MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[Fletcher]

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.

Quite so Bill .. inertia is the real problem .. so rather than push ones own hypothetical barrow and suffer fatal inertia one might push Bessler's hypothetical barrow (more credibility and less inertial resistance ?).

But since Bessler can't demonstrate a working gravity wheel (for obvious reasons) and didn't leave a blue-print for a working machine in MT, inertia in some quarters will never go away.

Seems a working wheel, peer reviewed, will only motivate 99% of the people.

[ME]

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.?

Sure you can ask.

The answer is simple. You can only be convinced enough when you build it yourself!
So it is YOU who should have the skills and time.

Otherwise it just an unfulfilled hypothesis inside your head while you expect work-people to understand what happens there.
Whatever they may create, you will likely not learn from their mistakes.

I understand that one can get very frustrated when an idea remains unfulfilled. Please don't blame others.

[Fletcher]

Bill .. in the interests of contributing to Wubbly's thread and questions about some of the MT's you are imo in a unique position of authority on at the very least the mechanics of each false PM wheel. You created your versions of many of the MT's etc found on your website and in the wiki pages. To do that you would have studied them more extensively than most.

For clarity sake what do you think the item labelled 'G' by Wubbly in MT24 is ?

Cheers.

[DrWhat]

G is a rod that links individual mechanisms to both sides of the wheel. I believe. So one side is coupled to the other.

[ovyyus]

I think it's either an elastic chord (or spring) to apply tension to pivot point B, or a rope that passes through the axle to connect opposite B pivot points. Given that the diagram seems to show proportional change between opposite weights I tend to favour G being a rope extending through the axle. Although, if that was the case, I think Bessler would show the through-axle connection, which he did not.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Dr. What & others,

So now I'm going to have to build one, thanks a lo!. I was really hoping I could get out of doing that. Yes, "G" links the two toggles together. Maybe this will help. The "B" pivot point of the upper toggle should be up in the folded up position before "G" falls. The lower toggle is in it's straight out position, (not folded). For it to work properly.

The way they, the toggles, are drawn is all wrong, and would never work.

Have to run ,Sam

[Fletcher]

Thanks Bill and DrWhat for your answers. ETA and Sam.

I once built a sim where G were springs (bungy's) connected to the hub and B. IIRC they had to be very weak otherwise they would stop the lever-weight falling until well past 12 o'cl (CW). Not like shown in MT's 24 and 25 anyway. So I couldn't see any advantage for them. And if G were 2 rods connecting opposite B hinge/weights then they needed a sliding universal connection inside the hub because the angles changed depending on position it appeared to me. The overall length in any position looked consistent tho as you said Bill. So this lead me to believe they were thru axle ropes (around hidden hub pulleys). A type of thru wheel connectedness principle.

Wiki Page Translations (in Black) : - more recent translations than original by the same translator (Mike Senior).

Original John Collins MT Translations (in Red) : - note 24 and 25 are on the same page reinforcing similarity and DNA.

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.

No. 24. This invention should not to be scorned. It consists of special weighted levers and some hinged iron rods that close between the levers and can fold inward. 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. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly. 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 and with longer rods; there is something misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not project so far out but must bend further inward. There is more to this than one might think. Mark my words.

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

What did strike me as peculiar was that in the translations for 24 and 25 there is no mention by Bessler at all about any connectedness, whatsoever. Or even about springs/elastic cords if you favoured that. Yet apparently they were part of the design and important enough to draw for some mechanical purpose, just not mention it along with everything else that was mentioned.

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

ETA : I made multiple sims with rope pulleys, and I measured the loss of GPE as a lever-weight fell v's the gain in the KE of B. The trade-off. This gain in KE was proportional to the masses of both B and the lever-weight. I was looking for something out of the ordinary in either KE gained over and above GPE lost or exceptional acceleration of B etc. Nothing doing in sim world. Energy was conserved at best, and KE never exceed loss in GPE for height ! Exactly what Newtonian Laws and conservative forces predict. Tho B made a lovely catapult. It just couldn't launch anything with more KE than GPE lost to achieve it.

And it was still a dog for asymmetry of torque and keeled quickly as Wubbly found !

[ME]

Connect the dots in MT-24

going clockwise top-rightside=1

Rope G-1 connects to the center
Rope G-2 connects to dot in sector 2
Rope G-3 connects to dot in sector 7 (opposite)
Rope G-4 connects to ... between dot 1 and dot 8
Rope G-5 connects to dot 1 (or center)
Rope G-6 connects to dot 1
Rope G-7 connects to dot 2
Rope G-8 connects to dot 3

[Fletcher]

Pathways for ropes in MT25 (the cousin) appear much more consistently placed in the originals as well as Bill's reproduction. Less complex for a start.

Which makes me think that the pathways for the original MT24 simply weren't important enough for Bessler to spend time getting right. They were indicative only, imo.

[ovyyus]

If G is connecting ropes then Bessler chose to hide their pathway through the axle, and also not mention those connections at all. I wonder if, by omission, this might suggest a space for something interesting inside the axle, perhaps interacting with the ropes to break the expected symmetry?

[Fletcher]

From the evidence, or lack of, those omissions would be one logical deduction.

Whatever hypothesis one comes up for the ropes, omissions etc, you also may start to get some sort of feel for the possible wavelength Bessler is on, in the way he presents (or lack of) his visual and verbal hints ?! Does he do similar things or other peculiar things elsewhere in MT ? If so, as we see in MT24, its more than random chance, but at the same time is not a direct route to the finish line. More a revealing of layers, IMO.

[Sam Peppiatt]

To@,

I'm really surprised that no one can figure it out. Even with a picture. Perhaps I shouldn't be.

Sam Peppiatt

[DrWhat]

Tell us Sam in simple language.!

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi DrWhat,

Sure I'll take another stab at it. I felt that you were catching on. Where did I lose you? Do you know what a toggle is?

The toggle, or toggles, ("D" links), are the so called mechinisum. Along with the long link,"G", which activates the toggle pairs. A toggle, @ 45 degrees still has a Mechanical advantage, M.A.), of 2 to 1. When it is straight across it's M.A. approaches infinity. It, the toggle, is well suited for shifting the swing weights, "E&F". Are you with me so far?

In it's vertical position,"G", due to it's considerable length, has more than enough weight to work the toggles, which in turn shift the swinging weights, "E&F". This I have already tried, but with sliding weights, not swinging weights.

At the 12:00 position, the upper toggle, or "D" links, (when "G" falls down), shifts "E" to the right, for CW rotation. This advances the swing weight @ 15 degrees. The lower toggle does just the opposite. It retards the swing weight 15 degrees, which effectively, makes the right side of the wheel seam heavier or, OOB. Again, this I have already demonstrated.

The major break through with MT-24, are it's swinging weights, (thanks to wubbly), which produce an OOB for 180 degrees of rotation. With sliding weights the OOB only lasts for 90 degrees.

And, of coarse, swinging or shifting the weights, is far easier than lifting them up. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sam

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Sam,
and why are there 8 sectors ?
Do you know that ?