A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works.

[Johndoe2]

Some of what we think we know is mot true.

Amen brother! I could not agree more!

[ovaron]

Interesting selfmade mechanical clock. Note the escapement with the 5-spoke wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioevnpS ... gs=pl%2Cwn

[Robinhood46]

JC.
I have often wondered how much importance should be put on the n° 5.
You also said a lot about 55.
I have never been able to understand exactly what Bessler was refering to as "crossbar" when he said something like, it will work with only 1 crossbar, but not very well.
My present build has 5 weights and 9 sections to the wheel. The weights progress around the wheel, moving backward 1.2 sections (ish) and inward around 6 o'clock and forward 0.2 sections and outward at 1.30 o'clock ish.
The wheel is very similar to MT13. The weights are on arms of the same shape. The path of the weights is identical between 1.30-6 o'clock and 7.30-11 oclock.
The difference between my build and MT13 is simply that the natural swinging of the weight is done at 6 o'clock from the extreme inner end of the arm and not the central pivot point, as can be seen on MT13. When each weight reaches 1.30 (ish) it naturally falls outward (making the knocking sound).
The five weights give us a pentagon which is progressively stepping back with regard the wheel during rotation, from the deformation of the two points of the pentagon moving.
If all this was going on, on 1 "crossbar" as in 1 face of the wheel, by adding another "crossbar" and another 5 weights, we would have 2 x 5 weights which = 55, and the total of 10 weights would be causing the knocking at each and every of the 9 sections of the wheel.
The 10 weights cannot be put on the same "movable pegs" because, the weight moving out at 1.30 cannot swing the inner arm into the position of the following "movable peg" for the following weight's arm is still occupying it. It cannot be done with 1 x 10, it must be 2 x 5.
At 6 o'clock the weights come to be placed together and give the impression of a peacock's tail closing one side of the wheel and the other side the peacock's tail is openning.
Edit; when the weight swings out at 1.30 ish, it Does swing on the central pivot point identically to MT13.

[johannesbender]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latch

A crossbar, sometimes called a bolt , is a primitive fastener consisting simply of a post barring a door.
Crossbars were historically common, simple fasteners consisting simply of a plank or beam mounted to one side of a door by a set of cleats. The board could be slid past the frame to block the door. Alternatively, the bar can be a separate piece that is placed into open cleats or hooks, extending across the frame on both sides. The effect of this device is essentially the opposite of the crash bar in that its operation is to permit the door to be opened inward rather than outward. On a set of double doors, the same principle works, but needn't extend past the frame. The bar simply extends into another set of cleats on the other door such as to interfere with the door opening.

many different things are called cross bars or similar , even pants have some supports i think are called cross bars

...

remember the poem lines about spirits wander freely through locked doors , a link can be drawn there , but also with a lot of other things too .

[Robinhood46]

JB,
I've always considered crossbars to be generally horizantal.
The crossbar in your photo, would it be called a crossbar if it was vertical? Would it simply be refered to as a vertical crossbar?
The posts and crossbar of a goal are identical in structure, it's only the orientation of the application that gives the name crossbar.
A bar crossing the wheel from rim to rim is effectively a crossbar, if going around with the wheel it would be as much vertical as horizantal.
A crossed bar made of two bars crossed could imply the structure holding the mechanismes that are housing the weights. If we were to continue adding crossed bars to an axle with the "solution" we would be increasing the thickness and the power of a wheel, without changing the diameter. 1 crossed bar "bad" runner 2 crossed bars "good" runner.
If the "crossbar" is connecting 2 opposing weights, or 2 pairs of opposing weights, this would imply that 2 weights, or two pairs would be enough to have a "bad" runner and that adding other crossbars, which would also mean increasing the number of weights or pairs of, to have a "good" runner.
Just some thinking aloud.

[johannesbender]

jip , well if you concider assymetric torque being the driving force .

then if we imagine ,you want to increase torque , on a wheel that barely drives , with one "crossbar and weights" ,or whatever that something producing the torque was ,lets say at horizontal orientation.

then to increase that torque , since torque is force and distance to a pivot , you can either increase the number of weights , or total weight for each weight , or distance or a combination .

so by adding more of whatever his mechanisms was that he used , may simply imply torque increase .

and by creating a larger diameter wheel , distance and force can be increased..

(edits) spelling ..way to mentally drained

[Robinhood46]

JB,
I beg to dissagree.
This would, i think, be only applicable to a "good" runner.
If, a wheel with only 1 crassbar, be it which ever method you choose, can only just about run, then i would have thought that this means, it is very close to a perfect balance with regard all forces in play. A bit similar to a frictionless model that can go around forever but cannot do any work.
By increasing the diameter or size of weight of a model like this, you would still have a wheel that cannot do any work.
I see Bessler's words more likely to imply, 1 crossbar will work but it's a load of crap and will not be of any use to anybody and 2 crossbars (or more) will give a usable force.
Once you have the usable force, i fully agree that it can be increased by many methods or combinations.

[johannesbender]

well , not exactly what i meant , i mean that if he had one that could barely run and wanted to increase that to run better.

if the principle was assymetric torque , then to increase that , by adding more makes sense.

but to then even go further and increase , there would be 2 options , either create more thickness on a single axle ,
or create more distance with diametre.

with more wheels on a single axle , you increase distance along the axle , but that only gives you the ability to inrease weights not radial distance away from the axle.

distance is limited by diametre, so by increasing diameter there is more distance and space along that distance , to place more weights and at a greater distance than a smaller wheel diameter.

we know he increased by diametre and mentioned many could even be made on the same axle or work together.

but we also do not know what he meant with "barely drive itself" , it could mean a small amount of torque , it can also mean friction is barely overcome ..

we dont know for sure if "barely drive itself" meant it could not drive anything except itself .

which leads me to believe its a torque increase.

i think you are talking about "gain" to drive other things , where i am thinking about efficiently running itself .

[John Collins]

RobinHood46, the actual word translated as ‘crossbar’ is in fact ‘Kreuz’ which simply means ‘cross’, although the word has many different meanings/uses. I have my own opinion about Bessler’s intention in using it and it is generally regarded as wrong, but I stick to my guns so to speak. More about this later this year.

JC

[Robinhood46]

JC.
I am more than happy for it to be cross. I didn't much like crossbar, but i felt i was playing a bit too much the wishfull thinking game to find a way of making it mean just cross.
Thankyou for allowing me to stick to my guns with no regrets.

[johannesbender]

i am still confused by the "cross" part of it for now.

[Zhyyra]

RobinHood46, the actual word translated as ‘crossbar’ is in fact ‘Kreuz’ which simply means ‘cross’, although the word has many different meanings/uses. I have my own opinion about Bessler’s intention in using it and it is generally regarded as wrong, but I stick to my guns so to speak. More about this later this year.

JC

Did bessler also write the word "Kruez" with a capital K John? If so it could have a special meaning.

Zhy

[Robinhood46]

I found that "kreuz" has a meaning in music "sharp", and we know Bessler knew a lot about music. I know absolutely nothing about music, so i wouldn't have a clue how sharp could be of any help.
Did you make a typing erreur, with "kruez" or are we spelling it wrong?

[johannesbender]

on a guitar in standard E tuning 440hz as the reference for tuning , a sharp and a flat are located between some natural notes , natural notes are A B C D E F G, a sharp raises the pitch by a semitone and a flat lowers the pitch by a semitone , a sharp is written as "#" and a flat almost like a "b" .

for instance between A and B on the 6th string E , in standard tuning , you have A# and Bb , both are at the same location on the fretboard , both same pitch , but what makes it sound different is context of the previous note .

for example if you move a semitone up in pitch from A you play a A# (a sharp) .

on a piano its the black keys .

[Robinhood46]

So would it be true to say that a "kreuz" is something inbetween 2 points, like a stepping stone to cross from one to the other.
Is it like saying 1.5 is = to both, 1 + a half, and 2 - a half?