MT thoughts ;7)

[daxwc]

Ovyyus:

daxwc wrote:
Why draw the top then write about 5 toys when the top makes it 6 toys?

The woodcut obviously never included the top when it was originally carved, which might reinforce the idea that A & B are different views of the one thing. C & D are different things (not same character dress, different contact points with B & E) as is E a different thing. The top would make 5 different things on the page.

With this argument you are reinforcing the idea that the top a missing F toy.


Looking back on the quote on the toy page maybe the 5 isn’t in relation to 5 toys. “Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way� It doesn’t say children games but children's game. So maybe the 5 is in relation to the 4 MT numbers.

I don’t know why anybody would draw the top first then write the quote. It is just plain unnatural. It is unnatural as his writing the letters in left to right. My opinion of course there is a reason to write them left to right because they are needed in a sequence in which to draw the underlay construction. Yes there is one for that page too.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I think part of the confusion for me is because Bessler says "it is not necessary to first explain the letters" and clearly for me it is necessary ! And there are no ropes and pulleys, or linkages I can see to do the job, and which show the correct Mechanical Advantage. Yet he had linkages and ropes and pulleys on all his other drawings, so why leave them out now ? I really have no idea how the weights might be lifted by the SB's with what is shown.

Look at it from a different point of view Fletcher. It is not necessary to explain them because there is no relation to the letters and the drawing. There is only a relation to the letters and the missing underlay lines.

[daxwc]

Fletchers quote on MT41:

But I can not follow what is supposed to happen to lift internal weights. Weights are clearly lifted a long way. Much more than the distance the SB's could move even if they had the correct segment numbers. And it isn't geared any further. The levers traveling around the cam wheels move far to great a horizontal distance for the correct segment stretch or compaction of the related SB's. But most of all there aren't any ropes and pulleys of any sort to show a connection between the weights (whether they are individual or combined slider arrangement) and the SB's. There's a complete gap in the Kinetic Chain ? I believe it is deliberate and premeditated !

I believe it is most definitely deliberate even the poor drawn tongs and missing power structure. It is to get you to the sign post of this:


From this I have a hunch there may have been a “doubling of cube� geometry like trick on the “compass and square� that was known to some R+C members which would have led those with enough curiosity to the paper folding.
Propaganda aside the only other solution maybe an outer system.

.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher:

I think part of the confusion for me is because Bessler says "it is not necessary to first explain the letters" and clearly for me it is necessary ! And there are no ropes and pulleys, or linkages I can see to do the job, and which show the correct Mechanical Advantage. Yet he had linkages and ropes and pulleys on all his other drawings, so why leave them out now ? I really have no idea how the weights might be lifted by the SB's with what is shown.

Look at it from a different point of view Fletcher. It is not necessary to explain them because there is no relation to the letters and the drawing. There is only a relation to the letters and the missing underlay lines.

And that helps makes my point dax .. Can you show the underlying geometry beyond the RATs and equilateral triangle to prove your point here ?

There are so many road signs to MT41. You've heard the saying "all roads lead to Rome". It must be very significant.

The fact that the mechanics doesn't even come close to stacking up when all other articulated designs in MT (with or without lettering and descriptions) have a Kinetic Chain which can be followed forward and backward is suspicious. All of them don't work of course and are zero sum games. This one only pretends to look like it might complete a Kinetic Chain.

So if that is the case then IMO it is like the Toy Page. The prequel. It shows elements of mechanical actions that applied differently would reveal something extraordinary.

IOW's a mechanical scrap yard that hints at a mechanical concept for Bessler's PM wheel. A concept that breaks with tradition and uses the Zed and horizontal SB's.

We know JB didn't use actual external lifter cam wheels anchored to posts etc. It was all done internally and went round with the wheel. That's an engineering issue that a clock maker probably would have a fair idea how to solve.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
you always prefer only one view of things which you have practiced your complete life.

How much energy will it cost to roll a 3 corner wheel, a 4 corner, 5,6,7,8 n corner wheel ? you are locking only at wheel as a wheel- a wheel is a optimized form of a n-corner wheel.

I don't now the exact words fom Bessler were he said 'it is a wheel and not a wheel. For me I have choosen a 8 corner wheel. Therefore such a construction is propulsing. I choosed the tumbling oktagon because it was head 8 noises per revolution.

weils felgen und auch keine hat

because it rims and has none

so if you choose the tumbling oktagon only as a carrier of 8 pendulums, or swinging weights you have a movement sidewards.

now an interresting effect on the tumbling Oktogon. you can compare it as when you are throwing a stone in water. when you throw it in the water in a flat angle, then the stone will rebounce on the surface.

If you build a wheel in small size, then the Path speed of the octagon on the outer rim is to small to get this effect. A bigger wheel has a higher rim speed. compare it again with throwing a stone flat into the water, if to slow, you will not get a bouncing. That is the reason why Bessler build his wheel so big, the rim speed.

if you provide the 8 Pendulums with return lock, then the gained rebounce can be used as an additional torque to turn the outer wheel.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

And that helps makes my point dax .. Can you show the underlying geometry beyond the RATs and equilateral triangle to prove your point here ?

I think at this point my time is better spent on the next MT that the Letters don't support. What is your next highest candidate?

[Fletcher]

Haven't really gone into any other candidates dax .. some are unreadable so I couldn't follow them thru.

MT41 was the most glaring for the reasons given.

Tho as I noted we have MT41 (the mechanical odd ball) with the horizontal SB's which do nothing (apparently), followed by MT42 with the same Zed action but vertical SB's, which is coherent. And then the following MT43. The ball weight and track machine and completely out of place and grouping with MT's 41 and 42. It belongs right at the front, tho where it is now is the start of ball swapping machines so it has balls in common to give some sort of justification to being placed there.

I believe it is a swapped out pic for something using the Zed and a single hor. SB, or perhaps showing more about the Prime Mover structure and not a cam wheel lifter.

[ovaron]

@Georg Künstler

That is the reason why Bessler build his wheel so big, the rim speed.

That's not sure. The Gera wheel was only two and a half feet in diameter (75 cm) "dritthalb Schuch" (dritthalb = das Dritte halb = zweieinhalb) . The following wheels he built much larger only because the Gera wheel was considered a toy and didn't show practical use. With the Draschwitz wheel he was able to impressively demonstrate the performance that would have been possible with a much larger design.

[ovyyus]

So if that is the case then IMO it [MT41] is like the Toy Page. The prequel. It shows elements of mechanical actions that applied differently would reveal something extraordinary.

MT41 shows a group of connected things with an obvious function, even if the exact connections are drawn wrong (or not at all), "...the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application". I don't know why Bessler wouldn't re-make MT41 with the 'correct artistic application'. Perhaps it didn't matter to him, or perhaps he left a gap for something?

Unlike MT41, the toys page shows a group of connected things with no obvious function.

[Georg Künstler]

@ovaron,
Don't mix the different versions which Bessler had build. The small wheel which he build was self starting. To achive this the sytem was set under stress. Such a version will selfturn, but can not produce a lot of OU.

The selfstarting version has in my opinion the following parts:
1. outer wheel, like a Hamster cage.
2. inner wheel, like a rim of a bicycle tire, only the rim not the spokes
3. a T-pendulum
and of course a support frame were the Hamster cage can turn.

so the driving force can only be produced by the mass and the frequence of the swinging T-Pendulum.
There is only from the construction point a small space to allow that swinging, but, it is always from the beginning out of balance.

The bi directional wheel has a different construction, using a rebounce effect. It is more complicated to build but can produce therefore 8 times more torque.

[Fletcher]

So if that is the case then IMO it [MT41] is like the Toy Page. The prequel. It shows elements of mechanical actions that applied differently would reveal something extraordinary.

MT41 shows a group of connected things with an obvious function, even if the exact connections are drawn wrong (or not at all), "...the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application".

I don't know why Bessler wouldn't re-make MT41 with the 'correct artistic application'. Perhaps it didn't matter to him, or perhaps he left a gap for something?

Unlike MT41, the toys page shows a group of connected things with no obvious function.

I think MT41 and the Toys Page are semi-identical twins Bill, not just a prequel and sequel (a bit of a melodramatic narrative I know). They share the same DNA from a split egg and the same father. What you see as differences is down to gene expression and is skin deep.

Tomorrow when I get the time I'll try to explain my intuitive leap. If you can then find other MT's that fit the profile I'll be surprised.

[ovyyus]

lol, look forward to it Fletcher.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Motive, Means, and Opportunity !

So I have a Toggle Handle device in mind that expands (push force) and contracts (pull force) both ends simultaneously along its longitudinal axis/pivot. It's a mini two-segmented SB activated by a falling lw handle (in the X & Y planes). It rotates (swivels) at 90 degrees to its own sub axle across the Zed. N.B. not an accurate mechanical representation of connections but for explanation purposes only.

It has to be small in length and not expand or contract much distance, because JB's first wheel was only 4 inches wide. It has to obey the Law of Levers and must transfer some KE from the falling lw transitioning to a stop position as part of the OOB system.

Time to look at the A's again. Two types, sometimes in the same drawings. Some are anchors to find shapes. But they are ubiquitous it seems.

A's are like H's which look loosely like wheel sides plus an axle from the side view and not the face on view. The bent arm A looks like that same H with a pivot point mid way in the axle, wider at the bottom and narrower at the top. A bit like our out of sorts segment numbers may additionally represent.

But wheels are vertical sided with horizontal axles like an H. Bessler's were like that by accounts. Bent arm A's might be suggesting an energy transfer from the Toggle Handle to the wheel sides, bending them. Force applied in the Zed to stress the structure of the H, out near the rims. Then this would cause a bow in the wooden spokes storing strain energy which would want to discharge if given a path or gradient, and means to do so.

Toggle Handles forcing the wheel sides apart (bowing it) at one position could also conceivably 180 degrees from there force it to bow inwards. That would be two actions per revolution 180 degrees apart rather than just one at 360 degrees. 'Either or' would create torque in the wheel provided there was a mechanical means (escapement ?) for controlled discharge of the strain energy by using a gradient and gradual release method.

The widening or narrowing of wheel sides under stress might not be that noticeable at large diameters (with flexible rims) or if they were inside a facade covering.

Well the one point I will give you credit for is it would explain maybe the eyewitness reports of being empty around the middle section of the wheel. It doesn’t though explain the eyewitness report of weights hitting the drum/slates near the edge. I think we both can agree this would supply very little power compared what we see in Bessler’s wheel.

Fletcher we are both closer on agreement than it first appears. It doesn’t really matter how we got there. I have a flip weight you have flexing walls; we both need a better delivery system. What if it is not in MT?

I still maintain there is an advantage of taking your mechanical advantage’s disadvantage in the Z plane. I wish to see your toggle arm design.

[Fletcher]

A Gravity Only PM wheel must have Asymmetric Torque Capabilities (we can't give something like a lw more GPE than KE lost somewhere else) N.B. dax .. the Toggle Handle rotates around its pivot along with the mini SB. It comes to rest on a stop board out near the rim.

I.E. both the OOB sub-system entity and the Prime Mover entity create torque. Any closed path OOB systems can only create torque symmetry. The Prime Mover creates the torque asymmetry aspect of the wheel.

Let's carry on ..

Below find a pic of the Toys Page. It is necessary to study this first before studying its sibling. We will get there ..

The Toys Page has 4 toys. We know there are 4 toys shown because the page numbering goes from 138 to 141 (4). And the fact the Bessler labels the late addition of the spinning top toy as 5. with commentary about Children's game (not Childrens' Games) and apply them differently. So 5. (spinning top) is the 5th game in the pic.

A & B are the same toy but with different profiles. A shows a side-on view (e.g. edge of a coin) while B shows the face of the coin. IOW's, B has been turned 90 degrees. N.B.1. they show a certain radius and circumference of a wheel laid out linearly (flat). N.B.2. turning it 90 degrees points to the use of the Zed, IMO.

B shows a lever-weight (lw) in two positions. 15 degrees off vertical and again at 45 degrees off vertical. These indicate to look at MT's15 (nothing of the Prime Mover can be seen or deduced but shows superior weight) and MT30 (the first Zed (90 degrees) machine with a Handle pic thrown in for good measure).

Anyways, the lettering in the Toys Page is from Right to Left. This is deliberate to get us to look for other backward machines. These being MT15 where the necessity for the Prime Mover is stressed, and MT13 where he says "This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed." N.B. the next time JB mentions friction short-comings is when talking about use of vertical SB's in MT41. However one of the main points in MT13 is to say it needs a Prime Mover that doesn't have much friction. They are backwards (as is the Toys Page reading of letters Right to Left) to suggest that we have to change our view of how we think a OOB wheel would work. We normally think of say lws falling as the cause and turning the wheel as the effect. He says lws moving up and down is the effect and not the cause, IMO.

After A and B and reading C thru E we are into separate toys and they are marked with double lettering. We can't be sure whether we are looking at the face view now or the edge view. I believe we are looking at a continuation of the edge view.

I will talk about C & D & E & 5. (and the pic below) in another post. I want to enjoy some of my Easter break outside in the sun while you contemplate the pic I provided. It tells most of the story but not all which others will have deciphered more of no doubt (I know Oystein has). I'll keep to the main sign posts as I see them to keep it simple as I can tho we will lose some of the detail that others might like to share.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
have a closer look to the contact points of the swinging weights to the border left and right.

the upper weight has a shorter way to swing.