Part Three is the Charm

[mryy]

That's awesome. Appreciate that Fletcher. Here's the Google translation which is supposed to be more literal:

"But wil amicably at risk
This Nota Bene still put forth:

He will be called a great artist
Who can easily throw up a heavy thing,
And when a pound falls a quarter
It rockets four pounds to the power of four quarters. x
Anyone who can speculate about this
Will soon perpetuate the course;
But who does not know this yet,
All diligence is in vain;
One does, thinks, senses, writes
Equal already on so many weights;
Rather, his thing becomes heavy,
And ran much longer since it was empty;
Yes, it's his thing
As if so many sparrows
Biting each other horribly
Around on a silent mill wheel;
As I recently only noticed
When I came to such quarrel. x
Well the news (I think) is good
To him who frames them finely;
Because some furniture makers think
If her things just steer
Out a little further here
When there - oh! that's how it's going to go;
I experienced this myself
With great effort many years ago,
Until the true saying struck me:
Everyone becomes wise with damage. x

Drum is in the mechanical basics
Much still hidden this hour;
But because no need drives me here,
No more news from me."

So the term "quarter/s" was in the original text. At times I prefer these online translations as certain text are not omitted. Human translation can involve a bit of artistic license... Note the 4th line reads: "It rockets four pounds to the power of four quarters." Over in John Collins blog there was a reader named 5park who commented under the 13 November 2017 blog titled "The 'great craftsman phrase' interpreted." The reader appeared to be fluent in German. And this is what the reader said:

"And I would like to translate it as follows:

'A great craftsman would be
He, who can throw a heavy thing easily upwards
And if one pound falls one quarter
it (schnellt) upwards four pounds four quarters.

The word (schnellt) is not easy for me to translate.
It is german for springlike movement, moving with inertia, quick movement
synonyms are to katapult, so sling.
My translation may be faulty.
You can look up the meaning in the german Duden and try some
alternative translations. The meaning of schnellt/schnellen did not
change in the last centuries. It is just unusual these days.

So there are two details which should make us think.
1) throw a heavy thing upwards
2) schnellt

To throw - schmeissen, werfen - means to let something go.
There is no connection to the thrower when something is thrown.
And schnellen means: Make it fast. Gain speed and then (let) go.

I want to offer an easy solution to move something around 360deg
and lift it: Sling it. A circular movement without constant radius, a spiral.
BTW - this is what you can clearly see in Besslers logo."


Even if Bessler was being sarcastic I feel there is some usable information to be had in the clue. It may have been a Freudian slip when he penned the word "schnellt" unwittingly revealing the nature of a weight's movement. And my concept uses spring-loaded levers to launch the red weights...

[Fletcher]

"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. ..." – 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

A great craftsman would be
He, who can throw a heavy thing easily upwards
And if one pound falls one quarter
it (schnellt) upwards four pounds four quarters.

Yes, translation is both an art and a skill. JC's translator Mike Senior was very experienced and had a degree in old German. He offered JC a literal translation or one that "flowed" better but kept to intent (subjective - he did know math). JC chose the less literal and rightly so. Online translators weren't around in those days and we can do it for ourselves if you have John's excellent books.

Stewart was the mainstay translator here for years. He always looked at the literal then finessed it to a more readable format and meaning, but gave us both options.

Tinhead (Rainer) is a friend of mine here in nz - he immigrated here 20 years ago from Germany - speaks and reads G. daily - and was very proficient at sim programs and supported them as used commercially in industry (knows his physics). Life got in the way about a decade ago, and he has many other hobbies etc to keep him busy. We worked together at times over the years on various ideas, and usually simmed them. Importantly I often asked him to read the G. text and give me his translation from time to time, hence the combined notes from Stewart and Tinhead. IOW's they agreed on the best choice of word and the intention, as far as the context and their experience with physics and the Bessler background would allow.

I don't invest too much energy into GB, AP, or DT (public documents). I do in MT (private doc).

ATB.

[mryy]

"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. ..." – 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

A great craftsman would be
He, who can throw a heavy thing easily upwards
And if one pound falls one quarter
it (schnellt) upwards four pounds four quarters.

Yes, translation is both an art and a skill. JC's translator Mike Senior was very experienced and had a degree in old German. He offered JC a literal translation or one that "flowed" better but kept to intent (subjective - he did know math). JC chose the less literal and rightly so. Online translators weren't around in those days and we can do it for ourselves if you have John's excellent books.

Stewart was the mainstay translator here for years. He always looked at the literal then finessed it to a more readable format and meaning, but gave us both options.

Tinhead (Rainer) is a friend of mine here in nz - he immigrated here 20 years ago from Germany - speaks and reads G. daily - and was very proficient at sim programs and supported them as used commercially in industry (knows his physics). Life got in the way about a decade ago, and he has many other hobbies etc to keep him busy. We worked together at times over the years on various ideas, and usually simmed them. Importantly I often asked him to read the G. text and give me his translation from time to time, hence the combined notes from Stewart and Tinhead. IOW's they agreed on the best choice of word and the intention, as far as the context and their experience with physics and the Bessler background would allow.

I don't invest too much energy into GB, AP, or DT (public documents). I do in MT (private doc).

ATB.

Thank you for sharing some background. You have good company! You're right about JC's decision. He wanted to spread the word about Bessler, and I feel a literal reading may have presented obstacles to reach an audience who might have never heard of the inventor and his invention (like me about 4 months ago :) ).

Comparing the translations I can see that 5park's is more aligned with Stewart & Tinhead's. As you said it's both an art and a skill and it is also guided by objective(s) set for the final translated product.

Your presence and contribution are always valued here!

[Fletcher]

I try to pay it forward, as do other contributors here. I first read about the B. story (mentioning John Collins) in a Nexus magazine in 1997 in my mid/late 30's IIRC. It intrigued me and I'd always had an interest in Physics anyway, and I remembered as a kid I'd read up on the polymath Leonardo Da Vinci's gravity PM wheel drawings etc in "Encyclopedia Britannica" with great interest. After a few years of life getting in the way I emailed JC and asked if there was an internet site / discussion forum he would recommend to discuss trying to solve the mystery of how B. did it - whether that be by deceit or true. He recommended Scott Ellis's BW.com .. and well, here we are, 20 years later, and still interested in seeing it solved.

I believe if we stick to the task of solving the mechanics and physics, someone will eventually solve the runner - just from share weight of cumulative mental efforts over the years.

P.S. it helps to have JC's books, have looked at Bill McMurtry's site, and have a good memory ;7)

Somehow I think you'll be a valuable member here and be a good fit. Personally I owe a lot to some of the earlier pioneers here (jim_mich is one who comes to mind, and Tinhead with his sim knowledge), who cut down on the crap and misinformation, and were clear and rational thinkers etc, with whom I had good discussions, and they and others reduced the time I might have wasted otherwise as I got up to speed in those early days. There are others like Tarsier79 (and too many to mention by name) of the same ilk, imo.

Everyday is a day closer to solving this physics mystery - let's get it done !

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,
The 4 to one rule meaning: Both weights are the same. One weight falling / rotating, one quarter,(one quarter of a circle), [farther out], will rotate the other weight four quarters of a circle,(360 degrees),[it being closer to the center]. If you can figure out how to do that, you have your runner, maybe--------------------------Sam

[mryy]

I try to pay it forward, as do other contributors here. I first read about the B. story (mentioning John Collins) in a Nexus magazine in 1997 in my mid/late 30's IIRC. It intrigued me and I'd always had an interest in Physics anyway, and I remembered as a kid I'd read up on the polymath Leonardo Da Vinci's gravity PM wheel drawings etc in "Encyclopedia Britannica" with great interest. After a few years of life getting in the way I emailed JC and asked if there was an internet site / discussion forum he would recommend to discuss trying to solve the mystery of how B. did it - whether that be by deceit or true. He recommended Scott Ellis's BW.com .. and well, here we are, 20 years later, and still interested in seeing it solved.

I'm over on the other side of the Great Pacific here in the States. My discovery of Bessler was because of a ... squirrel! Yes, a squirrel! Several months ago a squirrel raided my small orchard of fruit trees in the backyard. Every day there were young fruits strewn everywhere on the ground. It didn't even eat them. I wasn't too happy obviously. So I looked for (non-fatal) methods to rid the problem. There was a suggestion on the Internet to use realistic rubber toy snakes to scare squirrels away. I bought some and hung them on the trees. It worked ... for a few days. The squirrel saw through the subterfuge and returned with a vengeance.

I then had this bright idea of using small magnets to make the snakes move constantly without batteries (free energy). A moving rubber snake would look alive to our furry friend. Attached one magnet to the head of the snake and placed another one on the ground with same polarity facing the first. Tied a string to the snake and hung it from a low branch, and let is swing like a pendulum as it passed a short distance over the ground magnet. I thought the opposing forces would keep the pendulum snake swinging. It worked ... for 5 seconds. I lost over 100 pears/peaches this summer.

To make a long story short, the orchard fiasco started me on a personal journey for free energy. That was how I stumbled on John Collins' sites and the Bessler wheel held my attention since.

I believe if we stick to the task of solving the mechanics and physics, someone will eventually solve the runner - just from share weight of cumulative mental efforts over the years.

P.S. it helps to have JC's books, have looked at Bill McMurtry's site, and have a good memory ;7)

Somehow I think you'll be a valuable member here and be a good fit. Personally I owe a lot to some of the earlier pioneers here (jim_mich is one who comes to mind, and Tinhead with his sim knowledge), who cut down on the crap and misinformation, and were clear and rational thinkers etc, with whom I had good discussions, and they and others reduced the time I might have wasted otherwise as I got up to speed in those early days. There are others like Tarsier79 (and too many to mention by name) of the same ilk, imo.

Everyday is a day closer to solving this physics mystery - let's get it done !

Absolutely! If one person alone 300 years ago discovered a "pm" wheel, I can't see how our collective effort shouldn't be able to rediscover it. We will get there I am confident.

PS Mr./Mrs. Squirrel, you were really BAD this past summer. Anyway, thanks I guess...

[MrTim]

I can empathize with you (re the squirrels.) I had a macadamia tree (lost it to lightning earlier this year) that would get 800-1000 nuts a year, but the tree rats would clean it out in two weeks a few months before the nuts ripened. Your best defense (other than a tree net) is to have dogs around (cats get bored & don't stick around... ;-)

[mryy]

I can empathize with you (re the squirrels.) I had a macadamia tree (lost it to lightning earlier this year) that would get 800-1000 nuts a year, but the tree rats would clean it out in two weeks a few months before the nuts ripened. Your best defense (other than a tree net) is to have dogs around (cats get bored & don't stick around... ;-)

Good to know dogs do the job. Really nice to have one for the garden but I am not a pet person unfortunately. Last time family members brought their (cute) dog over for the weekend and my sensitive nose didn't take to the subtle smell that filled the house. It left a few stains on the carpet too...

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy or fletcher, or any one else,
I should back up a little bit on my previous post, regarding the so called 4 to 1 rule. Given a normal lever, with a ratio of 4 to 1; a one pound weight will lift four pounds. I'm still not sure what he means by the term quarters, but the key to it is this, both weights weight the same, I.E., both weigh 4 pounds. So, the idea is; a 4 pound weight with a mechanical advantage of 4 to one, can very easily lift the other four lbs.! Do you get what I mean? Both weights have to be the same because, they are constantly changing places, which could never work if they were different----------------------Sam

PS Maybe it means 4 X easier.

[johannesbender]

I just take it he was saying nothing cryptic , its written clear and straightforward to me .

1 : You cant break the law of the lever , neither distance nor mechanical advantage.
2 : Would be (unsuccessful) mobilists think having some weights further will keep a wheel turning , clearly not the truth as shown by many failed designs.

If he states , his wheel is half empty and half full , half light and half heavy , how does weights moving in and out conform , moving in all the way to the center ?

[mryy]

mryy or fletcher, or any one else,
I should back up a little bit on my previous post, regarding the so called 4 to 1 rule. Given a normal lever, with a ratio of 4 to 1; a one pound weight will lift four pounds. I'm still not sure what he means by the term quarters, but the key to it is this, both weights weight the same, I.E., both weigh 4 pounds. So, the idea is; a 4 pound weight with a mechanical advantage of 4 to one, can very easily lift the other four lbs.! Do you get what I mean? Both weights have to be the same because, they are constantly changing places, which could never work if they were different----------------------Sam

PS Maybe it means 4 X easier.

If possible can you provide an illustration of what you mean? I thought this tongue-in-cheek clue, as Fletcher puts it, was a seemingly absurd way of expressing the connectedness principle (or prime movement). At face value it appears impossible but not untruthful. I feel it was an obfuscating interpretation of the prime movement. If you look at my wheel, there are five red weights descending lightly from 2:00 to 6:00. The top one at 2:00 approaches 5:00 -- a circle quarter -- and pushes the 4 leading ones toward 6:00 for launch back up to 2:00. The moment a rolling weight catapults is actually near the 5:00 position when the lever swings up. So the flight travel is about a quarter circle, for a total of 4 quarters (as there are 4 leading weights). I feel his use of words like "quarter/s" and "schnellt" was suggestive of the wheel and inner movement. Then again it could all be a coincidence that my wheel matched the clue...

[agor95]

... prime movement ...

Apology for cutting out the rest of your post. However sometimes members say something by accident.
When that happens it's coming from their subconscious 'In My Humble Opinion'.

Think on; what is the 'Prime Movement'.


P.S.

We had a member who focused on the tumbling of a tetrahedron structure.
Again there is more to that gem from his subconscious.

Regards

[agor95]

Lovely squirrel engorged with fruit.

Squirrel in Cider Pie anyone.

Good Eating.

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
2. The weights don't move all the way into the center. I think the word he used was nearer, nearer, to the center.
1. I'm not trying to break anything, quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that Bessler found the best way to lift a 4 pound weight, is to use another 4 pound weight and, a lever that has ratio of 4 to 1. At some point the weights have to be lifted back up. Ordinary ways don't work. So, apparently he found some other way to do it, maybe----------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi Sam

You could use Horology for you know that quite well.

Think about the 'Prime Movement' and the face of a clock.

A 4 pound mass moving down on a 4:1 lever. May weigh a quarter more than a weight being propelled up in a trebuchet that has a mass of 4 pounds.

Nothing like a Bessler riddle.