The Clues...

[Jon J Hutton]

Ralph,

Of course the scissor jack has holes for the rivits or bolts or whatever. I only mentioned the scissor jack as a point of reference to compare the drawing to the drawings on the right. Obvious why the scissor jack has holes, but, care to speculate on why the other drawings have holes in them.

JJH

[jim_mich]

Uhhh... what you are looking at is a drawing, not the original. The original has little clear circles in the center of the dark circles of the scissor-jack and the hammer men. The jacob's ladder has what might be a clear circle in a few of the dark circles, but not in most of them. I have copies of the originals that a member here was kind enough send me a while back, but I don't think I have the legal right to post them here. Many of the original MT drawing are in bad shape with stains and dark blotches. The drawings that Bill made are much clearer than the originals and you don't have the distraction of the stains, blotches and faded lines.

[Jon J Hutton]

Thanks Jim,

I guess that I am not convinced that it is a jacobs ladder. It looked like they were holes and that raised a big question as to why and what the heck is this drawing that would need pivot holes.

JJH

[Stewart]

I guess that I am not convinced that it is a jacobs ladder.

I'm also not convinced that it's a Jacob's Ladder, although it does seem the most obvious thing for it to be at first glance. I'd be more convinced if I could figure out a way for something to work like the classic JL toy (i.e. wooden blocks and ribbons) but be composed of hinged joints so that it was more like what is shown. Maybe it could be made with double acting hinges like these:
http://www.sugatsune.net/Industrial_Har ... SUBCATID=7

Alternatively, another possibility I came up with was whether it could be a folding or curving chain. Here's the post I made about it (I can't believe that was over 3 years ago now!):
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128

I've got more info to add to it now, but I'm still working on presenting MT stuff for the website etc. so I'll wait until I've finished it.

Also, in another topic I posted the following pictures of old chain depictions (Leupold's were from the same time as Bessler, and obviously Leonardo's were earlier):
Leonardo's chains
Leupold's chains

Stewart

[jim_mich]

Although we usually refer this as a Jacob's ladder I agree with Stewart; I'm not fully convinced that it's a Jacob's Ladder. I think it's a metal chain.

[Michael]

If it's a secret way to circumvent backforce-awesome.

[rlortie]

My response is biased to Bacon's translation regarding the drum being used to lift the weights.

In the past we have discussed the rim of the wheel being made up of many dowels while others say they are upholstery tack heads.

I am inclined to give thought that they are dowels and what is referred to as a Jacobs ladder is bails that hang from these radial dowels, snatching up weights. They would hang out and down on the ascending side.

Except for a small change in the external dimensions of the wheel for raising weights (or so-called "running wheel"), I have organized everything together in accordance with those structures of the previous machine which I had broken to pieces. These small changes occurred by chance and do not need to be defended.

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.

Just food for thought!

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I think that it often gets called the Jacob's Ladder due to a reference JB made in DT, where he said he learned how to climb higher on a Jacob's Ladder. Naturally, many of us immediately see a link [no pun intended] with the toy page A & B symbolism.

It could also easily be seen as a chain & links but then it raises the question about what is so important about the chain concept that warrants a special mention [twice] on the all important toy's page. Well, chains can be linked back on themselves to make unbroken circles - perhaps like a circular Jacob's Ladder might do, if you knew how to harness extra energy to continually reset the Ladder ?

Imo, the first link of the B drawing is the key. It shows a link under dynamic movement [swinging]. So the symbolism imo shows a circular unbroken chain of action [like a looped Jacob's Ladder might depict] where a part of the secondary OOB system swings.

[Stewart]

My response is biased to Bacon's translation regarding the drum being used to lift the weights.

Ralph, the words "for raising weights" have been added on both occasions and do not appear in the original DT German text, or the Latin for that matter. No wonder you still haven't solved it after 50 years! ;-)

I'll post my translation of that part of DT over the weekend. Also, so that you can see how I've arrived at it, I'll post the output of my translation software. You'll then be able to see for yourself that "for raising weights" just isn't there. Perhaps then we can get that translation removed from this site so that it doesn't cause any further confusion for anyone.

In another topic you said:

First Bessler made it clear that an out-of- balance wheel based on weight displacement is futile!

That's not exactly what he said, and I think you're misleading people with this comment. Bessler's wheels turn because they are out of balance - Bessler tells us this on a number of occasions, but it should also be obvious that this is the only way the wheel could be made to turn, regardless of the exact construction or the supposed source of energy, since the wheel, axle & pivots all turn together, and there is no communication to the pivots through the supports.

Stewart

[ozzy]

What are we missing?
We live in the same world as bessler. There is nothing he could do that we cannot. Gravity remains the same. Its like an IQ-puzzle. I gave one to my brother and his family 4 years ago. Its a horse, a stick and a tree, connected with ropes. On the rope there is a ring. Get the ring off... Every christmas since, we`ve spent countless hours trying to solve it. The ring is still there.
Same with bessler. Only difference is that we cant call him and get the answer...
It can be done, but how..

Two weights, swapping places.. Because of form? Sylindrical?

"alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly" ...Climb?

'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards. Bounce off a spring?

"one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound." How?

"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."

The Draschwitz wheel worked on quite different principles? Are there two ways/principles ?

"I discovered how a man can climb higher on Jacob's ladder, and learn to shun all superstition." I once made a ladder with 3 wood pieces. Holding on the outer two, the middle one switched quickly back and forth. Weights changing places?

Sorry if i bore you, Im just trying to think out loud, maby make you thing again on things that are "ruled out"

We also have the MT`s that "ought not to be scorned" 24, 25
And the scissors...... (sorry Jim ;-))

The Draschwitz wheel was under a meter in dia, and 10 cm thick.
Cannot fit too much stuff in there?

And the last one for now, which Ive thought about a lot;
"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

Annoying....

[Fletcher]

Most of what he is describing there is an OOB wheel arrangement i.e. "in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."

These apparently were interchangable [different types/arrangements could be used] once he had discovered the Prime Mover force to shift the weights. The shifted weights caused the continual over-balance that provide the asymmetric torque to the wheel i.e. he refers to how weights must shift up & out [Trading Height for Width]. Therefore gravity was an integral part of his wheels because that actually was the cause of the wheels turning.

Most of us can easily build an OOB wheel. They always start in a balanced position [zero torque]. We then have to physically rearrange the interior weights to make it over-balanced so it will have some torque & rotate. If we can't find & use an internal supplementary force within the wheel [no one has physically demonstrated a reliable candidate as yet] to once again reposition the weights to an over-balanced position, it will keel again. So without the Prime Mover we have no chance of making a self sustaining wheel that can not only shift weights at will but shift them sufficiently far to create excess torque to do useful work, after normal system losses.

And the last one for now, which Ive thought about a lot;

"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

Annoying....

Here Bessler leaves important information out [an act of deliberate omission ?]. Are the spheres the same volume which would therefore have different masses/weights ? or are the spheres volumes "small" [but different] with the same mass/weights or somewhere in between ?

He tells us that the FORM [the shape & structure of something as distinguished from its material or content] is sphericity.

"But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" [changing of state] of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" [FORM] - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

Here he appears to be saying that although the shape is important in giving the materials form common to both, nothing can be determined from it alone. It is their intrinsic characteristics [today we would say crystal lattice structure & atomic mass determining melting point & strength] that actually is the formal cause of the difference between the two similar shaped objects i.e. caused by an accident of nature - in the same way you might be born with blue or brown eyes.

In other words, you can determine certain face value [circumstantial] facts by looking at something & registering its shape but you can't reliably determine their deeper secrets i.e. formal differences, without interacting with other things & that these differences are a direct result of an accident/whim of nature.

Just My Opinions [JMO's]

[wheelrite]

maybe the storks bill is not an actual component in the wheel, but indicative of a concept? or movement?, the one drawn in mt136 has a pointed top/arrow head, that doesn't seem right for any use?
Regards
Jon

[Fletcher]

Unless he is symbolically poking you in the eye ... storksbills move in & out, extend & retract, kind of similar to the parallelogram action of the hammer men ?

[Jon J Hutton]

Thought some might like this picture....It is quite interesting of Bessler, one I had not seen before.

JJH

[graham]

Thanks Jon. Where did you find that?? Almost eerie, definitely spooky.

It looks like something you'd see on his tombstone.

Graham