Part Three is the Charm

[Fletcher]

I take the position that Masons etc familiar with their secreted codes would have had access to B's. published books and if intrigued by his wheel claims would naturally attempt to decode anything B. hid in them. They would have a significant advantage of familiarity of symbols and patterns and would find most of them quickly imo. And if B. hid his entire mechanism in this way in GB, AP, and DT his secret mech wouldn't be a secret for very long .. certainly not 300 years later.

So to protect his secret he could only make casual connections such as the Square and Compass analogy (the main symbol of a secret society).

I think Oystein has also shown in the past a strong connection to knowledge of ancient mathematicians and philosophers such as Plato, Archimedes and perhaps Heron etc for solving areas of circles and triangles for example, doubling the square. This would be bread and butter and interesting stuff to Masons. But not necessarily relevant to solving B's. mechanical invention. It would keep everyone guessing and occupied and his books talked about in inner circles.

Then we have John Collins MT .. i.e. B's. private collection of illustrations and notes. Not available to the public or Masons etc.

There B. tells us something extraordinary can be found in the TP, and that includes objects that have a remarkable resemblance to the basic pantograph or iconism of the Square and Compass. In the lead up he tells us there is something special behind the SB (which is another form of pantograph shape). He goes further and includes numerous bent-arm A's (another pantograph shape) in many of MT's illustrations. Sometimes the 2 types of A in the same illustration. There does not seem to be any discernible pattern to their frequency and inclusions other than a visual reminder to something.

Hmmmm .. I'm starting to see a pattern forming here .. no detail, just a general sense of drama and a damn good prod.

[Fletcher]

IMO , if it indicates a cycle , it would seem to me that its an impossible cycle where height in equals height out , or put differently all GPE restored because Up equals down , we know accordingly to laws this is not possible , so there might be another reason it was done to appear like that .

Now interestingly enough another oddity, as mentioned the slight variation between the 2 HM , they are opposites in direction and the SB and JL are opposites in direction too .

On a side note , Bessler wrote the SB is better applied horizontal , should we turn the page 90 degrees...

It's an impossible cycle only if we can't find asymmetric torque so that the wheel gains and retains momentum as it turns.

With ordinary OOB wheels torques are equalized and after mandatory energy taxes paid (system losses to frictions etc) the thing can't even restore initial GPE in its closed system rotation. With no frictions at all (impossible) the thing if given a shove would never lose that initial momentum given, but neither would it accelerate.

If we take it that it does show a cycle, and we know that the cycle is energy lousy, then somewhere in that cycle is the mechanical means to make asymmetric torque so it isn't lousy and gains and retains momentum as it runs thru the cycle over and over i.e. a runner. And that to me is what the cycle imagery could be hinting at in abstract terms (thought and not concrete terms).

And here enters the power of suggestion. B. tells us there are 5 children's games on that page. I can immediately recognize and identify 4 separate games. Items A and B just don't look like any JL I've ever seen. But because he told us there are 5 on the page we assume that at least 1 or them must be a familiar child's game and we grasp at JL's (partly because elsewhere in AP he also said he learned to climb higher on a JL tho the context might be different than we think). That's the power of suggestion .. B. said there are 5 games so we find 5 familiar but separate games.

All B. said was that there were 5 children's games and then shows us 6 illustrations. We make the assumption that all things are games and that all games are separate entities because he put that thought into our heads. Case in point .. we know for instance that the HM games are games themselves, and also could be indicative of the children's hoop tapping game (hammer hitting drum) played in the lane i.e. games within games => to find the 5, which could leave others not games at all.

He could have said study these devices mechanical movements and combine some of them to form an ever-lasting mechanical motion.

Then you would perhaps look at the devices mechanical actions more widely and differently with the mental shackles of suggestion removed.

[johannesbender]

And here enters the power of suggestion. B. tells us there are 5 children's games on that page. I can immediately recognize and identify 4 separate games. Items A and B just don't look like any JL I've ever seen. But because he told us there are 5 on the page we assume that at least 1 or them must be a familiar child's game and we grasp at JL's (partly because elsewhere in AP he also said he learned to climb higher on a JL tho the context might be different than we think). That's the power of suggestion .. B. said there are 5 games so we find 5 familiar but separate games.

All B. said was that there were 5 children's games and then shows us 6 illustrations. We make the assumption that all things are games and that all games are separate entities because he put that thought into our heads. Case in point .. we know for instance that the HM games are games themselves, and also could be indicative of the children's hoop tapping game (hammer hitting drum) played in the lane i.e. games within games => to find the 5, which could leave others not games at all.

He could have said study these devices mechanical movements and combine some of them to form an ever-lasting mechanical motion.

Then you would perhaps look at the devices mechanical actions more widely and differently with the mental shackles of suggestion removed.

I don't really look at how many there is , I think the amount is irrelevant to what it somehow symbolizes , I look at it as though he just said "children toys(games) of which there is something extraordinary if you applied it differently" .

Then there is the matter of what does he mean by different application
A) mechanical form
B) mechanical application or function
C) physics
D) symbolical of something else

The toys as they are can only work one way because they are physically locked in degree of freedom to only have a certain mechanical function and were made to do only as they were made to do and nothing else (tops spin and fall they dont fly up in to the air ,HM lean side to side and hammers the anvils they dont jump up and down).

But how they are used and for what purpose can be different because of their mechanical nature and because they are at the core ,dressed up mechanical linkages (pivots , levers , etc) ,as for example the SB illustrated throughout MT can be applied to do many different things and activated in different ways , like levers and pivots and linkages can also be applied in many different ways and have many different forms.

Or , elements of physics like the spinning top (angular momentum , conservation laws , friction , gyroscopic forces ) can be used and applied in different ways too.

Or , we look at it as something else , like a complete picture of something shown in some symbolical manner (things aren't necessarily what they seem like at face value).

But there's so many avenues to go down in each of these that it would take ages to come to a conclusion , so we have to take our current knowledge of what might be possible mechanically to trim the search radius .

The thing is , are we heading down the wrong direction with what we think might be possible , leaving us investigating the wrong things ?
Asymmetrical torque (force/energy) makes the most sense if we could find a foothold on it , but is there also something else were not investigating.

[Fletcher]

... (tops spin and fall they don't fly up in to the air , HM lean side to side and hammers the anvils they don't jump up and down).


... But there's so many avenues to go down in each of these that it would take ages to come to a conclusion , so we have to take our current knowledge of what might be possible mechanically to trim the search radius .


The thing is , are we heading down the wrong direction with what we think might be possible , leaving us investigating the wrong things ?


Asymmetrical torque (force/energy) makes the most sense if we could find a foothold on it , but is there also something else were not investigating .

Yep jb .. simple machines are just simple machines (SR x MA) .. levers in effect .. they don't jump in the air or stay spinning forever just because we would like them to .. they obey the Laws, and that's physics and Newtonian Mechanics for you, as we all know too well.

So yes, we can spend a life time investigating and building dead ends, hopefully learning what doesn't work and moving on to the next idea etc. The Laws are a harsh mistress. Maybe if we had the lifespan of Noah we would eventually hit upon a combination of simple machines that did do something unexpected and extraordinary, or maybe not.

It goes without saying that B. didn't take a life time, he took 10 years. And as you say he must have narrowed down the search radius dramatically to find a mechanical solution to his runners in just 10 short years. Granted he covered a lot of ground in that 10 year period (he himself said he had diligence and perseverance) but that is not a unique quality, even today. He needed 10 years to earn his stripes and leave the door open for enlightenment to enter.

So to continue with the psychology/mechanical lens he gave up on the old 'tried and false' OOB wheel approaches, and when he had his runner he knew why ALL the previous one's had failed (paraphrased). IOW's his 'simple machine' builds didn't work, but because he added something mechanical to his builds they now did work i.e. he had a runner. He had considerably narrowed down the radius of his search, inspiration gained from his epiphany dream (the enlightenment moment). He went straight to "GO" and collected 200 Thaler. But the physical addition could not be adding another "Simple Machine" altho it was mechanical imo ..

Simple Machine = failure
Simple Machine + Simple Machine = failure
Simple Machine + (Simple Machine)^n = failure

Simple Machine .. Wikipedia

"A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force. In general, they can be defined as the simplest mechanisms that use mechanical advantage to multiply force."

And we know that it must have been a unique mechanical addition because even MT's 44 and 48 could apparently be made into runners when it was added. Ball transfer types are some of the most theorized and experimented on, and just as quickly discarded as unworkable. Clearly they needed a 'momentum boost' to become runners.

I frame his extraordinary mechanical addition as the 'Prime Mover apparatus'. And since it apparently could get ball transfer wheels to be runners, which is very graphic and astonishing in my mind (as B. intended imo), then its addition could probably get many OOB wheel types to be runners also.

That's why I repeatedly say the TP is about the Prime Mover - and imo it is not a 'simple machine' trading advantage for speed, but is a mechanical device whose form and actions are derived from elements (actual and symbolic) in the TP. And which initiates and sustains the momentum gain of its host.

If the wheel is one-way it uses OOB to get it moving after-which the Prime Mover activates and feeds back additional motion into the host OOB system to make the 'Franken-Wheel' self-moving, imo.

[Fletcher]

One of the most important eye-witness accounts on record imo. Wolff frames his opinion based on his experience as a professional mathematician, and his powers of observation.

Letter re: Christian Wolff to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

... I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit. They are slightly elongated ( BW.com They are slightly warped (me .. curved )). When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards. ...

But we have mechanical experience .. so what can we really draw from his observations.


Wolff thought from circumstantial evidence that weights were attached to able-to-move structures near the rim. Once rotating a collision sound could be heard in the vicinity of the weights. Wolff saw short boards in that area that he thought the impact sound emanated from.

There was a spring like structure associated with the weights. Which was heard to make a recognizable spring expanding sound when the weights were reinstalled.


There are conflicting opinions about whether or not springs are simple machines .. I think not !


Quora Question: Can a spring be considered to be a simple machine ?

Answer : A spring stores and releases energy. To qualify as a simple machine, a device must exchange the magnitude of a Force with how far it must be applied to do Work.

For example, the Work (energy) of lifting an object opposite the direction of gravity is equal to the Force applied in the vertical direction times the Distance the force is applied. W = Fd

No matter how this object is lifted through this vertical distance, it will always require the same amount of energy. However, a simple machine allows the exchange of Force and Distance. For example, if the object is placed on an inclined plane, the Force requirements go down depending on the angle of the plane. However, the Distance will now increase depending on that same angle. What remains constant is the total energy required, W.

A spring generally does not allow an exchange of F or D and therefore fails to meet the physics definition of simple machine.


Google Search : Why isn't a spring a simple machine?

A spring stores and releases energy. To qualify as a simple machine, a device must exchange the magnitude of a Force with how far it must be applied to do Work.


How B. used the spring is the Sixty Thousand Dollar question, imo ! Not in a usual way of storing and releasing energy since he said ...

Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717 - "Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move." John Collins > PM-AAMS ?

[Sam Peppiatt]

There is some thing funny, not funny Ha Ha but, funny strange about Bessler's wheel. I stumbled, quite by accident, on how to lift the weights back up. However, no one is interested in it. I thought it would be important but, apparently not.

I'll never understand why-----------------------------Sam

[preoccupied]

Sam Peppiatt what are you talking about? If I may interject that was kind of pessimistic. What's up dude? What I have in my head right now if it is any help guys is pulling a weight into the center of the wheel while the wheel is moving fast to cause it to move along the angle faster, whip lashing into position, from of course Angular Momentum. If the weight is shifting inward at the bottom of the wheel or in a position somewhere that whip lashes upwards, it will whip lash higher up causing potential over unity by raising the weight up with extra force.

[Tarsier79]

I stumbled, quite by accident, on how to lift the weights back up. However, no one is interested in it.

I am interested. I think most people here would be interested.

[johannesbender]

I have been thinking a little , the TP mostly seems to be the embodiment of newtons 3rd law to me , everything indicated in function has equal and opposite reaction , and each of the toys also have equal and opposite pairs , force pairs ... except I haven't taken in to account the top.

Obviously they show the 3rd law because why would they not , everything we know off will show the 3rd law , especially simple machines , but i think its the arrangement on the page that also shows it , why that arrangement .

[thx4]

There is some thing funny, not funny Ha Ha but, funny strange about Bessler's wheel. I stumbled, quite by accident, on how to lift the weights back up. However, no one is interested in it. I thought it would be important but, apparently not.

I am interested. I think most people here would be interested.

No doubt it can be a great discovery!
Are you ready to share with us?

A++

[eccentrically1]

But we have mechanical experience .. so what can we really draw from his observations.
------
There was a spring like structure associated with the weights. Which was heard to make a recognizable spring expanding sound when the weights were reinstalled.

Since he only pushed down once, then we know only that some spring type device was used; we don't know which form it had (leaf, helical, disk, etc.).
We also don't know how it was utilized; did it store his energy and release it all at once as a startup mechanism, or more slowly? Was it attached to the axle? Was it attached to one lever? Was it attached to all of the levers? Get out your razor.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Where to begin?
thx4 / Tarsier, thanks for your response. For critics / superior intellects that have no regard for gravity, my discovery apparently, has no value, with good reason. It can't be done, they say, gravity has no energy. Plus they have a 1,000 years or so to back them up. How can you argue with that? So, the burden has fallen on us ignorant inventers to find a way to prove them wrong.

Ring and rollers do have that capability,(I. E., lifting weights back up). However, it's not a guarantee of success. Pendulums do the same thing. But they have two problems, first they don't lift the weights up high enough and are captivated by there pivot points. The ring and rollers lift much higher and, have the freedom of moving around, after they reach the top of the wheel. In order to create an imbalance.

Let me use Bessler's wheel for an example. Say, the rings were 4 feet in diameter, (if R and R were indeed used), and the rollers would be maybe 3 1/2 feet in diameter, and might weigh 50 or 60 pounds, who knows for sure, they would then be lifted up some thing like 8 feet, only to fall again, to turn the wheel. I think, to lift a weight 8 feet, is a big deal! If you believe in gravity, as I do, he found some way to do it, right? Perhaps that's how it was done; after all, how many ways could there be?
Maybe I expect too much----------------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

MTs and the toys page:
What if the reason the MTs were never published is because they are of little or no value? Also, the problem with the toys page is; the all important toy in question, isn't on the page! Which may very well be the so called stick and hoop toy. The hoop refers to a ring; as in ring and rollers. A much different way to apply the game, as it were.

If you will fore give my interpretation of things, that is---------------------Sam

[phj]

There was a spring like structure associated with the weights. Which was heard to make a recognizable spring expanding sound when the weights were reinstalled.

The Merseburg wheel was a two-way wheel, and could be turned in either direction with a gentle push in the desired direction.

That's where the spring fits in.
Two one-way wheels facing each other inverted (inside the big wheel which Christian Wolff observed) was connected with a spring from the top of one-way wheel 1, to the bottom of one-way wheel 2. Whichever one-way wheel that got a push in its spinning direction, would owerpower the other one-way wheel, because it would be slightly behind due to the spring. That's why Bessler insisted to push gently.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Here's the deal with the springs as I understand it.
They had absolutely nothing to do with driving the wheel. Quite the opposite. They, the springs involved a gravity brake to temporarily cause the wheel to be bottom heavy, to hold it stationary. I.E., to keep it stopped. Here's how I think it worked:

The weight(s) were probably a short section of water pipe that slid in and out on the spokes of the wheel. The spring,(a tension spring), would be 90 degrees to the weight and fastened to the center of them. With the wheel stopped the weights would sag down and keep it from taking off. An on board dynamic gravity brake, if you will. And that's what the springs were for, if I'm right that is.

I've tried to explain this before. With out the brake, the bidirectional wheel could take off on it's own and probably in either direction. So, in order to control the F'n thing, he had to introduce a neutral, or stopped position, hence the brake.

Haven't any of you ever worked around machinery---------------------Sam