Sunday, 9 May 2010

I'll publish and probably be damned.

Wow - my shortest post and it gets the most responses! Thanks for the comments, guys. With the emails I got too, the picture I have in my mind is very mixed and it suggests that what ever I do there will be some for and some against my actions, in which case I might as well do what ever I want. The only certainty as far as I can see is that the sooner this is out in the open the better. I haven't talked to Pete yet as he is very busy but I have sent him a signed NDA and I await its return. In the meantime I continue to work on my own prototype and I'm finishing off the document I began a while ago which explains everything in detail along with all the clues I found and my interpretation of them. I'm also planning another video which explains in simple terms the principle that drives Bessler's wheel and I'll youtube it when its finished.

I could start a thread on http://besslerwheel.com/ and respond to posts but I want to answer as many possible questions in advance by placing as much information as I can in one place so that I don't have to spend too much time defending my argument. For that reason I won't prejudice my stance by posting a brief summary of my principle there but will try to get it right first time and post at my leisure. That doesn't mean I won't respond to any comments that evetually appear - I just want to get my point across as clearly as I can.

JC

61 comments:

  1. Hi,JOHN
    I did study all five books,excellent work,and I think that I have find some clues,and of course it could be wrong.The problem in my case, is,that it
    leads to different direction.
    I hope that you are right with your findings,and wish you achievement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wow, knowing how sure you are about this that is a huge declaration of selflessness. I hope you're right too. Of course I just doubt it. If there is actually something here to discover, and even a part of your contribution is valid, then you will have done your part. In fact, you've done a significant thing in producing very intriguing historical accounts even if Bessler was a fraud. The story is still incredible. If you do have a big piece of an actual discovery we are at the mercy of the next person with the next piece. If you have 100% then someone will manage to construct it. Otherwise, at least your mind will be put to rest.

    I was happy to see this.
    - Wind

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great decision, John - out in the open will at the very least guarantee that your work and research will be widely scrutinized and not lost to he mists of time. Don't forget to get copies of your document(s) in several (trusted) places. Since you are going open source, may I suggest you contact Sterling D. Allan (sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com) as well? This will give you enormous exposure. He'll probably interview you as well. If you agree, as I said before, I'd be happy to try replicate your work. is there a way to contact you by email? Again, my hat off to you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I look forward to reading your [i]Magnum Opus[/i].

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some good posts wind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John,

    I look forward to your
    "maschinen patesco".

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you finaly tell everybody, should we all sign NDAs?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ha ha - very funny! Unless of course it stands for No Detectable Activity? I prefer No Discussions Allowed.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi John,

    I think you are on the right track by going public with this, not just for the "How the hell does it work?" aspect that everone is intrigued by, but all the professional builders can then jump on the job. I know only too well what it's like to try and build fine-tuned gear with a lump hammer and crow-bar. (Not that I'm saying these are the tools you used of course! Or for that matter what I've used). So you have my full support on this.

    JohnnyD

    ReplyDelete
  10. "His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."
    p. 108 Perpetual Motion.

    John Collins said:
    "The design is easy to understand and I'm sure a carpenter's boy could replicate after having seen inside my wheel but would he understand how it worked if it was stationary? It's hard to explain without giving anything away but the appearance is simple but his understanding might be misconstrued without seeing it in motion."
    "I am about to begin work with an engineer to complete this project so hopefully results will appear soon."

    That was two weeks ago.
    I would imagine that the principle inside Bessler's wheel was very easy to understand, when the wheel was stationary as well as in motion, otherwise Bessler wouldn't have been so afraid of people seeing inside the wheel.

    If you do publish your solution, John, I will be very surprised indeed.

    I believe that Bessler's wheel really worked. I don't think he could have powered it externally, nor fooled so many of the most intelligent men in the world, of his time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And by the way, why did you say "my shortest post and it gets the most responses" when this post only had 9 comments when I added mine? You have posts with 46 comments, further down this page!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Actually,If we could replicate Bessler's Wheel
    now it would look really very simple, whether it is while moving or when it is in a motionless state. The problem is, Till now, we have not been able to perceive the actual artful design that bessler had come up with. Another point is that when we do come up with the Bessler's actual mechanism it wouldn't be difficult at all to build it. And still another point worth noting is that there is no place in this world where you can find a similar design, whether in any fabric, mechanical device, architecture, natural scenery, animal design, or anywhere else in the universe, for that matter. That is why it is a very unique design, and also, that is why it is not so easy to think of by a common man under normal circumstances. But that doesn't mean that no one can reinvent it, it requires some sincere dedication with no much commercial interests. Orignal inventions entered this world because of very original thinkers who existed before. This BW design or the movement of the weights inside the wheel can be somewhat compared to the motion of the planets around the Sun. This invention is so simple that even Newton could not comprehend. If someone thinks that he has the idea and is not able to show us a working model then it simply means that he has ultimately failed like numerous others and is just trying to get something out of nothing, as stated by Newton.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If only our civilisation was like in the movie Star Trek.. That's my wish..

    I believe PM could change everything..

    Let's loose those double digit IQ people, let's evolve, let's change greediness into desire to advance..

    If only we kept what makes us so great and different than an animal..

    I'm so disappointed in what we've become.. I hope we will receive punishment for wasting such a great gift..

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I hope we will receive punishment for wasting such a great gift.. "
    You would need to stop hoping for the rest of us, sigh!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Changing greediness into desire to advance....It is easier said than done...It is as difficult as inventing the BW itself. there is no escape from greediness. Any potential BW inventor is gradually bound to become greedy when he thinks that he is at the verge of making an invention. He becomes proud at first. He thinks he is the chosen one. Greed starts here as he looks down on others. He forgets that the initial intuitions of the invention were a result of his compassion for others, to improve the world, etc., then ultimately the fruits of his research gets out of his reach. The good nature of a person plays a great role here. Everybody is not a noble person. It pays to find out the nature of a person or his character in advance. Numerology/Astrology can help us here. We can also find out if there is any outstanding discovery in the life of a would be BW inventor, in advance through these divination methods. Certain things are pre-destined. To actually succeed in this invention and to keep a check on our behaviour it really hepls to get clues from the occult or the spritual. Just tell me why no one is able to come up with this since Bessler times. Tell me why bessler couldn't get the fruits of his life time efforts. Eventhough, every thing seems to go well and suddenly there is an accident or something goes wrong upsetting the whole plans. Why tragic things happen. Why some have good life while some just live miserably. Why do they say that what man proposes, God disposes. The complete name and the actual date of birth of an individual can reveal a lot. Try this and you will be amazed. You will easily come to know what is on the cards. One can come to know if he can succeed in the BW effort, too...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lust In Psychedelic Paisley; watch out because you’re not too far from being first in line in your double digit IQ euthenics program.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, what exactly is STFU ?? I guess it must be some vulgar thing....any way everyone ought to know it, for general knowledge purpose...

    ReplyDelete
  18. It stands for "could you kindly refrain from speaking"! Or "Simply Talking is Fruitfully Useless" LOL and :-(

    ReplyDelete
  19. I never thought it would be so polite...LOL & :-( ??? This is vulgar, isn't it ?

    I think all these must be necessary to keep the anons under control, at times....

    We should purely use this site for BW development. We should ensure that BW is built this year, by all means. But sometimes, I really wonder why anons act the way they do..do they also have a mission? Are they seriously persuing BW or are they here to just enjoy the fun of our failure. There are also some good anons present we can see. Well, who they really are and why exactly they oppose anything connected with BW sometimes. Why don't they disclose their identities. Why do they use abbreviations to abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is it really necessary to break the bessler codes to solve the bessler wheel mystery?

    Well, I don't think it is...

    Too many clues are there in bessler's description of the wheel motion, the poem, etc already. We are just complicating the already complicated bessler story by talking of such things as bessler's secret codes. As a matter of fact, we just don't have to know anything about cracking the codes.

    It is fact that the wheel mechanism is very simple. Natural thinking or imagining is required. The weight reaches the 6 o clock position automatically. From there onwards we have to think of some way how the wt can be lifted using minimum energy. This way we have to work out the motion. That is all there is to it...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hehe..

    What is funny about those anon people, Suresh, is that they laugh about us, yet, they are here on a Bessler Blog..

    Imagine hating Britney Spears, but secretly visiting her blog and telling her she is stupid..

    I bet those anons are extremely jealous that some people in this world are able to use their brain, to accomplish one of the greatest Quest of humankind.. The quest for unlimited and free eternal energy..

    So I'll say it again and again, STFU Anons! lol..

    ReplyDelete
  22. “are able to use their brain, to accomplish one of the greatest Quest of humankind..”

    I agree with you there, if that involves mating with that butt ugly wife of yours, which takes some imagination to get through. Say can’t we somehow add that to your euthenics program.

    I'm so disappointed in what you have become..

    ReplyDelete
  23. Suresh, see what I meant.. This is all they can provide..

    8] LOL

    ReplyDelete
  24. No God will provide for you; a nice little delusional seat next to Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Suresh questioned the necessity of breaking Bessler's codes...and concluded that it wasn't. I agree it could be solved without them, but my experience is that it helps and since Bessler spent so long working on the subject to the almost complete exclusion of anything else in order to solve it, I doubt that we could achieve it unaided because we cannot afford the luxury of devoting all day every day to the study of it.

    I'm sure that when the secret is revealed everyone will say it waa so simple we didn't need the clues, but it's a bit like one of those magic tricks that you simply cannot understand how they did it, and then when the secret is explained it's almost disappointingly obvious.

    So even though there are many clues by Bessler which don't seem to help us, the fact is they do help. I could never have got the position I'm in without them.

    Suresh, you make some sensible comments but beware of making false assumptions.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are two possibilities:
    1) John will never publish his solution, or
    2) John will publish it and nobody will be able to get it to work.

    It isn't Bessler's solution, because it is 'sticking' at a certain point. Bessler's wheel had so much power that there is no way this could have been a problem.
    The endless delays in publishing prove my point. I am so confident of this fact that I forget to visit this blog most days, because I don't expect the 'solution' to appear any time soon...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I quite agree with you sir, but I am afraid of the possibility of us straying away from the right course while trying to follow the secret clues. Already we find sufficient direct clues in many writings which, if pursued, can easily lead us to victory. Like somebody said the other day, it is like the pentagram which is not of much help.

    Why 300 years have elapsed still bogs me.. We are not able to predict how many more years all this could take. Can we really afford this delay. This is the right time. In the meanwhile, if some other energy making technology comes up bessler wheel would loose all its charm. We should form a core team with all the necessary NDAs and brainstorm the issue. This way success would be ours soon. I am sorry, I don't intend to hurt anyone's sentiments. But everything helps. Even the comments made by anons sometimes prove useful.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi,JOHN how big is your prototype?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This one's two foot in diameter and about two inches in depth, Vincent. They're getting smaller!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi John, Be encouraged that the wheel will come into existance soon simply because it has been done before. It won't be long now! By the way has anybody noticed that MT22 has been incorrectly drawn.The rope is on the wrong side of the pulley. Just some constructive feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes Innitiator,

    this had been noticed before but not discussed extensively. A good observation by you.

    We'll see if this relates somehow to JC's design when he shows us the design.

    ReplyDelete
  32. John I look forward to your anti pasto.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon I look forward for you to STFU!

    ReplyDelete
  34. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way -- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.


    Charles Dickens
    (1812-1870, British novelist)

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think I deserve STFU for talking about Bessler's secret code.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Nonsense, Suresh, you deserve high praise for your genuine dedication and support.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Suresh you deserve to be beaten for having a girls name, and lusty needs to learn the kings english.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon, better having a name than no name..

    Btw, not everybody is american or speaking english, dumb ass!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anyone CHRISTIAN WAGNER'S descendants?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lusty I get that but that's no excuse for livin in english country you half breed frogboy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sorry guys I have been a rude !@#$hole lately to most of you. I guess I need to get a life and grow up. Thanks for tolerating me and my mental deficiencies.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanks, Andre sir.....I feel better now...you are really very kind and understanding too..I would always like to associate you with Karl...

    Well guys (and anons), can you guess how big a bessler wheel should be while attempting to build one?

    The smaller you prefer the more the accuracy it requires. It is better to start with a three feet one like the one that bessler displayed first. We should go for a unidirectional wheel for its utter simplicity. Always ensure that the weights you employ are of sufficient mass and weight and are properly attached to the lever. The levers should not woggle. The main wheel (outer cover) should not be shaken badly by the impact of the weights when they land on each swing. Care should be taken to ensure that the 8 levers are spaced very evenly. The wheel construction should be so sturdy that it performs so well continuously without requiring any parts replacement for a very long time. Ball bearings should be employed liberally.
    Remember, the actual trick lies in how you make the weights on one side go up using minimum possible effort by keeping close to the axle to begin the next cycle...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Still waiting for the alleged 'publication'. It will never happen, John will never publish because he knows it doesn't work, and isn't Bessler's mechanism.

    "His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."
    p. 108 Perpetual Motion.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Remember, the actual trick lies in how you make the weights on one side go up using minimum possible effort by keeping close to the axle to begin the next cycle... "

    Thanks for that gem of genius, Suresh, I had never thought of that... (sarcasm).

    Everybody KNOWS that that is what we are trying to work out, and what Bessler had found the solution to...

    John will never publish his solution, because it doesn't work, and he knows it. All this rubbish for the past six months has proved exactly that. We all know that Bessler's wheel was powerful, and since he built it hundreds of years ago, without the advantage of ball bearings, CAD/CAM, etc. it should be easy to produce a working model today, IF one knows the secret...

    ReplyDelete
  45. "The only certainty as far as I can see is that the sooner this is out in the open the better. I haven't talked to Pete yet as he is very busy but I have sent him a signed NDA and I await its return."

    What difference does what Pete does (whoever he may be) make? Who is he, and why does he have to sign an NDA, if you are about to publish the solution? More smoke and mirrors.

    "I want to answer as many possible questions in advance by placing as much information as I can in one place so that I don't have to spend too much time defending my argument."

    If you had the solution, you wouldn't have to defend anything, it would be obvious...
    "the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."

    See?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes I see. But I know what is in my mind and you don't. Time will tell.

    Pete's a long term correspondent and friend and we have met a few times in the past and because he lives here in the UK and because he has the facilities I need to make this prototype according to my (Bessler's) design, I decided to follow the advice offered on the besslerwheel.com forum to share my knowledge with him.

    I will publish everything but I just wanted to try to obtain proof of principle first with a simple prototype. Faiing that I wanted to get help with it from someone I trust.

    Without proof of principle, the arguments I shall present will be harder to maintain and that is why I need to get everything right first time.

    You might think it's really simple but as I said before, if you look at a working model you may understand how it works but achieving a successful build of that model takes a lot of trial and error and a steep learning curve. If that wasn't true we wouldn't have had to wait nearly three hundred years for it to reappear.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  47. hey Xavier, it's been 6 months...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Suresh, you are a gentleman :)

    Ignore the anons, John. Most - if not all - of them are armchair theorists, and apparently have nothing better to do than to criticize something they don't understand, cannot even fathom, and would upset their narrow mindset or world view. Very sad people. We have always known that you would keep your word and so far you've done exactly as you announced. But no matter what you do, no matter how many time you prove them wrong, the anons will always be ready to ridicule and offend everything and everybody. That's why they are anons - they are cowards who thrive on negativism, deception and misinformation.

    John will keep his word and publish, whether it works or not. I have not the slightest doubt of that. It takes a great man to put so much effort, money, and time into an endeavor like this. It takes even more courage and dedication to publish even it if doesn't work (yet). But even if it works, they, the every-ready anons and noisy negativists, will yell "fraud". If it doesn't work, they will yell "fraud" even harder. That was the case in Besslers time, and it's the same now. These people never change, because they lack the courage, let alone intelligence, to even envision change. Pathetic.

    Go John, and don't let them get to you. You don't need to justify or even explain one iota to them. They won't appreciate or even understand anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  49. AMEN TO THAT ANDRE !

    DOC.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Words fail me.
    John said: "Without proof of principle, the arguments I shall present will be harder to maintain and that is why I need to get everything right first time."
    but we know that: "the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."
    so there will be no difficulty presenting the principle, if you really have it.

    Otherwise, why on Earth do you think that Bessler was so terrified of anybody even catching so much as a glimpse of the inside of the wheel?

    As for Andre's ridiculous diatribe... ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy. "They" will do this, "they" will do that, anything but actually discussing the facts that we have at hand: John claims to have a solution to Bessler's Wheel. We know Bessler's solution was incredibly simple, as the quote above from Karl proves. Therefore if John is unable to simply publish his solution with one or two pictures, it cannot be the solution. If John hasn't already built a working wheel, which he hasn't, even though he has a thousand times better technology to do so with, than Bessler had, his solution doesn't work. The fact that he hasn't already published it proves that he knows it doesn't work, and that it WON'T work.

    I believe Bessler had the solution, Andre. I don't believe John does.
    As for "John will keep his word and publish, WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT" - what a great victory for the world that will be, when it doesn't work!

    I might as well publish any old baloney which I know doesn't work, how does that help anybody?

    The pathetic attacks on 'anons' on these comments are laughable. You are like religious cult members, defending their 'church'...

    If John is concerned about saving the planet by providing a free source of energy, what possible reason could he have for NOT revealing his solution, except that IT DOESN'T WORK?

    Bessler's wheel was not subject to the problems that John's wheel apparently has. How could it keep going for so many weeks, if the mechanism was so delicate and precarious that it had to be 'just right' to get it to work?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Good points anon. But as I said the proof lies in a working wheel and all the theory in the world will not have as much impact as a working device and that is why I am making a last ditch attempt to make it. If that fails publication will follow as night follows day.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  52. "If that fails publication will follow as night follows day."

    The proof does indeed lie in a working wheel, but the solution will be VISIBLE in a few simple pictures, I am sure of that. If your solution isn't immediately obvious to most of the people you show it to, if they don't go "Aha! So THAT'S how he did it! It's so simple!", then it isn't the solution.

    So again you are delaying publication... You didn't say any of the above in your initial post, you didn't say that you were going to publish only if and when your prototype fails...

    How come Bessler could build working wheels with rudimentary hand tools, but you can't build one with CAD/CAM and machinery that is a thousand times better than anything Bessler had?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I haven't got CAD/CAM, but anyway I said, and I quote, ' I continue to work on my own prototype and I'm finishing off the document I began a while ago which explains everything in detail along with all the clues I found and my interpretation of them.'

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anon, Edison built thousands of light bulbs that didn't work properly. Should he haven given up? The newspapers in the early 1900's refused to send even a photographer to the Wright Brothers because everybody knew that it couldn't possibly work. It took YEARS after their flights before the critics were finally silent. Louis Pasteur was ridiculed by the most respected professors for his ridiculous "invisible critters" that made people sick. The list goes on and on and on, of people, working against all odds, working against repeated failure and vicious, hateful ridicule. The ONLY thing, in the end, that has brought forward CHANGE, progress and improvement, were the tinkerers in their garages. Not the professors, not the academics, not the big governments. And certainly not the (anonymous) armchair critics.

    It was the tinkerers. Nobody else. That's why John is absolutely right to persist and keep toiling and trying. Who cares if he has CAD/CAM or not. He's working with ancient clues, not massive parallel supercomputers in a gigabit hypercube network. And I don't care if his solution is complex or not. I, like John, just want to see this to succeed. The world, mankind, needs this.

    Results is what counts. And even failed attempts an give us new, interesting, promising embodiments. Criticizing his every move doesn't get us anywhere, and is only counterproductive. Support and encouragement, on the other hand, does help. Try that for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Who cares if he has CAD/CAM or not. He's working with ancient clues, not massive parallel supercomputers in a gigabit hypercube network. And I don't care if his solution is complex or not. I, like John, just want to see this to succeed. The world, mankind, needs this."

    I care if he's got CAD/CAM, because anybody with an ounce of intelligence would use it, rather than whatever method he has been using up to now. "He's working with ancient clues, not massive parallel supercomputers" - AND? Is that supposed to negate what I wrote? I KNOW he isn't using CAD/CAM, he's just said so. Why not?

    Your entire post is just a head in the sand diatribe. Results are indeed what counts, and John has not got the solution.
    I'm criticising his lack of publication, even though he has been saying that he is going to publish since before the end of 2009...
    Your post is just the same old usual rubbish that we see from all the 'faithful' here.

    Bessler knew the secret. John does not. What on Earth could he be afraid of? If he publishes the solution now, why would it need to be defended? For the hundredth time:
    "the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."

    So it won't need defending, or explanation, just as Bessler's solution needed neither. Anybody who looked inside his wheel would know the secret, it was THAT simple. Therefore - John has not got the solution, and I think you all know it...

    ReplyDelete
  56. And furthermore, not only does John not use CAD/CAM (why not? You can get immensely powerful CAD/CAM programs for free, not that you need much power to design Bessler's wheel), he claimed that he couldn't find anybody to build his prototype!
    You mark my words, IF he publishes, it will be shown, very quickly, to not work, by using a simulation program.

    "the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel..."

    Would you say that accurately describes your solution, John? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Furthermore Andre, your entire post is a strawman argument, and a rather pathetic (and overblown) one at that. Nowhere did I say that John should "give up". Edison didn't openly claim to have a working lightbulb, yet hide what he was actually doing, for years... Neither did the Wright brothers...
    Typical strawman arguments from the 'faithful' flock...

    Why hasn't John just made a couple of pictures of his solution, and posted them up? Bessler's Wheel would have been explained by literally one or two pictures of the mechanism. No need for all these excuses about having to write up a long, complicated explanation.
    It doesn't work, as simple as that. You all know it. I've seen it a hundred times over at the BesslerWheel forum - somebody makes a new post "I've got it" and it turns out that it doesn't work, and they haven't got a working wheel, and were wrong all along...

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon, you miss the point(s) completely. I apologize for my factual statements, I should have known verifiable facts irritate the hell out of you -- debunking rule # 2: "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up". Right? Maybe it helps if you read it again, carefully. Well, no doubt we'll hear again more pearls of negativism, pardon, wisdom, from you when he continues to do exactly as he promised.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Andre, no substantive rebuttals, as expected...
    What facts did you write up? Nothing but ad hominem attacks.

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...