Follow by Email

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

the truce

4

Dear Reader,

This is my last letter to Hartiberlin.  Hopefully it's self explanatory. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Dear Harti,

I need to thank you for taking up our cause at all.  Even if you did not support it.

I have, nonetheless, some good news.  We have now got that standard immersion heater switching without resonance - with a zero output of energy from the battery and some significant heat dissipated from the resistor.  In effect, we have the same CoP>17 but this time with no evident discharge of energy from the batteries and without any noise at all.  This all measured with our LeCroy.

If you wish it I'll send you the data and the waveforms - but I would prefer it that you do NOT publish anything about this.  I will keep you posted on the progress.  We still have many more frequencies to test. But our thinking is that as these results are from a reputable campus then there is a possibility that we will be able to motivate our transistor manufacturers to design a more robust MOSFET.  From what we're measuring - there is absolutely nothing more required to get this onto an average household application - wherever it is that heat is required.

I think that the evidence is that Glen and Harvey are going to try and diminish this technology and there is clearly NO POINT in making the information available on a forum as public as your own.  Certainly not yet. Indeed - I see no point in making the information available on any forum at all.  But if I find one that is relatively low key - then it may be required to use that to keep due record of the progress and the results.  I dare not make full disclosure of the techniques.  This will be stolen under some pretext - and right now the research is the result of the hard work of the students assigned to this.

I have been angered by your vacillations regarding your support of me.  This technology is way more important than you have seemed to realise and you actually put it at some considerable risk when you allowed Glen et al to flame that thread.  There was a very big readership - certainly that's something that you yourself can confirm - and the interest was MORE in the field of the thesis than the tests themselves.  You and everyone still do not realise it  - but the effectiveness of that switching circuit is certainly NOT debated outside your forums.  That it's still debated on your forums is because of the efficiency of Glen and Harvey - and possibly less so, but also by TK.  They have, indeed, managed to hold this study back.

But it's water under the bridge.  I'm still inclined to believe that you do, indeed, support this systematic disclosure of over unity results.  I am entirely satisfied that you consider our own efforts here to be rather negligible.  But I think the unfolding research will eventually put paid to that opinion.  And, as I say, since we're on the same side here - I think it would be better that I bury my anger and try and advance what's needed.

Meanwhile, rest assured that there is much being progressed.  The only thing between this and the actual household applications, as we see it - is that really robust MOSFET.

I have now published your intention to delete those threads associated with my work - on my blog.  This simply to keep due record of the need for us to have back up information stored elsewhere.  I will never again allow this technology to be put in the hands of a forum owner who can potentially destroy it all at the touch of a button.  That was, indeed, a wake up call.  I had to move heaven and earth to get our thread salvaged and put on the next best thing to 'sticky' at EF.Com.  And - properly - that's where this technology belongs on your own forum.  But be that as it may.  I still feel that if I can convince you to look into this technology yourself - you will, one day, perhaps see what it is that we're trying to do.  It is so much more than just getting heat out of a resistor.

Regards,
Rosemary

just for the record

This is the open letter to hartiberlin at http://www.overunity.com/  Where my work is about to be deleted.

1  Discussion board help and admin topics / Help to access this discussion board / Re: off OU topic distractions on: November 14, 2010, 01:32:50 PM
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO HARTIBERLIN

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MY OWN THREAD.  JUST LOCK IT.  ELSE WE WILL ALL LOSE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THAT THREAD THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - IN GOOD FAITH - AND FOR PERMANENT RECORD.  THIS RELATES NOT ONLY TO THE WORK ON THE THESIS - BUT TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT WORK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MAGNETIC MONOPOLE.  ELSE THERE WILL BE NO DUE AND PROPER RECORD.  AND THAT WORK WILL BE LOST WHICH WILL ENABLE THE OUTRIGHT THEFT OF THAT TECHNOLOGY AND THAT THESIS.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
In case you missed this open letter.  Please read this Harti.  I think you are making an enormous error in deleting when locking would more than serve your purposes.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

BTW Read those posts on that very short thread.  Please.  I don't think it will take that much of your time and it is my defense.  Thus far I do not understand why you need to delete.  Just LOCK.  For pity's sake.

Guys,  I have messaged Harti, yet again.  I am not defending the mismanagement of that thread.  I am simply asking that he don't delete it.  If any of you feel strongly enough about this perhaps you could add to my request here in a pm to him.  Thank you.

regards,
Rosemary

This in reply to the following private message that was circulated to us

hartiberlin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6396

Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of overunity.com forum


View Profile WWW
The Rosemary threads will be closed and deleted
« Sent to: ashtweth_nihilisti, Harvey, fuzzytomcat, Rosemary Ainslie, truthbeknown, doozy2 on: November 11, 2010, 07:08:51 AM »
Save PMSave PM Remove this messageRemove

Dear
truthbeknown
Rosemary Ainslie
fuzzytomcat
ashtweth_nihilisti
Harvey
doozy2

As I don´t have currently the time to watch these threads and make myself up , who is telling the truth or the untruth, I will now close the threads and let them stay to see for all another week and then delete them completely.  Until then you can make backup copies and fight your flame war in private
further on, if you wish so....

Sorry, but it is getting winter and we don´t yet have an efficient circuit to heat our homes...it is so sad...

Regards, Stefan.

And this is the email that has been posted to Scribd and still awaiting a reply.  It appears that the paper has, yet again, been removed by Scribd resulting from the direct or indirect interventions of the complainant quoted in that correspondence.

From: Rosemary Ainslie <ainslie@mweb.co.za>
Date: 12 November 2010 5:37:16 PM
To: Scribd Support Desk <copyright@scribd.com>
Subject: (id: 26240411) Document published under Aetherevarising

Scribd, Inc.
Attn: Jason Bentley, Copyright Agent
539 Bryant St, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107

Dear Mr. Bentley:

This letter is a formal response to a claim of copyright infringement against two copies of the one document that I’ve uploaded and published on Scribd.com. I believe the claims of copyright infringement are inaccurate and should be rejected because of the following reasons.

I do not know who the complainant is.  I require details.  Glen Lettenmaier has advised us all on a public forum that the complainant is someone within the IEEE. 

The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question, is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights.

I am first author of that document and the paper itself was the result of a collaboration between myself and 6 others only one of whom was Glen Lettenmaier.  In terms of the copyright law any author in a collaboration may publish anywhere they require.  If they are in receipt of payments for that publication then that money must be shared.  Otherwise we are all free to publishs our work wherever it is required.  I have not been paid for my publication by Scribd.  Therefore, whoever the complainant, if they are simply one of the authors, then they are also simply one of 6 others who have inalienable rights to our own work.  He has complained before and was unable to produce any proof of sole copyright ownership.  If he has registered sole copyright then it is illegal.   So.  My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107.  If he is the complainant and he disagrees that this is fair use, he must work directly with me, through legally viable channels, to resolve the dispute. Scribd and its employees under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant. 

This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification

I ask that Scribd, upon receipt of this counter-notification, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B).

My name, address, and telephone number are:
ROSEMARY AINSLIE
these details here hidden for obvious reasons.

HERE IS THE ANSWER FROM SCRIBD.

Ticket #88015: Fwd: (id: 26240411) Document published under Aetherevarising
Your request (#88015) has been deemed solved.

To review, comment and reopen the request, follow the link below:
http://support.scribd.com/tickets/88015


Jason, Nov 16 02:19 pm (PST):
Ms. Ainslie:

As we've previously indicated, we are no longer getting involved with your continued dispute with Mr. Lettenmeier. This matter is closed.

Best,

Scribd Support


This rather puts paid to Glen Lettenmaier's post where he showed that the objection to the publication was from the IEEE and indicates that the complainant is exclusively himself.  I trust that this subject has now been put to bed and that you, dear Reader, have all the evidence required to show the level and extent of intervention that Glen Lettenmaier indulges to separate me from my work.

This is the link to something that Glen showed as 'evidence' that the document was withdrawn by the IEEE.  I am yet to hear from them but - thus far - there is no record of this paper having been withdrawn by Scribd at the behest of the IEEE.  But reference has only been made by Scribd that withdrawal of this document was the direct result of Glen's own interventions in this regard.   When and if I do hear from the IEEE I will then post their reply here.  Dear Reader, I only offer this as the kind of misinformation that we become vulnerable to being at the mercy of this kind of slanderous disinformation.  For those of you who are interested enough - look to the full discussion here.  Glen is moving heaven and earth to separate me from my hard work both in initiating the first tests, then initiating the replication, the equipment required for measuring this replication and then for initiating and writing the paper detailing the work related to that replication.



Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263495#msg263495