I can see an end to all these years of research - I always was an incurable optimist! I have received a signed non-disclosure agreement from my American professor contact, and I have counter-signed it and returned a copy, so all that remains is for me to finalise my paper and send it to him. I am extraordinarily excited at the prospect that at last someone with intellectual 'clout' (as we say here) will read it and decide what to do about it. I am so certain that the principle I have described is correct and that it is the only explanation for Bessler's wheel, that I am beside myself! Just what does that mean? It doesn't matter - it describes my mood perfectly.
What if he dismisses my theory as garbage? Perish the thought!
In the mean time I'm still grabbing the occasional opportunity to work to finish my wheel.
I have resurrected my facebook account to see if it appeals to me more than before. I also used to have a twitter account but I couldn't see the point of that and shelved it, and I doubt I will ever bother with that again. But then I didn't think I'd start up my facebook again - so never say never!
JC
Congratulations, John! Please be so kind to let us know what's the verdict? I can't wait to hear it. I really feel that you are right on the money, but it's always good to have an unbiased, open and experienced mind have a fresh look at it. Like I said before, incurable optimists are exactly what we need and are the only ones that ever brought civilization forward. The pessimists (and/or pathological skeptics) have not accomplished anything, ever, except causing chronic headaches for themselves and others. Speaking of pathological skeptics...isn't it funny, that now that you have done exactly as you promised, that there's no nasty anonymous comments about "empty promises" anymore? They're busy elsewhere, I guess... :-)
ReplyDeleteI hope you've pinpointed the underlying physical principle, because the professor will do so!
ReplyDeleteWhere does that leave you?!
Yes I have described the underlying principle, anon. It is for that reason that I have so much confidence. In fact the paper goes into great detail about the principle and at this stage does not describe the mechanisms in much detail, but just describes what they have to achieve. I shall send him those details if he agrees with the principle.
ReplyDeleteJC
John sometimes you say this and sometimes you say that. For how long have you known about how to do it and have your builds over the past many months all been on this idea or have they been different?
ReplyDeleteI have known the principle for a long time, at least a year, I'd say. The mechanism which carries out the movements required, according to that principle, have been harder to design, but I had help from Bessler, although I didn't always recognise it until I'd already solved it. The design is not difficult to make, but getting sufficient movement at the right time is. Over the last month I have only been working on the same build, in fact it has been the same one since some time last year.
ReplyDeleteJC
John can you be playing with us your still saying different things. when you first started this blog you already said you knew how the principle works. Okay so then things change and now you do know is that right? now you end your statement with Over the last month I have only been working on the same build, in fact it has been the same one since some time last year.
ReplyDeleteIt's confusing like a lot of your statements are. Is it only been a month or of several months to back to 2009?
added, from the first part above when you first started this blog you already said it was over a year since you knew of the principle.
ReplyDeleteIf it's sufficiant movement can you add more mechanisms?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Anon - it seems perfectly clear to me.
ReplyDeleteI don't know which Anon is which, or if you are all the same guy, but I've said many times, I am using five mechanisms; I don't need more.
JC