the clues that fit and the unknown.

[Fletcher]

Martin .. here is the quote translated by my German friend living here in NZ - note the units used or not used as the case may be ?!

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... rter#44346

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

[jim_mich]

Lets look at this last sentence from a slightly different perspective...

"Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt."

I think the hock (high or hike) relates to the the four pounds and not to the four quarters. And there is no "shoots".

Word for word this translates to:
"As four pound high four quarter quickly_moves."

"Four quarter" would be a full circle.

The last sentence might be saying, "four pounds rise, full circle quickly moves."

The last sentence is probably bad grammar but it does rhyme and has good rhythm.

Thus it does not say how high the four pounds are lifted. All that is said is that the falling of one pound can lift four pounds and that this causes quick movement of four quarters, which probably refers to a full rotation of the wheel.

Am I wrong?

[Irish Oracle]

Hi Jim

Thus it does not say how high the four pounds are lifted. All that is said is that the falling of one pound can lift four pounds and that this causes quick movement of four quarters, which probably refers to a full rotation of the wheel.

Am I wrong?

possibly not, its all a bit funny in translation.

I will say this in no way whatsoever will 1unit of weight lift 4 units in besslers wheel. I just checked this its 1unit will lift 2 units. If greater efficiency can be found maybe it will, modern materials and design will improve it but I cannot see how it can gain that much leverage. Only caveat here is the wheel can be set up in a variety of ways to suit its needs so anything is possible.

[erick]

I think this quote has to do with what Bessler found to be the minimal amount of over-balance necessary to make a self sustaining wheel. IMO he is saying that the over-balance mechanism, whatever it may be, must produce enough over-balance so as to be able to raise 4 lbs with 1lbs in order for the wheel to self sustain movement. This is not to say that the actual running wheel would have 4 lbs on one side and 1lbs on the opposing side...

[ruggerodk]

I will say this in no way whatsoever will 1unit of weight lift 4 units in besslers wheel. I just checked this its 1unit will lift 2 units.

IR...you just checked it?
Do you mind me asking how you did that?

About the Bessler quote:

This drawing (from the back of AP I think) explains it all.
This is the mechanism what makes the "quarter" of falling...and resulting in the 4 quarter of revolving (one full circle).
And it also give you a clue to how you were able to gently and slowly revolve the wheel without starting the overbalancing....

But you have to look at it from an 'out-of-the-box' perspektive.

Jim and Stewart:
Could the german word 'hoch' be translated to mean the same as 'tall', like in the expression "the man is 9 foot tall"? Or as we say in Danish "four man high" (word for word translation)?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[Stewart]

Am I wrong?

Yes. This isn't that hard a part of AP to translate thankfully - it's quite clear and seems to makes sense - there's no need to try and twist his words. Interpreting them is another matter of course!

He/One shall be called a great craftsman/artist,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing up,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds up four quarters. &c.

schnellt = 3rd person present of the verb schnellen
schnellen = means a sudden, quick movement - here are the definitions from two old dictionaries...

1810 dictionary: Schnellen, v. r n. to spring: - v.r.a. jemanden vor dir Näse schnellen to fillip; von sich schnellen to fling away; er hat mich richtig darum geschnellt he has fairly flung me out of it.

1902 dictionary: schnellen I. 1. to let fly or go (with a jerk), to launch, to shoot, to toss,to jerk; to whip (up), to yank; to fillip, to flirt; einen Pfeil vom Bogen schnellen to launch (or let fly) an arrow;....

hoch = high,tall - as an adjective
hoch = high,up, highly - as an adverb

hoch is an adverb to schnellen here and so we have a sudden, rapid, upward motion - "it shoots up four pounds four quarters."

One modern German dictionary I have only lists one translation for the verb schnellen and that is 'to shoot' and "in die Höhe schnellen" as to shoot up.

Also look up the word 'hochschnellen' which is schnellen with the adverb hoch prefixed and you get... to jolt up, to jump up, to leap up, to bounce up, to spurt, to skyrocket etc. etc.

The last sentence might be saying, "four pounds rise, full circle quickly moves."

There's no way you can get that from the original German text.

However, because he is talking in 'quarters' he of course could well be referring to quarters of a circle. Which, as you say, four quarters would be a full circle. It might also be possible that he is simply referring to the positions of quarters within the wheel, i.e. 'one quarter' represents the top right quarter, 'two quarters' bottom right, 'three quarters' bottom left, 'four quarters' top left. This perhaps has more merit if you understand how they talk about clock times....

es ist ein Viertel auf zwei - this literally says 'it is a quarter to two', but actually means (as we would say it in English) 'it is a quarter past one'.

es ist zwei Viertel auf zwei - literally 'it is two quarters to two', but actually means 'it is half past one'.

es ist drei Viertel auf zwei - literally 'it is three quarters to two', but actually means 'it is a quarter to two'.

It makes sense if you just think that all quarters mentioned just refer to the next hour coming from current one.

So, could he be saying when one pound falls one quarter (12:00 to 3:00) it shoots four pounds up to four quarters (12:00). This doesn't give us a starting position for the four pounds, so it could be at the bottom of the wheel and therefore go from 6:00 to 12:00 for example.
Anyway, just a thought.

Stewart

[Grimer]

Very interesting. Thanks for that thought, Stewart.

[Oystein]

Quarters...

[jim_mich]

After a couple hours of analysis I firmly think the translation of the last two sentences should be:

When one pound falls one quarter,
it hikes four pounds four quarters quickly.


I strongly think this means:

When one pound falls during one quarter of rotation,
it hikes four pounds for four quarters of rotation quickly.

[Stewart]

After a couple hours of analysis I firmly think the translation of the last two sentences should be:

Ok, so after a couple of hours you now agree with my translation but for some strange reason have decided to pick one of the most ambiguous verbs imaginable, and after I went to all that effort to give you almost every meaning under the sun! ;-p

I assume by 'hike' you mean 'to pull up' and not to go on a long walk. Not a good term at all for 'schnellen' because it doesn't necessarily mean the fast movement is due to a pull. Also you've added an adverb 'quickly', which isn't necessary because that is implied by the verb 'schnellen' itself. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the word 'shoots' - it does not have to have any connection to guns if that's what you're worried about - it simply means "to move rapidly and suddenly in a certain direction" which in this case, because of the addition of the adverb 'hoch', is up.

You have a tendency to try and force the translations to fit your theories, and without any regard for German grammar, which is a recipe for disaster.

When one pound falls during one quarter of rotation,
it hikes four pounds during four quarters of rotation quickly.

If you are happy to interpret the text as meaning that then fine, but I can't see it myself.

Stewart

[murilo]

Jim said:
''After a couple hours of analysis I firmly think the translation of the last two sentences should be:...''

But he should say:
''After a couple hours of analysis OF STEWART ABOVE TEXT I firmly think the translation of the last two sentences should be:...

( I just try to be fair. :]
Cheers! M.

[erick]

When one pound falls during one quarter of rotation,
it hikes four pounds for four quarters of rotation quickly.

Regardless of whether the correct translation is "quickly" or "shoots" that would imply that the side with the 4 lbs is traveling along a shorter radius than the lighter side with 1 lb. This would seem to indicate a fairly typical leverage based over-balance arrangement. No?

[jim_mich]

OK, Stewart, I guess I need to make a long post to defend myself.

When I said

The last sentence might be saying, "four pounds rise, full circle quickly moves."

it was solely to show the alternate meaning that I was seeing in the sentence and not as a literal translation.

I assume by 'hike' you mean 'to pull up'

No. I mean "hike the ball" as in football the center pitches the ball to the quarterback or as "hike up your pants." In both cases an upward movement. I grew up in a small Michigan village where many of my classmates had grandparents that still spoke German. The local Emanuel Lutheran Church was known as the German Church. Many sermons were in German so the older people could understand better. Many times some of my classmates would say, "hock the ball to me" instead of "hike the ball". If four pounds is hocked then it is thrown into the air. Yes you could use the word 'shoots' but the word hike is much closer to Bessler's original word 'hock'.

German: etwas schnellt irgendwohin
English: something snaps somewhere (from Babelfish)

In football the center snaps the ball; he hikes the ball. The ball is thrown between his legs.

I say that 'hock' is used as a verb describing the action of the four pounds and not as a adverb.

The word 'schnellt' is used as a descriptive adverb and not as a verb. It describes speed or fastness. I feel it could very well be describing the two words 'four quarters' just preceding. Motion is implied since anything that is fast is moving.

I say trying to make 'schnellt' as a verb to 'hock' is wrong.
It is the four pounds that are described as being moved upward. The four pounds are hiked. "Hock' already implies quickness. There is no need to describe hike as being fast or quick.

I think it is the four quarters that are implied as quick.

I say that the syntax of the sentence is screwed up because it's a poem.

I think the correct wording should be

"it hikes four pounds four quarters fast."

Of that I have no doubt. This is the closest wording to the original.

Because the syntax of the sentence is not clear we don't know if the four pounds are hiked fast or if the four quarters are fast. It would seem more logical that the four quarters are fast being the the four quarters are closer to the word 'schnellt' and since 'hock' already implies speed.

Of course this is a poem and like all poems the words might be twisted around to make things rhyme and for the word count to be correct.

But of course I must be trying to force the translations to fit my theories. Stewart seems to know more about how I think that I myself do.

[Fletcher]

Whilst we all may have different ideas of a literal translation I think there are some important images from them that tend to get bi-passed in our eagerness to find the definitive meaning [which we can't, because he crafted the words to have deliberate ambiguity].

Warning : Subjective content ahead !

These images IMO are that a weight [or structure containing mass] falls a distance - to fall a weight can either be in free fall or be restrained in some way - perhaps via a free to swing pivoted lever for example [re: weights gain force from their own swinging/movement], or even a ramp guide - the important bit is that the weight must advance relative to the rim position it originally had if gravity accelerates it - this means it must speed up & then be stopped & this could be the reason for the bald or felt covered [muffled] impact sounds sometimes heard depending on which wheel – he certainly wouldn’t want to waste any impact energy as long as it was in the direction of rotation, in fact he’d want to use it.

The second important image is that the leveraged weight that was caused to rise up did so rapidly - this means that a force generated & subsequently redeployed [possibly/probably created by the Prime Mover weight/structure] was a quite powerful force which he used for only a short duration, to throw/launch a weight [4 pounds ?] up – the key being that the force ‘launched’ the heavy OOB mass to a higher Potential Energy of gravity/position i.e. a rapid impetus which ran out & then the masses inertia/momentum continued the movement – this could be achieved thru straight leverage principles or conversely by cocking a spring launching mechanism [via leverage principles to set the spring].

Bessler says he solved the conundrum of the OOB wheel [his ambition where all others had failed] & calls it his solution to Perpetual Motion.

The question then becomes where did the excess energy come from to rotate the wheel & do useful work & replenish itself ? – And, did it use a leveraged ratio of 1:4 or 1:16 or thereabouts [as he seems to hint at as being important in this clue], as CF’s seem to be able to develop ? – Or, did he find a way to throw out Conservation of Energy theorem as pequaide/attwood propose ?

[jim_mich]

At one point in past discussions it seemed that the passage discussed above implied a 1:16 ratio. I think that has pretty much been proven to only mean a 1:4 ratio of weight to weight.

It might mean weight force instead of weight mass.

This 1:4 ratio might come about by having one weight speed up while another weight slows down. When the slower weight approaches zero speed the faster weight is moving at twice the wheel speed and thus producing four times the CF.