Free Energy

@ Rosemary ..... there is a question on November 05, 2010  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262997#msg262997  Reply #780  you haven't answered at all in my response to your continued allegations of ME stealing some technology for a patent application or patent on electronic circuits that are posted openly and freely available on the internet

What the hell are you doing if not trying to divorce me from my own work and to what end?  There is ONLY ONE CONCLUSION.  And we've all reached that conclusion.  Otherwise I must conclude that you waste hours of my time and your own in your desparate attempt to malign me for the fun of it.  As a rule people do not indulge in such CRAZY activities at such an enormous expense of their time and trouble.  What are you thinking?  What other possible conclusion is there to reach?  You have given us ALL the evidence required that you will do just about ANYTHING to destroy this work.

What has been avoided by Rosemary Ainslie is in any response in her "Intellectual Property Rights" as a INVENTOR of PATENT APPLICATIONS that are in her name.

You ass.  You unmitigated, insuferable, unprincipled, idiotic, assinine halfwit.  You KNOW that there is absolutely NO REGISTERED PATENT EXTANT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.  You KNOW that this was applied for for purposes of using the public disclosure of the patenting office to put the technology into the public domain.  I KNEW NOTHING OF THESE  FORUMS OR OF THE INTERNET.  I HAD NO OTHER MEANS OF GETTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO RENDER IT UNPATENTABLE.  But what is particularly hard on the stomache is that you DARE to assume that the readers here think - FOR EVEN ONE MOMENT - that this technology is patented.  And you pretend and pretend and pretend.  You insinuate.  You imply.  You post links.  You ass.  You only show yourself as a manipulating twisted horror that you are. You ENTIRELY underestimate the intelligence of either the members or the readers of this forum.   It is insulting to see such transparent motives rendered with the subtleties of a sledgehammer and you assume that all an sundry cannot see what it is you are doing.  It is that embarrassing that it makes the toes curl.  What you need to do as a matter of extreme urgency is show a REGISTERED PATENT in my name or any member of my family's name.  Then I promise you my attention will be RIVETED.

No-one reading here needs to be reminded of the definition of intellectual property ownership with the possible exception of yourself.  One day I trust you and Harvey will explain the niceties that you discovered in your own replication that elevated it to something that was not a replication.  Something to do with the fact that you never quite reached COP>17.  LOL.  And then the added insult of seeing those jokes of data test 14 through God knows what - where you conveniently discovered a mistake.  WHY?  WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE?  WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?  I know perfectly well that the intention is to cast doubts on the result and then - no doubt - you will pull out a brand new discovery from under those two horns that protrude from your head.

My question is how can a INVENTOR  without the knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit INVENT a electronic circuit for a PATENT ?? and how can someone claim INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as Rosemary Ainslie does on that electronic circuit ??

I cannot tell you how an inventor can manage so much with such little knowledge and so little intelligence - but I suspect it's because the circuit's that EASY that my granddaughter could manage it.  What's not so easy is the methods of driving that switch.  Fortunately - there are MANY SWITCHING CIRCUITS on the internet - free and for the taking - that one does not need more than the ability to read.  And it is my mission to prove that an ABSOLUTE IGNORAMUS - SUCH AS MYSELF - can manage this.  That way, those others who are NOT trained in electronics - can get the confidence to put this together themselves.  I am very PROUD of my inabilities.  I share it with many.  And unlike you and Harvey et al - I am most ANXIOUS to assure all that you do not need to be Einstein to understand electricity.  IT'S ALL VERY SIMPLE AND VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD.  It's been obfuscated to the point of absurdity.  I hope to get rid of all that obfuscation.  And BTW.  While I am the first to admit to not being an expert - I have more than an adequate working knowledge - certainly for the purposes of my thesis.  And frankly I probably know as much about circuitry as you do.  Which may or may not being saying very much.  I am happy to admit to ignorance - I flinch at claiming more knowledge than I have.  I wish you'd follow this example.  It would save us all from embarrassment.

Please clarify the above question posed fully Rosemary to the best of your ability ..... legal counsel for me the process of investigating the rules and regulations on what comprises the term and definition of "INVENTOR" from the respective patent application document locations.

This is another one of your confusing absolutely meaningless statements - more or less as muddled as those strange links that you never tire of posting and that no-one bothers to open.  THERE IS NO REGISTERED PATENT.  WHY MUST I CLARIFY ANYTHING AT ALL?  GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR ATTORNEY.  HE COULD POSSIBLY HELP YOU.

Rosemary

added

Rosemary kicking ass and taking names

LOL  Sorry Happy.  I'm probably a little critical of the man. If indeed he is a man.   

You KNOW that this was applied for for purposes of using the public disclosure of the patenting office to put the technology into the public domain.  I KNEW NOTHING OF THESE  FORUMS OR OF THE INTERNET.  I HAD NO OTHER MEANS OF GETTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO RENDER IT UNPATENTABLE. 

I do not know much about your invention, but I do know about patents.  Applying for a patent on something is sort of the opposite of putting it in the public domain.  It sends the message of "hands off."

Why didn't you just publish it?  With a public disclosure, after about a year, the invention becomes unpatentable.  I understand you didn't know about the Internet (was it 1985?)   You do not have to publish on the Internet - it can be a journal or some other kind of periodical.  But it has to be publicly available.

But anyway, why don't you guys decide whether the invention works before having this big fight over it?  Also, I do not even see how it can be taken away from you.  Why don't you just do your work on it, and let the other people do whatever they want?

I do not know much about your invention, but I do know about patents.  Applying for a patent on something is sort of the opposite of putting it in the public domain.  It sends the message of "hands off."

Why didn't you just publish it?  With a public disclosure, after about a year, the invention becomes unpatentable.  I understand you didn't know about the Internet (was it 1985?)   You do not have to publish on the Internet - it can be a journal or some other kind of periodical.  But it has to be publicly available.

But anyway, why don't you guys decide whether the invention works before having this big fight over it?  Also, I do not even see how it can be taken away from you.  Why don't you just do your work on it, and let the other people do whatever they want?

Your comments needed repeating. And it was 1998 when the first patent submission was made.
Any whoooo, readers have been waiting for the new testing results from the Trade School but she says she will not post them because she thinks Glen and Harvey will steal them. Does she understand what OPEN SOURCE is? And really, once she came to OU.com after being banned from EF.com you would think she would just make a fresh start of it all. But no, she states her intentions in the first comment of this thread and then in reply#3 she starts in on her bad mouthing again that continued on from there.
So when will NEW results come out? Don't know. She could not answer GADH questions on the circuit when he started building one back in EF.com forum before she was banned. So he went into the Mosfet Heater Thread to get his questions answered there by the guys. He is still working on it and so far no positive results but he at least posts what results he is getting.
I believe 2 people expressed interest in the very beginning of this thread in building the circuit and I don't know why they didn't carry on through? Maybe no help from Rosemary? Her interest is only in her thesis? Maybe if they are still reading here they can tell us why?

 
J.

Guys.  I've just had word that even Stefan wants clarity on the patent postion.  I am really staggered that this simple fact is still not understood.

I'll try this again as clearly there's a need.  To cover this I need to cover some history.  I developed a magnetic field model.  In terms of this model it seemed that electric current was simply a magnetic field effect.  The indications were electric current could simply be generated in any inductive or conductive material.  I knew this was possibly a controversial take.  I needed to prove this.  I did this by that apparent recycling of a current back to its supply.  If more energy was dissipated than delivered then current was NOT recycled or 'stored' but REGENERATED.  That would point to an alternate energy supply.  My thesis suggests that the circuit components themselves hold that extra energy.  I was able to prove this.  But academics would not come to the party to evaluate the experiment.  However.  Industry - hands on engineers - big and small companies - ALL - were very interested.  No-one cared two hoots for the thinking that required this clear over unity result.  They only wanted that experiment. 

I'm not the brightest button in the box - but even I could see where that interest was pointing.  I have NEVER given a 'black box' demonstration.  I EXPOSED the circuit.  Therefore I HAD to protect it from all that obsessive interest and all those greedy glints that were evident EVERYWHERE.  I needed to patent that circuit lest anyone other than me zap it.  I took really good legal counsel and was advised as follows.  'If you patent the device - BUT DO NOT REGISTER IT - then it is deemed to have been put in the public domain'.  Intellectual property that is put into the public domain is considered UNPATENTABLE.  Therefore would I NOT ONLY manage to make the knowledge public - but no COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL OR CONGLOMORATE OR CORPORATION would be able to zap all that control of all that potential energy.

To the best of my knowledge there is ABSOLUTELY NO REGISTERED PATENT - and in the final thrust of these applications I also was privileged to use the very best of legal counsel to ensure that the most - if not all - these methods of getting this extra energy - would be entirely covered.  I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN SECURING ANY KIND OF ROYALTIES FROM THIS TECHNOLOGY OR ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT I MAY UNCOVER.  I am not even tempted.  I would be sorry to find any such association with capitalising on that potential abundance - that I see very clearly - ever being owned by anyone.  I would consider it a gross abuse of a God Given benefit.  And again.  My ONLY interest is to advance those insights.  It's really, really lonely knowing about all this and simply not being able to explain that thesis better.  But I'm working on it.  That's where the real fascination lies.  Trust me.  These applications that we've managed thus far - are REALLY REALLY BORING.

Regards,
Rosemary

and btw.  The blog that Glen posted - that was put there by my brilliant son.  But he - like me - loosely and OFTEN referred to PATENT where we should have referred to PATENT APPLICATION or better still - UNREGISTERED PATENT.  The concept has so little interest for either of us that the existence of the PATENT was often referred to lest anyone think they can steal it.  We should have referred to the existence of an UNREGISTERED PATENT - which would have been more accurate.

edited

@Truthbeknown.  It seems that you've managed to reach the dizzy heights of more than a 'one liner'.  You remind me of a certain cat lady who moved her bulk around various forums with all the stealth of a hippopotamus in the grips of a gravity fall.  The brevity of those comments were required to compensate for her enormous efforts to resist all that downward pull around all that voluminous bulk.  LOL.  Certainly there are echoes and echoes of 'super troll' written in that post of yours.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that Dr Dark Lee Menacineg was lurking there in those dusty corridors of your mind.  I rather thought you, youself could only manage to marshall one thought at a time.  Anyway.  There's no telling what heights of verbosity can be managed with the help of a ghost writer.  And may I applaud your ponderous efforts - yet again - to change the subject.

And more to the point - let me indulge you with a reply.  Gad is NOT a member of this forum.  Nor does he contribute to this thread.  And I believe he's been rather superbly misdirected in his stalwart efforts by Harvey.  Unfortunately Harvey has now tried to make this a 'common cause'.  This need to guide Gad to the required resonance.  In as much as Gad will then refer back to Harvey - then I will possibly find myself in the middle of a conversation that I would really rather do without.  Should Gad wish to read here - then I have covered his question in multiple posts.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to find the required resonance unless you have the required scope meter.  When this is to hand Gad will find the required resonance as easily as day follows night.  All that is required is that the tuning is done with the scope across the shunt and with reference then to the DC coupled voltage value across that shunt.  When it defaults to zero or thereby - then one's hit a home run.  I have advised him of this in a private email.  And after this post I will NOT enter into a discussion of this with YOU or with HARVEY or with anyone else.

Rosemary

Dr. Darcy Babyola

 
R