I have something for you to check on when you get a chance. See Wiki, clues this site, the 4th one down. It reads: "Who can make a pound weight rise as 4 oz. fall. Or 4 pounds rise as 16 oz. fall".
I know now, that this is wrong, it should be just the other way around. I.E, who can make 4 pounds fall as 16 oz. rise.
If the interpretation is correct then, it must be some miss direction on Bessler's part. Anyway it had me going for a long time.
Sam,
Using the forum search-function on "pound weight rise" I found these:
Stewart wrote:That translation is wrong as I've said here many times, and it's not just an interpretation issue, there's no way the words as Bessler wrote them can be translated as that. The actual translation is...
ME, Thanks for the info. This is how it should read: When one pound falls a quarter, it shoots up four OZ. four quarters.
It's a four to one step up lever, to increase speed. The four pounds are on the short end of the lever which falls 1/4 distance to raise the 4 oz, (not 4 pounds), four times the distance, and more importantly, 4 times faster.
The lever, I'm fairly sure, is a bell crank used to reset the sliders, which has to be done with, what as come to be my favorite German word, fahren.
If it simply works then it doesn't necessarily have to make sense... It then only makes sense why PMM wasn't found earlier.
A bellcrank in the form of a hook can be seen in MT053, MTT054 and MT081, MT082: so at least there's some usage in the Bessler-MT-way.
Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen, Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt*, Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt.
[My translation]
One shall be called a great artist, who can fling a heavy weight lightly up.
And when one pound slams down one quarter, makes four pounds jump up four quarters.
*fällt --> DE:fallen=to fall, DE:fällen=beat down
I read it like:
m₁*g*h₁ > m₂*g*h₂
1*g*¼ =? 4*g*1
Which is (should be) impossible, because (1<16).
I'm not sure if this text indicates a speed-up, as both directions are indicated to be fast: slam & jump.
Perhaps the "trick" can be found in the "quarter". This quarter might be a sector of a circle as is usual with a seesaw/lever. When we use a quarter-circle versus one whole rotation, this could simply indicate a situation where only the light weight dropped while the heavy weight restored to its original position.
Does that make sense?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
No, it needs to make sense, and you are right about the bell cranks. Why couldn't I see that.
The best way to over balance a wheel is with sliders, see MT-15 & Mt-136
The problem is; after the wheel rotates 180 degrees the sliders have to slide back over to the down side, or reset. By repeatedly resetting the sliders at or a little before they are horizontal, the wheel will rotate.
But how to do that? This the most difficult problem to solve, in order for the wheel to work. The clue in question is trying to show how that might be done.
I THINK, the top line of your translation is referring to the slider. I.E., how do you fling it up and over. This has to be done very fast to do any good, apparently, four times faster than the acceleration due to gravity.
The bottom line is right as I suggested. The word pound is wrong; it should be 4 oz. Isn't it possible that Bessler mistakenly wrote in 4 pounds when he really meant 4 oz. Or it got ccoppyed wrong some where?
He is describing a step up lever, with a ratio of 4 to 1, to produce enough
velocity to reset the slider.
The quarter reefers to distance. If the heavy weight falls one inch the light one raises 4 inches.
I agree 4 oz (that's 4/16th pound, right?) would fit very nicely.
Only, one wouldn't be a called "ein großer Künstler" if you could do what he wrote next. In my best guess (with Bessler in mind) such sentence would become less heroic.
So I wonder what makes you so sure Bessler made a mistake.
No, it needs to make sense, and you are right about the bell cranks. Why couldn't I see that.
Because some things only make sense in hindsight...
how do you fling it up and over. This has to be done very fast to do any good, apparently, four times faster than the acceleration due to gravity.
Not sure how you got there, but I might agree with this conclusion.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
When a slider is horizontal or preferably a little before, the long end of the bell crank lever is more or less vertical which is connected to the slider by a rope or wire. The short end is horizontal and has a massive weight that falls a short distance pulling / resting the slider. The bell crank is double acting so when the wheel rotates 180 degrees, it falls back down, pulling the slider back the other way. There is one double acting bell crank for each slider and mounted close to the center of the wheel to prevent bottom heaviness.
The gigantic problem for Bessler, and for us, is how to do the reset fast enough. Hence the reason for a step up lever. Questions?
Again, your top line, if I'm right, reefers to resetting the slider(s). Anyway that seams to make sense to me and a lever ratio of 4 to 1, step up, would be 4 times faster than gravity.
How do I know I'm right? Look at it this way; if one pound falls 1/4 it can't possibly raise 4 pounds 4 quarters. 4 pounds has to be wrong.
If one pound falls 1/4 it can raise 4 oz. 4 quarters, but more importantly 4 times faster!! This is the hart of the whole problem, how in the heck do you reset the sliders fast enough to get the wheel to turn.
Eeeuh, Sam ? Did you there just answered and used your own question ("is the interpretation correct") to promote your own hypothetical (bell-crank) design? I was under the impression we talked "clue" here.
I do think there are several ways to view Bessler's piece of text. The mentioned part ranges from an obvious impossibility (1>16) to a possible challenge or trick-statement (maybe the 'quarter'-part?): Hence your "4 pounds has to be wrong"-statement, is the whole and only point of Bessler...
I personally just think you interpreted it wrong ("oz": there's no convincing reason), and it's premature to know for sure if Bessler made such (or any) mistake. So I think it's safe to conclude Bessler just didn't, unless an alternative viewpoint actually produces a real working perpetual motion.
We could still talk about your interesting design somewhere else in your own topic because, valid points or not, it is beyond any Bessler's clue (which is the heart of this topic) and it raises its own questions.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Here is a post from 2007. It was made from my friend Rainer who lives in NZ. He is German by origin and skilled with computers, many sim programs, and garage tinkering. At that time very interested in Bessler.
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 agree 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 coming up to mind is the vertical up/down, but it could mean anything. Maybe the circumference of a wheel?
Bessler is discribing a 4 to 1 step up lever, used to reset the sliders, witch has to be done faster than the acceleration due to gravity, maybe 4 times faster.
It has to be a mistake. If one pound falls 1 inch it simply can't raise 4 pounds 4 inches. The one pound is on the short end of the lever and the 4 pounds are on the long end of the lever. It wouldn't even move it. It should be 4 oz.
I have no explanation as to why it's wrong. However it would be a mistake not to think so.
Hi Sam .. there is nothing to suggest this was a mistake - we just don't understand what he is saying because he seems to be hinting at breaking Archimedes Law of Levers.
Yet we all know that some internal parts with mass must be given GPE and that it is preferable that this transitioning happen very fast (to ultimately get a higher wheel RPM).
BUT .. a mass has inertia, so when it shifts in space it must be accelerated and then decelerated. If this happens very quickly over a distance it wastes enormous energy in collisions at End Stops etc.
Yet that is what witnesses heard (banging of weights arriving etc) and he actually says in Stewarts and Rainers translations that it 'shoots' which implies quickness of movement (high energy).
And we know a spring was heard to be moved in some way which suggests a source of stored energy in some form or other.
I think the 1/4 is the framework holding a heavier weight that has a lot of free movement in it's rotation ,this frame work is the loss system making it a 1/5 would be even better lowering the negative torque weight is the only way to go ,as besssler said every thing has to retain the power of free movement or words to that effect.Andyb
