MT51 Comments Enquiry ?

[Roxaway59]

Here is the both of them together.

It just goes to show that both of these sounds are quite easily heard.

[Robinhood46]

because of the opposite directions of motion required to return to its former state to be able to provide energy again .

"No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. 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."

In MT 24 this lesson is highlighted , the restoration direction is kept the same direction as the motion inducing direction , however still a failure in design but a fundamental lessons to grasp , it was suppose to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

How does my thoughts fall in line with this topic ?
One directional motion inducing and resetting methods , as i have pointed out when i did the "gravitational shortcut" topic , two directions requires the energy for the opposite direction to restore the original state when gravity and other methods only gives one direction of energy release to work with .

I certainly agree with your reasoning concerning the "One directional motion inducing and resetting methods".
This is one of the aspects i thought helped me understand what we were doing wrong, or where the flaw was in our thinking, which was causing us to always build failures and even convince ourselves (collectively) that PM was impossible.
The vast majority, literally every single one, has weights going somewhere and then coming back to where they were. We must do something different if we want to have a different outcome, and weights only going places, and never coming back, seemed like a good place to start looking.

This lead me down the path and got me going on about the different rotational speeds between the weights themselves and the wheel, which convinced me of the fundamental difference between wheels with weights fixed to specific sections of the wheel, and wheels with weights that advance, or retard, with regard the wheel, because of the One directional motion inducing and resetting methods.

Maybe i am not understanding exactly what you mean by One directional motion inducing and resetting methods, and/or you can see a way of incorporating it, that doesn't cause the weights to rotate around the axis at a different speed than the wheel.

MT24 is my favourite candidate for being the most important MT. Important as in, it is showing us what we need to make it work, but unfortunately it doesn't show us how to use it, to make it work.

[johannesbender]

Interesting methods are shown and highlighted in MT , that's basically something i think all of us agree on , he was definitely working towards some sort of final conclusion as most of these MT comments stipulate that certain things will be expanded upon at later times , i try and take a little here and there in concept but not direct literal design as Fletcher points out , sooner or later something is going to come together that makes some coherent form of sense for us.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

... it was suppose to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

This phrase rings true for me.

Have you found any implementation methods?

Regards

[Daniel.R]

Just some thoughts...

Any weight falling on the descending side of the wheel will create counter-torque. A weight falling faster then the wheels rotation is not applying its full weight to the wheel.
A mass in freefall is weightless, etc.
It would therefor be better for weights to fall on the ascending side, but that is quite counter-intuitve and still requires resetting of the weight.

Many wheels in MT have weights falling on the descending side of the wheel. I wonder if Bessler found out that this is not the way because of the weight becoming more weightless as they fall.
MT136 for example shows no weights falling.

/Daniel

[johannesbender]

Hi johannesbender

... it was suppose to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

This phrase rings true for me.

Have you found any implementation methods?

Regards

Me ? no , but i think MT24 falls in line to what Fletcher mentions about the ratchet and such , and if so then MT24 stipulates there is something you need to understand to appreciate the design concept , and i think "that something" is the direction of the attempted reset is the same direction (down/fall) as that which induces the motion (gravity/fall) , however as can be seen that does not make the design a runner , but it would not be mentioned if it weren't somewhat important.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

Have you found any implementation methods? No

Well most of the main methods have been tested over the years.

As to MT24 and the many levels of interpretation I leave to others.
I did build MT25 to check my building skills.

That gave me enough to look else where.

Regards

[Roxaway59]

No. 24. This invention should not to be scorned. It consists of special
weighted levers and some hinged iron rods that close between the
levers and can fold inward. There is, however, more to explain about
it before you will grasp and correctly understand its good qualities.

No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn
somewhat differently and with longer rods; there is something
misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not
project so far out but must bend further inward. There is more to this
than one might think. Mark my words.

The question is agor95 do you believe him or not?

If you do then there is some aspect of these designs that is important. Its as simple as that.

Graham

[agor95]

Hi Graham

The question is agor95 do you believe him or not?

If you do then there is some aspect of these designs that is important. Its as simple as that.

I do believe Bessler had more to say. But did not transmit it to the present day.
Bessler may have found this to be important.

Regards

[preoccupied]

Just some thoughts...

Any weight falling on the descending side of the wheel will create counter-torque. A weight falling faster then the wheels rotation is not applying its full weight to the wheel.
A mass in freefall is weightless, etc.
It would therefor be better for weights to fall on the ascending side, but that is quite counter-intuitve and still requires resetting of the weight.

Many wheels in MT have weights falling on the descending side of the wheel. I wonder if Bessler found out that this is not the way because of the weight becoming more weightless as they fall.
MT136 for example shows no weights falling.

/Daniel

I thought of what you said here as it applies to my wheel design from today.
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 31#p208831
If all of the conveyors are working in unison then on the bottom left it will have less torque because of being in partial free fall and on the top right it will have extra torque by being pushed against by the wheel. Thank you for your insight. It was good.

[Fletcher]

because of the opposite directions of motion required to return to its former state to be able to provide energy again .

"No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. 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."

In MT 24 this lesson is highlighted , the restoration direction is kept the same direction as the motion inducing direction , however still a failure in design but a fundamental lessons to grasp , it was supposed to be a fall outwards freely and fall inwards freely concept , Bessler was looking for free methods of resetting.

How does my thoughts fall in line with this topic ?

One directional motion inducing and resetting methods , as i have pointed out when i did the "gravitational shortcut" topic , two directions requires the energy for the opposite direction to restore the original state when gravity and other methods only gives one direction of energy release to work with.

I certainly agree with your reasoning concerning the "One directional motion inducing and resetting methods".

This is one of the aspects i thought helped me understand what we were doing wrong, or where the flaw was in our thinking, which was causing us to always build failures and even convince ourselves (collectively) that PM was impossible.

The vast majority, literally every single one, has weights going somewhere and then coming back to where they were. We must do something different if we want to have a different outcome, and weights only going places, and never coming back, seemed like a good place to start looking.

This lead me down the path and got me going on about the different rotational speeds between the weights themselves and the wheel, which convinced me of the fundamental difference between wheels with weights fixed to specific sections of the wheel, and wheels with weights that advance, or retard, with regard the wheel, because of the One directional motion inducing and resetting methods.

Maybe i am not understanding exactly what you mean by One directional motion inducing and resetting methods, and/or you can see a way of incorporating it, that doesn't cause the weights to rotate around the axis at a different speed than the wheel.

MT24 is my favourite candidate for being the most important MT. Important as in, it is showing us what we need to make it work, but unfortunately it doesn't show us how to use it, to make it work.

Interesting methods are shown and highlighted in MT , that's basically something i think all of us agree on , he was definitely working towards some sort of final conclusion as most of these MT comments stipulate that certain things will be expanded upon at later times , i try and take a little here and there in concept but not direct literal design as Fletcher points out , sooner or later something is going to come together that makes some coherent form of sense for us.

Me ? no , but i think MT24 falls in line to what Fletcher mentions about the ratchet and such , and if so then MT24 stipulates there is something you need to understand to appreciate the design concept , and i think "that something" is the direction of the attempted reset is the same direction (down/fall) as that which induces the motion (gravity/fall) , however as can be seen that does not make the design a runner , but it would not be mentioned if it weren't somewhat important.

.. fwiw, I started this thread with MT51 on purpose - it had a very detailed and clear one-way bearing/clutch design that dominates the design and page ( unnecessarily ) - yet we all know that having the one-way bearing applied to the axle-hanging-pendulum ( one-way free movement ) will result in an absolute dead end of a non-runner ..

.. I like jb's analysis of MT's 24 and 25 and it is similar to my own - the cross-pulls are nonsense, completely unnecessary, they don't do a single thing - they are eye candy put there but of no practical purpose - the bottom lever-weight ( lw ) will fall back ( retrograde motion ) towards 6 o'cl automatically under its own weight before the top lw has completed its CW fall and pull ( Cf's will cancel out at any rpm ) - so imo the only things of interest are the lws - since the bottom lw will undergo "free" retrograde rotation of its own volition then the respective directional motions are the things of note in these MT's, imo ..

.. Similar to MT20 in that the outer "flip weight" is pulled up ( lifted gaining PE ) and outwards at 9 o'cl and then thru retrograde rotation resets itself for free i.e. hangs beneath its pivot ( where its mass is felt ) until on the descending side again when it rests on the spoke to ride to 9 o'cl .. however, in MT20 there are a couple of extra things of note imo .. B. says he tells his friend to put the horse in front ( before the cart ), i.e. the flip weight is driven into position by the pendulum-lever-like arrangement associated with it but the flip weight is the intended horse that turns the wheel in the friends design - and to my way of thinking the flip weight is designed in this machine to do the turning and B. is saying put the pendulum-lever-like device in front so it becomes the horse to turn the wheel and the flip weight is the cart ..

.. From ruminating on these matters ( and others ) I imagined a runner had to be a simple machine i.e. not very complex and with not many moving parts - given that I felt that MT was originally a progression of sorts, and as jb said, leading up to a final conclusion i.e. building and filling in the picture to his mechanical PM solution - this lead me to think why wouldn't B. lead us thru his original barely able to turn itself prototype i.e. his very first experimental runner ? - and thru that lens perhaps it was made of just 2 mechanical elements - an efficient outer circle of hanging correct-handle construction one-way bearinged lws that had free movement in one direction only - they would provide the torque to turn the wheel a ways, but needed a free lift ( restoring GPE ) into position to latch etc - this, according to my theory, was provided by an interaction with the second part of the prototype arrangement - the single pendulum-like device "prime mover" that kept the oscillatory function and feedback going and building imbalance and momentum .. as per MT13 and the pendulums seen in the DT engravings of his later wheels ..

.. I think many us have been bamboozled for so long because we did not think or consider that B. just might change up/out his prime mover for another one - I further suggest it initially was a oscillating pendulum hanging from the wheel axle in a feedback loop with the outer circle/radius one-way bearing lws - I suggest when he went public he had a need to hide everything inside the wheel - this caused him to redesign the prime mover so it could be enclosed within the wheel and could not be seen - and it was no longer a hanging pendulum-like structure ( as seen in the engravings ) but another that circulated internally with the wheel ( everything going around together ), but still providing a similar timed impetus and feedback to the efficient outer ring lws torquing system ..

.. And I strongly feel this "enclosed" second iteration prime mover is the main focus, and central theme, of the Toy's Page and relates directly to what is "special behind" Stork's Bills ( and their correct application of ), which I'll begin to expand the hypothesis on in due course ..

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

ETA 1. .. while I think of it .. regarding a pendulum-like structure etc being a prime mover appendage and what effects that might have on a revolving wheel - the wheel supports went from floor to ceiling and were securely bolted to them forming a strong brace element - the wheels were never exhibited in a moveable crate or stand .. Gartner and Borlach commented on the fact that the Merseburg wheel stressed the supports so that a horizontal crack opened and closed again ( rising and falling ) in the vertical support once each revolution - sounds to me like a periodic force being applied is a possibility to explain the painted crack appearing and disappearing - B. completely avoided the subject in his AP comments and redrawing of Borlach's engraving of the wheel etc ..

ETA 2. .. and why it appears almost any MT could be made into a runner like MT's 44 and 48 for example - just bolt on a B. prototype runner or its descendants ..

[John Collins]

Sorry to interrupt but was does your ETA stand for fletch. I can only find estimated or expected time of arrival?

JC

[daxwc]

Copilot: In the context of the selected text, “ETA” stands for “Edited To Add”. It’s used in online discussions to denote that the author has added content to their original post or comment after it was initially published12. This is similar to “PS” (postscript), which is used to add a note after the main body of a letter or message. Both “ETA” and “PS” serve the purpose of adding additional information, but “ETA” is more commonly used in digital communications, especially in forums and social media.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update, (wrong page).

[johannesbender]

I feel like whatever really was under the hood , weren't affected negatively by CF , however i wonder if CF was something he never had to worry about or actually had issues with early on .