Posted by John Collins (194.164.148.207) on October 27, 2002 at 01:07:47:
In Reply to: Clarification request for John Collins posted by grim on October 26, 2002 at 19:56:08:
Hi Grim,
In order to answer your question I am attaching two translations, both of which are valid. The first was done about 1925 by Lieut. Comm. R.T.Gould who wrote "Oddities", The second one was done a couple of years ago by my translator friend. I can also offer a third one done in 1890 if you wish.
The translation I first used quoted thus, "The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.
"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or the other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which inturn must also move."
The most recent one follows -
"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other automatics e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my principle of excess weight, is NOT just an external appendage, an added-on device which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cards or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or point of rest, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing."
So you can see there is a considerable difference between the two translations and I cannot offer you any advice as to which conveys the greater accuracy. There does not seem to be aby reference to the words that you seek clarification on in the second translation and I shall have to check with my translator as to the accuracy of them and get back to you.
Regards to all, John
: Hello John
: Hope all is going well with you. I have a clarification request if you don't mind. On the site in the "Clues" section, at the top, it quotes Bessler as writing (about the weights) that "one OR other must apply its weight....."etc etc. On the Orffyre site it quotes him as writing "one or ANother must apply its weight......." I know this sounds like picking at semantics, but which is correct? Gill Simo brought up the wording a few messages back and I believe he was on to something. There is a big difference between saying "one or other" and "one or ANother" because it could be a clue to the actual operating weights. I tend to subscribe to the school of thought that the "cylindrical weights" were simply noisemakers to throw observers off track of the true noise of the operating system. Adding up the weight of a "flimsy" wheel, even if oak was employed, t