Besslers "A"

[Michael A.]

In "MT" Bessler made two different "A"s. The one with a dip in the middle is very interesting. As it turns out it is a Rhombodial structure. If you make this A out of wood or metal, there are four pivot points.

If you then assemble these into a wheel, the one on the left pointing up the one on the right pointing down. Well here are some pictures[][/img]

[Michael A.]

Is it possible to do multiple pictures?

[Fletcher]

Yes. You can add up to 5 attachments per post. Have a play by editing your previous post and adding more attachments. It takes a few goes to get the hang of it.

[Michael A.]

Thank you Fletcher I will give it a try

[Michael A.]

[MrVibrating]

I believe he uses the inflected 'A' to denote 'inputs' of an interaction, as opposed to outputs.

A classic example of this usage is MT 41:



• the left side indicates a radial drop with an angular lift

• the right side is an angular drop with a radial lift


This seems a consistent interpretation throughout MT.

It's also potentially suggestive of an angular-linear linkage too, another of his apparent fetishes..

[John Collins]

Good thinking MrV, I never considered that interpretation, but I think you’re right.

JC

[daxwc]

MV:

• the left side indicates a radial drop with an angular lift

• the right side is an angular drop with a radial lift

Why when the image is symmetrical? Stewart had the same opinion but my opinion it is wrong. I still stick by work I attempted on this before. It would have to be the same every time not just willy nilly. For example MT 21 doesn’t need energy inputs at 4 A’s to rotate. MT 27 doesn’t need an energy input at the base of that lever. Why does MT43 have two straight A’s it doesn’t need a lift? Look at MT 125 – 126; the suggestion does hold up. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly; I don’t know

[Oystein]

It's possible that you are onto something...

Best
ØR

[daxwc]

What MT number is that Oystein?

[Michael A.]

I agree with Daxwc, why wouldnt he have different Bs Cs and such, But its only the A that he choose to change. I have done some wood carving, and believe me its much easier to make a normal A. I believe he was giving us a hint!

[MrVibrating]

MV:

• the left side indicates a radial drop with an angular lift

• the right side is an angular drop with a radial lift

Why when the image is symmetrical? Stewart had the same opinion but my opinion it is wrong. I still stick by work I attempted on this before. It would have to be the same every time not just willy nilly. For example MT 21 doesn’t need energy inputs at 4 A’s to rotate. MT 27 doesn’t need an energy input at the base of that lever. Why does MT43 have two straight A’s it doesn’t need a lift? Look at MT 125 – 126; the suggestion does hold up. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly; I don’t know

I don't know mate, it's an interpretation, nothing more - doesn't mean i've correlated it to every MT; for instance re. MT 21 - why are four A's inflected, but one conspicuously is not? What's special about that one, or else the other four? Other than "they're the inputs" (all the levers, not just some), i got nothing mate..

MT 27 has an articulated diametric lever with an inflected A, perhaps contrasting with the radial artic. lever of MT 26? Dunno, but obviously the hypothesis is that Bessler is steering us towards diametric levers as inputs (the radial / linear output GPE needed to supply the internal torques / angular displacements).

My current scheme will doubtless go the same way as all the others tho so then all my convoluted rationalisations for diametric levers will be left hanging..

MT 41 however - like many if not most MT's - shows an interaction that could be run 'forwards' or backwards:

• a weight could be dropped radially, pulling the jack and so torquing the wheel, re-lifting tangentially / circumferentially / angularly (if they weren't words they are now)

• or else it could be an angular drop, lowered by rotation / overbalance of the wheel, in turn powering the jacks to apply an internal radial lift

This is why MT 41 is bilateraly-symmetrical (i think) - precisely to illustrate the above point, and therein, to establish an indication of direction of a given interaction.

So, "inputs" / or "driver" vs driven..

Thus a wheel denoted by a flat A is being turned by something else, whereas one denoted by an inflected A is driving something else.

Dunno mate. YMMV. It's something..


Bear in mind also my two-pronged strategy of reverse engineering mech. OU from first principles, in the belief that, if it is possible, then by methodical and exhaustive elimination i'll be left looking at pretty much the same raw elements that Bessler kept doodling..

On the last few pages of my thread this has culminated in a simple interpretation of MT 137 - which isn't inspired purely by MT 137 itself, since you can see that i was coming at it from pages ago, almost inevitably, having eliminated opposing levers, and then trying to reset single ones with fixed axes - but i was already considering walking leaf springs around the perimeter in just the same way, just a page or two before realising MT 137 could be showing us the same thing..

But even if the damn thing works i'll not be claiming to have 'cracked' any of Bessler's codes, i've no better idea about any of this than anyone else..

..with the possible exception of the Toys page, and items A & B depicting a 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulation to a 125% result. Which means Bessler had cracked the vis-viva dispute before anyone else, since it's impossible to comprehend the Toys page without the momentum and KE / work terms correctly delineated. It's likewise impossible for him to accurately and presciently state that "for all true PMM's, EMGAT" - explicitly framing his exploit as an effective N3 / N1 / CoM violation / directly implicating momentum gains from gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interactions. Of this, i'm beyond doubt. Likewise, i'm certain that the Earth is still gravitating upwards - physically accelerating by an infinitesimal but non-trivial, real amount - towards an inertially-suspended weight that is not accelerating back down to meet it; IE. the Toys page interaction only works - only gains momentum - because of the asymmetric inertial interaction between the inertially-suspended weights and the planet, via gravity. A running Bessler wheel is definitely changing Earth's resting momentum state. The 1717 Christmas storm definitely happened, and definitely coincided - causally or not - with the 5-week castle Weissenstein demo.. the dates seem to correspond to a slight downwards sloshing of fluids to the southern hemisphere and rebound back upwards coalescing on the epicenter of the applied vertical acceleration. Not making anything up here, just joining the dots already there..

Point being, Besler clues are just a rough guide, a sanity check, and sure, build clues too, interaction clues etc.. but we don't need any of that, don't need rely exclusively on him or his evidence trail, because the wheel can be reverse-engineered from first principles.

That is, starting out from an imaginary 'working wheel' on your desk, complete with its curtains hiding the insides, we can confidently state that it can only ever have precisely the right amount of KE - per ½Iw² - for its speed and weight in our ground FoR, and that closed loops through static fields such as gravity yield zero net energy, therefore the exploit must be a PE discount; Bessler's already confirmed statorless torque is the key, which obviously frees us from the ever-rising relative speed of a stator and hence the key variable causing the input PE to square with velocity along with output KE; ie. losing the conventional stator / defeating N3 / N1 / "EMGAT" must allow for the PE discount.. so then you start plotting the efficiency of accumulating statorless momentum from gravity / sinking counter-momenta to gravity etc. by whatever various means, trying to avoid any speed accumulation between the parts actually causing the momentum gains, hence constantly resetting the input energy / work cost of momentum to its minimum value possible per ½Iw² (ie. ½ J per rad/s per kg-m²). So then you simply compare say 10 * ½ J / kg-rad/s = 5 J spent, for 1 kg-m² * 10 rad/s = 50 J KE gained; 10x unity right off the bat.. So then you start trying to substitute those variables with notional masses and motions, working through the finite permutations.. You find the 50% per cycle accumulator, but which just seems to good to ever be realisable, but then you find the 25% p-c accumulator, which looks a lot more realistic. FWIW i'd already discovered that years before i'd heard of Bessler, so it was kind of retreading old ground..

Bessler 'knew' hieroglyphics - yet we now know the Kircher-esque interpretation was complete BS. That's exactly how much weight we should assign any of our interpretations of his clues. But if we're certain of the laws of physics (such that we know them) and equally certain this case was genuine, that's all the guide we need..

Peeling back them curtains doesn't require astral projection.. as ever, the tacit instruction manual for breaking CoM and CoE is written between the lines of their respective terms of conservation; it's simple - just don't do whatever you have to do to get a conservative outcome, and you won't.. So, elastic collisions = meh, inelastic ones = interesting and relevant. Prospective GPE asymmetries = pigs might fly; inertial asymmetries? Tell me more..


TBH i've always assumed the Irving Finkels of this world will eventually fill in most of the blanks here, but only after we've given 'em reason to. It ain't gonna progress from that end tho, you'll be here til kingdom come!

[Fletcher]

What MT number is that Oystein?

I'm not Oystein :7)

.. but this might get lost otherwise .. MT116

[Oystein]

But you shouldn't look too long outside of Bessler's work to find that using straight and bent A's side by side was already a tradition.

Here from a 2000 years old stone from Pompeii.

By the way: Plato's Academy mosaic was created in the villa of T. Siminius Stephanus in Pompeii, around 100 BC to 100 CE (Ref. Wikipedia).

As I have mentioned before, it seems like MT is an instruction to solve the magic squares of history and the ancient Egyptian, Masonic and Templar code etc.. A code left by the Great philosophers carved in stone,,prior to christ. Even maybe applied in "the structure of the new testament.. so they say...

Best
ØR

[daxwc]

Well that’s odd that sator magic square is backwards. Wheel/rotas is the first word.