Would JC contradict me ?

[ruggerodk]

What's up with this page?

Poltergeist walk through closed doors...perhaps?

ruggero ;-)

[Michael]

@ Sstewart - head slap ( of course ).
What do you make of the other area that I mentioned? Is it an upside down 55, or a letter? Or something else?

[Stewart]

What do you make of the other area that I mentioned? Is it an upside down 55, or a letter? Or something else?

It's the number 19 that is labelling the window.

Stewart

[amateur]

ovyyus(/Ed),

<snip> Of course I'm happy to post cropped and lower res sections of them to the forum for research purposes, as per the previous page.

Could you post a high resolution crop of the "wallpaper" section of the secunda figura? The one online from the link Ed posted is definitely "missing" detail that seems to exist in the one from Mikey Ned (which I can no longer locate except for the instances already posted in this forum.) But the one online is also "missing" a great deal of garbage in the one from Mikey Ned.

Versions from anyone else having them would also still be appreciated (search for "cleaner wallpaper" for original request/inquiry)!

(Ed - you mentioned obtaining high resolution scans over holidays, source unkown... post of that section possible??? (prob. not useful if from ovyyus and he posts))

Thanks.

[Ed]

Amateur,

I don't understand your problem. There is nothing missing in the scanned pages of DT at the links I provided. Anything Mikey Ned would have had can't be any better than that. I don't believe he had his own copy of DT either. Over the holiday I actually held an original copy of DT and browsed through it. The online scans in the links I provided are of high quality and are better than even the one I was holding, but neither are missing detail.
Please explain why you think this?

The scan that I wanted to get over the holidays wouldn't have helped you as it was for the image from GB which is not of the second figure in DT. Unfortunately I couldn't get this scan as the person I met with had put his copy of GB in a safe deposit box before I got there. Hopefully next time I meet with him.

[amateur]

Amateur,

Please explain why you think this?

Three plus (3+) differences I (think I) see (just taking the top third of the "squiggle"s), a for Mikey Ned, b for the high quality scans:
1a)an 'S' shape exists on left side (possibly a spring) seemingly connecting upper left weight, lower left weight, middle uncertain item between them
1b)No sign of that "S" shaped item exists, just the middle "uncertain" item floating with no connection
2a)The left (and maybe right) "levers" have a (relatively) sharp angle (maybe boomerang shape)
2b)The "levers" have a relatively smoother curve, without the sharper angle in the middle
3a)The lower right weight has a severe disconnection from the "lever" mechanism close to the weight
3b)The lower right weight has a mild disconnection further away from the weight, close to where the left and and right bars cross/connect
4x)There are other various differences, but those are the easiest to describe verbally.

1 and 3 could be due simply to printing issues, with ink vs engraving vs paper application, but two looks like a very different shape that I cannot attribute to possible inking differences. Several of the items I "observe" for four also do not seem like inking differences.

In general the online version is a much cleaner image, but it is missing some apparent detail present in the Mikey Ned version. I haven't yet had time to examine the version ovyyus (Bill?) has online with his MT posting, that does on the surface appear to have a lot more random garbage (aging/aged paper print?) more consistent with Mikey Ned's items - I do want to look at that more closely, but haven't had time yet ([edit] - I have now looked at the image at http://www.orffyre.com/Weissenstein1.jpg, and it is not high enough resolution for me to tell much of anything (as I would expect from an image put up for general viewing on a webpage)).

[Ed]

Squiggle A was taken from Mikey Ned's old website found at link:

http://web.archive.org/web/200106281351 ... /thing.jpg

Is this what you are meaning by 'wallpaper' or are you talking about something from Dr. Seuss? :-)

The squiggles are identical. It's just an inking issue between the two. The high resolution one has too much ink on the right side.

[amateur]

Ovyyus, if you care to contribute that cropped area from your hi-res scans, I'd appreciate it.

Ed, thanks for that - I forget about the archives, although even when I do remember them they don't always seem to retain things like the actual .jpg.

FWIW:
1)I don't think they are exactly the same, even ignoring inking differences - I think there are some subtle form differences, but the original "thing" does have a lot more background visual noise, making it rather hard to tell about everything but the previously mentioned 'S'pring, for which ink seems to be entirely missing from the source for the online DT, while faintly discernible (on the left) in the MikeyNed version.
2)I don't think the right side is too heavily inked - I think that's indicative, in both images, of a offset/side mounting point/mechanism, that may allow some portion (most?) of the mechnism to actually flip (jacob's ladder, upside down top), and/or to "pull" at an angle offset from some center balance point (probably against a center-balanced binding or ratchet point above the bulk of the (perceived) mechanism).

[path_finder]

Dear amateur,
Be prudent when you analyse a picture.
Sometime the reality is very different with what you can observe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laty3vXKRek

[ovyyus]

Amateur, my version disappears into the binding. I think Ed is correct and that any differences are the result of inking. I would not expect different images to be printed from the same print block, but I would expect some variations in ink density from print to print (hand inking and pressing). IMO, Bessler was producing fast and ready marketing literature, not exacting works of printed art.

[amateur]

OK - <sigh> - thanks for checking, and replying.

[Ed]

Amateur, before you go sighing and living up to your name, please help us help you.

So far you have vaguely described what seems to be that you believe there is something to be had from the 'squiggle' in general, and more to be had from a specific copy of the squiggle. Is this correct so far?

You also started this by describing this squiggle as an image "which I can no longer locate except for the instances already posted in this forum" but you did not even post links to this image, making others have to look it up for you. Please now take one of these images and point out what it is exactly that you think is so special about the squiggle.

Also FWIW, I believe Bill got his copies of DT images from John, and I believe Mikey Ned got his from the guy I just visited (Al Bacon) and was holding his DT in my hands.

Amateur, you should get as close to the source as you can before taking the time to study something with the level of detail you are putting into this, and not rely on crappy scans that have lots of 'noise' and artifacts that can look like all sorts of 'detail'.

[amateur]

(This is not well-formed, but I feel the frustration of four/five years ago rising, and don't feel like improving its presentation.)

Nothing from any specific instance of the squiggle, unless it happens to be "complete" (whatever that may be), with utmost clarity and no background garbage.

While Bessler may not have put enough into that squiggle to completely give it away, I'd almost be willing to bet that it would be an easy comparison to see that the form in the squiggle closely represented what was inside his wheels, were any of us given the opportunity to make that comparison.

I tried quite some time ago to get closer to the source.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... +wallpaper

It was met with varying degrees of ridicule (wallpaper decoration, inkblot), some help with digital soap and water, but nothing closer to the source than the mikey ned items that were already available. I have not reviewed that topic, but I believe in it or elsewhere John Collins as well dismissed the squiggles as not useful, and did not offer or otherwise provide those items from his copy of DT (not that he in any way had any obligation to do so of which I am aware.)

Your reference to the online DT was the first additional instance I've had - I don't know where Ovyyus got his scans from, but if they are from JC's DT, and not discernible in JC's instance of DT, then perhaps JC's are useless. The online DT provides a clearer, if possibly slightly different, view, so I thank you for that (indirect) contribution to my efforts. (With reference to some other assertions in this thread, do we know that there was only one printblock created - there seem to be references to a woodcut and a copper engraving for some other images, could that also be the case for this secunda figura item as well?)

As indicated in the above referenced post, I believe those images depict an arrangement of levers and weights that were inside Bessler's wheels. I believe there are probably actually two mechanisms there, guessing that the upper third likely powered the one directional wheel (probably multiple instances of it, although only one may have been necessary to obtain > 1 revolution), and the two lower thirds comprising the mechanism driving the bi-directional wheel (as it seems to have a mostly symmetric relationship between the two halves of the bottom two thirds.)

As for exactly _what_ that arrangement is, or at least hints at, that previous topic contains some of my attempts at interpreting the pieces. I didn't know what exactly I was looking for, merely that I could discern the presence of compound levers and probable weights of some uncertain interconnecting arrangement.

I am looking for an arrangement that might satisfy at least some, of the actions hinted at by the toy page, and what few of the clues I manage to retain in my head. (Wasn't one of the clues something about 'hidden in plain sight'?)

[nicbordeaux]

By the way, not meaning to butt in or anything but vaguely flicking through JC's MT it occured to me that... The hammer men gizmo, even with really nice bearings or pivot points and finely tuned "balance" wouldn't run for very long unless... the drum acted as a spring. High frequency vibe type short travel, like a stretched skin or really tight string. You can bounce a drumstick off a drum nicely.

Is that figure bottom of page a rattle ? Also makes a racket based on high tension stuff being hit.

This has already been chewed to death I suppose. In which case, sorry chaps.

[justsomeone]

Yes, it has to be a rattle. It fits my design perfectly. A spinning top does not. ;)