This is a brief account about my work on my wheel over the last couple of years.
Two or three years ago a friend made a simulation of a design which I believed at the time would work. The sim revealed the flaw in my thinking but also gave me some guidance in the right direction. There has to be at least two actions and although I had two, one of them had no positive effect on the wheel’s motion.
Building the first successful Bessler wheel, is an ongoing perpetual job, pardon the pun, but it has to be, to get to the solution. I’ve tried getting my head around simulations, but generally I prefer to build.
I often think I’ve found the correct basic concept but it is never quite that straight forward. I find that the process of laying out the pieces in their predicted places and moving them by hand is more informative than a sim. It is at this early stage that you can see where the design needs to be altered, or discarded.
Curiously I have occasionally worked on a design which I had just thought of, and realised that it has echoes of a previous design that I might have rejected years ago - it happens. The new inspiration can reveal some aspect of the original design that you overlooked initially, or made an incorrect assumption about how it was supposed to work, so it makes sense not to reject too quickly.
So where am I now? The concept and the design work are done. It is more complex to make than it may seem once it’s in action....hopefully. I’m gradually putting the mechanisms together, but I sometimes only get a ten minute slot to work on it, but I will finish eventually.
If you saw the wheel in action you might think that’s so simple, just like Karl did. He understood how it worked, but could he have correctly imagined how it might work without seeing it first and in action? To me it’s like learning a foreign language; translating given foreign words into English is hard at first but it gets easier, but translating English into another language is harder because you are not given the foreign words to translate the English into. Karl understood how it worked by watching the mechanisms in action, but he could not have envisaged the design and then made it. It’s the same for all of us.
As time races by and I’m struggling to finish my wheel, I adjust pieces which are the correct ones but which are not acting exactly as I predicted, but then with a little consideration I get the right action. A few months ago, that process then led me to discover yet another of Bessler's feature which I had ignored, but without which the mechanical action does not produce the desired result.
There is a lot of adjustments and minor alterations to make even if you have what you believe to be the complete solution in your mind. I have found that I can ‘see’ the action in my mind but the reality sometimes reveals an unwanted additional problem. This can be resolved if you are physically building, but not in a simulation, in my experience.
You may have correctly assumed that my perfect design should be
precisely the same as Bessler's, but sometimes I encountered a problem in my build which seemed insurmountable, but further study of Bessler’s clues led me to make a connection to a piece of information which I had ignored as a piece of non-information, this has happened on several occasions and that is why I like to build rather than use sim software. Having said that I think a sim would be useful to validate a design once it is finished and working. In other words you don’t really know if your design is capable of being validated until you know that it works because you have a working model, and that is when you have definitely finished the wheel, and there are no more alterations to make because it works!
It might seem pointless to get verification that a wheel works when you have a working model already, but to my mind seeking verification of a design which you haven't tested in a build is even more pointless, because there are features of mechanisms which don't appear until you build them. Mechanisms can lock up at either or both ends of their range of movement, and that can lead to loss of part of the advantage indicated in the original design.
I will continue to work on this wheel until it’s finished and then publish the results and the design, but doubt that seek verification with a sim.
JC
It might seem pointless to get verification that a wheel works when you have a working model already, but to my mind seeking verification of a design which you haven't tested in a build is even more pointless, because there are features of mechanisms which don't appear until you build them. Mechanisms can lock up at either or both ends of their range of movement, and that can lead to loss of part of the advantage indicated in the original design.
I will continue to work on this wheel until it’s finished and then publish the results and the design, but doubt that seek verification with a sim.
JC
>> I find that the process of laying out the pieces in their predicted places and moving them by hand is more informative than a sim. <<
ReplyDeleteA mock-up is quick and very informative as a design strategy.
Just be aware of possible confirmation bias in the next step.
For predicting actual behavior in the wild you realy need the necessary mathematical tools: either manual calculus, or graphical analysis, or simulation.
You need to find out if you maybe assigned one forces twice or misjudged and reversed causes and their simultaneous effects.
We can see this is a common recurring issue in PMM designs that are mainly a mental exercise.
Well, "need" is absolutely relative here, because according to the standard prediction-methods known to math and physics PMM shouldn't be possible.
Hence strangely, now you have to be aware you could possibly deal with a dual conflicting confirmation bias.
You know how things normally work, but you still try to find a work-around.
Because perpetual motion machines *should* defy the logic of known physics, it's possible it defies all logic and behaves counter-intuitively.
Try to identify the pivoting situation where you made assumptions on how it would "surely" work, and try to test it out with some small experiments.
Not finding out early, means you need to build that complete design as perfect as possible and hope for the best.
Worrying why things fail afterwards, usually result in falsely blaming things like manufacturing inaccuracies.
>> there are features of mechanisms which don't appear until you build them. <<
Yeah well, that's a problem :-)
One way or the other, you are dealing with a conflicted situation.
And with this confusing reply I just try to say that a simulation is usually the easiest and safest way of identifying where contemporary physics could show you wrong.
Such should make it easier to proof your counter point.... unless that simulation confirms it works.
If it wasn't already a useless reply, it becomes more useless once you have a wheel that actually works and allow it to be tested.
From that point onward that wheel is a physical phenomena that will be studied by Scientist and confuse all of them. :-)
Let's hope you make it their problem.
Best of luck, hope to see some pictures.
Marchello E.
Thank you Marchello, for your sensible comments. I do take on board other people’s comments and advice and I may have to go the simulation route if my mechanical construction becomes too difficult, but I shall continue to construct for now.
DeleteThanks, JC
If you are only making modifications to one of the five mechanisms in your design, I don't see how you can accurately predict how all of the mechanisms will work together during wheel rotation. To do that you would have to make five identical mechanisms and, if the design fails to work, change all of them every time you make a major modification. That's a slow and labor intensive process (and even worse for someone using eight mechanisms!). With computer simulations, however, you can make one mechanism and then copy it four times and place one around the wheel every 72 degrees. Within minutes you will know how the collection of mechanisms is working together. Modifications can also be done in minutes and tested. I can only suggest that you try to find a nice, easy to use simulation program and give it another try. Ask around and see what others recommend. Learning to use it takes a bit of effort, but with a few hours of practice, you would become proficient and it could help you speed your way toward a working design. I know you want to have Fletcher help you with simulations, but it might take him days to make the modifications you want and get back to you with the results. If you make your own simulations, you can do that yourself in a matter of an hour or so. Also, if he starts to recommend modifications, then, if they lead to a working design, that design becomes the product of your collaboration with him! That's the end of you being the sole rediscoverer of Bessler's wheel secret. Something to keep in mind.
ReplyDeleteDaniel H.
I know how the mechanisms work together. I know how each one works, but making just one work as designed is all I need to achieve, then I simply copy the working one to the others. I’ve no time to spend learning to use a simulation which I don’t trust anyway, when I have the build under way. I know I sound over confident (a typical delusion among us PMers) but I cannot help believing that I have the solution otherwise I wouldn’t be trying so hard to finish this build under these trying circumstances.
ReplyDeleteJC
John Collins,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, simulations are of no use; sorry to say. Don't trust any one from BWF either. There only desire is to rip you, and your wheel to pieces!
Sam Peppiatt
Hi Sam, you’re even older than I am!
DeleteJC
John,
DeleteIf I was only as smart, and as kind! I started working on perpetual motion in 1962. Wish I would have know about you then------------and Bessler's wheel.
A working wheel is the only thing that matters. It will have access to the Universal Language of truth. We build all these wonderful flying machines and run them thru thousands of hours of simulations, but no one actually knows how it will work until they fly it.....
ReplyDeleteExactly!
DeleteJC
True, but if all of the simulations said the wings were going to break off of a "wonderful flying machine" causing it to crash, would you want to be the first test pilot to fly it just to prove the simulations were all wrong? Most test pilots today would not even board any new aircraft unless all of the simulations were showing it was airworthy. They know how valuable and reliable simulations can be today.
DeleteSure they are fine for making corrections, for reducing the size of parts, and especially for minimizing interference's between moving parts. But little, or no use for figuring out the unknown. As in the case of Bessler's Wheel. Seams to me like they are much better suited for geek's with little or no mechanical ability. If you forgive me for saying so. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteSam, I don't think anyone would accuse Ken of being a "geek with little or no mechanical ability". He spent decades making handmade model wheels that never showed any signs of working. It wasn't until around 2005 that he finally made the switch to computer models and simulations. Part of the reason for the switch was because, at the time, he was suffering from a severe case of mercury poisoning and simply did not have the strength to work in his shop and could not do much more than sit at a desk and work at a keyboard. Even after he recovered he continued to work with his computer wheel models for about a dozen years for an hour or two per day before he finally found what he was searching for. That design that he shows in his youtube wheel video is actually the end result of about two thousand part shape or parameter modifications and simulation tests, each guided by interpretations (all initially wrong, but slowly getting more accurate as he continued his analysis over the years) of the various DT portrait clues. Thousands of hours of work were required. He doubts if he ever could have had final success if he had to build and modify models by hand. Even so, it was still only an incredibly lucky discovery he made during the week before the day he claims he found the actual design Bessler used (which occurred on Friday, April 13th, 2018) that finally made success possible. He was actually to the point of finally calling it quits permanently, flushing thousands of hours of effort down the drain, and just quietly moving on to some other hobby when, completely unexpectedly, the correct interpretation he needed of a single remaining clue occurred to him and made the nonrunning design he had then suddenly work perfectly! Without that incredible stroke of luck, there would have been no book or video and he would have permanently quit the pursuit. Years later some who still remembered him from bwf or this blog might have wondered what became of him or if he was even still alive. He considers his final and highly unlikely success to have been a genuine miracle even though he has no real interest in religion. Whether or not he really has found "it" is still to be fully determined with a working physical model, but from what I've seen in his book and video, I can't see any obvious reason why it could not be. Of course, he could just be another delusional pm pursuer, but, if he is, then he would have to be one of the most dedicated and deluded to ever come along! I can't believe that's the case.
DeleteDaniel H.
This is the last comment I’m accepting from Ken’s sock puppet, Daniel H. Any more and I’ll simply delete them.
DeleteJC
I'm flattered by the comparison, but I'm NOT Ken! I'm only someone who has actually read his recent book and believes that he has actually found the design Bessler used. But, like many, I also want to see a physical model based on the design he found to fully verify it.
DeleteDaniel H.
So . . . that's IT for "Daniel H.", right John?
DeleteWell, if-so, that's one down. Now, for all the rest.
James (For the very life of me, I don't know what became of my portrait avatar. Yours works John, but some others seem to not.)
Yes, JC should immediately delete any comments made by anyone that displays the slightest bit of intelligence. That way, the blogs can just be filled up with comments by JM and SG! I can't wait!
DeleteIt's time to reveal more deep truths!
DeleteTo a serious numerologist, it's obvious why Ken Behrendt was destined to write his huge book on Bessler's wheels. Just look at the first two letters of his surname or (BE)hrendt. Now look at the first two letters of Bessler's surname or (BE)ssler. They are the same! B + E = 2 + 5 = 7 and the number 7 is considered to be a VERY lucky number in numerology and one needs incredible luck to find the details of the pm wheel design hidden in Bessler's publications. Now add up the alphanumeric values of the letters in "Behrendt" and you get 2 + 5 + 8 + 18 + 5 + 14 + 4 + 20 = 76. Add the digits in that sum and you get 7 + 6 = 13. The number 13 is a mystical lucky number that occurs repeated in the Bible, various mythologies, and is used by many secret societies for special purposes even today. If you add the values for his initials of KB, you get 11 + 2 = 13 again! He claims he found the secret details of Bessler's mechanics in the two portraits in Bessler's last published book "Das Triumphirende...". Everyone around here abbreviates that book's title as "DT". Now look at the last two letters in his surname "Behren(dt)". They are DT! Also, note the word "end" that appears in his surname "Behr(end)t". That implies he was destined to end or complete the Bessler story with a solution!
There are just too many coincidences here for them to just be coincidences. Cosmic forces are at work! One would need to be blind not to see this! Sadly, when it comes to numerological analysis, most are deaf, dumb, and blind!
Sayer of Sooths
OMG! Now this wacky psychic guy wants us to believe Behrendt has discovered how Bessler's wheels worked because the letters in his last name add up to 13?! LOL! Are we supposed to then believe that John Collins can't get his wheel running because the letters in his last name don't add up to 13! What total bilge! If he's not getting results, it's because there are no results to get because perpetual motion is not possible! But, I must admit the appearance here of an occasional psychic or religious kook is certainly entertaining.
DeleteThe Realist
@SOS
DeleteYou made an interesting analysis. But, all of the numbers you've come up with are probably just due to pure chance and have no real significance as far as Bessler's wheels are concerned. What caught my attention, however, was that Ken's surname letters sum up to 13 and he claims that he rediscovered Bessler's wheel mechanics on the 13th of the month. Again, probably just a coincidence...or is it?!
JC wrote "I will continue to work on this wheel until it’s finished and then publish the results and the design, but doubt that [I will?] seek verification with a sim."
ReplyDeleteWhat's your definition of "finished"?
‘Finished’, as in ‘working’, Or this design has failed for some obvious reason not apparent at this time. If it fails there is no other design that I’m aware of that will work.
DeleteJC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSwinging occurs but the design doesn’t depend on it.
DeleteJC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRAF Greetings John,I agree:Simulations are like air castles,having no firm foundation in reality! For those of us purists, it is essential to BUILD just as Mr. Bessler did His (~300 builds)!!! BUT we have his merciful clues and drawings to help shorten the hard slog.
ReplyDeleteRAF John, would you say why your basic weight-shifting mechanism design at Besslerswheel.com(2010) is now wrong? (23 Aug.2019 21:01) I have found it is a brilliant and exact exposition. Does your present design still include primary and shifter weight pairs? Should your present design not pan out, I encourage you to revive your movement from 2010
ReplyDelete(
RAF, yes my design still uses primary and secondary weights working in pairs. It’s very kind of you to recommend those old ideas I had but I think (hope) I have progressed since then.
DeleteJC
RAF Greetings James! Regarding your thoughts on personified corporatists (what I call the BOYS DOWNSTAIRS), an ancient Korean proverb seems appropriate: Observe the turtle, he progresses only when his neck is out. Could be made into a very graphic T-shirt for P/M builders.
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDeleteSo - as Bessler's wheel design changed or yours?
I’m not sure what you mean, Uneqk. Obviously Bessler’s wheel design hasn't changed, so I assume that you’re asking if my design has changed? After the sim of my design was shown to me a couple of years ago, I went back to Bessler’s clues and resolved the conflict.
DeleteJC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteS-G, so you were an oil man? Wow! Dangerous rough-neck work.
DeleteThe isolated situation presented by rigs way-out in the ocean, have provided many a movie writer material for their scary wares.
But, before then even . . . there was RADIO!
Here is a little something you'll find resonance in, I think. It is "The Thing On The Fourble Board." Talk about 'creepy'!
https://www.quietplease.org/episodes/the-thing-on-the-fourble-board-60.html
Much as was "The Prisoner," thi whole series too was a masterpiece.
If sometime gotten tired of the old P-M pursuit, then one might take a listen to any others there. As critically received, now-as-then, it's just 'the nines'!
Episodes can be down-loaded for keeping, as well as simply listened-to.
Regards,
James
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Stephen,
DeleteI see. My bad! I just did not know of differences existing between the two, and so I thought "petrol".
Heavens! For the simple noise of it, I would never get anywhere proximate to a steel construction site. When a little boy in Portland OR, my dad long-haul trucked for Kaiser Steel. (Was it? Was so young then I did not take note.) Having only one auto, myself and my Mom would go there to deliver or pick Dad up and - THE NOISE of it!!! Right then-and-there, I was repelled by it for life.
Thank you for explaining all that you did and, the great difficulties you have endured and are-still. It is clarifying.
It is indeed a thing-good that you have caring sons and family, doubtless-so being of greatest help and moral support. Of all these things, excepting for that last, I am most sorrowful to learn-of. We fellows, when gotten older, do tend to develop issues, some greater or lesser than others.
Stephen, may God bless and keep you as well as He might deign, (And, please remember that P-M to me over at The BWF, and we'll chat if and when you like.)
Of course all the best and,
Sincerely Yours,
James
PS Please, do not misunderstand. I love machines and tools but not ones larger nor heavier than myself - ha!
JM and SG...still PERFECT together. Careful JC does not become jealous!
DeleteThe swinging is to set the activities of each arm. Similar to the logo of .... and are ye yet without understanding..... about 25 degrees. This weighted arm must be attached at the axle with a periodic mechanism that will supply the required angle of movement. Each arm can move freely depending on its station of the wheel... i.e. 3 o clock 6 o'clock 9 o'clock and the 6 and 12 o'clock positions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFWEIW
ReplyDeleteCouldn't *swinging* refer to a weight or weights, swinging from being top heavy at 12:00, to where they reach there maximum speed at or near the 6:00 position?
I.E., "they gain force by there own swinging". Sam Peppiatt
Interesting idea Sam. I have always thought that ‘gaining force by their swinging’ was used in a similar way to a child on a swing, but not as a driving component. To start the swing takes much to-ing and fro-ing, gradually building up to a good swing. In Bessler's wheel, the wheel sped up from a very slow start, gaining force or speed as it overcame inertia.
DeleteJC
John,
DeleteRight, I think that's the way it was done. Each weight has to arrive at, more or less the 12:00 position, (top heavy), in order for it to keep accelerating. Then they have to raise back up at 6:00, after reaching there greatest speed.
Of coarse the giant trick has always been how to do that.
Sam
@SP
DeleteWhat you want is actually something like MT30 shown here:
http://www.orffyre.com/MTHard030.gif
All attempts to build these types of wheels have failed because, while clearly overbalanced, all of the wheel's rotational energy that could be released must be used to lift the two weights and none is left over to turn the wheel much less do any external work. If one builds such a wheel, he will find it stays in whatever position it is rotated into. Designs which put the CoG of the weights far onto the descending side and, as in this example, are "top heavy" never work. For success, one must be content in only having the CoG a short distance onto the descending side and also having a "bottom heavy" wheel. This, unfortunately, means low torque as was the case for Bessler's wheels. A true pm wheel must deliver more energy per rotation than the amount needed to reset the weights if it is to self-start, accelerate, and perform external work. Modern physics says that's impossible which is why many conclude Bessler was a scammer with a hoaxed wheel. Fortunately, Bessler was ignorant of modern physics!
Hi Anonymous!
DeleteWhat can I say; you have a very good argument. You may be right, however I have to disagree with any bottom heaviness. Also, there must be two sets of weights. The weights that extend out, that drive the wheel. The other set, close to the center of the wheel, do the resetting. Or what I like to reefer to as the 'lifters'. And, as you say, the wheel has to have enough torque to reset the lifters. I feel the joker or key to it may be the springs. I think, only springs can reset the the driving weights quick enough, at top and bottom dead center, (TDC & BDC), to do any good. If you could ever figure out the springs, you would probably know the rest of it. I say to HECK with modern physics! Sure, it's never been done, is a dam good argument; but is it right? I don't think so, FWEIW.
Sam
SP wrote: "Also, there must be two sets of weights. The weights that extend out, that drive the wheel. The other set, close to the center of the wheel, do the resetting."
DeleteUnfortunately, all known designs using an extra set of weights to shift another set of weights about also fail. You wind up with a situation where the CoG of one of the sets of weights is on one side of the axle and is exactly counterbalanced by the CoG of the other set of weights on the other side of the axle so there is no net torque. Some pm seekers have spent their whole lives working on such designs only to finally find out to their great surprise that it was all just a total waste of time and effort. You don't need two sets of weights. All you need is ONE set of weights where, at any time, some of the weights in the set are being shifted about by other weights in the same set and, as wheel rotation continues, those weights that were previously shifted serve to shift yet other weights in the set so as to keep the CoG of all of the weights in the one set on the descending side of the wheel.
Anonymous,
DeleteWithout a working wheel, (which I don't have), I refuse to disclose details of my wheel, which I have learned from biter experience, only leads to ridicule. If you think I'm a bloody idiot, then so be it. Be live me you have a lot of company!
Sam Peppiatt
@SP
DeleteNo, I definitely do not think you are a "bloody idiot". You are yet another sincere guy trying to come up with a design for a pm wheel that will work. If you were into using simulations, you would quickly realize how wrong one can be about the workability of a particular design. They all look like they can't possibly fail when drawn on paper. But, when the actual parts are put into motion and one tracks the motion of their CoG, he finds it quickly settles down to a point right under the center of the axle and that's the end of any net rotation. It's probably one of the most frustrating tasks one can set for himself which prompted Bessler to write on page 291 of JC's translation of AP:
“Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. I learned about this the hard way that one has to learn through bitter experience.”
Take another look at KB's version of Bessler's wheel in his video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nP7KY6_EAM
Watch the lever whose pivot leaves the 9:00 position of the drum. The weight attached to the end of the longest arm of that lever is being lifted rapidly by four other levers whose pivots are leaving the drum's 7:30, 10:30, 12:00, and 1:30 positions. When the lever that started out at the 9:00 position finally passes the drum's 10:30 position, it then begins to take part in lifting the lever whose pivot is just leaving the 9:00 position. This is all being done over and over eight times per drum rotation with a SINGLE set of eight levers!
I think if you or anybody wants to finally find success, you will need a design that works like that one and which some are calling "unique". When all of the variations of the "standard" approaches to achieving pm have been tried and only shown to repeatedly fail, it's time to try a truly new approach. If you are dedicated enough, you will find the success you seek.
Anonymous,
DeleteI wish I could do sims., but I can't. Without a working wheel I can't stand up to you or anyone else either. So I continue to take my lumps----------------as I have for 57 years.
Sam Peppiatt
@SP
DeleteHere's a design that uses two sets of weights and looks like it must work. Someone probably spent a small fortune building it. Unfortunately, the details of how the sinking weights on the right side raise the weights at the ends of the scissor mechanisms are not shown. However, if one analyzes where the CoG is, he will find out that it's located at the exact center of the axle so there is no torque. If one turns this wheel around on its axle, he will find that, although the weights will rise and fall, it will always remain stationary regardless how it is oriented.
http://jot101.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ofyres0021-1-924x1024.jpg
Go ahead rub it in! Sam Peppiatt
DeleteRAF John, In your present build,does your primary weight suddenly fly upward at the 6 o'clock position as described before (2010)?
ReplyDeleteNo. 😀
DeleteJC
Uhh, RAF, described as in what "before (2010)"?
DeleteSorry, I am not being obtuse here. It's just that this particular question possesses resonance to me.
J.
Sorry RAF for my abrupt response to your question based on my www.besslerswheel.com website. I’ve just read through it again and I think most of it is ok. It’s just the conclusion involving kiiking that I believe is not relevant to what Bessler actually did. I hope to explain all soon.
DeleteJC
John, this is a really terrific peek into the Master's Workroom. Now, finally, we have a look! Sounds grrrrreat!
ReplyDeleteWithin my own fledgling little efforts, I may have discovered why "FIVE" may be key! (ODD! Three's too few; seven's too many!)
James
Very pleased to hear that James.
DeleteJC
RAF Hello James,I was referring to besslerswheel.com then HOME then the bubble "the mechanisms theoretically" . A very clear exposition in its detail. WHY did John drop it? John, As Mr. Bessler puts rare emphasis on a drawing,are you using M.T. 25 in your build? His words:" one must study the diagram EXTENSIVELY"
ReplyDeleteOK! Thanks for that clarification, RAF. Will go there and check it out.
DeleteJ.
five gives the 'overlap' you need, 4 mechs would have 4 'quiet points' of no drive, 5 mechs gives continious accel
ReplyDeleteRegards Jon
That’s right Jon, thank you for confirming what I believe is true.
DeleteJC
To RAF. I need to thank you for pointing me back to my ten year old website at www.besslerswheel.com, because upon rereading it I came to the conclusion that the basic hypothesis is right and is reflected in my current design, but not completely, there are some variations but the basic concept is right. I’m going to post a blog on it in a few days.
ReplyDeleteJC
RAF John, Do your secondary weights no longer act to shift primary weights? Also, do your primary weights weigh 4 times as much as the secondary weights? Looking forward to your new post!
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure how I defined the weights RAF, but the shifter weight moves another weight and each weighs the same. I’m posting a blog soon which does not discuss www.besslerswheel.com, but I’m writing this for the follow up blog, as we speak.
DeleteJC
@JC
DeleteLooks like you are finally going to start revealing some details of your design. Great!
John, it has been a while since you up-dated your Rogues' Gallery, no? Does it yet feature your current most roguish visage? (Mine does not. Must do it.)
ReplyDeleteJames
I must check it out James, I’ll see if I can update it.
DeleteJC