Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least
my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality
when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a
twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

Let me add this.  I think you have some considerable intellect there Poynty Point - which is sorely lacking in the most of our trolls.  What you lack
is the 'professional touch'.  Do you - any of you - realise how EFFECTIVELY you could have killed off this technology - with the application of a
little constraint?  Fortunately that's NOT going to happen.  Glen keeps posting and TK tries to occupy the moral high ground by trying to knock
the foundations from my own.  You guys are REALLY CLUMSY.  Thank you God.

Rosie 

P.S
What I'm really trying to say is this.  If 'hitting below the belt' doesn't work - shouldn't you 'regroup' and try another tactic?  Like hitting above
the belt?  You all know my weakness.  It's electronics.  SO.  Argue what you know.  Let's indulge the rare event of topical discourse.  That would
be so much more entertaining.  And that way you'll no doubt be able to PROVE whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

Again
Rosie Pose

P.P.S
Because what you're doing at the moment just isn't working.  Surely you see that by now?

Guys, here's the thing.

There are a lot of factors that motivate the denial of over unity.  First off is that it simply is not allowed in terms of our standard model.  Then
there's the unarguable evidence of those who have tried to capitalise on claims that were not actually substantiated.  Which is not exactly
ethical.  Then there are those who offer 'slim' evidence or evidence that is intuitively gauged - rather than measured.  And what drives the 'nay
sayers' is anyone's guess.  I very much doubt - in TK's instance - that it's because he's in the pay of vested and competing interests.  His videos
are not exactly 'high definition' professional numbers.  And one would expect him to be able to access better equipment - if he was also being
richly compensated for his efforts.  The same goes for Poynty. 

So.  What drives them?  I can only conclude that it's based on the preferred belief that IF there's any proof of over unity - then it should properly
come from their 'school'.  Those that they can identify with.  People who - at its least - earn a living from applied electrical engineering - or such
like.  But that's not true either.  There are many claimants who not only manage proof but who clearly are NOT qualified in engineering.  And as
often as not their claims are NOT always vociferously challenged.  Itseung is a case in point.  Lasersaber another.  They're tolerated.

I think the distinction is drawn when a claimant has the unhappy combination of being 'unschooled' - and stating unequivocal proof - AND being a
mere female.  Something like that?  Just don't know.  But what I do know is that the attack has been never ending, well orchestrated - and, in
the light of all the hard work that's gone into this nay saying - rather expensive - both in time and output.  Which begs the possibility that there
is some kind of vested interest that keeps their protests coming - which is also rather well funded.  But I don't know.  I can only surmise.

What I do know is this.  We are trying to show you all a means whereby you can access a - heretofore - hidden source of energy.  It's very
simple.  It's in the bound state of  coalesced structures.  What that means is that when you have any bound atomic material - such as in a stone
or a cup or anything at all - then the thing that binds those atoms is where this energy is from.  Assumption has been that these structures are
bonded as a result of the weak interaction between the atoms themselves.  We actually PROVE that it is NOT.  It is something that is OUTSIDE
those atoms.  NOW.  If this is true - which is certainly what our experimental evidence shows - then it also means that we're well able to access
this energy.  It's simply been rather overlooked.  And the real advantage is this.  Any such proposal DOES NOT CONFLICT with the standard
model.

Howdy members and guests,

You all wonder "WHY" this is a very good question.

If you were Stefan and woke up every day to PM's and e-mail threats of forum closures and multi million dollar "LAWSUITS" from Rosemary ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont ...... )

What would you do ..... make sure without a doubt firm ground why to close threads and ban that person ?


Talk about the high road ?? 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg294073/#msg294073    Reply #1790 on: July 06, 2011, 11:01:11 AM
Hi,
as this topic is now too controvers and I was threatened with lawyers,
I will lock now all the Rosemary threads.
Also there was no recent updates of any sorts about the technology and
the only postings I see here are about bitching about the old outdated papers
and scribd files etc..
So it is only annoying.
I have put all the members who got into this flame war into moderation now
and will delete new topics, if they should start again this topic...
Regards, Stefan.

P.S: All further issues about this circuit can be discussed at Ms.
Aisnley´s blog:

http://newlightondarkenergy..blogspot.com/

but not anymore over here.

Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any
disagreement from me on whats quoted.
Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the
O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too
emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to
university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT
UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked
for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science
they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can
largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt
this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long
and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL
PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured
muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit
components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know
until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any
issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

I did some page editing here too.  It's a fair summation of my lack of training.  Courtesy Glen

LOL
Regards,
Rosie.

Hi members and guests,

It appears we have more of the same from Rosemary going on again.

Here is a posting from Stefan with his request for the billionth time and never not one part done.

I'm Tired of this and have a web site to finish and will be recommending the closure of this thread and the "BANNING" of Rosemary Ainslie for the posted reasons made.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285971#msg285971   Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 07:28:48 PM


hartiberlin
Administrator

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .



To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Enough said for the moment 

Troll alert more rubbish from the trolls its rosemarys thread, heard all your crap before you and your cut and paste crap go away.It was peaceful until you turned up.

Hi energy123
I noticed your earlier comment on this.  I'm afraid this goes with the territory.  It seems that all my threads get flamed - sooner or later.  I think
the trick is to apply that scroll button.  And if anyone posting here could remember to press that shift button.  Else your posts fall of the page.
Which is the general intention.

The only decent thing is that Stefan won't just close this thread again.  Which is comforting.  But it would be so nice if he could do something
about Glen's attempt at wrecking it's readability.  It's no good applying to Glen.  He has no basic understanding of professional conduct.  I think
he's under the delusion that this is all assisting in is promotion of some internet live programming - or something.  It's confusing.
His language skills are not up to par which means that whatever it is he's trying to advertise is rather lost.  Which is also why he needs to cut and
paste.  He can't simply 'write' an original post.  BUT.  Frankly, between you and me, I'm rather sorry for him.  I'm not sure that his behaviour can
be considered balanced.  I think he's been 'beset' by the 'green eyed monster'.  But do what I do.  Just try and ignore his posts.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I won´t ban Rosemary , I just want to see, if she will finally do
the battery tests...
 
Also TinselKoala did some new Youtube videos about the oscillations
and they seem to depend on the used function generators...

So probably these oscillations will capacitively input energy from the function generator into the circuit and thus
into the batteries.

So a battery test with just a 555 timer powered by the main battery is a must.

Just forget the function generator for precise Energy efficiency calculatiions...
This is just flawed...

Regards, Stefan.

Stefan - thanks for the undertaking.  I think it was agreed the last time I was re-instated.  But I wonder if you could impose on Glen to curtail
all that extraneous 'cut and paste' nonsense.  It's overwhelming this thread.  Conservatively he dominates approximately one third of each page
in his efforts to discourage readership.  I don't think you're giving me a fair chance here - with respect.

Then.  Regarding the function generator.  I have designed a test that will first be run to prove whether or not the function generator is responsible
for this extra energy - as you claim.  Where would we be if we did not allow experimental evidence to guide us?  I would have thought?

Regarding TK's videos - they only prove that the function generator CAN supply energy - provided that he maintains a closed circuit - which he
manages with those diodes of his.  You'll notice that the applied voltage from the generator is at a whopping 10 volts - while the circuit only has
3.  And the only resistance in the way of that applied voltage is that little inductor of his.  Hardly enough to resist all that applied potential
difference.  Frankly, under those conditions - I'd be rather amazed that the function generator did NOT manage to apply its energy.  But it's
hardly consistent with either our tests or our claim.  I'm intrigued to see that you think it is.  In any event.  Whether it is or not - will be easily
demonstrated with our proposed test of the 555.  I don't think we'll ever be able to dissipate the required 50 watts unless we use the function
generator.  And anything short of that is a waste of time.

And guys, Poynty - all - PLEASE advise if I've left out any considerations in that proposed test.

Kindest regards,
Rosie