Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84219
  • *Latest: ab

  • *Total Posts: 897425
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 269575 times)

Offline skcusitrah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Look.  This is pretty simple.  I am a licensed Investigator and I do covert stuff for a living.  I am excellent with computers but I am not an expert.

So, now you are saying that even though guys like that can do what I said they HAVE done, and many times, there is NO WAY to change a date on an sql forum?  Is this your point?

Bill

If pirate88179 is a PI, why is he even asking this question when it has already been spelled out what the point is? He even quoted it in his response

wilbyinebriated and pirate88179 should just forget it. It's obviously beyond them. The point being, the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.

(edited)
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:38:33 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968

wilbyinebriated and pirate88179 should just forget it. It's obviously beyond them. The point being, the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.

(edited)

skcusitrah - I take it that EF admin have advised you that they're not interested in changing dates on anyone's posts?  Hopefully this satisfies you that they can.  This puts paid to both your and Omnibus' denial that they CAN do so at all.   I am inclined to ignore their denials as I know the extent to which they are co-operating with Harvey and Glen to bury my association with this technology.  That is something I cannot understand.  I could have accepted it while Aaron kept my link in that top 20 thread reference.  But he needed to lose the entire reference in order to lose my association with the forum and the COP 17 Rosemary Ainslie thread.  LOL.  Truth is never that easily buried. 

Meanwhile I take it that you have your opinion of the matter and I have mine.  I think we can leave it at that.

Rosemary

I hope this is the last we'll hear about this. 


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Look.  This is pretty simple.  I am a licensed Investigator and I do covert stuff for a living.  I am excellent with computers but I am not an expert.  Guess what?  I hire experts.  The experts I hire can hack into ANYTHING!  Get that?  ANYTHING.  Government, foreign government, you name it, they can, and have, done it.

So, now you are saying that even though guys like that can do what I said they HAVE done, and many times, there is NO WAY to change a date on an sql forum?  Is this your point?  Are you really going to stand by this?

Disclaimer:  I never hire anyone to break the law.  Anyone hired by me, or any of my many associates, never breaks any of the laws in the jurisdictions in which we are employed to operate.  This includes the domestic US and any foreign countries or provinces or districts.

Google hacking if you want to get educated about this subject.  Sheeeeze.

Bill

Hello Bill.  I missed this post entirely.  I really need to check things out better.  Thanks for the information.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
The experts I hire can hack into ANYTHING!  Get that?  ANYTHING.  Government, foreign government, you name it, they can, and have, done it.

Disclaimer:  I never hire anyone to break the law.  Anyone hired by me, or any of my many associates, never breaks any of the laws in the jurisdictions in which we are employed to operate.  This includes the domestic US and any foreign countries or provinces or districts.

How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@Pirate88179,

You know me. I need to see the evidence. Hope you're convinced that even regarding my own studies I'm my own worst enemy with regard to rigorousness of research and arguments. @WilbyInebriated has shown no evidence that he can change the time stamps in this forum and he should be ashamed of himself for embarrassing himself in so much insisting that he can. I'm not certain that even in general this can be done even if it would appear so and even if the admins are cooperating because there are always traces remaining in the google cache and so on. Your experts know these thing better. As far as this forum goes there's no evidence that changing time stamps can be done.

It is important for the above to be understood because otherwise it encourages the paranoia of some who claim someone is going to steal technology which they not only do not possess but it isn't even a technology to begin with. That's a misrepresentation we need the least. Encouraging such behavior harms everybody who does research  in the overunity field. This research has to be accepted as legitimate by the Academia because, like I said, nothing can compare in terms of resources and impact with Academia. It is mandatory to get Academia convinced in the legitimacy of the OU claims. For that to occur association with nut cases who don't have the elementary background needed or have put no time and effort in acquiring systematic knowledge but are very aggressively contacting academics can only cause harm. It leads to a state whereby an academic doesn't even want to look at the arguments the minute he or she senses association with such people considering it as just another nut case. I thought I had to tell you this because I feel you're missing that aspect.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
@Pirate88179,

You know me. I need to see the evidence. Hope you're convinced that even regarding my own studies I'm my own worst enemy with regard to rigorousness of research and arguments. @WilbyInebriated has shown no evidence that he can change the time stamps in this forum and he should be ashamed of himself for embarrassing himself in so much insisting that he can.

I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby?  Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.  What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.
Then I would recommend that both you and Omnibus get these subjects to academia.  Let's see how well you do.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 
Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal.  LOL.  At this stage all he can point to - and that rather vaguely - is at a thread.  It is highly unlikely that academics will take his thread contributions seriously.

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.
The jury is still out there on Orbo technology.  And if he was correct then why is ORBO not on the academic table.  I believe it did get there and then got knocked off.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby? 
People like Wilby protect the intellectual integrity of these threads precisely from the fatuous opinions of those such as Omnibus.  He makes a real contribution to the required standards of posting.  I hope you're not seriously suggesting that there's anything constructive in Ominbus's wild unsubstantiated opinions and allegations. 

Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.
I'm afraid you're sadly deluded if you really buy into this.  And frankly for all that Omnibus is somewhat arrogant I don't think even his arrogance would manage such a wild statement.  You really need to check your terms better shruggedatlas.  If the Laws of Conservation of Energy did not hold then we'd have an exotic form of physics that would possibly be adventurous - but it would also need to be entirely illogical.

What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!
And by the same token - may I ask you what you've done?  At least Wilby knows whereof his speaks and he does it with some considerable skill.  What you show here is a rather absurd dependancy on Omnibus' 'Science based on Opinion' and regard him as somewhat of a mentor.  It's charmingly naive - but hopelessly misguided.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal. 

Peer reviews are nice but not necessary.  Omnibus has already shown the math many times, and the math holds up.  Soon enough, peer reviews will come.

It is true I have not done much of my own experimentation lately, but I can still distinguish information from disinformation on this board.  And wilby is no doubt a paid disinformation agent.  He incessantly harps on about his logical fallacies, but the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here.  Surely someone of his intellect has better things to do that find logical fallacies on some obscure corner of the Internet.

He is likely paid to discredit probably the only guy here who has accomplished real overunity - Omnibus.  Though he can never do that - the truth speaks louder than his nitpicking.  There is a great saying that people who say it cannot be done should not get in the way of those doing it, and Wilby should take that to heart.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?


It isn't.  I said the folks available to me for contract work have been able to do that.  I do not hire them to do that, hence my disclaimer at the end of my post.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Hi Wilby

There is a greater harm being done in answering Omnibus than in ignoring him.  I - unfortunately - have my days cut out as I've got this project to do on the thesis and it's taking much more time than I can afford here.

Wilby - let me know what to do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
edited.  Spelling
indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenuous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over. shrugged is close to the same mold, her post to bill was simply an effort to engage in another red herring argument for a couple pages per her usual modus operandi. look at the lack of logic used by her as evidenced by this quote "Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!" in her defense of omnibus... no one ever claimed running sql scripts would net energy, it is just another pathetic attempt at engaging in another red herring argument... it makes me roll my eyes. ::)

look at the false logic posited below by skcusitrah/hartisucks. the first premise about the EF admin is based upon unsubstantiated assumption, the second premise is based upon a complete falsehood. then came the conclusion, to which a good dose of hyperbole was added to finish it off with idiot flair. a false antecedent will give the appearance of leading to any conclusion... but such arguments are never sound. it seems that maybe a dozen people on this forum understand this concept. sadly, omnibus, skcusitrah/hartisucks and shrugged are not amongst them.
the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.
the repeated and continuous use of false logic by these characters does leave you in a bit of a conundrum, as i understand your desire to not have to resort to censorship or banning. however, if you don't call their fallacious logic out, they will fill your thread with irrelevant banter as sure as a bear shits in the woods. on the other hand, if you do call their false logic out, they will repeat it (fallacious logic) till blue in the face while dragging you down to their level (stupidity) and beating you with experience, as evidenced by the last few pages.

personally, i would remove it (anything that isn't relevant to your topic, including my responses) all.


@shrugged, they are not 'my' logical fallacies, they are yours, your words, now you own them. when you (and the others who engage in them) stop engaging in logical fallacies, i will stop harping on you (and the others who engage in them) about engaging in logical fallacy. if you think "the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here" then i suggest you go refresh yourself on just exactly what a logical fallacy is. i expect you shall post another logical fallacy as a response. ::)

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over.

Fine, you have your grasp on logic, while Omnibus plows ahead and changes the laws of physics before our eyes.  Please, just get out of his way and let him do his thing. If you want logic exercises, there are classes you can take for that, and you can discuss logic all day long.

This is a science forum, not a logic games forum.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Wilby

Thanks for your reply.  Here's what I've decided.  I think our reading public are nowhere near being the fools that Omnibus seems to hope for.  He is welcome to post.  I can - as required - use his unsubstantiated opinion to remind our readers on the status of these tests and the thesis.

Let me start with this.  We are conducting tests in a university laboratory under the close co-operation and supervision of some really brave academics.  In the event that the tests are successful and in the event that we manage to achieve higher wattages than evident in our 'proof of concept' experiements - then this will be made known.  In the same way - if we do not manage these results - then this will also be known.  Our academics are not committed to an opinion outside of the test results.  Which is precisely as it should be.

Meanwhile in the light of the 'proof of concept' widely and accurately recorded - my thesis is getting some attention.  And right now we are attempting to represent the concepts in the thesis in a 3D animation series in order to advance its understanding.  I am immensely grateful for the help and assistance I am getting here.

And shruggedatlas - if, as I suspect, your actual mentor is Ayn Rand - then perhaps you should revisit her ideals.  Muddy thinking is not one of them.

@Omnibus.  It is very likely I'm a nut case as you put it.  These thankless efforts on these forums would certainly put my sanity to question.  But thankfully, our academics seem to tolerate this. 

Kindest regards Wilby and thanks to both you and Bob for your attempts to disabuse Omnibus of his manifold delusions.  But it really is not required.  I'm essentially pragmatic.  I now think I may be able to make good use of his posts and certainly intend giving it my best shot.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi all.  This is a copy of a previous post which I needed to edit and the system does not allow me to.  It's now out of sequence but relates to the date highlighted.  There will will be a further 4 such en route.  Don't bother to read.  I just need it to keep record.  Maybe when Stefan get's back he can put it back in the appropriate place.

Sorry about this.

   
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2010, 10:30:23 PM »


Guys,  I need to say this - reluctantly but required.

It appears that many potential replicators of this technology were systematically discouraged from researching this effect through the simple expediency of Glen or Harvey 'messaging' those posters and advising them against the technology.  This was variously achieved by a slew of unsubstantiated allegations made against me - my history - or the technology itself.  I would ask you all.  Please - in the event that you are contacted could I impose on you to demand that they either make those allegations public or that they substantiate those allegations with proof.  Either way they will then desist as all such allegations are actionable.  I am only now being made more fully cogniscant of this 'action in the background' which - before now - I could not understand.  Replicators came forward and then ... just disappeared.

Indeed - they were effective.  I have had to keep the name of the university involved off public forum at their request.  Glen discovered the campus involved by doing an unsolicited search through my photobucket.  I had a photo of that academic there.  He then matched the face with a name.  It must have been a pretty deep internet search - and then wrote to that academic implying he was an Energetic Forum Adminstrator - needing assurance that I was posting our work and not theirs.  He then advised the academic that I was PLAGIARISING his work - this based on the fact that the TIE publication does not hold authors' names.  In any event this set the project back 4 months or so while those academics established the facts for themselves.  A really spiteful piece of intervention that speaks to his interests either for open source technologies or for his interest in claiming this discovery.  Either way - sad motivation - and entirely irrelevant to our objects here.  We need to spread the word and the work and as far as possible - get some applications up and running.

What is troubling is that Energetic Forum Adminstrators were aware of this intervention and forbad my referencing it - else I'd be banned.  For some reason it seems that they rather preferred that their members not be told of this.  I'm not satisfied that this is in public interests.  But that's just my opinion.

Also.  Both Glen and Harvey are insinuating that I have patent rights on this technology.  I assure you I do not.  When I first developed - tested and published on this circuit I had no idea of the internet.  I'm that old.  In any event - I needed to ensure that no-one would be in a position to patent.  To this end I applied for a patent as the best way to 'publish' and get it into the public domain.  That application is still referenced as required - in the international patenting offices in Geneva.  But IT IS NOT REGISTERED.  This puts it in the public domain - the object being that no-one can ever patent it.  Now that I know about open source publication - I now publish everything I can.  It's the best safegaurd albeit that the 'attack' does not seem to diminish.  But it IS protected for open source.  We need to keep it that way.

Regards,osemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
ANOTHER EDIT


Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2010, 07:11:46 AM »

Guys - Conrad - all,

I'm afraid this is simply not working.  Nor do I have the time to continually answer the trivia and misinformation in that last post of yours - Conrad.   I wonder if I can impose on you to read my own posts.  As it may be that you simply cannot understand what I have written then let me try and put things more simply.

Glen was the experimentalist who replicated our experiment published in Quantum October edition 2002.  To enable this I solicited the use of some sophisticated Tektronix equipment with the promise to them that the tests would be well publicised and that all such would feature their TDS3054C DPO.  In most aspects Glen was a supreme experimentalist.  One looks for detailed and multiple data records, multiple test parameters, clear photographs and untainted presentation of data.  He is a photographer of some considerable skill.  His knowledge of how to present data - impeccable.  And his crowning qualification is that he could not, himself, do the data analysis from his dumps - which made him supremely impartial.  Our analysis of the results therefore, of necessity and invariably followed on from his tests.

The actual appropriate tests relating to this successful replication were Test 3 (from memory) which was then repeated with the use of a calibrated shunt in Test 13.  Both tests relied on measurement of current draw down from the supply based on analysis of the voltage across the shunt.  Both tests also showed that circuit potential to entirely conserve charge - with the mean DC average voltage levels swinging evenly between small positive and negative voltage indicating a nominal to zero discharge from the battery.  Yet there was a measurable dissipation of energy at the load evident in the temperature rise across the load and related to ambient.  The level of wattage dissiapted was gauged by a control that measured the amount of power required to generate the equivalent temperature rise.

The Mosfet Heating Circuit thread at Energetic Forum was initiated by Glen and Harvey and was intended to refute my invention of this circuit.  Indeed it is not an invention.  There is very little that is not known about switching circuits.  But what is NOT on public record, prior to our exposure of this, is the simple fact that the circuit can be tuned to a self-resonating frequency at which point there is no significant loss of energy from the supply.  I was not allowed to post on that thread but there was no restriction to Glen posting on mine.  He systematically 'flamed' my own thread and then - when Admin finally managed to bring this to a halt - he continued to message anyone who posted on my thread - with a slew of misinformation - much as he is now doing here.

I cannot say what his objectives are.  All I can assure you is that he relies on Harvey's analysis of the results and Harvey has now posted a slew of exercises in this where not only is the analysis hopelessly flawed - but is aimed at discounting the very results he earlier attested to in our Open Source paper.  I also can attest to the fact they are both emailing all and sundry with an an avalanche of unsupported allegations against my character, my history, my skills and - finally my part in this discovery.  I would, again, refer you my scribd reference to all this which I'll append.  Latterly are they both denying the evidence - but, unfortunately for them both, the evidence is on public record. Right now they both rely on the inabilities of the readers here to understand or analyse the data.  And Harvey is skilled in the use of a kind of technobabble that appears learned and yet is utterly flawed.  Academics involved in the evaluation of these tests are well aware of the flaws in those analyses but, unfortunately, it is not immediately evident to those who are less skilled in power analysis.

So.  There is patently some agenda afoot - which is apparent to the more discerning.  My own assessment is this.  Energetic Forum now effectively belongs to them both.  They are free to say and do as they please and the level of readership and general engagement is such that their members - for the most part - are entirely unaware of that agenda and are therefore duped.  This even includes some of thos authors to that first paper.  Fortunately this is changing and changing fast.  But while they are there or, for that matter here - there is clear indication that they are attempting to sabotage all evidence of Over Unity.  The sad truth is this.  Our own experiment is 'small' evidence.  But it has the real merit of being conclusive.  Subject only to our ability to scale it - then it may, God willing, prove feasible on applications - and a wide range of such if this potential is fully realised.  And all I KNOW is that there is an overwhelming need for both of them to prevent this.

My reading of your emphasis on their thread and the liberal references to their quotes reminds me of the danger that they pose to this development.  Fortunately there is nothing that they can now do to prevent our work on campus.  Nor can they prevent the publicity that will result on successful conclusion to those tests.  It will no longer be a 'fringe science' but should - at it's least - become respectable for other campuses and other academics to research the effect more thoroughly.  This is a first and, in my mind, has posed the single most effective barrier to the promotion of free energy.  It needs both the courageous and the enquiring academic in order to bring these much needed benefits to mainstream and to public awareness.

BUT Conrad.  I cannot forever interrupt my work to answer to the irrelevancies in their postings nor their communications.  I need to press on. Therefore I must ask you to please transfer your work to a second thread and do your work on replications there.  I need the time and the space here to give accurate account of the work associated with this appliance.  It was the purpose of this thread.  While I have been 'bitten' by those MIB's I am very aware of the safety in ensuring that all knowledge related to this effect be put on public record.  This is no longer negotiable.  The time taken to address your post reminds me of the distractions and the effective distractions that can hamper that object.

Let me put this as succinctly as I can.
WE HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF A THESIS THAT REQUIRES ENERGY EFFICIENCIES GREATER THAN 1
WE HAVE WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WE HAVE FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT AVAILABLE TO OPEN SOURCE

What is now required is that appliance to be fully developed and, hopefully, manufactured.  And right now this thread is needed to ensure that all the information related to that appliance is made available to Open Source.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Another edit.

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2010, 04:55:41 PM »

Hi Sandy,  I called that name wrong.  I think it's the 'parasitic hartley effect'.  Apologies.

And Conrad.  You seem to have taken offense?  Not intended.  I'm simply telling it like it is.  Regarding your required 'proof' - not sure what 'proof' you're looking for beyond the papers that Sandy correctly identified.  Are you looking for 'sworn affidavit's' as demanded by Glen and Harvey?  Regarding accreditation of the experiments those companies' names wwere listed in the Quantum publication.  Fairly widely publicised at the time - here in SA.  I'm reasonably certain that if I had misrepresented them then I would have been served papers calling for a retraction.  The proof of experimental results are never required beyond the simple account in a paper.  Else the simple principle of publication anywhere at all would be rendered meaningless.  So I'm not at all sure what else I can do here either.  Unless, again you wish us all to sign affidavits.  This is rather more than is expected of any scientist who is usually understood to be telling the truth.  And if you do, indeed, doubt that I'm telling the truth then I'm not sure that an affidavit will cut it - quite frankly.  I'm also reasonably certain that Harvey et al would have tried to get some kind of disclaimer.  In the absense of such perhaps you can allow me the benefit of the doubt ???

What is sad is the effectiveness of Harvey and Glen.  By now the truth of this over unity proof should be bouncing around the globe.  Instead of which it now seems that the two of them are actually denying the evidence.  And they do this on a full time basis.  I'm inclined to wonder who finances them.  My actual concern is that they're looking to some variation in order to patent it.

But I was pretty well silenced at Energetic Forum - as I was not allowed to reference their multi-level interventions.  They did me a favour by getting me banned.  And Harti an even bigger favour be allowing this thread.  But I must admit the thought of getting banned was more than enough to silence me as I was frantic that I not be separated from my work.  I am still exploring the legalities of anyone removing a member from this. That's the effect of banning.  I find it morally disgusting.

Anyway Sandy - thanks for the interest.  And Conrad, again.  I had no intention of upsetting you.  Abject apologies if that's what I managed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

 

OneLink