Flippin' Flywheels

[mickegg]

Hi Mr V

The lower pulley would direct the force to keep the wheel firmly in the support bearings.

I think it is purely for this reason, as it would have been unacceptable to have had a sideways pull.

.....much better for stability

Regards

Mick

[ovyyus]

Equally, he could've positioned the lower pulley either side of the stand - this has no effect whatsoever on the mechanical efficacy of the system.

I agree with Mick. The floor pulley was positioned directly under the axle radius to ensure the force of the applied load didn't create lateral force on the wheel bearings. This also explains why the slot in the wheel support was made off-centre by a distance equal to the axle radius.

[MrVibrating]

These drawings exhibet too many silly little things that I think you wouldn't draw the way they have been drawn if all you wanted to do was give the viewer an impression of what the machine looked like .

I'm in no doubt that nearly everything in the drawings mean something specific if we knew how to read them properly . I suspect though that there is a key document or hidden code somewhere or even a way of thinking about the number layout that should yield valuable insight to the working principle . I think Mr V's approach so far is better than anything else I've seen offered up !

Just a few things that seem non sensible to me , if there is no hidden meanings are

* Yes - why is the hole for the rope and pulley in the support , but also why is it not centered ? , it is very precisely off centre.

*Why is the wheel given the number 1 in the face on view but numbered 2 in the edge on view ?

*Why label things multiple times with its designated letter ( eg rope has 16 three times and each of the stampers -right next to each other - labelled 6666 ) and yet I can't even find number 5 ,14 and 21 where ever he hid them !

*Why bother putting a lock on the thing at all ? and reverse the number on the two drawings (mistake) ? Stands out very clearly on the two drawings which Mr V has superimposed ( brilliant by the way : ))

*Why bother putting in posts and crossbrace 12 and 13 and not bother numbering the pendulum support from 13 ? IMO those three items are superfluous unless he needed a certain range of numbers in the drawing for his "code" . Why would you clutter the drawing unless you had a reason ?

These engravings like most of his MT's obviously have meaning wrapped up in most of their features .I don't think though its necessarily going to be apparent unless we can correspond the similarities and differences across his different drawings .

For example the pulley for the weight in the above drawings is outside the little window and seems to be saying obviously (to me anyway : )) - "this is gravitational interaction with the wheel !"
But the outlet for the water in the Weissenstein drawing is also outside the window but seems to be a totally superfluous feature in the drawing whose only purpose seems to say "this is how we get rid of the water when we are tidying up after our experiment !"
It really beats me but I feel it means something .

He sure hasn't made the meanings real obvious in most of his drawings , but I suppose if it was too easy it would have been done ages ago and we wouldn't now be having the chance at cracking it !

Cheers for the encouragement, and i think you may well be right about the liklihood of there being other systems of clues, perhaps including alphanumeric ciphers as others suggest, or who-knows what.

FWIW i think the reason the hole is only slightly off-center is to allow for the thickness of the axle that the rope is winding off.

IOW it's designed that way to keep the rope really, really parallel to the stand, to an exacting standard.

One might even say, to an engineering standard. Low tolerances here, for some reason.

My instinct is that this whole game's about managing counter-forces. The torque driving his wheels was just as likely counter-torque. The wheels had to be statorless because the wheel housing and axle was the stator, and the internal mechanism (the 'rotor') rotated, or counter-rotated, at a different rate to the external wheel.

How, exactly, i don't know, but what i do know from experience is the trickiness of balancing counter-forces. An overarching reason for such a perfectly-plumb transmission line might be to avoid inducing horizontal counter-torques, or else to maximise the vertical forces or counter-forces.

Tenuous, for now, but i'm sure that hole must be some kind of concession to expdiency, indicating a potentially-revealing constraint..

There has to be a compelling mechanical purpose for it.

Notwithstanding that we're talking about a man who compiled books of useless unworkable mechanisms.

OK i'll shut up now.


ETA: the water in the Kassel etching looks like it's actually fed back into the tank, so why does it need drain away at all? What's the deal with things-that-pass-through-windows? My hunch is that it's an internal / external thing - an anomolous output from an otherwise thermodynamically closed system:

- in the Mersburg wood carving, the bearing bracket on the left wall and the left-side stand post from the right-pane plan view, form an enclosure (note how that post merges with the lower border) - everything within represents our special mechanism or principal.

Perhaps the upper left window pane represnts a distinct quadrant of a cycle - for example, the interphasing of CF and gravity through a vertical rotation, although that only varies every 180°... Hmm, something that varies at 90° intervals might imply gravity, and OB / UB..

I remain confident though that once we graps the answer, all this will become clear. Bessler says as much himself in one of his books IIRC.

[ME]

We could try another approach, and project the common Indo-European figurative language (we have similar expressions). Perhaps this line of thinking leads to nowhere, or gives another insight.

There are numerous words having several meanings, just as Bessler put the same number at different positions. Instead of deciding a single exclusive meaning for a single word or number, we could include several meanings at the same time.
Like the word "support"; which could mean "column, foundation/fundamental, guide, base, assist, ...". Word which are all meaningful at the appropriate place.

So I attempt to "read" the Merseburg-drawing:

When the main wheel(1) supports(4) some mechanism (8) it will have a direct influence(9) on the axle(10).
When there's any "left"-over force(23) acting on the axle(3), it can be extracted from that wheel(2) and can put to work(6) or be fed back(10) to the supporting(4) mechanisms(8).
The "normal"-way is that such limited(14) rotating force(15) is lost(16) to ground.. So the "right"-way is to redirect(17) this force(16) via the support(4) upwards(18) and sideways(12).
In such way this force(16) moves up(18) through the wheel(1) and then out (18) of the window by redirecting(20) it downwards(22).

Some reinterpreted highlights via MT:
(where the actual German words matter, if only they could be read. So just use what we have):

MT001: The main wheel we all start with;
MT002: Actually the same wheel, but in the MT it doesn't work (but it shows work in the Merseburg);
MT003: It's just an axle;
MT004: It shows "stability not mobility";
MT009: There's a connectedness principle (connecting the axle and the mechanism);
MT008: The mechanism is "somewhat higher". On its own it still goes from the heavy side toward the light side until equilibrium is found;
MT010: It's just like MT 9, but this (connectedness principle) is more curved and actually shows "the correct handle-construction";
MT023: those hanging levers, alike the principle of MT021 with its cross-poles, makes one side periodically lighter. Contemplation reveals what happens;
MT014: That's somewhat speculative, otherwise tension wouldn't be obvious;
MT015: Ah well, it supports tension even better;
MT016: This shows how things are connected and shows how this force is raised up and around when under tension;
MT017: Easy to see how we can redirect force with several of these things;
MT012: They are not far out the center so the weight (nr 11 ?) doesn't swing much outwards... even though it causes some shaking;
MT011: It doesn't look like much (child's play), but there's more in it than meets the eye.
MT020: It's a bit peculiar but we still need a way to harness this horse;
MT022: Appears to be good as it hangs there: is fastened to the other side so it gets heavier somewhere else;

---

Making this a metaphor for a possible mechanism then, and skipping force redirection, things seem to home-in on the least obvious part: the pendulum end-caps nr.11.

When end-cap nr.11 meets the "eye" and reaches the hole in support-post nr.4 where the string is supposed to pass through, it could do something special.
We "know" from MT008 and the nature of pendulum nr.8 that equilibrium will be reached.
To make it swing continuously it needs a periodic boost, maybe by that wire which happens to be there; at least the wire is there on the left-side of the Merseburg drawing.
According to MT011 we can only "see when the curtain is pulled back and the correct principle revealed at the appropriate place".
Perhaps MT023 and Nr.23 are the revelation, and we move that thing into position by "contemplation and consideration".
Perhaps those cross-poles (powered by wire) kick the pendulum periodically; like a whipping top (MT141 tippe-top/eye) which needs to be struck continuously.

If it only was that simple... maybe in the end (with some practical alteration) it is.

[MrVibrating]

Hi Mr V

The lower pulley would direct the force to keep the wheel firmly in the support bearings.

I think it is purely for this reason, as it would have been unacceptable to have had a sideways pull.

.....much better for stability

Regards

Mick

But the support bearings are trunions (holes) in those tall support posts (possibly floor to ceiling?).. so the axle cannot leave the support posts.

If he wanted to reduce losses, he could've used another upper pulley to pull the axle upwards, mitigating bearing friction caused by gravity.

But pulling the axle down in the same direction as gravity adds to bearing friction.

I do believe you're correct though that, for some reason, any sideways pull was unaceptable. But whatever the reason, i suspect it may represent a key condition of an energy asymmtry.

[MrVibrating]

Equally, he could've positioned the lower pulley either side of the stand - this has no effect whatsoever on the mechanical efficacy of the system.

I agree with Mick. The floor pulley was positioned directly under the axle radius to ensure the force of the applied load didn't create lateral force on the wheel bearings. This also explains why the slot in the wheel support was made off-centre by a distance equal to the axle radius.

In retrospect it is a fair point - the forces involved would've been pretty hefty and enough lateral force might've toppled the whole thing over..


That's a fairly compelling engineering reason i suppose..

[Fletcher]

Mr V .. these are two recent blogs from JC's blog site that I think you might find interesting (discussion also).

I remembered that John had started an explanation some years ago of his findings and codes in those particular drawings you are fathoming.

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form

[jim_mich]

But why the requirement for vertical orientation if gravity was incidental? Why not free the mechanism from the constraints of gravity entirely and just use powerful springs in a small horizontal rotor?

The early wheels were started by gravity, thus their vertical orientation. The two-way wheels used a hand-push. They could have been placed horizontal. But such would require much stronger internal structure. Also, a vertical wheel gives the illusion that the wheel is a traditional gravity wheel, thus helping to keep Bessler's secret. Also, a horizontal wheel would not need gravity replacing springs, simply because the mechanisms don't depend upon gravity. The wheel is/was a motion wheel, and not a gravity wheel. (Just my opinion, based upon my research and knowledge.)

stampers go down, box goes up, or vice versa..

Yes, a very simple way of demonstrating that the wheel worked equally well in either direction. Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't try to read more into the drawing than is logical. Nobody ever claimed the stampers and the rope lift were run at the same time.

I still expect that the form of 'excess impetus' was inertial torque, applying CoM to convert MoI into V and thus RKE, rather than some kind of gravitational asymmetry.

On this I agree with you. This makes the wheel a motion wheel, and NOT a gravity wheel.

As such, i'm expecting that either the stampers or box / bucket represent inbound and outbound moving masses (the ice skater's 'limbs'), inducing positive and negative torques when coming in or out, and that the rest of the mechanism is thus concerned with somehow rectifying or modulating the energy symmetry of that action. By "rest of the mechanism" i mean whatever function is served by the periodicity produced by the pendulums and 'square wheel' around the waterscrew.

And then you go off on a tangent. I'm disappointed in you. Let me repeat. All three of the external mechanisms are simply examples showing that the wheel was capable of doing work, and capable of working in either direction. Any periodicity is smoothed by the flywheel effect of the large wheel. The mechanisms that cause wheel rotations are completely inside the wheel.

Usual disclaimer... such is my opinion.

[eccentrically1]

Hi Mr V

The lower pulley would direct the force to keep the wheel firmly in the support bearings.

I think it is purely for this reason, as it would have been unacceptable to have had a sideways pull.

.....much better for stability

Regards

Mick

But the support bearings are trunions (holes) in those tall support posts (possibly floor to ceiling?).. so the axle cannot leave the support posts.

If he wanted to reduce losses, he could've used another upper pulley to pull the axle upwards, mitigating bearing friction caused by gravity.

But pulling the axle down in the same direction as gravity adds to bearing friction.

I do believe you're correct though that, for some reason, any sideways pull was unaceptable. But whatever the reason, i suspect it may represent a key condition of an energy asymmtry.

There must be a reason he wouldn't have had the rope run straight up to the ceiling and across to the window, but I can't think of it at the moment.

[jim_mich]

There must be a reason he wouldn't have had the rope run straight up to the ceiling and across to the window, but I can't think of it at the moment.

Maybe the ceilings were too high. Or maybe were made of material (plaster?) that would not hold a pulley?

[eccentrically1]

I think he could have installed a pulley in the ceiling joist, so maybe it could have been the angles thru the window and to the second pulley were awkward.

[jim_mich]

I think Karl's castle is still standing, yes?. I would really enjoy seeing pictures of the room where the wheel once ran.

[MrVibrating]

Mr V .. these are two recent blogs from JC's blog site that I think you might find interesting (discussion also).

I remembered that John had started an explanation some years ago of his findings and codes in those particular drawings you are fathoming.

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/20 ... mment-form

Cheers, will read up and respond with anything that comes to mind..

[MrVibrating]

But why the requirement for vertical orientation if gravity was incidental? Why not free the mechanism from the constraints of gravity entirely and just use powerful springs in a small horizontal rotor?

The early wheels were started by gravity, thus their vertical orientation. The two-way wheels used a hand-push. They could have been placed horizontal. But such would require much stronger internal structure. Also, a vertical wheel gives the illusion that the wheel is a traditional gravity wheel, thus helping to keep Bessler's secret. Also, a horizontal wheel would not need gravity replacing springs, simply because the mechanisms don't depend upon gravity. The wheel is/was a motion wheel, and not a gravity wheel. (Just my opinion, based upon my research and knowledge.)

stampers go down, box goes up, or vice versa..

Yes, a very simple way of demonstrating that the wheel worked equally well in either direction. Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't try to read more into the drawing than is logical. Nobody ever claimed the stampers and the rope lift were run at the same time.

I still expect that the form of 'excess impetus' was inertial torque, applying CoM to convert MoI into V and thus RKE, rather than some kind of gravitational asymmetry.

On this I agree with you. This makes the wheel a motion wheel, and NOT a gravity wheel.

As such, i'm expecting that either the stampers or box / bucket represent inbound and outbound moving masses (the ice skater's 'limbs'), inducing positive and negative torques when coming in or out, and that the rest of the mechanism is thus concerned with somehow rectifying or modulating the energy symmetry of that action. By "rest of the mechanism" i mean whatever function is served by the periodicity produced by the pendulums and 'square wheel' around the waterscrew.

And then you go off on a tangent. I'm disappointed in you. Let me repeat. All three of the external mechanisms are simply examples showing that the wheel was capable of doing work, and capable of working in either direction. Any periodicity is smoothed by the flywheel effect of the large wheel. The mechanisms that cause wheel rotations are completely inside the wheel.

Usual disclaimer... such is my opinion.

Obviously i get that they're all depicting demonstrations. Superficially, at least.

But i gather the stamper system wasn't easily removeable, and could only rotate in one direction - the lift'n'drop direction. He could've depicted plan and profile views performing seperate workloads without conflict, but instead repeatedly depicted an interaction with discrete input and output ends..


I suspect that of the two Mersburg engravings, the copperplate came first, and then the wood carving was a latter edition to further highlight the clues, with the wall bracket-bearing and the lock reversal.

If there's nothing else here, then what's your conclusions re. that bracket bearing on the upper left wall - clearly a deliberately-misplaced carry-over from the Kassel engraving, no? So why's it included here?

[MrVibrating]

Hi Mr V

The lower pulley would direct the force to keep the wheel firmly in the support bearings.

I think it is purely for this reason, as it would have been unacceptable to have had a sideways pull.

.....much better for stability

Regards

Mick

But the support bearings are trunions (holes) in those tall support posts (possibly floor to ceiling?).. so the axle cannot leave the support posts.

If he wanted to reduce losses, he could've used another upper pulley to pull the axle upwards, mitigating bearing friction caused by gravity.

But pulling the axle down in the same direction as gravity adds to bearing friction.

I do believe you're correct though that, for some reason, any sideways pull was unaceptable. But whatever the reason, i suspect it may represent a key condition of an energy asymmtry.

There must be a reason he wouldn't have had the rope run straight up to the ceiling and across to the window, but I can't think of it at the moment.

I just think he took a wry satisfaction in using applied loads to proudly illustrate the elements of his solution to an unknowing audience - the schadenfreude of casting pearls before swine, some source of silent vindication in his frustrations. Would tie in with the AP wheel motif "and still you do not see"..

I think Mick's right tho - stability is sufficient explanation.

Still so many other questions tho...