Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

Because I remain convinced that parametric oscillation (or kiiking) is the key to understanding Bessler's wheel I hope those who read this will understand why I continue to discuss it here.

Following a suggestion by a member of BW forum, I reconstructed my wheel with one (modified) mechanism instead of five, in an attempt to provide proof of the principle. I then realised that I had set it up wrongly as I had included an equal weight on the opposite side of the wheel to counterbalance it. This of course reduced the torque available to a very small amount. A kiiking rider has only himself to rotate about the swing pivot but if he had a non-participating second rider attached on the other end of a pair of extended swing rods he would be counterbalanced either in his outer position or in his inner one, depending on how the counterbalance was arranged. But even if the counterbalancing rider was working at pumping the swing in concert with the main rider, the torque available would be tiny in comparison to that generated by one rider.

I removed the counterbalance, restoring the full torque available and the mechanism, when started at a position close to twelve o'clock, rotated to the eleven o'clock position where it stopped and reversed. Obviously the mechanism was generating too small a pulse. This also highlighted the fact that kiiking swingers have to pump their swing many times to get  up to twelve o'clock, (20 or 30 pumps) and this is clearly the only point from which they can achieve a full rotation.

The sport of "kiiking", or "kiikuda" to use the correct verb, requires the winner to be the one who can achieve a number of consecutive rotations using longer swing rods than anyone else. This implies that the rotation is easier to achieve with shorter rods - or that the distance the rider moves his body in or out is relatively more with shorter rods. Obviously the latter applies as the distance moved inwards or outwards is going to be roughly the same for every contestant (unless he or she has extremely long legs!) but is more effective on shorter rods.

As my mechanism moves the weight inwards a set amount because the weights are the same regardless of how long the rods are, I may shorten the rods a small amount to increase the change in the angle of momentum and generate a stronger pulse, but space is limited. So if I place a second mechanism exactly opposite the first one, I anticipate that with the reduced torque then available from the action of the mechanism, the wheel will still not achieve one rotation - why? Because the difference in length of the pendulum achieved by the falling shifter weight, will only produce a small impulse. I stated many times and on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/ that I believe that the wheel required five mechanisms as I maintain Bessler implied by his ubiquitous use of the number five,and that is still my firm opinion. Because I believe this is true I shall omit further testing with anything less than five. I'll update this information when I have more to say.

I have updated an old web site at http://www.247website.co.uk/ I occasionally post things on which have little to do with Bessler, and have added a potted history of Kiiking and good evidence that it goes back a long time before Ado Kosk publicised it.

JC

Why do we search for Bessler's hidden clues and yet ignore his clear advice?

There is a need among us Bessler-obsessives to find out how he made a successful gravitywheel. We look for the solution by studying what he wrote and what he drew and what others said about him and his wheel; we modify the translations to try to get the last important detail that we believe might have been missed and we look for double-meanings in his words and so on and so forth. I am as bad if not worse than most because I seek to find what I deem to be hidden clues deliberately left by the inventor as a guide to those who followed in his footsteps. "Seek and ye shall find", says the bible and I have certainly found! Misapplying the quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I am fully aware that my finds, so clear to me, are obscure to others. I understand the reasons for this and am content to offer my suggestions in the hope that it will help and inspire someone else with more expertise than I to substantiate my finds.

This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?

Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/

He also said his weights gained force from their own swinging. A weight which swings and as it does so, gains force i.e. strength/speed, can be seen demonstrated by anyone on a swing. That is how the kiiking swinger works his way up to the twelve o'clock position.

He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.

If we are serious about finding the answer to Bessler's wheel, we should start by taking his clearly written advice to heart. If this is insufficient for finding the solution then we should look for more obscure clues - as I have done.

I know I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me and claim that I knew how the wheel worked, but at the time I believed that to be true, as we all have from time to time. I was unwilling to share this information without testing it first, but having publicised my personal conviction that I knew how it was done, I left myself with no alternative but to reveal my belief and thus put myself in front of the firing squad. But this does not mean that the basic principle is wrong. No other one provides such a close match to Bessler's description nor provides a potential solution, and I have explained this in detail at http://www.orffyreus.org/ and http://www.gravitywheel.com/

My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .

JC

Why am I such an optimist in the face of successive failures? I don't know - I just am!

I'm back and ready to tackle this task again, refreshed, reinvigorated with a bunch of new ideas which look good - on paper! Spain was hot and sunny and the girls gorgeous - I mean my wife, daughter and grand daughter of course! The wine flowed and so did my ideas. I'm told it rained here in the UK for the entire two weeks - so no change there then.

I stand by the principle described on my web site at www.orffyreus.org and www.gravitywheel.com I'm going to try to prove it is right, but obviously there are some changes to the actual mechamisms to be made. While on holiday I made one new discovery in Bessler's clues, the design of which I have now included in the mechanism. I hope to build it as soon as I can and will report success or failure here.

Reading through the posts on besslerwheel.com I cannot help but feel that the only thing going around in circles are the ideas and opinions expressed there. Also the clues which I have interpreted and placed on my www.theorffyreuscode.com web site are totally ignored. I cannot claim that they are all correct but it seems to me that people are misinterpreting how Bessler designed his clues and the way to solve them. I have shown the way to interpret them and yet the posts indicate that they are looking at each one as a whole clue rather than a patchwork of different clues.

I realise that nobody has to believe my clues have any validity because I too, have not produced a working wheel, however even though that is true so far, I am confident that in the near future it will be shown that I was largely correct in my interpretations.

So I'm glad to be back and look forward to reading your posts guys. I'm still undecided about the best way to deal with the mean spirited commentaters and bullies who appear from time to time here but I would prefer not to make it more difficult for people to post their comments, so I will probably just delete those I don't like.

My definition of those I probably won't like is not fully formed but I think the use of swear words, bullying and name-calling are unproductive and can cause offence, so I will probabl delete them.

JC

Spain again!

I'm leaving for Spain very early tomorrow, (flight's at 6.30am) so I'll be closing the comments while I'm away. Looking forward to hearing your views again on my return. I hope I shall have some interesting news to report then - good or no so good.

Don't go and build a working Bessler's wheel while I'm away will you guys? Just kidding, good luck, see you soon.

I'll close it as late today as I can.

JC

Will one mechanism be enough for proof of principle?

Several people have suggested that it doesn't matter how many mechanisms there are in Bessler's wheel, as only one will be needed to prove the principle. I had resisted this idea because I was convinced that Bessler was adamant that there were five (mostly this is just my opinion) and I thought that anything less would not do. So anyway, in the last few days I have been building and fitting just the one new mechanism to the wheel. It is a new design and very simple. The result is excellent. This time the mechanism reacts exactly as I want it to, according to the parametric oscillation principle I described on my gravitymill web site. The shifter mechanism throws up the primary weight at six o'clock with some force and throws it up again with less force after the twelve o'clock point.

Now I need to lock the mechanism in a neutral position before attaching some balancing weights to the other side of the wheel so that the assembly is balanced what ever position the wheel is in. The plan is then to release the mechanism and see what happens. According to Bessler one 'cross bar' hardly moved the wheel, but what does that mean? Does he mean that he had to nudge the wheel a little to complete a full turn, or does he mean that it turned but extremely slowly? I can't somehow believe that the wheel would turn slowly and evenly, but I suspect that it managed most of one turn and then needed a small nudge. The thing is, how convincing would that be? It must have been enough to convince Bessler that he was on to something, so I guess I'll just have to try it and see. I suspect that in the end I'll have to put more mechanisms on. I might of course be completely wrong - again - and perhaps what most people are telling me is true, that parametric oscillation is not the answer. Only they'll have a job to convince me!

I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks starting next week- Spain again! - so I'll close comments early next week and go into silent mode for fortnight. I'm hoping to finish this latest mechanism before I go, but I think my wife has other plans for the next couple of days so I probably won't be placing any updates on it before I go!

JC

Update and Puthoff's response

Now that the excitement which seemed to be building, despite my rather lame attempts to diffuse it, has been somewhat dampened by the disclosure of my theory, I feel I can get back to work on trying to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.

I understand that some people believe that I have been trying to build up some huge PR stunt to promote something and I was completely taken aback to learn this as nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said elsewhere I have no agenda other than trying to build a working version of Bessler's wheel and to find a publisher for my rewritten biography of Bessler. I don't imagine for a moment that any publisher will take on my book unless someone somewhere succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and therefore I have no need for PR stunts either large of miniscule.

I have had a response from professor Hal Puthoff which suggests that he is unconvinced by my theory. I cannot put the whole argument up here but his argument against my theory is entirely based on the 'conservative forces' page in which I try to show why gravitywheels do not conflict with the laws of physics. Unfortunately I chose to simplify my case by using a very simple explanation unconnected with parametric oscillation (PO) and he has taken that and argued that the wheels would remain in balance. I have written back and asked him to take into account the PO action, meanwhile I am re-writing that page to try to demonstrate the same argument using 'kiiking' as the basis for it.

JC

A comment on comments

When I began this blog I was aware that were recognised issues regarding negative comments and the consensus of opinion was that in the end most people simply delete those they don't wish to have on their blog. You only have to search google to see that it is common to all blogs.

When I describe them as 'negative' I don't mean comments which disagree, I welcome those as part of the normal to and fro discussions which can enliven debate and maybe throw some light onto a subject, no, I mean those which are downright nasty and abusive. I was determined at the start of this blog not to delete any comments no matter how much they might irritate and dismay me, but I am beginning to see that it is not just myself that is the target but other readers too.

I still don't want to delete any comments I don't like and it would be infinitely preferable if people just commented in the way they would if they were speaking face to face in the normal world outside this virtual one. The rules of etiquette which normally enable peopleto get on with friends and neighbours without causing offence or harm don't seem to apply here and yet I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Here's a link to an old comment on negative comments which sums up the problem:-http://www.dustindiaz.com/negative-comments/

So criticise, comment, praise, support or disagree, but keep it constructive please.

JC

The Bessler-Collins Gravitywheel is on line

OK! Deep breath; here goes!

I've published my theory about Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I had hoped to call it a bit more than a theory or a hypothesis by demonstrating a working 'proof of principle' wheel, however I might succeed in a while - see, no time commitment there!

Despite my apparent confidence I am extremely apprehensive about the reaction to my explanation of how Bessler's wheel worked. When the document itself was being written and rewritten it was easy to be so full of enthusiasm but publishing it for all to see, feels a bit like sticking your head up above the ramparts so people can shoot at you!

I'm not sure whether to accept comments here or respond on besslerwheel forum. I'll wait and see what happens - maybe nothing?



JC

www.gravitywheel.com and the Bessler gravitywheel

I shall publish my revised web site http://www.gravitywheel.com/ and the principle which I believe governs the running of Bessler's gravitywheel and a description of the mechanism and why it works. The explanations are shorter than I would have liked because of the limited space available - and also because I don't want to lose the reader's attention with too much detail - and of course,there's always a danger of logorrhoea! Something I've been accused of having. I once saw it defined as "a procrastinating workaholic with an unhealthy attachment to words", - not me then!

I hope that my explanation stands up. It may be that it has not been made as clear as I think, so I shall probably try to deal with questions on http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/ rather than do it here.

Many people have asked why I didn't just post a simple explanation - well that's easier said than done. It's simple to understand the principle but hard to work out how to construct something that actually works according to it. I hope that someone with the requisite skills, (I can think of some), is able to create a simulation according to my (and Bessler's) design - Or at least the principle anyway.

My reasons for posting my ideas about Bessler's wheel are complex; Of course I would like to have it acknowledged that I had contributed in some way to the successful reconstruction of the wheel, who wouldn't? But more importantly I know that if this leads to a working model by either myself or some else, then it could have a major impact on pollution, offer a potential alternative to oil and other fossil fuels, but also provide a massive kick to the whole world's economy providing jobs and security all around the globe. The number of other potential benefits is enormous and there isn't the space to even outline them here so I just hope that I'm right..........??????

JC

The sigmoid curve or elongated 'S' shape

The disclosure on my web site is going well and is almost ready for publication. It's going to be bigger than I thought because I have had to divide it among several pages to make it into more easily digested chunks! I was also able to do some work on my wheel yesterday so I'll know if I have a runner soon.

Some people have dismissed what I have called Bessler's codes as either useless or imagined, so I am looking forward to seeing their surprise when they discover that there is a lot of good information available. I have spoken of the yin yang symbol before both in my first book and also in the Besslerwheel forum. The key to the Bessler wheel lies in the double curve or elongated 'S' curve as seen in the yin yang symbol.

When I was researching my bio on Bessler I spent some time looking for evidence that anyone else anywhere and at any previous time, had ever made a wheel like Bessler's because I thought that if they had it would add support to my thesis that Bessler's claims were real. I didn't find that evidence but in the course of it I did study the history of the yin yang symbol - not the philosophy behind it but the actual symbol itself. There was nothing about how it originated or how it was derived although there are volumes devoted to extracting meaning from it! I speculated that it might have been a graphic record of a gravitywheel from some distant past. To add to this pretty wild speculation I admit, I also found a comment credited to Nikola Tesla that the sigmoid curve formed the basic shape for all energies, now I don't know exactly what that means but it seemed to me that the yin yang incorporated a sigmoid curve and as you will see, I discuss this and how it relates to the lemniscate, the infinity symbol.

To add one more clue to the mix, you will also discover that in 2004 and later, I mentioned on the forum that I was looking into parametric oscillation as a potential key to solving Bessler's wheel. Subsequently I discovered that Scott Ellis of the Besslerwheel forum had posted some interesting facts about parametric oscillation a couple of years previously. I was originally pointed at the subject by Hal Puthoff who had made some significant discoveries in the field of optical parametric oscillation and he felt that there were some parallels in my own investgations.

In my disclosure you will see that Bessler too, used the elongated 'S' shape and indicated this. Enough already!

JC

My own comments

I'll have a go at answering some of the points raised in comments recently.

I understand your frustration guys but please back off. I am very busy with family issues right now and I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to the Bessler project.

I assume you're joking Axel, since I don't know anything about your ideas nor do I understand your brief description.

LIB I thought you were on my side. I have never set out to deceive anyone and if I have misled people I can only apologise and put it down to my own natural exuberance. What did I expect to happen? Not this! I have said I will share my information too many times to count and that commitment stands.

I may ignore the accusations from anons as have no idea who they are.

Kerob, I don't think my behaviour is irrational although it might be selfish - it's hard to analyze one's own actions. We look to protecting ourselves and our families first and if that's selfish then I'm guilty.

I've more or less finished the explanation I intend to publish but it's a too long for my www.gravitywheel.com web site so I'm writing a shorter explanation to post there and I'll release the fuller version as a download. I'd like to add a few drawings and a video to the web site version to aid the explanation.

Pete, with whom I was hoping to work with, to help me build a more engineered working model is busy and we are finding it hard to make time to meet, but we will when we can. As I've said before, Professor Hal Puthoff who has promised to help develop a working wheel has said that he needs a PoP wheel first so there is nothing further to be done there until that point is reached.

Thank you for the reminder about Arrache, I think it's time to talk to Ralph.

I guess I'm probably going to be consigned to somewhere hot if the saying that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' is true!

To enlarge on the clue I posted the other day. I said that the levers should move no more than 15 degrees. To be more precise, one lever, which is very long should move no more than 15 degrees causing another, shorter one, to move more than 15 degrees.

JC

Clarification

Wow - so much negativity! Let me try to make things clearer. Some people seem to think that my prototype has failed or I've given up. Neither is true; the situation remains the same as it was during the first months of this year.

Just to spell it out for the umpteenth time - I am satisfied that I know how Bessler's wheel worked. I understand the principle and also the mechanisms and how they work, I am confident that I shall get it to work ...eventually. When I have proved to my satisfaction that it either does work or doesn't work, then and only then I will publish all the details of how I think it works.

There are some problems of adjustment which I have encountered which are solvable and the reason why I know this is because I have deciphered some of Bessler's coded information which suggests that the movement should be limited to a range of no more 15 degrees - but prior to this discovery I had, in my design, allowed the maximum of almost 45 degrees. It seems that this limit has to apply to make the wheel work.

To those who say that simulating this on a computer would have shown this problem up months ago, I would say that I doubt it. Knowing that there has to be a limit to the range of movement may seem obvious now but given the software to test this one might not necessarily try a limited range of movement, unless one had deciphered Bessler's clue to this feature first. Also there are variables in where that 15 degrees should operate most effectively and that again is something that will not necessarily spring to mind. So I shall continue to construct my prototype and hope to hit the right 'sweet spot' before we all grow too old!

I'm certain that some will jump up and down and accuse me of self-delusion, or trying to hype sales of my books and that is something I just have to deal with. I would just like to say that the sale of the books is simply a service to those who wish to know more about Bessler. I can barely cover my costs let alone make a living selling them. I wish only to be the one who succeeds in this venture - but if someone else beats me to it, then I wish them the best of luck, I shall not lose out because I have my revised first book almost ready for publication and I have no doubt that if and when this great mystery is solved by anyone then I shall find publishers knocking on my door eager to take on my book on.

So if you wish to continue to follow my progress (or lack of it) please stay, but if you are fed up with my apparent reluctance to share what I know just yet, then thank you for your patience and perhaps you'll drop by again some time soon.

NB I have decided to include the occasional clue that I believe I have deciphered correctly and I'm willing to see what others think of it.

JC

EDIT - Following the negative, pessimistic responses to my reported efforts to solve the problem of Bessler's wheel and due to the fact that most of my readers think I'm deluded and either fooling myself or trying to do the same to them, I see little point in continuing to write this blog. I would like to assure you that it was never my intention to mislead anyone, myself included and I'm sorry that that is the impression that has been received. If I have a fault I believe that it is an incurable sense of optimism which pervades all of my work and my enthusiasm sometimes gets the better of me and I see the end of the rainbow within reach when perhaps it's still beyond my outstretched fingers.

Nevertheless, I do have a full understanding of the mechanisms and why they work and I will publish that information - but not when everyone wants me to, but when I am ready to do so. In a way the harsh responses to my positive estimates have released some of the pressure I put upon myself to get this thing finished, and I can now take my time, keep my head down and proceed in my own time.

A big thank you to all those who have continued to support me, for them I will continue to write this blog occasionally, because I enjoy writing.

Also I hope my own indefatigable optimism has encouraged others to travel this course and maybe one of them will win the race....

JC

Hiatus

I'm going off-line for a short while from Thursday - nothing sinister in that - so I'll be temporarily freezing the blog from Wednesday evening, so you won't be able to comment after that time. Sorry about that but I can't risk leaving my blog open and unattended for anyone to comment without being able to oversee what is written. Normal service will resume upon my return. This may take as long as three or four weeks. Thanks for your patience.

PS I fear I may have dillydallied too long. I have to be away and events are overtaking me. I wish I could stay. Ah well we shall see what we shall see.

JC

Prototype almost finished...

I'm approaching the end of my Bessler wheel prototype construction, in fact I should finish it in the next few days. I feel exhilerated and full of optimism and I'm confident that it will work. Of course I always feel that way, otherwise I wouldn't be continually constructing and reconstructing gravitywheels!

Nevertheless I think that, coupled with my understanding of the basic principle and what I have discovered about the mechanism, that this one will work and will not become entangled with its other parts. I have to finish this one before next Wednesday as from then I shall be off-line for a few days and if I don't finish it before then I won't be able to tell anyone about it, until I'm back online!

As promised, if this one should fail, I am ready to publish everything, but it may be a few days before I can do either.

PS I wrote the above last night and forgot to add the following;

There is a tendency to envisage the right mechanical arrangement as having the potential to move a weight the maximum possible distance in order to achieve the greatest leverage. Against this one should balance the need to move the weight as quickly as possibel ( to make it fly upwards lightly) as suggested by Bessler. Such a rapid motion needs the distance the weight is to be moved to be less than that envisioned in order to achieve more speed over distance. Bessler states this quite clearly and even provides information on the exact distances required to be included in the mechanical arrangement.

JC

Update, no sims, no ETAs, but soon.

I should post another blog to curtail the length of the previous one! It seems as though some people think I should publish everything right now. I said many times I would publish everything I know and I will.

It has been stated that I have plenty of time in my day to finish the work, both the construction and the written, but how can anyone know what I fill my days with? I am up every day at around 5.45 to attend to both the internet and my own computer requirements and I don't usually get to bed before 11.00 pm; I'm retired so where does the day go? I frequently ask myself that question and I can see what has taken up my time. I used to wonder what I would do with my time once I retired - now I wonder how I ever had time to work!

I'm not going to detail what I'm doing every day; it would bore you all and it's private anyway. But I am busy and I do work on both the wheel and the publishing material as and when I can. I continue to research the history of Bessler and answer a number of emails daily. My work in decoding Bessler's material continues in my spare moments - what spare moments? I have a number of web sites to maintain and update which admittedly doesn't take long and I'm still trying to finish my update of my original biography of Bessler.

As for simulations I have tried them in the past and found them awkward and non-intuitive. It has been suggested that I could buy a more powerful PC for £300, off ebay - would you buy a PC off ebay? I wouldn't! I like to know I can go back to the guy who sold it me if something goes wrong and anyway I don't have the cash to flash, buying PCs and simulation software no matter that it's only £30 or whatever.

I know that younger people than I can quickly get the hang of everything digital these days but it gets harder to find your way around it as you age. My fifteen year old grandson is a whizz with computers and can sort out my minor problems with ease.

When I first wrote my book I did it on an Amstrad PCW8512. For those of you who do not know of it, AMSTRAD is a contraction of Alan Michael Sugar Trading - Sugar became the star of the BBC reality show The Apprentice which has had five series broadcast in each year between 2005 and 2009, in the same role as Donald Trump in the US version. I read that he is worth over a billion US$ - not bad for an East End of London barrow boy. That computer was a nightmare to run, and even scrolling down a page took minutes but it was cool then. Since then I have taught myself everything I needed to know about computers and web sites and it was a steep learning curve for me - and it still is. Self-publishing held the same problems, there wasn't much info about it then although now, with such web sites as www.lulu.com, it is so easy.

So I'll say this once more. I am finishing the latest construction and then working or not I go public. I don't think Pete Clarke's going to be able to spare time within the immediate future to assist me in building the designed model so it shouldn't be long before you can see what I've been working on. I'm not giving an estimate of the time because I have been way off on that before, but it will be soon.

JC

Use it or lose it

Here's a quick update. The situation at present is this. I've just received a signed NDA from Pete Clarke and we have yet to arrange a meeting to discuss our alternative designs and, I hope, take the first steps toward constructing a wheel according to my (Bessler's) design. Pete leads a hectic life and it may be some weeks before we get together and make some progress. In the mean time I am continuing to try to build my own proof of principle wheel and maybe I won't need Pete's help if I can finish it successfuly in the next few days.

I'm also writing up my research and this is time-consuming because I need to describe my theory and show why it will work without compromising the laws of physics (which I can do). I am also providing supporting evidence from the descriptions of witnesses as well as Bessler's own words. But in addition I am citing as confirmation that my design matches Bessler's almost exactly by including my decoding of Bessler's many many clues, most which I have not published so far, because they are too revealing!

I am a sudoku addict and have been for three or four years because I find that it stimulates my thought processes. According to Ronald Kotulak, a Pulitzer prize-winning author, mental training in old age can boost intellectual power, and help maintain mental functions like problem solving, and also reverse memory decline. He reckons that even if they haven't received the benefits of good early education and experience, older adults can still do much to keep their brains in shape. That's my experience too. My powers of recall had faded significantly but recently there has been some improvement. [Ronald Kotulak. "Inside the Brain: Revolutionary Discoveries of How the Mind Works" (Kansas City, Mo.: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1997)].

Marilyn Albert, a Harvard University neurologist and director of gerontology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, studied more than 1,000 people ages 70 to 80. She found that both physical and mental factors seem to determine which elders hold on to their intellects. Key elements revealed in the study were education, which appears to increase the number and strength of synaptic connections; strenuous activity, which improves blood flow to the brain; lung function, which ensures that the blood is adequately oxygenated; and the feeling that what people do makes a difference in their lives.

Kotulak quoted Albert, "Is mental exercise important for the brain? People used to ask me that years ago, and I would say we don't have enough data one way or another. I don't say that anymore. I tell them that's what the data look like: Use it or lose it.

So as well as researching Bessler's wheel, doing sudoku, acrostik crosswords and reading, I cycle for roughly an hour each day; I used to run, and have done four London marathons and competed in numerous smaller events, but acquired a prolapsed disc about four years ago which prevents my running. I have designed an amazing machine with which I hope to cure my disc problem but lack of money and time means its on the back-burner 'til I get this wheel going. I believe that the mental stimulation I get and intensive excercise will keep my mind alert and functioning for at least as long as the body does -well I hope so anyway. ;-)

Of course I'm only 65, a relative youngster, but it's as well to try to keep everything working to the best of its ability.

The thing about sudoku is this; when you 'discover' the next number, you get this mental kick, which spurs you on to the next one. The 'discovery' is 'rewarded' with a quick shot of dopamine. This is the 'jolt' that induces euphoria and combines the initial reward and subsequent reinforcement. Over time and with repeated exposure, these jolts initiate the gradual adaptations in the reward circuitry that give rise to addiction. Which is why I'm addicted to sudoku!

But I think that this is related to the addiction we Besslerfiles get when we think we have 'discovered' the secret. It does not matter that in due course we find we were mistaken; the 'jolt' has already been received and we seek another one and that is why we continue to research this 'science'. It's the same mechanism that causes people to become drug addicts, but in our case it may turn out to be a beneficial addiction.

JC

Hands-on wins over CAD every time

OK, just to continue comments on a new page to save making the page any longer! Some people have assumed that I used computer aided design software in my work to reconstruct Bessler's wheel and on discovering that I don't, the very reasonable question raised - why not? It was further commented that you can get immensely powerful CAD/CAM programs for free, and that you don't need much power to design Bessler's wheel. I have used this kind of software in the past and found that it does require a more powerful computer than mine is (it kept freezing) but also it does not do the job and I'll explain why.

I have always had a hands-on approach to this problem because I find that having the pieces in my hands can show me more effectively than all the fancy software can, how minor alterations to length, angle, weight and position can produce different results/reactions. What do I mean by hands-on? It means that I need active participation as opposed to the theoretical approach of computer software. Without a hands-on approach I don't get the feedback necessary to this kind of research. It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC. In my experience you have to input each variation of angle, length, weight or position and run the test but the results are not always informative and a hands-on test will suggest other possibilities not recognisable in a software run. You cannot imagine every possible variation and just input it - without the pieces in your hand and arranged and rearranged on the work bench you simply will miss opportunities that occur to you as you manipulate them.

Only those who routinely use hands-on building practice will understand my point of view and I suspect that those who favour the CAD/CAM approach wil make the counter argumenty equally effectively, nevertheless that is how I work and although it takes much longer than using computer aided design it will, in my opinion, win out in the end.

JC

I'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

Decision time

I have of course realised that it's May already and I've missed my ETA for the finished wheel by several months (years?) .... Things have a habit of diverting one's attention from one's intended purpose and I am perhaps more guilty than most. Nnotwithstanding, I am constantly working on adjusting the mechanisms to try to make them do what I want them to do and although I have said countless times that I understand the principle or the concept which makes Bessler's wheel work ... it is taking the very devil of a long time to get it right.

I sometimes liken it to understanding an auto engine - you understand the concept and what the various parts do, but it would be difficult to make one that works without constantly refining and adjusting each part. Anyway I'm on the verge of giving up. I have three options open to me; first I can continue to try with the help of Clarkie, but I'm not sure how long that may take; secondly, I can involve Hal Puthoff and see where that gets me - or doesn't - or finally I can publish everything in a book, on-line and through a video. I'm looking at the last option.

JC