Part Three is the Charm

[mryy]

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.

Dunno. It's a release and catch system. A single mechanism build is essentially modeling of the lever system. Give me a general breakdown of your energy budget for this design. Does this "budget" apply to "untethered" designs like mine? I am assuming you are familiar with "tethered" wheels as those are what you deal with.

[mryy]

-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.

I feel it would again be revelatory to mention pulleys in the way of ropes passing over them if such were used. Bessler was ever careful with his choice of words. Many of the MT drawings don't even use roped pulleys. Maybe it was an attempt to mislead by use of a word that could have more than one meaning (zug = roped pulley, train)?

-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.

"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 ?!

My guess is that the Stork's Bill (SB) is special not in its actual form but the way its arms/links move about those pivots. B. alluded to this in the text of the Toys Page:

"5 children's toys in whose yoke (fulcrum, pivot) something special works (is at work), for whoever knows how to apply it in a different manner."

(literal translation by Hans von Lieven @ https://overunity.com/4745/johann-bessl ... mation/30/) Nice to see you and JC in this 2008 thread. :)

The SB links close AND open about the pivots that connect them. I see that in the lever of my design. As you know I have torsion springs at the fulcrum and tip of the lever. The spring legs are like the SB links closing AND opening. These movements propel the weights inside the wheel in different ways.

B. pointed out similarly about MT 24 & 25:

"No. 24 This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small ironpoles with hinges. The poles fall inward when the levers close. There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

No. 25 This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly. There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively." Collins

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 ..

Christian Wolff also suggested "that the weights on the wheels's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted..." July 3, 1722 letter to Johann Daniel Schumacher. Wolff can only speculate...

[johannesbender]

mryy , physics mechanics math builds tests ,are the only deciding factors , "clues" could be useful but I think , personally there is not much point in trying to match "clues" or to look for what matches with "clues" , they wont make anything work or turn , Bessler would have revealed all if he wanted to , he did not , but there is however MT which he personally said is something within though.

[agor95]

Do you think we should look on the written material and drawings as a method to develop our perception towards his own?

It is not the words but the thinking hidden the words.

Regards

[mryy]

mryy , physics mechanics math builds tests ,are the only deciding factors , "clues" could be useful but I think , personally there is not much point in trying to match "clues" or to look for what matches with "clues" , they wont make anything work or turn , Bessler would have revealed all if he wanted to , he did not , but there is however MT which he personally said is something within though.

Yes. Build tests will ultimately make or break a design. The "clues" in the way of description of the wheel by Bessler and others were crucial to the development of my own. I wouldn't discount them at all. For me they are *at least* as important as MT. In fact MT's Toys Page served only as a gauge/checklist *after* my design was completed.

The labeled figures in the Toys Page:

A - connecting wagons (possibly the "zuge" mentioned by B. about adding more crossbars; the adjacent levers in my design do resemble connecting wagons)
B - Jacob's ladder
C & D - hammermen
E - Stork's Bill

[Tarsier79]

Dunno. It's a release and catch system. A single mechanism build is essentially modeling of the lever system. Give me a general breakdown of your energy budget for this design. Does this "budget" apply to "untethered" designs like mine? I am assuming you are familiar with "tethered" wheels as those are what you deal with.

The Center Of Mass is easy to calculate. Draw a straight line between weights and mark where they would balance on that line (a simple ratio).

In energy terms, you start of with Potential Energy, which you can convert to Kinetic Energy. KE=PE. The PE formula is MGH or Mass x Gravity x Height. Gravity is a constant in our wheel, so to simplify we can ignore it....M x H. That means in a perfect world we can measure something that is moving by how high we can deflect it. (note there is no mention of horizontal displacement).

So, a common reference again in the energy budget: a 1 pound weight falls 4 quarters. The amount of energy is equal to 4 pounds falling 1 quarter or 2 pounds falling 2 quarters. Or you could say it conforms to the Law Of Levers.

The energy budget applies to all designs.
So: for your design you can calculate: How heavy is your small ball and how high to you have to throw it: M x H (This will give a static best case scenario and will tell you the bare minimum you need if there were no frictions. That amount of energy is stored in a spring, again in real life we will add frictions. The spring is operated by a lever (LOL). The lever is operated by a weight that "falls" or pushes down with gravity MxH.

How much energy will your small weight give to the wheel? M x H.

Where is the COM at the start of the transaction. Where is the COM at the end of the transaction. OR Where is the large weight start and end + where is the small weight start and end.

In your particular case, the small weight requires X energy to be thrown from bottom(end) to 2:00(start). In a perfect world this ball will return X energy to the wheel with rotation. The spring releases X energy into the small ball, so we require X + (Something) to compress the spring. Our heavy weight has to fall X+S to compress the spring, then we have to lift it back to where we started. See where I am going with this?

So, for your (and any other) design to work we need to break the Law Of Levers And the Energy Budget. Inefficiencies are generally a no-no.

[mryy]

In your particular case, the small weight requires X energy to be thrown from bottom(end) to 2:00(start). In a perfect world this ball will return X energy to the wheel with rotation. The spring releases X energy into the small ball, so we require X + (Something) to compress the spring. Our heavy weight has to fall X+S to compress the spring, then we have to lift it back to where we started. See where I am going with this?

Not following your reasoning. To wind up the torsion spring (and hence store PE for later use) you need a heavy weight to swing down the lever. A properly sized spring and heavy weight will cause the PE of the wound spring to hold a *minimum* of X energy to launch the small weight up. The heavy weight then rolls off onto the guide at 6:00 leaving the spring with optimized PE and triggering it to unwind. I repeat, the heavy weight then rolls off onto the guide at 6:00 leaving the spring with optimized PE and triggering it to unwind. PE is converted to optimized KE as the lever swings back up, and the small weight is catapulted. When the weight lands on the 2:00 lever a new COM is created and the wheel system resets. Consequently the system (or gravity) acts on the new COM.

[Tarsier79]

Correct.

Lets pretend we are in a perfect world. X = PE of the spring = KE small weight = PE small weight at 2:00 = energy transferred to the wheel during the weights descent 2:00-6:00.... So no advantage.

The large weight as per before requires X+S energy to compress the spring. It supplies this from dropping its PE. X+S= PE of large weight when raised = energy to compress the spring= the energy the wheel needs to give back to the large weight to reset.

ADD: For your wheel to work, the small weight has to give back more, or take less to position, or the large weight has to take less to lift, or give more to the spring, or the spring needs to compress easier than it releases. The LOL needs to be broken.

[Fletcher]

Mryy .. the devils always in the detail .. It's been said before so forgive me here .. break the problem down into bits.

Your design concept is not an easy build for many a builder (sim or real-world) - there are some intricate and precise actions required - start with a single stand-alone mech to sort out practicalities of the toss and catch apparatus. You WILL be able to toss a smaller mass on a trajectory upwards.

Put 2 or more mechs into a wheel to test it in a dynamic environment. If your theory is correct all will be revealed and the tossed red mass will hit target and cause torque in the wheel so that it can be repeated and the wheel have continuous revolution from just gravity force input.

I ask this question for you to think about .. could your concept be adapted to reset the weight-levers at 12 o'cl in MT13 ? i.e. be the person to lift like lightening the lever-weight to create torque and rotation ? I ask because there may be a simpler way forward for your concept in terms of building and testing it.

ATB.

[mryy]

Correct.

Lets pretend we are in a perfect world. X = PE of the spring = KE small weight = PE small weight at 2:00 = energy transferred to the wheel during the weights descent 2:00-6:00.... So no advantage.

The large weight as per before requires X+S energy to compress the spring. It supplies this from dropping its PE. X+S= PE of large weight when raised = energy to compress the spring= the energy the wheel needs to give back to the large weight to reset.

I'm sorry I am still not following. I'm sure you know what you're saying and others know as well. I believe all this discussion of energy applies to tethered wheels. With the proposed design once that free flying weight lands on the 2:00 lever the wheel should turn regardless.

ADD: For your wheel to work, the small weight has to give back more, or take less to position, or the large weight has to take less to lift, or give more to the spring, or the spring needs to compress easier than it releases. The LOL needs to be broken.

Again, the above definitely applies to tethered wheels. When that small weight lands it doesn't need to give to back to the system. It could lose its energy to the universe for all I know and the wheel should turn. The system detects a *new or fresh* net torque the moment the weight lands and acts on that. Torque is simply a function of mass, acceleration (gravity) and radial position. LOL is not broken. (Side note: a wheel/axle system including the individual pivoting levers are called physical pendulums in physics. In the presence of an external net force like gravity, their energies are conserved during movement while their angular momentums are not.)

[mryy]

Mryy .. the devils always in the detail .. It's been said before so forgive me here .. break the problem down into bits.

Your design concept is not an easy build for many a builder (sim or real-world) - there are some intricate and precise actions required - start with a single stand-alone mech to sort out practicalities of the toss and catch apparatus. You WILL be able to toss a smaller mass on a trajectory upwards.

Put 2 or more mechs into a wheel to test it in a dynamic environment. If your theory is correct all will be revealed and the tossed red mass will hit target and cause torque in the wheel so that it can be repeated and the wheel have continuous revolution from just gravity force input.

To which I quote Bessler concerning one of his wheels:
"It took a tremendous amount of calculation before I was able to devise this machine! It took a great deal of time before it was all properly figured out! It's reached the stage now where even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head-scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice. The design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'." AP 308 (last quote from AP Part 1)

Yes the devil is in the details. Once the details are sorted out and put to blueprint, I think it should be relatively uncomplicated for anyone with some construction skills to complete. Bessler's wheels were easy to understand and build. Yet they were not so easy to run unless the correct design specifications were incorporated imo.

I ask this question for you to think about .. could your concept be adapted to reset the weight-levers at 12 o'cl in MT13 ? i.e. be the person to lift like lightening the lever-weight to create torque and rotation ? I ask because there may be a simpler way forward for your concept in terms of building and testing it.

I don't believe just any conservative OOB design can successfully receive a prime mover and run (smoothly). Some have inherent problems that can't be overcome even with a mover, and I believe MT13 is likely one of them. Bessler states:

"No. 13 This is a new weight-invention, with no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free except that each has an interval arm C with which it forms an angle, and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon and above a small wheel B over which the arms C sweep and lift themselves up at D. This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed."

The large hanging figure is a good source of that friction. I am doubtful MT13 could be used for testing. Anyway I like to hear your input if you have a simpler way forward.

[Fletcher]

Reference : something about zug and zuge and creuz and creuze was bugging me since yesterday. I knew that Stewart had discussed cross and cross-bar before, and zug, in great detail. And cross-pulls etc.

I typed zug into the forum search feature, with the name Stewart as Author.

Rather than give the whole posts I copy the main points here .. each post should be read in full as he gives much more interesting information.

Stewart March 2009 .. As for the 'pulleys', we've been over it a number of times - a pulley is a small wheel with a groove for a rope, but that is not what 'Zug' means and Bessler uses different words to refer to pulleys in the rest of his writings.

Stewart May 2008 .. Hi John, Thanks for posting the image from your dictionary. It is interesting to see 'cross-bar' listed so high up, and then listed again under 'Kreuzarm'. Anyway I'm sure you can see my point that the main meaning of 'Kreuz' is 'cross' and that the word should be translated as such, and then perhaps a translators note given to explain what the word might refer to in the context of the sentence, as although it's likely that the word refers to a crossbar of some sort we can not be 100% sure of that. It may be that had this not been written in AP, Bessler may have elaborated and written 'Kreuz-zug' or 'Kreuz-stange' etc., however the word 'Kreuz' falls at the end of the line and rhymes with the word 'bereits' above it. The words don't rhyme particularly well, so perhaps he struggled to fine something to rhyme with 'Kreuz' and would probably have had a harder time trying to rhyme anything more elaborate. Please could you have a look further down in the 'Kreuz' section in your dictionary and see if there is anything listed for '--zug' or it might be a totally separate entry 'Kreuzzug'. Thanks.

John Collins May 2008 .. Now, although I am unable to make the precise connection in any dictionary that I can find, I translate Zuge as meaning pulley, a wheel with a grooved rim in which a belt, chain, or piece of rope runs in order to lift weights by a downward pull. Zuge derives from zug - to pull) I'm sure I will be corrected in this assumption, but my friend Mike Senior who did 99% of my translation work told me that pulley is a correct translation of the word Zuge and as he has a degree in 18th C German I believe him.

Stewart May 2008 .. The reason you're struggling to make a direct connection between 'Zug' as meaning 'pulley' is because I think again it would be an abbreviated/slang term. 'Zug' is a noun meaning 'pull' - i.e. "I gave the rope a pull". 'Zuge' is the plural form (pulls) - i.e. "I gave the rope several pulls". The verb 'to pull', from which 'Zug' is presumably derived, is 'ziehen'. There are other meanings for 'Zug' such as 'line','lineament','train'. In Bessler's time a 'pulley' (a device with a wheel as you've described) was referred to as a 'Scheiben-zug' or 'Flaschen-zug'. 'Scheibe' means 'disc' and obviously refers to the roller/pulley wheel. The word 'Scheibe' on it's own has come to mean 'pulley'. I'm not sure of the exact connection of the word 'Flasche', but it might refer to the casing/housing i.e. the 'block' of 'block & tackle'. 'Flaschenzug' is still a term used in German today to refer to a pulley/block & tackle.

So while it is possible to see a connection between 'Zug' and 'pulley', once again for a translator to just put 'pulley' is not safe in my opinion because that will automatically conjure up in peoples' minds a small grooved wheel, when it could simply be referring to the 'rope'. It's difficult to know what to put down for a translation in this case - I can't put 'rope' because it doesn't say that even if that is probably what it refers to, so I thought the safest thing to do is to put the noun 'pull' and then just explain what it could mean (i.e. something used to pull). You'll see my reasoning for not assuming 'pulley' in a minute.

So, the important thing to do when translating Bessler texts is to cross-reference things - not only among his own works but also those of others from his time such as Leupold. Taking the part of AP that is being discussed and comparing the words used to those in MT really helps our understanding. Looking at words from MT14 & 15 for example:

The reference is in relation to JC's AP ..

XXXIII (b) Wagner's childish calculation, of which he, not I, should be thoroughly ashamed.
At this point Wagner seeks to correct a point made by my patron. The point concerns the power of my machines. Wagner calculates the total power of these three wheels, and says that the figure given should be reduced considerably - so much so, in fact, that good Master Orffyreus, the great mathematician, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself! Ashamed also that I, Orffyreus, did not force my patron to write the correct figure. Listen, Wagner, I'm not your slave! Who is right? You're the one who calculates badly! So I'm to be excused, having done nothing wrong that reflects on my patron. Please note carefully these facts:- If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar ["Cross"] in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars ["Crosses"], pulleys[/b ["Pulls"] and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!

Several Crosses, Pulls (ropes etc), and Weights.

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

In reference to earlier posts in this thread I'll discuss use of 'pulleys and pivots' when I get a chance to do so, probably tomorrow.

[Tarsier79]

'm sorry I am still not following. I'm sure you know what you're saying and others know as well. I believe all this discussion of energy applies to tethered wheels. With the proposed design once that free flying weight lands on the 2:00 lever the wheel should turn regardless.

No, energy applies to anything that moves. If an object is moving in contact with the wheel, it has energy. If it is flying through the air it has energy. If it is held at 2:00 in a catch mechanism, it has energy.

Again, the above definitely applies to tethered wheels.

When that small weight lands it doesn't need to give to back to the system

. It could lose its energy to the universe for all I know and the wheel should turn. The system detects a *new or fresh* net torque the moment the weight lands and acts on that. Torque is simply a function of mass, acceleration (gravity) and radial position. LOL is not broken.

The weight lands at 2:00. When it drops from 2-6, (assumed movement) the wheel rotates. The weight has given its energy, (PE at 2) to the rotation of the wheel (KE). MGH, where height is the distance from its landing point at 2 to its bottom position at 6. Yes torque is important, but we don't need to calculate it in this instance.

Ultimately, your large weight, due to the function it has to perform will give a counter torque greater than that you will receive from your light weight.

[Fletcher]

Zugged from another thread a few days ago .... Relates to Hans Von Lieven discussion of the Toy's Page (TP) notation and the use of the word Yoke / Pivot.

Side Note : It will come as no great surprise to many that I consider B's. Toy's Page (TP) to be his most important work that he produced.

Firstly, it was not of course published until John Collins translated version MT in 2007. Now its available to all in hard copy and digital versions. Until then we had only B's. published books (intended for public consumption) to read etc. It was within his private illustrations and writings, we now call MT.

Secondly, it is important to me for another reason. The various discussions around what B. wrote at the bottom of the illustration, and its meaning.

Over the years I have kept a file on what I considered important or revealing about those few words associated with the TP.

Below is my summary of some of the commentaries taken from the forum, for your consideration.

N.B. Stewart Hughes is an old-time member skilled in translating Old German, Latin, and French. His research is meticulous and cross-checked against other handwriting examples of B. when a word or two can appear ambiguous. Case in point (Hans von Lieven translation, and others); 'joch' is in fact 'doch', and 'arbeit' is in fact 'stecket'. B's. handwriting is difficult to read which is why it needs to be cross-checked against other examples to get a fair level of accuracy within another context.

..................

TOPIC BW.com re: The last toy Post by Stewart » Sat 10 Jan, 2004 3:27 pm

Stewart Hughes 2004 ..

There is a short piece of text at the bottom of the toy page. John provided the following translations in a post on the old board:

a) "5. Children's "games" In which yoke one may also find something special whoever knows how to apply (arrange?) them differently".

b) "5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way."

c) "Fifthly - the children are instrumental, through their play, in causing the force - through some particular impulse - to be transferred from the abandoned foot (fuss) over (to come) to be applied to the other."

Stewart Hughes 2010 ..

With 'doch' and 'stecket' the sentence makes perfect sense, with 'Joch' and 'Arbeit' it isn't grammatically correct and doesn't make any sense either. Here's how the correct transcription translates into English: (re : Hans von Lieven discussion)

"5 children's games In which however there may also be something special, for those who know of another way to apply them."

Stewart Hughes 2006 ..

5. Kinder-Spiele
In welchen doch auch
was besonders stecket, wer
Sie auf andere Weise zu appliciren
weis.

Word for word:

Five childrens' games in which however also something special put, who them of another way to apply knows.

Better grammar:

Five childrens' games in which however there is also something special for anyone who knows of another way to apply them.

............

DeepL Translation :

5. Kinder-Spiele
In welchen doch auch
was besonders stecket, wer
Sie auf andere Weise zu appliciren
weis.

5. children's games
In which also
something special, who
who knows how to apply them
know how.

.............

N.B. spiele - the additional e indicates plural games which confirms something special (extraordinary) for those who know how (of another way) to apply "them".

This strongly suggests to me that elemental factors of the games form one new entity with surprising physical outcomes.

ETA : Added the TP for context, for those who haven't memorized it.

.............

[Tarsier79]

Fletcher, as usual makes an excellent point: You should break down each component:
Design your wheel..Eg 1M diameter. You don't have to build it yet. Calculate how high you have to throw it and what angle.
How heavy is your light weight?
Build a shooting mechanism to shoot it the calculated distance. Build your cocking mechanism to compress the spring with a large weight....
Test ETC