Part Three is the Charm

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy,
No, sorry. I don't know how to draw with a key board. I thought Quarters meant movement also. But, that doesn't really add up either. Maybe Fletcher can figure it out. mryy, I'm afraid your idea is too complicated, if you will fore give me for saying so. But then, maybe it's just my pea brain. Anyway back to the levers. The key to understanding it is, both weights are the same-------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Is this more ridicule, agor95? Horology. Except for your insults, you tend to lose me-------------------------------Sam

[mryy]

... 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

Are you being cryptic? Perhaps you mean clock primes?
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 23, 67, 89, 101, 4567, 10111, 67891, 89101, 789101, 4567891, 23456789, 56789101, 1234567891, 45678910111, 12345678910111}

I do see 2 and 5 which I mentioned in my previous post about the red weights. So Bessler's Prime Mover/Movement somehow incorporates clock primes? Hmm

https://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_019.htm

[Fletcher]

Sam .. I think B. was being sarcastic - you'd be a 'great craftsman' if you could break the Law of Levers - the LOL includes Mechanical Advantage (MA) and Speed Ratio (SR). He talks of quarters but deliberately gives no units - thus it could mean anything from sections of the wheel, circumference, to vertical heights (which we usually jump to). We have no way of telling from what he wrote. He leaves you to speculate about what it could mean and pushes you even further into the squirrel hole :7)

The thing with Archimedes LOL is that it is strictly governed by geometry, or ratios, as it were. These ratios and geometric relationships can not be fudged, because they are just ratios (percentages) etc. If the ratio, geometry, percentages changes, so does the MA and SR.

i.e. MA x SR = 1.0 .. a simple equation where you can see if MA goes up then SR must go down so they ALWAYS equal 1.0. In theoretical mechanics they can never not equal 1.0. (this is ideal conditions of no frictions which means they in-fact multiply to less than 1.0 (friction losses etc) in practice)

If we use you see-saw (no mass) example then unless the masses are at equal distance from a pivot they will be unbalanced. If released to move they will do so. One going down losing GPE and the other going up gaining GPE. And at a 4 : 1 ratio that movement will be quite fast.

This means their GPE losses and gains are not equal - they are at a 4 : 1 ratio (percentage). Where did the additional GPE to balance the books go ? It went into SR (velocity and KE of masses), maximum just before the see-saw was arrested. Where did this go after being stopped ? - into the environment to which it was attached, as momentum exchange. In this way Energy and Momentum are conserved as per the Conservation Laws.

[mryy]

mryy,
No, sorry. I don't know how to draw with a key board. I thought Quarters meant movement also. But, that doesn't really add up either. Maybe Fletcher can figure it out. mryy, I'm afraid your idea is too complicated, if you will fore give me for saying so. But then, maybe it's just my pea brain. Anyway back to the levers. The key to understanding it is, both weights are the same-------------------Sam

It doesn't add up because it's supposed to be a riddle I think?

Here's a riddle of the sphinx from Greek Mythology: "Which is the creature that has one voice, but has four feet in the morning, two feet in the afternoon, and three feet at night?"

So you find the wheel complicated. Simplicity is a subjective matter after all lol. To each his own I guess.

[johannesbender]

I think it adds up because I think it wasn't about a specific distance , like saying half an apple and half the planet earth , its relative to whatever the scale/distance of the thing is , that's what he means with quarters , it remains unbreakable at any scale.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I think you are both right. Yes, it centrally is a riddle. Not a specific distance, maybe. Yea, maybe that's it. Just 4 times farther, what ever that distance might have been-------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Fletcher!
Right, I used to think the same thing; a big load of stuff, not worth the effort to figure it out. lately, I've been thinking that he was seriously trying to explain how the wheel functioned. And, maybe I should give it more consideration. I firmly believe in the LOL and have no thoughts of trying to break any of them. Anyway, I've figured out this much, both weights are the same, FWEIW--Sam

[Fletcher]

Yes Sam .. B. was a pathological puzzler .. only I don't find them so entertaining lol.

In that same chapter (XLIII - dedicated to replying to W.) he categorically says that in his runners weights move in and out and go on swapping places all the time - this is a fact, according to B, and I believe him.

He then pokes the bear with a big stick saying W. attributed this motive method to B. but he didn't tell anybody how they worked.

So he sets up a mechanics juxtaposition, a mechanical riddle. Because .. we know all machines capable of doing Work are made up of even 'simpler machines', and simple-machines obey the Law of Levers. Power-In (energy) is reduced or amplified thru LOL (MAxSR=1.0) to do Work. It's extremely difficult to reconcile what he is saying without thinking of violating Levers LAW - that was his mind-trap set for the reader and W. who would also read it.

He then doubles-down saying ..

"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."

Sticking with the cliches - he rubs further salt in the wound.

Here's how I dealt with the mind-f Sam .. At least I knew what it could NOT be - he was not breaking the LOL's of simple machines. So I could unclutter the mind of ideas like we see in MT etc, or combinations of them per se.

But they were a motivational monkey of my back (sticking with animals for now) which I knew would be hard to shake like a crack-head looking for the next fix. I knew I would bounce back again and again but hopefully it would be longer between relapses.

But you and I still need a viable alternative theory that "looks like" an ordinary conservative OOB wheel, but behaves very differently.

The "There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date ...".

Clearly there is mechanics (simple machines) involved, but following my new reductionist instincts the motive force for his runners was of physical form but not a simple machine per se !

And its addition allowed many forms of conservative OOB gravity-only wheels to be non-conservative in the final outcome, so answering the riddle and juxtaposition of the chapters content, imo !

[johannesbender]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Bessler wrote in rhyme , he had to construct his sentences and use certain words to keep the rhyme scheme , we forget about this due to the translation , but i imagine this can become difficult to keep the exact meaning you want while rhyming too.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher & @,
What can I add, that I haven't said already? I have a feeling, that the "trick" to it, is ghastly simple. As in two weights swapping places, run the the whole godam thing, maybe---------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Also, It must mean; if the weight falls one quarter, from 3:00 to 6:00, the wheel will then make one full revolution or 4 quarters. Simple, right----------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

I don't think lifting something 4 quarters would count as a full rotation. It isn't being lifted as it is rotating downwards. Technically, a quarter fall driving a full rotation is very easy to do, but it will never result in PM, falling more into a clockwork mechanism.

Statically or dynamically, one weight moving inwards and one moving outwards will drive a wheel. The problem is it will only do it with the use of gravity, and it will only do it if you lift one or both weights upwards every 180 degrees, resulting in a nice OB. Lifting the weights against gravity requires energy. I am planning a demonstration of this. We will see if it happens.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79,
I don't understand. First you say it can't be done, then you say it's very easy to do. I'm confused; which is it? Maybe, I crossed you up some how. I'll take another stab at it / and try to explain my self better.

Forget about lifting for the moment. One weight is @ the 3 O'clock position, but farther out. The other weight is @ the 9 O'clock position but nearer to the axle. The wheel is stopped. If you let go of it and let the weight at 3:00, fall for one quarter, one quarter of a revolution, (from 3:00 to 6:00), the wheel would then continue to rotate one full turn, which would be equal to 4 quarters of the rotation of the wheel. One quarter being equal to 90 degrees, four quarters would be equal to 360 degrees / degrees of rotation.

If it did that, if Bessler's wheel could do that, I think it would be pretty amazing and, not that easy to do, or am I missing some thing-----------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Sorry Sam, I should have spread out my points:

One of JCs translations:
"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."

1. Something going in a circle isn't lifting it (or making it "rise" as said above.)

2. A small weight falling a quarter gives its energy to the "wheel" or a large weight on a lever. Starting from 12:00, the large weight then has more than enough energy to make 360 degrees, or well built it could spin 6-8 times (or even more). This type of mechanism is like clockwork: it will wind down, ending up with all the weight dropping... IE not perpetual.

3. 2 weights swapping positions will rotate if you can lift them against gravity. Not easy to do. Moving them horizontally is of no use.