MT51 Comments Enquiry ?

[Fletcher]

From John Collins MT ..

MT Digital Copy .. No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

2007 MT Hard Copy .. No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.

[daxwc]

JC's Wagner:
Whoever understands mechanics and closely examines the wheel will be readily able to divine the motive principle and consequently the entire internal structure of the wheel from the rapid and constant motion just as one could easily hear the motive principle of the Draschwitz wheel by holding one's ear to the axle. In order that the sleight of hand would be revealed no further, he provided the wheel currently standing in Merseburg with a clatter and a rattle to make it difficult to hear clearly the actual motive principle. He took a further precaution by setting up a railing around the wheel so that no one might touch this mechanical monstrosity with unwashed hands.

It is too bad that we couldn’t even hear both wheels. So much might have been learned just from the sound. In 1717 people in German wouldn’t have any experience even with a ratchet wrench. We might hear it and immediately recognise the sound.

[Roxaway59]

There has been quite a lot of things said about these designs past and present and I think that its good to keep trying to get the answers. All I can do from time to time is just write about things that occur to me.

Some of these things wont be in any particular order.

Daxwc mentioned about MT15 being a ratchet wheel.

Was Bessler referring to that wheel that way because it had a ratchet on it or was it because he felt it resembled one and it didn’t have one on it?

I don’t really see where a ratchet would be useful.

Chad talked about MT15 being more like a peacocks tail.

The problem with this is that when Bessler made that comment I don’t think he mentioned if the wheel was in motion.

These wheels look very different when in motion and I personally have seen some designs of the oscillatory kind that look very much like a peacocks tail when in motion.

Its interesting that this thread started with MT51 which is a ratchet wheel and later moved to MT15 which Bessler described as a ratchet wheel and it is thought that MT15 is a mirror of what it should be. If you switch the 15 numbers you get 51.

Is Bessler telling us that there was a ratchet on his working wheel? Or if not a ratchet a catch mechanism?

If you do the same with MT13 you get MT31.

Does anyone have a clue as to how that one works?

Bessler says very little about it and the image is poor.

It seems to me that if you take MT13 at face value and remove the pendulum you have the typical over balanced wheel that we all love where the weights just simply fall over. In that respect there is nothing special about it. There would however have to be something pretty special about the mechanism that like lightning lifts the weights up at 12 o’clock.

Chad talks about the three planets at the centre of the wheel. The same place where the pendulum is hung.

If he is on to something there then maybe there was a mechanism associated with the axle that helped lift the weights at 12 o’clock.

Time and time again when I’m looking at gravity wheel design I keep coming back to the axle.

Its a special place. Yes the whole wheel turns on it but apart from that its a kind of neutral area where it seems to me other things are possible and despite getting constant custard pies pushed in my face by those devilish laws of physics I keep on coming back to it. I’m still experiments with it now as I write.

I will end it there but there is obviously a lot more to say about these designs.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Here's the original text that I transcribed from Bessler's handwritten notes:

"No: 15. Dieses Gesperre flisset auß vohriger Façon, nur daß die Züge etwas langer sind und an den äußen Enden noch besondere Gewichte haben. Auß dieser blossen Zeichnung aber ist nichts zu sehen und zu nehmen, woher eigentlich ein Primum Movens kommen solte obglich die Figur die Über-Wucht weiset."

...and my translation (with some word choices separated by slashes)...

"This lock/latch/catch* proceeds from [the] previous method, only that the pulls are somewhat longer and at the outer ends have further special weights. From this bare/mere design/drawing however [there] is nothing to see and to take/gain, from where exactly a Prime Mover should come although the figure shows the overbalance."

*Gesperre has the following meanings... 1) a) shutting (off); b) resistance, opposition; c) encumbrance, block, stoppage. 2) (hunt.) covey, bevy, brood, flight. 3) (mech.) click-and-ratchet wheel; slide-bolt, slide-stop, lock-nut; ratchet with catch; safety-catch or safety-apparatus.

Looking at the diagram for MT15 you can see it has a weight locking/holding mechanism, so the word Gesperre does make sense.

Stewart

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher and all

Re: MT 113

I've often wondered if perhaps the "circle and arrow" at the top of the second from left figure, could also
be a reminder to MT13 ?

Do the two "freehand" crosses also re-enforce that link?

Regards

Mick

Hi Mick .. hard to know exactly what it is and what it does in that illustration ( MT111 ) - but as you've done we can make an informed guess - assuming it has a purpose to the running of the design it does resemble an oscillating ( swinging / active ) pendulum-like structure, while MT13 shows a static hanging ballast weight with lifting wheel ( ramp effect ) .. as you say it has a hand drawn X on it as does MT113 possibly "connecting" them to a bigger picture .. they were identified with the X's for a reason ..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, why is the conveyor “cogs” square in MT 113? Wouldn’t pentagon cogs provide better tipping point at transition?

I don't know dax - but it appears to me that he keeps it simple with 4 sided cogs, assumed to be in all 4 machines on that page - if you look at the gaps between the lever-weights ( lws ) of MT113 they are the correct distance apart for a 4 sided cog wheel i.e. one lw per side ..

Either way they all suffer as they are from the height for width problem and need a hand to be lifted into position again to be repeatable ..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: BUT - I am talking about illustrations presented as CCW turning machines as being different from those that are presented as CW turning, or front or back view etc ..

I will have to sit this one out. I don’t know how many times I have made a wheel thinking it was rotating one direction only to find it works better rotating in the other. I am just smart enough to know that I know that I don’t know. That includes MT113

fwiw none of the MT machines are runners, as they are .. iow's there is an equal amount of positive and negative torque per sector, and they will rotate to where their position of least PE is located - there they will oscillate and stop at .. therefore no machine has a greater tendency to rotate one direction or another because torques each side of the PQ position Net to Equal ....

As I said earlier even B. must follow some conventions in his layouts etc - you are right into it on your threads - one convention is the direction of the lettering on illustrations ( letters facing left to right ) - there is no mistaking in MT13 and MT15 which side shows the superior overbalance required - in MT13 the lettering face right to left - in MT15 we don't need lettering or lettering facing direction because he tells us what side has the superior overbalance, and for both it is obvious they are drawn and intended to turn CCW .. in MT113 when the pic is turned upside down the lettering facing is then left to right but shows a CCW intent like the other 2, imo ..

[Fletcher]

JC's Wagner: Whoever understands mechanics and closely examines the wheel will be readily able to divine the motive principle and consequently the entire internal structure of the wheel from the rapid and constant motion just as one could easily hear the motive principle of the Draschwitz wheel by holding one's ear to the axle. In order that the sleight of hand would be revealed no further, he provided the wheel currently standing in Merseburg with a clatter and a rattle to make it difficult to hear clearly the actual motive principle. He took a further precaution by setting up a railing around the wheel so that no one might touch this mechanical monstrosity with unwashed hands.

It is too bad that we couldn’t even hear both wheels. So much might have been learned just from the sound. In 1717 people in German wouldn’t have any experience even with a ratchet wrench. We might hear it and immediately recognise the sound.

I am sure we would give it a good shot - we might even describe it as about 8 weights on the descending side - or clickclickclickclick into 1 longer approximate sound ..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: ... my "prototype" theory says the PM principle is manifested by the feedback between the 2 parts that make up a complete system - the outer OOB system maintains the system COM to one side or other of the axle, providing that after torque is applied to the wheel from these abundant lever-weights ( lws ) to rotate it, the lws ( correct-construction handles, that hang together ) will have their original GPE restored i.e. be periodically lifted to repeat the cycle…

I will cut to the chase; so where are we in this process? Do you have a design or do you need help with ideas?

[johannesbender]

These are just random thoughts i want to leave as comments , just things i privately think in my head , some irrelevant and perhaps meaningless , i don't mean to be in contradiction somehow to downplay other's opinions because none of us know what he did 100% or meant 100% .

If i drew up a wheel with some weights more to one side and lifted near 12 ,and i presented it here , obviously people would look at it and say well yes there is overbalance or "superior weight" but that is not going to work , because you can have as much torque/overbalance/overweight as you want , but it does not solve moving the weights back in position .

So i see it somewhat similar to what Bessler indicates in MT13 and MT15.

People would say how and by what method are your weights moved to and thro in positions ,because there is no indication of any method that would have energy to do so in your design ,(what is the prime mover/source).

People would tell me , gravity wheels would not work because they do not have enough energy - or a means of freely moving the weights about to and thro , so it does not matter if you have torque/overbalance or how you go about using mechanics to get torque/overbalance the nail in the coffin is the need for a reset which is unsolved.

Are all resets equal ? , when it is a gravity orientated design of losing GPE to induce motion , then the reset must be a GPE restorative method , if its a a mechanical potential energy release orientated design that uses a spring to induce motion , then the reset must be a potential energy restorative method too , what ever the means of the prime motion is -to induce motion -is also the thing that has to be restored , so the thing that provided the energy is also the thing that required energy because of the opposite directions of motion required to return to its former state to be able to provide energy again .

"No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. The poles fall inward when the levers close. There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention."

In MT 24 this lesson is highlighted , the restoration direction is kept the same direction as the motion inducing direction , however still a failure in design but a fundamental lessons to grasp , it was suppose to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

How does my thoughts fall in line with this topic ?
One directional motion inducing and resetting methods , as i have pointed out when i did the "gravitational shortcut" topic , two directions requires the energy for the opposite direction to restore the original state when gravity and other methods only gives one direction of energy release to work with .

[agor95]

These are just random thoughts i want to leave as comments

Your thoughts are OK with me; However I don't spend to much time second guessing the minds of others.

But creating a strong justification thoughts to yourself is the way forward.

Regards

[Roxaway59]

Johannesbender wrote

In MT 24 this lesson is highlighted , the restoration direction is kept the same direction as the motion inducing direction , however still a failure in design but a fundamental lessons to grasp , it was suppose to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

If you recall that’s exactly what I was attempting to do with my design and I was also able to make a very good comparison to mine and MT24.

Bessler spoke in such a way about those 2 similar designs that it leads me to believe that they are doing something related to his actual working design. Part of the ingredients to the cake I spoke of.

I think it may be related to the folding aspect of it.

I want to share these sounds and see what others make of it.

I have attempted to recreate something like the sounds that could have been heard coming from the Merseburg wheel.

In order that the sleight of hand would be revealed no further, he provided the wheel currently standing in Merseburg with a clatter and a rattle to make it difficult to hear clearly the actual motive principle.

These sounds are based on 8 weights falling and a ratchet or catch mechanism.

The frequency is based on the wheel turning at 40 rpm. So 8 X 40 gives 320 beats per minute for the weights.

Here is the weights on their own.

[Roxaway59]

Here is the ratchet sound that is around 1000 bpm.

[Roxaway59]

Here is the both of them together.

[Roxaway59]

Here is the ratchet sound that is 640 bpm or twice that of the weights.