MT51 Comments Enquiry ?

[johannesbender]

The thing that still gets me is the use of the open bracket on the axle like in his prints of the exhibited wheels , it serves no point to the mechanics .

[Fletcher]

The thing that still gets me is the use of the open bracket on the axle like in his prints of the exhibited wheels , it serves no point to the mechanics.

Mornin jb .. a very astute comment imo - you will have already noted that nowhere else in MT does he show such an "open" brace ( only in MT51 IINM ), but it features widely in the engravings of the Kassel wheels in other publications as you have noted .. in MT51 it does not even get a mention or letter reference, but it is there in plain sight non-the-less .. ( ** in the Merseburg engraving the support post is shown with a cut-away hole as opposed to the open-clear view brace or bracket ) - in the Kassel engraving it is numbered 10 " differently " amongst the plain text alphanumeric lettering to describe the parts etc ..

In the MT forward B. says he burned or hid the illustrations that show the possibility - it is widely believed that he took out some illustrations ( and perhaps replaced others ) .. he also tells us to look for a motion, and a movement will be found ( paraphrased ) ..

The importance of the open bracket only seen in MT51 outside of DT etc ?

Very possibly a direct link back to DT engravings etc - not to highlight the open bracket per se, but to highlight the importance of MT51 wrt a hidden or disguised motion and movement, imo .. now that may seem a bit vague and out-there for some but as you say in MT51 it serves no mechanical purpose whatsoever - i.e. it is completely redundant and unnecessary, and no other illustration shows it in MT ..

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

As you can probably gather by now MT51 is imo worth considerable study .. not only for the " the open bracket on the axle like in his prints of the exhibited wheels , it serves no point to the mechanics. " but also because of some other things about it I consider worthy of consideration ..

First, the apparent ambiguity of the final sentence we have dissected - other MT's that he criticizes are clear and concise about the criticism with little to no ambiguity of meaning - this one can possibly be taken more than one way ..

Secondly, in MT51 he uses the curved cranks from axle to balance-beam ( rocker ) - there is a second ( opposed ) one not attached to anything - this is very similar in illustration to his DT engravings of his wheels ( curved crank to pendulum ), and in particular where he replies to Borlach's engraving with his own copy in DT where he adds in the 2 curved cranks etc - also in MT he usually shows axle cranks fashioned more like Z's than C curved shape as these are drawn ..

Next .. the page is divided vertically and equally into 2 main parts - to the left-of-center the oscillating ( swinging ) machine ( an oscillating feed-back machine ), which can not work !

.. to the right-of-center it is dedicated to breaking-out and showing the ratchet-pendulum i.e. with stop-cones or pawls as we would know them - IOW's, a pendulum with a one-way bearing / clutch arrangement to allow free movement/motion in a preferred direction - then he imo goes into " overkill " - it is separated out into 2 one-way pendulums side-by-side - there is no need to show it twice as it is plain to see from the right hand side drawing alone, especially when the comments are written about F. ( the one-way pendulum ) being attached to the axle and crank connection to rocker etc etc .. deliberate redundancy imo ..

Additionally there are 3 pendulums shown in MT51, and most would know that 2 or more pendulums feature heavily in his DT engravings of his Merseburg and Kassel wheels, altho none were ever physically seen, either in storage or in action to "regulate" ( use at low speeds ) the speed of the wheel as he said was their purpose in the engravings legends etc ..

[preoccupied]

IMO it looks like Bessler is focusing on the missing component that little handle that I have starred in my MS Painting. The only thing that can run the handle would be a horizontal lever. Perhaps then the horizontal lever slides back and forth, making it heavier when falling by sliding down and lighter when lifting by retracting.

If the handle is what is important then what role does the rest of it actually do? Is the pendulum even necessary? It might give some momentum I guess. if the pendulum on one side of the wheel if there are two pendulums is ratcheted to pull on a loop the horizontal positioned lever back and forth the then the pendulums would give torque and there would be overkill from the lever getting the pendulum back into motion. So run a conveyor belt on each side of the horizontal lever and pull it with the two pendulums.

[daxwc]

JB: The thing that still gets me is the use of the open bracket on the axle like in his prints of the exhibited wheels , it serves no point to the mechanics.

The bracket is needed to hold C in place. Maybe Fletcher has an idea as to what C is exactly.


PS: Maybe it is there to prevent it walking off.


C is missing in the text:
"No. 51. This is a pendulum invention, which is meant to maintain
motion by means of oscillation. A is a pendulum with springs at the
top, or pawls, which catch in a small ratchet wheel B, which is
fastened to the axle of wheel E. D, shows the pendulum with pawls by
itself. H is a horizontal pendulum, or balance beam, which is moved
by the crank I, on one side and the pendulum F, and by means of G on
the other side. Thus by the swinging of the pendulum, a motion is
effected but in a faulty manner."

[daxwc]

The triangle isn’t a 3-4-5 nor is it a direct line down the A but the page seems slightly warped during the photo.

[eccentrically1]

C is missing in the text:
"No. 51. This is a pendulum invention, which is meant to maintain
motion by means of oscillation. A is a pendulum with springs at the
top, or pawls, which catch in a small ratchet wheel B, which is
fastened to the axle of wheel E. D, shows the pendulum with pawls by
itself. H is a horizontal pendulum, or balance beam, which is moved
by the crank I, on one side and the pendulum F, and by means of G on
the other side. Thus by the swinging of the pendulum, a motion is
effected but in a faulty manner."

K is missing in the text as well. Is it meant to be the letter for the pawls (springs)?

The thing I don't see is how G is connected to F to effect motion.

It seems the relationship of the H beam being cranked by the axle to the A/F pendulum would have to be a perfect match or it would lock up.
Why does he re-letter the pendulum from A to F?

[agor95]

Hello All

Are we agreed how MT51 is linked together?

For example the main ratchet pendulum as it drops turns the axle clockwise.
A flat perspective does not help. But the pendulum is on the far [background] during this drop.
The second ratchet lever is connected to 'G' and is almost horizontal as it connects to the bottom of 'G'.

The point to note is the this second ratchet exerts a faulty [temporary] torque on the main pendulum as the main p' drops in the foreground.

So the 'G' connected ratchet lever locks when the main p' is on the foreground drop. And is unlocked when the main pendulum is
locked on the background downward swing.

Regards

[agor95]

Hello All

Are we agreed how MT51 is linked together?

For example the main ratchet pendulum as it drops turns the axle clockwise.
A flat perspective does not help. But the pendulum is on the far [background] during this drop.
The second ratchet lever is connected to 'G' and is almost horizontal as it connects to the bottom of 'G'.

The point to note is the this second ratchet exerts a faulty [temporary] torque on the main pendulum as the main p' drops in the foreground.

So the 'G' connected ratchet lever locks when the main p' is on the foreground drop. And is unlocked when the main pendulum is
locked on the background downward swing.

Therefore the energy imparted from the ratchet lever goes into kick starting the main pendulum.
An the main pendulum imparts it's energy into the axel.

Gravity contributes to the ratchet lever and contributes to the main pendulum in it's turn.

It is true energy imparted to the flywheel from the main pendulum would reduce it's swing.
On the other hand the kick from the flywheel to the main pendulum would increase it's swing.

Regards

[johannesbender]

The design was fundamentally a flywheel escapement.

[agor95]

Hi jb

The design was fundamentally a flywheel escapement.

That's an interesting observation. I tried thinking what other flywheel escapements there are
and which are like the description offered.

The energy of a spring is released by a flywheel/counter spring escapement.
Of a similar pendulum escapement and a lead weight drop.

But this seems to be either rotation energy or pendulum swing energy being escaped from one to the other.

[Fletcher]

The bracket is needed to hold C in place.


Maybe Fletcher has an idea as to what C is exactly.


PS: Maybe it is there to prevent it walking off.


C is missing in the text:

Yes, to me C looks like some sort of backing or front collar to hold everything snug and aligned in the same plane, and perhaps hold the grease or oil in place a bit longer, as well as to keep dust out etc - detail that would be second nature to a clock-maker and repairer to include ( unimaginative as it is, and unnecessary to show just to illustrate an unworkable machine concept ) ..

** You help illustrate my main point dax - HALF the page dedicated in excruciating detail to show a one-way bearing/clutch ! ..

Is the oscillating feed-back machine or the one-way bearing the hero of the illustration ?!

Who is the dominant and who is the benefitted ?!

[Roxaway59]

There are a number of things that strike me about MT51.

First I agree with eccentrically1 because I cant understand why Bessler went to the trouble of labelling the pendulum A showing its parts and then changed that to F when it was in situ.

Secondly I wonder how many of us would draw the same diagram of it from above. I think there would be some differences because to me the whole thing looks squiffy.

Thirdly as people have mentioned why on earth did he go to the trouble of drawing a circle labelled C with no explanation as to what it is? I mean its in the centre of the drawing. You can work out the others but he leaves out the one that needs explaining.

Fourth thing is about motion. When Bessler says things like “the motion” in his writings its almost as though he is talking about something that you just don’t see. At least not on a revolving wheel and I sometimes wonder if from time to time some of us produce something similar on non working wheels.

So when we have what we would think of as movements that we are familiar with on a wheel are we always flogging a dead horse and if that is so shouldn’t we be always trying to make unusual movements with respect to the weights?

Putting it another way how many of us for example would consider a pendulum to be the motion Bessler is talking about?

Graham

[Fletcher]

Where am I coming from and where am I going with this ?!

We all agree ( I hope ) that for a tied-down one-way wheel to have a stationary torque, and upon release from its restraint to quickly accelerate and gain in momentum up to Working RPM and stay there indefinitely, its needs a system CoM/CoG biased to one side of the main axle to be a true GPE replenishing unbalanced wheel i.e. the mechanically induced asymmetric torque factor ..

** A one-way bearing/clutch assembly controls/regulates rotational movement about an axis to just one direction - coincidence, or potentially helpful in the search ?!

[daxwc]

Fletcher: Is the oscillating feed-back machine or the one-way bearing the hero of the illustration ?!

I think the ratchet / one way bearing is the focus here. I don’t think they were seen a lot in machinery.

Copilot: The use of ratchet one-way bearings, also known as sprag clutches, in milling during the 1700s is not clearly documented. However, it’s known that significant developments in the technology of corn milling occurred from 1540 to 17501. This period saw improvements in mill gearing, which enabled two pairs of millstones to be driven by a single waterwheel1. This was achieved through the use of additional gearing, which could have incorporated a form of a ratchet and pawl mechanism1.

By the mid-18th century, spur gearing, which often uses a ratchet and pawl mechanism, dominated the gearing layout in both watermills and windmills1. This type of gearing allowed the millstones to run at the same speed and their diameters to be standardized within each mill1.

While it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact use of ratchet one-way bearings in milling during the 1700s, it’s clear that such mechanisms played a significant role in the development and operation of mills. If you need more specific information, I would recommend reaching out to a historian or expert in mechanical engineering. They may have access to more detailed records or resources.

[Roxaway59]

** A one-way bearing/clutch assembly controls/regulates rotational movement about an axis to just one direction - coincidence, or potentially helpful in the search ?!

I would say yes Fletcher they have potential. I have lost count of the times that I have asked myself what would happen if I put a ratchet on a mechanism I am working on.

At one time I had code for making one in WM2D and I have lost it. Believe it or not I use to painstakingly make them from scratch and I used them on quite a lot of ideas in WM2D. When you mentioned WM2D going nuts when objects overlap those were the designs it was forever doing it on. So I could never make my mind up on it. Unfortunately I have lost all of those designs but I remember that pendulums played a big role in them.

I have made some basic ones in Algodoo but they are not good enough and things overlap too easily in Algodoo.

If anyone does have useful WM2D code for making ratchets and other things then could you post them and I will start experimenting more in WM2D once again.

Graham