Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

I agree with all the points Fletcher and Tarsier made , There is an indication that "something" is to be known about it (SB) in some way , its inclusion in the TP cannot be ignored .

I believe B. doubled down on the SB message later in MT jb ..

Storks-bill is many times mentioned in the body of MT in comments associated with various illustrations - by my count 12 times plus 1 time called "student forceps" => total 13 (religious significance).

As we all know the SB illustration features prominently in the Toy's Page. It can't be missed, let alone the intrigue of MT41 we have been discussing.


Here's where I think B. doubled down .. a curiosity perhaps, or a coincidence, or just wishful thinking on my behalf ? .. I don't think so.


On achieving success with a runner B. began calling himself Orffyre, sometimes Latinized to Orffyreum and Orffyreus. It is speculated that he used Rot13 cipher to change BESSLER to ORFFYRE via transposition across a 26 letter alphabet wheel. It must have been the 26 letter alphabet because the old German alphabet had 24 letters and he couldn't get Orffyre from it.

At around the same time he formally changed his birth name of Elias Bessler by including 2 more forenames ..

It became Johann Ernst Elias Bessler. So his initials previously were E B and became J E E B.

** Remembering this all happened when he was about 32 years old (circa 1712) and well before 1733 when he took out pages from MT and likely included the TP substitute.**

Why include 2 more names ? I don't know other than some sort of rudimentary provenance claim perhaps to be associated with his longer initials.

J E E B .. using Rot13 we get ..

W R R O .. doesn't mean too much to me except the R R's remind me of his later extravagant signature regarding the Rath and oRffyreus (ROR).

10 5 5 15 .. sums to 35 .. doesn't prompt anything to me as MT35 is non-remarkable imo.

X V V O .. transposition to Roman Numerals n.b. there is no zero in Roman Numerals.

X V V with O perhaps representing a circle or wheel.

X V V .. can these be re-combined to perhaps represent something important in his mechanical solution (re provenance link) ?

Question .. Where have I seen that before ? Ans .. Matth XV.V.16 "And are ye yet without understanding?"

... We know creuz / cross was important to him and that could be represented by the X (AP has a multitude of x's mainly at ends of lines of prose)

But what of all of X V V ?

I believe B. pointed with this transformation to a particular SB arrangement as a form of provenance, and doubled down later in MT.


<x> or aligned vertically instead of horizontally.


Just my opinions about most curious things and circumstances as I see them.

I don't know how much this helps or contributes to your analysis as a whole , but I have searched the forum and internet , and found no topic or discussion which expressly makes a distinction between the logo and a monogram.

Unlike a chronogram , a monogram is made up usually from symbols or letters from a persons initials or such , drawn to be unique , almost like a hand signature people could use their monograms in letters and such instead of their names or titles.

But it would not be recognizable to anyone or everyone , it would depend on who knew your monogram , some people had a secret monogram.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogram
https://www.printmag.com/culturally-rel ... monograms/

It seems that he used only the ROR for his monogram , as seen in the image where he signed off on a paper.

Some more Interesting things about the logo :
The AT of RATH in the left side was also made to represent the FF of the right side which could make HTARORFFYRE in to TFFRORFFYRE of which FFRORFF is a complete mirror.
The AT of RATH on the left can also be seen as a H instead of FF or AT.
The E on the right of ORFFYRE , you can notice the E is also drawn such that the R's of ROR can be seen as E's like EOE which R is of course a E in the Caesar shift ROR = EOE .

Continued: looking onward out of curiosity , if we subtract the complete mirrored FFRORFF we are left with HT and YRE , YR is drawn like its 1 single letter , so it almost looks like 2 letters on the left and two letters on the right , 2+2=4 , but anyway , HTYRE with a ceasar shift of 4 would be LXCVI.

Where HT=LX , YR=CV , E=I , LX Roman numerals=60 , CV Roman numerals=105 ,I Roman numerals=1
which is also 60 105 1,where 6+0+1+0+5+1=13 , or , 60 + 105 +1 = 166 where 1+6+6=13 .
Anyway like I said not a numbers guy but hey people seem to like it lol.

We can also speculate that the ribbon knot which seems to look like it includes numbers , make the sum of 55 , where 38 + 13 + 3 + 1 =55

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
I have to admit that I don't understand your animation all that well. Maybe not at all. I'm not a math guy but, as a rule of thumb, the acceleration(s) to shift the weights, should be about twice gravity, or more like 2 Gs. Maybe a math type guy could confirm this, or not. (Find 'a', to move a 10 lb. weight 6 inches in 1/10 of a second) a=? (approx.)

You always claim gravity wheels are impossible, well that's part of the reason why; why they have been. However, this problem can easily be avoided, by using CF to do the work, the work of shifting the weights-------------------Sam

PS I could never find a formula for acceleration, or if I did, I didn't understand it. I did come up with 50.

[Fletcher]

It's always a struggle to communicate effectively Sam ..

I've redone the sim of the relevant parts of MT20 to perhaps make it more understandable - this time I took out the velocity graph of the horse (driver wt) and the cart (flip wt) and included Outputs Tables for Total GPE lost and Total KE gained as the driver falls and the flip wt is lifted and accelerated to the rim stop, thru application of gearing (leverage) - I've then graphed the Net GPE lost (orange line) against the System KE gained (green line) - you will see that they are symmetrical in shape, above and below the line in equal amounts at any time interval, but KE gained never exceeds the GPE lost AT ANY TIME. This is the problem with all OOB weight shifting wheels using gravity-only force - no asymmetric torque thru geographical mass displacement or impact force is produced, and I'll come back to that shortly.

Sometimes I think we are talking at cross-purposes when really we are not.

I was attempting to answer yours and ECC1's questions about what did B. mean when he said put the horse before the cart (horse in-front).

Recap .. B's. friend thought that the flip wt would add superior imbalance and make side A always heavier (asymmetric torque / excess impetus / preponderance etc). B. said no ! What we know is that it won't make side A always heavier. Even when the flip wt arrives with speed and gives the rim stop a good smack it still does not have more KE than the driver lost in GPE aka no permanent and continued OB.

So B. told him put the horse (horse in-front) before the cart. In MT20 the driver/effort is the horse and the flip wt is the load/cart. Literally reversing the relationship so that the flip wt moves first (the new horse) losing GPE and then moving the long lever-weight (the new cart) will not work any better. And IMO that's not what B. meant. The driver/effort must still be the driver and lose GPE - the cart/load must still be the one acted upon in causation terms. But here is the difference - with modifications the flip wt will cause side A of the wheel to always be heavier / excess impetus / asymmetric torque / preponderance etc. Then imo that would fulfill B's. cryptic comment and would be putting the horse in-front imo. IOW's it is a figurative statement to his friend and not a literal one that as usual has to be decrypted.

Anyhoo, back to the sim for a moment by way of further explanation .. the gearing ratio is at 6.5 otherwise any lesser and the driver would fall down a greater distance losing more GPE, conversely the flip wt would have more KE at arrival at the rim stop etc. I settled on a 10 : 1 mass ratio and gearing ratio of 6.5 so emulate as closely as possible what B's. MT20 showed in range of movements. Mass ratios and gearing ratios are changeable and a compromise - the bottom line is that if the flip mass is too great and is lifted too high then like any leverage mechanism the driver cannot lift it high enough for its own GPE height lost (flip mas gains in GPE and KE). This is Law of Levers, constraints to 'simple machines' !

So imo another force is required to make side A always heavier etc because it is clearly not just geographic mass rearrangement/displacement and KE transfer to the rim stop options as MT20 comments say, and my static MT20 sim shows.

Centrifical/Centrifugal Force is the linear inertial force generated when a mass is in motion (either straight line or curved). The objective imo is to conceptually isolate this extra force required to make side A always heavier, and then design a mechanism that fulfills the promise of side A always being heavier i.e. the wheel having asymmetric torque and be promoted to a self-moving runner.

Sim included ..




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

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
I guess I'm catching on. The green weight is 1 lb., the yellow one 10 lbs. and the gears are 6.5 to 1 up ratio. What is the ratio of the levers? It would be good if you could swap the position of the gears. A lot of times the heavier weight can have more effect than the small one------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I guess I'm catching on. The green weight is 10 lbs., the yellow one 1 lb. and the gears are 6.5 to 1 up ratio. What is the ratio of the levers? It would be good if you could swap the position of the gears ------------------------Sam

The Yellow Driver / Effort lever-weight is 2 kg (4.4 lb) and the Green Flip / Load lever-weight is 0.2 kg (0.44 lb). Ratio 10 : 1.

The internal gear ratio is 6.5 : 1 - the internal gear acts like a reduction pulley / belt (i.e. both cogs rotate same direction). Otherwise the Driver could not lift the flip wt the height it has to (f x d) and get it to move the distance of the arc to the rim stop while it only loses a little height (f x d).

The lever-weight ratios are .. Driver = 1.0 meter , the Flip 0.2 meters i.e. 5 : 1 ratio (proportional to B's. woodcut).

I don't understand what you mean by swap position of the gears o-o .. I could change the gear to an external spur gear arrangement between the 2 cogs but the ratio would stay the same - what would happen is that both cogs would turn in opposite directions so I would have to change the rope pull connection from the Driver lw to the opposite side of the first cog from where it is attached now. It would make no difference and the sim would perform the same.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I had the weights wrong. I didn't know it was an internal gear--------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi Fletcher

Your simulation got me thinking about a simplified SFH device.

One that is is more 2 dimensional too allow simulation using software; with better ease.

My initial inspiration placed a 3 dimensional extra complexity that can be removed.

The key interaction are slipping SB pivots and the two mass pushing against the third to initiate
movement.

P.S. I better go and start creating an illustration.

Regards

[johannesbender]

looking at his remarks up to MT20 , I wonder when he learned "why they don't work" .

[Fletcher]

looking at his remarks up to MT20 , I wonder when he learned "why they don't work" .

Hey jb .. I think we all understand that none of the MT's are runners, and that B. added his comments in retrospect after he was successful.

Years ago I compiled different lists of things and comments that interested me at the time, as I thought it might help focus my attention. And for contextual grouping and quick reference.

Here's the one that covers some of what you are talking about IINM, it may be helpful to someone else. **Paragraph headings (coloured) are mine.** B. quotes are from John Collins Books, sorted by me.

JB talks about his augmented runners !

True Statements – clearly describing the OOB portion of his augmented designs

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time" – AP pg 295

"anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly" – AP pg 295

True Statements – talking about the futility of OOB systems in general

"a great craftsman would be that man who can lightly (easily) cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295

"many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience" – AP pg 295-296

"he can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!" – AP pg 295

Prompting Thinking Beyond OOB Systems - describes putting reason aside and pushing past what is known (learned)

"I believe that even those who are not ignorant, should they attempt to use pure REASON alone to achieve their ends will, all of them, suffer from the same noted madness, and that thus their great chance of fame will be missed" – DT pg 264

"but what I didn't know then, and indeed have only recently discovered, is that there were obstacles in our way. We were, you might say, unprepared and therefore still far from the truth" – AP pg 262

"he who wishes to make it in this world must often be prepared to use a combination of lateral thinking and initiative!" – AP pg 264

The Augmented OOB System – describes using an OOB system, in a different way (purpose) to everyone before him. And furthermore says that a proper mechanical application leads to his wheels having excess momentum and energy to do work

"by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it" – AP pg 367

"all the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them" – AP pg 366

"for I put together the very first device which could [spontaneously *translators addition*] revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile" – AP pg 271

"design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'" – AP pg 308

“Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement (XXI heading is mechanical implements) sufficient for the task. He’s right ! So am I, and does anyone see why ? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: “Now I understand !” – AP pg 342

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

XXI (b) Here Wagner lists all mechanical implements.

Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!” AP pg 341/342

[johannesbender]

fletcher , yes those are some good important quotes from him.

looking at his remarks up to MT20 , I wonder when he learned "why they don't work" .

Hey jb .. I think we all understand that none of the MT's are runners, and that B. added his comments in retrospect after he was successful.

It almost sounds like , at the time of disagreeing with his friend , that he possibly already knew why they don't work and had his successful design, but MT20 had to be placed with the rest of MT failures and not near the end , because that would make MT follow a chronological order instead of working towards some sort of developing synopsis .

I believe from MT135 onwards were to be that synopsis , experiments and demonstrations and explanations , there for the same important reasons as the TP except not cryptic.

[Fletcher]

fletcher , yes those are some good important quotes from him.

looking at his remarks up to MT20 , I wonder when he learned "why they don't work" .

Hey jb .. I think we all understand that none of the MT's are runners, and that B. added his comments in retrospect after he was successful.

It almost sounds like , at the time of disagreeing with his friend , that he possibly already knew why they don't work and had his successful design, but MT20 had to be placed with the rest of MT failures and not near the end , because that would make MT follow a chronological order instead of working towards some sort of developing synopsis .

I believe from MT135 onwards were to be that synopsis , experiments and demonstrations and explanations , there for the same important reasons as the TP except not cryptic.

I can see your point of view jb .. at the time he came across his friends wheels (MT19 & 20) I think B. definitely did know why "they" could not work because he is quite insistent about MT20 NOT being "always heavier on side A". If that meeting happened earlier, as per the supposed chronological ordering, then he would 100% know why it didn't work but not necessarily why it COULD work i.e. be always heavier on side A. Presumably that definitive understanding came chronologically later in time when he discovered his mechanical preponderance application.

FWIW I have no doubt that had things been different something like MT20 would have appeared at the end of MT along with one or two others leading up to his final mechanical solution to a runner. For me it is an important step in his journey to a Prime Mover application and why he gives it such a good rap.

Sorry to harp on .. as always the fly in the ointment are MT's 44 & 48 (ball transfers) - clearly they don't have SB's or lever-weights, or "special handles", or any sort of connectedness principle to write home about. Yet he could apply his PM Principle mechanics (structures / application - which might contain all those) and make them into runners because they developed a superior force (Wagner). Hence why I think the TP is about the Prime Mover entity and not ONE "special type of needle" found in a hay stack of OOB wheels.

[agor95]

Hi Fletcher

Your simulation got me thinking about a simplified SFH device.

Fletcher

It dawned on me,slowly, an aspect of your simulation.

Does it include the forces created by their circular paths;
The masses travel along curved paths based on a combination of frame rotation, gravity acceleration and internal forces simulated.

Regards

[mryy]

Among the AP metaphors the one of the dog is undoubtedly the most descriptive of the moving wheel's mechanism:

"the dog also from the kennels creeps, only so far [as] the chain reaches, the beautiful little treasures and machines he knows to serve/operate very friendly/kindly/nicely, he wags well with his tail, crawls on the belly through the frost/ring, therefore him soon the skinny dolls/puppets also rap quite on the paws" AP Stewart translation

"The hound/dog also out the iron creeped, but only 'about' this chain reaches. This beauty cloaked/shaded and mechanism white/blank it is very friendly to work/operate 'it is' shaken well with its tail Creeped out that middle/internals through/across the tear/crack/opening 'For it'/that them almost this aridity/dryness trick/prank Also nearly over this scrawled thread/weaving" AP Rufus Gartz translation


I think the AP poem was about a 2-directional wheel but many of the metaphors can describe a 1-directional also. I made the assumption that the dog metaphor applies to the 1-way ??O$$ concept and updated it to re-create the dog's movements. I believe the dog symbolizes a (torsion) spring* used to operate the lever. The language suggests to me that there is some distinct semblance of the dog when observing the wheel in motion. In my previous designs the spring was mounted on the same pivot as the lever so there wasn't a clear representation of it. This time the spring is mounted on its own pivot situated between the levers and is almost as long. It passes inside and through the stork's bill (SB) unit and presses/slides against the SB hinge-rod (and vice versa), which in turn swings the lever. I now call my updated spring the Dachshund**.

*I think it's possible B. used torsion springs. He was an avid pipe organ maker and torsions were employed inside the windchest to close the valves/pallets. See 2nd upload.

**Dachshund is a German dog breed characterized by a pointy snout, long body and stubby limbs that loves to play, dig and chase after badger, wabbit and other small objects. It also likes standing upright.

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy,
I don't think you can use a weight, to lift a weight or, shift a weight. You have to find some other way-------------Sam

[mryy]

I have been pondering the Roberval Balance lately, which has been discussed here and there on BWF. The two hammermen and object A of the Toys Page are suggestive to me of a Roberval. In this new version of a 9-lever wheel, I removed the handle carrying the red weight of each lever and attached the lever to one side of a small Roberval-like parallelogram (the dark rectangles of the upload); the lever can pivot 180 degrees at the point of attachment. Two corners of the parallelogram are mounted onto pivots along the edge of the grindstone, and the remaining two corners face the rim. There are nine parallelograms with their corresponding levers spaced evenly around the grindstone.

This latest design is a "tethered" system where all weights are in contact with some part of the wheel, and y'all know how I feel about tethered wheels -- they virtually don't work. However I will make exception for this one. Why? Because it's *my* design and I can be insufferably biased ...

Theory of Operation: When a lever strikes the rim stop at about 4:00 and rests on it, the system detects a weight at the rim. The Roberval effect is disabled and the torque that's produced calculates from the whole length of the lever. So from 4:00 to 6:00 there is no Roberval effect. Moving clockwise from 6:00 to 3:00 the levers are not touching/resting on the rim stops and the Roberval is immediately in effect. Hence the torque calculates from a radial distance equal to the parallelogram width. IOW there is a very large torque in the lower right quadrant of the moving wheel and a small torque elsewhere.