Fletcher wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:03 am
remember, the Prime Mover was never mentioned other than in the unpublished MT, and even then just the once ..
I have the feeling that when B describes the TMs, he's talking to his future students.
Which is strange, he's focusing on models that have very little chance of working on their own, which is what he's describing, whereas describing the engine would be much more effective for all TMs. Something seems obscure to me. He thinks or says that the fortune collected after the sale he will found a school ... What's a school for?
Once you know the engine...
Not everything I present is functional, but a surprise can't be completely ruled out.Greetings.
A serious question is whether the AP prose describes a bi-directional or one-directional wheel. Let's say it is about a bi-directional. I am *crossing fingers* that many of the clues also applies to a one-way. So far imo they seem to.
Remember he had 4 wheels (if you include the Kassel wheel), so a major problem is figuring out which 'clues' apply to which wheel(s). I believe there were two mechanism versions for the one-directional wheel (Gera and Draschwitz types), so the fun is separating them. But that's a headache for another day... ;-)
That is one of the reasons I decided for myself that he had a single Prime Mover mech(s) that was then fitted to just about any traditional OOB wheel, of any sort, to make the combination a runner .. mainly because while the bi-directional may have had back-to-back OOB systems duplicated from the one-directionals his "clues" are so diverse, and perverse, that he can't possibly be describing just ONE OOB system runner employed in ALL subsequent wheels .. imo he was having some fun at our expensive knowing we would be flummoxed by the avalanche and apparent variety of descriptions, leaving us ( Wagner et al ) bewildered, overloaded, and grasping at straws - not dishonest, just a magicians distraction and deflection from the naked truth - remember, the Prime Mover was never mentioned other than in the unpublished MT, and even then just the once ..
I don't know about a 'Prime Mover', but I've found a principle behind how (I believe) the wheels work and am currently building a large-size wheel (50 inches. Hoping to finish in 12 days ;-) to see if it works in practice (an experimental mock-up moved as it should have, but was so flimsy it broke apart with weights attached, which led to Design #2, which is more robust and will be easier to build. I hope... ;-)
And about that principle, if it works, back-to-back mechs won't work for a two-way wheel; The mech for it will be a different animal, but it will still have to work to the principle (yes, still trying to figure a 2-way mech out for that ;-)
And no, I haven't looked through MT for similarities to my designs. I don't want to get sidetracked. Patience, people... ;-)
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
Same design as before with a few updates to the annotations. This time I included a diagram of the wheel frame. The rim stops are integrated into the framework and are attached at the end of the spokes. You will note the X-shaped bars (in gray) mounted between the spokes. I imagine that the stork's bill units will tend to swivel sideways (in the z-axis) as they open and close. These strategically placed bars will contain them between the wheel drums and prevent this movement.
I am 99% certain B. runners used weight-springs in the form of a blade. See his notes for MT18 (consisting of 4 flexible weight-springs) where he writes, "I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place." [Collins] The eyewitness Wolff believed he heard and sensed the presence of springs/elastic arms. Wolff surmised there were weights attached to the elastic arms. B. call the wheel hub a grindstone -- and grindstones hone blades. There's the AP metaphor about the fencers (fencing swords being flexible).
What is the underlying principle of $theOne¢ concept? Bessler stated his runners utilized the principle of excess weight, of preponderance. I feel they mean the same. I believe he was really referring to the blade spring. To obfuscate he chose the term "excess weight" -- which isn't entirely untrue as a weight was likely attached to the end of the spring. If he had said the "blade principle" the word blade alone might have given away his secret ... so I think.
How does a blade spring bank enough potential energy, once converted, to keep the wheel spinning (and do work)? My theory is that the spring must satisfy three conditions. First the blade must be stretched/pulled until taut. Second the blade while taut is bent. Third the two preceding actions must occur from both ends of the blade. If any of these three conditions is missing the spring may not have sufficient energy to produce a runner.
Of course the weight-springs will be subjected to continuous stress and impact forces while the wheel turns. Eventually they will fail and need to be replaced. B. did say his wheels will revolve for as long as the materials endure. He also said the cost of replacement was reasonable (iron/steel is an inexpensive metal currently priced at around $0.40 per pound).
Same as before with minor changes to the lever design and the wheel frame x-bars. I superimposed the frame over the wheel mechanism in the last upload.
"My invention is not fanciful. After I have gone public, you'll hear them say: "Just look at the thing and you'll see that there isn't much artistry to it." (Collins)
Same design as before with minor change to the frame X-bars. Last diagram is a view of the wheel as seen from the inside. Note the short (red) grooves around the interior frame hub. They are for receiving the crossbar swivel arms during installation. The extra space along the length of the grooves will allow the inserted ends of the arms to wiggle in and eventually fit between the two hubs of the assembled wheel frame. Each pair of swivel arms will stay put once a spring is secured to them.
My general three-step process of assembling the $theOne¢ assuming all parts are ready:
1. Put together the wheel frame consisting of two (frame) hubs, axle, spokes, rim stops and felloe (rim). Then set the frame assembly onto its supports.
2. Mount the internal mechanisms to the assembly beginning with the crossbar swivel arms followed by the springs, levers, stork's bills, and last the weights.
3. Install the frame X-bars.
Here's s a revision that I intended to post some time ago but haven't gotten to. I reviewed the previous design and wasn't satisfied with the interaction of the stork's bill (sb) and the spring between 6:00 and 9:00. I feel the range of motion of the blade is hindered as it uncoils and swings upward to strike the leading lever between 9:00 to 12:00. The blade movement should imitate the flip-flop action of the jacob's ladder toy (as I interpret it from Item B of the Toys Page). That is the blade flexes down when it is storing energy and later flexes in the opposite direction when it is unloading.
I believe the issue with the previous design is that the sb's inner links apply a force too far from the base of the spring. This reduces the portion of the blade that is free to swing. This time I lengthened the inner links so that they come in contact nearer to the spring base. I also shortened the lever compartment holding the yellow weights. Not drawn to accuracy.
I have a couple of thoughts I wanted to share. First the spring or blue weight in my preceding designs is in the shape of a puck/short cylinder. It occurred to me that it can also take the shape of a sphere. B. may have suggested this in the AP metaphors of the root and the seer/beholder, which I believe refer to his "excess weight" or blue weight in my case. The (vegetable) root is an onion as I interpret it. Both onion and eyeball are more or less spherical in form. And there is a passage in DT where he speaks of spheres be they of iron or lead. Was he perhaps hinting that some part(s) in his runner were spheres then?
Second I think Karl exaggerated a bit when he said a carpenter's boy is able to build the wheel. Similarly B. claimed in AP that a "poor workman" could quickly construct his wheel when provided with the design. Does a carpenter apprentice or workman of the time have experience in the craft of blacksmithing? Can he fabricate (metal) cylindrical weights as reported by the eyewitnesses? Can he forge flexible blades with the right characteristics that I confidently assumed were used in B. runners?
It seems B. contradicted himself when he said, "If I were to sell my art one could run to craftsmen who in the space of 4 weeks could build what I can scarcely build in 6 months." (AP 297 Collins) Why would one need to seek a craftsman when a common laborer could do the job and do it in no time when given the blueprint? Really...
With Karl I believe he just wanted to drive in the point that the wheel's internal mechanism was simple -- to understand that is. Wolff in his 1722 letter (to Schumacher) mentioned that any person can comprehend the setup when allowed to look inside the wheel. Still, despite the simplicity of design I feel some parts may not be as easy to fashion especially for the inexperienced.
A follow-up to my last post. Here I changed out the shape of the blue spring weight from that of a puck to a sphere. I am gravitating toward the spherical form for a couple of reasons. I imagine that as the blue weight is slung around the wheel it will twist a little here and there riding on the blade tip. On the ascending side a puck that's turned in the wrong position could interfere with the catch-and-release process, as the weight latches and later unlatches itself between the lever and stork's bill. With a sphere I feel this is less likely to occur, because a sphere being perfectly symmetrical occupies a space the same way no matter its orientation. In addition a sphere by virtue of its shape has minimal contact friction with adjacent mechanisms allowing for easier release the moment the spring uncoils. Diagrams not drawn to accuracy.
I am adding a (rectangular) brace to each pair of inner levers to lock them in place. This ensures the levers don't move side to side (in the z-axis) which could cause the L-shaped mounting arms to slide out and the stork's bill unit to fall off -- we don't want that to happen. The brace is inserted between the levers and secured to them with fasteners. It is situated closer to the wheel hub so as not to obstruct the path of the blade spring that moves inside and through the lever assembly. See Parts List diagram. Not drawn to accuracy.
I want to call attention to the storks bill (SB) units. They actually come in two variants, a wider one and a narrower one. In this 8-lever system there is 4 of each variant and they alternate between them around the wheel. Why is this? The reason is that each lever supports two SB units (leading and trailing) on its L-shaped mounting arms. This can only be possible if one unit is wider than the other. See diagram (narrow red one is in front of the lever shown and wider purple one behind).
MT44 and MT48 have been discussed before on this forum. They are typical nonworking OOB wheels rather similar to a few other drawings in MT. Why did B. single out these two and state that they could be converted to working ones in the presence of what he calls "application" and "structures", that is additions necessary for pm. He could have made these remarks about the other drawings as well but didn't. Again these two are flawed OOB concepts and there's really nothing special about them.
I believe that MT44 and MT48 -- two dissimilar designs -- happened to share a common feature for B. to make note of their potential. See my upload where the red selections show this commonality. Observe the four weights rolling together over a flat surface. (MT48 actually has five weights but one is outside the wheel; inside the wheel four weights are depicted on a continuous line.) Another drawing MT46 features four weights rolling down a ramp. However the vertical axle intersecting the ramp creates a visual break in the continuity of the ramp line, so that there isn't a clear illustration of four weights rolling across an undivided surface. Because of this B. did not use MT46 to convey his cryptic thoughts in a similar manner as with 44 & 48 ... so I think.
My interpretation is that B. was hinting his runners had sets of four weights rolling across a flat surface. With 44 & 48 you have here two different designs yet similar comments about them being workable, and both drawings depict four weights in groups. Coincidence? I think this special grouping of weights was alluded to in the clue about 4 pounds rising and 1 pound falling -- the four pounds representing four separate weights. I also think the AP metaphor of the wagoner making holes (rut lines) was about the wagon's four wheels turning. These wheels symbolize the rolling weights inside a runner.
Does $the☯︎ne¢ concept satisfy this interpretation? I think so. See the four yellow weights inside each lever compartment.
