Reply to 300 Clues on the 300th Anniversary

[jim_mich]

Rocky,
Your 300 Clues on the 300th Anniversary post leaves me speechless. I hated to mess it up by posting there. So I started this parallel thread for my comments.

It will take awhile to digest.

Concerning WEIGHT...

In the English language, the word 'weight' has several and varied meanings. It is derived directly from a German word, used by Bessler, which has almost identical meanings.

All words are simply a means for people to convey thoughts and concepts. As such, the words we use do not always have exact specific meanings. There meanings are often found by association.

The word 'weight', all by itself, can have any number of meanings. It can mean an object on a PM wheel. It can mean the measurement of gravity force of an object. It can mean judgment, as weight of evidence. It can mean balance, gravitationally, or otherwise. It can mean mass, which is measured by inertial resistance to motion and inertial momentum when moving.

Bessler was a weaver of words. If someone did not understand the meaning of his words, he did not take time to explain them. To do so would require Bessler to disclose his Scientific Principle of Perpetual Motion. Instead, he deliberately wove a tapestry of words.

For instance, take the 'weight' word. Most people think immediately of gravity weight. But I'm quite sure that in many instances, Bessler meant inertial weight force rather than gravity weight force. Force gained from motion/swinging is inertial force or inertial weight. It is not gravity force or gravity weight.

Thus Bessler could speak of weight and most would think out-of-balance.

Even the term 'out-of-balance' can have multiple meanings. It can mean more weight on one side than on the other side. It can also mean something that is mismatched. A baseball game can be unbalanced between a strong team and a weak team.

Can you see how words can be a woven tapestry containing many subtle meanings? If you fixate on only one meaning and fail to keep an open mind to other possibilities, then you might miss Bessler's more subtle meaning.

Just my thoughts.

[eccentrically1]

But I'm quite sure that in many instances, Bessler meant inertial weight force rather than gravity weight force.

How can you be sure? Maybe every time he used "weight" , that's exactly what he meant; a weight made of lead.

Force gained from motion/swinging is inertial force or inertial weight. It is not gravity force or gravity weight.

I wonder if Bessler read Newton's Principia. He could have read it in the original Latin.

[/quote]

[jim_mich]

Many times when Bessler wrote 'weight' he did mean a lead weight. You must look at each sentence structure to comprehend any and all possible meanings.

Impulse and impetus are caused by the motion of weights. Many times Bessler talks about impulse or impetus...

“The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus.� GB 56

The Wheel’s behaviour in this new location was as before; it very soon acquired the same powerful, even and rapid rotation as it had previously, driven, as it were, by the same impetus deriving from its “innate natural power� – a momentum it preserved until forcibly halted.� GB 63

2. “Did I not, in Part One [pg 291], devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of ‘excess impetus’ that people should look for in my devices?

impetus (n.) a force that stimulates activity; driving force; impulse

[christo4_99]

This fits my idea of Bessler's "excess weight". I mean the inertial weight application/suggestion . I think that the excess weight is created on impulse by spinning it and exchanging it from side to side .
"on one side it is heavy and full on the other empty and light , just as it should be ..."

[eccentrically1]

I'd agree when he used the word 'impetus' that he meant what we would call inertia.
Are there any quotes with 'weight' that are ambiguous?

[christo4_99]

There is this from MT :
No. 7. It appears as though it should run without fail because the lines
are so very curved and the balls on the lighter side lie so close to the
axle., roll out above it and continue to the rim of the wheel, as in the
preceding illustration. The truth, however, is soon shown to be
otherwise if one calculates the force by counting the balls on the light
side and then those on the heavy side. As it is said: great people err
too: they carry little weight.

[Stewart]

I agree with Jim - you've obviously put a huge amount of effort into compiling and posting your clue list, and while I know of many inaccuracies within it, that's hardly your fault and is down to inaccurate source material floating about at the time. Amazing job - well done Rocky!

I've been working on a similar list of clues for some time, but each clue requires me to do my own translation of the source material, and so it's taking me a while! I wish I had the time to comment on every clue you've listed, but that's obviously not possible, and eventually my books and website will cover all these things anyway.

I'll check through your list at the weekend and see if I can quickly offer any insights and improvements to translations you've quoted, including my own. I noticed that you've pulled a draft translation from my private forum (the DT inner wheel structure quote) - I ask people not to post translations from my private forum in any of the public forums for the sole reason that they are drafts and they may get changed over time. That's something I can easily do in my own forum by editing the text at any time, but I obviously can't change any quotes in the other forums, and I hate the idea of older drafts of my translations getting locked into the forum to then be frequently misquoted in the future.

I'd like to discuss that part of DT, and indeed the translation you've quoted needs some explanation, something I'd promised long ago but hadn't managed to do. I don't like the frequent misquoting of parts of it out of context with the rest of the sentence, particularly "gain force from their own swinging". I'll try and post about it soon. Other quotes such as "warped boards" just won't seem to go away, no matter how many times I point out the error. Wolff said nothing about warped boards, instead he said he saw small boards/beams at right-angles to the tangent of the wheel being hit by weights, although he admitted that he could only perceive this through a crack in the outer covering and from a distance.

As far as your comments on Bessler's use of language go Jim, I agree with some of what you say, but unfortunately you're not really aware of the details of the original words Bessler uses and you end up trying to make an argument against such things as overbalanced wheels based on inaccurate translations and information. Bessler clearly and plainly states that his wheels turn due to an imbalance of weight (and by that I mean a mass under the influence of gravity) - he says this in several different ways not only in inaccurate translations you've already seen, but also in other documents and translations you've yet to see. Even though the wheel rotated due to "overbalance", this does not mean you have to believe that its source of power is gravity. It's easy to build a battery powered overbalanced wheel for example.

Your last post is a classic example. You quote the following from John Collins' GB (Page 56):
"The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus, ..."

However, it actually says (my translation):
"The cause and principle of its movement, is weight* and overbalance**, ..."

*Schwehre (Schwere) = heaviness/weight/ponderousness/gravity
**Uberwucht (Ãœbergewicht) = preponderance/overweight /excess (of) weight/overbalance

[also see this previous post about "Uberwucht":
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4149#84149 ]

So no word 'impetus' to be found there! Next you quote this from John's GB (page 63 you said, but it's page 61 in my copy, and page 18 in the original):
"In every respect the Wheel's behaviour in this new location was as before; it very soon acquired the same powerful, even and rapid rotation as it had had previously, driven, as it were, by the same impetus deriving from its "innate natural power" – a momentum it preserved until forcibly halted, ...�

This bit: "by the same impetus deriving from its "innate natural power"" does not exist in the original and is made up, so no word 'impetus' exists there either. A sentence about the noise from within the wheel is missing although it appears to coincide with the line above. The word 'momentum' has been added here also and is not in the original!

Your next quote comes from chapter 21 in part 2 of AP (translation from John's AP book):
"Did I not, in Part One [pg 291], devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of 'excess impetus' that people should look for in my devices?"

The original word used by Bessler, translated there as 'excess impetus', is 'Uberwucht' (preponderance/overweight /excess (of) weight/overbalance). So again no word 'impetus' exists there.

[See this post for more details: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 2799#82799 ]

Despite often arguing these points with you Jim, I don't disagree that there are obviously elements of impetus and central-forces at play in the wheel and that Bessler does refer to them. I'll try and post more about this soon.

Stewart

[rocky]

I apologize Stewart for quoting you from your private forum. At my age my memory is not that great ... which is why I collected so many notes.
I was able to edit the post and I removed all quotes from you.
Today was a special day and I wanted to share my collection of clues of how they interact with each other. Someone might see an association I missed.

It appears there are two schools of thought here on the forum. Some point out that Mike Senior's translation is wrong. And they are correct because John Collins asked him to do an interpretive translation, not a literal translation.

Perhaps we should do a poll. Which is better:

1. The interpretive translation or
2. The literal translation

I think we need both to get all the clues we can.
-Rocky

[Stewart]

Hi Rocky

It's ok, I wasn't expecting you to have to go to the trouble of removing any quotes from me, but thanks anyway. I don't generally have a problem with people quoting me from anything I've posted in general or community buzz forums, just certain key things that are only in my private forum.

This is not about literal or interpretive translation, but rather right or wrong translation. I'm only interested in trying to correct translations that are quite clearly giving false information. Every wrong translation in your list is doing more harm than good I'm afraid. I thought my last post illustrated that point.

I still think you did a great job with your list and you should be commended for your attempt to help others in this way.

All the best
Stewart

[eccentrically1]

It appears as though it should run without fail because the lines
are so very curved and the balls on the lighter side lie so close to the
axle., roll out above it and continue to the rim of the wheel, as in the
preceding illustration. The truth, however, is soon shown to be
otherwise if one calculates the force by counting the balls on the light
side and then those on the heavy side. As it is said: great people err
too: they carry little weight.

this isn't the same as the quote on the drawings page:

" Here it first appears as though movement should inevitably result, for the curved lines which convey the spheres from the light side outward are attached very close to the axle, and at the edge of the wheel runs the same formation as in the previous illustration. However, if one counts the spheres on the light side and then those on the heavy side and calculates the force accordingly, then the situation is readily shown and proven to be completely different from one's first impression, as it is said: great people err, too: they weigh less, then nothing."

But the meaning of 'weight' in this quote doesn't sound shaded; I'd take it to mean his enemies' words of criticism could be wrong, and shouldn't be given any more significance (than Bessler's statements).

[christo4_99]

I'd agree when he used the word 'impetus' that he meant what we would call inertia.
Are there any quotes with 'weight' that are ambiguous?

You got what you asked for : ambiguous

The problem is we are quoting from two different sources .

[eccentrically1]

But the meaning of 'weight' in this quote doesn't sound shaded; I'd take it to mean his enemies' words of criticism could be wrong, and shouldn't be given any more significance (than Bessler's statements).

I didn't get what I asked for, ambiguous: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.

Either source carries the same weight.

[christo4_99]

EC1,
Is your real name Doug ? You remind me of someone named Doug .
Have you ever started a thread ? If you have could you post a link to your favorite one ?

[eccentrically1]

It's hard to pick a favorite. I started two when I first joined that concerned Bessler's wheels, Compensation and Compensation part 2. They got the most replies, so by that standard, they would be in the running.
Aerodynamics, gravity, and major cojones; a dude in a wingsuit; unreal.
Royal Society Archives online; meh.
Mitten envy; a funny story about Michigan, my mom's home state.
Psychology of fraud; a NPR story about how we all rationalize our unethical behavior.
Transit of Venus a couple days ago

That's it I think

[christo4_99]

I am familiar with the Compensation threads . The guy in the wingsuit yes very wild ! Guess you're not Doug ?