Part Three is the Charm

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79,
It's very difficult. That, I have to agree with--------------------------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

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.

Very difficult to do jb, I'd imagine. Adds a whole new dimension to framing the puzzle so it still makes some kind of sense (in retrospect). You'd sacrifice your 'true and accurate' meaning for the rhyme, just so it could rhyme (English has a lot of vocabulary choices and German less so). Then again B. wasn't in the business of open and completely honest disclosure (MT in his private collection is a case in point, where he could have written in text book fashion but chose not to) - he was in the business of blurring the truth (when it suited him), so that you had to attempt to solve the riddle / puzzle to gain full understanding of his rhymes and descriptions, and it might help sell a few books for the library or fire-side table along the way, imo.

Fletcher & @,
1a. What can I add, that I haven't said already? I have a feeling, that the "trick" to it, is ghastly simple.

IMO it is "ghastly simple" Sam .. we know it must be because he says its simple, and he was afraid a buyer may well want their money back. More importantly an independent person (Karl) says to his ministers that it was easy to understand, and simple to build and, he had seen how it worked, and he was of a scientific bent. He had after all had Papin building a steam engine for him and had a reputation for being educated and interested in the sciences etc.

Side Note : In about March of 1712 Thomas Newcomen in Scotland gave his first public display of his steam engine pumping out abandoned and flooded coal mines down to a great depth. He then got flooded himself with investment money, as was the intention. His steam engine started the industrial revolution in earnest. This was a full 3 months before B's. first public display at Gera.

1b. As in two weights swapping places, run the the whole godam thing, maybe.

I would agree but with a difference. The 2 weights are part of the Prime Mover apparatus and not the conservative OOB wheel ancillary to it, also imo. IOW's, for me to reconcile the statements in that chapter then the weights swapping places relates to the Prime Mover structure. And it "runs the whole godamm thing" i.e. turns a conservative gravity-only OOB wheel (dime a dozen) into a non-conservative gravity-only OOB wheel that is a true 'runner'.

2. 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.

Imo, B. is winding his audience up with sarcasm to those great craftsmen out there - you can guess till the cows come home. Imo, it relates to making an ordinary conservative gravity-only OOB wheel into a true 'runner', WHEN the Prime Mover is added to the OOB wheel.

ATB.

[mryy]

JC's AP :

"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."

Note that last sentence. In an ordinary OOB wheel (clockwise/counterclockwise) a weight "climbs back up" nearer to the axle and its paired counterpart on the other side gravitates (descends) farther from it. Thus B. can't be describing a regular OOB. He is describing the behavior of weights in the Prime Mover apparatus which move in the opposite direction. In my wheel a red weight paired with a yellow weight gravitates near the axle at 6:00 (as measured along the x-axis passing through the wheel center) and climbs back up to an outer position at 2:00. Wagner was somewhat right -- and my wheel was partly inspired by his understanding lol!

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi mryy,
My I suggest some thing, lay your wheel out with just two mechanisms. Two for counter balance. If it won't work with two, or at least try, it will never work, no matter how many you add. It's the smartest thing I ever did, maybe the only smart thing.

I know you are going to hate me but, just lifting weights is nearly imposable, I'm afraid trying to throw them up is even more difficult. I know, I'm being a pr*ck-----------Sam

[Fletcher]

Hi mryy,
May I suggest some thing, lay your wheel out with just two mechanisms. Two for counter balance. If it won't work with two, or at least try, it will never work, no matter how many you add. It's the smartest thing I ever did, maybe the only smart thing.

I know you are going to hate me but, just lifting weights is nearly impossible, I'm afraid trying to throw them up is even more difficult. I know, I'm being a pr*ck-----------Sam

Actually you are not being a prick Sam .. you are giving honest advice based on your experience. Many here, including me, would recommend the same approach, also based on our own experiences.

Your second point is also valid .. for mryy's wheel concept, the weights don't have to just lift a minimum height to restore GPE, but also arrive 'at speed' so the transposition takes place very quickly, for the half-full-half-empty OOB wheel to operate as intended. This means a greater launch acceleration (thrust) than just to achieve minimum height restoration. And that takes greater energy input, or torque output from the position of the weights on the wheel.

It makes sense to experiment and perfect a two mech system before increasing the number of mechs etc, especially as movement and timing becomes more complex with more mechs.

[mryy]

Hi mryy,
My I suggest some thing, lay your wheel out with just two mechanisms. Two for counter balance. If it won't work with two, or at least try, it will never work, no matter how many you add. It's the smartest thing I ever did, maybe the only smart thing.

I know you are going to hate me but, just lifting weights is nearly imposable, I'm afraid trying to throw them up is even more difficult. I know, I'm being a pr*ck-----------Sam

Not sure about two. I believe the minimum number of mechanisms is four in a B. wheel. This is what B. said:

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster.: AP 340 Collins

One crossbar is comprised of two diametrically spanning poles at right angle to each other. Where they cross is the axle. The mechanisms are mounted on the poles via pivots. The pivots are the pulleys that he mentioned.

In a 4-mechanism wheel there are 4 yellow weights and 1 red weight. The trajectory of the launched red weight is more of a vertical lob landing straight into the cup of the 3:00 lever (no swingout). This explains why B. wheel barely moved with 1 only crossbar. Adding more crossbars allowed B. to change the red weight's flight trajectory and its mode of energy transfer upon landing.

Lifting weights up (and around) continuously is nearly impossible which explains why there are no runners to date. Launching small weights with powerful levers on the descending side is less impossible I think!

I like prick(ly) pears. I hear they are delicious. I just can't grow them in my climate...

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy,
It's some thing you have to make up your own mind about--------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

FWIW .. the word is Creuz which literally translates as Cross.

However, once again, we don't have enough information about the Creuz or Creuze (e on the end indicates plural i.e. Crosses).

It could be a fixed form + 'cross or cross-bar' like structure; it could be a pivoted Storks-Bill section, for example, where sections compress and elongate X.

Mryy appears to interpret Creuz as 4 quarters of a circle area each with a mech.

What is clear is that with just one of 'it' it turns very slowly. With many of 'them', and the associated zuge (pulleys) and weights, it turns much faster.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, @
For building a wheel(s), two saves so much work and, makes things a lot easer to evaluate. When I had four or more I couldn't tell what was working or not working, anyway I found it saved me a lot of time---------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Same Sam .. and if it couldn't work with 2 then all that 3, 4 or more did was further muddy the waters, imo.

However I can see that for mryy a compromise of 4 mechs should prove his wheels works and his theory for the Prime Mover apparatus / structure is correct.

ATEOTD whatever your Prime Mover is its addition would have to make MT's 44 and 48 into runners.

The English language always amuses me. A policeman arrived at my house and said that my dogs were chasing the local boys on bikes. I scoffed at him and said my dogs don't even own bikes.

[mryy]

mryy,
It's some thing you have to make up your own mind about--------------------------Sam

I made up my mind long before. I was meaning to say that the minimum is four. You can't possibly test with two mechanisms using my design unfortunately. You can test the ability of a single mechanism to launch weights to the optimum height and velocity though -- modeling the lever that is.

[mryy]

FWIW .. the word is Creuz which literally translates as Cross.

However, once again, we don't have enough information about the Creuz or Creuze (e on the end indicates plural i.e. Crosses).

It could be a fixed form + 'cross or cross-bar' like structure; it could be a pivoted Storks-Bill section, for example, where sections compress and elongate X.

Mryy appears to interpret Creuz as 4 quarters of a circle area each with a mech.

What is clear is that with just one of 'it' it turns very slowly. With many of 'them', and the associated zuge (pulleys) and weights, it turns much faster.

There's never enough information with B., the elusive one. We have to attempt at some deductions from the scant information. If real world testing fits those information, good chance our deductions were right.

I suspect cross-bars really do mean the perpendicular pairs of diametric poles and not Storks-Bill (SB). SB is already a pivoted apparatus *as you say* so it seems redundant or unnecessary of B. to point out more pulleys (pivots) with more SB's. Also, suppose that increasing SB's refers to increasing the sections only -- i.e. SB becomes longer -- you can't increase the number of weights as there is still a single end that carries the weight. For him to say that his wheels used SB's would be too revelatory about their inner workings I feel, and his critiques would have taken note.

In contrast increasing the number of poles -- and the poles naturally do not have pivots like SB's -- will allow one to increase the number of lever pivots and in turn the number of weights carried by the levers. For him to say that his wheels used poles would be a non issue. Didn't Wagner observe 8 spokes in the Draschwitz wheel? So it was understood his wheel(s) employed poles as part of the framework.

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." AP 340 Collins

[Tarsier79]

The important thing, it did just revolve with 1 cross bar. (Whatever that might be)

I think a cross bar could be anything, but think at minimum it would be 2 opposed mechanisms. I am not opposed to testing mechanisms with one mechanism and a counter weight though. I think "cross" could mean a single pole that crosses the axle, but we don't know for sure.

Mryy

In its most basic form, your wheel can be built with a single mechanism. That single mechanism can be either replicated physically or virtually, but understanding the energy budget required would be your first requirement. (Understanding the energy budget also immediately tells me your design is not going to run). Anyway, your large weight has to fall or push a lever down a certain amount in order to propel your lighter weight a certain distance. All of this is calculable by either mathematics or a POP build. Minimum effort, maximum proof. You don't even have to catch the weight at the top, you just have to measure how high it goes.

For a wheel to revolve using OB, weight must drop in gravity. One could assume this means that the COM (again easily calculated) ideally should be above the axle horizon, or at minimum always able to fall through rotation down to 6:00. For a single mechanism, the COM has to present itself in a position where it can reverse positions for reset. Sorry, a little hard to explain or follow.

[Fletcher]

FWIW .. the word is Creuz which literally translates as Cross.

However, once again, we don't have enough information about the Creuz or Creuze (e on the end indicates plural i.e. Crosses).

It could be a fixed form + 'cross or cross-bar' like structure; it could be a pivoted Storks-Bill section, for example, where sections compress and elongate X.

Mryy appears to interpret Creuz as 4 quarters of a circle area each with a mech.

What is clear is that with just one of 'it' it turns very slowly. With many of 'them', and the associated zuge (pulleys) and weights, it turns much faster.

There's never enough information with B., the elusive one. We have to attempt at some deductions from the scant information. If real world testing fits those information, good chance our deductions were right.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I suspect cross-bars really do mean the perpendicular pairs of diametric poles and not Storks-Bill (SB).

SB is already a pivoted apparatus *as you say* so it seems redundant or unnecessary of B. to point out more pulleys (pivots) with more SB's.

-f .. That would be the case if Zug = pivot and Zuge = pivots .. afaik it translates to pulley(s), as in a single rope over a single pulley, or many of them, or block and tackle like force multiplication. It also translates as train, and trains IINM i.e. connectivity train perhaps.

Also, suppose that increasing SB's refers to increasing the sections only -- i.e. SB becomes longer -- you can't increase the number of weights as there is still a single end that carries the weight.

-f .. yes.

For him to say that his wheels used SB's would be too revelatory about their inner workings I feel, and his critiques would have taken note.

-f .. AP was a publicly available book. And in a public book I too think saying SB's openly would perhaps be too revealing .. his detractors and admirers alike would have sat up and taken note for sure.

However, in MT (which remained in his private possession and not publicly available) he many times turns the light on SB's. First he says in MT38 that the correct application of the SB's is not shown, then in MT41 he does 2 curious things .. ist he draws them wrong (wrong number of segments) anddd tells us he drew them wrong .. 2nd he says he can assure the reader there is something special behind the SB's.

Anddd, if we still still don't get their importance he does another curious thing .. SB's are mentioned in writing 12 times in MT. 1 time they are called students-forceps.

For those religiously inclined reading this, perhaps a connection to ponder .. 12 Apostles + 1 Jesus = 13 SB's. And 13 is a lucky number in the Christian religion (B's. religion) IINM.

Then Wolff makes this comment .. "I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel." - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715 ..

Does sound to me like SB's have an important part to play in a runner.

In contrast increasing the number of poles -- and the poles naturally do not have pivots like SB's -- will allow one to increase the number of lever pivots and in turn the number of weights carried by the levers. For him to say that his wheels used poles would be a non issue.

Didn't Wagner observe 8 spokes in the Draschwitz wheel? So it was understood his wheel(s) employed poles as part of the framework.

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." AP 340 Collins

"Does sound to me like SB's have an important part to play in a runner." And perhaps in the public AP context Creuz(e) could well be descriptive in a loose and vague sense of SB and SB's ?!

[johannesbender]

Just for reference.

Zug, masculine, ‘pull, march, expedition,’ from Middle High German zuc (genitive zuges), Old High German zug, masculine, a verbal abstract of ziehen (compare Flug from fliegen). Corresponding to the equivalent Dutch teug, Anglo-Saxon tyge, English tug, and Danish tog.

ziehen, verb, ‘to draw, pull, march,’ from the equivalent Middle High German ziehen, Old High German ziohan; a common Teutonic strong verb; compare Gothic tiuhan, Old Saxon tiohan, Anglo-Saxon teon. The Teutonic verbal root tuh (tug) corresponds to an Aryan root duk, which has been preserved in Latin dûco, ‘to lead.’ From the same root the cognates of Zaum, Zeug, Zecht (Herzog), and the (properly) Low German Tau, neuter, are derived.

teug
From Middle Dutch toghe, tueghe, from Old Dutch *tugi, from Proto-West Germanic *tugi, from Proto-Germanic *tugiz.
teug m (plural teugen, diminutive teugje n)
pull, draw
sip, gulp (of liquid)

tug
to pull something quickly and usually with a lot of force

also:
Etymology 1
From Middle High German zuc, zug, from Old High German zug, from Proto-West Germanic *tugi, from Proto-Germanic *tugiz, an abstract noun belonging to Proto-Germanic *teuhaną, from Proto-Indo-European *dewk- (“to pull, lead”).[1]

Cognate with Dutch teug, Hunsrik Zugh, English tug, Old English tyge. Compare to German ziehen (“to pull, to draw”).

Noun
Zug m (strong, genitive Zuges or Zugs, plural Züge)

train (multiple vehicles one behind the other, particularly travelling on rails)
Synonyms: Bahn, Eisenbahn
pull (force that pulls in a specific direction)
draught (of air)
Synonym: Luftzug
traction
course
(from a cigarette, etc.) drag, draught
(from a drink) draught, gulp
stroke
feature, trait
Synonyms: Wesenszug, Eigenart, Eigenschaft
(military) platoon
Synonyms: Schützenzug, Peloton
(turn based games) move, play
Synonym: Spielzug