MT thoughts ;7)

[Fletcher]

Bessler tells us things directly and indirectly in his comments in MT. We should take heed of them. The first 54 MTs have substantial hand written comments and so does the toypage. 54 + 1 = 55. A number identified by JC as important as is the number 5. ... (5 + 5 = 10 ; 5 x 5 = 25)

MT9 shows the first of many OOB wheels with in-series rope connections. JB makes the following comment .. (4 + 5)

.. but nothing is to be accomplished with his (Leopold) thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being.

It is my contention that this comment is somewhat of a red hearing, a morsel thrown out designed to make you associate his required connectedness principle with rope, spring etc connections between weights or lws in an OOB system. The real connectedness principle IMO is between the OOB system and the Prime mover apparatus yet to be mentioned.

MT10 shows a similar type in-series connected wheel and here JB says .. (5 + 5)

.. the figure is not yet complete until I delineate (illustrate) it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction.

Here JB tells us directly that there is a correct handle-construction required. Since this is a quite normal lw OOB wheel then we can conclude that the lw is the handle alluded to. And it is not the correct construction. There is more to it. That is, it must act like a handle. A handle is a lever which we pull down on to do work. N.B. MT30 has a separately drawn hand figure about to pull a lever handle he felt necessary to show us.

MT15 shows a somewhat complicated cross-pull tensioners with weights lw system of overbalance. Here JB says .. (3 x 5 = 15)

.. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

JB tells us directly that there is a hidden Prime Mover required to raise the weight system (raise its system GPE). And that you can not see or deduce it or the source from the drawing. So it is very clear that the OOB system itself is not the Prime mover in and of itself. The Prime Mover is a separate entity.

MT20 shows a partitioned lw OOB system. Here JB says .. (4 x 5)

.. I then reminded him to harness the horse in front.

Here JB reminds his friend that it needs a Prime Mover to do the pulling, since it comes close after MT15.

MT25 shows a falling lw OOB system with thru-pulls. Here JB says .. (5 x 5)

.. There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.

Here JB shows a system with redundancy. The cross-pulls are redundant as the lower lw will move towards the axle line by itself regardless of its connection to the above falling lw. The lesson is to point out a push and pull force. As does the toy page.

............

N.B. MT19 is the forerunner to MT20 evolution, and unnecessary except as a place filler, put there to to allow his numbering codes to be coherent - to be discussed later.

Things to do .. when I return MT30 onwards.

[Fletcher]

I agree mostly Fletcher except these small suggestions to ponder:

.. but nothing is to be accomplished with his (Leopold) thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being.

My opinion Bessler is trying to say there are two systems that intermittently affect one another. My take by linking the quote to the drawing.

.. the figure is not yet complete until I delineate (illustrate) it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction.

I think handle-construction has been translated very poorly. The take away might be the principle is right but the structure/build/application is wrong.

.. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

Look at what is missing is a storkbill that he later says is important.

[Fletcher]

The mt’s could be whittled down to size IYAM. Any one of the OOB drawings could represent all of them. Since the OOB drawings aren’t what we seek then we need to look for it in the drawings that show something besides OOB systems.

Which drawings do you guys think show things other than OOB systems?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Quote:
.. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

JB tells us directly that there is a hidden Prime Mover required to raise the weight system (raise its system GPE). And that you can not see or deduce it or the source from the drawing. So it is very clear that the OOB system itself is not the Prime mover in and of itself. The Prime Mover is a separate entity.

I agree he clearly states an out of balance wheel will not work without it. I wonder, because it cannot be "deduced" reveal anything else?

[Georg Künstler]

A small constituent thinks that mass in motion can self-sustain if respective inertias are leveraged in some way to give unbalanced thrust. The current Laws of Physics preclude this possibility.

That is my path, but it is known in current laws of physics.

After a long time i am back and can complete my model.

What I try is to use a hard side stop of a pendulum to get an upswing. So when you build it small, you will not have this effect.

We will see if I am correct. After a long time I am going back to my old design 'Walker' and extend it by a prime mover. Even if I had had a model in front of me I had not seen how the prime mover can be placed. The prime move will bring the complete system out of Balance, forever.

It is a try and error, but I think I can suceed in this case. If I don't beleive in this construction i will not build it.

I will use my old Frame of 2 Meters and adapt the walker mechanism inside with the prime mover.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher:

.. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

MT15 .. JB tells us directly that there is a hidden Prime Mover required to raise the weight system (raise its system GPE). And that you can not see or deduce it or the source from the drawing. So it is very clear that the OOB system itself is not the Prime mover in and of itself. The Prime Mover is a separate entity.

I agree he clearly states an out of balance wheel will not work without it. I wonder, because it cannot be "deduced" reveal anything else?

Yes, it does dax. And I'm coming to that soon but first we have to pop here and there in MT to build context for the road map to the Prime Mover which can not be seen or deduced in an unworkable MT15. (It can't for an unworkable MT48 either.) MT15 does show weights being lifted to gain system GPE as he also alludes to in MT13 but we all know that can only be done with an external energy source, .. or .. something is going on internally with the Prime Mover entity that we don't yet understand.

[Fletcher]

Best of Luck Georg .. good to see you back at it with new ideas to try.

[Fletcher]

Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion

NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility.

However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them. "

- Johann Bessler, cover page of Maschinen Tractate

I briefly want to take us back to Bessler's forward to MT.

He disposed of papers which prove the possibility. They were removed from the booklet. There is no indication that these were drawings from the back of the book tho that is often said. There are however "filler or place holder" drawings in the first 54 of the booklet. Some are contextually out of place. They are at odds with the groupings, order, and flow of the book, as JB lays out the foundations and builds forward. That is usually how a plot is unfolded, setting the time, the context, and characters, and building to a reveal. The substituted drawings have another purpose besides replacing drawings removed; facilitating a coherent code system.

Bessler is setting a mind trap with his next comments. He says he has removed vital drawings to prove the possibility. Then puts the thought in your head that from all that remains it will be difficult for anybody to see or learn about a PM from them. Or to decide whether there is any truth in them. Because no single drawing contains a description of the motion. But thinking about two or more drawings at once you will find a movement of importance to facilitate PM.

The mind trap is to create a doubt at the outset. It will be very difficult to to see or learn anything. And if you think you are on to something there are no COMPLETE and ACCURATELY PORTRAYED mechanical mechanisms (concepts) in ANY drawings to give you confidence that there is truth behind your intuition. It's important to remember that you aren't going to turn a pic upside down to reveal a blueprint for a Bessler PMM. It will take a bit more lateral thinking and perhaps mechanical aptitude than that (but not necessarily so to arrive at a concept).

However he does say "no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion. This is a backhand clue to where the Prime Mover can be found. In the first 54 annotated drawings with comments. (54 + 1 = 55) Of course the ToyPage is important and has comments too. A and B are representative of a closed path OOB system where B shows a lw falling. C & D show push and pull forces in action. Shown twice to reinforce that there is both push and pull required. E (5th letter in alphabet) shows a SB. SB's are just linear levers that can be arranged to be double ended i.e. they can pull both ends inwards or they can push both ends outwards for example. More on that later.

Anyways .. many will skip the next 25 drawings from MT30 to MT54 and rush in to the following wind and water etc sections, looking for an environmental energy source to do lifting. The numbers 5, 55 and the sacred geometry point to a mechanical solution using 'g' force somewhere in the next MT's sequence MT30 to MT54 which I will start in on soon. Statistically a solution should be found around the middle of those numbers; because even Bessler couldn't escape from patterns and symmetry.

[eccentrically1]

While you're working on 30-54, I'd like to point out the obvious.
Bessler's comments end at 54. 54! None for 55! The almighty 55.
But wait, one more comment on 56.
"pair of bellows". Just, "pair of bellows".
Why did he feel the need to sneak that in? It's pretty obvious it has bellows, isn't it? Then he follows that with more bellows.

What is the first / prime thing humans need for life/vis viva? Oxygen. How do they get it? Bellows.

Nothing to see here, just a pair of bellows. Move along. Occam's razor need not apply.

[Fletcher]

Bessler had all the time in the world to write comments about every MT. He only wrote at some length about the first 54 plus the Toypage (that we find in MT today).

He also had all the time in the world to fix mistakes in his MT's. He didn't do that. They were deliberate and part of the code.

The code is based on Euclid's Geometry and Pythagorean Geometry. JC discovered the relevance of 5 and 55 which comes from Euclid's geometry and which Oystein showed was paramount in RC and Masonic doctrine (sacred geometry). Both of them, and dax, acknowledged the pentagram (5 sides) hidden in the Kassel, Merseburg, and the AP wheel drawing.

Furthermore, and in respect for Oystein and his future book(s), so I won't go into his very detailed analysis, he revealed that the 3-4-5 Pythagorean Right Angled Triangle was of huge import to Bessler and hidden in his works. That was cross-referenced and checked by him multiple times. It was also found in RC and Masonic covert learnings as a basic building block to their sacred geometry.

The internal angles for the 3-4-5 triangle are 37 degrees and 53 degrees (and of course 90 degrees). Each time you find some sort of code possibility, based on these things, in MT, and they are reinforced two or more times by different methods or analysis, the importance of that thing you found increases.

If you don't mind me asking. What reinforced code evidence did you find for the MT's past 54 ? Ocham's Razor or not there must have been some road markers to the Bellows besides JB heading up a section ?

[eccentrically1]

I'm just saying that it is very strange that he would place such emphasis on 55 but then deliberately leave no comment on that numbered drawing, then leave only one comment afterwards. Don't you think that is the least bit curious? Given the huge import the 'sacred' geometry seems to have.

I haven't looked for any code evidence in the mT's, because no one has revealed what the code is, or how it applies to any of the Mt's in finding some path to a solution. So I'm including this observation for that purpose: do the codes show anything of import for the Mt drawings that show bellows?

[Fletcher]

I'm just saying that it is very strange that he would place such emphasis on 55 but then deliberately leave no comment on that numbered drawing, then leave only one comment afterwards. Don't you think that is the least bit curious? Given the huge import the 'sacred' geometry seems to have.

I haven't looked for any code evidence in the mT's, because no one has revealed what the code is, or how it applies to any of the Mt's in finding some path to a solution. So I'm including this observation for that purpose: do the codes show anything of import for the Mt drawings that show bellows?

It's curious I suppose. But not disturbing to me. I was trying to explain previously that codes and ciphers aren't airtight (excuse the pun). We expect them to be completely rigorous once you get onto one, but then they'd be easy to crack because of the predictability factor. Mum and Dad could do it over breakfast. But they are only as good as the guy writing them. And if he wants to change-up (or has spelling errors for example) with another parallel code imbedded within the other then it can get a bit ragged. So you can't expect it to always look like your car navigation system taking you to the store.

AFAIK there are some instances of geometric pointers in some items beyond MT54, but what I would consider lower level. IMO mainly chaff as I said before. But I'm no code expert. Nothing pointing to Bellows that I'm aware of.

As an example. MT47 has got a mention today in another thread by dax. It is the MT where there are two 47's. One is upside down. The machine itself means nothing. The second 47 is just a road marker IMO, a pointer to the 3-4-5 triangle. 3 x 4 (12) + 3 x 5 (15) + 4 x 5 (20) = 47 And it has other associations that dax talked about including a relationship to primes and 141 etc.

[gravityman52]

What is your take on the appearance to the A showing up in so many of the later drawings? I am working on using the A shape as a trigger device. The square that hangs down in the center moves with the change as the shape of the A flattens out..... One of the feet of the A is usually different than the other. If one slide was sliding and the other does not move then when the square achieves an over the center position it can hold something in a position. Then by moving the hanging square only slightly with a tiny amount of force the TRIGGER allow it to move back to the beginning position. Moving a weight to a position of effect on the wheel, holding it in place the releasing it to its original position would give the effect required...

[eccentrically1]

How does anyone know for certain there are geometric code pointers to the mt drawings that add up to the solution? JB only said a discerning mind could find a movement, not a code breaker.

You said he had all the time in the world to comment on, and fix mistakes in the mt’s. But now the codes could have spelling errors?

I disagree the bellow drawings could be noise or chaff. I think they are vital.

[Fletcher]

MT30 shows a transverse section of a wheel. The commentary talks about raising weights with compound levers. Here JB says .. (3 + 0 and 6 x 5)

..The hand at M indicates, for best understanding, the pressing down of the lifting lath ..

Bessler takes the time a effort to carve into the woodcut a hand about to pull down on a lever and raise another lever via a connection. This IMO is direct reference back to his earlier comment in MT10 about requiring the correct handle-construction. A handle has a pivot and it must have a connection (as shown in MT30] to do work elsewhere.

MT30 also is the first MT to show an external cam wheel (vertical) and it is this which is the hand and the Effort.

MT35 shows a wheel with two external cam wheels to do the lifting (the hand). Here he says .. (7 x 5)

.. and only the 2 side-wheels, which lie horizontally, are to be observed ..

This is the second drawing to show external lifting cam wheels, but first in the horizontal orientation. They are the Effort that lifts the Load.

MT37 shows a wheel that could have been placed much earlier in the sequencing. It looks out-of-place here in his groupings. Here he says ..

This invention belongs among Nos. 14, 15 and 16. It is inserted here only because it slipped past the beginning ..

N.B. MT38 is a similar type wheel and both could have been included earlier. MT37 is IMO a pointer to the 3-4-5 triangle as the triangle has one internal angle of 37 degrees. Bessler admits that it is out-of-place but it "slipped by him". It may be that it is a substitute for another drawing of a wheel concept.

MT38 shows a wheel with in-series lws and pull-thru's. These activate radial SB's. Here he says ..

.. here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills

This is the first mention of a correct application of the SB required. And we know already that we need a correct handle-construction element. SB's get quite a few mentions from now on.

MT41 shows a wheel with horizontally acting SB's. They do the Work by lifting the Load made possible by the lever and the external horizontal cam wheels on each side of the wheel. Here he says (4 +1 = 5)

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. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills. Whoever knows how to construct them will note that the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application.

Here JB has introduced the idea that SB's working in the Zed are better than the vertical. It's also the 3rd wheel pic with cam wheels but they are not grouped together, although they are all using the Zed plane, a departure from the standard 2 dimensional closed path OOB systems. JB assures us that there is something special about the SB's. SB's are just linear levers and do not have super-powers. They obey the Law of Levers and convert Effort to Work on a Load. Because they are force multipliers depending on how many segments etc then that is not what is special about them. It is the double ended action able to be achieved with a SB when pivoted in the middle i.e. the 2 sided push and pull element of a SB. The expansion and contraction characteristic.

Bessler says he made a mistake in representing the SB's in this MT. This is on purpose IMO which I will discuss further a little later when I come back to MT41.

MT42 shows another dual external cam wheel in the Zed with vertically applied SB's. He's already said that this is inferior to the horizontal application, but he gave a lesser reason of frictions to the real reason, IMO. N.B. 24 - 42 ;. the lock and key in the Kassel wheel drawings. Perhaps a reminder that two entities are required to make one wheel.

MT43 shows a fish out of water, belonging right at the beginning. It is a filler/substitute coming so close after MT's 41 and 42.

MT47 shows an elevator ball wheel using SB's. There are two 47's, one upside down. Perhaps to remind us to look for the 3-4-5 trinity or combination. (3 x 4 (12) + 3 x 5 (15) + 4 x 5 (20) = 47.

MT48 shows an elevator ball wheel. Here he says ..

.. this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided ..

Like his very first 3 foot wheel only 4 inches thick this is a thin profile wheel. Yet it needs different structures to have the elevator (Load) keep pace with the delivery (Effort). It seems that this is a reminder to include Prime Mover structures i.e. the separate mechanical entity to the OOB wheel component.