In the beginning was the Word....

[Senax]

Ok, enough...thank you all.

I'll run you through my thinking process here....

I have my ideas re a solution, no more, no less legitimate here than anyone else's.
Those ideas are more `an` idea...an idea I've pursued for many a year & still pursue. That idea centres on the only two things I myself have centred on over all those years...Bessler's engraving & the Sabu Disc.

So...if Bessler prompted me for a single word then I'd have one without hesitation...& if he confirmed that this word, when known, could unlock the secret, somewhere within his writings, then likewise I'd have no hesitation in proceeding straight to his engraving.

Doing so I find my chosen word....or do I?

Because the word is found by way of some apparently clever/cunning coding on the part of Bessler....or....by way of my own desperation to end up with a fit. I honestly couldn't say which it is but more to the point, neither can you.

But codes/no codes aside....I stated that the word makes sense of the engraving...and my word does this also, as I'll hopefully soon go on to argue. It would seem that my desperation knows no bounds it can't overcome?

1717...What `could we` make of it?

Abstract art aside, we can make a variety of shapes...2D shapes. Yes Raj, two triangles to make a Star of David for instance.
But there is only one significant form that can be constructed from two physical ones & two sevens....four triangles...a Tetrahedron.

I addressed the tetrahedron to some depth n my `60 second Enlightenment` thread. I did so in relation to four spheres, Sabu discs & the Electricity/Magnetism employed. I hope to return to that thread to delve further into that construct & those Energies at some point.
I also stated in that thread that Bessler's Wheel was exactly the same Principle, employing Gravity instead..but it was never discussed.
I'd prefer to keep that discussion separate from the Sabu stuff...kept here as of now.

I can't dive straight into it as I've nothing prepared. I compose this necessarily bloated drivel in small bites...magnifying glass in one hand alternating between monitor & keyboard, one finger typing with the other. I manage around 15mins max before I have to give in to pain. Sorry, that's not an application for benefits, it's an application for understanding...that it's a hard/lengthy process that I'm forced to go through.

I will be back, Inshalla, asap.

In the meantime perhaps ponder the two options offered above.
Is Gill joining dots that don't exist, with lines that shouldn't logically be made in order to create his pretty picture?
Or did Bessler perhaps give prominence to the solution, in plain sight, by way of a diagram of no particular sense & a phrase alongside it that gave it sense. A phrase with an obvious code within, an obvious methodology to employ, an obvious result to be reached & an obvious connection to be made...except the obvious result requires a switch from the mental to the physical before `any` connection can be made?

A smartarse move if he did I reckon but exactly as I'd expect from the smartarse I've kinda come to recognize.
It's even smartarse enough to address us all....there was mention above of what language?...smartarse sorted it!

Gill

I can't follow that. Wouldn't you need four physical ones and four sevens to make four triangles?

[Gill Simo]

A tetrahedron only has six sides...four triangles have twelve.
Lay a seven flat, add a one to form a triangle.
Stand it up on its base.
Add a seven to that base to form a second triangle.
Add a one from the kink in the base seven up to the apex of the first triangle...to form triangles three & four...a tetrahedron.

[agor95]

Would it be fair to say it has four faces, six edges and four points?

[ME]

Seems to me this year-number "1717" is just totally accidental on itself.
If it's not random, but deliberate, then that would seem to imply that Bessler woke up in some previous life, decided to reincarnate precisely at the right moment only to be able to mark such year and to turn it into a tetrahedral clue...
If he did then. IMO, that's just a seriously lame use of that kind of control.
Perhaps someone is able to shed some light on this phenomena for better understanding?

[raj]

For Gill Simo!

Raj

[rlortie]

I question Gil's description of a tetrahedron. It has not six sides but four.

Volume: (√2)/12 × a³
Number of faces: 4
Number of edges: 6
Number of vertices: 4
Surface area: √3 × a²
Base shape: Triangle
Side shape: Triangle

For more info:
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... etrahedron

[eccentrically1]

-.

[ME]

Sorry Ralph, it's about the edges.
With the lines we write the numbers, we should make a wireframe.

The four corners (vetices) of a tetrahedron lie on the corners of a cube.

Always hard to do it with words (I could make an animation on request)
a. Pick one corner of a cube;
b. Pick the other corner on the same side of the cube but diagonally across;
c,d. Take the opposite side, and take the points of the crossing diagonal;

Now to make a tetrahedron:

Point a connects with b,c,d
Point b connects with c,d
Point c connects with d
3+2+1 = 6 edges

| ¯| | ¯|

[Senax]

delete

[Gill Simo]

Ok...apologies for making the common mistake...it's six edges formed from 1717...pretty clear though to all I'm sure.
ME...might you please offer me a dummies version of your back to the future point. You offer it with a conviction that suggests you may well have a good point, if only I could reason with it.
I've noticed many a thread of late that have folk posting the single word `Delete`
What's that about please?

[Gill Simo]

"If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can make 2, or 3, or even more wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold.�

What was Bessler working with when he had his eureka moment? I imagine that most of us imagine it to be of no relevance...big or small, it was a chocolate button with a cocktail stick through its centre...an assumption...& as already suggested, all assumptions are suspect here.

I imagine that regardless of size, Bessler's eureka device was no chocolate button but a dumpy drum...where its diameter approx equaled its depth. Something that contained a tetrahedron doing its stuff within.

And I also imagine that as he watched in awe of his own success he had no notion of the chocolate button that he'd end up with.
What he had was the notion of a potential problem...wondrous as it was this dumpy drum kicked out very little useful energy...very little in terms of the energy hungry applications of the day. In short his invention was more a novelty one than a sellable one.

He was forced to ponder this problem & in doing so he was forced to enquire of more & understand better his own invention.
In doing so he came to realise that he hadn't reinvented the wheel/axle...he'd reinvented the hub. The hub that sits on an axle & upon which a wheel can be mounted.

He realised that this magical hub was primarily just that...it wasn't the power house as such, it provided the magic...the motion...the wheel built upon this magic hub determined the power output...& that wheel he realised was infinite in terms of design/power options.

I need to refer back to the four spheres/Sabu Discs to best explain this....
Four spheres = magic hub = diameter/depth approx equal.
You can place a layer/band of spheres around the rim of this tetrahedron of spheres on an axle...as per any normal rim around an axle. This rim of spheres move in some way in reaction to the movement of the central four spheres but that aside....this is now a wheel. add more layers & it will forever remain a wheel, an ever larger wheel...mounted on a magical, dumpy hub of four spheres.
Starting again from the four sphere tetrahedron...add a layer around...a wheel...& then add a layer along....it returns to a hub...a bigger tetrahedron comprising of more spheres.
Keep building around/along & you've got an ever larger hub. At any point omit the along & its a wheel again.

This property of design allows for the otherwise illogical statement of Bessler quoted at the beginning.

Having learnt these insights from his own invention Bessler chose to go `wheel` from the start....smallest dumpy magic hub/tetrahedron, large layer/s around. Those here with a better understanding of torque, flywheels and the like might better understand why he chose this design...it could have been 12 foot around/along...but I must repeat, that would be a more powerful hub for sure but the hub is only providing the magic upon which to build the power upon...the wheel.

The centre of Bessler's wheel/s was thicker...I can't recall where reference is made to this in detail but I do recall that I noticed that the thickness at this point was approx equal to the diameter of the thicker section...hopefully someone might confirm or correct me?

I imagine it likely that the thicker section of his 1st wheel was the magic hub employed at his eureka moment...built upon.

That said then there's a hell of a lot left to now address
How does the engraving connect with the tetrahedron...how does the tetrahedron move...how has Bessler expanded this hub outwards into a wheel with no ordinary rim?

I'm working on it & not just physically, when I can.
I certainly don't `know`...so I'm still busy imagining.
And you'll no doubt have to suffer the results of that sometime soon!

In the meantime you might want to give yourselves a headache by looking at the animation of the four spheres, imagining a two wide band of spheres around, as you look...& imagining the resulting movement/motion of that band...:)

[Johndoe2]

Ive been seeiing this pop up on the recent posts snd previously avoided it because of the title amd its obvious religious conotations but really glad i checked it out. Thanks too all.

Sorry to interrupt but i had to say...
Omg i love this thread!
I feel like the “pregnant� cat that ate the canary!�
...ok now thats out of the way plz continue.

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[ME]

ME...might you please offer me a dummies version of your back to the future point. You offer it with a conviction that suggests you may well have a good point, if only I could reason with it.

Sorry Gill, I can't write it much simpler. It seems to me you implied this back-to-the-future scenario all by yourself.
But I can try to expand on the context...

I understand you figured That this "1717" fits nicely with your theory in need of six lines, but never thought about How that connection might have happened.
But who knows? [#1] Every year could have its own specific polyhedral wireframe, or Harmonices.

To repeat, I'm just curious how you're going to explain the precise planning that was needed for Bessler to get born (in 1680) just before he got his idea out in this world around 1717.
I find that genuinely fascinating,
It just implies yet again other things.. in and around metaphysical realms.
That means, back on Earth, there would be just a limited amount of possible years that Bessler could have been born - A theory which might be all OK when there'd be some real reasoning behind this instead of symptomatic numerical lineups.
I think the theory suggests that the indications are that this should be about 37 years before a year number, and "Anno Domini", which can be written with six straight strokes (or the amount of strokes you want). So there's also a hidden cultural relationship in this phenomena.
We can already see the difficulty when we take the year where Bessler turned 32 years old and showed his first wheel.
Without tweaks, "1712" is initially impossible for this theory: because how should we write this "2".
Metaphysically this should only be connected -and all be done- by pre-Bessler himself. Because apparently 1717, as a year number, is not that which caused some Rise of the Tetrahedron that took over the whole World. (Basically disarming my own suggestion at [#1] earlier).
Because that (or some other mass-passion for tetrahedra) didn't happen, I conclude that "1717" on itself doesn't say a thing, and it may only have this tetrahedral relation with Bessler.

I hope you believe me that I never deliberately try to corner someone's theory just for the sake of it, but only try to reduce the amount of assumption. (Belief what you want, but not my fault when a theory collapses into nothing).
So please, if 1712 may sound better, take that extra stick you'll get by exchanging a '7' with a '2' and use it as the second axle to tilt your rotating tetrahedron (as determined to be needed in your "A 60second Enlightenment" topic)
Luckily we already have the 'clues' in place to "allow" the required 2-Z transcription for getting our needed 7 straight strokes.
-- But when we rewrite anyway, then why not transliterate everything and turn our whole alphabet upside-down...? -- *oh wait*

Still I find it very weird (read: pure coincidental) that such year number almost directly fits a proposed mechanism... unless it is not a coincidence.
So perhaps you could enlighten me?