The Anvils of MT 138

[shap-O-vert]

Maiden post.

I’ve appreciated lurking over the past ten years or so and have been stimulated by the expertise that exists here. I’d now like to make a few contributions. So here goes.

“An anvil receives many blows�

This line from Apologia seems somewhat at odds with Joseph Fischer’s 1721 observation that:

“At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side toward which the wheel turns.�

Weights falling gently vs an anvil receiving many blows.

The only place I’ve been able to find an anvil in this enigma is in MT 138.

Is this just coincidence or is it something else?

The lever system that’s associated with MT 138’s anvils simulate a consistent, repetitive, endless “pick-up/set-down� action. That’s what’s needed to lift weights in a rotating wheels, is it not?

Is this what Bessler was alluding to in Apologia?

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[Fletcher]

Welcome belatedly.

If you've been lurking for a decade you'll remember a gentleman called Ken Brehnt - he thought that the anvil reference related to the mental state of the PM searcher i.e. the quality required of extreme perseverance.

Another MT drawing that might also show elements of the 'anvil & the blow' would be MT55, a favourite of John Collins & others, which certainly seems to be an important drawing.

There may be others though perhaps not so obvious as the toys page anvils & hammers.

[shap-O-vert]

Thanks for the welcome, Fletcher. I do remember Ken Brehnt. I’ll do a search on that reference shortly.

Your reference to John Collins is timely too! I think John Collins pretty convincingly argues the idea that Bessler gave a hint or two along the way. For example, he says:

“……. It appears that Bessler stopped adding the notes after number 54, perhaps encouraging allowing further study of number 55.� at:

http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/ma ... ctate.html

(It might wax curious that Bessler let the official test at Kassel run for 54 days too),

and at:

http://www.gravitywheel.com/html/gravit ... ciple.html

…he says:

“This double curve is present in the infinity symbol…�

John also has discovered the pentagram in the Bessler drawings and focuses on the pentagram angle of 72°.

Perhaps the angle intended isn’t 72°, but rather 720°. In effect an “Infinity Drive� angle. That “double curve� described by John Collins may well represent a double rotation.

Does the wheel need to rotate twice (360° x 2 = 720°) to achieve full coordination of the levers; to get the timing right, if you like? Or is it effectively two wheels in one, such that you get a 720° effect with one rotation? I prefer the latter.

It’s like the Infinity Symbol turned in on itself with a cross-over mechanism built into the movement of the levers to facilitate a coordinated double rotation within a 360° revolution. You can work out how to do that for yourself (think in 3D not 2). The diagram in the Attachment might help.

How did Bessler do that? (If he did!).

Is this where John Collin’s reference to number 54 comes in?

54 = 5 + 4 = 9 (mathematical nonsense, but you get my drift).

Think of 9 Class One levers with their fulcrum on the rim of the wheel (the Load and Effort arms will be at an angle to each other);

Now, 360°/9 = 40° between the Load and the Effort points (at the rim),

…but this is too narrow an angle to get the necessary leverage to lift the weights. So did he discover that he needed:

720° / 9 = 80°?

…9 Class One levers with their fulcrums on the rim of the wheel; the Load and Effort of each being 80° apart?

360°/80° = 4.5 (which means the levers don’t join up in one rotation)

However, 4.5 x 2 = 9;

ie., twice around (720°) and…. Bingo – they join up. Or alternatively, and much smarter, once around for two separate but integrated systems to deliver their impact, and they join up too.

Look at the Jacob’s Ladder at MT 138 (in my maiden post above). This characterizes the arrangement – two systems and 4.5 levers per system per rotation.

9 levers spread around the wheel in two sets. Four (4) comprising Set A – the even numbers (Attachment); and five (5) in Set B (the odd numbers in the Attachment) – including the two (2) cross-over levers Nos 1 and 9.

Set A sits on one side of the wheel while Set B sits on the other. The cross-over levers integrate the actions.

While the weights are 40° apart (when at the rim), the end of the Load and Effort arm of each lever is 80° apart (at the rim). They are offset. Get it?

Just a few thoughts.

Ciao for now

shap-O-vert.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

In MT 55, Bessler did not need to say anything, he has just shown 54 failed weight shift designs know he shows you a leverage and gearing ratio puzzle, so now go back and look how to use it! Forget out of balance and play with true weight falling times leverage and then direct it to drive the wheel, it’s a ratio game that can be won.

I may be a little bias with my thoughts but does anyone have any better ones, if they do then there not sharing them.

Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Shap-O-vert and all,

The Toy page, I see the bottom handle of the Hammer men fixed to the wheel ( only need to be fixed pivot points), I see the anvil as a spring loaded wheel hub connection only connected to the hammer men by rope, which is also the spinning top principle, when the hammers fall I see a rope pulling round the spring loaded hub connection, (Edit, the rope pulling from the top handle ) there would be more than one set of hammer though to do more work and to help balance the wheel a bit better, just my quick thoughts on the Toy page.

Edit, it would tie in with Shap-O-vert's force and effort chart, some sort of spring mechanism would be needed to keep a constant torque to the wheel drive Though.

Edit, the anvils hubs may need there own position with a ratchet drive to a central wheel drive.

Regards Trevor

[Fletcher]

That's a nice connection with the 54 day test shap - had never made the association.

[justsomeone]

Refresh my memory. Did they not return " unannounced " on day 54?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Shap-O-vert, Justsomeone,

First and foremost, thank you Shap-O-vert for making the 54 MT to 54 Day link that was brilliant! I am not shore about a 720 degree cycle though as most lever systems work on a 180 degree cycle, they fall on one side of the wheel, and then fall back on the other side of the wheel, which is good if you tap the leverage of the falling levers on both sides of the wheel as you can double the work you can get from them, the problem being, to turn the two different fall directions into a one directional force to drive the wheel.

Justsomeone, it maybe that the MT drawings came after the castle test? Maybe the other guys will know.

Still it all good stuff. Edit I have just read shap-O-vert's posts again, I cannot wait for the next installment. the 720 degree cycle is two wheel add together in a 360 degree cycle, that seems more like it.

Regards Trevor

Edit, remove double wording.

[Axelf]

360° degree input and 720° degree output, that's right, but why?

A short Lever and a longer Lever with same Wight are balanced, why can't?

Bessler build more than one PM and he know the math and physic, that we
must find!
The MT's i have see at john and scott, i can't find the solution.
Bessler said many words, but no people anderstand!
Please read Bessler in German.

[shap-O-vert]

Justsomeone:

I’m taking the 54 days from Scott’s Home Page. I’m confident that would be an accurate statement. He says:

“It was made to do heavy work for long periods, and in an official test it ran continuously for 54 days�.

It’s probably nothing but coincidence. But if it takes your thought patterns out of the box then it’s worth looking at IMO.

Trevor Lyn Whatford says:

“the problem being, to turn the two different fall directions into a one directional force to drive the wheel�.

I was not sufficiently clear. Sorry. What I meant by: “Set A sits on one side of the wheel and Set B on the other� can be interpreted two ways. Firstly: two sides of the wheel could mean the +ve side and the –ve side (the “downside� and the “upside�). I wasn’t referring to that interpretation.

The second interpretation relates to the two “edges� of the wheel. Maybe I should have used the term “edges� instead of sides. It was the “edges� notion I was trying to express. And there I was thinking I was being so very precise!

On that interpretation the Effort arm is always on the +ve side of the wheel for both sets, with Set A working one edge and Set B the other. The action alternates from one edge of the wheel to the other; but always on the +ve side.

Does that make sense? Can you see it?

Regards

shap-O-vert

[to.late]

Maiden post.

I’ve appreciated lurking over the past ten years or so and have been stimulated by the expertise that exists here. I’d now like to make a few contributions. So here goes.

“An anvil receives many blows�

This line from Apologia seems somewhat at odds with Joseph Fischer’s 1721 observation that:

“At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side toward which the wheel turns.�

Weights falling gently vs an anvil receiving many blows.

The only place I’ve been able to find an anvil in this enigma is in MT 138.

Is this just coincidence or is it something else?

The lever system that’s associated with MT 138’s anvils simulate a consistent, repetitive, endless “pick-up/set-down� action. That’s what’s needed to lift weights in a rotating wheels, is it not?

Is this what Bessler was alluding to in Apologia?

Regards

shap-O-vert.

try the weights striking the hub of Mt 20.

[to.late]

Thought I would add, as Mt 20 rotates, the weights on the long levers fall against the hub. This could account for the knocking sounds witnesses heard.
Also, the amount of force they could generate would be worth thinking about.
And as the wheel rotates, the weights would swing out or drop down moving another lever as Mt 20 suggests.
Just a thought.

[jim_mich]

Refresh my memory. Did they not return " unannounced " on day 54?

From page 82 of PM-AAMS:

As soon as his machine was ready Orffyreus requested the Landgrave to arrange a long-duration test, and this was carried out from the 12th November, 1717 until the 4th January, 1718.

From page 85 & 86 of PM-AAMS:

This machine emphatically confirmed the claims made for it when, to Our not inconsiderable pleasure, it successfully completed the long awaited month's test, and what is more, did it twice. After the device had been observed in operation for three months by many people, of this district and from elsewhere, of high rank and of low, We finally, on the 12th November of last year, 1717, ordered it to be sealed up and left to run for a fortnight. Then, in person and accompanied by some of Our ministers, we again betook Ourselves, on the 26th November, to the appointed place, and there We opened the seals, which We verified were undisturbed. We carefully observed each and everything We saw and, with Our own hands, We brought to rest the machine We had seen revolving at exactly its original speed. With little effort required, and without the assistance from the inventor We set the machine in motion once more. We then sealed up the machine once more, and all the windows and doors in the room and adjoining areas. Then a full six weeks after all this success, during which period no-one was able to get to the machine, namely on the 4th Day of January of the year 1718, by God's grace newly arrived, We again betook Ourselves to our castle at Weissenstein, whereupon We not only recognised Our impressed seals to be totally inviolate, but also found the Orffyrean Perpetuum Mobile to be continuing just as before in its uninterrupted motion. In addition We found, neither inside the room itself, nor outside the slightest sign of anything suspicious. And so, even though the inventor willingly offered a longer period of running, notwithstanding the fact that the period demanded by his adversary, namely four weeks, had already stretched to eight, We graciously deemed that such an extension was unnecessary for the granting of Our written attestation.

The wheel was observed in operation for about three months. Then during the official test it ran for two weeks, was stopped and inspected, then ran for another 39 days. Thus the wheel ran on 54 different days but it only ran for a period of 53 days. It is like saying that a wheel ran for two days when it starts running on Monday and stops running on Tuesday.

I'm not sure if the German calender was different, because by my calculations the elapsed time between November 26, 1717 and January 4, 1718 is not a full six weeks (42 days), but rather only 39 days.

[shap-O-vert]

Jim_Mich says:

Thus the wheel ran on 54 different days

Ah. The benefit of the White Hat. Nice to get those facts nailed.

54 in that context looks like a coincidence then, as it would seem to have been outside Bessler's influence. However, John Collins' observation of MT 54 and MT 55 remains valid, no?

Regards

shap-O-vert

[shap-O-vert]

Axelf says:

360° degree input and 720° degree output, that's right, but why?

A short Lever and a longer Lever with same Wight are balanced, why can't?

Could you elaborate on that last bit please Axelf? ie the

why can't

bit.

shap-O-vert