MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[Fletcher]

Just something to watch out for with pulleys Wubbly.

In my version elasticity doesn't work. It's there but just doesn't have any effect. It may not in yours too.

If I have pulleys with slack in them, then as the sim gets more complex I can change a length of a rod for example and ALL pulleys suddenly change length spontaneously to the shortest length available. Then I have to manually change lengths again to the length I want. This seems to be a artifact from complexity of modeling coz it doesn't happen when things have few moving parts etc.

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

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. 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.

The pull thru pulleys (ropes) are not mentioned by Bessler. In fact he goes a step further and doesn't label anything with letters (your label 'G') in these two designs. Yet he mentions everything else as was discussed earlier in the thread.

Perhaps it is the connectedness 'principle' (omission) itself that needs careful study ? But not in that configuration IINM ! He after all tells us first up in MT9 and MT10 the following warnings ...

No. 9 Because one has learned that little is to be accomplished with the sphere-wheels like those just now seen in the figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights! In all places where I have found weight-figures, these weights are seen to be simple and nothing is attached to the belts or chains. Such is the case with Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with his 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.

No. 10 This is exactly the previous model, except that the weight-poles are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle and construction.

[eccentrically1]

MT-24 Observations: A connection between opposite sectors seems pointless. Before sector1 expands, the opposite sector 5 is already collapsed. So when the weight in sector 1 drops and tightens the rope, it tightens on an already collapsed hinge. The Bessler drawing is incorrect in this respect because it shows sector 5 not collapsed when the simulation shows it is.

I've always assumed all of the MT drawings show incorrect representations. The weight mechanisms are shown in a starting mode for the most part, how the machine would look immediately after being manually set up.

If you took the MT's and reversed them for a bidirectional version, they would all balance in those drawings. And presumably balance soon after being given a spin with a couple fingers.

The connectedness principle must mean something else other than across the wheel.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi eccentrically1

here is my version of the "The connectedness principle"

Rolling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jwl20KS3K4

Every weight can move at its own, but they are still connected in their coordinate movement.

With an uneven surface the weights will also swing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNygez_Qn8E

Then you have an offset of the weights.

[Fletcher]

Hi Georg .. I appreciate that that is your version of "the connectedness principle".

But it does raise a question about 'principles'. What is unique about your connectedness method or system that qualifies it as a special application, so much so to be called a 'principle' ?

I'm sure I've mentioned it before over the years but for the sake of the argument I think you could replace your tubes in a carrier wheel containing rolling weights limited to roll in one direction with an alternative system that would achieve the same result.

That is, to use instead of tubes hanging pendulum shafts with bobs. Include a one-way ratchet device at the pivot about which the pendulum 'swings'. As the base wheel is given a push the pendulums are free to swing in one direction but not the other. IINM this would functionally be directly comparable to your current setup.

But I don't know that I would call 8 pendulums around a wheel a connectedness principle ? Sure they are all connected in how they all affect the wheel CoM position and apply torque etc as your setup does, but I'm not sure I would see either as qualifying as a special application, enough to be called a 'principle' ?

JMO's.

[eccentrically1]

Sigh 😔

[Wubbly]

Elasticity in pulleys works in version 9 of WM2D, so they apparently fixed that.

The connectedness principle, assuming nothing got lost in translation, would indicate to me that one weight on the wheel affects another weight on the wheel (not necessarily directly across) through some sort of mechanical connection. Some of the MTs show various connections between components on the wheel, and we can assume none of them are his special "principle", assuming one exists.

The hardcopy version of Maschinen Tractate, edited and published by John Collins, 2007, doesn't use the term "connectedness principle" for MT009. It says ..."unless my principle of movement is activated..."

I try to remind myself not to get too hung up over specific wording from someone who was trying to hide his secret from the world.

[DrWhat]

Fletcher,

you are most respected on this site and your feedback is always useful.

However you are reminding me of Jim Mitch on your avatar :)

[Fletcher]

LOL .. father time catches up with us all.

When I first joined this forum jim_mich was 59. The age I am now, about to turn 60. If I grow out my beard and get a 10 foot plank maybe ;7)

RIP ..

[eccentrically1]

Elasticity in pulleys works in version 9 of WM2D, so they apparently fixed that.

The connectedness principle, assuming nothing got lost in translation, would indicate to me that one weight on the wheel affects another weight on the wheel (not necessarily directly across) through some sort of mechanical connection. Some of the MTs show various connections between components on the wheel, and we can assume none of them are his special "principle", assuming one exists.

The hardcopy version of Maschinen Tractate, edited and published by John Collins, 2007, doesn't use the term "connectedness principle" for MT009. It says ..."unless my principle of movement is activated..."

I try to remind myself not to get too hung up over specific wording from someone who was trying to hide his secret from the world.

Why does this website use it? Whoever edited the MT page got the translation form somewhere.
I don't get hung up on JC's version either. But, these translations become an issue like this in practically every topic. It makes it more difficult each time a new one is found. Double sigh.

[Wubbly]

On page 2 of this thread

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

Original John Collins MT Translations (in Red) : - ...

According to Fletcher, the Wiki translation and the John Collins publication for MT are from the same translator, but one is more recent.

There must have been some guesswork when translating a 300 year old manuscript that is barely legible.

[John Collins]

For MT it isn’t just a case of getting the translation right, trying to read Bessler’s handwriting is a challenge. The correct interpretation of the phrase in question is Connectedness principle, or so I believe. I hope this helps.

I received the original translation in English, but I have never seen the original German text other than the one I placed in my version of MT, in Bessler’s handwriting. I went through the whole document trying to find anything I could actually read and those I managed to read I sought a translation. There was also some input from Stewart.

JC

[Fletcher]

This is what Stewart said about MT9 on April 1st 2007. It's worth reading the original post to see the diagram that goes with it which I do not reproduce here.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 9001#39001

Stewart wrote (dark blue) : N.B. enlarged font mine for emphasis.

Hi John

First of all, thanks for the copy of your MT book that you sent me. The translations in it are now much closer to my own than the ones I've previously seen (wiki). There are still a few areas that I can help with though, but for now I'll just try and explain NO.9.

Bear with me as this may be a bit long-winded, but I think it's important to understand it...

I'm afraid you had it right before you changed it to what you now have in your book! The translation of NO.9 is good except for the one part in question:

... woferne man nicht auß diesen meinen zusammen gehängten Principio agiret.


You're focusing on the word "agiret" as the part that was previously translated as "connected", but in fact the "connected" part is the words "zusammen gehängten" and the "agiret" is the verb in the sentence and is a German word meaning "to perform/to act" (modern forms: agiert/agierte). "Principio" is the dative case of the Latin noun meaning "principle" here. The two words "zusammen gehängten" literally mean "hung together", but usually these two words together are translated as "connected". In this instance the ending of the word "gehängten" and the fact that it precedes the noun "principio" indicates that it is an adjective of that noun, therefore it is talking about a "connected/connecting principle" or "principle of connecting". So looking at the whole sentence: the subject is "man" = "one"; the direct object is "diesen" = "these [weights]"; the indirect object is "Principio" = "principle". Word for word this translates as:

... as long as one not on these my connected/connecting principle performed.

or, in better English:

... as long as one did not perform my connected/connecting principle on these.

So what Bessler is saying in this whole block of text is that whenever he has seen weights used that are attached to the wheel such as in the current figure, they have not been connected together with straps or chains in the way he has shown in the figure. He mentions Jacob Leupold as an example of someone who has shown a weight principle that doesn't have connecting straps or chains (the attached image is of the engraving of Leupold's that Bessler is referring to). Bessler says that with designs such as this "nothing has been achieved, as long as one did not perform my connected/connecting principle" on the weights. This suggests that knowing his principle of connecting the weights is important. The question is, does he mean that the method of connection shown in figure 9 IS what he regards as his principle, or is it a different method of connection? He ends the paragraph by suggesting there is more to teach about this but that he doesn't want to for now.

I hope I've explained this well enough, but if not I'm happy to discuss it further. Perhaps, as this is such an important piece of text, you could ask Mike Senior to do a translation to see if he agrees with what I'm saying?

All the best,
Stewart

This is how John Collins replied a few posts later (in dark red) ..

Thank you Stewart, you've done a good job, and I think I agree with your improved translation. This is one of the reasons why I have reproduced all these books, to get them aired and corrected where necessary. As you say Ralph, open and mature debate is good and that's what we get here. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Interesting post Stewart, I was never that good at Latin and my German is virtually non-existent. I'll take up your suggestion and pass on to Mike Senior your Latin/German reading and see what he comes up with. Might take a week or two.

I think that Bessler is saying that the accompanying drawing (no 9), taken from Leupold's publication, does not show the 'connectedness principle' that he has discovered.

John Collins

[Wubbly]

Good feedback guys! Thanks.

MT-9

I think that Bessler is saying that the accompanying drawing (no 9), taken from Leupold's publication, does not show the 'connectedness principle' that he has discovered.

I would hope MT-9 does not show the correct connectedness principle because if you sim MT-9 as shown, it does not run.

Here's a simulation of MT-9. The dialog box lets you choose the number of masses. After the script builds the model, the other parameters can be set with the input sliders prior to running the simulation in WM2D.

Start the simulation. Slowly change the rope length until it's what you want, then turn off the motor. It's surprising how quickly it stops being a spinning wheel and becomes a pendulum.

[Wubbly]

MT-9

Attached is the Basic script code that builds the MT-9 simulation in WM2D.

[Wubbly]

MT-25

Changed "N" to 4 instead of 8 and the MT-24 simulation builds an MT-25. Had to modify the pulley sector connection logic to work for "N" instead of 8, and also added an input in the dialog box where you can select a parameter that adjusts the length of the poles.

Bessler says the poles "must bend somewhat further inwardly." By selecting different pole lengths from the dialog box, you can build different models that bend somewhat further inwardly.
I still don't know what the good qualities of the MT are. To me, it's just another non-running MT like all the others. He says to "study the diagram extensively." Not sure what there is to see here.