Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 19, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
guys - I am not about to sit back and allow our hard work and the potential benefits of that hard work be drowned out by the malicious interference of those personalities here who are disproportionately anxious to DISPROVE those benefits.

I am NOT rich.  But I have more than one arrow to my bow - so to speak.  And I have enough commitment to this general cause to use whatever liquidity is available to me - to COUNTER this rather disgusting attempt at silencing me and killing off the benefits of our hard work.  If we make this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated on the internet - or if we make the this proof available through a series of tests that are publicly demonstrated in a Court of Law - OR BOTH - is immaterial.  Provided ONLY that the proof is made available and publicly and to as WIDE AN AUDIENCE AS POSSIBLE.   And I would be DELIGHTED to engage on either or both options.

And if I am thereby somewhat impoverished... so be it.  It is LONG OVERDUE that someone take a stand against this pernicious requirement to silence over unity claims - or better put - to silence 'claims of efficiency that DO NOT comply to classical prediction'.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

I agree that this needs to be brought to the public and as wide an audience as possible. There should be a effort to spread the word to the other open source forums of the testing and evaluation done by Rosemary and the NERD RAT team. There are many of us that have "VALID" multiple memberships in forums that Rosemary has been banned from those should be posted to first. This would be a way that all the correct information can be compiled in many places to make it more difficult to have records of the truth removed and them to remain intact at multiple web site locations. If Rosemary can't get access to these sites that's her problem, and gives her cave dwelling attorneys Rosemary references something to do and get familiar with international litigation on internet public forum lawsuits.

As I stated before without a IP address from the forum site provider ( Stefan Hartmann of Hartmann Multimedia ) it is difficult to prove in court the accused person posing libel remarks true identity. Without that link between the person posing libel remarks and a physical location of the owners name with actual possession of the computer from where the remarks came any lawsuit cannot be proven because of reasonable doubt of "WHO" did what. The court claim of "it wasn't me" prove it was has to be addressed, any attorney would agree on proving "WHO" did what first.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316295/#msg316295                        Reply #1375 on: March 21, 2012, 09:27:33 PM

Quote
Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier

We that are concerned on libel remarks from Rosemary have chosen at this time not to advance our legal intentions as it would require for us to go through Stefan to get to Rosemary for the proof of her true identity ( IP address ) at this forum and that all postings came from her computer at her place of residence. This although could change if conditions require a needed actionable response, all options are still on the table for consideration in this matter.

FTC

@RA


I'll make one concession at the moment.

You seem to dispute that the screenshots are all yours.

If you choose to list which you confirm are yours, and which you deny are yours, I'll update the description and / or notes for each to reflect this.

If you only want to confirm which are  yours. I'll update appropriately and leave the rest.

If you only want to deny which are yours, I'll update appropriately and leave the rest.


Entirely your choice if you feel you want to set the record straight on this particular point.

Also, as we've now established you're only claiming that a subset of these screenshots from your open source project are anything to do with you, this will helpfully narrow the range when you choose to take legal proceedings - only those you claim are yours can be a source of contention.

Apologies to everyone for the portentous double-spacing that keeps appearing - no idea why.

And, Rosemary, tomorrow there'll be another very modest website to encourage members of your team to identify themselves and engage directly. I don't think responses filtered through you are helpful.

Well, just to go back to the capacitor test for the fun of it.

It's not practical to have a very large 48 or 72-volt capacitor to power the real circuit but of course it is doable.  What would happen is the circuit would behave almost identically to how the circuit behaves when powered by a set of batteries.

The one big difference is that the voltage on the very large capacitor would slowly decrease while the circuit was being powered.  Now anybody that has mastered the basics of electronics would understand that observing the voltage on the capacitor slowly decrease is metaphysical proof that the circuit is burning off the energy provided by the capacitor and that the observed oscillations are not in fact returning energy to the capacitor.  Of course then you can extrapolate this to the case where the circuit is powered by a battery.

You can make this direct connection between the behaviour of a large capacitor and the battery and if Rosemary objects to this then it's just a move of desperation.  She is not knowledgeable enough in electronics one way or the other and she doesn't understand capacitors.  Everyone that understands electronics understands the utility of substituting a battery for a large capacitor.

I don't recall anything in Rosemary's papers that dealt with the issue of using a capacitor and I don't recall any explanation in the papers that would explain why you can't use a capacitor.  If Rosemary wants to copy and paste the explanation into the thread that would be fine and it can be discussed.

As far as Rosemary's claims about testing with a capacitor and it didn't work, well the answer to that is simple.  It "didn't work" because the capacitor discharged and therefore the oscillations died.  This is a case of Rosemary observing something an assigning an explanation that has nothing to do with the reality of what happened.  In fact, she assigned this untrue explanation to "escape" from what the capacitor test was telling her.

"You can't use a capacitor because the capacitor will discharge" is just simply ridiculous.  It's the willful denial of what the evidence is telling you.

All capacitor tests on all variations of the NERD circuit will demonstrate how the circuit is under unity.  The circuit is not recharging the batteries, the circuit is not "only using potential" and not discharging the batteries.  These allegations by Rosemary are frankly ridiculous and desperate.

MileHigh