly. The list owner says you won't be banned at http://www.hereticalbuilders.com.
Jerry I'm afraid that I can't log in for some reason. I think I need to identify a code of some sort and I simply can't read it to identify it. And I have no idea why it won't take my password when I log it in. it seems to identify me by name? And then procedes to ignore my best efforts. Most frustrating. As always I'm in some kind of eternal quarrel with internet systems.
If I don't manage it then just know I'm in sympathy. The Open Source spirit at EF.com is actually just lip service. It is my opinion that a more truthful mission statement would be as follows.
While we at EF.com advertise that we are 'open' we actually define the term 'open' loosely. It is here used in the sense that we have conferred on ourselves an explicit right to appropriate and to 'help ourselves' to any knowledge or any information - presented by those unwitting members who we may successfully DUPE into submitting this, their knowledge. This appropriation will be on an exclusive basis and our rights here are inviolate. All work presented will, therefore be considered to be our work. All ideas presented will be considered our ideas. And we - this group of '5 PLUS ADMIN' as refered to by Ashtweth - and constituting, as it does, this self-serving EF.com cartel - not excluding CatLady who is Harvey's wife - hereby reserve these rights together with our own adventurous interpretation of TRUTH - which in no way is constrained to, or related to, or has any dependency on - reality or facts. Should any member defy these our rights with any presumptive or alternate version that requires recognition of their own rights - then they WILL be banned. Should any member challenge these rights then they will be banned. Should any member question these rights then they will be banned. And we will then AND FOREVER, deny such banned members access to their work - regardless of the time or expense thereby devoted to this. It must be understood that we exercise all these our rights over all member's rights which are hereby deemed forfeit and considered of no force and effect - and in any event trivial to these arbitrary requirements of ours. And we do so to further our own best interests.
Further. Our version of TRUTH will be defined as our rights to allege, imply, infer, hint, or simply state 'half truths' precisely as we deem fit. And we will use these tools to dupe our members and our public, both as and when we can - for as long as we can - in the hopes that they will continue to present us with as much exploitable information as they can manage. ;D
Anyway. That's my opinion. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rose:
Well said. I am seriously considering telling EF to remove me from their roles. I don't go there very much at all anyway.
Bill
LOL Bill,
You'll be banned for simply considering the issue. Ask Poynty or Wilby. I should have added that.
Should any member entertain - even for a fleeting moment - the possibility that they could move away from this forum then that is evidence of 'disloyalty' and evidence of non-comformity with these our self-serving objects - at which point they WILL be banned - without any further ado. ;D
It is my opinion that we're dealing with a the most extraordinary license to DO AND SAY as they please - while denying anyone else that license. And I rather think this whole exercise may yet prove to be a salutory reminder to Ashtweth et al that people actually do think for themselves. LOL. But I'm intrigued with whatever it was that finally convinced Ash to go away. Something you said and I've been looking through those posts. Still can't find it.
You did an extraordinary job there Pirate Bill. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
ARRRRRRR!
Thank you,
Bill
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 01:44:06 AM
Jerry I'm afraid that I can't log in for some reason. I think I need to identify a code of some sort and I simply can't read it to identify it. And I have no idea why it won't take my password when I log it in. it seems to identify me by name? And then procedes to ignore my best efforts. Most frustrating. As always I'm in some kind of eternal quarrel with internet systems.
If I don't manage it then just know I'm in sympathy. The Open Source spirit at EF.com is actually just lip service. It is my opinion that a more truthful mission statement would be as follows.
While we at EF.com advertise that we are 'open' we actually define the term 'open' loosely. It is here used in the sense that we have conferred on ourselves an explicit right to appropriate and to 'help ourselves' to any knowledge or any information - presented by those unwitting members who we may successfully DUPE into submitting this, their knowledge. This appropriation will be on an exclusive basis and our rights here are inviolate. All work presented will, therefore be considered to be our work. All ideas presented will be considered our ideas. And we - this group of '5 PLUS ADMIN' as refered to by Ashtweth - and constituting, as it does, this self-serving EF.com cartel - not excluding CatLady who is Harvey's wife - hereby reserve these rights together with our own adventurous interpretation of TRUTH - which in no way is constrained to, or related to, or has any dependency on - reality or facts. Should any member defy these our rights with any presumptive or alternate version that requires recognition of their own rights - then they WILL be banned. Should any member challenge these rights then they will be banned. Should any member question these rights then they will be banned. And we will then AND FOREVER, deny such banned members access to their work - regardless of the time or expense thereby devoted to this. It must be understood that we exercise all these our rights over all member's rights which are hereby deemed forfeit and considered of no force and effect - and in any event trivial to these arbitrary requirements of ours. And we do so to further our own best interests.
Further. Our version of TRUTH will be defined as our rights to allege, imply, infer, hint, or simply state 'half truths' precisely as we deem fit. And we will use these tools to dupe our members and our public, both as and when we can - for as long as we can - in the hopes that they will continue to present us with as much exploitable information as they can manage.
;D
Anyway. That's my opinion. LOL
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Well said Rosie!!
Those EF people are hypocritical horrors of humanity who parade around in 'angels' robes, signing out with effervescant nothing salutations such as "Love and Light"..."Hopes and Dreams"....and yet all the while slink in dark shadows thieving like Judas Iscariot from the poor box. Additional to this is the 'PATHS' scam which seems to rope in so many weak minded fools who believe that the single post 'true story accounts' of how PATHS have changed their life is the real deal!!! OMG ::)
As for Ashtweth, he is a two faced hypocrite whose only chance at free energy IS to steal your idea Rosie and claim it as his own. His levels of irony know no bounds, and whilst on one hand ranting what a treachorous organization BP is, will then on the other make a useless Orbo replication which consists of no less than 7 kilos of polycarb which equates to at least that many barrels of polluting crude oil. When questioned about it, he will then threaten expulsion and cry to forum management such as FatLady, ahem I mean CatLady (but seriously have you seen her forearms, its like the Russian heavyweight division!!).
Anyhoo, don't you worry Rosie, OU may be ugly but you always get the unbridled truth here. :D
Quite frankly, I think far too much talking goes on at EF.
Kind regards.
E-Goose
Quote from: ElectricGoose on August 26, 2010, 08:01:32 AM
Well said Rosie!!
Those EF people are hypocritical horrors of humanity who parade around in 'angels' robes, signing out with effervescant nothing salutations such as "Love and Light"..."Hopes and Dreams"....and yet all the while slink in dark shadows thieving like Judas Iscariot from the poor box. Additional to this is the 'PATHS' scam which seems to rope in so many weak minded fools who believe that the single post 'true story accounts' of how PATHS have changed their life is the real deal!!! OMG ::)
As for Ashtweth, he is a two faced hypocrite whose only chance at free energy IS to steal your idea Rosie and claim it as his own. His levels of irony know no bounds, and whilst on one hand ranting what a treachorous organization BP is, will then on the other make a useless Orbo replication which consists of no less than 7 kilos of polycarb which equates to at least that many barrels of polluting crude oil. When questioned about it, he will then threaten expulsion and cry to forum management such as FatLady, ahem I mean CatLady (but seriously have you seen her forearms, its like the Russian heavyweight division!!).
Anyhoo, don't you worry Rosie, OU may be ugly but you always get the unbridled truth here. :D
Quite frankly, I think far too much talking goes on at EF.
Kind regards.
E-Goose
;D Hi E-Goose
I've been rolling. This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip' and I'm getting a bit alarmed that it's just encouraging everyone to 'bash' THEM. Not sure that this is 'allowable' - but I'll tell you what. It's just so NICE to air one's views. LOL. And I had some idea that they aren't exactly popular when I got all those off forum communiques - and on forum for that matter.
But in the interest of 'fair play' I'll say this. EF.com and Panacea have dedicated some many years to the promotion of free energy - and without EF.com and Glen's input - there would be no record of replication. That they now STRIDENTLY deny this - coupled with their anxious need to hide the evidence - is just a sad consequence of a rather human need to try and snaffle some desirable technology. Nor does it say that much about their integrity.
It gets confusing when they publicly deny any benefit in the technology and then Ashtweth comes to this forum to try and rally replications. It seems rather fruitless I would have thought. And he also rather shamelessly demands respect for his work in a paper that had absolutely NO contribution from himself - whatsoever. ::) They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth. Then he affords himself every license to damn my character to hell and demand that I DO NOT DEFEND MYSELF. And on and on. What's really salutory is that one expects that one is working with decent, albeit eccentric people - only to find oneself ducking some rather ugly blows from a kind of mindless inarticulate thug who works in gangs of 5. And it seems they have a 'no holds barred' license in attacking the frail and the elderly. Luckily - my frailty is not in my tongue. I'm marginally more articulate than they've allowed and then. What the hell. They've given me all this practice. ;D
I get it now that the contributors, members and readers here are somewhat more discerning. I was so 'outnumbered' by that noisey 5 that I was also losing respect for their membership and, quite frankly for my own. I expected someone to rally. Some kind of protection even if it was just for the elderly. ::) LOL. But - that no-one did rally sort of damned my cause to hell. And eventually I found myself entirely gagged and unable even to address obvious distortions. So I faught a lonely corner. The good news is that they banned me. And Poynty - to his credit advised me to come here. And I certainly don't I feel lonely here. Which is a HUGE comfort.
Kindest and best,
Rosie
;D
What's up with all these people getting their own "hate threads"?
i hope noone makes a "lets rip on smoky the 2 thread"........
as far as ash & crew,.. i gotta give em some credit. they do have endurance....
they each sorta fall into their own roles in their little operation.
you have the brains, who just sits back and doesnt say anything.
you have the instigator, to will cause all sorts of chaos, but never get involved directly in the conflict.
then you have the defender who stands in the front protecting their domain, and promiting their ideas.
and there are other, less obvious, but equally important roles that are played.
It has proven to be very effective, and enabled them to accomplish many things. wether or not anyone agrees with their particular tactics, or understands their true motivation, one cannot argue against their influence in the free energy community.
I can't tell you wetherto condemn or respect these people.
but i can tell you this, all you have to do is think about Chaz Campbell's Balls, and you will understand that these people have a determination that would rival the executive board of any major corporation.
Nothing we post in this or any other thread is going to make them pack up and walk away.
Their goals are much larger than you or I.
they're here for good...... (or bad)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 26, 2010, 10:27:39 AM
What's up with all these people getting their own "hate threads"?
i hope noone makes a "lets rip on smoky the 2 thread"........
as far as ash & crew,.. i gotta give em some credit. they do have endurance....
they each sorta fall into their own roles in their little operation.
you have the brains, who just sits back and doesnt say anything.
you have the instigator, to will cause all sorts of chaos, but never get involved directly in the conflict.
then you have the defender who stands in the front protecting their domain, and promiting their ideas.
and there are other, less obvious, but equally important roles that are played.
It has proven to be very effective, and enabled them to accomplish many things. wether or not anyone agrees with their particular tactics, or understands their true motivation, one cannot argue against their influence in the free energy community.
I can't tell you wetherto condemn or respect these people.
but i can tell you this, all you have to do is think about Chaz Campbell's Balls, and you will understand that these people have a determination that would rival the executive board of any major corporation.
Nothing we post in this or any other thread is going to make them pack up and walk away.
Their goals are much larger than you or I.
they're here for good...... (or bad)
Fair comment Sm0ky. I think we need to 'turn in'. Certainly I've more or less said my say. Nice while it lasted but it's probably served its purpose. ;D
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Seems I missed "something".
Would a somewhat objective observer perhaps offer the skinny of the drama at hand? Wikipedia, telegraph style would be fine.
Should get any reader well on track. Perhaps the overview could feature in the original post?
thanks!
Quote from: Cloxxki on August 26, 2010, 12:00:14 PM
Seems I missed "something".
Would a somewhat objective observer perhaps offer the skinny of the drama at hand? Wikipedia, telegraph style would be fine.
Should get any reader well on track. Perhaps the overview could feature in the original post?
thanks!
I'll give you the Sportscaster synapsis......
Rose had a run-in with a group of rogue scientists, that culminated into a pointless argument of nonsense, and belittlement.
neither party could claim victory, nor would admit defeat.
thus the discussion has spawned another thread "hate thread"
im sure, this could continue perpetually, in ironic resemblence to many of the creations we chase after...
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 10:04:29 AM
This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip'
Nor does it say that much about their integrity.
They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth.
Kindest and best,
Rosie
Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....
Please note
"RED" highlighted postings .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html
I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59005-post170.html
I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment.
If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59020-post175.html
Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home.
And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59030-post179.html
I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59033-post182.html
My knowledge of circuitry is somewhat bereft.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html
I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names.
I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html
The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.
So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59195-post225.html
I've had many different circuits built, different 555 switches and different fets. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html
I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html
THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.
The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.
But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html
I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html
But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60174-post474.html
I love reading back over the various points, and will be able to do so without the need to skip through volumes of extraneous nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html
TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.
Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.
And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.
BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.
Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.
The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html
the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.
And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60616-post667.html
There is nothing wrong with the 555 circuit you've got.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html
We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html
Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles.
Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60925-post768.html
Guys, I have some news. It seems that some small application of this device will be studied for commercial application. I am not involved but have asked that there be a video made for reference. In principle this has been agreed to. So, with luck we'll have a small application of this device available in the near future. I'll keep you posted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html
And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed -
these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.
Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others.
They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61040-post798.html
Aaron -
you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html
But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html
Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html
Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html
I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html
Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.
Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.
What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.
TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable.
And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.
To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 10:04:29 AM
;D Hi E-Goose
I've been rolling. This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip' and I'm getting a bit alarmed that it's just encouraging everyone to 'bash' THEM. Not sure that this is 'allowable' - but I'll tell you what. It's just so NICE to air one's views. LOL. And I had some idea that they aren't exactly popular when I got all those off forum communiques - and on forum for that matter.
But in the interest of 'fair play' I'll say this. EF.com and Panacea have dedicated some many years to the promotion of free energy - and without EF.com and Glen's input - there would be no record of replication. That they now STRIDENTLY deny this - coupled with their anxious need to hide the evidence - is just a sad consequence of a rather human need to try and snaffle some desirable technology. Nor does it say that much about their integrity.
It gets confusing when they publicly deny any benefit in the technology and then Ashtweth comes to this forum to try and rally replications. It seems rather fruitless I would have thought. And he also rather shamelessly demands respect for his work in a paper that had absolutely NO contribution from himself - whatsoever. ::) They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth. Then he affords himself every license to damn my character to hell and demand that I DO NOT DEFEND MYSELF. And on and on. What's really salutory is that one expects that one is working with decent, albeit eccentric people - only to find oneself ducking some rather ugly blows from a kind of mindless inarticulate thug who works in gangs of 5. And it seems they have a 'no holds barred' license in attacking the frail and the elderly. Luckily - my frailty is not in my tongue. I'm marginally more articulate than they've allowed and then. What the hell. They've given me all this practice. ;D
I get it now that the contributors, members and readers here are somewhat more discerning. I was so 'outnumbered' by that noisey 5 that I was also losing respect for their membership and, quite frankly for my own. I expected someone to rally. Some kind of protection even if it was just for the elderly. ::) LOL. But - that no-one did rally sort of damned my cause to hell. And eventually I found myself entirely gagged and unable even to address obvious distortions. So I faught a lonely corner. The good news is that they banned me. And Poynty - to his credit advised me to come here. And I certainly don't I feel lonely here. Which is a HUGE comfort.
Kindest and best,
Rosie
;D
Hi Rosie
No worries at all. Look, I am a firm believer of no hate/zero anger however I will say my piece and stand up when an injustice is being perpetrated. EF is rife with hypocrisy and egocentric folk that talk too much and I shall now leave it at that! I for one, do my own thing scientifically, with the odd post here and there looking into various intriguing things and speaking with certain nice folk who frequent the forums (hi Pirate! and Mk1 LOL).
Regarding your comment of "fighting the lonely corner", I can say from my view that because Ash always (even until recently) acted cosy with you in the public forum, most people would have been none the wiser that something untoward was happening in your camp. All we know is our own personal experiences with these people (which is far from positive), therefore when your plight surfaced here, this is the reason that so many people voice their opinion in your defense or at least express their viewpoint. Believe me, the casual observer may be quiet but he is far from unobservant or clued into what REALLY is going on.
When your beaten down and feeling all alone, its always good to remember what PT Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Yes, the internet and forums are full of gullable folk that can be duped by smooth talk but not all!
Kind regards
E-Goose
Quote from: ElectricGoose on August 26, 2010, 07:59:51 PM
Hi Rosie
No worries at all. Look, I am a firm believer of no hate/zero anger however I will say my piece and stand up when an injustice is being perpetrated. EF is rife with hypocrisy and egocentric folk that talk too much and I shall now leave it at that! I for one, do my own thing scientifically, with the odd post here and there looking into various intriguing things and speaking with certain nice folk who frequent the forums (hi Pirate! and Mk1 LOL).
Regarding your comment of "fighting the lonely corner", I can say from my view that because Ash always (even until recently) acted cosy with you in the public forum, most people would have been none the wiser that something untoward was happening in your camp. All we know is our own personal experiences with these people (which is far from positive), therefore when your plight surfaced here, this is the reason that so many people voice their opinion in your defense or at least express their viewpoint. Believe me, the casual observer may be quiet but he is far from unobservant or clued into what REALLY is going on.
When your beaten down and feeling all alone, its always good to remember what PT Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Yes, the internet and forums are full of gullable folk that can be duped by smooth talk but not all!
Kind regards
E-Goose
;D Thanks E-Goose
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.
In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET. And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use - precisely because it's that's simple. I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit. And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit. But the design for the switching part of that circuit? There are many examples of this all over the internet. One just needs to google it. And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them. So what?
This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods. They select isolated comments and use them as they please. That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'. The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery. I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy. At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what. I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed. The energy WILL recharge the battery. And so have our experiments shown.
For the rest of those comments. It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane. You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis. If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this. And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
Just posting for others emailing me, here , that i wont be involved in this thread/forum/ incident, and for others to ignore any reference to me (never mind posting/emailing me about it) . Good luck with your experiments here.
Ashtweth Palise
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 28, 2010, 01:22:26 AM
Just posting for others emailing me, here , that i wont be involved in this thread/forum/ incident, and for others to ignore any reference to me (never mind posting/emailing me about it) . Good luck with your experiments here.
Ashtweth Palise
Hey Ash,
This incident reminds me of the
"FAMOUS" Over Unity member
"MYLOW" and how he was put on a pedestal here by most all of the community, but only one or two telling members saying somethings
FISHY here ....... most members fell "hook, line and sinker" for his experiments shown and referenced here.
There was one member that showed everyone the
"LINE" from Mylows hook and still members didn't believe ..... sinking then at Over Unity forum the minority members up roared
only then something was done.
Best Regards,
Glen
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 03:52:33 PM
Hey Ash,
This incident reminds me of the "FAMOUS" Over Unity member "MYLOW" and how he was put on a pedestal here by most all of the community, but only one or two telling members saying somethings FISHY here ....... most members fell "hook, line and sinker" for his experiments shown and referenced here.
There was one member that showed everyone the "LINE" from Mylows hook and still members didn't believe ..... sinking then at Over Unity forum the minority members up roared only then something was done.
Best Regards,
Glen
Hi guys,
LOL More propaganda. If indeed any of this reminds Glen of Mylow - then we're in deep water. We're working with Glen's experimental data from Glen's tests. If this is based on the same type of fraudulent representations that Mylow gave then we've really got problems. Fortunately I don't know that it's possible to distort the data from that Tektronix DPO 3054C. And that's what we based our evidence on.
It would be such a pleasure to start dealing with facts rather than these endless innuendos. They get more absurd by the day.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 04:08:56 PM
Hi guys,
LOL More propaganda. If indeed any of this reminds Glen of Mylow - then we're in deep water. We're working with Glen's experimental data from Glen's tests. If this is based on the same type of fraudulent representations that Mylow gave then we've really got problems. Fortunately I don't know that it's possible to distort the data from that Tektronix DPO 3054C. And that's what we based our evidence on.
It would be such a pleasure to start dealing with facts rather than these endless innuendos. They get more absurd by the day.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254309#msg254309
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 11:48:34 PM
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.
In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254252#msg254252
I've deleted the answered quotes on Rosemary's ability to build, read or design a electronic circuit ...... why were these items not addressed and said in her own words ??----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html
I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names.
I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html
The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.
So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html
I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html
I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html
But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html
TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.
Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.
And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.
BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.
Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.
The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html
the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.
And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html
We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html
Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles.
Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html
And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed -
these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.
Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others.
They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html
But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html
Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html
Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html
I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html
Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.
Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.
What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.
TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable.
And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.
To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?
[/quote]
Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own.
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.
In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET. And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use - precisely because it's that's simple. I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit. And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit. But the design for the switching part of that circuit? There are many examples of this all over the internet. One just needs to google it. And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them. So what?
This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods. They select isolated comments and use them as they please. That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'. The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery. I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy. At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what. I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed. The energy WILL recharge the battery. And so have our experiments shown.
For the rest of those comments. It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane. You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis. If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this. And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
@glen. I wish you'd just give up. There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing. Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 04:34:30 PM
Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own.
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.
In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET. And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use - precisely because it's that's simple. I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit. And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit. But the design for the switching part of that circuit? There are many examples of this all over the internet. One just needs to google it. And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them. So what?
This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods. They select isolated comments and use them as they please. That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'. The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery. I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy. At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what. I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed. The energy WILL recharge the battery. And so have our experiments shown.
For the rest of those comments. It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane. You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis. If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this. And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
@glen. I wish you'd just give up. There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing. Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.
Lets start with this one here .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 04:47:39 PM
Lets start with this one here .......
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html
LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!
LOL. There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity. I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed. Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit. When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.
Meanwhile guys, here's the full link. I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context.
You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus. Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs. It never occurred to me to do so This was when I also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami. That long ago - now 2 years. At that stage I was still naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing. Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen who now needed to see that apparatus. Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology. And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs. He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments. But there are photos. They're just not very good. They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)
In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 05:19:08 PM
LOL. There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity. I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed. Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit. When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.
Meanwhile guys, here's the full link. I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context.
You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus. Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs. It never occurred to me to do so This was when I also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami. That long ago - now 2 years. At that stage I was still naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing. Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen who now needed to see that apparatus. Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology. And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs. He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments. But there are photos. They're just not very good. They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)
In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html
Pleas see the prior posting of Rosemary Ainslie ..... anyone in their right mind whom worked on a project so long would dismantle a COP>17 device ?? In the time frame specified you have specified after the fact ?? This will be addressed further in detail .....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html
I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU STATED YOU HAVE ......
And here's the actual link to Joit's reply. And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html
Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him. Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes. IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Professors which were posted on the internet - somewhere. See if you can find them? LOL
OF COURSE I had apparatus. There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results. And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.
So. Glen. From here on - you may ask away. But I will NOT answer you. It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort. I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.
I see now I'll have to warn some more professors that you'll be writing to claim that I am plagiarising your work. This time it won't work though. They already KNOW who initiated this. All of 11 years ago now.
AND MAY I ADD. Our members are BORED TO TEARS with this ridiculous attack. Wake up and smell the coffee. Follow the example of Ashtweth.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 05:41:17 PM
And here's the actual link to Joit's reply. And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html
Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him. Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes. IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Prof Gaunt which he posted on the internet - somewhere.
OF COURSE I had apparatus. There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results. And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.
So. Glen. From here on - you may ask away. But I will NOT answer you. It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort. I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.
It appears by the two (2) quotes provided to all members and guests on the statement of possession of the COP>17 experimental device that two (2) were available ......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html
I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html
I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE, FOR THE LAST TIME SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS THE COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE(S) YOU HAVE
Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references. You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it.
@Glen. The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post. I am tired of your half truths. You can get away with lying about me on EF.com. But NOT HERE.
Your problem Glen is that you assume that everyone is a fool and that you can treat them as such accordingly. You'll find that - on this forum - people are more discerning than you give them credit for. It's insulting.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 06:17:50 PM
Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references. You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it.
@Glen. The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post. I am tired of your half truths. You can get away with lying about me on EF.com. But NOT HERE.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 26, 2010, 03:59:28 PM
Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....
Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 06:25:36 PM
EXACTLY. I REST MY CASE
There better be a "QUOTE" Image available ..... there are records on postings of all members on a forum and I did not post anything Today at 12:23:00 AM
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 06:45:17 PM
There better be a "QUOTE" Image available ..... there are records on postings of all members on a forum and I did not post anything Today at 12:23:00 AM
there better be? or what? or else? ::)
it says 5:23:00 PM glen... the post is right here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254552#msg254552
it shows up blank in rosemary's quote of it because your post consisted of nothing but quotes... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 28, 2010, 06:56:32 PM
there better be? or what? or else? ::)
it says 5:23:00 PM glen... the post is right here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254552#msg254552
it shows up blank in rosemary's quote of it because your post consisted of nothing but quotes... ::)
Exactly ..... because that's all there was only two quotes ...... I will be sending the time stamped .bmp to Stefan a "un edited" image right after it was posted and starting a "UN CENSORED" bash Rosemary Ainslie Thread.
I'm tired of my posts being messed with like Ash ..... the line now becomes a rope .....
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 07:26:30 PM
Exactly ..... because that's all there was only two quotes ...... I will be sending the time stamped .bmp to Stefan a "un edited" image right after it was posted and starting a "UN CENSORED" bash Rosemary Ainslie Thread.
I'm tired of my posts being messed with like Ash ..... the line now becomes a rope .....
follow the link in my previous response to you and you will see your post with the 2 quotes is still there... you're barking at shadows that exist only in your imagination. ::) why don't you just post that 'un edited' .bmp here?
a rope you have been hanging yourself with...
look everybody!! i am linking to fuzzy's 'two quote' post (reply #59) and they don't show up... according to glen this means his post (reply #59) was edited. however, if you click the link at the top of the quote just below, you will be taken to his post (reply #59) and see that his two quotes still remain...
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 28, 2010, 07:51:53 PM
follow the link in my previous response to you and you will see your post with the 2 quotes is still there... you're barking at shadows that exist only in your imagination. ::) why don't you just post that 'un edited' .bmp here?
a rope you have been hanging yourself with...
She can play this game all she want's in Rosemary's post http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254555#msg254555 it shows my Quote as empty as if something was deleted .... and the speckled insinuation of wrong doing.
This all will be shown in a thread that's not moderated by Rosemary Ainslie to whom can do what ever she wants or need suiting her fancy on anyone posting .....
Exactly
why is she here ?? can't build, read or design a electronic circuit, can't help a replicator at all make a device ..... tell me in your opinion ...... no never mind
why, everyone else knows there reason ..... I don't need your opinion at all.
She is here to distract and make fools out of a few people...already seen a few...sooner we leave this be and get back to the lab the better.
Just posting this lastly for Glen. :)
Ash
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 08:09:00 PM
She can play this game all she want's in Rosemary's post http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254555#msg254555 it shows my Quote as empty as if something was deleted .... and the speckled insinuation of wrong doing.
i explained why it shows your quote as empty... because it was a post that contained nothing but quotes and in the present incarnation of this forum, one cannot nest quotes within quotes... capiche?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 08:09:00 PM
This all will be shown in a thread that's not moderated by Rosemary Ainslie to whom can do what ever she wants or need suiting her fancy on anyone posting .....
she has not moderated anything in this thread, paranoid much??
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 08:09:00 PM
Exactly why is she here ?? can't build, read or design a electronic circuit, can't help a replicator at all make a device ..... tell me in your opinion ...... no never mind why, everyone else knows there reason ..... I don't need your opinion at all.
my
opinion, JUST LIKE YOURS, is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. ::)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 08:09:00 PM
She can play this game all she want's in Rosemary's post http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254555#msg254555 it shows my Quote as empty as if something was deleted .... and the speckled insinuation of wrong doing.
This all will be shown in a thread that's not moderated by Rosemary Ainslie to whom can do what ever she wants or need suiting her fancy on anyone posting .....
Exactly why is she here ?? can't build, read or design a electronic circuit, can't help a replicator at all make a device ..... tell me in your opinion ...... no never mind why, everyone else knows there reason ..... I don't need your opinion at all.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 28, 2010, 08:20:56 PM
She is here to distract and make fools out of a few people...already seen a few...sooner we leave this be and get back to the lab the better.
Just posting this lastly for Glen. :)
Ash
here you go glen, since you are being so moronic today, i just created a post (reply #69) similar to the one (reply #59) you erroneously claim was edited by rosemary. it contains nothing but a quote of you and one of ashtweth... now go ahead and quote it (reply #69) and see what happens... should i then claim you moderated me because nothing showed up when you try and quote that post (reply #69)? ::)
nevermind, i demonstrated it below for your lazy convenience...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 28, 2010, 09:46:35 PM
see... nothing... get a grip glen, get a grip. i'll wait for your mea culpa.
and ash, didn't you have an intricate plan about NOT posting here anymore? what's up? have you no integrity?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 28, 2010, 09:48:55 PM
here you go glen, since you are being so moronic today, i just created a post (reply #69) similar to the one (reply #59) you erroneously claim was edited by rosemary. it contains nothing but a quote of you and one of ashtweth... now go ahead and quote it (reply #69) and see what happens... should i then claim you moderated me because nothing showed up when you try and quote that post (reply #69)? ::)
nevermind, i demonstrated it below for your lazy convenience...
Only proves nothing but who's side your on, and what you believe .....Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 08:09:00 PM
She can play this game all she want's in Rosemary's post http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254555#msg254555 it shows my Quote as empty as if something was deleted .... and the speckled insinuation of wrong doing.
This all will be shown in a thread that's not moderated by Rosemary Ainslie to whom can do what ever she wants or need suiting her fancy on anyone posting .....
Exactly why is she here ?? can't build, read or design a electronic circuit, can't help a replicator at all make a device ..... tell me in your opinion ...... no never mind why, everyone else knows there reason ..... I don't need your opinion at all.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 10:01:54 PM
Only proves nothing but who's side your on, and what you believe .....
then post your 'un edited' .bmp. ::)
reply #71 shows my quote of reply #69 "as empty as if something was deleted", that doesn't mean there is a speckled insinuation of wrong doing. ::)
i believe what the evidence presents... so far you have presented none, whereas i have demonstrated exactly how you came you your erroneous assumption.
Hello Wilby - I keep hoping that the readership here is small. In fact it's growing. And when I look in at the 'who's looking' number - then there seems to be endless interest.
Glen knows perfectly well that I haven't deleted or modified his post. If I'd modified it there would have been record. I cannot modify something without leaving due record. And Glen's skills on the internet are up there with your own. He's pretending that I've deleted his posts in the same way as he pretends everything. He himself posted reference to that email to Steve where he laughingly referred to the fact that he - Glen - had locked the Ainslie thread and that I hadn't been able to work it out. He was right. Then he posted elsewhere or Harvey did - that I'd been banned from three forums and I just assumed that I'd been banned from OU.com and OUR.com. I was wrong in both counts.
It is never going to stop. Not until Stefan comes back. I'm reasonably sure that he will then be able to PROVE that Glen's lying. I believe that he can see when a post is deleted or when a post is modified. Glen's just using this to fuel that pretended anger of his. He's only object is to try and get rid of me. And until I'm gone he is NOT going to be able bury this technology or the ideas that preceded it.
And frankly - his ploy is working. This is absolutely taking it's toll on my own work. Last weekend I spent my time here in defending myself. And this weekend it seems I must do the same. Meanwhile the work that I should be advancing is being neglected. That's his actual intention. It really takes up my time to 'find links' and to find references and then find more proof to exonerate myself and then prove his lies. This is the actual skill of the 'troll'. Utter and complete distraction. Its negative and counter productive.
In any event. Thanks for trying to help. All such appreciated.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
@all
I have to say i am quite sad about all the bashing , war is upon us the order has been ready all Army's , i for one will always resist stupidity , we are here to change things not to destroy others , No single person can change the world , we can only change our self one by one and hope others get to do the same , re evaluate the way you conduct your self's .
If someone get you on your bad side , pay him a compliment and wait 48 h , depolarize the defective unit 48h should be enough to retune him , if not then ignore them , people like to fight , but can't do it alone ...
This world is shity because we let it .
I wish you all great success .
Hi members and guests,
Here is another example of misrepresentation of the facts that any
"THIRD" grader could do a search http://www.energeticforum.com/search.php at Energetic Forum and find the facts for themselves .....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg255578#msg255578Quote
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #536 on: Today at 12:57:21 PM »
Guys - just for the record.
Aaron has now officially locked all my threads and buried them on a subforum. Meanwhile he displays the mosfet heating circuit thread on the front page of every forum. That thread denies that I was the author of the circuit and it further denies benefit in the circuit. Effectively the propagandising related to this technology is still rife.
I seriously doubt that EF.com can be accused of 'advancing' ou technologies while these evident propagandising tools are required.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
The Energetic Forum threads of course through the
"NATURAL" progression of any forum member adding a topic or thread has made the COP 17 subjects slip to pages 20 through 25 and beyond, so technically I guess the members at Energetic Forum has buried the threads through
lack of interest or better subjects not the Energetic Forum administration.
What has happened was the relocation to the
"FRONT" or
"PAGE 1" of the Renewable Energy threads for easy access into the
"INDUCTIVE RESISTOR" http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/ sub forum where the Mosfet Heater Circuit
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html has been always located.
In addition the unfinished controversial
"Magnetic Field Model" thread which was also relocated into the same sub forum, as it has possibly some unproven relationship with the unseen
Quantum October 2002 article device or data with a COP>17 that was claimed by the authors.
This allegation appears to be another attempt by Rosemary Ainslie to discredit the work and technology of many others that are slowly working on the yet to be proven 100% by anyone on the planet a COP>17.
It's confusing. But I think what is now being alleged is that when a member gets banned it's likely that their threads will 'fall off the front page' so to speak. When one bans the member responsible for those threads then that may, perhaps, be seen as a natural consequence.
What is not so readily understandable and certainly not natural - is to take the trouble to 'lock those threads' in the interests of closure. I am not sure that this is a typical consequence of banning. Threads survive. Their originators may not.
What is also not readily understandable is the need to display a Mosfet Heating Circuit on page one of every thread reference on OU.com - when the Mosfet heating Circuit has EVERYTHING to do with the locked threads and while the perpetrators of that Mosfet Heating Circuit DENY any association with those same locked threads.
But either way - the fact is that there is absolutely NO interest in the Mosfet heating Circuit and it's only because of it's privileged and happy positioning on page 1 that it is able to survive any attention at all. Conversely the locked threads sustained a growth in readership and interest that exceeded all previous threads on EF.com and it's been relegated to the dump yard.
It is my considered opinion that EF.com have lost any rights to claim to support OU technology for open source and I suspect that the circuit technology that I attempted to progress is deliberately being quashed. It is also my opinion that there is a programme intended to diminish the technology associated with the locked thread and that it is that programme that the adminstrators of EF.com are following.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 08:59:39 AM
It's confusing. But I think what is now being alleged is that when a member gets banned it's likely that their threads will 'fall off the front page' so to speak. When one bans the member responsible for those threads then that may, perhaps, be seen as a natural consequence.
What is not so readily understandable and certainly not natural - is to take the trouble to 'lock those threads' in the interests of closure. I am not sure that this is a typical consequence of banning. Threads survive. Their originators may not.
What is also not readily understandable is the need to display a Mosfet Heating Circuit on page one of every thread reference on OU.com - when the Mosfet heating Circuit has EVERYTHING to do with the locked threads and while the perpetrators of that Mosfet Heating Circuit DENY any association with those same locked threads.
But either way - the fact is that there is absolutely NO interest in the Mosfet heating Circuit and it's only because of it's privileged and happy positioning on page 1 that it is able to survive any attention at all. Conversely the locked threads sustained a growth in readership and interest that exceeded all previous threads on EF.com and it's been relegated to the dump yard.
It is my considered opinion that EF.com have lost any rights to claim to support OU technology for open source and I suspect that the circuit technology that I attempted to progress is deliberately being quashed. It is also my opinion that there is a programme intended to diminish the technology associated with the locked thread and that it is that programme that the adminstrators of EF.com are following.
So silly .....
At Energetic Forum as anyone knows that is a member that one can .....A MEMBER CAN EDIT OR DELETE A POST IN A THREAD AT ANY TIME FOREVER OR YEARS UNLESS THE THREAD IS LOCKED FOR ARCHIVAL PURPOSES
( such a request was made by Rosemary Ainslie to lock the first thread http://www.energeticforum.com/81742-post3434.html )
At Over Unity Forum as anyone knows that is a member that one can .....A MEMBER HAS ONLY HOURS TO EDIT OR DELETE A POST IN A THREAD AFTER THAT TIME IT CANNOT BE CHANGED EVER BUT ONLY BY THE ADMINISTRATION
Glen are you OUT OF YOUR MIND? I cannot get into energetic forum at all - let alone delete or modify or change any part of anything posted there.
The only time I can even see the thread is when I log in under an assumed identity and that certainly does not allow me to post.
I am never quite sure if you are madly deluded or if you're simply incapable of telling the truth. Possibly both. But let me remind you. The readers here are of a higher caliber than those at EF.com and they see through your lies more readily. If you think that you can still regain any kind of respect or plausibility then stick to EF.com. It's better suited to your type. They actively encourage the outright theft of ideas. You are over qualified for membership there.
LET ME PUT THIS MORE PLAINLY. I HAVE BEEN BANNED. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO LOG IN UNDER THE NAME WITSEND OR AETHEREVARISING OR ROSEMARY AINSLIE OR ANY VARIATION THEREOF. NO AMOUNT OF INSINUATION ON YOUR PART WILL SATISFY ANY ONE HERE THAT IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GET BACK INTO MY POSTS TO CHANGE THEM - MODIFY THEM OR ADD TO THEM. YOU ARE EITHER UTTERLY DELUDED OR YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH IF YOU THINK THAT THIS NEW VERSION OF REALITY WILL WASH WITH ANYONE AT ALL
And for perfect clarity let me add - the new identity does not allow me to post. I actually think that admin are aware of this assumed identity as I'm also not able to trace all the links that are posted. So sick.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 09:24:05 AM
Glen are you OUT OF YOUR MIND. I cannot get into energetic forum at all - let alone delete or modify or change any part of anything posted there.
The only time I can even see the thread is when I log in under an assumed identity and that certainly does not allow me to post.
I am never quite sure if you are madly deluded or if you're simply incapable of telling the truth. Possibly both. But let me remind you. The readers here are of a higher caliber than those at EF.com and they see through your lies more readily. If you think that you can still regain any kind of respect or plausibility then stick to EF.com. It's better suited to your type. They actively encourage the outright theft of ideas. You are over qualified for membership there.
So very silly ..... shall I hang some scissors on the threads door so some guests and members can use them to place holes in their nickers so they can see ??
A assumed name to try and by pass a member banning ..... such things are not looked on favorably on persons trying to bypass the system in place.
Not only are you a vulgarian of rather limited verbal skills but your spelling is laughably inadequate. By nickers - I guess you mean 'knickers'. The two words have entirely different roots. And the analogy in any event is - at best is juvenile - if not infantile. But may I impose on you to address the point if you can bend your mind to concentrate for that long. You CLAIMED that I could get into my threads notwithstanding being banned. I recommend that you get EF.com admin to acknowledge this before I, for one, will be able to believe you.
I will meanwhile email your post to admin and ask them if this, indeed, is a facility that they allow banned members. It will be interesting.
And while I'm at it I'll also forward them this last post of yours lest they suspect, for one moment, that they're dealing with a sensible adult when they entertain your own membership.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 09:46:07 AM
Not only are you a vulgarian of rather limited verbal skills but your spelling is laughably inadequate. By nickers - I guess you mean 'knickers'. The two words have entirely different roots. And the analogy in any event is - at best is juvenile - if not infantile. But may I impose on you to address the point if you can bend your mind to concentrate for that long. You CLAIMED that I could get into my threads notwithstanding being banned. I recommend that you get EF.com admin to acknowledge this before I, for one, will be able to believe you.
I will meanwhile email your post to admin and ask them if this, indeed, is a facility that they allow banned members. It will be interesting.
And while I'm at it I'll also forward them this last post of yours lest they suspect, for one moment, that they're dealing with a sensible adult when they entertain your own membership.
Oh .... I see now only your 1,800 posts are worth editing or deleting ..... not any other forum member that posted in the thread(s), their contributions are nothing now to you if removed ??
So sad and not a single reference posting or post number from four forums I post in to substantiate any allegations .... just statements no proof of "IN MY WORDS"
I don't really understand the blind defense of EF displayed by Glen here. He is well aware of the questionable characters and shady dealings going on at the site, but chooses to ignore all that and instead go after Rosemary for some reason.
He is well aware that Aaron has pulled this same crap with other experimenters. He has read personal accounts by people who have had the same thing done to them as was done to Rosemary. He is also aware of the deceitful agenda openly admitted to by the vaunted "PHD" at that site.
Yet he continues to doggedly grasp at straws to try and discredit Rosemary. The complete lack of substance in his arguments is pathetically obvious, yet he won't give up. Why? What can he possibly gain from this besides the demise of his credibility?
If Glen wants to expose dishonesty and double dealing, EF administration would provide a target rich environment. Going after active experimenters with nebulous and flimsy charges is just stupid IMO.
Ted
The following a faithful copy of the text that I've just sent to Admin at EF.com
Dear Admin
Glen has claimed that notwithstanding being banned, EF.com will allow me the right to amend my posts and I demand that right. This is unequivocally claimed in his denial that I cannot get into the forum in my own name or any derivatives of my previous user names.
Posted today at OU.COM
A MEMBER CAN EDIT OR DELETE A POST IN A THREAD AT ANY TIME FOREVER OR YEARS UNLESS THE THREAD IS LOCKED FOR ARCHIVAL PURPOSES
He has also posted the following which I am simply adding to remind you how your members advertise themselves.
Posted today at OU.COM
So very silly ..... shall I hang some scissors on the threads door so some guests and members can use them to place holes in their nickers so they can see ??
Here I think he's telling us that he can get members and guests to view the threads should they require it. I'd be interested to know exactly how he uses those scissors and what relevance this has to my knickers?
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Ted Ewert on September 05, 2010, 10:09:10 AM
I don't really understand the blind defense of EF displayed by Glen here. He is well aware of the questionable characters and shady dealings going on at the site, but chooses to ignore all that and instead go after Rosemary for some reason.
He is well aware that Aaron has pulled this same crap with other experimenters. He has read personal accounts by people who have had the same thing done to them as was done to Rosemary. He is also aware of the deceitful agenda openly admitted to by the vaunted "PHD" at that site.
Yet he continues to doggedly grasp at straws to try and discredit Rosemary. The complete lack of substance in his arguments is pathetically obvious, yet he won't give up. Why? What can he possibly gain from this besides the demise of his credibility?
If Glen wants to expose dishonesty and double dealing, EF administration would provide a target rich environment. Going after active experimenters with nebulous and flimsy charges is just stupid IMO.
Ted
THANKS for speaking up Ted. I think the public would be well served to be warned about the duplicities at EF.com. I will get around to a full disclosure but am still to find out what's legally permissable regarding the exposure of emails and the rest. It's going to get nasty. But we've already got a thread lined up.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 10:23:00 AM
The following a faithful copy of the text that I've just sent to Admin at EF.com
Dear Admin
Glen has claimed that notwithstanding being banned, EF.com will allow me the right to amend my posts and I demand that right. This is unequivocally claimed in his denial that I cannot get into the forum in my own name or any derivatives of my previous user names.
Posted today at OU.COM
A MEMBER CAN EDIT OR DELETE A POST IN A THREAD AT ANY TIME FOREVER OR YEARS UNLESS THE THREAD IS LOCKED FOR ARCHIVAL PURPOSES
He has also posted the following which I am simply adding to remind you how your members advertise themselves.
Posted today at OU.COM
So very silly ..... shall I hang some scissors on the threads door so some guests and members can use them to place holes in their nickers so they can see ??
Here I think he's telling us that he can get members and guests to view the threads should they require it. I'd be interested to know exactly how he uses those scissors and what relevance this has to my knickers?
Regards,
Rosemary
This is really getting silly now .....
I SAID
"MEMBER" ..... you are not a "MEMBER" ..... you've been banned ??
@Glen
What part of THIS
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 09:46:07 AM
Not only are you a vulgarian of rather limited verbal skills but your spelling is laughably inadequate. By nickers - I guess you mean 'knickers'. The two words have entirely different roots. And the analogy in any event is - at best is juvenile - if not infantile. But may I impose on you to address the point if you can bend your mind to concentrate for that long. You CLAIMED that I could get into my threads notwithstanding being banned. I recommend that you get EF.com admin to acknowledge this before I, for one, will be able to believe you.
I will meanwhile email your post to admin and ask them if this, indeed, is a facility that they allow banned members. It will be interesting.
And while I'm at it I'll also forward them this last post of yours lest they suspect, for one moment, that they're dealing with a sensible adult when they entertain your own membership.
HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS?
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 05, 2010, 09:58:46 AM
Oh .... I see now only your 1,800 posts are worth editing or deleting ..... not any other forum member that posted in the thread(s), their contributions are nothing now to you if removed ??
So sad and not a single reference posting or post number from four forums I post in to substantiate any allegations .... just statements no proof of "IN MY WORDS"
Not only can you not write the simple truth - you are entirely incapable of any kind of sense at all. There is NO way you can draw these conclusions unless, as ever, you are propagandising. When you finally learn that trick of stringing a single sentence together then I'll be better able to understand you.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 05, 2010, 10:31:30 AM
This is really getting silly now .....
I SAID "MEMBER" ..... you are not a "MEMBER" ..... you've been banned ??
I rest my case. The man can't open his mouth without garbage spilling out. And the only way he can wriggle out of this one is to pretend that he did NOT KNOW THAT I WAS BANNED. Please. Nothing too low for our Glen.
Quote from: Ted Ewert on September 05, 2010, 10:09:10 AM
I don't really understand the blind defense of EF displayed by Glen here.
What did EF do so bad moving threads from pages 20 and beyond to the first or front page in a sub forum always to be on the front page ?
Quote from: Ted Ewert on September 05, 2010, 10:09:10 AM
He is well aware of the questionable characters and shady dealings going on at the site, but chooses to ignore all that and instead go after Rosemary for some reason.
He is well aware that Aaron has pulled this same crap with other experimenters. He has read personal accounts by people who have had the same thing done to them as was done to Rosemary. He is also aware of the deceitful agenda openly admitted to by the vaunted "PHD" at that site.
If Glen wants to expose dishonesty and double dealing, EF administration would provide a target rich environment. Going after active experimenters with nebulous and flimsy charges is just stupid IMO.
Ted
Yes this is true and have seen some compelling information from the person being banned and not from the other side, but to cast a judgment for me on who's right or wrong with out actually being involved in the dispute without all the facts IMHO would be reckless to cast a opinion on the matter.
Also I have had issues as "YOU" are aware at EF .... but then again .... whom hasn't posted things that may have been over the line ??
Quote from: Ted Ewert on September 05, 2010, 10:09:10 AM
Yet he continues to doggedly grasp at straws to try and discredit Rosemary. The complete lack of substance in his arguments is pathetically obvious, yet he won't give up. Why?
Everything I have posted or stated has a reference, correspondence or internet forum post number to defend the allegations against "ME" on this project "I" worked on .... my reputation ....
Were are the "IN MY WORDS" that confirm any and all allegations said against me ..... where ?? in the http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.0 Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder .... where ??
It's really hard to explain away something said in your words ..... unless you can "EDIT" it out ...... so it can't be used against you .....
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 10:36:30 AM
@Glen
What part of THIS
HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS?
Not only are you can you not write the simple truth - you are entirely incapable of any kind of sense at all. There is NO way you can draw these conclusions unless, as ever, you are propagandising. When you finally learn that trick of stringing a single sentence together then I'll be better able to understand you.
I'll post it again for you .... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg255603#msg255603
Quote
Oh .... I see now only your 1,800 posts are worth editing or deleting ..... not any other forum member that posted in the thread(s), their contributions are nothing now to you if removed ??
So sad and not a single reference posting or post number from four forums I post in to substantiate any allegations .... just statements no proof of "IN MY WORDS"
What was to stop this so called scoundrel at Energetic Forum or any other "MEMBER" there to have in the past month a
BASH Rosemary Ainslie free for all in a "UN LOCKED" thread ..... humm ..... I wonder why ??
Guys,
I have better ways to spent the rest of this wonderful day than answering Glen's inarticulate posts.
@ Glen.
You remind me of the lawyer who could tell when his client was lying. He could see his lips moving. I am not sure that you are even capable of simple honest dialogue. No wonder you've never mastered the art of writing. It would put that inability on record. And it does.
Cheers,
Rosemary.
Okay, I think it is better to set all the battle people on
read only and keep the threads as they are and just lock them
now, as no new technology info is posted right here....
So, if the users who are battling about this come
again to a conclusion, that they want to share their
newest hardware findings and will post
circuit diagrams, they should just contact me via email
and I will reenable their postings right.
I think this is the best compromise for now.
Regards, Stefan.