by Robert Henderson
Inventing trouble
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/inventing-trouble/
Someone is trying to kill me. Or to be more precise a number of people are trying to kill me. Or to be utterly exact various professional killers employed by sundry powerful men are trying to murder me.
Why are powerful men trying to kill me? Because metaphorically speaking I invented a better mousetrap. Mark Twain was right was right; the world does beat a path to your door when you invent something useful. Unfortunately he was under the misapprehension that the world beats a path to the inventorโs door to make him rich. What the world actually does is beat a path to the inventorโs door to kill, maim or cheat him. How did I get into this predicament? I went to a patent lawyer whoโฆno thatโs moving the story on too fast. Letโs get back to the why.
What have I discovered? Nothing less than the engineerโs version of the philosopherโs stone, free energy. In approximately two seconds of conscious thought I invented a perpetual motion machine. You just set it off and it goes on and on and on without any further power input until you want to stop it. No fuel needed and precious few moving parts to break.
Hell! the machineโs so neat it wonโt even cause heartbreak to the scientific gentry because it doesnโt transgress the most biblical of scientific writs, that infuriating old first law of thermodynamics which wonโt allow more energy to come out of system than goes into it. Bit of a shame that, not outraging the boffins, but at least it means they wonโt be able to say in their canting obscurantist way that the ideaโs nonsense because it breaks a scientific law.
The basic invention is such a damn simple thing. If you saw the machine you would say how the devil didnโt anybody think of that before! I did myself at first, but I got to reflecting on how I was forty nine when I came up with the idea and how that idea came out of nothing. Pure serendipity.
Happens every now and then. A young boy inadvertently invented the centrifugal governor for Wattโs steam engine by casually hooking up a lever to a valve and a distracted Archimedes comprehended specific gravity whilst staring at his bathwater. My idea was that easy and sudden.
Strange how people have these ideas. Wattโs boy did it to save himself the trouble of minding the steam engine so that he could play with another lad; Archimedes did it to please a king. Me? I donโt rightly know. Iโve always had a fascination with the way things are, not why they exist you understand, but how theyโre made, how they function. But thatโs not an explanation in itself. Perhaps itโs because Iโve a mind which works primarily on logic. That means Iโm naturally inclined to understand processes rather than cold data. Ask me to memorise a list of names and I couldnโt do that to save my life. Ask me to memorise a complicated process using the same names and they would slip into my brain as easy as ABC. Come to think of it, perhaps itโs the logical structure of my mind which gives me my interest in the form and function of things.
Anyway, whatever the reason, there I was one evening less than a year ago, feeling old, flat broke, sitting in a rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper, staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects owned by the stranger who rented out the room. Suddenly I thought you put this here and that there, join this to the other and bingo! there it was, an idea to turn the whole world through eighty degrees. Suddenly Iโm thinking that Iโm no longer booked on a one way ticket to Palookaville with no chance of a refund.
Iโve had a small model running nonstop for near on nine months. As I write this I could hold out my hand and touch it. I knew the machine must work when it was only an idea in my head. But being intellectually convinced is only half the battle, so I made the machine to pay heed to my emotions. I needed to see it working to believe.
Itโs a very basic thing this model Iโve made, but in principle it could go on for ever. However, parts will wear out and materials deteriorate and accidents happen, so at some point it will fail. As things stand I reckon that it could take a thousand years or more to break down. With better materials perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. Eventually who knows? Prevent the materials deteriorating, avoid accidents, let the Earth remain much the same and itโs forever. But even a thousand years is as good as infinity for the individual man, so for all practical purposes itโs a perpetual motion machine as it stands. And the additional beauty of the thing is that it takes precious little energy to start and next to no energy to stop.
How does the machine work? Itโฆwell, thatโs my big problem, thatโs why Iโve got all these people after me. I donโt dare tell anybody until Iโve got a few things right side up in my head, number one being how do I keep alive. But Iโll describe it in general terms so someone reading this can understand what is making powerful men so angry and desperate that they want to kill a man without money, power or influential friends. Just hang onto your concentration for paragraph or two and youโll get the general idea.
My miraculous engine uses a simple natural phenomenon to produce motion which in turn is linked to another example of the selfsame phenomenon and the synchronised reciprocating action of these two phenomena sustains the motion of each other. Ergo, a self sustaining cycle is formed. Ergo it need never stop. Now motion equals power, mechanical or electrical to your choice. So you can either use my machine to drive something directly โ a shipโs propeller say โ or link it to a generator to produce electricity.
The power it generates is unusually stable. Because it doesnโt use fuel, you need never worry that youโll get an irregular performance from supposedly similar fuel and it isnโt overly dependent on the immediate weather conditions like wind and solar power or naturally inconsistent in strength like running water or wave power. My machine just starts off at a pace and never changes unless gravity, pressure or temperature alters.
Gravity and pressure arenโt a problem because neither vary significantly on the Earthโs land surfaces, so that leaves only temperature to fret about. Thatโs a theoretical problem because the lowest natural land temperatures can make the natural phenomenon impossible. In practice itโs no problem because most places will never get cold enough most of the time and, in those that do, the problem could be overcome easily enough by insulation. Come to think of it, I could overcome the difficulty by substituting the machineโs normal primary material with one which reacts differently to heat.
At the worst, one of my machines might run a fraction faster or slower as the temperature goes up or down. In any case if you want an absolutely stable power flow, all you need to do is put the machine into a pressure and temperature controlled environment which, of course, you can create using power from the machine. Beautiful ainโt it!
Producing virtually free, stable power is recommendation enough, but my machine has other flag waving advantages which say BUY BUY BUY ME. The materials needed to build it are plentiful and easy to work. It doesnโt use fuel. There is absolutely no pollution so there are no gas emissions, no chemical leaks, no nuclear waste, no interference with the environment such as you get with wave power and no noise. You donโt even have the aesthetic problem of ugly equipment such as electricity pylons. In fact, my machines could be built in a way which made them part of the natural landscape.
Best of all the machine depletes no natural resources other than those required to build the machines and is permanently sustainable. Sounds like fairy gold, donโt it? But thereโs more.
My machine could provide the power for most human needs at the point of use. Imagine a world in which each building, each home, each business, each factory had its own machine to generate power. Out goes the great paraphernalia of electricity lines and gas pipes we now have, out go the great power generating plants. Even if a few public generators were required for undertakings such as the railways, they could be built using my machine.
The practical effects of the machine would have profound political consequences. All countries would have access to power so cheap as to be virtually free. No country could be utterly held to ransom by the oil and gas suppliers. Because pollution is zero, even the lowest tech economies could run it safely. In theory any country could industrialise.
If youโre thinking that the contraption sounds too good to be true, relax, no machine was ever built without a drawback or three. This one has two. The first comes from the stability of the natural process producing the motion. This stability means that power can only be generated at one rate by a particular machine.
Now that just goes to show the value of working things out on paper. Just after I wrote that last paragraph I thought of a novel way of gearing the machine to produce differential motion by restricting the opportunity for the motion producing phenomenon to occur. How easy it would be in practice is another matter, but as the gearing is a simple mechanical device I donโt foresee any great problem. A bit of tinkering here and there to discover the most efficient way f setting the gearing mechanism but thatโs all. But even if the gearing did not work, all you need to do to produce differential power is store the electricity the machine produces and use it as required at what power level you want.
Goddamn! Iโve just thought of an even better way to gear the machine. Iโll use different materials to alter the rates of flow. So letโs say the machine has only one real drawback, size.
Even if I can make a machine which produces different levels of power, I am still constrained by its upper power limit. To alter its power I can only subtract from its maximum energy output. So what you say, the same applies to all powered engines. But with other machines you can improve their fuel or adapt their structure to gain greater power from the same size of mechanism. Unless I can find materials which act more efficiently than those I know of, I canโt make any significant improvements in power generation to my machine, because the natural phenomenon I utilise will only produce a given amount of motion in a given amount of space.
I could use greater pressures to speed the natural phenomenon, but that would be pointless because I would run into the old conservation of energy problem. The energy required to increase the pressure would cancel out any increased energy output from the machine. It really gets up my nose that conservation of energy law!
So the long and the short of it is that my machines will have to be on the large size for substantial power generation. Certainly too big to power a car or a plane because the power/weight ratio would be impractical. For the technically virginal, thatโs just a fancy way of saying the machine would not generate enough energy to move its own and the vehicleโs mass.
But if my machine could not propel cars and planes directly, it might power a large ship. And even cars could be powered by it indirectly if electric propulsion becomes not merely possible, but at least as convenient and efficient as petrol driven engines.
How big can my machines be? In principle any size above the microscopic. The beauty of the machine is that it can be linked to any number of other machines or the process of the natural phenomenon could be replicated infinitely in a single machine. As for machines going the other way on the size scale, there is a limit because another natural phenomenon kicks in at the microscopic level to prevent the perpetual motion process happening. Thereโs probably a way round that as well, but I canโt think of it as yet, although I suspect the answer lies in using materials of different density.
Sounds like Iโm a lucky man just waiting to coin as much money as a man could conceive of doesnโt it? Wrongity wrongity! There is a positive forest of stricken circumstantial oaks across the road to my fame and riches. After I had made my first machine and had it running for long enough to convince me that it was stable, I sat down to think about how I would bring the idea to the market. The trouble was that the more I thought about it the more impossible the business seemed.
To begin with I thought about patents. To patent an invention all over the world costs about thirty grand. I wonโt keep you in suspense, I didnโt and donโt have thirty grand. But that thirty grand is only the beginning because you are bound to get pirating, and thatโs particularly so when the machine is cheap and easy to produce. So you need more money for patent infringement law suits, lots and lots more money, boy! do you need money to keep lawyers happy. And the funny thing is it doesnโt matter where you go in the world, lawyers all have the same three principal character traits, greedy, greedy and greedy again. I was tempted to throw in idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly before greedy, but that would be unfair to lawyers. Idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly indubitably score just below greedy on the lawyer personality chart. And itโs been ever thus. First let us kill the lawyers! wrote old Will Shakespeare. I canโt say Iโm utterly opposed to the idea.
Those are your legal problems with patents. Your other more pressing slings and arrows โ letโs be polite and call them extra-legal difficulties โ come from those countries which either donโt recognise patents for foreigners or do but donโt if you know what I mean. Itโs a sorry truth that most countries donโt have a meaningful legal system, they being more than a little remiss in providing such things as due process and the right to independent legal representation.
And in any case I sincerely doubt whether a foreigner ever gets fair treatment before a foreign court anywhere. So legal action is not really a paying proposition anywhere unless your indecently rich.
Some wiseguys might tell you the way to deal with such unobliging states is to bribe their rulers. The wiseguys who tell you that will even offer to hand over your money to the said rulers. You would be better employed donating the money to your favourite charity. If one thing is certain in this world, you never can trust a man who takes a bribe. Either he will be willing to take another one to betray you or he wonโt have the power to deliver his promises.
When it comes down to it, your only real safeguards against having an idea stolen are technical sophistication and cost. You need to produce a product which is either too technically sophisticated for easy production or so expensive that bootleggers canโt afford to produce it.
Generally if you have the first you have the second. Sadly my machine doesnโt exactly fall into the category of technically sophisticated although it could utilise a lot of high tech stuff to maximise its effectiveness. In fact, my machine is so simple in principle that your average cackhanded technophobe bozo could construct a basic model in his kitchen and that basic machine could power a 60 watt bulb. So that makes effective patenting more than a mite difficult.
But patenting was just the beginning of my worries. I also had to find the money to either start up a company to manufacture the machines or persuade a big company to fund the project. Well, I sure as hell couldnโt do the first and I was damn sure that no big company was going to look at somebody they didnโt know from Adam. But hopeless as that seemed I played make believe to progress matters. I asked myself to suppose that I could get the money for the patenting and persuade a big company to finance me.
I could just about believe that some lawyer with an eye to the main chance might do the patenting work on a contingency basis. In the small hours I could even see some big business taking me under its wing. But what was there to stop either a lawyer or a company taking me for a ride? How could I trust the lawyers and businessmen with whom I would have to deal?
How could I protect my idea? In the end the answer I came up with was the only sane one: I had damn all ways of guaranteeing that I wouldnโt be shafted and the idea stolen. But before I got to that inescapable, indigestible conclusion I tied myself in knots trying to close down all the alleyways and thoroughfares which a lawyer or a business could scuttle down. I created positive sheepshanks of logical reasoning and half-hitches of practical actions to lash everything down. Iโll give you a taste of the way I went, twisting and turning till my head was near breaking. My mind would work something like this.
I need to prove that the idea was mine. Therefore Iโm going to send myself a number of letters with the plans of the machine inside. The envelopes will have stamps over the sealing flap of envelope. That way the point of entry into the envelope is date stamped by the post office. A court will accept that as proof of my knowledge of the machine at the stamped date.
Damn! but that doesnโt prove that I invented the machine, it merely proves that I knew about it by a particular time. So I shall send a letter to the patent lawyer describing what the machine does in general terms but without describing the machine. This letter will be sent by recorded post so again I have a date stamp. But what if he says that he never received the letter? I shall send the letter to his home not his office. That will mean that either he or his wife signs for the letter. But that wonโt prove that I sent the lawyer a particular letter. So I shall videotape myself putting the letter into envelope before I send it. But that still wonโt prove that I sent that particular letter. Hell!
Or I might be thinking about meeting the patent lawyer. Then I would go along like this. What am I going to do about the meeting? The lawyerโs got to come to me. That way I can control the physical circumstances. Then I can record the meeting. But I mustnโt rely on just one record because that the recording might be faulty or the manโs face be turned from the camera so his lips canโt be seen. So I shall videotape the meeting with four video machines placed at 90 degrees to one another. Just for luck I shall run half a dozen tape recorders as well. I canโt afford to buy the video recorders but I can hire them.
Shall I tell the patent lawyer I am recording? Indubitably yes because if I donโt as sure as eggs are ovoid objects he will go scuttling off to the patent office or a manufacturer or both and sew up the patent for someone else. If I didnโt have the recordings I wouldโฆjeez you see what this sort of thing does, it signposts the way to a home for the barking.
Finally I got thinking about the practical effects my machine would have on the world. Just imagine what would happen if a source of energy was given to the world which required no more than the initial outlay for the machine. All right, you could factor in the costs of security for the biggest machines and there will be some piffling maintenance costs for the moving parts, but whichever way you look at it, the cost is minuscule compared with any current means of power generation.
The problem is that my invention is not like any other in the history. Other forms of power have come upon the scene. Windmills competed with watermills. Steam competed with wind and watermills. Oil superseded steam, electricity competes with oil and gas. Nuclear energy vies with all these. But in those cases the change was never immediate nor complete.
Steam may be almost dead as a serious primary power source but it took two centuries to become moribund. As for the others, they all have their niches. What I have is the means to make all of them, except petrol for vehicles and ships and planes, obsolete in a matter of a few years, perhaps as little as ten. And if decent batteries can be invented for cars, then most of the oil used in cars will become redundant.
Now sit down and think of all the powerful men whose place in the world is dependent on power generation. Think of the gas companies, the electricity generators and the oil companies.
Think of coal and gas. Think of the oil dependent cars. Think of all the people employed in all those industries. Think of all the other people who live off the general expenditure of the energy producing people. Think of the politicians who tax and spend. Think of the economic and social disruption a form of energy so cheap that its cost becomes negligible could cause. Think of what the likely response to the man who has invented the machine which creates virtually free power.
What do men do when they are threatened. They become either aggressive or submissive, the Uriah Heap syndrome. When they are powerful men, they invariably become aggressive. When they are really frightened they will kill. So I thought there would be more a fair chance that someone would want me dead if I tried to patent the machine.
After all that thinking and conjuring of demons, there I was sitting on this wonderful idea which could change the world and I couldnโt see a way of through the thicket to the open fields beyond.
I tried to shrug my shoulders and tell myself to forget about it. But the idea was so strong in my mind that I couldnโt leave the thing alone . However hard I pressed it down it kept clambering back to my frontal lobes until it became a mental sore.
I knew that it was Lombard Street to a china orange that I would be cheated. I knew that the machine could cause great social dislocation. I knew that the machine could threaten the security of the powerful. I knew that I was putting myself in danger. But it didnโt make a damn bit of difference, thatโs the Godโs honest truth. I didnโt care about anything but the machine.
It wasnโt even the prospect of money which was uppermost in my mind. What was sitting there was the sheer cleverness of the thing and the fact that I had invented it. If a philosopher ever made a more profound observation than David Hume when he said that the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of, I would sorely wish to know it.
Well that was six months ago. What did I do? I found a lawyer who agreed to apply for patents in Britain, the US, Japan and the EU. I reckoned that would cover enough of the countries who could not afford to be without the machine to make me a fortune.
True to form the lawyer just couldnโt resist the temptation to go to an oil company. Needless to say he didnโt register the patents. I know the lawyer went to the oil company because they tried to buy me out. But the trouble was they wanted to suppress the machine. And my trouble was that I couldnโt bear that. So I said no. The oil company offered more and more money but I kept on saying no. Eventually the oil company stopped offering.
I was just about to look out another patent lawyer when the first attempt to kill me happened. A car swerving up on the pavement. I just managed to get into a side alley in time. It could have been an accident but it looked deliberate and I donโt believe in coincidences. Another car tried to run me down the next day. Caught me a glancing blow and I ended up in hospital for a couple of weeks.
I can take hint so I didnโt go back to my room when I came out of hospital. I simply left everything I had and ran. Where am I now? Sitting in another rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper, feeling old and flat broke. Iโm even staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects owned by a stranger.
Any difference from a few months back? Yeah, Iโm scared, but Iโm even angrier and angry trumps scared any day. And Iโll tell you the damndest thing about my anger. Iโm not angry because Iโm not making a fortune. Iโm not even angry because people are trying to kill me. No, Iโm angry because the machineโs a truly beautiful idea and if Iโm killed it will be gone.
So what do I do? Shall I patent it as best I can? Shall I do what Alexander Fleming did with penicillin and give it to the world for free? Or shall I simply let the idea come silent with me to the grave? I canโt even console myself by thinking that if I donโt make the invention public then somebody else will soon discover it. The natural physical phenomenon I utilise for my machine has been known for at least three thousand years. We have had something approximating to a proper scientific method for at least four hundred years and a respectable technology for far longer. Yet in all that time no one sat down and looked at this phenomenon and put two and two together. So why should I believe that someone will discover what I have discovered? In fact, I reckon itโs even less likely now than it was three hundred years ago because our scientific erudition and technological brilliance has blinded men to simple processes.
One thing is for sure, when shove comes to push nobody can stop me from making the idea public knowledge. If all other roads come to dead ends, I can release the genie by uploading the details of the machine onto the Internet.
Well, I reckon shove has come to push so I put this lead here and that lead there, join this to the other, switch on, log on , upload and bingo! there it is, an idea to turn the world through eighty degrees, singing through the ether of the worldwide web. I wonder which big company will be the first to apply for a patent?
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Oh help! I’m totally confused. Who is the author of this entertaining flight of fancy? On my computer screen it looks like Robert Henderson, but the author sounds American and Mr Henderson isn’t. Or is he? And what’s all this stuff about a perpetual motion machine? Anybody who knows how to spell ‘supersede’ can’t be a complete idiot. So what’s it all about? Is he sticking electrodes in cucumbers (or was it lemons?) like the Egyptians did or what?
Well, Hugo, I have given you the template for a perpetual motion machine which does not break any physical laws. It is to discover a natural phenomenon which can be reciprocally linked in in a chain of two or more parts .
I knew right away this is pure balderdash when I spotted he got his laws wrong. Its the second not the first law of thermodynamics that’s the issue.
Nope. It is the first law which deals with the conservation of energy, which is what is at issue here. The second law deals with entropy.
No, the second law is the problem.
You can have perpetual motion easily enough; a wheel spinning in a perfect vacuum, so long as it has no axle or other connection, and you draw no energy from it. That is, so long as it does no work, energy is conserved. The solar system is, at least on human time scales, a perpetual motion machine. But that is trivial and useless.
If you try to do any work, that is have a useful form of perpetual motion which can do work, you run into the Second Law, and that’s where you’re lost.
Nope. My envisaged system does not have that problem because it is simply a natural phenomenon which works in a reciprocating series, ie, one event being harnessed to another. At its simplest, there are two naturally occurring events which events which mutually enable each naturally occurring instance of the phenomenon to continue. One seeds the other without any loss of energy,
…that’s not the issue. You need to extract energy from the system to do work, and then it runs down, in which case you haven’t got perpetual motion. Like I said above, the solar system will go round and round forever without outside influences. But as soon as you try to extract energy from it to use someplace else, it will slow down and eventually stop.
You are still missing the point. The system (machine) I envisage creates by the use of the natural phenomenon a continuous state whereby energy can be taken out of the system without reducing the system’s efficiency. Imagine if a hydro electric installation could run indefinitely because the flow of water over the turbines was constant. There would be no loss of energy because the the energy generator (the flow of water) would be constant.
The machine (or system if you prefer) I envisage would not have to rely on an outside agency such as a running watercourse. Instead, the machine would be self-contained, providing the energy source by the use of the natural phenomenon in mutually sustaining reciprocal action.
There would be nothing to stop the natural phenomenon running indefinitely provided the conditions within the machine were maintained, just as water running in a hydro-electric system will run without losing energy and thus affecting the efficiency of the plant,
Let me also say something about entropy. It is a problematic idea, even at the level of the universe. That is so because clearly the universe could be considered to have become more not less organised since its beginning, with disparate particles becoming atoms and atoms forming molecules and molecules eventually forming stars and planets.
So you wrote this Robert? And you’re serious?
My starting point is that we live in an imperfect world. We have words for things like ‘absolute’, ‘perfect’, ‘infinite’ etc, but none of these things exist in the earthly realm. We cannot even divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, no matter how hard we try, because the numbers are imperfect. It is easier to destroy than to create – we can destroy a cathedral which took decades to build in a second with a well-aimed bomb. And most importantly, in this world you don’t get something for nothing, at least in terms of energy. It doesn’t matter what law this is covered by – it is a universal principle.
As a philosophical point, I figure it is reasonable to assume there might well be, and probably is, another ‘universe’ where all of the above rules are reversed, the traditional name for which is Heaven. I dunno, I’m just guessing – I haven’t been there yet.
But do give us a clue as to what your device is – it’s not the old thing about an electric motor driving a generator I hope. Is it a chemical reaction? Is it animal vegetable or mineral?
If anybody else had written this piece I would just dismiss it. Didn’t you used to be a tax inspector in a former life?
I’m presuming this is a satire, but I’m slightly baffled as to the intended target.
Yes, I wrote it. As to how far I am serious I will leave people to judge..
I did use to work for the Revenue, not as an inspector but as an investigator.
Sorry, Hugo, I forgot to answer your question about what type of machine it would be. Well, if I know of such a machine I would hardly be telling what it was. Obviously such a machine would have to have a means of capturing the energy provided by the reciprocating natural phenomenon. That means would probably have to be mechanical (with the natural phenomenon driving the mechanism) and most probably have to take place where there is gravity.
Either that or he’s finally flipped!
I think he was a tax inspector or,some kind of civil servant. Perhaps he’s discovered how to get blood from a stone!
[…] by Robert Henderson Inventing trouble http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/inventing-trouble/ Someone is trying to kill me. Or to be more precise a number of people are trying to kill me. Or to be utterly exact various professional killers employed by sundry powerful men are trying to murder me. Why are powerful men trying to kill me? Because metaphorically speaking I invented a better mousetrap. Mark Twain was right was right; the world does beat a path to your door when you invent something useful. Unfortunately he was under the misapprehension that the world beats a path to the inventorโs door to make him rich. What the world actually does is beat a path to the inventorโs door … Article by The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG. Read entire story here. […]
Many years ago, in the dead of night, for reasons I shall not go into here, I took a minicab from Norwich to London, a journey of some distance. The driver regaled me throughout the journey with his lengthy and complex explanations of why the laws of physics were in error and how he alone had discovered the key to the universe, and that if only money could be put into his ideas we would be in a position of universal peace, love and prosperity. It was apparent that he believed, in an entirely amiable and very English way, that he was a modern Galileo and that the entire scientific establishment was corrupt, deluded or both. I smiled at him and said “really” a lot. At the end of the journey, I felt rather as I did on reaching the end of this article.
But I am not claiming that the laws of physics are wrong.
Go here:
http://www.tinaja.com/tinaja01.shtml
I found one of these places once. Only it wasn’t infested with nude females, just homosexual men. Story of my life.