The hot weather has arrived at last, just in time for the Olympics, but sunshine means I have some catching up to do in the garden, however at least the rain gave me an opportunity to do some work on my wheel.
The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. Oddly enough it was the failure of the mechanism to act as I wanted it to do, that led me to the final piece of the puzzle - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time. I should know by now that Bessler habitually used his clues to either contain two ways to access them, or two different clues. I am make an adjustment to the design which will create the movement I've been seeking. I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long.
There is a slight variation to the parts used compared to the last time I described them, but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet.
So there are five mechanisms operating according to the way a swing works or 'kiiking' or parametric oscillation, if you prefer. As I've mentioned before, this concept of using the mechanics of the swing was suggested to me by professor Hal Puthoff as a way forward, some years ago and I subsequently found the idea introduced on the Besslerwheel forum by Scott Ellis way back in 2002, and if I'm proved right, due credit should go to them.
The swing mechanics are only part of the solution and in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months. So the mechanisms are almost all complete and testing should begin within a couple of weeks and any delay is down to getting the final adjustment right. Bessler himself commented that when he 'constructed my greatwork, the 6-ell diameter wheel (the Merseberg wheel). It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.'
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Some random thoughts:
ReplyDelete"... - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time."
I look forward to finally learning what this as yet undefined "clue" might be about which you had your "revelation".
"I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long."
I'm sticking with my BEFORE Christmas of THIS year!
"...but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet."
Wasn't that "basic concept" the previous two weight shifter mechanism you showed on one of your websites and of which you even provided a video? That was, IIRC, previously dismissed as UNworkable. Maybe your "Secret Principle" will actually make a difference with the new, improved version of the wheel. However, I suspect that "your" Secret Principle and the one I am currently pursuing are NOT the SAME!
"...in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months."
Let's hope that the combination of your "Secret Principle" and the new "Extra Ingredient" will finally turn this latest design into a runner!
Two simple questions at this point:
1) Does your model wheel have ALL 5 mechanisms installed on it for testing or are you just basing your evaluation of the COMPLETE wheel's capability upon the performance of a SINGLE mechanism?
2) Are you looking to achieve a single complete wheel rotation or will you be satisfied with a 1/5 wheel rotation?
"Bessler himself commented that...it revolved in either direction, but caused [him] a few headaches before [he] got the mechanism properly adjusted."
I'm convinced that those "headaches" that Bessler suffered from were due to the problems of installing and then carefully adjusting the gravity activated latches on each of the Merseburg wheel's 16 weighted levers so that they would always lock up all 8 of either sub wheel's weights against their rim stops when that particular sub wheel was undergoing retrograde motion. These latches had to be strong, yet quickly and precisely deployed in order to accomplish this within the timespan of only a SINGLE initial push assisted rotation of the wheel's drum.
Bessler probably installed these 16 gravity activated latches LAST and after he had first constructed two one-directional sub wheels and then mounted them "back to back" on the same axle of his giant two-directional wheel. That means he had to deal with the difficulty of having to install and then finally adjust the latches in a rather cramped space that was only about six inches wide for each lever! Presumerably, this gravity latch installation was completely before the sides of the drum were covered with dyed and oiled cloth.
Yes my wheel has all five mechanisms installed for testing, although I have already tested one mechanism which turns the wheel 90 degrees, so that answes to your second question.
DeleteJC
That certainly sounds encouraging. If ONE mechanism powers the wheel through 90 degrees, then one should logically expect 5 mechanisms to be able to "close the loop" or circle in this case and allow it to continuously rotate. However, you might not get the same results when a SINGLE kicking mechanism within the wheel must ALSO simultaneously reset one or more OTHER mechanisms prior to their taking their turns doing the kicking. That resetting process can drain a LOT of energy / mass from a wheel and quickly slow it to a stop.
DeleteIn any event, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you, John. You, like me and every other active mobilist for that matter, needs a success to justify the time and effort you put into this subject over the years. Hopefully, THIS will be your final victory over PM!
In questo gioco John ha distribuito le carte e si รจ tenuto i Jolly.
ReplyDeleteIn this game he has distributed the cards and took the Jokers....hhmmm?
ReplyDeleteI want to run an idea by everyone. The idea of patenting has come up many times and I think the overwhelming consensus is no due to the potential of government seizure and risk to life and limb as well as all the other reasons everyone has already thought of. So how do we make money off the idea and still get recognition, without any risk. Well in my case, I work for a small drug research and development company. What if I took the idea to the company. The company could fight the legal battle. It would provide an additional sense of employment security and well as pay I am sure. Just a thought. I’m not sure if this angle has ever been presented before. Obviously if you are now retired, then that option is gone, but for those of us still working, it may be an option.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous
DeleteYou're living in the past. Patenting is old hat. If you're after riches then fame is the route nowadays. And anyone who can harness the gravitational wind will be the most famous man of the century.
But unless you a dirt poor you are stupid to worry about the money side. The satisfaction of the achievement will bring far more pleasure than anything money could buy.
"So how do we make money off the idea and still get recognition, without any risk."
DeleteJust publish your design OPENLY on the internet. Sooner or later, some desperate for results mobilist out there in PM land will try to build it. IF it actually works, then you will be credited for having originated the design. You will be approached by members of the media for interviews and maybe even for endorsements of other high tech products. I can see it now. "Joe Mobilist, the man who invented the 'gravity twister energy wheel', drives the new Ford 'Perpetua' car". The fee for a few tv commercials could make you financially independent for the rest of your life. The next thing you know, you'll be on talk shows telling about how you came up with the idea. Some publisher will have your story ghost written and available at bookstores worldwide. Next, you'll be invited to parties with other "high profile" celebrities. Who knows, with TV commercial exposure, some agent might decide you have "star potential" and you could wind up starring in movies. Then you could go on to win a Best Actor Academy Award or similar prize from the Cannes Film Festival over in France. Hot, young super models will throw themselves at you and the rest of your life will be one long non-stop party!
All of this beyond the first three sentences of the paragraph above will, of course, become increasingly improbable. But, then again, one never knows. Far stranger things have happened in our world!
John, we are all pulling for you. If you make it, it says we can too. Thanks for everything you do. Rick
ReplyDeleteI second that. For all the work you've put in on the Bessler sage you deserve to be the winner. However, even if you're not your books will be flying of the shelves and you'll be in great demand for book signings. [img]http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif[/img]
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYet again, I thank you for your kind words. I hope it's me, but if not I hope it's someone soon!
ReplyDeleteJC
I look forward to finding out what the missing part of the jigsaw is .
ReplyDeleteI believe in the perpetual swing .
Quote: 'one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months' would that be the springs? ;) Jon
ReplyDeleteThat's a MAJOR step in the "right track" direction!
DeleteCompressed or stretched springs are a VERY efficient way of storing energy / mass which can then be used at some later time to "assist" one's OB PM wheel in getting past its "sticking points". I think this was, in fact, Bessler's "Secret Principle". Only rarely does one even see a PM wheel design that incorporates springs into the action of its weighted levers. This is, consequently, an approach that has not been tried that much and THE area one trying to duplicate Bessler's wheels needs to EXTENSIVELY explore. I'm now almost exclusively focusing my own research into this area and HIGHLY recommend others do likewise.
Remember the "right track" mantra: "No cords and no springs means NO PM!"
Yes Jon, springs. I've always maintained that springs were only used to reduce or control such things as lateral sway, but then I noticed that the two letter 'Rs' used for instance in Bessler's logo, could also be seen as torsion springs. Given Bessler's insistance on the addition of the letter 'R'in his name-play I am now firmly convinced that they play a small but vital part in the action of the mechanism. See my post on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 for a picture of the logo.
ReplyDeleteJC
There was a time when I was quite convinced that the springs Bessler said he "used" in his wheels were only there to hold the levers in line with the drum's radial support members after the weights were removed from the lever ends in order to lighten a wheel for translocation to a different set of upright axle supports. The idea being that this alignment would prevent the many cords within a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's one-directional "sub wheel" (which amounted to 48 cords!) from getting all tangled up with the levers. This "minimalist" use of very light spring tension seemed plausible to me.
DeleteHowever, from actually working with 4:1 models of the Merseburg wheel, I soon realized that the springs were serving ANOTHER purpose in addition to the above. They were ACTIVELY involved in the shifting processes taking place amongst the weighted levers throughout each 45 degree increment of drum rotation! Considering that there were only 8 springs in each one-directional wheel or 1 spring per weighted lever, one might imagine that it would be a simple matter to determine exactly HOW their tension was applied. NOT SO! Bessler did something VERY unique with them which I am hot on the trail of determining at the moment. I've been working on this for months and only making very slow progress: so far I know at least a half dozen spring applications that do NOT work!
"The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. . . ."
ReplyDeleteAnd well it should have, John, given all your dedication and heart spent on this Noble Search. All cheer you on, I am sure!
*************************************************************************************
technoguy26 July 2012 09:28
technoguy26 July 2012 16:45
technoguy26 July 2012 17:08
technoguy27 July 2012 03:06
Possibly, after all, it IS human?!
All the best(s)
James
I'm actually a "cyborg"; that is, half human and half Bessler wheel integrated into a composite whole. The two halves are, like the pendula of the Merseburg wheel, counterpoised against each other. My human half wants me to goof off and just be self-indulgent. My Bessler wheel half, however, wants me to keep working on things 24/7.
DeleteWHEN (or actually IF) I finally manage to solve the Bessler wheel mystery, I think that I will be able to then finally exorcise the Bessler wheel portion of my self and return to being just another 100% lazy, pleasure seeking / pain avoiding human. Not a bad way to finally end one's search for the answer to the mystery of PM wheels. At that time, whenever I get the slightest urge to fly over to Tennessee to view the Asa Jackson wheel and try to talk those controlling access to it into letting me play around with it for awhile, I will just quietyly lay down in a darkened room until the feeling passes. LOL!
JC, I recall mentioning I thought the two letter 'Rs' used were coil springs and were drawn to go behind/infront of the 'leg' of the R, yet I cant find that post now? was it removed or can I just not find it? or am losing my mind lol.
ReplyDeleteI'm a lot 'happier' with any wheel design with springs as it was admitted by Bessler, and once a noise was also reported. If fact I have also postulated in the past that the 'one word that might give it all away' or words to that effect attributed to bessler, is 'springs'.
All power to your elbow
jon
I haven't deleted anything unless it's offensive Jon, so it should be here somewhere.
DeleteOK I've added a search function at the bottom of the page, Jon.
JC
@anon
DeleteLook at the drawing (the O with the reversed Rs) carefully. You may find another meaning in it. Hint ... no springs.
Thanks for the search item, I've found it! whew... not going mad then, its at: http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/my-wheel-update.html posted at 20.04 You can see there we think along similar lines possibly?
DeleteRegards
Jon
I was thinking of writing a book on the life of Johann Bessler .
ReplyDeleteA ficitional story , i would not write the real story because no one would believe that . In the real story a wormhole opens up from the future inside JBs house .
This is a bit OT, but I just saw a tv interview with an author that had the various "myths" about science and scientists as its subject. It was REALLY an "eye opener". Here's some of the interesting points that were made:
ReplyDelete- About 20% of all scientists USE drugs and claim it "helps" them with their scientific research! (And these are the SAME people telling us mobilists that an OB PM gravity wheel is impossible!!! LOL!)
- In a recent anonymous survey, 30% of all scientists admitted to FAKING results so that they could get research grants!
- Since most scientists don't get rich off of their research, their priority becomes getting famous. Apparenty, in the quest to become as famous as possible, the world of academic science is filled with petty jealousies and "winner take all" rivalries. This shows that the public image of being cool, detached, and objective is really just a flimsy fascade that scientists project for image purposes.
There was even a discussion on the show about Einstein (one of my personal heroes) that surprised me.
When they hear the name "Einstein", most people immediately recite his famous E=mc^2 equation and proclaim that he was a genius for "proving" the energy / mass equivalence. NOT exactly true, apparently!
Einstein TRIED to derive this equation on at least 8 separate occasions in various scientific papers he published (he published about 65 papers during his lifetime), but was never able to quite do it satisfactorily. In fact, in one of his papers, following another sloppy attempt, he put a footnote at the bottom that said "Of course, this isn't really rigorous, but let's go with anyway"! In other words, even Einstein was not above "fudging" results when he needed to! LOL!
Toward the end of his life he wrote a biography wherein he summarized all of the things he had done in science. Interestingly, he makes NO mention of E=mc^2 in it! Apparently, his embarrassment over being remembered by the public for something he really never did prevented him from mentioning it.
Well, independent of an "acceptable" mathematical derivation, there has been PLENTY of experimental verification of the validity of the famous equation and I will continue to use it. Although Einstein never "rigorously" derived the relationship, he did promote it and it helped many others in their research.
From TG's previous post:
Delete"Since most scientists don't get rich off of their research, their priority becomes getting famous. Apparenty, in the quest to become as famous as possible, the world of academic science is filled with petty jealousies and "winner take all" rivalries. This shows that the public image of being cool, detached, and objective is really just a flimsy fascade that scientists project for image purposes."
This is normal human behavior for goal driven focused type individuals as I have mentioned in an earlier post. These people are "unwilling to compromise" and "unwilling to see other points of views" due to the strong beliefs in their own work. You can see the behavior in the exchanges on this and the other PM sites. As a manager, it gets tricky trying to keep these types of individuals working together in groups and on group projects.
Yes, sad, but true. A newbie mobilist who is "all fired up" over a design he doodled during his lunch break can be told by a 100 other mobilists with MILLENIA of cumulative experience that his design can NOT work and that they KNOW this FOR A FACT from their "OWN HANDS ON" experience with it. But, until the newbie actually builds it himself and tries EVERY possible variation he can think of will he finally believe and accept that it's a "non-runner".
DeleteMost creative people tend to be "rebel types". They don't like taking advice or following orders especially from others whose motives and knowledge they question. That's why I will not be too dismayed if 99% of those reading my comments here ignore my "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery. That is just "par for the course" as far as I am concerned. BUT, I know that there WILL be a VERY few out there who will be paying attention to what I'm writing. They are tired of the never ending failures of "wrong track" approaches and are looking for a truly NEW approach to follow. They instinctively realize that the "right track" approach MAY, indeed, be that approach.
All will be revealed...in time.
You have your definition of what a "mobilist" is and I have mine. My definition of a mobilist is anybody who believes a mechanical PM device IS possible to construct and who ACTIVELY attempts to construct one or tries to determine how one might be constructed. I wouldn't want to say that a person is ONLY a mobilist AFTER he achieves the effect because, if I did, then I would have to acknowledge that, throughout history, there have only been TWO genuine mobilists!
DeleteI never claim to be an "expert". In fact, even when (actually IF!) I finally make it to the end of the "right track" approach to solving the mystery of Bessler's wheels, I STILL won't be an expert. Just because one has a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel does not automatically mean that he understands ALL of the intricacies of its operation. However, I have no doubt that when capable people with training in mechanical engineering and physics are able to finally analyze a working design, they WILL eventually understand the intricacies of it. I mean they will be able to reduce its principles of operation to a set of precise engineering equations that will allow different and, hopefully, improved versions to be constructed.
BTW, that tv interview I mentioned above about the myths concerning science and scientists was done with an author named Michael Brooks. For those that might want to obtain his recently published book, it is titled "Free Radicals: The Myth of Rational Science".
DeleteTime travellers from the future used to come through vortex type wormholes , i used to talk to trees and plants ,i invented perpetual motion machines .
ReplyDeleteI time traveled to the future and spoke with HP before he developed the RV/time travel program , i already knew everything about him because the time travelers told me when they traveled back in time to the seventeenth century .
Its all true , i is not making it up .
Correction i meant the eighteenth century , the time travelers came through the wormholes in the eighteenth century and they told me all about the twenty first century .
DeleteWow! You're doing so much time traveling through wormholes that you're starting to loose track of what centuries you're popping out into. Tell me, when those time travelers from the 21st century last contacted you, did they happen to mention if I would be successful in obtaining Bessler's "Secret Principle" so that I could finally complete 100% of my trip down the "right track" to a successful WORKING OB PM gravity wheel?
DeleteAny advance information will be greatly appreciated!
I zeen in zhe crystal vball somevone in ze englands vwas zuccessful in vreplicating zhe vessler vwheel .
DeleteI collected sunlight in a clear glass jar and used the sunlight to construct a time machine .
Delete"I zeen in zhe crystal vball somevone in ze englands vwas zuccessful in vreplicating zhe vessler vwheel"
DeleteRead that, John? Sounds like your final wheel has GOT to work! This could be IT!
The german accent has me convinced .
DeleteEaladha should be banned from the internet .
ReplyDeleteHelp!!,..John.
ReplyDeleteNews flash!
ReplyDeleteSomething happened this morning during my modeling session with the 18 inch radius, one-directional "right track" design model wheel that I was working on.
As I stared at the model with its 48 cords, I wondered how could Count Karl have looked at something like this and described it later to others as "simple"? The model I currently have has 48 cords distributed amoung several parallel layers and even I find it difficult to describe as "simple"!
Then it hit me. What if I had been led into basing the 48 cord design I now have on some of Bessler's intentionally FALSE "decoy" clues instead of his correct clues?! Maybe what Karl saw and what I now have are NOT the same! As a matter of curiosity, I decided to take one of my past models that ALMOST kept the CoM of its weights on the descending side of the drum throughout a 45 degree increment of drum rotation, and ELIMINATE three sets of 8 cords, a total of 24 cords, from it that seemed to me to be "redundant" in one way or another. I then ran the simulation again and discovered that the elimination of these cords made NO difference as far as the stability of the CoM of the wheel's 8 weights was concerned!
The implication of this experiment is that, quite possibly, Bessler's one-directional wheels or two-directional wheel's one-directional "sub wheels" ONLY contained 24 cords and NOT 48 as I have been believing, based on FALSE clues, for the last year or so! Indeed, the 24 cord version does look a LOT "simpler", especially because one can place all of the 24 cords into a SINGLE layer without having them rub against each other. Yes, I think that if Karl saw something like that, he would have had more reason to considered it "So simple...." and have been "surprised that no one else had ever thought of it" than if it had contained 48 cords.
The only problem I have with this cord count reduction is that it eliminates that pretty pentagram that emerges from the 48 cord version. But, then again, MAYBE that pentagram is yet ANOTHER false "decoy" clue intended to lead later reverse engineering mobilists astray! Happily, this change in cord count does NOT require a significant modification in the "magic" lever design I have, it only reduces the number of cords connected to each lever. I'm starting to think that not only JC, but I also have been "hypnotized" by Bessler's FALSE pentagram clues! I am dubbing this bizarre psychological effect "Pentagammania" for lack of a better term.
I shall, for the time being, begin working with the new reduced 24 cord version. This modification, however, does not make it any easier for me to find the "Secret Principle" because that principle, like the "Preponderance Principle", does not depend upon a wheel's cord count.
John ,
ReplyDeleteI have what I feel is a legitimate question for you . If someone knew the details of Bessler's invention , how it works or the principle it is based on , etc ... would you want to know even if it meant that your codes were imaginary and that your idea of the mechanism was totally wrong ? What would be more important to you ... your ideas or the actual device ? This goes for all the people at BW forum and anywhere who have made themselves concerned with Bessler although I don't want everyone , just John , to respond to this question . Whatever you think is an appropriate answer;like if you think I'm not qualified and therefore it's impossible for me to have the solution you can say so without worry of hurting my feelings or ego . If you think that no matter how many times I claim to have the solution I am probably wrong again that would be understandable also . But also remember that only one man in history had the "meddle" as he put it to solve this problem and he did so firstly almost exclusively by believing it was possible to begin with , secondly by determination and careful thought .
actually "mettle" ...sorry
ReplyDeleteHere we go again! These perpetual wheel problems never seem to end.
ReplyDeleteChris, 'if someone knows the secret of Bessler's invention, how it works or the principle it is based on, etc', I would know that they too, had understood the codes because that aren't imaginary. The reason for my confidence is that I am aware of many more pieces of code than I have published so far, which are confirmed and accurate. But this does not mean that there are not other ways of building a wheel which acted in the same way, superficially, as his, and if you feel that you have dicovered something of value then good luck to you, build it or publish it...and if you can prove that my codes are imaginary then I wish you more good luck. :-)
ReplyDeleteJC
When it comes to Bessler's "clues", I define four distinct Types: 1) the description type in his writings, 2) the religious verse type, 3) the image clue type which involves angles, ratios, and component relationships, and, finally, 4) the numerological type.
DeleteI have found that Type 1 clues are the best in terms of all being true (however, ONLY when properly translated AND interpreted), but they tend to be the most general and of very limited value in reverse engineering his wheels. Bessler made sure he did not get too specific with these clues.
Type 2 clues are virtually worthless, IMO, and only a profession of Bessler's particular religious beliefs.
Type 3 clues involve illustrations and pertain exclusively to the internal mechanics of Bessler's wheels and are, IMO, the MOST important ones and the ones that the reverse engineering Bessler mobilist should spend the MOST time on. Unfortunately, they are IMPOSSIBLE to interpret correctly unless one is ALSO simultaneously building / modeling in the directions they suggest. And, even more daunting, MOST of the Type 3 clues are DELIBERATELY false ones or what I call "decoy clues" intended to send the Bessler mobilist on a "wild goose chase" that will tend to weaken his resolve to solve the Bessler wheel mystery. BUT there IS a residue of Type 3 clues that ARE valid and VERY important to reverse engineering Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels. It takes time to find, act on, and verify them and this is EXACTLY what Bessler wanted them to do...make sure only the MOST determined of mobilists would be able to actually use them to replicate his wheels someday.
You, JC, seem to have specialized on the Type 4 clues, but, to tell you the truth, I see little of value in them. To me they are just an indication of Bessler's obsession with numerology and have little to do with the actual internal mechanics of his wheels.
For example, he DOES seem to use the number 5 a lot and there ARE, indeed, several pentagrams in the DT portraits. But, I'm now starting to think that these pentagrams are, at best, only very REMOTELY associated with his wheels' internal mechanics. Yet, you are basing whole designs on them. You MAY have greatly erred in doing so by giving a TOO literal interpretation to one of Bessler's FALSE decoy clues!
However, as with all things, time will tell. The ultimate "reality check" of the validity of ANY interpretations of Bessler's various clues is simply whether or not they lead to a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel. If not, then, obviously the interpretations were erroneous.
Meanwhile, I shall adhere to my present "cord count reduced right track" design in the hopes that it will finally yield an "acceptable" solution (which, for me, will be a glitch free WORKING simulation of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels).
MG, sounds like Bessler led you down the "wrong track". Hehehe. Keep at it.
DeleteSorry, TG ...
DeleteYou're coming around tech. You will eventually discover no cords are required. That is if you follow the "real track".
DeleteI have NO doubt about the cords being required in Bessler's wheels. Aside from "coordinating" the shifting of the 8 weighted levers during drum rotation, they, working in harmony with the springs, are CRITICALLY necessary to maintaining the OB of the weights' CoM during drum rotation.
DeleteOnce again when it comes to THE design Bessler used, "No cords and no springs means NO PM!"
IF someone is pursuing a design that does NOT include cords AND springs, then, IMO, it can NOT be THE one Bessler found. Asa Jackson's wheel worked and, although it used springs, it did not use cords. It was NOT the same mechanism Bessler used. Rather, than cords, however, the motions of its weights were coordinated by the wheel's central structure that contained them. For Asa Jackson's wheel, one might say "No central structure and no springs means NO PM!"
Quote from my entry of last week "If you look closely at a better copy the 'R's are drawn in front and behind the wheel line, the lines break or are solid showing the 3d infront/behind effect. This 3d look gives it the appearance of a helical coil or section of spring."
ReplyDeleteJon
I know everyone is interested in the legs of the R's attached to the O, however, there are four dots in the O. Maybe the figures attached to those dots are also significant.
Delete