Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder (Read 319823 times)

b4FreeEnergy · « **Reply #825 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:39:07 AM »

Hi Rosemary,

I know it's tempting to answer latest posts again but don't, follow the advice of Wattsup, he is right!

Meanwhile: http://www.youtube.com/nespresso
It's good to laugh once I a while â€¦ ;-)

Cheers,
B

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #826 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:42:36 AM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 09, 2010, 10:26:58 AM

oh it's plagiarism now... do you even have any idea what that word means glen? apparently not.

from the wiki:usage is not plagiarism... get a clue.

and just who was it again that asked rosemary to come to energeticforum?

as an aside, this one is amusing...couldn't this same 'logic' be applied to you and your ignorance of 'peer review'?

Hey Willy,

"BFD" your posted comments above are irrelevant and SPAMMING the board AGAIN to hide the TRUTH in pages of nonsense ! A Rosemary Ainslie trick ...... how much you get paid by her?

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 08, 2010, 03:11:01 AM

Hi Stefan,

Your quote of .....

I will not have anymore any boards with names of inventors...

This is actually a good move if you want to document and fully evaluate testing on a submittal for possible publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine. The problem being that for a "PIER" review and to be "UN BIAS" in the review process, no personal names or identities can be used in the submittal at all. Then if excepted after pier review prior to publication the names of people or identities are added.

So, if your Forum thread or posting in the submittal process is used, "NO" names can be in the context at all during the submittal process .... problem is now with your name on the threads or postings.

Best Regards,
Glen

You would think after Rosemary trying countless times at IEEE for a submittal approval she would know about a "UN BIAS" review ..... so why again did she name a thread after herself if she wanted to use the data for publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine?

Or did you think the "Mosfet Heater Circuits" a generic name was for some other reason over at Energetic Forum?

Do you just TROLL around and flap your lips in every thread on the forum ? or have you ever done any experimental device construction, testing and evaluation that's posted here at Over Unity that you would like to share? Hummm ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=10837 guess not ..... lots of one liners though .....

.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #827 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:45:57 AM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 09, 2010, 10:42:36 AM

Hey Willy,

"BFD"

You would think after Rosemary trying countless times at IEEE for a submittal approval she would know about a "UN BIAS" review ..... so why again did she name a thread after herself if she wanted to use the data for publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine?

Or did you think the "Mosfet Heater Circuits" a generic name was for some other reason over at Energetic Forum?

Do you just TROLL around and flap your lips in every thread on the forum ? or have you ever done any experimental device construction, testing and evaluation that's posted here at Over Unity that you would like to share? Hummm ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=10837 guess not ..... lots of one liners though .....

.

so you are saying yes, that 'logic' could be applied to you? or are you engaging in logical fallacy and avoiding the question entirely?

edited to reply to glen's edit of his post where he added this:

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 09, 2010, 10:42:36 AM

your posted comments above are irrelevant and SPAMMING the board AGAIN to hide the TRUTH in pages of nonsense ! A Rosemary Ainslie trick ...... how much you get paid by her?

my comments on plagiarism are irrelevant? how so? you referenced plagiarism first, i simply responded to your ignorance of what the word means...

powercat · « **Reply #828 on:** November 09, 2010, 12:13:48 PM »

Hi Rosie, what a mess all you need now is TK and MileHigh for some real Armageddon

I must say I totally agree with Whattsup, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to this forum, I would take his advice and let's get on with the science.
cat

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #829 on:** November 09, 2010, 01:55:55 PM »

Guys - Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper. Over 6000 reads and at least 40 endorsements and a good forum for spreading the word. This is the second time he's done this. He will need to prove sole authorship - which will not be possible. In any event I'm in touch with them there.

The copyright is not his. He is not capable of writing a paper. God knows. He doesn't even know how to do the power analysis. He contributed NOT ONE WORD to any of it. Just his experiments. For that matter nor did Ashtweth. He would not be capable of writing a paper. He does not have the verbal skills. What a joke. Then Harvey will come into the story and CLAIM that he was sole author. And so it goes. I do hope that you ALL see what is going on here. They are DESPERATE. And just so anxious to close the doors - any doors - to me.

The good news is that I think what this is showing you all is that the NEWS is now truly breaking out of its stranglehold. AT LAST. It needed this commotion as wattsup pointed out. Meanwhile - I need to leave this to you guys to do with it what you can or must. I'm just too frantically busy. Maybe later on in the week.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #830 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:26:47 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2010, 01:55:55 PM

Guys - Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper. Over 6000 reads and at least 40 endorsements and a good forum for spreading the word. This is the second time he's done this. He will need to prove sole authorship - which will not be possible. In any event I'm in touch with them there.

The copyright is not his. He is not capable of writing a paper. God knows. He doesn't even know how to do the power analysis. He contributed NOT ONE WORD to any of it. Just his experiments. For that matter nor did Ashtweth. He would not be capable of writing a paper. He does not have the verbal skills. What a joke. Then Harvey will come into the story and CLAIM that he was sole author. And so it goes. I do hope that you ALL see what is going on here. They are DESPERATE. And just so anxious to close the doors - any doors - to me.

The good news is that I think what this is showing you all is that the NEWS is now truly breaking out of its stranglehold. AT LAST. It needed this commotion as wattsup pointed out. Meanwhile - I need to leave this to you guys to do with it what you can or must. I'm just too frantically busy. Maybe later on in the week.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper.

This is odd ...... you click on the link Rosemary provides for the IEEE submittal ..... marked for "peer review" 10-0207-TIE ..... the one without any of the authors names on it .....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

and it says "this content was removed by the request of IEEE" ..... exactly where is my name that I removed it ??

Is this another unfounded slanderous allegation against me from Rosemary without any proof at all of her posted claims ?? more of the same from her .... no "PROOF" again.

.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #831 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:57:37 PM »

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 09, 2010, 10:42:36 AM

You would think after Rosemary trying countless times at IEEE for a submittal approval she would know about a "UN BIAS" review ..... so why again did she name a thread after herself if she wanted to use the data for publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine? Or did you think the "Mosfet Heater Circuits" a generic name was for some other reason over at Energetic Forum?

Guys - just to get the record straight. TIE is the only publication within the IEEE group of publications that require NO REFERENCE to author's names prior to review, is the first point. The second point is that no publication within the IEEE group will consider publication of this or any experiment that defies Thermodynamic Laws. It is considered to be an anomaly and no self-respecting journal will publish a paper based on an anomaly. If it is not an anomaly but predicted in terms of a thesis then it needs must be evaluated in line with the experiment which also means that it then needs to be published in a physics journal. There is no publication within the IEEE group that can evaluate that thesis. This was the reason given for IEEE and TIE refusing to review our paper. The third point is that to call a thread a Mosfet Heating Circuit - is inaccurate. The implication is that the effect is then somehow restricted to a MOSFET when virtually any kind of transistor or switch works very well. It is just that the MOSFET has an internal body diode that seems to assist in sustaining the required resonance for optimised performance. We have even tested this on a relay switch with a marked improvement in battery performance and a measured reduction in wattage delivered. But the wattage dissipated - albeit greater than that delivered - is painfully inadequate for practical purposes.

I do hope that this research being done on campus will be published that the students can get recognition. But that cannot happen until the thesis is first published. In any event, right now - publication is absolutely not a priority. It is enough that this research is taking place on a highly respectable campus.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 09, 2010, 10:42:36 AM

Do you just TROLL around and flap your lips in every thread on the forum ? or have you ever done any experimental device construction, testing and evaluation that's posted here at Over Unity that you would like to share?

More to the point - have you? You may have managed the construction of one test circuit schematic and the disclosure of those results but it was done under guidance. And that's actually all you did. I have never seen any evaluation of those tests other than by Harvey or me. It helps no-one to pretend to expertise that you simply do not have Glen. And I rather think that Wilby is well able to do what you cannot do. What I find particularly sad is that you need to pretend to know so much more than you do. Which is not intended to detract from all that you do know. But don't now try and pretend that you ever did that power analysis. Frankly, in my book it made you the prefect experimentalist. You had no idea of your test results until we had finished the analysis. This is like Ashtweth going public and claiming to have contributed to the text of the paper that we submitted. His contribution was by my appointment only and that as the submission's author. Then pompously advises our poor members that they can't comment on his abilities unless they've also written a paper. Golly. He never contributed one word - other than his name. And then he reneged on his submission's duties and tried to give this to Harvey.

Anyway. It's all water under the bridge. Just try and keep abreast of the facts lest you get too carried away here Glen. Your work was really good. Just a crying shame it will be lost to history.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #832 on:** November 09, 2010, 11:27:09 PM »

deleted.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #833 on:** November 09, 2010, 11:54:09 PM »

Guys - here is my link to Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

There is absolutely NOTHING in that that indicates that 'THIS WAS REMOVED BY THE REQUEST OF THE IEEE'. Not only that but I have been in contact with the admin at the IEEE and they know absolutely nothing about this. But they're looking into it.

Glen. There appears to be absolutely no limit to your malice. Guys - until I've got to the bottom of this kindly IGNORE what Glen has written here and just check the link for yourselves. Clearly Glen is yet again - trying to stir up a hornets nest. The facts are that Glen is trying to divorce me from my access to my own work. In terms of a collaboration any of the authors may publish the work anywhere they wish. In the event that they're paid for it they are required to share that income. Scribd have not paid me anything. LOL. And IF Glen has sole copyright on this work which he simply did not author - anywhere - then he must PROVE that copyright by showing us where he's registered this? What Glen did SO proficiently were the tests around which that paper was structured. And IF he's registered then at least two of us authors will need to contest that registration. It could only have been managed fraudulently.

Regards,
Rosemary

edited

truthbeknown · « **Reply #834 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:21:19 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2010, 01:55:55 PM

Guys - Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper. Over 6000 reads and at least 40 endorsements and a good forum for spreading the word. This is the second time he's done this. He will need to prove sole authorship - which will not be possible. In any event I'm in touch with them there.

The copyright is not his. He is not capable of writing a paper. God knows. He doesn't even know how to do the power analysis. He contributed NOT ONE WORD to any of it. Just his experiments. For that matter nor did Ashtweth. He would not be capable of writing a paper. He does not have the verbal skills. What a joke. Then Harvey will come into the story and CLAIM that he was sole author. And so it goes. I do hope that you ALL see what is going on here. They are DESPERATE. And just so anxious to close the doors - any doors - to me.

The good news is that I think what this is showing you all is that the NEWS is now truly breaking out of its stranglehold. AT LAST. It needed this commotion as wattsup pointed out. Meanwhile - I need to leave this to you guys to do with it what you can or must. I'm just too frantically busy. Maybe later on in the week.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

WOW! "Later in the week" flew by like it was only a couple of hours!
Really Rosemary, its better to not say anything about posting. It makes it look like you are WAFFLING.

J.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #835 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:26:55 AM »

LOL. You're right Truthbeknown. It's just that certain inaccuracies keep me awake at night. And nothing rivets my attention more than a GROSS misrepresentation that also speaks to my rights to access my own work.

Rosemary

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #836 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:27:05 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 09, 2010, 11:54:09 PM

Guys - here is my link to Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

There is absolutely NOTHING in that that indicates that 'THIS WAS REMOVED BY THE REQUEST OF THE IEEE'. Not only that but I have been in contact with the admin at the IEEE and they know absolutely nothing about this. But they're looking into it.

Glen. There appears to be absolutely no limit to your malice. Guys - until I've got to the bottom of this kindly IGNORE what Glen has written here and just check the link for yourselves. Clearly Glen is yet again - trying to stir up a hornets nest. The facts are that Glen is trying to divorce me from my access to my own work. In terms of a collaboration any of the authors may publish the work anywhere they wish. In the event that they're paid for it they are required to share that income. Scribd have not paid me anything. LOL. And IF Glen has sole copyright on this work which he simply did not author - anywhere - then he must PROVE that copyright by showing us where he's registered this? And IF he's registered then at least two of us authors will need to contest that registration. It could only have been managed fraudulently.

Regards,
Rosemary

Guys - here is my link to Scribd.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that that indicates that 'THIS WAS REMOVED BY THE REQUEST OF THE IEEE'.

***********************************************************************************

"IN ROSEMARY'S OWN WORDS"

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on October 26, 2010, 04:47:34 PM

Here's the paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Rosemary

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 08:33:55 PM

The data's freely available - all over the place Paul. Here's the link that I gave to Loner.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 10:02:47 AM

BTW here is that LINK
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

*** LEFT MOUSE BUTTON CLICK ***

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #837 on:** November 10, 2010, 12:41:25 AM »

Glen. In the first instance that is not my Scribd file. In the second instance I very much doubt that Scribd would make public anything until either the copyright status is established or until there is proof of any kind of contraventions. They're a professional group and they certainly won't open themselves to actionable statements. And that disclosure could well be actionable. Certainly they would NEVER withdraw a paper on the basis of a request. They only withdraw when there are copyright issues. And I've not breached any copyright issues.

In any event I've sent a copy of your post to Admin and they're looking into it. God knows I also want to get to the bottom of this. I've also sent a copy of your post to Scribd.

Rosemary

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #838 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:17:33 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on November 10, 2010, 12:41:25 AM

In the first instance that is not my Scribd file.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie's "SWORN" legal affidavit to Scribd on http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS - PDF file

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pwJGOmgUob3bhb4rFH8h80a2_WqI_dPm1XtU5xR2Ukb1zMllqjn92RfCWHKoqBc7L1aRTNWF_PbXw-Z0mb_4bMw/Ainslie_Affidavit_Scribd.pdf?download&psid=1

.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #839 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:26:16 AM »

Glen, quite frankly I DARE NOT open those links. I absolutely do not have any 'sworn affidavit' files anywhere at all. And if you have pdf's then it is certainly NOT my work. Just my name that you're using. And you absolutely DO NOT have access to my files. I'll get someone to check out the links in the morning.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder (Read 319823 times)

b4FreeEnergy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

fuzzytomcat

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

WilbyInebriated

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

powercat

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

fuzzytomcat

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

truthbeknown

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

fuzzytomcat

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

fuzzytomcat

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder