MT thoughts ;7)

[ovyyus]

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

Not just a spinning top, it's a humming spinning top (hollow body with aperature). Also, the spinning top handle is missing.

Spinning tops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FujYoqBVf74

[Stewart]

Hi Daxwc

Is there some kind of history to putting periods behind numbers?

Yes, it was a common thing to do in both printing and handwriting. You can see it in Bessler's printed and handwritten texts and also in those of others from his time.

Taking the windmill pages you've posted as an example, the dots serve no purpose as arithmetic operators but are just a formatting thing and can be seen used as separators on lines where text follows, but he doesn't always bother with them if the numbers are on their own.

Here's a rough idea of what the text says:

Code: Select all

Walls on the 4 sides         40 boards
for the 4 shutters           32 boards
for the deck floor           20   "
for the roof below           24   " 
        roof above           30   "
for the partitions &c.&c.    20   "
                            ----
                            166
would probably round up to  180 or 3 sixties

while for the sails          36 adds up to
                            ----
                            166
                             36
                            ----
                            202 
                            
NB 10 board-breadths is 11 foot 8 inches. 

The corner text says:

Code: Select all

Roof height   6 feet
Sail height  16  "
Mill height   8  "
-------------------
Total height 30 ft.

You'll notice the same number formatting in the handwritten notes of MT. An important example is the "toy page", where the handwriting translates as "Five children's games in which however there is also something special, whoever knows of another way to apply them.". The "5." doesn't denote a fifth item in a numbered list with items 1-4 missing, as some people have speculated.

Stewart

[daxwc]

Thanks very much Stewart! I would never have guessed on the rounding up part. I don’t know how you make heads or tails of the messy handwriting when it isn’t your native language, but great job.

You wouldn't happen to know what Bessler used for a multiplication sign?

So Stewart in your opinion on the toypage, are A and B are different toys or are the 2 examples of the same toy?

[ovyyus]

My question for Stewart (nice of you to pop in): why do you think Bessler sometimes used two different A fonts in the same MT illustration, eg; MT21, 38, 72, 121...?

[daanopperman]

Hi Fletcher ,

I humbly report an error in mistaken MT , it was not MT 15 I had in mind but MT 22 . Here you can see at 6 o'clock the leading weight becomes the trailing weight .

JB said the weights themselves was the ppm .

The PRIME MOVER IMO is not a separate piece of equipment built into the wheel to lift any mass or to drive the wheel if it is a horizontal wheel .

The PRIME MOVER is the MANIPULATION of the fast moving weights to orientate them into a position where they will be out of centre of gravity of the wheel .

There is different ways to achieve this , by gears , pulleys or scissor jacks .Will explain theories but only for members , not that anyone would be interested tho .

[daanopperman]

Doesn't sound right , I'll try again .

The PM is the way you place and connect .

[Fletcher]

My question for Stewart (nice of you to pop in): why do you think Bessler sometimes used two different A fonts in the same MT illustration, eg; MT21, 38, 72, 121...?

I'm not Stewart ;7)

However just an observation. There are four MT's where the numbering replaces a standard 2 with a Z. These being MT's 52, 72, 92, and 102 .. (4 MT illustrations for both sets)

72 is common to both sets as tho a reinforcement of something.

That might be significant for JC's pentagram of 5 sides and internal degrees of 72 ?

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

As for the two types of A fonts .. Ockham's Razor might suggest these are two variations on angles in a pantograph (square and dividers). Where the legs are at one angle apart with the bent arm, and the straight arm suggesting the legs are further apart at a greater angle so that the arm is straight.

While I'm applying the Parsimony Principle to A's I might as well mention the 1-i and 2-z fwiw.

These could be simple 1 : 2 Ratios ?

Ratios of distance gone around a circle/radius, and thus speed and gearing required to achieve that ? e.g. 30 degs and 60 degs of movement to achieve the same vertical height gain and loss i.e. CoM moves horizontally but not vertically.

Ratios of weight to angle/gearing where one lw's weight is twice the others mass ? In which case the radial angles are not 30 degs and 60 degs for same GPE loss and gain.

[daxwc]

Here is all the 4 Mt's together for comparison. The only thing I see is all number boxes approximately the same ratio. I say approximate because MT92 is distorted somehow; the box isn’t even at right angles. If you draw a line from corner of number box to the opposite corner of number box they make a pair of 3-4-5 triangles approximately also. Maybe somebody else can see some mechanical similarities?

[ovyyus]

As for the two types of A fonts .. Ockham's Razor might suggest these are two variations on angles in a pantograph (square and dividers).

I guess everyone's Ockham's Razor is a little different. Mine suggests the different A's might be associated with a labelling norm of the time, which Stewart might be able to shed some light on.

[Fletcher]

Yeah .. your Ockham is simpler than mine ;7)

If it was a labeling norm of the time then there would be other examples out there I guess, so it's a theory worth exploring to confirm it.

For me I looked at the positioning of the two types of A's. Was there any consistency in positioning etc etc.

MT21 .. 5 A's of which all are bent A's except for one top right quadrant (4 + 1), 3 B's, and 2 C's.

MT38 .. 3 A's of which all are bent A's except for one near the 6 o'cl radial bottom half, 1 of each B,C D E.

MT72 .. 3 A's of which 2 are straight A's and 1 bent A located top right quadrant. 2 B's.

MT121 .. 2 A's (one of each). Both top quadrant opposite sides.

Can't say I can see any real pattern there but it doesn't seen quite random either.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher ,

I humbly report an error in mistaken MT , it was not MT 15 I had in mind but MT 22 . Here you can see at 6 o'clock the leading weight becomes the trailing weight .

JB said the weights themselves was the ppm .

The PRIME MOVER IMO is not a separate piece of equipment built into the wheel to lift any mass or to drive the wheel if it is a horizontal wheel .

The PRIME MOVER is the MANIPULATION of the fast moving weights to orientate them into a position where they will be out of centre of gravity of the wheel .

There is different ways to achieve this , by gears , pulleys or scissor jacks .Will explain theories but only for members , not that anyone would be interested tho .


Doesn't sound right , I'll try again .

The PM is the way you place and connect .

Hi Daan .. looking at the right one now. fwiw the ropes around the pulleys in MT21 are wrong IMO. Take 12 o'cl for example. The B lever-weight falls and its cord pulls on a L lw like seen in MT13. The pulley at the rim by E is wound the wrong way to pull it up just after 12 o'cl.

The PM is the way you place and connect .

OK .. got that. You think the PM's purpose is to reposition (manipulate) OB weights to favourably change the wheel CoG. ... Agreed in principle. That favourable outcome requires that OB weights be lifted somewhere in the cycle IMO. And that has a cost to the PM CoM itself, also IMO.

[Fletcher]

In relation to the concept of separate Prime Mover's I'd like to raise the topic of MT's 44 and 48 again (see pics below). To see what opinions there are about them and how they might be augmented to become workable.

Here are the quotes from Bessler's MT.

MT44 ..

No. 44: The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has a gear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F.

This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time.

Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.

MT48 ..

No. 48: This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-patemoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster.

Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster.

The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided.

Here Bessler says, in two separate paternoster (elevator) concepts, that the 'lift' can not keep pace with the wheel i.e. it can not run (be geared) fast enough to lift the required number of balls to keep the wheel full. And so they run out of balls.

In MT44 the balls are loaded well into the top half of the wheel whilst in MT48 they are only lifted as high as the axle (1/2 wheel height approx).

So the questions are ..

1. are the different additional structures (also called the other application present) the Prime Mover(s) ?

2. is the 'other required structures' to make it run just a simple tweak of the elevator concept so that the gearing of the delivery 'lift' will keep pace with the wheel, or something more substantial and separate ?

N.B. looking at MT48 the elevator delivers the balls at axle height. Any assistance rendered to the concept so that it might run as a true PM wheel must therefore happen below axle height. I suggest it is a push or pull force (energy f x d) that is applied to the elevator gearing or cog, or perhaps directly to the elevator chain, so that it can lift the prerequisite balls at the required speed.

By deduction this must also be true for MT44.

3. are there any different or competing ideas about how these elevator wheels could have the delivery speed increased to keep pace with the wheel ?

If the conclusion is that the additional structures and 'application' is the Prime Mover(s) then a separte Prime Mover(s) would also work to augment practically any other OB wheel design, by lifting the weights at either 12 or 6 o'cl, or both simultaneously ?!

[daxwc]

May as well get to the meat of the problem Fletcher ;)

1. are the different additional structures (also called the other application present) the Prime Mover(s) ?

Yes, in a way, the over- balance was what turned the wheel (last reaction); the Prime Mover (first cause) caused the over-balance.

2. is the 'other required structures' to make it run just a simple tweak of the elevator concept so that the gearing of the delivery 'lift' will keep pace with the wheel, or something more substantial and separate ?

No, it is a complete overhaul in my opinion. Yet, like you I always go back thinking there is a work around of it.

3. are there any different or competing ideas about how these elevator wheels could have the delivery speed increased to keep pace with the wheel ?

In my opinion you missed the point of the drawing if you are still stuck on the elevator.

From JC’s MT translation
No. 48. This is a round-weight invention, with a bucket conveyer. A,
is a wheel over whose axle B, the bucket conveyer C, passes as it
raises the balls, and ejects them into a chute at D. At E the balls fall
onto the wheel, which ejects them back into the bucket conveyer at F.
Not enough balls are supplied by the bucket conveyer in this invention.
The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any
motion until completely different structures bless this marriage.

A marriage implies two people/objects/ideas.

Mt 44 to Mt 50 is all about time. Realising you need to speed up a mass/weight to get any over-balance. Fast-slow; push-pull.

So if Bessler has addressed the problem directly, the solution lies ahead and in my wheelhouse (meaning concept I put forward) 8P. My opinion he has only 5 more MT’s for learning the solution to the problem. MT 52 and Mt 53 are about linkage. That leaves MT 51 and MT 54 lessons/components with the solution on time being on MT55. Once you realise the weights are meant never to leave the second quarter then the quest becomes a lot easier and MT 48 fully interpreted. Instead of flipping the weight around the wheel just flip it straight up.

Yea, I know more propaganda by me.

[Fletcher]

So if Bessler has addressed the problem directly, the solution lies ahead and in my wheelhouse (meaning concept I put forward) 8P.

My opinion he has only 5 more MT’s for learning the solution to the problem. MT 52 and Mt 53 are about linkage. That leaves MT 51 and MT 54 lessons/components with the solution on time being on MT55.

Once you realise the weights are meant never to leave the second quarter then the quest becomes a lot easier and MT 48 fully interpreted. Instead of flipping the weight around the wheel just flip it straight up.

Just an interesting aside dax before I address the rest of your last post. In my copy of JC's MT with my years of scrawls in it I made a note about the left hand side A - in my copy the bar is unable to be seen clearly, just a hint of a smudge. The other two A's are the bent arm type and clear. The one above the ratchet pendulum definitely looks like it should be a straight bar A. Because there is no hint of a smudge for where the apex of the bar portion should be if there was one. Additionally the smudge that is there is directly where a straight bar would be, IMO.

Maybe others see it differently ?

[Fletcher]

Hi dax .. here is a previous old topic which included MT55 discussion. The link I provide is to a post by Ed (re Ed and Stewart) in that thread.

It includes renderings of MT55 (see Ed's album) and there used to be an animation of the colour coded drawing which is not available now.

Nevertheless you can see how the ratcheted hockey sticks were supposed to kick the wheel around (at least in the MT drawing).

IIRC there was more to discover about the Prime Mover.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1216#61216