MT thoughts ;7)

[daxwc]

Ha Ha, yes I just clued and was going to reply. You can’t say I am not one to never overlook the obvious.

[eccentrically1]

C'mon Dax, you know the forum code..lol

[Fletcher]

Interesting Fletcher;

You have to remember there is sets of circles that could help your case. I didn’t put them in because his picture already provided the starting points.

Every compass and straight edge construction has to start from circles because no measurements were allowed on the straight edge. The circles always complicate and draw your eye away making it look like that rat’s nest.

P.S. I hope I haven't derailed you at least I hope you weren't finished 8)

LOL .. no, you haven't derailed me, and I haven't finished yet, but it is dragging out a bit eh.

But then it has to IMO to give time for the simplicity of it all to sink in. Time to feel any truth to these matters, get on a wavelength, and decide what is coincidence and what was premeditated. Each will have our on opinion on that. I maintain there were no coincidences and all was premeditated (except for the coincidences ;7). The question is did we pick up on all the important road markers, or get pulled into the noise rabbit hole ? (he uses multiple substitution techniques; i z 1 2 for example) All of us looking into the MT's and contributing to deciphering them will catch most, if not all. I emphasize geometry Road Marker Posts being indicated and not actually geometry shapes forming PM concepts, in the main.

As an example (MT41 case in point) I always wondered why JB numbered his MT's somewhat oddly. Usually you'd number from left to right and perhaps top to bottom (in our right reading languages) sequentially. [An aside: as you can see in the Toypage he numbers (letters) right to left] So in MT41 there is a symmetry of numbering horizontally and vertically but he doesn't start from the top left corner with an A. The reason was IMO so you would perhaps question that and start looking for a reason for it being where it is. Incidentally iinm there are 7 letters in the alphabet that have diagonals, ending in Z. They would be good candidates to reveal somethings like the RATs in MT41. BTW there are three 3-4-5 RATs in MT41, the two formed from the premeditated placement of the A's and the one shown previously, being the other visual cue of 3 segments - 4 segments - 4+1. Numerical positive reinforcement. Then there's that single centralized F right at the rim (greatest radius available) - why just one where it is ? Letter-Number totals don't seem to indicate anything special. Maybe it's just to say this is where the Bessler single mini SB mech goes for best effect ?! That's what I decided !

Anyhow .. my feeling is that JB was working on this code/cipher in MT for a very long time, adding complexity in layers, over months and perhaps years. That means probably multiple redrafts of drawings to get the anchor letters (or number totals, or substitutions) just right, as he thought of someway to hide something. So it is inconceivable to me that he would let mistakes slide. I know I'd be obsessive compulsive about fixing them. Which brings me back to a couple of observations about the SB's in MT41. The segments numbers are wrong as we can all see. So-what .. it helps give a visual cue to a 2-4-5 RAT. What else might it represent ? What other information might it convey ?

Well, it could indicate Bessler's mini two-segment SB mech expands and contracts horizontally (pushes and pulls) at the same radius, in the Zed (which is the X in the pic). That means the mini SB is skewered length wise with a pivot and rotates towards you looking at the pic. Yep, we already figured it is a toggle device activated by the OOB lw falling towards us. And that the toggle action is the correct handle-construction (I think so). I'll just call it the Toggle. Oh yeah .. didn't the D men in the Toys Page have spiral curves instead of clothes, or is that too long a bow to draw ? They could be Toggle men and not Hammer men ?!

Could the number segments suggest anything else ? In for a penny in for a pound. Maybe they are indicative of something to do with the point of difference of MT's 35, 41, 42. That is Zed energy transfer and movement. The correct handle-construction seems to have some sort of plausible solution so it must have something to do with enacting the Connectedness Principle (e.g. OOB lw system to Prime Mover) or perhaps the Prime Mover itself ?

What if it was just a simple visual - an analogue - saying something is wider at the bottom than the top, and it has to do with movement in the Zed ?!


Happy Easter !

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Anyhow .. my feeling is that JB was working on this code/cipher in MT for a very long time, adding complexity in layers, over months and perhaps years. That means probably multiple redrafts of drawings to get the anchor letters (or number totals, or substitutions) just right, as he thought of someway to hide something. So it is inconceivable to me that he would let mistakes slide. I know I'd be obsessive compulsive about fixing them.

I have mixed feelings on that point. If lots of work is involved such as carving the blocks one might let slip mistakes if it didn’t matter much. For example I just about posted a drawing that I had constructed and made mistakes (in the end I made more mistakes so had to start over).

[daxwc]

The mistakes in MT 41 in my opinion is the bottom at F. Those lazy tongs are supposed to be pushing the floor up to get in that position (meaning the gap should have been a whole lot bigger with the tongs retracted like that). Second that means the roller at C should be on the bottom section to tension them. But all that might not matter if you were going to fold the paper anyway!

On another note on MT41 notice those lugs that on the line one above A’s and above B’s which would be out of sequence when rotated. What are those? They are in MT40 too out of sequence. What is moving them?

Next note look at the axle closely on MT41 it has 6 white slots along it (holes). Since they are offset means to me some mechanism you can’t see is meant to be in the other plane. You can’t see it because it is sitting sideways.

[Fletcher]

Motive, Means, and Opportunity !

So I have a Toggle Handle device in mind that expands (push force) and contracts (pull force) both ends simultaneously along its longitudinal axis/pivot. It's a mini two-segmented SB activated by a falling lw handle (in the X & Y planes). It rotates (swivels) at 90 degrees to its own sub axle across the Zed. N.B. not an accurate mechanical representation of connections but for explanation purposes only.

It has to be small in length and not expand or contract much distance, because JB's first wheel was only 4 inches wide. It has to obey the Law of Levers and must transfer some KE from the falling lw transitioning to a stop position as part of the OOB system.

Time to look at the A's again. Two types, sometimes in the same drawings. Some are anchors to find shapes. But they are ubiquitous it seems.

A's are like H's which look loosely like wheel sides plus an axle from the side view and not the face on view. The bent arm A looks like that same H with a pivot point mid way in the axle, wider at the bottom and narrower at the top. A bit like our out of sorts segment numbers may additionally represent.

But wheels are vertical sided with horizontal axles like an H. Bessler's were like that by accounts. Bent arm A's might be suggesting an energy transfer from the Toggle Handle to the wheel sides, bending them. Force applied in the Zed to stress the structure of the H, out near the rims. Then this would cause a bow in the wooden spokes storing strain energy which would want to discharge if given a path or gradient, and means to do so.

Toggle Handles forcing the wheel sides apart (bowing it) at one position could also conceivably 180 degrees from there force it to bow inwards. That would be two actions per revolution 180 degrees apart rather than just one at 360 degrees. 'Either or' would create torque in the wheel provided there was a mechanical means (escapement ?) for controlled discharge of the strain energy by using a gradient and gradual release method.

The widening or narrowing of wheel sides under stress might not be that noticeable at large diameters (with flexible rims) or if they were inside a facade covering.

[ME]

Correction, for what it's worth.
Oops, it seems in all quickness I looked at the wrong metric when I claimed an amount of 47 for right-angled triangles triads within MT range: it is actually a less exciting amount of 80.

(Sorry I thought you were poking me with a stick the first time around and were not serious.)

I'm not that cruel, nor always serious.
I just like to try to add some alternative view, but for the rest I hope to stay clear of this secret society code stuff... it narrows my mind in a bad way.

[ovyyus]

As an example (MT41 case in point) I always wondered why JB numbered his MT's somewhat oddly. Usually you'd number from left to right and perhaps top to bottom...

Bessler's diagram lettering sequence was determined by the intended text description eg: MT22

[Fletcher]

That seems logical Bill. In MT35 JB says ..

one needs no letters or explanations because the drawing itself clearly shows how the thing is constituted

Yet there is a single letter A in the middle of top position.

.....

I think my point was that he was double lettering symmetrically in MT41 - and as you point out in MT22 the logic seems to show cause and effect. What comes first and what comes second, and so on. From A to Z so to speak.

But when you look at MT42 the lettering is done differently, yet they are similar devices in general terms. The consistency changes in MT41 because the A had to be where it was to show a sacred shape.

Taking your point tho - that same flow logic should apply to the Toys Page and from that be able to work out the order things are done. Except maybe E and 5 and V represent the same thing from a different perspective ?

ETA: .. and here's a guess. The lettering running from Right to Left indicates would run in either direction ?

[ovyyus]

The toys page definitely tells a story. Even though we don't have Bessler's intended text description for it, we do know there is a flow, eg: A is profile of B which engages C handle at B hinge then D handle is at B mid-hinge with wrapped figures causing C and D handles to rest on E outer hinge and E inner hinge respectively.

An interesting challenge trying to deduce the missing toys page text story?

[daxwc]

ovyyus:

The toys page definitely tells a story. Even if we don't have Bessler's intended text description for it, we know there is a flow, eg: A is profile of B which engages C handle at B hinge then D handle is at B mid-hinge with wrapped figures causing C and D handles to rest on E outer hinge and E inner hinge respectively.

Here is the enigma of that line of thinking Bill. If A and B are the same chain why are they labelled different letters?

Why draw the top then write about 5 toys when the top makes it 6 toys?

If A + B are the same chain that should make C + D the same toy then we only have 4 different style toys with the top.

Could the spinning top be F the missing letter?

He drew the top first if you look at it and drew his comments later. It is not like the top is an after thought.

Why draw 6 toys and talk about 5 being on the page?

[ovyyus]

If A and B are the same chain why are they labelled different letters?

Different profiles of the same thing can be differently labelled, especially if the accompanying text has something important to say about the difference.

Why draw the top then write about 5 toys when the top makes it 6 toys?

The woodcut obviously never included the top when it was originally carved, which might reinforce the idea that A & B are different views of the one thing. C & D are different things (not same character dress, different contact points with B & E) as is E a different thing. The top would make 5 different things on the page.

[Fletcher]

The toys page definitely tells a story. Even though we don't have Bessler's intended text description for it, we do know there is a flow, eg: A is profile of B which engages C handle at B hinge then D handle is at B mid-hinge with wrapped figures causing C and D handles to rest on E outer hinge and E inner hinge respectively.

An interesting challenge trying to deduce the missing toys page text story?

The trouble with the logical flow of cause and effect proposition as shown in the Toy Page is that JB says you have to apply in a different way.

Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way

The odds are that even if you were to distill the essence and function of each thing represented into a complete wheel setup the kinetic chain might be quite different from A to E as shown.

As an example MT42 reads quite logically to lift the mass of both SB's, but IMO MT41 does not. As dax said, paraphrased, D, C, and E need no explanation.

It is not necessary first to explain the letters

But F, A, and B do. Unless you believe that the contracting and expanding SB's are connected by slots to the horizontal frame and somehow lifts the A and B weights half wheel height distance.

That makes no sense i.e. how the weight lugs got lifted. There is no cause and effect on show. The kinetic chain is disturbed. We just see SB's operating in the Zed. So those lugs got lifted somehow else.

Unless someone with better eyes than me can see how it is supposed to work to lift the lug weights associated with each SB ?

The point being the 'logical flow' and the kinetic chain appears to be missing (MIA) which I believe is a major pointer to this MT and the Zed.

[Georg Künstler]

have a closer look to the weights. The bigger ones are on top.
The heavier weights are on the upper level. Indication for a top heavy pendulum. 2 stage oscillator. The side swing is suddenly stopped one right side, on the left the hanging chain is the reforce pendulum.

The small toy on the bottom is in my opinion a Children rattle. Also today used as ratchet. A ratchet can store energy and release it in a turning.

In a lot of the MT's drawings you see this two stages.

[Fletcher]

Yes, you do see two stages in some MT's Georg. And the Hammermen toys do look like top heavy pendulums in the Toy Page.

ATM we are trying to identify the Kinetic Chain of actions in MT41 ? Just what is the supposed flow of causes and effects of actions ? Do they look right ?

The other MT's acting in the Zed via horizontal axle cam wheels are quite clear and concise. MT35 has lever-weights (lws), ropes and pulleys which are clearly seen. Distances levers move etc looks about right. It is easy to follow the Kinetic Chain thru. Though the single center top A letter seems redundant unless there for another reason ?

MT42 is well labeled, so much so that JB says he omits the explanation of the letters. It is also very easy to follow the Kinetic Chain of causes and effects of actions. It has ropes connecting levers to SB's and they are clearly shown. The wheel CoM is lifted as the SB's expand and contract each half turn of the wheel. The proportional distances moved for each lever type etc looks about right. I admit that F is quite hard for me to understand where he says it's a view of a multiplied structure.

MT41 has me scratching my chin. So much appears to be wrong with it. The Kinetic Chain seems to be broken, or disturbed. We can see cam wheels and levers pulling or pushing horizontal SB's which are pivoted one segment in.

Bessler says "it is not necessary first to explain the letters". But I can not follow what is supposed to happen to lift internal weights. Weights are clearly lifted a long way. Much more than the distance the SB's could move even if they had the correct segment numbers. And it isn't geared any further. The levers traveling around the cam wheels move far to great a horizontal distance for the correct segment stretch or compaction of the related SB's. But most of all there aren't any ropes and pulleys of any sort to show a connection between the weights (whether they are individual or combined slider arrangement) and the SB's. There's a complete gap in the Kinetic Chain ? I believe it is deliberate and premeditated !

There are plenty of people on this forum with good mechanical aptitude and hopefully someone may kindly point out what I am not seeing - that would be much appreciated. I will probably feel quite foolish tomorrow.

I think part of the confusion for me is because Bessler says "it is not necessary to first explain the letters" and clearly for me it is necessary ! And there are no ropes and pulleys, or linkages I can see to do the job, and which show the correct Mechanical Advantage. Yet he had linkages and ropes and pulleys on all his other drawings, so why leave them out now ? I really have no idea how the weights might be lifted by the SB's with what is shown.