Part Three is the Charm

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

I will combine your last two posts in this reply.

I have laid out what I *believe* is a plausible and true-to-Bessler concept. I hope others may be inspired and even improved on it. This planet definitely needs more in the way of clean energy.

Karl the Landgrave of Hesse said the wheel was very simple. It could be built by a carpenter's boy. He was amazed that it hadn't been invented before. Bessler himself said no one would buy his contraption for the asking price if they saw its inside.

I judge all designs by the above statements. Some may argue that simplicity is a subjective matter. They say what is simple to one person may not be simple to another. Dunno. In light of those statements by Bessler and Karl I would say that a wheel is simple if the average young person, say the age of 16, can look at it and understand its workings (and build it if the person is an apprentice carpenter especially of the 18th century German kind). Yes, I'm being blunt here. Can an apprentice understand and build the ??theOne?? and ??theTwo$$ -- of course! :)

I hope others also take an interest in your design since you've taken the time and effort to present it in full .. we definitely need more clean energy technologies (non-hydrocarbon CO2 emitting).

I also judge all designs based on B's. and Karl's statements. It's kinda the ruler I apply. Subjective is itself subjective lol. Can an apprentice firstly understand your design ? I think so if they read thru carefully and studied the schematics. Of course, if they saw a real-world one in action they would instantly understand - no brainer. Could an apprentice build one ? Definitely if the saw one in action, they'd just copy the parts you made and used. From the schematics maybe not so easy to build as there'd be a lot of tweaking and testing to fine tune it and discover things about it along the way to it being a runner. For instance, as you mentioned to Tarsier, you might start with the simplest form first, with curved return ramps, then upgrade for improvements that potentially would improve performance.

Furthermore none of the other designs that I've seen even adequately address the "hung together" principle (prefer it over the term "connectedness") or the clue about 1 lb dropping and 4 lb rising (4:1 clue), if they even address it at all. It goes without saying that the more a design fits the documented information the more likely the *possibility* of it being a Bessler wheel. Between a concept that appears to conform to 80% of the information and the other 50%, the former is the better candidate. Is this the dark side of Ockham's razor? :)

I'd just like to remind everybody about the clue you refer to.

Here's the translation from John Collins AP book; followed by Stewart and Tinhead's translation for comparison.

"a great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295

He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly (without much effort) throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c. members Stewart & Tinhead


However, I also just want to indulge for a moment and include the chapter in JC's AP from where it comes, for greater context.

XLIII. Are there any more doubting lions roaring around? Then let them come and sit down by me, and my wheel shall openly revolve for them. I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712. I'd like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd never informed anyone about the matter.) At present, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly. //

// But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience! //

// I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment.

Here, imo, is what I think this chapter is about ..

First part .. basis of motion is made up of lead weights, that routinely swap places from closer to the axle to further from it. [me .. sounds remarkably like a mundane conservative OB wheel format]

Second part .. friendly note of caution (about what he just said in first part) .. somewhat tongue-in-cheek he says if you can lift more for less then you will have a winner and be a great craftsman and have a PMM. If you can't sort it out, then as he knows very well from his own experience, it will fail.

Third part .. he wants to clarify one more point. [he seems to be referring back again to designs in the first part]. He learned the hard way about failure. Then he says there is more to learn about mechanics that he hasn't yet revealed.

My analysis and conclusion of this chapter .. B. sings the praises of weight-shifting wheels, where weights swap positions in and out from the axle. Then he maligns the builder who thinks he can cheat mechanics and Archimedes Law of Levers. [so that is not what he was doing inside his wheels], because it will fail. Then he clarifies one further point about weight swapping position wheels .. he again says he learned thru bitter experience and, discovered another way (that actually works) for these to work, which he hasn't shared. IMO !

The Warraneck Wheel from your recollected description doesn't appear so simple in its use of a compressed air piston. The piston seems like it could be complicated/high precision unit to construct if I'm not wrong. Bessler did mention that his wheel employed "hoisted" and "hoisting" weight types the latter being heavier. I do not see it here. It isn't a Bessler wheel not that it ever claimed to be. The good side is that ??theOne$$ has a found a long lost kin (of the projectile class). :)

Can you provide a reference or quote regarding "Bessler did mention that his wheel employed "hoisted" and "hoisting" weight types the latter being heavier" ? I can't place that information. Thanks.

[mryy]

Reference :

The flying red weights are critical to the concept! They are part of the Prime Mover/Movement. Without them the concept reduces to the class of "tethered" designs I talked about. Most if not all the drawings in MT are tethered designs (and non-runners). I feel many here do not understand the inherent flaw of tethered designs.

>>>>>>>>>>>

My wheel is a different animal from what you often see. It free flies (the red weights that is). We are not discussing designs where weights are constantly in contact with the wheel structure (permanently attached to cords/levers or rolling over surface). I call them "tethered" designs over at John Collins blog. The laws of physics are tough on them. No runners from them as of yet. Who knows? Mine may end up the same. Still, it's a different animal and worth a look I feel.

The Warraneck Wheel (WW) is by your definition a "tethered" design because it is in constant contact with the wheel parts. As discussed I thought then, and do today, that the process of firing the bullet across a moving wheel will result in inertial back-torque (tethered). An easy example to visualize is say you have a hypothetical 6 foot pipe held in front of your body at the middle by yourself, and you rotate it with both hands at a constant speed - at 45 degrees from vertical you shoot a projectile from that middle held position. The projectiles inertia means it wants to travel a straight line (45 degs) - but the moving pipe barrel is forcing it to follow the sweep speed and angle (because it also has inertia). You would feel the pipe resist your sweep movement input (you'd have to Work harder to maintain sweep speed) i.e. projectile in transition inertial back-torque working against you, and slowing the swept angle rate of the pipe, IINM.

IOW's, if they are tethered (to use your term) there is inherent back-torque because they are in some way physically connected. And back-torque issues can kill many a wheel design.

If it could be reduced or mitigated then there might be a net advantage to be had operationally. I guess the question is .. is there a mitigated back-torque advantage in catapult release and catch systems in reality ?

Yes the 45 degree flight of the bullet will cause a back torque as you described, albeit a case of unintended back-torqueing (a design issue). Another problem is what happens after the bullet reaches 1:00. As it descends to 6:00 is a new center of gravity (cog) being created on the descending side within that time? If not the previous cog reaches equilibrium and the Warraneck stops. The bullet's back-torqueing due to contact with the inside of the pipe is still THE problem even if a cog reset is attempted.

I think the advantage of the the catapult release and catch system is that it creates the shortest direct and quickest path to reset the cog on the descending side, from 6:00 to 1:00 or 2:00 (in my proposed concept).

[mryy]

The Warraneck Wheel (WW) is by your definition a "tethered" design because it is in constant contact with the wheel parts. As discussed I thought then, and do today, that the process of firing the bullet across a moving wheel will result in inertial back-torque (tethered). An easy example to visualize is say you have a hypothetical 6 foot pipe held in front of your body at the middle by yourself, and you rotate it with both hands at a constant speed - at 45 degrees from vertical you shoot a projectile from that middle held position. The projectiles inertia means it wants to travel a straight line (45 degs) - but the moving pipe barrel is forcing it to follow the sweep speed and angle (because it also has inertia). You would feel the pipe resist your sweep movement input (you'd have to Work harder to maintain sweep speed) i.e. projectile in transition inertial back-torque working against you, and slowing the swept angle rate of the pipe, IINM.

If the WW only suffered from the "bullet" scraping around the containing tube, this could be minimised or designed out, or it could be an advantage in itself if the bullet were a ball bearing. Accelerating the ball in a particular path could accelerate it, like if you dropped one in a pipe and swung it around in a circle. I guess it depends where you theorise the extra energy comes from... It sort of reminds me of Peq.s theories on energy creation.

Mryy, I don't think the reason "tethered" wheels don't work is due to them being tethered. Also, does your definition of "tethered" only apply to something that flies through the air and leaves the wheel, or could it include each mechanism moving at a different speed to the rest of the wheel for part of the rotation?

I am not sure I understood your question. A "tethered" wheel is simply one where the weights are in *constant* physical contact with the wheel. It could be spheres rolling on surfaces, weights affixed at ends of movable levers, etc. Under this condition the wheel only has *one* state of imbalance (preset at the beginning of its spin). The wheel (or gravity) recognizes the position of the center of gravity (cog) and turns it so it is directly below the axle. The wheel stops.

Note that gravity has acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. *That is a large number and the gravity field permeates all around in the minutest increments of time.* No movement of weights in a tethered wheel is fast or continuous or sustained enough to overcome it. With that said it does not imply that an *untethered* wheel will just automatically work. A proper design of such a wheel is still necessary to keep the cog away from center.

My theory is that the imbalance must reset repeatedly for the wheel to spin indefinitely. This means creating a new cog (off to the center) multiple times per rotation. The wheel (or gravity) will act on the new cog and those thereafter. In my concept it is achieved by a flying weight reaching the 2:00 lever. When the weight is free flying it disappears from the wheel only to reappear at 2:00. The wheel can't act on a weight that it doesn't possess (until the weight lands on the lever). Upon landing it creates a fresh cog for the wheel to respond. I likened the landing weight to an invisible hand repeatedly pushing the wheel at 2:00.

[mryy]

Can you provide a reference or quote regarding "Bessler did mention that his wheel employed "hoisted" and "hoisting" weight types the latter being heavier" ? I can't place that information. Thanks.

Sure. Here it is:

"It is clear that springs cannot drive constantly because they must be rewound. All that remain are weight. If one weight is to hoist another, that is to say, is to be the cause of the rising of another weight, then the hoisting weight necessarily must descend, i.e., approach the center of the gravity, and because the motion must remain within the wheel, this weight can hoist no other until it has been hoisted itself and is able to descend inside the wheel once again. Accordingly, there must be a new weight to raise the previous weight again, and finally, for the thing to manage, the last weight must have a perpetual motion, i.e., when it has fallen to the lowest point of the wheel through the hoisting of another weight it must raise itself up. The hoisting weight must be heavier than the hoisted (otherwise, they would remain in equilibrium, and no motion would result)."

viewtopic.php?p=150394

The link is a collection of clues/information assembled by member Rocky. Thanks! I used to attribute the quote above to Bessler. Now that I think about it, did he write that?

[Fletcher]

Thanks for that ..

I think you'll find the quote is Wagner in his Critique of 1716 ..

Wagner 1st Critique 1716 :

XIX. From this motion one can understand and calculate all moving mechanical powers, e.g. humans, animals, weights, springs, water, wind, fire, etc. That the first two, namely humans and animals, could not and should not be used for the raising of the weights has been determined already; therefore, one of the remaining powers must necessarily be applied. It is clear that springs cannot drive constantly because they must be rewound. Fire must be fed continuously. Likewise, wind is of no use because of its variability. All that remain are weight and water (with water I include all other fluids, e.g. mercury). If one weight is to hoist another, that is to say, is to be the cause of the rising of another weight, then the hoisting weight necessarily must descend, i.e., approach the center of the earth, and because the motion must remain within the wheel, this weight can hoist no other until it has been hoisted itself and is able to descend inside the wheel once again. Accordingly, there must be a new weight to raise the previous weight again, and finally, for the thing to manage, the last weight must have a perpetual motion, i.e., when it has fallen to the lowest point of the wheel through the hoisting of another weight it must raise itself up (which, however, is impossible as shown above by the principle of gravity). The hoisting weight must be heavier than the hoisted. (otherwise, they would remain in equilibrium, and no motion would result), but in this wheel a lighter weight would eventually have to raise a heavier one as far as the heavier one has fallen and within the same amount of time; however, such an occurrence is impossible, as will be shown in XXI.

Bessler Rebbutal in AP 1717 (John Collins) :

XIX (b) No motive power can suffice to produce perpetual motion

Wagner excels himself at this point, and describes in detail sources of mechanical power - human muscle-power, oxen, water, wind, fire, springs, and especially, weights. He judges them all, and the upshot is that none of them would be suitable to produce perpetual motion. Since not even one of all these possible sources of motive power could ever produce the desired effect, it must for ever remain impossible that a perpetual motion device could ever be created by anyone on this earth.

[mryy]

All this time the Wagner quote I wrongly attributed to Bessler. Lol. That's okay. I still think the proposed concept is plausible. One eyewitness said the weights of one his wheels could fill a considerable box. Fletcher, do you know what wheel Wagner was referring to?

And thanks Fletcher for taking the time to dig up all this information for the readers. Much appreciated.

[Fletcher]

It was the first bi-directional wheel in Merseburg .. and B. built it in response to criticism of his earlier one-way wheel that it might be spring wound and powered, since it only turned one-way.

Actually, I might be swimming against the tide here .. but I have quite a bit of respect for Wagner's analysis abilities in his Critiques etc - he had experience and was prepared to commit to paper a thought-out salient argument which could potentially back-fire on him. I thought he was quite fair and even handed in the main. Of course he was on a hiding to nothing when he didn't know B's. secret motive force. He could only tell you what it wasn't really.

You're welcome, when I have time, and sometimes when I don't have time, lol.

[mryy]

It was the first bi-directional wheel in Merseburg .. and B. built it in response to criticism of his earlier one-way wheel that it might be spring wound and powered, since it only turned one-way.

Actually, I might be swimming against the tide here .. but I have quite a bit of respect for Wagner's analysis abilities in his Critiques etc - he had experience and was prepared to commit to paper a thought-out salient argument which could potentially back-fire on him. I thought he was quite fair and even handed in the main. Of course he was on a hiding to nothing when he didn't know B's. secret motive force. He could only tell you what it wasn't really.

You're welcome, when I have time, and sometimes when I don't have time, lol.

Thank you for that. So it was concerning a B. wheel. I guess I am good then lol? What I want to understand from the passage is the mentioning of hoisted and hoisting weights. I am sort of asking rhetorically but others may input here. Did he come up with the terms himself to explain the Merseburg wheel? Or, were they conveyed to him from an earlier conversation/correspondence with B.? It appears to be the latter based on that last sentence: "however, such an occurrence is impossible, as will be shown in XXI." If so the existence of these two types of weights was acknowledged by B. to Wagner, and in his critique Wagner was attempting to understand or explain their purpose.

[Fletcher]

It was the first bi-directional wheel in Merseburg .. and B. built it in response to criticism of his earlier one-way wheel that it might be spring wound and powered, since it only turned one-way ...

Thank you for that. So it was concerning a B. wheel. I guess I am good then lol?

What I want to understand from the passage is the mentioning of hoisted and hoisting weights. I am sort of asking rhetorically but others may input here. Did he come up with the terms himself to explain the Merseburg wheel? Or, were they conveyed to him from an earlier conversation/correspondence with B.? It appears to be the latter based on that last sentence: "however, such an occurrence is impossible, as will be shown in XXI." If so the existence of these two types of weights was acknowledged by B. to Wagner, and in his critique Wagner was attempting to understand or explain their purpose.

AFAIK there was no private conversation between W. and B. at any time about the wheels. B. lamented later that Wagner, Borlach, and the main protagonist Gartner, only needed to visit and ask, with humility, and all questions could be answered, rather than assassinate his character (paraphrased).

Therefore imo the former is correct .. W. came up with the terms and descriptions himself (he was a mathematician and a follower of PM).

All B. said was that weights in pairs alternating between an outer and inner position was suggested by W., and that it was wrongly attributed to B. (himself). See chapter XLIII from AP (John Collins).

"XLIII. Are there any more doubting lions roaring around? Then let them come and sit down by me, and my wheel shall openly revolve for them. I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712. I'd like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd never informed anyone about the matter.) At present, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly. //"

Here B. says W. is correct in his assumptions about alternating weights, but B. says he never told him that i.e. W. is lying to say B. told him that, or anything about the internal workings etc.

[Fletcher]

XLIII cont ..

Second part .. friendly note of caution (about what he just said in first part) .. somewhat tongue-in-cheek he says if you can lift more for less then you will have a winner and be a great craftsman and have a PMM. If you can't sort it out, then as he knows very well from his own experience, it will fail.

Third part .. he wants to clarify one more point. [he seems to be referring back again to designs in the first part]. He learned the hard way about failure. Then he says there is more to learn about mechanics that he hasn't yet revealed.

My analysis and conclusion of this chapter .. B. sings the praises of weight-shifting wheels, where weights swap positions in and out from the axle. Then he maligns the builder who thinks he can cheat mechanics and Archimedes Law of Levers. [so that is not what he was doing inside his wheels], because it will fail. Then he clarifies one further point about weight swapping position wheels .. he again says he learned thru bitter experience and, discovered another way (that actually works) for these to work, which he hasn't shared. IMO !

Further opinion :

Many many people have hung their entire hat on the cryptic B. comment in AP ...

"a great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295"

"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly (without much effort) throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c. ... members Stewart & Tinhead"

I said earlier that it was a B. tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment within the context of XLIII. He says a person who achieves that will be a great craftsman - he doesn't even call himself a great craftsman, and he had a self-moving wheel. He described it as simple, of no great artistry required (paraphrased). Clearly this is in direct opposition to his quip above about a great craftsman he would be, as it required no great artistry (skills) at all.

He was stoking the fires and having a dig and put-down at the same time. "Taking the piss", as we say down here ! Otherwise he would have said he was a great craftsman to have accomplished the previously thought of as impossible self-moving wheel. He downplayed it instead. That's why it's tongue-in-cheek, and not to be taken literally, imo !

[Tarsier79]

I have taken Besslers paragraph about the alternating pieces of lead as him stating it is an incorrect assumption made by Wagner, followed by sarcasm.

[mryy]

XLIII cont ..

Second part .. friendly note of caution (about what he just said in first part) .. somewhat tongue-in-cheek he says if you can lift more for less then you will have a winner and be a great craftsman and have a PMM. If you can't sort it out, then as he knows very well from his own experience, it will fail.

Third part .. he wants to clarify one more point. [he seems to be referring back again to designs in the first part]. He learned the hard way about failure. Then he says there is more to learn about mechanics that he hasn't yet revealed.

My analysis and conclusion of this chapter .. B. sings the praises of weight-shifting wheels, where weights swap positions in and out from the axle. Then he maligns the builder who thinks he can cheat mechanics and Archimedes Law of Levers. [so that is not what he was doing inside his wheels], because it will fail. Then he clarifies one further point about weight swapping position wheels .. he again says he learned thru bitter experience and, discovered another way (that actually works) for these to work, which he hasn't shared. IMO !

Further opinion :

Many many people have hung their entire hat on the cryptic B. comment in AP ...

"a great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295"

"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly (without much effort) throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c. ... members Stewart & Tinhead"

I said earlier that it was a B. tongue-firmly-in-cheek comment within the context of XLIII. He says a person who achieves that will be a great craftsman - he doesn't even call himself a great craftsman, and he had a self-moving wheel. He described it as simple, of no great artistry required (paraphrased). Clearly this is in direct opposition to his quip above about a great craftsman he would be, as it required no great artistry (skills) at all.

He was stoking the fires and having a dig and put-down at the same time. "Taking the piss", as we say down here ! Otherwise he would have said he was a great craftsman to have accomplished the previously thought of as impossible self-moving wheel. He downplayed it instead. That's why it's tongue-in-cheek, and not to be taken literally, imo !

Great work there. So W. arrived independently at some correct conclusion about the weights being in pairs but slyly attributed it to B. A maneuver to draw more information out of B.?

The 4:1 clue was offered piecewise in the link I gave and I took it as something B. stated straightforwardly but cryptically. Yes, the contextual background must be considered in any information. Even if it was tongue-in-check, the statement included specific metrics (1 lb, 4 lb, 4 quarters, etc.) which I still find peculiar. B. could have just stopped with the vague sentence: "A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!"

B. was a devout Christian and said his discovery was a work of God. He never credited himself single-handedly for it. So I don't believe he would call himself a Great Craftsmen out of religious humility.

[Fletcher]

... So W. arrived independently at some correct conclusion about the weights being in pairs but slyly attributed it to B. A maneuver to draw more information out of B.?

I would say he wasn't beyond a little gaslighting of B, lol. And as you say, perhaps secretly hoping to draw more info out of him. B. rose to the bait and called his bluff, and said that's exactly what goes on inside his runners (figuratively winking at him - you have the WHAT, now figure out the HOW genius) - the weights were the PM motive force and they worked in pairs and traded places, and could not find equilibrium. B. could not have put it more simply - but then there was little risk in that factual admission. Context is everything. Why was there little risk (rhetorical) ? Because obbbbbviously it wasn't the whole story (subterfuge alert).

An aside : As I've said recently, one plausible explanation is that his Prime Mover apparatus entity could (but perhaps it is not compulsory) be cobbled to just about any conservative OOB wheel entity (think MT's 44 and 48), to make a runner. Which includes the very simple and prosaic weights-trading-places metaphor that he willingly admitted to.

The 4:1 clue was offered piecewise in the link I gave and I took it as something B. stated straightforwardly but cryptically. Yes, the contextual background must be considered in any information. Even if it was tongue-in-check, the statement included specific metrics (1 lb, 4 lb, 4 quarters, etc.) which I still find peculiar. B. could have just stopped with the vague sentence: "A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!"

Yes, he could have stopped at that. One explanation - a little cryptic mystery helps sell books - he wasn't in front of a judicial inquiry with a threat of hard-time for perjury or misleading the court. Notice in Stewart Hughes and Tinhead's combined translation efforts that he talks of quarters, no units are given, to ratchet the mystery up further. It is possible that there is a clue there (even likely) but you'd have to deep-dumpster-dive to find it's exact and accurate relevance, probably after-the-fact, imo.

B. was a devout Christian and said his discovery was a work of God. He never credited himself single-handedly for it. So I don't believe he would call himself a Great Craftsmen out of religious humility.

I agree with you. My take is more to do with what being called "a great craftsman" conjures up. When I hear that term I think of it more literally i.e. a very very skilled hands-on person, top-of-his-game, of few peers.

I don't necessarily think they must also be a mathematical genius disguised in workmans clothes, or the Michelangelo of Mechanics, or the Renoir of the runner. They are not mutually exclusive, in my eyes, but I tend to think of it in practical terms as hands-on capability.

And as I said earlier B. said there was not much artistry to his runners i.e. a great craftsmanship ability was not required. So perhaps he would never compare himself to a great craftsman whether religious humility was involved or not.

What he did say was imo a cutting remark to wannabe's saying THEY would be a great craftsman indeed if they could leverage 1 lb falling a quarter, to rise up 4 lbs 4 quarters (paraphrased). And would be called that deservedly and rightly, imo.

[mryy]

Like Stewart et al., the Jonathan translation of the 4:1 clue also includes the term "quarter/s." Why did B. even bother to include that term -- such an unexpecting one? Was he implying something notable was occurring in some "quarter" measurable inside the wheel? It would be nice to see the original German and run a literal translation of it. Whatever B.'s motive for saying, it appears that my wheel seems to demonstrate the clue. So I can't really complain. lol.

I reviewed MT's 44 and 48 and imagined my prime mover/movement cobbled to them by incorporating the lever design and flying red weights. They could become possibly runners (if my concept is true)...

[Fletcher]

From AP .. John Collins digital version :

Doch wil freundwillig ongefähr
Dies Nota Bene noch setzen her:

Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen,
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt,
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x
Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren,
Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren;
Wer aber dieses noch nicht weiß,
Da ist vergebens aller Fleiß;
Man tue, denke, sinne, dichte
Gleich schon auf noch so viel Gewichte;
Sein Ding davon vielmehr wird schwer,
Und lief’ viel länger, da es leer;
Ja, es geh’t solchen seinem Dinge,
Als ob gleich noch so viel’ Sperlinge
Sich greulich bissen um und um
Auf einem stillen Mühlrad rum;
Wie ich unlängst nur wahr genommen,
Als ich zu solchem Streit gekommen. x
Nun die Nachricht (deucht mich) ist gut,
Dem, der sie fein einfassen thut;
Denn manche Möb’lemacher denken,
Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lenken,
Heraus ein wenig weiter hier
Als dort – o! so wird’s lauffen schier;
Ich habe dieses selbst erfahren
Mit lauter Müh’ vor vielen Jahren,
Bis mich das wahre Sprichwort schlug:
Ein jeder wird mit Schaden klug. x

Drum steckt im mechanischen Grunde
Noch viel verborgen diese Stunde;
Doch weil mich keine Noht hier treibt,
Von mir mehr Nachricht unterbleibt.

DeepL Translation :

But willingly on the other side
This Nota Bene still set here:

He will be called a great artist,
He who can easily throw a heavy thing high,
And when a pound falls a quarter,
It flies four pounds four quarters high. x
He who can speculate this out,
Will soon perpetuate the course;
But he who does not yet know this,
All diligence is in vain;
One does, thinks, ponders, writes
No matter how many weights;
But his thing shall be heavy,
And run much longer when it is empty;
Yes, it goes with his things,
As though many a sparrow
That are biting round and round
On a still mill-wheel round;
As I but lately perceived,
When I came to such a quarrel. x
Now the news (seems to me) is good,
To him that bindeth it well;
For some furniture-makers think..,
If their things do but steer,
Out a little farther here
Than there - o! so it will run;
I have experienced this myself
With all my toil many a year ago,
Till the true proverb smote me:
Every man is made wise by harm. x

Therefore in the mechanical bottom
Still much hidden this hour;
But since no need drives me here,
From me more tidings o'erleap.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)