The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[WaltzCee]

I think the word had universality, maybe pronounced the same way in many languages. Mamma or oh*ah*ma.

A word like πίτσα. Not necessarily πίτσα but a word like that.

[thx4]

Reading Fletcher in the morning is like starting your day with kerosene, it takes off... :)
I admit that at the period they did not know the telescopic forks, nor pneumatic, it is very likely that it was the "Storksbill" at the period, the most efficient in energy saving for moving a weight, it is the vertical version that bothers me, to study ...
Thanks Fletcher...

A++

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Fletcher,

One things for sure, It's a lot easier to be a critic than building wheels out of iron. Here's my concern as to SBs. The, "word", the critical word, that could give it all away, must never to be mentioned, yet, storks bills are mentioned 12 times! Can SBs be right------------------------------------------Sam

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
there is Indeed something special behind the storksbill, so storksbill maybe the one word that could give it all away.

Nevertheless if you have now one part of the construction, then you still don't know how this is applied to the wheel mechanism.

A storkbill is a moveable square which can be deformed to a parallelogram.

A parallelogram normally will collapse, but not so in a wheel construction.

Then the outer wheel will dictate the grade of the collapse.

During the collapse it is also will produce a hit/impact on the rim, it will be bidirectional.

See in the pictures some construction details.

[eccentrically1]

As we all know, there must be some way to identify his method, whether it is a single word, a combo of MTs, both.. otherwise, how would he get posthumous recognition that he desired for his method? He had to have left the solution somehow or there's no way to prove a possible solution is the right one. Maybe it will be easier to find the word or MTs or whatever if someone stumbles on an obvious design and reverse-detects it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

eccentrically1,

For once, I agree with you. Rocky always said, first; you have to get a wheel to work, then, MAYBE, you could figure out what the clues mean----------Sam

[WaltzCee]

I think everyone can agree that
we're never going to agree.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi WaltzCee,

That's good stuff. I agree with you, (I think)----------------------------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Although that is a compelling argument, just the word Stork-bill isn't much to go on.

The SB is not magical, it is just a lever that can either act linearly, rotationally or balanced. You can amplify distance or force, just like any other lever.

Quite so, it is definitely not magical or mystical ! It obeys the Law of Levers. A SB is a lever by another name and mechanical method, in different form and arrangement from common Pythagorean levers, Pulley systems, Hydraulics, and Pneumatic levers, etc, which are all different in and of themselves and can often be interchanged. That it can be a lever is an inescapable fact, not an axiom.

As I once mentioned elsewhere a multi sectioned SB is a good space saver in some circumstances, if room to operate is restricted, and pulleys often even better. Tho I think this ‘feature’ is not the unique quality that sets them apart.

Since they get a special mention by B. (12 or 13 times in MT) a SB variation must have a unique and specific role or function within his wheels. A role that any other lever methods can not satisfy (applying Ockham’s Razor). I identified to my satisfaction it as the ability for the SB adjusting geometry to change the Acceleration Profile as they are deployed. Anyone who has worked with them will be familiar with this functionality, to some degree or other.

One of my fav. MT's, 24 can be taken as a partial SB mechanism, as can other MTs.

Yes, we discussed this on another thread recently, in some detail IIRC. MT24 and its close sibling MT25, which shares the same DNA. (*I guess MT24 is one of your favourites because of the DT engraving switching out the triangle shaped wheel lock numbered 24 for number 42 in one engraving. Yet the side profile on the same engraving remains numbered 24.) I think I made the point at the time that I couldn’t imagine B. building both these wheels when they were so similar and one or other would do. It was a redundancy. It also struck me that mentioning them twice, in a row, is to twice reinforce the message contained in both, which I reproduce below.

(* all MT & AP & DT quotes from John Collin’s digital copies of these books).

No. 24 This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with hinges. The poles fall inward when the levers close. There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

No. 25 This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly. There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.

Since I earlier talked about further dots to join (which I will begin), and I don’t believe in accidental coincidences where B. is concerned (holding MT for over 30 years) I put forward the (to me) curious case of the following numbers symmetry and potential patterns.

12 + 13 = 25 ( 5 x 5 )

25 .. shift 13 to the left is 12

25 .. shift 13 to the right is 38

No. 38 This is based on the previous principle but instead of oval discs it has stork's bills or student-forceps. At A the stork's bills pull apart from one another, and at B they draw together to C by means of the levers D and E; this side is therefore the heaviest. There is more to this invention than there is to the previous one, but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills.

38 + 100 (B. builds he mentions in AP) = 138 (beginning of the Toy’s Page 4 numbers on one page – yet he writes 5 children’s games and has 6 with the addition of the spinning top toy).

It is possible that there was a fascination with SBs at that time in relation to PM, or there could be any number of reasons he mentions them 12 or 13 times.

True, however I think nearly everything has a motive. I think there is a very good reason why he mentions them so often. Nothing else in MT afaik comes close in terms of Content Analysis for word frequency. Only SB’s IINM.

If B did elude to a word or phrase, I can't imagine it being a thing. It would be something like " gravitational displacement, coriolis effect, centrifugal force, inertial interaction, impact, slingshot, deformity, point of reference, buoyancy, pressure differential, or similar.

That is how WE would, and do usually, think about it ! We have the benefit (debatable) of 300 more years and institutionalised learning to fall back on. We may even over-think-it ! So once again I apply Ockham’s Razor. B. was not a renowned man of Math or the equivalent of Physics of the day. He was a practical man who learnt various disciplines as he journeyed thru life. To illustrate that we need look no further than his comments in MT (his original German). There is no jargoned talk of the things you mention above, if at all. The only words of ‘science’ he mentions (words in English within the German text) are “force”, “movement”, and “momentum”, IIRC. This is the entire range and scope of his terms (and understanding ?) of expression he would pass on in his to be future school of learning text. Not exactly pulling apart Newton’s Laws, Calculus, and the Kinematic Equations (SUVAT). However, it is interesting to me that he did compare his accomplishment with the likes of GALILEO, the progenitor for Newton’s Laws ! (No doubt his solution required critical thinking at a similar level in his mind).

DT Pg 212 : “Could it be then, since my invention has not yet been welcomed, as befits its importance, with open arms, that something vital is lacking therein? I believe that the shortcoming consists only in this, that it was destined to be revealed, not to one of those most famous personages known to all the world, such as DESCARTES, GALILEO, HUYGHENS, WEIGEL, STURM, LEIBNITZ or any other such who are still living, but to a humble man whose greatness is more inwardly than outwardly apparent, obscure both in name and origin.

So would it be strange for me that he mentions a THING, as that word ? And not something more ‘sophisticated’ ? Not at all, for the reasons I’ve given !

... further responses to other posts in the thread to come as time permits ...

[Fletcher]

A word like πίτσα. Not necessarily πίτσα but a word like that.

I think everyone can agree that we're never going to agree.

Well Walt .. I don't think it was pizza. It's Italian for starters ;7)

I don't expect us all to agree, all of the time. All I can do is lay out some of my trail, the dots I joined, and the threads I pulled, to try and get thru this quagmire that has been clinging at our feet and minds far too long. Whether you want to pull the same thread or another is up to you.

[Fletcher]

Reading Fletcher in the morning is like starting your day with kerosene, it takes off... :)
I admit that at the period they did not know the telescopic forks, nor pneumatic, it is very likely that it was the "Storksbill" at the period, the most efficient in energy saving for moving a weight, it is the vertical version that bothers me, to study ...
Thanks Fletcher...

A++

Glad I can be your cup of coffee thx4 .. FWIW B. knew all about telescopic forks and pneumatics etc. Look at the DT portrait of him at his work table. In the forefront lying horizontally is a telescopic telescope. And if you read John Collins books B. says he learned to build air rifles.

I believe that the SB had a unique application in his wheels that only a SB could perform ! Nothing else !

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, there is Indeed something special behind the storksbill, so storksbill maybe the one word that could give it all away.

Nevertheless if you have now one part of the construction, then you still don't know how this is applied to the wheel mechanism.

A storkbill is a moveable square which can be deformed to a parallelogram. ...

Thanks for your comments Georg .. indeed, how it is applied to create wheel momentum is the question of the century.

[Fletcher]

As we all know, there must be some way to identify his method, whether it is a single word, a combo of MTs, both.. otherwise, how would he get posthumous recognition that he desired for his method? He had to have left the solution somehow or there's no way to prove a possible solution is the right one. Maybe it will be easier to find the word or MTs or whatever if someone stumbles on an obvious design and reverse-detects it.

Wouldn't that be great ECC1 - just reverse engineer it and then the clues retrospectively, voila - until that happens we'll just have to try and think and figure it out for ourselves, and maybe on good days we'll make incremental gains. Meantime I'll try to keep an open mind about whatever B. says, particularly in MT, and the witness statements of course.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

One things for sure, It's a lot easier to be a critic than building wheels out of iron. Here's my concern as to SBs. The "word", the critical word, that could give it all away, must never to be mentioned, yet, storks bills are mentioned 12 times!

Can SBs be right------------------------------------------Sam

That was my point Sam .. never mentioned elsewhere except in MT, which he never published or sold i.e. in his close and personal possession for 30 odd years. That, which might outlast him, if required.

I guess he could have been less ambiguous, more direct, more forthright. Just kidding :7)

No. 41 This is yet another stork's-bill model. It is not necessary first to explain the letters. There is only this to mention: the present horizontal application of the stork's bills is always better than the machine with the vertical application, which constantly has more friction. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills. Whoever knows how to construct them will note that the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application.

[johannesbender]

This has been a difficult question for me , because , i cannot think of a single "word" that encapsulates by itself all the meaning needed as to describe the "how" of a process which has multiple facets that need to be described in order to form a complete function.

As per example of what i mean , a "principle" as defined : a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field ; in itself is applicable to most "things" as takes the meaning of "what" in the "word" in question , so my opinion is not that it is a word as in a name for a part or such but a word that describes function like a principle which is applicable to multiple "things" such as mechanical devices.

Except as i have stated i cannot think of it as a "single" word , like a principle can be applicable to multiple things , it as a word or name of a single principle , is a contradiction by mere fact of multiple applications which does not pin a "how" down to a single "thing" , so i suspect it is not a "single" thing or name or word that would "betray" , but rather a combination of explanations / descriptions /principles of certain facets , in sequence of questions asked from others , which by elimination leaves only a certain singular thing left to explain and in doing so betray it all , because the rest has been discussed prior to this final thing.

For example think of the many facets that have been described by Bessler pertaining to the internal design /function of the device ,like weights going here and there , however as to how these certain things were achieved by a particular explanation is not mentioned ,you could pin it perhaps to a mechanical device responsible for the physical interaction ,but not a singular explanation for the whole process , this singular mysterious facet tied to "how" , is more or less by order of logical elimination to contain the singular secret if the rest of the details are known by previous exposed answers , and to this end it can be surmised , that the word/explanation/principle that petrays the secret as a whole , more or less pertains directly to that which enables the continuous movement of these weights , which must be physics property of mechanical usage in the real world , but can only be a singular give away -if we know all the other details.

I am leaning more to this explanation also based ,albeit to a limited extend or supposition , that Bessler by his own words as written , exclaimed to have had or provides as needed at that time, a detailed description and explanation along with mathematical proof , to have explained the "how".

I have my picks for these words/principles/actions/how to's but remain quiet until not proven foolish in my own endeavours.