MT thoughts ;7)

[Fletcher]

We have a Toys Page pic with 3 more different elements after A and B.

C thru E are double lettered (N.B. E has its coded counterpart opposite side of page as shown). C and D appear to be the same type of mech in different poses, one above the other. There must have been a reason to show it twice ! A possibility is 180 degrees apart or 180 degrees of rotation from an edge view.

Then we have the curiously placed 5. toy (the spinning top); which also would logically be labelled F (single) in sequence tho it is not. It is left for you to infer. So it must be both 5. and F. It's placement near but not exactly bottom center of drawing is significant IMO. It is directly below the centers of the Push-Pull toys (C and D).

The entire Toy Page drawing of childrens' toys is in-coherent in the mechanical sense. There is no identifiable Kinetic Chain (or Kinetic Train) of Cause leading to Action/Effect. There is no hint at Mechanical Advantages and Speed Ratios of one toy effecting another and visa versa. It is totally incoherent IMO.

Time to take these observations and go looking for a relationship in the rest of the MT's.

The only one I could find that matched up was MT41. Another incoherent disjointed drawing in the mechanical relationship sense. MA and SR are out of proportions for the various elements. The Kinetic Train is broken. We can not see how weights could either be moved or move something else to unbalance a wheel.

A and B are both the sliding weights system (labelled differently for the same weight system v's A and B views in the Toy Page). All 4 weights are uncoordinated. C & C appear to be the pivoted cam levers that rotate around the stationary cam wheel (apparently not labelled) tho the C is close enough to the cam wheel to identify it as that perhaps (in MT42 they are clearly labelled as D & D). D & D appears to be the push-pull rods connected to the horizontal SB's and the cam levers. And E & 4+1 (5 & E) appears to indicate the wheel stand or perhaps the wheel sides ?

How does this match up with C, D, and E of the Toys Page. C push-pull lever equates to cam lever. D push-pull lever equates to push-pull rods connecting cam lever to horizontal SB's. E side walls (vertical flexible SB and jacob's ladder toys) equate to MT41 stand or side walls of wheel. A possibility, maybe ? A match for sure IMO, in double lettering plus the F and its position.

The curious case of the 5. which is a single F in the Toys Page. Does it have a counterpart in MT41. Yes it does. F is labelled bottom center in no-mans land, between the lower separated SB's. What could it signify ? Just that there is a counterpart in the same position in the Toys Page, also a single entry.

At this stage I'll post up a pic of a folded MT41 as dax has suggested should happen with double A's. It is convenient that upon folding that the weights (2 - upper and lower) slider bars line up each side of the vertical center dividing line. This gives perfect symmetry and clarity to the new drawing. And MA's and SR's seem to align in a now coherent appearing mechanical system.

And there are the Toggles as I describe them. Or the mini SB's as I also called them. (the abandoned F of MT41 and the spinning top of the Toys Page morph into a Toggle mech N.B. 5. = V - a representation of an action to cause a wheel to turn IMO) All they need is a Handle to be useful perhaps.

When I come back next the paradox of MT42 and MT41 (modified and thinned down). Why won't they work and what do we need to do to get them to work ? As I see it !

[Fletcher]

Using an externally mounted cam wheel lifter to operate levers in the Zed as shown in MT's 30, 35, 41, and 42 is the mechanical equivalent of using a set ramp (i.e. simple machine e.g. inclined plane) to reset weights or lws for example.

Bessler introduces us to ramps in MT12 with series connected lws. He says they cause a great shaking.

In the next ramp design MT13 he says ..

This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present ..

He points out that friction takes a large toll on performance.

MT23 is a ramp design so that the lws can get lifted to the inner carriage. He says ..

.. Contemplation and consideration reveal what can happen here ..

In MT41 he says ..

.. There is only this to mention: the present horizontal application of the stork's bills is always better than the machine with the vertical application, which constantly has more friction ..

This is the second time he mentions friction but in a slightly different context from MT12. He he says the vertical application of the SB's has more friction. So the takeaway appears we have a double whammy of friction from ramps and ramp analogues and from vertical SB's like MT42. It seems to suggest if we could eliminate both frictions different outcomes might be achieved.

But for those that have experimented with ramp designs (and that would be most of us tinkerers) we can make lws almost frictionless against a ramp by using roller bearinged small wheels at the end of levers etc. They still don't get up the incline. And we know from SB's that they have a lot of friction in the pivots and where parts slide over each other. That is if we have them relatively 'tight' so they don't flex/droop to much. This leads to SB's 'binding-up' before sudden release. This means we get a lot of lag and what is sometimes called latency (slow to start moving). This is a major handicap with vertical SB's.

So vertical SB deployment and ramp frictions (like from cam lifter wheels in the Zed) are symptomatic of their use and not the main cause of a wheel not self-sustaining.

[daxwc]

So I found this when I found out things were just a little off. The far wall is warped a little. Since you were talking about flexing walls maybe you are interested Fletcher. I don’t think there is much to it because the next vertical line is off a little too. No idea why the picture is warped as it is not near the seam/binding of the book and most of Bessler stuff is really accurate.

[Fletcher]

Thanks dax .. I hadn't taken any notice before because I don't expect the accuracy in the drawings that you do. The clarity and accuracy is probably why I instinctively prefer working with Bill's reproductions. Nevertheless an interesting observation that I can clearly see in the original now that you point it out. I'd probably file that under coincidence.

I have to say that over in your 'drawings conjecture' thread I am equally convinced of your reason for overlapping with A's. That is, finding the compass and the two overlapping circles. Great find.

Probably something else to file under coincidence is that I always thought the bent arm and the straight arm were possibly a v and its flattened cousin -- . To show two forms of action. And interestingly to me that fits with my theory of the F and spinning top (5. v) morphing into a Toggle <x> (i.e. the Toggle contracts and expands like the v and -- ) when the A's and B's are stacked or folded. But I'll leave that one in the land of coincidence for now.

[eccentrically1]

A couple things:

Bessler introduces us to ramps in MT12 with series connected lws. He says they cause a great shaking.

...This only shows the present and previous weight-principle in passing: one is able to discern somewhat below here at A and downward that the weights do not hang very far out but lie nearer the center, and, moreover, upon revolution the weights do not fling out very much to the side and cause a great shaking."

The weights don't cause a great shaking because they don't fling out very much. A small point, but it might be important, if his design caused the weights to fling out to the point of causing shaking.

This is the second time he mentions friction but in a slightly different context from MT12.

A typo there, he mentions friction in MT13, not 12. And the half moon weight has a wheel at B to reduce friction as much as possible, as you said here:

But for those that have experimented with ramp designs (and that would be most of us tinkerers) we can make lws almost frictionless against a ramp by using roller bearinged small wheels at the end of levers etc. They still don't get up the incline.

So what friction is he referring to in MT13 if not at B, although it has a wheel?

This is a new weight-invention, with no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free except that each has an interval arm C with which it forms an angle, and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon and above a small wheel B over which the arms C sweep and lift themselves up at D.

He calls the axle "the cylinder". Does he refer to the axle like that anywhere else? I don't recall for sure, but I can't think of any place. And the figure A (which he doesn't call it) "hangs" from it; so could that be the friction he's talking about? Or both A and B perhaps?

[Georg Künstler]

from JB:

and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon and

When I have constructed my roller wheel I had a problem that the rolling cylinders could roll in both directions(swinging). Therefore I thought I should use ratches to block the backswing to achive this.

Now I see a different constructon possiblity. It is a rolling cylinder with an anchor. So when the cylinder like to roll back, the hanging figur does blocking that. It is better than any ratches, because it is working with every angle.

it's like a wedge following the cylinder. great and simple construction !!

from here I like to see the original text in German.

and on the cylinder hangs a

is it und an dem Zylinder hängt ein'
or is it und auf dem Zylinder hängt ein?
is it an or auf ?

[ME]

We can not see how weights could either be moved or move something else to unbalance a wheel.

How I somewhat understand MT041.

Attached an MT041 alternative.
- I removed the top-left scissor part, because the amount of hubs shown at 'F' suggests it overlaps at the top.
- I added those barely visible pulleywheels (in white) -- in the MT-print either suggested, or removed by Bessler.
- I added a string (yellow) on one side-- in the MT-print it's barely visible at crossing the lower scissor.

When, by some Rotator-wheel, the side lever gets pushed inwards at the axle then the rod at D gets pushed outwards.
The scissor then extends 3-fold, and takes the attached string along with it and raises a weights at A and B.
At F this string motion also helps to contract the bottom scissor-mech, but so does somewhat that lever at E - which may or may not be moved by that Rotator-wheel..
When weights can be raises, the wheel will rotate.

I am a bit puzzled how that Rotator-wheel action would occur.

Option1: It doesn't move with the wheel rotation.
So it is a guide where the levers bumb into.
It rotates only to reduce friction between this guide and the lever.
So when lever is at the top ('C'), it gets forced into a circular path inwards.
I estimate this action happens in at most 10 degrees for a full rotation.
Isn't that a lot of required effort (1:36) for such an important task (=quickly breaks)?

Option 2: It moves with wheel rotation.
Likely it should get its rotation (for example) by riding a vertical wall connected to ground.
I added (perhaps wrongly. yet one has to try something) those green Rotator-wheels for the bottom levers, and colored its Rotator-cup-socket blue.
These blue-sockets seems to be obstructing those levers at some point of rotation.
I think it is better to actually attach them to the axle, while the outer vertical wall is connected to ground.
Such wouldn't make the drawing artistically more clear, as somewhat excused in his text: "the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application".
Just as that string at the bottom scissor looks like an attempt, and likely gave up on drawing the rest; while there already wasn't room for an F at the top anyway..

I guess option 1 is the better explanation, because/even though...

But for those that have experimented with ramp designs (and that would be most of us tinkerers) we can make lws almost frictionless against a ramp by using roller bearinged small wheels at the end of levers etc. They still don't get up the incline

Then Bessler retried the same thing with MT042.
Visually tilted those Rotator-wheels, and found a better way to raise those weights.
So perhaps because of the similarities between MT041 and MT042 he then very educationally claimed it to be so clear what it all means that he could move on to the next.

[Fletcher]

A couple things: ...

[MT13] .. So what friction is he referring to in MT13 if not at B, although it has a wheel?

This is a new weight-invention, with no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free except that each has an interval arm C with which it forms an angle, and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon and above a small wheel B over which the arms C sweep and lift themselves up at D.

He calls the axle "the cylinder". Does he refer to the axle like that anywhere else? I don't recall for sure, but I can't think of any place. And the figure A (which he doesn't call it) "hangs" from it; so could that be the friction he's talking about? Or both A and B perhaps?

Thanks for the corrections.

.. 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.

The only frictions to be seen (not counting air frictions etc) is at B (roller wheel - bearing and surface) which lifts the angled lws which are pivoted. The half-moon shaped mass, part of the artificial horizon (stator also pivoted on the axle) is only shaped that way to get the stator CoM as low as possible. As you can see it doesn't interact with the lws which back rotate to hanging down position with gravity force (unless impeded). So we have some friction in the center axle and stator which robs the system of a little energy when the lws cause the stator to rock a little if impacted hard. But we get it back less the dynamic friction losses. The other frictions are in the lws pivots. All these frictions are minimal and a deflection (but look for where he talks about friction again). The real emphasis is that the stator and roller wheel at B are a ramp in drag. So to work the lw must be lifted at D else it only gets part way up the 'incline'.

As for calling the axle the cylinder I don't remember seeing it described as that elsewhere either. So I looked up an translation from JC's MT publication also done by Mike Senior (but earlier). There he called it "hanging from the roller" so I'd say translators choice comes in to play.

[daxwc]

Fletcher, maybe MT 41 + Mt 40 were meant to go directly together where the weights/lugs is supposed to peek your curiosity enough to see they are different views off the same wheel. Also MT 40 was also flagged as a folded A candidate as with MT41. You wouldn’t have a device/linkage for activating the storkbills in MT 42 in the Y plane and leave the Cams Z plane Fletcher?

[Fletcher]

We can not see how weights could either be moved or move something else to unbalance a wheel.

How I somewhat understand MT041.

Attached an MT041 alternative.
- I removed the top-left scissor part, because the amount of hubs shown at 'F' suggests it overlaps at the top.
- I added those barely visible pulleywheels (in white) -- in the MT-print either suggested, or removed by Bessler.
- I added a string (yellow) on one side-- in the MT-print it's barely visible at crossing the lower scissor.

When, by some Rotator-wheel, the side lever gets pushed inwards at the axle then the rod at D gets pushed outwards.
The scissor then extends 3-fold, and takes the attached string along with it and raises a weights at A and B.
At F this string motion also helps to contract the bottom scissor-mech, but so does somewhat that lever at E - which may or may not be moved by that Rotator-wheel..
When weights can be raises, the wheel will rotate.

I am a bit puzzled how that Rotator-wheel action would occur.

Option1: It doesn't move with the wheel rotation.
So it is a guide where the levers bumb into.
It rotates only to reduce friction between this guide and the lever.
So when lever is at the top ('C'), it gets forced into a circular path inwards.
I estimate this action happens in at most 10 degrees for a full rotation.
Isn't that a lot of required effort (1:36) for such an important task (=quickly breaks)?

Option 2: It moves with wheel rotation.
Likely it should get its rotation (for example) by riding a vertical wall connected to ground.
I added (perhaps wrongly. yet one has to try something) those green Rotator-wheels for the bottom levers, and colored its Rotator-cup-socket blue.
These blue-sockets seems to be obstructing those levers at some point of rotation.
I think it is better to actually attach them to the axle, while the outer vertical wall is connected to ground.
Such wouldn't make the drawing artistically more clear, as somewhat excused in his text: "the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application".
Just as that string at the bottom scissor looks like an attempt, and likely gave up on drawing the rest; while there already wasn't room for an F at the top anyway..

I guess option 1 is the better explanation, because/even though...

But for those that have experimented with ramp designs (and that would be most of us tinkerers) we can make lws almost frictionless against a ramp by using roller bearinged small wheels at the end of levers etc. They still don't get up the incline

Then Bessler retried the same thing with MT042.
Visually tilted those Rotator-wheels, and found a better way to raise those weights.
So perhaps because of the similarities between MT041 and MT042 he then very educationally claimed it to be so clear what it all means that he could move on to the next.

Thanks ME .. It almost looks like it was meant to be as per your option 1. The horizontal cam wheel (rotator wheel) is fixed in space above the axle but rotates to allow a smoother passage of the side lever as you guess.

The fact that there is only one cam wheel per side means the upper SB's get pulled and expanded at D once per revolution. But then as you point out the lower side lever has no function to contract the lower SB's because there isn't a second below axle horizontal cam wheel. Rope connections and pulleys would solve some of the problems of connectivity and kinetic train. Anyways the lower SB's must somehow expand again before getting to the top.

The real problem is that I think your estimate of the degrees of wheel rotation affected by the cam wheel is a bit light at 10% (36 degs). For the side lever to pull the upper SB thru 180 degrees of wheel rotation the cam wheel would have to be right on the axle axis. Every inch higher and the degrees gets less and less. As it is now it looks to me like it might 'lift' thru about 150 to 170 degrees. It's hard to tell. What we are seeing is it half way thru the lift. What is evident is that it would be a very awkward arrangement for the side levers traveling with the wheel to run around the stationary cam wheel. They would have to rotate the same number of degrees as the contact degrees which would wear them very fast thru twisting frictions.

However if it is as you say the weight sets A & B would have to be connected via a slider bar which is pulled up and down I guess. Like MT42 which is visually very coherent. N.B. you might think MT42 contained the answer because of the 24-42 swap in the Kassel drawing at the lock. It doesn't IMO but it does begin to focus in on torque issues of number of wheel segments or sectors e.g. 180 degrees in this drawing, and the number of degrees that the horizontal cam wheels and levers can lift thru (let's say 180 degrees for argument). They need to be 'unmatched' IMO to get asymmetric torque.

[raj]

I am following this latter part of the debate in here with absolute delight.

MT135 is where torque is simply and visibly shown.
How would such a wheel in the drawing be built?

How is it that the length of the arms on one side of the wheels are slightly LONGER?

How could that be done.?
One possible answer is in my last two days old thread.

Raj

[daxwc]

“You wouldn’t have a device/linkage for activating the storkbills in MT 42 in the Y plane and leave the Cams Z plane Fletcher?�

I see there is one in MT 54 as it doesn’t matter what plane E sits in.

Still there is a lot of benefit from the MT42 storkbill linkage setup and the cord.

What do you think about the idea Fletcher that the one directional wheel sits within Mt1 to 55 and the Bidirectional Mechanism (not wheel) sits between Mt 55 to 141?

[daxwc]

Fletcher replying to Me:

The fact that there is only one cam wheel per side means the upper SB's get pulled and expanded at D once per revolution. But then as you point out the lower side lever has no function to contract the lower SB's because there isn't a second below axle horizontal cam wheel.

This is subliminal evidence of my claim the inner wheel is travelling twice as fast as the drum which the cam is connected to?

So lets think about this a minute. Bessler witnesses stop the wheel just by grabbing the outside of the drum but none state anything about anything inside want to continue its momentum.

So everything is one solid system or the two systems geared together. In my opinion if you have a drum you must have solid connectivity with the inner workings or the inside would continue to rotate if the drum was stopped suddenly.

[Fletcher]

This is the time to remain focused to get to the bottom of why we are pointed to MT41.

A Gravity Only solution will demand some unique insights to solve the mechanical issues even if they do not address the math behind where excess impetus comes from.

It is easy to come up with all sorts of imaginings to make MT42 or MT41 work. Or dive off into other MT's. That wasn't the point of taking us to MT41.

The fact remains that MT's 41 and 42 don't work as they are drawn. They can never work as they are drawn. They can't be made to work by altering or adding this or that. Even my modified MT41 can't work, and it is obvious that the weights can't be pulled the distance required (almost full radius) by just two SB sections. As with ANY OOB system, with or without a ramp, whether that ramp is internal or external, in the XY plane or in the Zed, etc etc, it can not work. Friction is not the problem.

The problem is the torque produced is a symmetrical sine curve shape. Equal positive and negative torques. This is inescapable for any OOB design. The math doesn't support it and neither does any physical experiment or build.

But we know Bessler steared us to MT41 and he made sure we looked at MT42 because of the switch in the Kassel drawing of 24-42 for the lock (and key).

Bessler's wheels were all coin shaped. Like a very very thin coin. There was a reason for that else he would have built ones much wider so he could have OOB systems that were strong and robust and able to support very large weights on their pivots, and develop large amounts of power etc. They were thin yet the OOB weights didn't move from axle to rim. They moved only a small portion of the radius. And we all know that it doesn't matter where you place the lws system for example, near the axle, or out by the rim, it will produce the same torque. So why did they require such a wide diameter which was mostly empty ?

These are Bessler's clues ..

1. Connectedness Principle must be enacted.
2. Correct Handle-Construction required.
3. Prime Mover required.
4. SB's better horizontal than vertical.
5. Something special behind SB's.

Besslers' wheel MTs show OOB systems, often on their own, showing a supposed superior mass imbalance, even masses lifted into positions of higher GPE. They do not show the Prime Mover or what it must do to make an OOB system work.

When you distill this all down you are left with only one solution for a Gravity Only OOB wheel. The OOB system must be separate from the Prime Mover system yet they must temporarily interact and cooperate to cause a self-sustaining wheel.

In MT's 41 and 42 they show and OOB weight system, and a lifting system in the Zed, which is a type of physical ramp design. MT42 has all sorts of problems with lag and frictions which don't help the case because they are aligned vertically. MT41 looks better because they show horizontal SB's which won't have binding and lag problems to the same extreme. But even that is not the main issue.

We need to separate the number of OOB mechanisms (say 4 at 90 degrees) from the asymmetric torquing system (the Prime Mover) which pulls or pushes thru 180 degrees. They cannot be matched in degrees else we have only system torque symmetry and frictions will stop us.

If you still doubt this think about the one-way wheels performance. They had constant torque in ANY position. They quickly accelerated to full rpm in only a couple of turns. They were likened to a wound clock. A spring was heard to be let go. One later two-way wheel ran at 26 rpm, under load or not under load by accounts. It did slow to 20 rpm when under load using the water screw.

I maintain Bessler's one-way wheels were in fact just like spring wound clocks, not only in performance but also in process. The spokes were bowed and loaded by the Toggle and Handle which later back-rotated. There was an escapement device that metered the release of strain energy in the 'bows'. This allowed everything to turn with the wheel. So the Toggle system took some KE from the handle moving and transferred it into strain energy in the wheel sides, which then using an escapement released the energy turning it into 180 degrees of wheel torque.

These are my opinions.

[ovyyus]

... The spokes were bowed and loaded by the Toggle and Handle which later back-rotated...

Bowed spokes in MT18.

This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place.

Perhaps the 'appropriate place' to show more was in MT40-42?

MT40 appears to be part of a set of three with 41 and 42. Bessler's text for MT40 ends with, "Whoever thinks it proper can construct these figures on an axle". 'These figures' perhaps meaning the set? I don't think there's another instance in MT text where Bessler encourages a build.