MT thoughts ;7)

[cheors]

MT27 the last one of MT24 -MT27 set :

"This view shows what the thing might do if several things of this sort were placed next to one another along an axle-shaft."

[daxwc]

I like adding MT18 to the set Ovyyus. So are we done here at the set of MT 40, 41, 42. Lessons ahead are still time and how to lift a weight.

[daxwc]

Hi Cheors there is a problem with the way MT27 is drawn. The heart weight at right-hand C will not sit in that position. It will travel inward till D cord is vertical and taunt because the joint at top B will swivel up. When one finally admits this then it is easy to see the other side will do this too.

I used to like MT27 also till I tested on an actual wheel. The only hope to sit like that is if the heart weights weighed zero and the rods themselves were very heavy.

[Fletcher]

... The spokes were bowed and loaded by the Toggle and Handle which later back-rotated...

Bowed spokes in MT18.

This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place.

Perhaps the 'appropriate place' to show more was in MT40-42?

MT40 appears to be part of a set of three with 41 and 42. Bessler's text for MT40 ends with, "Whoever thinks it proper can construct these figures on an axle". 'These figures' perhaps meaning the set? I don't think there's another instance in MT text where Bessler encourages a build.

I think MT18 is relevant too Bill.

I keep finding myself going back to Bessler's opening statements in the forward to MT. About ..

.. I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them

because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them ..

there being no description of the motion in any illustration, but looking at various elements possible to deduce a movement.

So we won't see something that jumps out at us and says "look at me, follow this kinetic chain and you will see how to lift a weight higher".

We are supposed to deduce a movement - what a peculiar word to use. Movement to me suggests something gentle, almost invisible, not at all garish. Subtle, so subtle you might miss it or dismiss it.

[Fletcher]

I have a simplified mental picture of how and why Bessler's one-way wheels might have worked. My simple mind map makes it easier for me to stay on task. His two-way wheels with zero torque when stationary also kind of intuitively fits this picture for me.

That picture is of a thin wheel with 4 short lever-weights out near the rim, equally spaced into 4 wheel sectors (the cross or cross bar analogy). Each lw sequentially, when in position to fall, leaves its stop and falls on the descending side under gravity 90 degrees to another stop. They fall a little bit slower than would happen if unrestricted. The lw rotates its associated toggle which forces the sides of the wheel (deforms them) either apart or together a small amount (almost indiscernible for a large diameter wheel). An escapement device (of ratchet type nature, probably spring assisted) locks in the strain energy created in the deformed wooden sides. And then provides a method via a gradient of some sort for a measured release of that energy thru 180 degrees of wheel rotation, while the sides unbow again, and the toggle resets. The lw handle after doing its initial job is then able to decouple from its toggle and back-rotate after 90 degrees of wheel rotation. It hangs vertically for another 90 degrees of rotation until resting on its stop again to be carried upwards on the ascending side, to fall again.

In my mind it is analogous to a self-winding wrist watch with 4 winding mechs. Except the watch isn't wound by precession or inertia of a rolling ball winding a spring every time you move your wrist.

It is wound by the extra impetus (torque) from the Prime Mover system which effectively completes the lw lift, with excess wheel momentum left over to do work, FWIW.

[eccentrically1]

M18 wouldn’t be possible at all if the springs were the bowed spokes; the wheel rim would have no support. I think he just left the spokes undrawn.

Cheers was pointing out MT 27 is another text when JB encourages a build.

A self winding watch uses a simple pendulum to keep the mainspring wound. The motion of your wrist is the prime mover.

[eccentrically1]

Movement to me suggests something gentle, almost invisible, not at all garish. Subtle, so subtle you might miss it or dismiss it.

Something invisible and subtle like heat or pressure?

[daxwc]

No. 53. This is a pendulum model. A is a weighted lever with pawls at
B, that move the axle at C, by means of a ratchet wheel. On the axle
are 2 arms that are intended to raise the rod D, by means of the
horizontal arm. At the top D, moves a right-angled lever, which in
turn moves the rod, E. E moves another right-angled lever and thereby
raises the rod F, which raises the main lever A. G is a balance beam
by which all the lifting is accomplished. I saw this product of
imagination along with many other such devices sketched in a machine
book at the home of a learned friend. The invention is ineffectual,
however.
No. 54, This is simply a demonstration of how one might raise the
large lever of the previous model by means of stork's bills. The letters
are self-explanatory

Copyright ©2007 John Collins

So Mt 53 and Mt 54 are on the same page. So MT 53 is a lesson in changing forces and motion direction through right-angled levers which Bessler would be very familiar with being an organ repairman. He says the design is from many in a book but decides to show us this one which is obvious from a glance will not work as a perpetual machine so the lesson has to be about changing motion and force.

Bottom of the same page is MT54 is the description of “how one might raise the large lever of the previous model by means of stork's bills�. Notice he says bill’s as in plural although there is only one in the drawing which provides proof of answer having multiple storkbills. The proof is in MT 40 in which one is shown and he call it “somewhat different stork’s-bill invention� in singular form.

Second since it is following MT53 on right-angled levers leads one to assume its lesson is really on linkage to or from the storkbill. It is hard to imagine F is the lesson since so much movement (as in length of storkbill) is lost in the extension having to curve and arc through its stroke.

Due to its placement at the end of remarks in my opinion makes it important.

[daxwc]

Odd that I wouldn’t remember that there is a period behind MT numbers 87 to 101 except 91 and 92. Why exactly do that, it is not a sentence? Is there some kind of history to putting periods behind numbers?

[Fletcher]

I do have some suspicions about the asymmetric torque concept I have presented in this thread.

I believe asymmetric torque is what is required for a 'Gravity Only' PM wheel to self-sustain but the mechanical method remains abstract and unproven at this point in time.

The process of writing the concept up in this thread, and then also committing to 'paper' the MT cipher trail (as I see it), although laborious, was an exercise well spent. Both my white board and my mind got a well needed spring clean and that felt good, if only for that benefit.

The suspicions are .. is the trail I followed another mind-trap set by Bessler, to lead us from the Toy Page to the number sets MT's 40, 41, 42 ? And still far removed from his actual solution to the 'Gravity Only' PM wheel ?

If the mechanical concept had a need for and used 'ropes and pulleys' it would have ticked a big box.

As for MT's 53 and 54 dax .. yes, they seem to be lessons in redirecting forces. And of course 53 is the other acute angle in a 3-4-5 RAT.

[ME]

Odd that I wouldn’t remember that there is a period behind MT numbers 87 to 101 except 91 and 92. Why exactly do that, it is not a sentence? Is there some kind of history to putting periods behind numbers?

Note that most of us in Europe have a swapped usage of a decimal-separator and the 1000-separator, compared to countries like US, UK, India, Australia....
We (and Bessler too) either use a space or a dot as a thousand-separator, and a comma before the fractional part.
So that MT-dot is a bit odd in this MT number sequence, as no numbers follow.

That leaves the other possibilities of being:
1. either a place-holder for a yet unknown digit in its place, or a fractional number needs to be added;
2. some finalization dot (end of sentence, end of sequence, full stop);
3. (with some musical freedom) indicating an increased duration;
4. (as like this numbered list) a part of an enumeration;
5. just a lost dot.

For (1) it would be a mystery what such added number would accomplish.
For (2) it could indicate a reshuffling process of all the MT's in some different order / matrix.
For (3) it could either indicate (a) that the repetition is more than once yet depending on the source, or (b) (completely) otherwise "ties" similar MT's together.
For (4) is similar to (2) and (3b);
For (5) one could draw lines through this dot to find out where it geometrically leads;

[daxwc]

Thanks Me; that view will give lots of alternative ciphers possibilities. Even 300 years ago you believe Germany used a comma before the fraction?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

The suspicions are .. is the trail I followed another mind-trap set by Bessler, to lead us from the Toy Page to the number sets MT's 40, 41, 42 ? And still far removed from his actual solution to the 'Gravity Only' PM wheel ?

I don’t think so, but I do believe Bessler when he says the motion is not seen in Mt. To this it means the proper principle as in concept and mechanical application. So I like that you are thinking out of the box.

The lessons follow a learning route most mechanical inclined people in experimental mode would come finally conclude. I still think going back and compartmentalize, picking up the best mechanical adaptions while paying strict attention to his lessons and not just his words might be a better way forward.

For example start at MT 11 how do you tell someone they need a drum without telling them? Or what is the take away from MT9. I think every MT should have a take away or N/A. If he says there is something important then try to pin it down.

If the mechanical concept had a need for and used 'ropes and pulleys' it would have ticked a big box

Why?

[daxwc]

I wonder why MT53 is called a pendulum model. Does it make a difference if rotated 90 deg?

[daxwc]

Do we have the right definition of what a prime mover is? I believe in Bessler’s era the “prime mover� in physics was the first cause, primary cause, or first motion. I don’t think it should be looked at as the energy maker.

So in MT 15 when he says the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced it could be as simple as where the energy got first imputed meaning a human hand pushed on the drum/ flywheel. Similar could be said of the cam/toggle device. With all its warts the storkbill is a candidate too, as at least it is multiplying the force depending on the ratio it is made in.

I also take acceptation to that storkbills work best in the horizontal position. The best position to activate one with a load is straight down; worst is straight up.