the clues give it away
Moderator: scott
re: the clues give it away
- SO SIMPLE A CARPENTER"S APPRENTICE COULD BUILD IT.
Is this quote a fact? If so, although he would be able to build it, would he also be able to understand its works? Copying is different to understanding the principal.
Is this quote a fact? If so, although he would be able to build it, would he also be able to understand its works? Copying is different to understanding the principal.
re: the clues give it away
Jim, I'm talking about the statement, "a simple arrangement of weights and levers". As a quote attributed to Karl, the statement is unsupported by historical record - it is FALSE.
My position on the possibility of levers being used in Bessler's wheel should be clear:
All I'm trying to do here is address the topic of this thread concerning the clues as derived from the resources available to Arthur. Clearly there is information on Bessler that is based upon, "pure speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication". I think the distinction between historical record and fabrication, speculation, channeling, guessing, deduction, error, etc should be made clear when at all possible.
Like a court case, the argument for and against can be equally strong and convincing. However, without a judge to conclude the proceedings (ours died over 300 years ago), no verdict is remotely possible - without the final winning argument of a working physical demonstration of fact.
My position on the possibility of levers being used in Bessler's wheel should be clear:
Point being that any attachment means is possible based on the fact that we obviously don't know how Bessler constructed his wheel. I understand that you're using deduction to generate a probable case for the use of levers, but that shouldn't interfere with the historical record....Could be they rolled, could be they were attached to levers, maybe they were all hung in some special pattern on strings from pulleys? Who is to say because we just don't know...
All I'm trying to do here is address the topic of this thread concerning the clues as derived from the resources available to Arthur. Clearly there is information on Bessler that is based upon, "pure speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication". I think the distinction between historical record and fabrication, speculation, channeling, guessing, deduction, error, etc should be made clear when at all possible.
Like a court case, the argument for and against can be equally strong and convincing. However, without a judge to conclude the proceedings (ours died over 300 years ago), no verdict is remotely possible - without the final winning argument of a working physical demonstration of fact.
re: the clues give it away
evgwheel,
...Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel....' - letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.
re: the clues give it away
To add a further spin, take a close look at MT's 9 thru 25 & MT's 37 & 38 - weights on levers in essence, many as in MT20 hinting at the possible use of CF's ??? - but could be something else ?
Then for the 'kicker' take a look at MT48 where Bessler says "The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage".
Enter sound of a penny dropping ... MT48 is a significantly different principle [OOB principle] than all the other OOB wheels he has made special mention of - it uses displaced rolling balls & an elevator to lift them back up at the axle - everyone knows that this can only work if the elevator is travelling far faster than a direct gearing would allow & if he geared it up to keep up optimal supply of balls it would immediately stop, due losses. It has absolutely no chance of working as portrayed in the woodcut !
Conclusion: He appears to be indicating that many different types of OOB wheel principles can be bent to his will & employed once you add different structures to do the required lifting at the appropriate time.
Then for the 'kicker' take a look at MT48 where Bessler says "The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage".
Enter sound of a penny dropping ... MT48 is a significantly different principle [OOB principle] than all the other OOB wheels he has made special mention of - it uses displaced rolling balls & an elevator to lift them back up at the axle - everyone knows that this can only work if the elevator is travelling far faster than a direct gearing would allow & if he geared it up to keep up optimal supply of balls it would immediately stop, due losses. It has absolutely no chance of working as portrayed in the woodcut !
Conclusion: He appears to be indicating that many different types of OOB wheel principles can be bent to his will & employed once you add different structures to do the required lifting at the appropriate time.
re: the clues give it away
Bill,
talk about 3rd party input and different translations, try this one.
I have a download of the 54 drawings plus # 138-141 with your orffyre.com label on them.
My MT 48 does not say
This is not the first time I have noted a discrepancy in wording, but this is by far the worst to come to my attention.
Any ideas how a picture including text can read different where as the text cannot be altered without leaving any evidence of editing?
My MT 138-141 does not contain the same text that has been quoted here in the past.
Ralph
talk about 3rd party input and different translations, try this one.
I have a download of the 54 drawings plus # 138-141 with your orffyre.com label on them.
My MT 48 does not say
Mine reads; "The principle is good, but the figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different additional structures have been provided""The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage".
This is not the first time I have noted a discrepancy in wording, but this is by far the worst to come to my attention.
Any ideas how a picture including text can read different where as the text cannot be altered without leaving any evidence of editing?
My MT 138-141 does not contain the same text that has been quoted here in the past.
Ralph
re: the clues give it away
My mistake Ralph - should have included the reference - John Collins MT
In Latin the verb is at the end of the sentence whereas I think the grammar, cases & placement are different for German, as it is for English, so this can lead to different sentence structure when translating depending on which version you are more comfortable with - the meaning should still be the same.
Jim's interpretation is as valid as the other - if I understand him correctly he is suggesting that anything can be made to rotate if a Bessler wheel is bolted to it & this would be true ?
In Latin the verb is at the end of the sentence whereas I think the grammar, cases & placement are different for German, as it is for English, so this can lead to different sentence structure when translating depending on which version you are more comfortable with - the meaning should still be the same.
Jim's interpretation is as valid as the other - if I understand him correctly he is suggesting that anything can be made to rotate if a Bessler wheel is bolted to it & this would be true ?
re: the clues give it away
Ralph, the translation on Besslerwiki is obviously a little different to the text posted by Fletcher. Perhaps Fletcher is quoting from Collins published version of the MT text, which I believe has some minor variations.
As we know, the text translations can vary somewhat when it comes to nuance and exact word sequence. However, both text versions essentially make the same point.
As we know, the text translations can vary somewhat when it comes to nuance and exact word sequence. However, both text versions essentially make the same point.
Ralph, I see no real or significant difference between the MT 48 that you posted and the one that Bill posted. They both say that this wheel will not turn as is and that a completely different wheel structure must be married (connected) to this wheel for it to give birth to any motion.
I continually get the feeling that some forum members have a hard time understanding the 'meaning' behind many of these German translations. You MUST understand the it is impossible to make exact word for word translations from German to English as the syntax is different. So you must make thought translations. Read the words. Turn the words into mental images in your mind. Let the images fuzz a little. Don't try to force the English word phases to be always exact. Give them a little wiggle room. Many times words are used as analogies. For instance, marriage is the uniting of two people or things. Birth is the result of marriage, or the combining of "two into one." So this gives a picture in your mind of two things being 'hitched' together and giving birth to a wheel that moves. Without the addition of the 'completely different stuctures' there would be no marriage and a living moving wheel would never be born. I love the way Bessler weaves secondary meanings into his words. Most of the time I understand him very well.
![Image](http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif)
I continually get the feeling that some forum members have a hard time understanding the 'meaning' behind many of these German translations. You MUST understand the it is impossible to make exact word for word translations from German to English as the syntax is different. So you must make thought translations. Read the words. Turn the words into mental images in your mind. Let the images fuzz a little. Don't try to force the English word phases to be always exact. Give them a little wiggle room. Many times words are used as analogies. For instance, marriage is the uniting of two people or things. Birth is the result of marriage, or the combining of "two into one." So this gives a picture in your mind of two things being 'hitched' together and giving birth to a wheel that moves. Without the addition of the 'completely different stuctures' there would be no marriage and a living moving wheel would never be born. I love the way Bessler weaves secondary meanings into his words. Most of the time I understand him very well.
![Image](http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif)
re: the clues give it away
Or is that "two into three" ;) Either way, I generally agree with your above description of translation and meaning.Jim wrote:Birth is the result of marriage, or the combining of "two into one."
re: the clues give it away
Gravesande, who spoke German fluently (old German) interviewed Bessler at length. He was also a smart cookie. He examined the wheel from the outside. He walked away from his lengthy interview with Bessler with as much knowledge of the working machine as you or I. What do we have in favour to find the clues, that a very learned man, with close relationship to the wheel did not?
We have Bessler's toys page and Bessler's MT drawings and writtings. Also I'm not sure how much of Bessler's other documents were available to Gravesande at the time of his examination of Bessler's wheel?
Also, wasn't it Karl that showed Bessler's wheel to Gravesande? Was Bessler present when Gravesande examined the wheel? Or am I wrong; I kind of got the feeling that this was part of why Bessler destroyed the wheel the next day.
![Image](http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif)
Also, wasn't it Karl that showed Bessler's wheel to Gravesande? Was Bessler present when Gravesande examined the wheel? Or am I wrong; I kind of got the feeling that this was part of why Bessler destroyed the wheel the next day.
![Image](http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Jim_Mich.gif)
re: the clues give it away
Jim, Bill and Fletcher
There is;
My concern was that it did not match my drawing with text that includes Bills "orffyre.com" in the lower right hand corner (plagiarism).
I now have my answer thanks to all, and yes I know about syntax, I have done enough translating on my own and for a certain German who speaks little English. It is not uncommon for me to face in stewart's direction and holler for help!
Ralph
There is;
my point was/is the wording just as Fletcher has pointed out. They both end in the same results.no real or significant difference between the MT 48 that you posted and the one that Bill posted. They both say that this wheel will not turn as is and that a completely different wheel structure must be married (connected) to this wheel for it to give birth to any motion.
My concern was that it did not match my drawing with text that includes Bills "orffyre.com" in the lower right hand corner (plagiarism).
I now have my answer thanks to all, and yes I know about syntax, I have done enough translating on my own and for a certain German who speaks little English. It is not uncommon for me to face in stewart's direction and holler for help!
Ralph
Re: re: the clues give it away
This one thing that Bessler wrote is why I do not believe it was OOB wheels. I think he harnessed OOB wheels because it was much simpler than gearing the whole thing up to work! The nature of his prime mover must have been too random to simply just turn a wheel to do work. Or, he used OOB wheels in order to throw everyone else off from what was really doing the work.Fletcher wrote:
Conclusion: He appears to be indicating that many different types of OOB wheel principles can be bent to his will & employed once you add different structures to do the required lifting at the appropriate time.
Let people believe that it is an OOB wheel, and that is where they will look. In the meantime, Bessler sits back and laughs as he knows no one will figure out his design as long as they continue trying to overbalance a wheel.
re: the clues give it away
As reported to be said by Bessler. Any references to this on a previous post?
‘The levers loaded with heavy weights as viewed from the side, may be compared to side views of many children playing with very heavy clubs among tall broken columns. (tall broken columns does that mean; inside the wheel between the wheel stand) The strongest of the children cannot lift the lightest of the clubs. Still, each child can swing (or you might call it "step" as it uses a club as a "leg") from the top of one broken column (stand of wheel) to the top of the next broken column by positioning his heavy club on the ground between the two close columns and holding on to the handle end to swing over to the top of the next column. (Does that mean; lever swinging from the outside rim sideways to the axle) Then he rotates the handle end of his club to manoeuvre it between his current column and his next intended column so that he can again "step" or swing a small angle over to the top of the next intended broken column. (place it in the middle of the wheel/axle) If the clubs are even heavier by being double-ended, then instead of rolling them to the next position, they may be alternatively transported between the columns by switching ends. A double club may be moved in seesaw fashion by leaning it against the current broken column that the child is on and rolling it over the top of the column (assuming that there is enough room for the child to stay on top of the column). The double club is pivoted with a circular motion with one end going up while the other end goes down. 5’ Orffyreus put his simple explanation that even child would grasp.
‘The levers loaded with heavy weights as viewed from the side, may be compared to side views of many children playing with very heavy clubs among tall broken columns. (tall broken columns does that mean; inside the wheel between the wheel stand) The strongest of the children cannot lift the lightest of the clubs. Still, each child can swing (or you might call it "step" as it uses a club as a "leg") from the top of one broken column (stand of wheel) to the top of the next broken column by positioning his heavy club on the ground between the two close columns and holding on to the handle end to swing over to the top of the next column. (Does that mean; lever swinging from the outside rim sideways to the axle) Then he rotates the handle end of his club to manoeuvre it between his current column and his next intended column so that he can again "step" or swing a small angle over to the top of the next intended broken column. (place it in the middle of the wheel/axle) If the clubs are even heavier by being double-ended, then instead of rolling them to the next position, they may be alternatively transported between the columns by switching ends. A double club may be moved in seesaw fashion by leaning it against the current broken column that the child is on and rolling it over the top of the column (assuming that there is enough room for the child to stay on top of the column). The double club is pivoted with a circular motion with one end going up while the other end goes down. 5’ Orffyreus put his simple explanation that even child would grasp.