another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

Edit FREE for the RECORD .....

[Flux It]

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

Perhaps you should find a lawyer that has heard of the Data Protection Act, then maybe move on to one that can actually spell forensics. Gee, that email looks like such an official document though...you have got to be kidding.

If you do have a lawyer I would suggest litigation for the apparent chemicals in your drinking water...

[fuzzytomcat]

TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.

Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

Hi Cat,

What surprises me is the Quantum 2002 article was about a COP>17 thingamabob device ...... and now it's a COP INFINITY device she want to show in court that I copied and stole  ??  ODD .....   

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302    Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.    


Fuzzy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I need to caution you all - yet again.  There are gross misrepresentations in TK's earlier post and I'd be sorry if you lost the significance of these waveforms.  We used the Tektronix to endorse the LeCroy numbers.  This because the Tektronix is not grounded and we need to obivate grounding concerns expressed by many of you - including Harti.  In other words we could thereby prove that the LeCroy results were not skewed due to grounding issues. Because their results were the same.  And the LeCroy being available from the get go was also our instrument of record.

However, the complaint related to lack of graticule illumination is absolute nonsense.  That's the preferred setting of the Tektronix.  And his complaint about the lack of switching is precisely because this is an extraordinary result.  We are able to adjust the offset to resist all current flow during the 'on' period of each duty cycle. The yellow trace.  And we're dissipating some significant heat from the element resistor. 

This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.

Also a load of nonsense.  We get a very clean switch at this level.  However, on this setting we've applied enough resistance at the offset to restrict any flow of current at all during the on period of each switching cycle.  One day, hopefully TK will catch up with the argument.  He clearly has no clue.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'the circuit' 'drawing down' anything at all.  And he has the temerity to try and criticise the presenter of that video.  I rather think the evidence suggests that it's TK who's guilty of 'egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy'.  Golly.  Such big words. 

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.

LOL.  This is yet more egregious violation.  Whatever next.  I think we'd all like to know what he means by 6 little ticks or 5 little ticks?  I rather suspect he can't work out those peaks at each oscillation.

The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.

And YET more egregious violations.  LOL.  If those oscillations across the battery are classified 'noise' then that's rather a lot of noise to be generated by those batteries.  And I'd need to be exceptionally adventurous to claim that the battery voltage is 'rather flat'. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...
I split this post guys.  Just way too long.

Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude.

I'm glad he explains this.  Else how would we know?

So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.

Which is UTTERLY meaningless drivel.  What I think he's trying NOT to say is...'Golly.  It seems that when the MOSFET's on there's no current flow.  And when the MOSFET's off - then there's current flow.  How odd.'  At this point there's an anomaly.  I'd repeat the argument if I thought his opinion mattered.  But frankly I'd prefer to deal with Poynty.  At least he's already looked at this - and, unlike TK - he also has the merit of being exceptionally bright.
 

The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.

What a load of nonsense. I think that Tektronix would, themselves rather object to the implications here.  There is no way the scope can be used improperly.  A setting is a setting.  We cannot fudge the results.  And that Tetronix is WELL able to cope with measurements at those frequencies and indeed much greater. 

The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.

Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

Actually guys.  That's as far as I want to go with this nonsense.  I cannot tell you how much it irritates me.  A complete time waster.  Yet again TK is presuming to give rational explanations when he actually hasn't a clue how that machine operates or what the technology shows.  It's rather disheartening.  And if I continued with this post it may even give the impression that anything he says can be taken seriously.  I think I must just go back to ignoring his input.  I trust you'll do the same.  Or if you do read it - then PLEASE.  Take it with somewhat more than a grain of salt.  He's winging it and he's propagandising.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  And even less to do with our technology.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary