the clues give it away

[wheelrite]

Resist reading a genune simple Bessler descriptive line or passage that seems straightforward and simple enough(if not illuminating) and think you have a good definitive understanding of it. Its been too long, and with translation, cultural issues, etc. you can only be fairly certain at best(like weights swinging on levers), so maybe dont downgrade or dispose of the other options so much? Do 'the court thing' and arrive at a likelyhood.
Besslers writings have too many occasions when there are possible double entendres/woven meaning/word play for it to be NOT just that, how significant his word smithing is? who knows. Just remember if he said some things with possible connotations etc. its just as likely its not meant as it is.....He was very clever and could manipulate real objects and language to a fine degree, seems to take delight(humour?) at his word smithing, and then of course there is the religous aspect wich probably affected his doings. ie saying he was a charlatan as an inventor, is saying he lies, wich as a christian is seen as a bad thing.....no wonder he got angry.
just a few thoughts
Regards
Jon
PS I think there may be a 'key' document or book maybe as yet undiscovered thats hold the 'secret', and its not the toys page.

[bluesgtr44]

I am pretty thick skinned (not insulted) and don't want to be misunderstood on my short responses...My assurity just does not run as deep as Jim's does.

...I do not think this structure or framework is the stretched linen or whatever that concealed the secret mechanism....I think this is the secret mechanism or a part of it....

as compared to....

This is so simple and clear that I'm amazed that anyone might not understand what Bessler is saying.

I admire Jim and his convictions...there are times I just do not share them....this is not a bad thing. I went back and looked at the original german and latin versions and still think this is hazy...not clear...Just an opinion.


Steve

[rlortie]

Opinion:

Jim wrote;

But Bessler said that the weights gain their energy (or force) from motion/swinging. So he is saying that some type of motion of the weight causes the weights to gain energy/force. Once this force is used to move the weights out-of-balance then it is easy for gravity to turn the wheel. It is NOT gravity that provides the power, but rather it is the force from the swinging/moving weights that forces the weights to move out of balance and thus power the wheel.

I am having problems reading this without finding it contradicting within its own context.

Energy or force from swinging is provided by gravity, other wise a pendulum would not return from its highest amplitude. It is gravity that sets it in motion from a preset position. Gravity provides the swinging source, and therefore it IS the force providing the swinging and is providing the swinging/ moving force and provides the power.

I believe it is the ability of constantly changing the reference of the pivot point/s of paired weights that cause it to seek but never find equilibrium.

The force can be refereed to as KE, PE or how ever your mathematical minds wishes to equate it. To my thinking it need not be called anything other than gravity originated.

IMO the canvas covered drum is a structure but it only provides two purposes. That of hiding the operating mechanics, and being the end receiver of the mechanical transference or force from the driving mechanism.

My current project/design is a very good example of this. The machine itself is contained in a cube rectangular frame structure measuring 48" long. 39" high and 11" wide. It is hidden withing a veneered circular drum measuring 69-13/16" in diameter and outside thickness of 15-13/16" wide excluding bolt heads. The drum is firmly attached to the axle, the internal cube structure is not! I might add that the mechanism for the better part is contained in !/2 the drum diameter while the other is light and empty as it should be.

Ralph

[Ant]

An important clue to me is from the DT passage that gets so much attention....DT page 191...J. Collins....

" - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or "point of rest", but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing."

...I do not think this structure or framework is the stretched linen or whatever that concealed the secret mechanism....I think this is the secret mechanism or a part of it....


Steve

I agree...

& suggest the stretched linen also performed a function in manageability and to restrict inertia strain proportionally on the inner mechanism.

[Ant]

Deven,

Do you know the German multiple meanings for veneer? It does not only mean a thin layer of wood or layers of thin wood bonded together.

Ralph

Interesting...
The arms in my design are constructed of layers of incrementing lengths of metal. I abandoned thin layers of wood as being too fragile - in the early days as the arm got longer the softwood grain could not withstand the stress at the enmeshed cross linking adjacent squares. They buckled then broke - a bit like reeling in a fish thats too heavy for the rod to handle.

As the arm and scaled lengths got longer the brass bars I used needed to be 13 thick to prevent bending. After visiting yard long MDF triangles to replicate the opening and closing arm effect, I discovered having different number of layers had an unexpected effect. Two arms in layers of 3, 6 & 9 triangles rotated the same distance round a wheel, 8 layers had an optimum swing.

[rlortie]

With this clipped quote from Jim:

I continually get the feeling that some forum members have a hard time understanding the 'meaning' behind many of these German translations. You MUST understand the it is impossible to make exact word for word translations from German to English as the syntax is different. So you must make thought translations. Read the words. Turn the words into mental images in your mind. Let the images fuzz a little. Don't try to force the English word phases to be always exact. Give them a little wiggle room. Many times words are used as analogies.

I bring you this: Oxymoron's for 2007

1. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?
2. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?
3. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
4. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?
5. Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?
6. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?
7. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?
8. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?
9. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we are already there?
10. Why are they called "stands" when they are made for sitting?
11. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?
12. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected expected?
13. Why are a "wise man" and a "wise guy" opposites?
14. Why do "overlook" and "oversee" mean opposite things?
15. Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
16. If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?
17. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
18. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
19. If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
20. Why is bra singular and panties plural?
21. Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when you know the batteries are dead?
22. Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?
23. How come abbreviated is such a long word?
24. Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use them?
25. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
26 Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?
27. Christmas - What other time of the year do you sit in front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?

[jim_mich]

Energy or force from swinging is provided by gravity, ...

No, Ralph, you are wrong again. Energy or force of a swinging weight is from inertia. A weight in outer space will still swing around its pivot point. It will not swing back because there is no gravity to stop it and send it in the other direction. If a spring is attached it will swing to and fro, just like when on Earth. It is the momentum inertia that makes a weight swing. Gravity is a secaondary force.

... other wise a pendulum would not return from its highest amplitude. It is gravity that sets it in motion from a preset position.

Ralph, we seem to be talking about different creatures here. A pendulum is a weight swinging in a gravity field. A swinging weight on the end of a lever rod need not be a pendulum, though it could be. A swinging weight can be swung using CF or any other force.

If you take note, I talk about swinging weights, not swinging pendulums. At times I may describe the swinging weights as looking like pendulums, but they don't act like pendulums, they act like swinging weights. Bessler does not describe the weights in his wheels as being like pendulums. He descibes them as being weights that swing/move.

I believe it is the ability of constantly changing the reference of the pivot point/s of paired weights that cause it to seek but never find equilibrium.

Your sentence is confusing. I take it to mean that you think the pivot point(s) must change their locations in order for a wheel to work. I believe the pivot point can stay fixed to the wheel and only the weights need to change locations by swinging and latching at a different orientaion.

[rlortie]

Jim,

You wrote:

No, Ralph, you are wrong again. Energy or force of a swinging weight is from inertia. A weight in outer space will still swing around its pivot point. It will not swing back because there is no gravity to stop it and send it in the other direction. If a spring is attached it will swing to and fro, just like when on Earth. It is the momentum inertia that makes a weight swing. Gravity is a secondary force.

The inertia of the moving weight was applied by gravity. A gravity operated machine cannot function and should not be compared to an object in outer space. You are trying to make a comparison using two different physical properties, gravity and no gravity. True it is the momentum inertia and or kinetic force that makes a weight swing, But neither of these can produce the swing or cause a set amplitude without gravity. It is gravity that provides the to and fro which creates the inertia.

I do not consider gravity as a secondary force as it is the root of all that procedes it, not precede it.

Ralph, we seem to be talking about different creatures here. A pendulum is a weight swinging in a gravity field. A swinging weight on the end of a lever rod need not be a pendulum, though it could be. A swinging weight can be swung using CF or any other force.

We are talking different creatures in the eye of the beholder. I consider any weight that swings no matter the physical connection that is activated/controlled by gravity will meet and comply with the known physics of a pendulum. I agree that it need not be called a pendulum. But if it swings like one reacts like one then by any other name it is a pendulum.

True a swinging weight can be swung by many different forces, wind, muscle, etc. As for a weight swinging using CF, I am afraid that I would have to see some tangible evidence. True it will cause a weight to swing out but not in, and without in-out there is no swinging.

If you take note, I talk about swinging weights, not swinging pendulums. At times I may describe the swinging weights as looking like pendulums, but they don't act like pendulums, they act like swinging weights. Bessler does not describe the weights in his wheels as being like pendulums. He descibes them as being weights that swing/move.

Please define/describe how a swinging weight differs in its swing from a swinging pendulum which is a swinging weight?

Ralph wrote:
I believe it is the ability of constantly changing the reference of the pivot point/s of paired weights that cause it to seek but never find equilibrium.

Your sentence is confusing. I take it to mean that you think the pivot point(s) must change their locations in order for a wheel to work. I believe the pivot point can stay fixed to the wheel and only the weights need to change locations by swinging and latching at a different orientaion.

confusing to some maybe who may or may not be considered biased in their thinking or have what we often refer to as "tunnel vision". But yes you have explained my opinion very well. I believe that if the pivot point is attached (fixed) and the weights latch at a different orientation, then that different orientation will probably be symmetrical orientated to the disk all is mounted upon.

There are how ever ways (In my thinking) to negate this problem and that is if the vortex of the weight/s is allowed to change its axis, or the pivot point comes from, physically in, on, or around the axis of the wheel axle.

Now I agree that statement will by some be considered confusing. But consider it a clue that I am not at liberty to define.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph, your logic is wrong. Your concepts are wrong. You are wrong on a number of points. I don't have time right now to respond to each point. I'll post a detailed response later tonight about 6 hours from now.

[rlortie]

Jim,

By your opinion, my logic is wrong. that sits fine with me. I am prepared to debate it, take your time in responding. I do not nor do I want to see this turn into a personal pissing match! I would prefer other members respond , giving their opinions on the subject matter.

Ralph

[DrWhat]

It is good to have differing opinions. Something new may emerge. As long as discussions remain cordial.

[evgwheel]

Mainly to Scott

How difficult is it to set up a chat room, so we can tune in when Ralph and Jim go to their neutral corners and come out fighting?
Then we can stirr from the sideline. (nothing rude offcourse)

[scott]

Just click the button on the top menu bar that says "Chat."

Not too difficult. :-)

The trick is getting others to join you there.

[evgwheel]

Ralph wrote:

Energy or force from swinging is provided by gravity, ...

Jim-Mich wrote:

It will not swing back because there is no gravity to stop it and send it in the other direction.

Does that mean you both agree? And as long as we live on this earth, you kiss and make up?

[ovyyus]

While the chat room certainly has it's place, it leaves behind no record of discussion. I would like to see Jim and Ralph hash it out here were the record might prove useful to others.