Sunday, 12 April 2009

Wheel, Video and paper update

The video I planned to put on youtube was finished and posted but then I withdrew it because it was way too long. I'm shortening it to the recommended maximum of four minutes, which is very difficult to do. How can I cram thirty years research into a four minute video? Well I have to do that or no-one will ever watch it - maybe they won't anyway - we'll see.

The prototype is almost finished. I'm using the same old backplate as I have for the last couple of years. This is the disc I use to fix everything on to. It has its own support frame and is balanced and spins easily. It's so full of holes it's getting quite fragile, but it's made of MDF (medium density fibreboard) which is useful as it's easy to drill and I have found it the most practical medium for the purpose. If this model works I'll produce a nicer looking version to display to the public. I have kept all the old backplates from several years ago, out of sentiment, but really they only tell of the number of failed attempts I have made and don't give away any clues as to the various designs I've tested over the years.

The mechanisms are finished and most of them are attached to the backplate so it won't be long before I'll know if this is a runner. There is one modification I reserve to test if this model doesn't work, and it is based on an ambiguous statement by Bessler, which can be read in three or four different ways. As far as I know I'm the only person who is aware that this comment by Bessler can be read in this particular way, although there is plenty of discussion about the ambiguity of it. This is because I'm aware of something I discovered from Bessler's codes and which I haven't discussed with anyone to date. My indecision about which method to use stems from my knowledge of the various possible interpretations of Bessler's ambiguous remark and in my opinion his comment is connected with this encoded information, but it might not be, in which case the second version I have reserved will be tested.

I picked this particular understanding of the comment in question because it seemed to me that to read it in the obvious way did not make any difference to the way the mechanisms worked, although without seeing the actual mechanisms working it isn't clear that this is so.

Sorry if that has totally confused you!

The paper I have written and intend to post to my friend the American scientist for peer review will be sent if these two models fail; and the book will be published as soon after as I can manage.

Finally thank you to Lucius Anneus for reminding about the purpose of this blog.

JC

1 comment:

  1. John thanks to keep us up to date, we wish you the very best in these to new attempts and that you be "the best man that succeed" we will be waiting for the new put in youtube of your video, and perhaps you could share with us the Bessler's ambiguous statement you are interpreting now.
    Lucius Anneus

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Wheel, odd numbers and the Pyramids.

You might think there cannot be any connection of interest to us, between Bessler’s wheel and the pyramids, but I will explained. As many...