MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[Fletcher]

IMO, a 'discerning mind' means one that already knows Bessler's secret. From that point of view one might see the relevant parts or motions of his secret among the various MT illustrations.

Would a discerning mind be a necessary requirement if you already knew Bessler's secret, or how Bessler's wheels worked ? Calling for a 'discerning mind' seems a rather high threshold just to work back thru the drawings and identify the relevant parts or motions, especially if you were mechanical inclined as were many of his contemporaries such as Wagner, or the Kings model maker, or John Rowley for example. Many of us, with some care and contemplation could probably identify the connections to various drawings in hindsight.

I think it was a challenge, and why it was added in the front notes.

Here's the full quote, with context. Cover page of Maschinen Tractate

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

Bessler left MT as a collection of loose pages, not a bound book. IMO, the MT pages were an early draft of an unfinished or abandoned work.

The loose pages do appear an early draft of an unfinished or abandoned work. However Bessler tells us that he removed certain pages. He has deliberately sequentially numbered many of them (the carved number boxes). So there is some intended order to some of the loose pages he had in mind. Others are numbered in hand writing after those, which look consistent. In that 1's are i's and 2's are z like, and particular 9's etc. The number boxes are not carved so the final order might have still been fluid at that time.

Furthermore the first in order 54 are notated, plus the Toy's Page. With both a carved number box and a hand written numbering.

It may not have been finished, fit for publishing, but was well along the way before he pulled the pages, IMO.

[Wubbly]

Regarding MT24 .. FWIW Wubbly I don't see any opposing mechs thru axle rope pulls in your sim ?

Part of the problem with the MTs is interpretation of what was drawn.
In MT24, what is item G? Is that the rope you are talking about?

[Fletcher]

No. 24 This invention ought not to be scorned.

It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with hinges. 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.

Your descriptions Wubbly in Black; mine in Red

A = fixed wall or barrier

A = wheel spoke

B = pivot point only, or a weight ?

B = hinge, can be a weight

C = pivot point only ? why would it be a weight if it does not move ?

C = pivot

D = iron poles

D = iron poles (iron rods)

E = weight connected to rod F and pivoting at point H

E = weight connected to rod F and pivoting at point H - "separate levers with weights - the poles fall inward when the levers close".

F = rod supporting the weight E

F = separate lever (pivoted at H with weight E)

G = what is this ? can't be a rod because it changes lengths. maybe a rope ? connected to a weight on the other side of the wheel ?

G = thru axle rope pull connecting opposing mechs at hinge/weight B

H = pivot point of rod F

H = pivot point for "separate lever" or separate lever-weight.

In this drawing (2D) pivots and hinges are drawn the same size, with a center hole indicating they are basically pivots (or hinges). The falling lever weights pivot near the axle is drawn differently, as just a black dot. He can afford to do that there because of the white background.

The lever-weight weight is drawn at a larger diameter but still with a center hole indicating a junction or free to pivot weight.

So I look for inconsistencies in sequential drawings etc to see patterns or lack thereof i.e. how Bessler represents certain things, and what's out of place. The lever-weights are certainly weights. But they are drawn essentially the same as the fixed iron rod pivot point C and the hinge pivot B. That indicates to me that he is messing with us, and they might have another function related to a weight displacement function. For C that makes no sense at all, it's just a fixed pivot point. But the hinge pivot B could also be a pivoting wheel-weight analogue. He wants us to explore and contemplate that, imo.

That's the mental checklist (and level of detail) I go thru for each drawing anyway, if it helps !

[Wubbly]

Thank you Fletcher. That's why I made it version 0. It needed a little work.

[Wubbly]

I guess for completeness I could throw up an MT026 simulation. I took MT1 and modified it to have ropes instead of separator constraints, but didn't add the levers. The slot constraints handle the sliding. I am still amazed at how badly these run. Once the motor is turned off, these things don't want to make complete revolutions and simply become pendulums.

[Fletcher]

They do act just like (bad) pendulums ! The group 24 and 25 are reasonably different from the group 26 and 27. None show any potential whatsoever for continuous imbalance and a net positive torque. No amount of tweaking these bad designs can change that. So their generic mechanical arrangements can't be what Bessler wanted us to grasp and correctly understand. 'There is more to be sought in this problem' of continuous imbalance (italics mine).

Abridged quotes.

Black - from wiki page, last translation of Mike Senior.

Red - earlier translation of Mike Senior, from JC's MT book.

No. 24 This invention ought not to be scorned. ... There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

No. 24. This invention should not to be scorned. ... There is, however, more to explain about it before you will grasp and correctly understand its good qualities.

No. 25 This is the previous model except for some differences. ... There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.

No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn somewhat differently ... There is more to this than one might think. Mark my words.

No. 26. This is somewhat different from the previous model, but it can be described simply: ... Behind this problem one looks for an augmented problem.

No. 26. This differs from the previous model, but it too is shown in a simplified way: ... There is more to be sought in this problem.

[ovyyus]

Would a discerning mind be a necessary requirement if you already knew Bessler's secret, or how Bessler's wheels worked ? Calling for a 'discerning mind' seems a rather high threshold just to work back thru the drawings and identify the relevant parts or motions, especially if you were mechanical inclined as were many of his contemporaries such as Wagner, or the Kings model maker, or John Rowley for example. Many of us, with some care and contemplation could probably identify the connections to various drawings in hindsight.

IMO, Bessler must have thought that no one would discover his secret by studying MT otherwise he would have destroyed it all and not just the illustrations that showed his wheel (and probably the ones that showed its development). The arrest demonstrated to Bessler that his private property was no longer secure.

I think the MT cover note was added after the arrest as another taunt directed at frustrating his enemies should his security and/or privacy be breached. IMO, Bessler treated those who might try to discover his secret as mortal enemies (including us). Defence is never perfect, though.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Wubbly,

The "D" links form a *toggle*. "C" is fixed to the wheel. "E" is the working weight. "G" is a long link that extends all the way across the wheel to fasten to "B" on the lower *toggle*. Remember Bessler said the weights work in pairs. I.E., the two toggles work together.

As shown the toggles aren't quite right, I suppose to throw people off. Anyway, if I'm right, this is the way it works. When the long link "G" is more or less vertical, it falls down. This causes the upper toggle to shift "E" to the right. At the same time the lower toggle shifts the lower "E" to the right, also.

This action causes the wheel to be OOB, by shifting the weights along, or around the circumference, and not in and out radially. This way you don't have to lift the weights!

So I ask you, what was so difficult about all of that?

Sam Peppiatt

[Fletcher]

Would a discerning mind be a necessary requirement if you already knew Bessler's secret, or how Bessler's wheels worked ? Calling for a 'discerning mind' seems a rather high threshold just to work back thru the drawings and identify the relevant parts or motions, especially if you were mechanical inclined as were many of his contemporaries such as Wagner, or the Kings model maker, or John Rowley for example. Many of us, with some care and contemplation could probably identify the connections to various drawings in hindsight.

IMO, Bessler must have thought that no one would discover his secret by studying MT otherwise he would have destroyed it all and not just the illustrations that showed his wheel (and probably the ones that showed its development). The arrest demonstrated to Bessler that his private property was no longer secure.

I think the MT cover note was added after the arrest as another taunt directed at frustrating his enemies should his security and/or privacy be breached. IMO, Bessler treated those who might try to discover his secret as mortal enemies (including us). Defence is never perfect, though.

That's a possibility Bill. If so it speaks to an extremely paranoid person. He could have just destroyed the entire MT as you say, and be done with it. But he didn't. He did leave it and it must have been intended as some sort of legacy. In it he says motion and movement can be found, and apparently adds the Toy's Page. He says you can believe it or not (paraphrased). If he did leave a trail in MT only a fool would think that was going to be easy to find and follow. We all know that it is very difficult (or maybe impossible as you predict) because we have collectively been looking for a long time. As well as do our own research. So if a trail exists (and I believe it does) then you'd probably have more luck reverse engineering it after making your own discoveries. And perhaps that was part of his intent. Either that or get Sherlock Holmes on steroids on the pay roll.

One further thing. I have some old wheel build material in my workshop, even an old experimental 4 foot wheel frame. Those parts haven't been used for the greater part of 10 years now. And never again will be. I do things differently now. Yet I am reluctant to toss them even tho they take up room I could use. Probably because they represent a period of my life and an investment of all sorts by me at the time. Memories in short, that mean nothing to anyone else.

How big would have been the pull on even a paranoid distrustful Bessler to throw away his entire MT collection, or even all the relevant pages to a solution, and not leave any trail of any sort in MT ?

He does say elsewhere that he would take posthumous recognition for discovery if he took his secret to the grave (paraphrased). Seems he'd have to leave a bit more concrete evidence than some written text in a few books such ad AP and DT to stamp his authority, IMO.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Christ! Doesn't anybody get it?

And I'm supposed to be the dumb SOB, on this forum? Yikes!!

[DrWhat]

Hi Sam,

My concern on this forum is that even if one showed the solution, most wouldn't get it or believe it enough to build it.

You would really have to spell it out and make the solution very clear.

Can I ask if I hypothetically had the solution and was convincing enough, who out there would have the skllls and time to build it? After it was made public? Some names.?

[justsomeone]

I could certainly build it Dr. What.

[Georg Künstler]

G = what is this ? can't be a rod because it changes lengths. maybe a rope ? connected to a weight on the other side of the wheel ?

G = thru axle rope pull connecting opposing mechs at hinge/weight B

G is a spring, loaded on the left side, compressed by 2 weights. Here you have the force in the right/correct angle.

[ovyyus]

Hypothetically having a solution without having something that works is an ages old problem. Expecting others to somehow participate in your hypothetical is another ages old problem. Sharing something that actually works is the solution to everyones problem.

[Fletcher]

Hi Dr What .. I know your question was directed to Sam but ...

You spell out Bessler's problem with MT the way it is after the arrest. He removed the page that contained the complete unambiguous solution, and as Bill said, probably the iterations that lead up to it (he seems to group types as an example). But he and Karl did say it was simple, so it is likely many members could recognise its simplicity also, and understand it without too much effort. And if that was convincing enough, and detailed enough (in terms of proportions and actions etc) a number of members would set about building it to verify it and for the pleasure of at last having a 'working' gravity wheel.

But he didn't leave us a blue-print to a working wheel. He tells us to go look thru various drawings and pull it all together from that. So even if you identified the related parts and their actions you would still not know Bessler's exact proportions that Bessler finally settled on, tho you would know the relationships and actions which would be enough.

This would perhaps still not be motivating enough for the majority of forum members to start experimenting and simming. It would be exciting for the members that did 'get it' and those with some resources would likely build something and explore it further. That could be any number of names.

You are about to find out the answer to your questions on the 6th June 2019 (3 wks from now) when John Collins reveals his analysis, research, and build. Kudos to him without question ! I wish him the greatest of success. And I hope he is able to spell it out sufficiently and clearly so that his solution gets the traction and respect it deserves. If the build works that would be a slam-dunk. And it leads to productive debate and building. He has the skill set and mana to accomplish that in spades and off to a good start.