Simple CrossBar Oscillator

[Fletcher]

Ruggero ... for your consideration [pulled from another general discussion topic] - see the comment form my German friend Tinhead about the passage you mention.

... a 10 kg beam is moved horizontally by a 1 kg weight ...

Isn't that excactly what we are looking for?

Isn't that what Bessler was referring to when he said :

[i]"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' 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."[/i]

Let the pendulum's swing roll (or move) the pendulum to the other side of the balance point

regards
ruggero ;-)

Stewart wrote:

Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.


Hi Stewart, love your translation, thought I might add my thoughts to it.

Künstler = craftsman, artist, skilled person easily/lightly = in the german context it is along the lines of "without much effort".

I also aggree with the use of "throw" and "shoot" (as in shoot an arrow). Good work mate :)

Just one thing I would like to highlight, in regard to the 1 quarter down and 4 quarters up, I think it is quite important that he is not using any units ...

Could be a 'thinking trap' , 1st thing comming up to mind is the vertical up/down, but it could mean anything. Maybe the circumference of a wheel?

Just my 2 cents.
Rainer

[hansvonlieven]

Sorry guys but I do not quite agree with the translation, though it makes little difference as to meaning.

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

schmeissen I would translate as toss, because of the implied movement as in toss a coin
wenn is here not if but when
fällt here I would use drop instead of fall
schnellt (schnellen) is to speed or accelerate
hoch is here upwards or up

My translation:

He will be called a great artist
Who can toss a heavy thing easily upwards
And when one pound drops one quarter
It speeds four pounds four quarters up, &c *

Question of taste maybe.

* the use of the &c is an enigma to me it stands for et cet era meaning and so forth. It does not make sense here. The same is true for other places where Bessler uses this. I have no idea what that might mean.

Hans von Lieven

[DrWhat]

Ruggero I like the concept.

[jim_mich]

Maybe this is saying something about how much a weight is being accelerated rather than how much distance a weight being moved upward?

Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt
And when one Pound one quarter fall

Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt.
It four Pound upward four quarter accelerate.

-----------
Translation using http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt ...
And if a Pound a quarter falls
it four Pound of highly four quarters snaps.

[Fletcher]

A couple of observational comments ...

Firstly, he talks about a "thing" - this is strange, he had every opportunity to say weight or mass & be more specific but he chose deliberately the very non-descriptive term "thing" [& not for rhyming purposes], therefore it was not necessarily a weight he was thinking about in this context or indeed referring to ?!

Secondly, all of your translations describe or imply in context use a FORCE generated effect [shoot, speeds, accelerate/snaps, fly upwards] rather than a direct leverage distance relationship which he could have easily clarified by identifying the units - he chose not to !

[Stewart]

Hi Hans

I agree with your comments on the whole - that translation was rather literal.

schmeissen - I get fling/toss/chuck/throw/jolt - I'm not sure whether there is a difference between a toss and a throw? Aren't fling/toss/chuck just slang terms for throw? I only settled for throw as it I thought it would be better understood cross-cultures and less ambiguous.

wenn - I agree should be 'when' not 'if' in this case

fällt - falls/drops - there are obviously reasons/places where we would choose one over the other but I'm not sure we can make a distinction here or that it makes any difference in this case?

schnellen - I agree that it refers to a fast acceleration of one object by another - shoots seemed like a good choice to me as we also have the adverb 'hoch' to consider telling us it's going up, and over here we would say that something rapidly rising is 'shooting up' - 'shoots' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with guns etc. Interestingly, my old 1800s German-English dictionary lists only 'to spring', 'to fillip' and 'to fling away' under the verb schnellen - 'fillip' means to flick, like you would flick with your thumb and forefinger.

hoch - yes it means up/upwards here and I've talked about this before in other posts, such as...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5930#45930

Also, looking up 'hochschnellen' I found: to shoot up, to soar, to jolt up, to spring up, to flip up

As I mentioned in the post at the link above, I think the important thing to understand is that the rising motion is being described in two places as being rapid, and therefore the original translation in John's book that simply says 'rise' can be improved in this way. Also, the part about ounces should be corrected as described and brings a completely different meaning that makes more sense, as discussed here on many occasions.

It's good to now have your confirmation that Rainer's and my translation is correct, so many thanks for posting.

All the best
Stewart

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Just as a general comment. Reading the passage as a poem one could easily get the impression he is talking here about a mechanism that is released by a one pound weight dropping a short distance onto something like a catch on a spring, liberating the spring and propelling a four pound weight over four times the distance.

He never says that the one pound propels the four pounds, yet most people assume that this is what he meant.

Hans von Lieven

[Stewart]

Firstly, he talks about a "thing" - this is strange, he had every opportunity to say weight or mass & be more specific but he chose deliberately the very non-descriptive term "thing" [& not for rhyming purposes], therefore it was not necessarily a weight he was thinking about in this context or indeed referring to ?!

Another thing that can dictate the choice of words in poetry is the metering. For example, 'Ding' is only one syllable whereas 'Gewicht' (weight) is two syllables. See how this affects things if I meter it out below:

Code: Select all

| Der | wird |   ein  | gross |   -er  | Künst  | -ler |  heiss   | -en |
| da  | DUM  |   da   |  DUM  |   da   |  DUM   | da   |   DUM    | da  |

| Wer | ein  | schwer |  Ding | leicht | hoch   | kan  | schmeiss | -en |
| da  | DUM  |   da   |  DUM  |   da   | DUM    | da   |   DUM    | da  |

The meter of those two lines which rhyme (the couplet) are the same, but if the word 'Ding' is changed to 'Gewicht' the second line would have an extra syllable as follows...

Code: Select all

| Der | wird |   ein  | gross |   -er  | Künst  | -ler |  heiss   |   -en    |
| da  | DUM  |   da   |  DUM  |   da   |  DUM   | da   |   DUM    |    da    |

| Wer | ein  | schwer |  Ge   | -wicht | leicht | hoch |   kan    | schmeiss | -en |
| da  | DUM  |   da   |  DUM  |  da    |  DUM   |  da  |   DUM    |    da    | DUM |

...and totally messes up the rhythm of it.

For more information on metering check out the following...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter_(poetry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iambic_pentameter

Stewart

[Fletcher]

G'day all,

Just as a general comment. Reading the passage as a poem one could easily get the impression he is talking here about a mechanism that is released by a one pound weight dropping a short distance onto something like a catch on a spring, liberating the spring and propelling a four pound weight over four times the distance.

He never says that the one pound propels the four pounds, yet most people assume that this is what he meant.

Hans von Lieven

I agree Hans - if you only had a casual interest in Bessler & his wheels you'd make the assumption that that was probably what he meant & look no closer for perhaps another meaning ?

Stewart - thanks for that - is there a slang word or abbreviated word for mass or weight with one syllable that he could have used, but still chose not to ? - if there is then that would perhaps strengthen my argument & if there wasn't/isn't then you'd probably be spot on there & 'thing' was just convenient for the meter !

[Stewart]

I don't think I've seen Bessler use any abbreviated or slang term for weight. He usually uses 'Gewicht', and the word is used many times in AP. However, he could possibly have replaced the 'e' with an apostrophe and thus reduce the word to one syllable if he'd wanted - G'wicht. I've seen him do this with certain words in AP in order to get the right metering, but never with the word Gewicht. You could be right that he may have deliberately avoided using the word weight or something else specific by using the word 'thing' instead - I just wanted to point out other possible considerations. He does use 'Ding' in a number of other places - I should perhaps make a list of them.

Stewart

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Ruggero,

Here is your simulation in avi form. The system does not work, the movement of the balance beam is erratic and random. The reason is that when the pendulum swings to the right the sliding fulcrum moves to the left moving the centre of gravity or the moving parts more or less in the same place.

Good luck

Hans von Lieven

Oops, would not let me attach it, file too big. You have to get the file from: Http://keelytech.com/overunity/pendulumsprings.avi about 7 meg

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

In my view Bessler chose the use of the word Ding here with care. Here the word is used in my view in the sense of object. By being non-specific he implies that no matter what the shape, weight or material of the object, it is the ability to move it that counts.

Hans von Lieven

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Here is an interesting experiment.

In the simulation there is a sliding weight with a pendulum attached. The fascinating thing here is the movement of the combined Centre of Gravity, which is exclusively along the y axis, there is no movement along the x axis at all.

It would appear here is a way to shift the centre of gravity upwards with very little energy. Perhaps something like this is what Bessler was talking about.

I am attaching the WM2D file as well as a short AVI for those without WM2D.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

[ruggerodk]

Dear Hans,

I have downloaded your AVI movie from keelynet.

It's a blank white screen...!
well, actually your recent upload as well are blank!

I'm sorry to say that I have trouble finding out which idea or design you are referring to as "not working"...can you be more specific please...;-)

Are you talking about my spin off to improve your "newphenomenon" pendulum?

Or are you referring to the idea behind this thread i.e. "The Simple CrossBar Oscillator"...?

Anyway, I would be delighted to hear of more specification details about the "failed" simulation..perhaps a still drawing would be nice...?

Please show us a screen GIF or screendump of both you AVI simulation setup, please.

regards
ruggero

[Fletcher]

Hi Hans .. it appears that as long as the sliding mass starts at full deflection distance to one side then the inertia of the falling & rising pendulum will pull the slider back & forwards as you've shown in wm2d - the combined CoG does indeed travel vertically with no x component.

If I turn on low air resistance then the action changes & the CoG bobbles about [x axis] whilst the combined CoG gets lower & lower with each swing, as you might expect.

The original action reminds me of a Peacellier linkage that converts rotational movement into linear but in this case mainly vertical CoG displacement instead of the usual arc.

Not sure, I'll have to look it up in a text book but isn't that inertia pulling on the pivot 'sway' in the physics books [& usually to be avoided] & unless the pivot point is very rigidly fixed will lead to rapid decay of the amplitude of swing ? I could be wrong about that.

P.S. can anybody tell me what software I need to view the avi ?