MT thoughts ;7)

[daanopperman]

Hi daxwc ,

Last night I did a post about the " prime mover " but deleted it .

Now it seems the right way to go . If we cannot pin a prime mover down , all effort to produce a wheel is futile .

To me , the prime mover is not a part of the machine , as in a mechanical piece . JB said not to put the cart before the horse , and that is what we have been doing , we are building elaborate machines without a heart , and aspect it to have a pulse .

I do believe that gravity was driving JB's wheel , but it was not responsible for the what happened inside the wheel .
We need to orientate the inner working of the machine without spending all the gain that we receive form a weight falling in a gravity field .
If we make a mark on the wheel rim , the mark does loose height as the wheel turn , but it remains in the same orientation with respect to the wheel , and that IMO , is a fundamental requisite for a self turning wheel .

Gravity alone will not produce a wheel , we also need leverage , counter balance , and add motion too . Without it , failure is our destiny .

We cannot have something inside the wheel that is not turning with the wheel , but it does not say in which direction it should turn . Something now stationary , will later come into motion . When I say stationary , not with respect to the wheel .

JB said he had more than one way of building wheels and he wants to sell only one , but IMO , it was only the the parts of the wheel that differed , not the prime mover , he also said his way was the only way . If that is true , then the prime mover has to work exactly the same in all the wheels .
So I conclude , the prime mover is a METHOD , not hardware .
You may use the same method , with different hardware to achieve the same goal .

[daxwc]

Daanopperman:

JB said he had more than one way of building wheels and he wants to sell only one , but IMO , it was only the the parts of the wheel that differed , not the prime mover , he also said his way was the only way . If that is true , then the prime mover has to work exactly the same in all the wheels .
So I conclude , the prime mover is a METHOD , not hardware .
You may use the same method , with different hardware to achieve the same goal .

Hi Dann your statement seems at first all logical. But shouldn’t one then be able to replace the word “prime mover� with “method� and have it make sense?

"No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except
that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special
weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of
the “method’s� source can be seen or deduced although the figure
shows the overbalance."

I don’t know if that make a whole lot of sense unless you take "source" with it? Does it still resonate the same to you?

"however, nothing of the “method" can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance."

[ovyyus]

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"

The depiction of a handle in MT40 might suggest a hidden movement, or input. MT40 shows an extra illustration with a handle (bent A) in place of the weight. If the weight-levers (normal A's) could apply an additional force (bent A) then the wheel would actually turn.

Also, 40 seems a favoured bible number: 40 days of temptation; 40 days of rain... :^)

[daanopperman]

Hi daxwc ,

If we could have a functional ppm wheel , and reverse engineer it , we would be able to separate the prime mover from all the other components that make-up the wheel .
It would then manifest itself as a energy producing piece of equipment , which is not possible . What form of energy would this be , how do you dictate whether it is friction or light or sound . The prime mover is IMO directly dependant on all the components inside the wheel , and also of gravity . The prime mover is how you arrange the parts and how to rearrange every 180 deg .a

The way to arrange the parts of the wheel to produce ppm is shown in MT , but not a single arrangement is shown complete . You need A + 2 ; B+ x and C + # to do it. but you will not find A + 2 in the same MT drawing .

[Fletcher]

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

Why?

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP pg 355

Pulleys seems a rather big clue. Sorry I can't remember where ropes specifically were mentioned and my remembering them may be a figment of my imagination. My asymmetric torque producing machine concept, thru tensioning the side walls, doesn't require any ropes or pulleys hence the comment.

ETA: the rope is missing from the Toy Page spinning top so I probably took that as a clue to their inclusion and association with pulleys.

............

Fletcher wrote: .. "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"


The depiction of a handle in MT40 might suggest a hidden movement, or input. MT40 shows an extra illustration with a handle (bent A) in place of the weight. If the weight-levers (normal A's) could apply an additional force (bent A) then the wheel would actually turn.

Also, 40 seems a favoured bible number: 40 days of temptation; 40 days of rain... :^)

That analysis seems entirely logical Bill. Just find that pesky Prime Mover and any old MT will work is my guess. MT48 is witness to that.

So if we could find other instances of a plausible explanation for the two types of A's in the same drawing then that extra force theory could firm up.

While you're at it, how about tackling the the Zs and 2s and when they occur, anybody ?

Sacred Geometry has a lot to answer for ;7)

[zoelra]

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - pg 355

[daxwc]

Bessler was a mathematician. Bessler was a conjurer. Bessler dabbled in astrology. Bessler was a cabalist. It is probably a fair assessment to say numbers had magical significance to him. That being said Oystein insists that 3 and 5 can be interchanged and both 33 and 55 are Masonic numbers. So can one assume MT 35 would be important as it can be 33 or 55.


* I guess the same can be said maybe of MT53 if the former is true.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Pulleys seems a rather big clue. Sorry I can't remember where ropes specifically were mentioned and my remembering them may be a figment of my imagination. My asymmetric torque producing machine concept, thru tensioning the side walls, doesn't require any ropes or pulleys hence the comment.

Who knows what all he would call pulleys, after seeing MT53 is called a pendulum model. I know on my build I will probably use 2 furnace pulleys and a link belt rather than finding gears.

[daxwc]

"No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except
that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special
weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of
the "first cause" source can be seen or deduced although the figure
shows the overbalance."

First I think changing it to first cause makes the most sense to me, but it definetly is just an opinion. I think Daan might be partly right in that the prime mover is part of a method; obviously due to Besslers quote in MT15 the overbance can change into various designs.

Dictionary.com
prime mover: The initial source of energy directed toward a goal, someone or something that sets others in motion. For example, Jean was the prime mover in getting us more laboratory space, or Patriotism was the prime mover of the revolution. [Late 1600s ]

[Johndoe2]

Hi daxwc ,

Last night I did a post about the " prime mover " but deleted it .

Now it seems the right way to go . If we cannot pin a prime mover down , all effort to produce a wheel is futile .

To me , the prime mover is not a part of the machine , as in a mechanical piece . JB said not to put the cart before the horse , and that is what we have been doing , we are building elaborate machines without a heart , and aspect it to have a pulse .

I do believe that gravity was driving JB's wheel , but it was not responsible for the what happened inside the wheel .
We need to orientate the inner working of the machine without spending all the gain that we receive form a weight falling in a gravity field .
If we make a mark on the wheel rim , the mark does loose height as the wheel turn , but it remains in the same orientation with respect to the wheel , and that IMO , is a fundamental requisite for a self turning wheel .

Gravity alone will not produce a wheel , we also need leverage , counter balance , and add motion too . Without it , failure is our destiny .

We cannot have something inside the wheel that is not turning with the wheel , but it does not say in which direction it should turn . Something now stationary , will later come into motion . When I say stationary , not with respect to the wheel .

JB said he had more than one way of building wheels and he wants to sell only one , but IMO , it was only the the parts of the wheel that differed , not the prime mover , he also said his way was the only way . If that is true , then the prime mover has to work exactly the same in all the wheels .
So I conclude , the prime mover is a METHOD , not hardware .
You may use the same method , with different hardware to achieve the same goal .

While there obviously is method to a prime mover imo Bessler absutely did have one and it is physical necessity to any successful build. It is the missing component that separates the successful from the unsuccessful builds. Bessler even alluded that some of his Mt designs would work with the correct mover.

[daanopperman]

Hi Guy's ,
I am sure we all have our pet the theories , so do I , and MT 15 fits in e axactly with my pet theories .

If we look at m MT 15 , ( I do not have it in front of me ) we can see that there is one weighted lever that is retarded at the bottom . To me , this is part of the prime mover . This is the only clue in MT 15 .

I do believe that we have to come to consensus to what a prime mover is , only then may we move forward .
There is IMO some members , not working on clue's , like Me V , that have the correct approach , but in all respect , is lost in modern technology . IMO , he is so close as dammit is to a swear- word .

JB , said something about the wonders of the fast moving weights . Fast moving weights is a part of my pet theory .

Van die os na die jas .

I have recently bought a small 1 ton electric fork truck . It has a battery bank totaling 48 v , 350 ah rating . This truck has been inactive for + - 5 years . I only bought this for the battery bank . Needless to say it was a big gamble to spend a lot of money ( for me at least ) on for batteries that have not been attended to in 5 years . I took my digital volt meter with me the day I went to inspect the truck . If I devide the bank in 12 v sections , ( 4 off ) half the cells had between .5 and .9 V reading . The other half was stone dead .
What I did not see , because I did not take a torch with me , was most of the cells upper plates was completely exposed with no electrolyte . This resulted in flaking of the lead off the grid inside the cells . Transporting the truck to my house was done with a flatbed tilting truck , which inflated the cost of the whole episode , but with minor inconvenience , so worth while .

Realising that the cells was dry I bought some drinking still water ( 10 Lt of the stuff , this cells is huge ) as it is way much cheaper than battery water . I connected the charger which came with the truck and impatiently waited for the amp gauge to show any sign of life . To my disappointment , there was hardly any activity , not even registering on the amp gauge .
So I took the next step as a hillbilly would , I sampled the electrolite ( what I thought would be acid ) and to my delighte , it tasted like water , not sulphuric acid . Off to the shops and 4 Lt 's of sulphuric acid later the charger did started to respond . Qiuk it was obvious that I have a situation where the electrolyte was steadily rising ( meanwhile I was demoted form would be wheel maker to pot scrubber ) and had to for unknown reason suck out almost all the still water as the amps kept creating up . The electrolite was also starting to taste more like sulfuric acid than still water ( my hydrometer is smashed ) .

So for the last week only charging and praying , more praying than charging , but I can now promote praying , as the cells have all but one a healthy 2.1 V reading .

As some would know , I have created my own wind gen , 12 V DC .
I now will change to 126 V AC , through a stepdown transformer to 48 V and then rectify to DC . This way I will not have my batteries stolen as I need not have the batteries as close to the gen as possible . I can now gen in AC and carry the charge by twin and earth ( 3 wires 3 phases ) for a long distance to a safe storage place for the batteries .

All that remain is a energy source that is ppm . The quest continue .

[ME]

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

...I think it's reasonable to expect the intended/real cipher (if there is any) is more consistent and pops out more clearly than any other... some kind of 'proof by contradiction'.

Comma-usage... That seems to be a more difficult question than I thought...
After little investigation many claim we may blame Leibniz for introducing the dot as a multiplication sign, while the decimal separator or fractions was still (let's say) under investigation.
When using a dot as multiplication, then it is implied/best not to confuse its meaning by using it as a decimal point. (In other words, without an example we can only guess what Bessler used)
The following article talks about dots and comma's:
https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/w ... 42-043.pdf

As can be seen in Leibniz's notes, he used the dot as a multiplication sign.
(Perhaps totally off-topic, but I think still interesting)
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/05/ ... d-leibniz/

[daxwc]

So I went and looked at the only math I knew of, that was in the windmill drawings. I didn't find any multiplication in his math, but I did find some interesting things.

In a scale Bessler uses the dot if after the last number on there if there is still more scale left to the drawing. There is three scales two with dots on the last number.




Bessler uses a dot after the number just to add it, but not the sum itself. In the middle there is he dividing by 5 even though its a 3 to get 36?




Bessler seem to jump around a little on using a z for a 2 a bit. Bessler's z's actually have a line through the middle which differentiates them from the number twos. A 1 is always an I with a dot.

I don't know what is going on with this as he is adding, but it is different again. I don't understand the system I believe.



.

[daxwc]

ME:

As can be seen in Leibniz's notes, he used the dot as a multiplication sign.
(Perhaps totally off-topic, but I think still interesting)

Thanks Me it is interesting to me to see the great Leibniz made math errors and spelling mistakes, maybe there is hope for me yet.

[Fletcher]

Hi Guy's ,

I am sure we all have our pet the theories , so do I , and MT 15 fits in exactly with my pet theories .

If we look at m MT 15 , ( I do not have it in front of me ) we can see that there is one weighted lever that is retarded at the bottom . To me , this is part of the prime mover . This is the only clue in MT 15 .

I do believe that we have to come to consensus to what a prime mover is , only then may we move forward .

There is IMO some members , not working on clue's , like Me V , that have the correct approach , but in all respect , is lost in modern technology . IMO , he is so close as dammit is to a swear-word .

JB , said something about the wonders of the fast moving weights . Fast moving weights is a part of my pet theory .

Hey Daan .. I'm not sure what you are referring to in MT15 as being retarded at the bottom ? What I see in MT15 is a CCW turning wheel with sets of sliding thru rods with equal weights at each end. These rods have stops on them so they can only slide so far up and down. This is the first OOB system.

Attached to these weighted rods are lever-weights. These lws are not connected to each other in series by ropes but are attached (coordinated) across the wheel because opposite lws are attached by cord to the same weighted rod. This is a second OOB system.

The weighted rods can not lift themselves which they start about 1 o'cl. And the lws associated with them cannot start lifting (top and bottom) without help also.

The takeaway being that like MT13 we have MT15 where weight systems are forced to rise upward gaining GPE by some unknown force. The increase in GPE translates to torque to keep the wheel turning.

Bessler says we can't see or deuce anything about the Prime Mover (PM).

To carry on with that theme I reckon that the Toy-Page is all about the Prime Mover (the game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way). And not about any OOB system or superior weight of preponderance etc.

Simply a mechanical curiosity (to say the least) which can do the lifting (provide the lifting force) for MT's 13 and 15 etc, not to mention MT48.

So IMO within the Toy-Page is a mechanical answer that we seek for the lifting force of the Prime Mover. And the Toy-Page must include ALL of the important parts and show most of the basic relationships and functions in order for us to deduce a mechanical arrangement to cause lifting and gain in the OOB systems GPE.

So what do we have there ? Some falling levers in B where angles seem important. Some push pull force toys where the CoM is lifted and then lowered again (technically no work is done). And a push pull SB toy.

Then a hand drawn spinning top that can mean just about anything.

We know there are some basic codes in the Toy-Page which may point to a specific mechanical device.

I do believe that we have to come to consensus to what a prime mover is , only then may we move forward .

So what is the consensus about the Prime Mover (PM) ?

Is it a push pull device ?

Is it balanced or unbalanced ?

N.B. it seems that for the PM to move or morph shape to push or pull something it would have to temporarily lose some GPE/CoM and gain it back again.

Does the PM lift weights in the OOB system ?

Does the PM give acceleration forces above 'g' to a falling and rising weight in the OOB system ?

...................

Is there a consensus of opinion about what the PM is and what it does ?