OK, just to continue comments on a new page to save making the page any longer! Some people have assumed that I used computer aided design software in my work to reconstruct Bessler's wheel and on discovering that I don't, the very reasonable question raised - why not? It was further commented that you can get immensely powerful CAD/CAM programs for free, and that you don't need much power to design Bessler's wheel. I have used this kind of software in the past and found that it does require a more powerful computer than mine is (it kept freezing) but also it does not do the job and I'll explain why.
I have always had a hands-on approach to this problem because I find that having the pieces in my hands can show me more effectively than all the fancy software can, how minor alterations to length, angle, weight and position can produce different results/reactions. What do I mean by hands-on? It means that I need active participation as opposed to the theoretical approach of computer software. Without a hands-on approach I don't get the feedback necessary to this kind of research. It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC. In my experience you have to input each variation of angle, length, weight or position and run the test but the results are not always informative and a hands-on test will suggest other possibilities not recognisable in a software run. You cannot imagine every possible variation and just input it - without the pieces in your hand and arranged and rearranged on the work bench you simply will miss opportunities that occur to you as you manipulate them.
Only those who routinely use hands-on building practice will understand my point of view and I suspect that those who favour the CAD/CAM approach wil make the counter argumenty equally effectively, nevertheless that is how I work and although it takes much longer than using computer aided design it will, in my opinion, win out in the end.
JC
I have always had a hands-on approach to this problem because I find that having the pieces in my hands can show me more effectively than all the fancy software can, how minor alterations to length, angle, weight and position can produce different results/reactions. What do I mean by hands-on? It means that I need active participation as opposed to the theoretical approach of computer software. Without a hands-on approach I don't get the feedback necessary to this kind of research. It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC. In my experience you have to input each variation of angle, length, weight or position and run the test but the results are not always informative and a hands-on test will suggest other possibilities not recognisable in a software run. You cannot imagine every possible variation and just input it - without the pieces in your hand and arranged and rearranged on the work bench you simply will miss opportunities that occur to you as you manipulate them.
Only those who routinely use hands-on building practice will understand my point of view and I suspect that those who favour the CAD/CAM approach wil make the counter argumenty equally effectively, nevertheless that is how I work and although it takes much longer than using computer aided design it will, in my opinion, win out in the end.
JC
Gospel truth!
ReplyDeleteIf John loses umlauts whilst using word processing software, I imagine he'd open up a black hole under London if he attempted to use CAE software!
ReplyDeleteYes John you are right! There's nothing to beat the hands on practical experiment,provided it is the result of a crystalisation of an idea in your mind. Then you go with your gut.
ReplyDeleteAfter all,scientists worked out mathematically before hand that it was impossible for heavier than aircraft to fly. Of coarse you know what happened!
It has to be one or the other?
ReplyDeleteNo, one could use both methods. You could for instance, run the successful hands-on design through the software to try to improve its performance but generally only once you have a runner.
ReplyDeleteJC
Forgive me if I'm wrong John but I thought the research was all over and you knew how to build it? So why not use a cad program to draft it out better?
ReplyDeleteI don't have a cad program and anyway I don't need to make it better, I just need to make a PoP wheel.
ReplyDeleteJC
"It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC."
ReplyDeleteNo, sure it isn't.
That is absolute rubbish. What do you think EVERYBODY else on Earth uses to design mechanical things with? CAD/CAM.
We now have simulation software which will simulate any mechanical design you put into it, with gravity, friction, inertia, etc. all modelled.
No need to make models.
Your post today smacks of more excuse making, it's just getting ridiculous.
Your PC can't cope with CAD programs? Seriously?
"I have used this kind of software in the past and found that it does require a more powerful computer than mine is (it kept freezing)"
- then that is obviously a problem with your Windows installation... nothing to do with the software which hundreds of thousands of people use on a daily basis, to design everything from pens to space rockets...
More cop outs.
If you had the secret you would be able to produce a CAD model of it, which worked in a simulation program. Since it's a very simple design (or at least, should be).
Trevor's comment is typical of the 'unable to face reality' type that frequents this blog:
"Yes John you are right! There's nothing to beat the hands on practical experiment,provided it is the result of a crystalisation of an idea in your mind. Then you go with your gut.
After all,scientists worked out mathematically before hand that it was impossible for heavier than aircraft to fly. Of coarse you know what happened!"
So many logical fallacies in one paragraph...
Is your argument, Trevor, that because a HANDFUL of scientists, hundreds of years ago, weren't very good at working out whether flight was possible or not, that we shouldn't be using computers today? That seems to be the (laughable) essence of your argument...
ANYBODY trying to design something, especially something like Bessler's wheel, would be mad NOT to use CAD/CAM, since it allows them to save huge amounts of time. You don't need to manufacture anything until you have a working model on the computer. If you want eight weights and eight arms, you only need to draw one of them, then duplicate it seven times. etc.etc.etc. How anybody can seriously believe that continuously trying to build real parts is better than that, is beyond me.
But the 'believers' will continue to worship whatever their 'master' shows them...
When are you going to publish your answer, John? Sometime this week? Tomorrow, perhaps?
Or maybe next year. Or next century.
(Cue the usual excuses from the 'guardians of the secret': "John is under no obligation to publish" yadda yadda yadda...)
Hello John. I just joined your blog and am enjoying it. Even though I find Bessler's clues infuriatingly vague, I believe it will all make sense once someone creates a working wheel. As for your work and decision to publish, I think you should continue trying to get a working version yourself. If you and your trusted colleagues are only a build away, then you just have to build it! The rest of us can wait. Personally, I thought Bessler's clues fit all my previous ideas perfectly, (and we are talking well over 50 very different designs) but none of them have worked. That's why I believe that more vague clues probably won't give me the one idea that is really required.
ReplyDeleteAs for hands on, yes, I agree that is the way to learn how physics works. Once you understand how it works though, the computer is a great tool for exploring those ideas. While the comment above is harsh, It has a lot of truth. I always start by playing with models and once I have an idea, then I take it my math program see its real plausibility. It is almost magical how the math always works out to zero in my past ideas. Disheartening, but beautiful in its own way.
Anyway, keep up the great work. It is inspiring to all of us.
Sorry Anon.,I am simply saying that with a new project where there are unknown factors. There is insoficient data for a computer to do any kind of reliable projection. Once the puzzle is solved we can evaluate it with a standard formula.I just feel we need to encourage those who are trying. I have been working on the wheel for 2 years and every time I reach a dead end I have to tell myself, don't give up because its been done before. We have to keep going because the world needs this,the time is right. Mark my words it could very well be this year.
ReplyDelete"Sorry Anon.,I am simply saying that with a new project where there are unknown factors. There is insoficient data for a computer to do any kind of reliable projection."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
Why would there be "insoficient (sic) data"? We use computer models because they cost nothing, save huge amounts of time, and allow us to create anything we like, all inside the computer, and can instantly test the mechanism to see if it works or not, without having to build it.
How can building it by hand possibly be better?
Once you have a working computer model, THEN you build it by hand. Nobody else works like this. Anybody designing a bicycle, or a car, or an aeroplane, wouldn't spend thousands of hours on physical models, with constant guesswork, they would use the computer to design what they want, then when they have the final design which is to their liking, they build it.
John is never going to publish his solution, because he knows it doesn't work. Otherwise he would have published it by now, and he would have a working model on a COMPUTER which we could all watch on Youtube right now.
AND I bet his solution isn't so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and build it, having seen it once.
Yes, JC sir is absolutely right. No CAD/CAM or anything of that sort is actually required. We will miss out on various other ideas that we may come across. It is something like using a computer to get the direct meaning of a word instantly instead of by going through the pages of an old fashioned dictionary where we may unwittingly learn the meanings of new unexpected words. CAD/CAM or whatever you might call it, was not used by the pioneers who gave us such things as Electricity or Radio. Remember, you have got to be as unconventional as possible to create an unconventional energy source.
ReplyDeleteThis world is eagerly waiting for the clean, pure & unlimited energy that bessler wheel can provide. To delay now not only amounts to deny but a great betrayal. It can be built this year. But the right forces are not coming together. We all have a clue or two. Even JC sir too has something. But scattered clues are no good. A would be BW inventor is actually torn between the desperation in the present bureaucratic patenting rituals, which is not in favor of an invention of this sort, and the constantly gnawing urge to be the first one. Surrounded by insecurity of this magnitude and the bombardments hailing from so many anons like us, one can just imagine one’s plight.
It doesn't even require one to post a few pictures of the solutions. It can be clearly described in just four lines, provided one knows the actual solution. Just two or three simple hints or a few words can also give away everything. Bessler was always worried about this. And when one knows the actual solution the building of the prototype is quick to follow.
It is wiser to judge whether one is in possession of the actual bessler solution by going through his past revelations and then decide to either wait, aid or to simply seek his assistance.
I think you misunderstand my point anon.When I wrote, "It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC," I meant that I personally don't want to take the time to test every variable through CAD when I can do so on my work bench. You still have to imagine every possible design and input it without getting the instant feedback of manually manipulating different parts. If you were familiar with hands-on working in this kind of research you would understand why I don't use CAD.
ReplyDeleteLet me try to explain it another way. The computer is an idiot because it can't think for itself it can only react to data which has been input. Someone has create a design to input so that it can then run a test. Without the physical feedback it is difficult to imagine every possible scenario so it would be extremely difficult to then input new variable designs. Over the years I have developed a facility which I'm sure many have, wherebye I can visualise the moving parts of a mechanism and predict how it will react. However very often the workbench proves me wrong but in doing so I stumble upon a variation which does work.
There are people who are reading this who will back me up on the experience I have just described, but if you favour CAD then I would suggest that you have not tried hands-on construction and therefore do not know nor understand what I am saying.
No cop outs anon; I have the principle and the design but there are features which I am just getting around which have caused problems. There is little point in producing a CAD model of something which has not been perfected although I can produce one which demonstrates the principle right now.
Your comment about other readers of this blog being 'unable to face reality' might as well apply to you. You ask a question in relation to using CAD 'How anybody can seriously believe that continuously trying to build real parts is better than that, is beyond me,' is self-explanatory to me. I believe you, it is beyond you, anon.
I have answered your other questions and statement more than once on this blog and elsewhere.
JC
You're welcome Mr Umez, I'm pleased to welcome all new readers.
ReplyDeleteJC
Okay, here's what I mean, for the sceptics.I found an important clue in Bessler's book which coulkd help to narrow the search for the solution.
ReplyDeleteHe stated that the perpepetual motion principle was discovered....."the cause of it all being a humble tool which the famous scholars of the day have as yet seen in but an incomplete form." End of page 201 of Das Triumpherende.
If we can work out what this tool was it might help.
Suresh nails it right on the head here: "you have got to be as unconventional as possible to create an unconventional energy source". That's EXACTLY how inventions and progress are made: by thinking out of the box, by doing things in new and unexpected, sometimes even counterintuitive ways. John was also completely right - a computer is a complete and utter idiot until you tell it exactly, painstakingly and flawlessly, what to do. No CAD/CAM program can think FOR you, it (at best) can only visualize what you are trying to tell it. But if you have no permanent design yet, because you are inventing it, remember, the principle of GIGO applies: garbage in, garbage out. If John already had all the clues worked out, and therefore the complete solution, working and all, he could VERIFY (and perhaps perfect) what he already has invented. We are, however, not perfecting already developed and established mechanisms here. Anon does make some points, but makes some false assumptions. Inventing stuff is something completely different from mere (computer aided) engineering. No amount of computer horsepower can think for you.
ReplyDeleteTrevor, that does sound to me like a indeed important clue. So what we need to do is to try to find out what (simple, humble) tools were well established, or at least known, at the time but not perfected yet - or used in a different way. A ratchet mechanism perhaps, or something similar? I wonder what John thinks of this.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like none of you know how computer programs work...
ReplyDeleteThe best way to find the solution to Bessler's Wheel would be to write a program which randomly generates millions of possible 'solutions' and tests then with its own physical models. Within a year it would have found a solution (or THE solution).
Perhaps you should investigate physical modelling software John, I think it's probably come on a bit since the last time you tried the CAD program which was 'freezing' your PC...
So, when do you plan on publishing your solution? Before the end of the decade?
Actually, most of not all of us know exactly how such programs work. In fact I used to help develop them, many moons ago. If it is that simple, Anon, why don't you go ahead, startup your Micro$oft Windows, run your CAD, load the "bessler profile" and make fools of us all? Heck, I am even willing to pay for the hardware if you promise not to post until you have the solution. So, when do you plan on publishing your solution? Before the end of the decade? Deal?
ReplyDeleteNote ,he did link it to "famous scholars of the day."
ReplyDeleteTrevor: clockmakers perhaps, astronomers, mathematicians? What kind of instruments or tools were developed in his day for these disciplines? 's-Gravesande, Leibnitz and Newton were contemporaries.
ReplyDelete...."the cause of it all being a humble tool which the famous scholars of the day have as yet seen in but an incomplete form."
ReplyDeletecould it be gravity?
Suresh, I respectfully disagree. Gravity is purely a force, while a tool is man made. It might be an alchemists scale. The more input we get the more likely we are to hit on it.
ReplyDeleteHi JOHN,
ReplyDeleteI back you up one hundred percent John.I,my self
have many years toolmaking experience,and working
on possibilities,you are right with your point,you
describe above.So in BW case the only possible way
to resolve this aparatura.
Imagination,knowledge.W/O imagination many things
would not existed today, including computers.
My grandfather talked about Bessler.He was born
not far from besslers birthplace and also his grand,grand father year 1752.
John,I have to add little friendly note.
You made me addictive to B/W.
Sorry guys that I deviate from main subject.
ANDRE,SURESH,LustInBLACK etc.Thanks GOD people
like you still exist on this planet.
John, does it have anything to do with angular momentum, such as in a gyroscope, or parametric oscillations?
ReplyDeleteWell, Trevor, you are right that gravity is a (conservative) force. But it can be used, in a open non-equilibrium system, which this is, to assist. That doesn't violate the hallowed laws of thermodynamics, which do not necessarily apply in a open system. Angular momentum in the context of precession effects could be used for torque storage (lift of weights?). Or a parametric oscillator, such as a overbalanced pendulum, where the output shaft is converted to rotational energy. The gyro precession effects are a bit too advanced, perhaps... maybe the pendulum effects, which were well-documented at Besslers time by Galileo and others. Gravity and momentum would certainly assisted in such a setup. I think the "tool" or instrument might refer to a (overbalanced) pendulum. John, can you say anything about this?
ReplyDeleteThanks Vincent, for the hearty compliments...I promise you that we will ensure Bessler wheel is out by the end of this year...
ReplyDeleteAndre sir....you could be right. the tool or instrument might refer to a (overbalanced)pendulum.
Bessler was basically a clock-maker. Swinging Pendulums were part of big clocks. Bessler could have been inspired by the rhythmic swinging of those pendulums and later appropriately modified them to fit inside his wheel.
It is already understood that eight weights attached to eight levers swing inside the wheel to create what was referred to as the universal momentum by Bessler.
By their constant swinging, landing on the farther side torque is created making the wheel to rotate
So are we right in concluding that the tool described by Trevor is none other than the pendulum?
But pendulums were known to even commtoners at that time. That is why I had stated it as Gravity as it had been just discovered by Newton and known to scholars.
I hope I have spurred some more lively debate.This is what stimulates a flow of new ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd still John hasn't published his solution, even though he said we would, over a week ago, and last year said he would publish before the end of LAST YEAR...
ReplyDeleteKeep up John, I for one as many others look forward for whatever you come up. Becouse in my case you brought my interest and belief that gravity wheels are true by your extensive work on Bessler history part.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Martin
Briefly because this comment page is getting longer by the hour!
ReplyDeleteI think the humble tool either refers to Bessler himself, or the use of a weight. I don't think Bessler is being as specific as suggesting a pendulum.
Andre thanks for your support, in fact thanks for all those who have offered encouragment, I hope you'll understand when I say I don't want to discuss anything about my own construction at this time.
And to those who seem to be generally pissed off with me, I apologise for getting my estimates so badly wrong, but it won't be long now.
JC
Well what ever it was,Bessler considered it secret enough not to name it.This one thing I do know,when the wheel will turn this year lets hope the winner will be received in a more appropriate manner than Bessler was.
ReplyDeleteCorrection, the wheel will turn this month of May.Lets hope it will be well received!
ReplyDeleteThe wheel won't turn this month of May.
ReplyDeleteAndre - I don't know much about programming computers, but I do know that the best way to find the solution is exactly what I suggested: write a program which makes up millions of possible solutions, and tests them, until it finds one which works.
John is never going to publish his solution, because his solution doesn't work.
i.e. lack of publication = non-working solution.
I believe that Bessler's wheel worked. I don't believe John has the solution. Simple.
"it won't be long now".
That's what you said before last Christmas!
Why even say you have a solution if you are never going to publish it?
Anon could be right...it may not turn out in May but most probably by this year end after JC sir's PoP is scrutinized by others. If even JC sir's design is 50 percent closer to the real thing we can contribute our clues and work out the rest. Somehow, our goal should be to ensure that it is solved within this year itself.
ReplyDeleteWhat is actually required is intuitive clues and not CAD output.
As I often stated earlier, there is only one mechanism and that is bessler's design that is going to work. 50 percent is already known now. That is 8 levers with 8 weights inside the outer cover circling like planets around the large axle. We need to work on these lines. Please note, 90 percent of bessler’s secret is in the lever-weight design…
Why do we keep indulging in just more and more of JC's bullshit??
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling that even if I publish a working wheel demonstraion on a glass table, there will be someone out there that says it's a fake. Now I understand what Bessler went through.
ReplyDeleteAnon 04:24...we keep indulging because JC sir has carried out a thorough reseach on Bessler Phenomenon. He has kindled and rekindled the thoughts of many on this subject. His convinction that Bessler was genuine is very much correct. He has some vital clue. He has started this blog so that it benefits all. He has compiled many books on the subject. He answers many questions on the topic. Even if we can't build the wheel it is nice to indulge in his interpretations, promises and assurances as otherwise, the topic could get lost for another 300 years....
ReplyDeleteYes Trevor....but now the time is ripe and the world will not treat it the it treated bessler. after building the wheel we must involve the media first....
ReplyDeleteYou know Suresh, I think John is right! The humble tool is nothing more than a weight. The secret is the way it was used.
ReplyDeleteReferring to your comment to involve the media,how does one involve the media and at the same time not leaving yourself exposed to the energy conglomerates who would like to bump you off because you are a threat to their markets.Never mind the remuneration.This seems to be a bigger problem than building the wheel...look how Bessler fared.
ReplyDeleteThings are different now, Trevor..Only the media is going to help it spread and popularise. Did you not hear about Cold fusion case...it was the media that created so much sensation about it.
ReplyDeleteand let me tell you something else...if it is destined in one's fate that he would build the wheel he would by any means...no energy conglomerate is going to bump him off...
Regarding the humble tool it could be the weight also...This bessler wheel works on the principle of weight. But there is no such thing as weight. It is caused by Gravity ultimately. If there is no gravity there is no weight. So gravity is the cause of it all....it could also be the bessler ball bearing...
By weight I mean mass or mass enertia which is constant throughout space.Sorry I will be more explicit in future.
ReplyDelete“I just joined your blog and am enjoying it. Even though I find Bessler's clues infuriatingly vague, I believe it will all make sense once someone creates a working wheel.”
ReplyDeleteMr. Umez, In fact, Bessler’s clues aren’t actually infuriatingly vague…
Initially, they may appear so, but when seen with discerning eyes, as explained by bessler, one will really be surprised to find a moment or motion in it.
When simple clues are associated the entire picture of the internal mechanism starts to form. And one will be able to create a working wheel once the meanings of these clues occur to him. The poem offers hell a lot of clues, the 141 pictures are also valuable but more so after the basic internal structure is formed in one’s mind. It is really quite simple and natural and you don’t require computer simulations at all.
What is required is help from the God, as stated by Bessler, through intuitions ofcourse, simplicity in thinking, dedication, unconventional ways, belief in God’s creation, common sense, sincere compassion to help others and improve the world in general, soul realization and lots and lots of good luck…
There is something that has been worrying me for some time and that is; Our use of the word perpetual motion is a misnomer.! There is a definition that states that it is the property of all mass....(High school science).Perpetual motion has always exsisted in space. Don't you think it should be termed...Perpetual engine, because an engine produces power to do work regardless of friction.? I am totally aghast by the patent office refusal to patent Perpetual motion machines because none of them are proven to work and because they think it contradicts the law of thermodynamics...which it doesn't. The need to change their mindset especially about the terminology to begin with.
ReplyDeleteGravity Mill would be more appropriate. This matches with the other term Wind mill, etc.,
ReplyDeletePatent office is right.. PMMs are not possible. But a working Gravity powered wheel should convince the Patent office.
As I had stated earlier, the Media coverage will prompt the patent office to accept the new renewable source of energy.
Right now we are trying to place the cart before the horse...Let us think of crossing the bridge when we approach it but now we should concentrate on building the wheel successfully.
Are we closer to the reality or are we still in the dark. What is the progress we have made so far. Will it take up more research.
Suresh, beware the trap of chasing metaphors. They only reflect what you already know or believe. Working with physical models and using computer tools help you learn what you don't already know, which is what one really needs to figure out a working wheel. While not as romantic as divine intervention, it is the method I am pursuing.
ReplyDeleteFear not,I have discovered the priciple in gravitational physics that scientists have tripped over for so long.I can produce a working wheel that does not conflict with the law of thermodynamics.
ReplyDeleteMr. Umez/Trevor...Both of you are Right, i agree with you..
ReplyDeleteYou get more satisfaction when you invent with your brains rather than by using CAD. Tell me, if it was so easy why then 300 years have elapsed. I think some people have already tried it out.
now we have already worked out more than 70 percent of the secret. There is something unconventional about this invention. It is better to go the natural way....
Trevor...give us some indirect idea about your success. I want to tell you something.. i have also researched on Bessler wheel for more than 20 years and have understood it to some extent. If I can get a chance to look into anybody's secret design I can immediately tell if it is going to work or not. i just need an indirect hint not complete view...
That's a long time.I am 68 and I have only worked on the wheel for 2 years.When I was 10 yrs.I read about the wheel in a book and wished I could solve it. It fascinated me because I have always played with clock wheels since I was 5yrs.Then I put it on the backburner because school science taught us that it was impossible to accomplish because it contradicts with Newtons laws of motion.
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you there is nothing spiritual or excotic about it.It purely works on gravitation and primed by gravity. As soon as I complete a presentable working model,(covered of course), I will go on the media and present it to the world because it is sorely needed.
Trevor..Good..This year is our deadline...if JC sir can complete it then it's ok...otherwise we can always pool our knowledge. We are capable...
ReplyDeleteTell me why 300 years have elapsed for a simple invention of this sort?
As Bessler said,It takes a very mechanical mind and even then, you can not do it with the wheel in front of you,it creates a mental block. You have to visualise it in your mind while you are relaxing.Now in hindsight it all looks so beautifully simple. I was rebuffed today by a patent attorney. As soon as I mentioned perpetual motion he told me it conflicts with the law of thermodynamics, I am wasting his time and refused to listen.I tell you, the rejection was such a shock it took me a while to recover. Then I went over his head to the big guy, I got a much better reception.He told me he would be keen to see the table model wheel if it was working.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, Trevor, the very name of PM brings rejection..So we should never mention it as perpetual motion to anyone. This must be one of the main reasons for 300 years delay. But I am sure the media publicity will awaken all the concerned and in future we need not face what Bessler faced..By the way, what is your deadline...Are you planning to start the building of the wheel after JC sir comes out with his results ? Because we may get lot of clues and help...
ReplyDeleteSo has John been knighted now?
ReplyDeleteWe need to wait and see anon...Even Bessler has not been knighted. There could be some difficulties or JC sir could be finalising his report..
ReplyDeleteJC sir will publish his results after some delay maybe. This could be because of still working on the proto type. His results will definitely make our future attempts easier. So the wait would be worth...
If he had been nighted he'd become Sir JC sir!
ReplyDeleteTrevor said:
ReplyDelete"I get the feeling that even if I publish a working wheel demonstraion on a glass table, there will be someone out there that says it's a fake. Now I understand what Bessler went through."
Really? You understand what Bessler went through, because "you get the feeling"? So what if somebody says it's a fake - if it works, and people can reproduce it, it won't be a fake, so what are you talking about?
"Referring to your comment to involve the media,how does one involve the media and at the same time not leaving yourself exposed to the energy conglomerates who would like to bump you off because you are a threat to their markets."
Duh. By revealing the secret online, tens of millions of people will know what it is within 24 hours. So what would be the purpose of bumping off the inventor, when the genie is out of the bottle? So again, what are you talking about? Making up stupid scenarios to avoid having to reveal your non-working 'solution'...
"Never mind the remuneration.This seems to be a bigger problem than building the wheel...look how Bessler fared. "
Yes, I'm sure that being "bumped off" by oil companies is a bigger problem than building the wheel... sure doesn't look like that, does it, seeing as neither you nor John Collins can build one...
"Fear not,I have discovered the priciple in gravitational physics that scientists have tripped over for so long.I can produce a working wheel that does not conflict with the law of thermodynamics."
Just post up your solution online, with you on a video, showing the solution, then nobody can deny that YOU are the discoverer, and you will be able to name your price for interviews with the media, i.e. become a millionaire overnight.
"As soon as I complete a presentable working model,(covered of course), I will go on the media and present it to the world because it is sorely needed."
I sincerely doubt that you have a working solution.
I also sincerely believe that Bessler DID have a working solution.
Any news on your working wheel then, Trevor?
ReplyDeleteWe are all waiting with baited breath...