Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Kreuz Means the X in Storksbill/Pantograph.

In a recent blog I posted a small coded clue, thinking that if anyone had a go at it they would need help in solving it.  Wrong!  One anonymous person got it quite quickly.  The clue was  an anagram, which looked like this.  “Karl’s next mobilizers sunk.”

The solution was this, “kreuz means x in storksbill"

Check this earlier blog

Friday, 10 November 2017


Johann Bessler's so-called Cross-Bars


So what does this mean?  When I published Apologia Poetica my translator suggested Kreuz meant crossbar, as there were literally dozens of potential meanings available depending on the required meaning and he could not think of anything more suitable. But actually the basic translation is “cross”.  Knowing Bessler’s propensity for offering clues which are vague or have more than one meaning and with no apparent reference to other things, it took me a while (about 30 years!) to make the connection.  The X's also known as “crosses” are a basic component of the famous “storksbill” or “pantograph”. Some shown in red and some in yellow as below.

When Bessler says that when he used just one cross, the wheel scarcely moved (paraphrased) but when he added more it turned, he simply meant that you needed more than one. 

This seems to me to suggest that although the pantograph mechanism was used, it was a small part not requiring a lengthy travel, just more than one link. He possibly designed it as one rectangle without an X to begin with and then adapted it as he saw fit. 

He also takes the opportunity to throw in the information that he used cords and pulleys as well as weights. If you study my version of the “Toys” page (first published here on Wednesday, 16th January 2013) you will see that I've divided each component of 'A' into five equal parts.  The divisions run across the page to include the scissor mechanisms.  The line including the top of 'A' and 'B' division includes three pieces of scissor mechanisms, but only two complete X's.  This I believe was done because he identified the parts of the scissor mechanisms with the X for purposes of confusion, but although there are three complete pieces of scissors, there are only two X;s, hence the suggestion he needed more than one.

Note the inherent suggestion that there are only five mechanisms required, as claimed by myself and hinted elsewhere and everywhere in Bessler's work.

JC.



42 comments:

  1. John, in a clockwise rotating wheel, where did observers hear the weight hit the outer edge of the wheel? In the following image, is the general area A, B, C, D, E, or F? I didn't know if the original German elaborates, as the English translation seems too vague ("falling on the side toward which it turns" --- what??? if the weight falls on the side it swings to wouldn't it do this twice?) Also, was this heard on the one way wheel or the two way wheel or both? My memory can't recall at the moment. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b934a92e3b7ef4b4de2f2015442bfd81

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fischer von Erlach said he heard “the sound of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned”. This was in reference to his examination of the two-way Kassel wheel.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Yes, but what point do you feel it was heard hitting, A B C D E or F? (In other words, on the right or left side of wheel, and either near top or middle or bottom)This is extremely important clue

      Delete
  2. RAF As designed, will your five mechanisms produce gentle bumps against the downward moving rim? Will it produce sliding or scraping or scratching sounds as detailed by earwitnesses? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bumps yes, plus a very slight sliding, scraping sound.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but in a clockwise rotating wheel, the bumps would be heard on the right hand side of the wheel, correct? And if so, is it near the top, middle, or bottom?

      Delete
  3. Well, you cannot design a storksbill with one "cross" John. Cross should mean something else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me the thing to remember with Bessler is that he always tried not to be too direct, hence the use of the word “cross” which I think hinted at storks-bills but more than one pantograph, but not necessarily more than three as you can see in my version of the “Toys” page above.

      JC

      Delete
    2. yes u can just take 2 square join them at any of the 4 point that make up square, look u see x now in middle

      Delete
    3. Bessler always shows a 1:5 ratio in the number of squares in the storkbills he depicts in MT, so that there is 1 square on one side and 5 squares on the other.

      Delete
    4. There's that number five again! Only this time, it ain't the number of mechanisms, but the number of crosses in the storks bills!

      Delete
  4. The crossbar is actually a connecting mechanism between two wires carrying opposite polarities of an electrostatic charge. This would have created a spark, which would have made a magnetic field, levitating a magnetic lodestone weight up into position by repelling it up there. A simple hanging pendulum could act as a switch closing the circuit every time the wheel came into position. As for the source of static electricity, the common idea is that Bessler used Leyden jars in the wheel. However, the wheel itself was not only a great collector of static charge, but also a great capacitor, storing the charge as well. The oil cloth collected charge by air friction as the wheel whirled around. The insulating wood frame created the differential, and the massive internal network of iron levers acted as the dissipative potential ground, making the whole inside of the wheel like the inside of a Leyden jar. No wonder why Bessler never let anyone inside his wheel! It wasn't to conceal common storkbills!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, you’ve taken a lot of time over this. In my opinion it doesn’t relate to Bessler’s wheel, but I could be wrong.

      JC

      Delete
  5. RAF John, Why did your expert translator Andrew Witter conclude that KREUZ meant crossbar since the normal word for crossbar is QUERLATTE? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kreuzscheine also means crossbar. The word Cross on its own seemed unlikely to my translator, who was Mike Senior in this case, so he chose a meaning which he believed Bessler may have intended. Don’t forget we are looking for meaning in text written over 300 years ago. Even the English language has changed in that time. Plus of course Bessler altered spelling to suit the rhyming couplets in his book so I don’t think he was too intent on getting the book to our standards. I think he had a story to tell, a machine to sell, and a ton of information to hide within the text.

      JC

      Delete
  6. RAF John, Does your cross mechanism include a pulley or pulleys?Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John wrote: " ... The line including the top of 'A' and 'B' division includes three pieces of scissor mechanisms, but only two complete X's..."
      My finding about "two connected X-s"!
      ᛝ - rune, name "ingwaz", meaning "the god ..." - in Dalecarlian runes letter "A", main meaning of the rune Ingvaz: full movement, abundance, potency...
      From my setup, I confirm storkbill existence in a wheel. But I do not agree to use pulleys and ropes, because there are strong practical reasons to not use them. One of them is reliability.

      All the best

      PLMKRN

      Delete
  7. The double C and D letters in your divided toys drawing may be clues, relating to 'pairs' yet the pairs do not balance (as you would want), one, one and half, two, three
    regards
    John

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about the toys C and D in the Toys page. They contain Xs. Why not they are the "cross".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know yellow, it’s just my opinion that C and D aren’t meant to relate to X’s.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Can someone explain to me the "StorksBill"? I understand the pantograph, but storksbill does not seem to relate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Storksbill, scissor jack, scissor mechanism and pantograph are all descriptions of the same thing shown in my blog. Storksbill was how Besslervreferredvto them.

      JC

      Delete
  10. Hello John,

    I was wondering, is your gravity wheel going to be as big as the last wheel Bessler made? And if so, how much horsepower do you think it will produce?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My first proof of principle wheel measures 36 inches in diameter and two inches thick. I’ve no idea how much horsepower it will produce, I just need to prove it works at this stage.

      JC

      Delete
    2. One-way. Why complicate things by designing a bi-directional wheel?

      JC

      Delete
    3. So you're using a stork bill and it's a one way wheel!? And you define a storks bill as XX!? Your also using pulleys!? It sounds unnecessarily complicated but if it works it truly will be original because it's not Bessler's design.

      Delete
    4. Stephen, you know what you know and I know what I know.🙂

      JC

      Delete
  11. I agree John.... it is already a complicated undertaking and once we make the step through the veil we will easily be able to prepare the 2 way wheel. There is more than one way to do this. I am positive about that

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gravittea step through the Veil don't you mean pull back the curtain and look!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stephen Glorioso 9/16/19 "Anonymous you can tell Callaway that he is on the right track one little change and he's got it! It's a change that will simplify."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm unconvinced; the number of scissor pairs used per unit of mass displacement is incidental!

    So for example a scissorjack with three large scissor sections might have equal displacements at each end as one with five smaller scissor sections - either way they're just linear levers, and only the relative mass displacements at each end are mechanically relevant.

    Rather, each "cross" - whatever they are - must represent a complete OU mechanism; so, either a complete mechanism can or does take the basic form of a cross-shaped structure, or else, such a cross-shaped structure is a key component of a complete mech, ie. of a system able to accomplish an asymmetric inertial interaction (a reactionless acceleration / sinking counter-momenta to gravity).


    The ONLY situation in which the number "5" has any significance to the mechanics of over-unity is the number of reactionless accelerate-and-brake / collide cycles required to reach OU; that is, a situation in which the efficiency of each individual 'complete mechanism' (the minimum OU mech) is LESS than unity, owing to dissipative losses, and yet, constant per cycle over some range of RPM.

    B.'s wheels were definitely statorless, and this was definitely a necessary condition.

    They all involved weights audibly landing on the descending side of the wheel - that is, being braked / collided back down to net system speed; that is, sharing back momentum gains to the net system...

    ...thus it is self-evident that the prior acceleration of those weights, before they hit their rimstops, must've been reactionless - applying no counter-torque back to the main system axis. Because, that's what makes mechanical OU; reactionless acceleration -> regular inelastic collision, rinse and repeat, collating input work and resulting KE.

    The reason for the scissorjack (power conversion more generally) must be to convert between a high-force, low-displacement and a low-force, higher displacement..

    ..such a power conversion must be a necessary condition for accomplishing the reactionless acceleration of the weights..

    ..i suspect these discplacements need to be small due to the need to maintain momentum yields over a range of rising RPM's - if they start out small initially, then it's more practical to maintain those yields as speed rises... in other words, because the time available per-cycle for sinking counter-momenta to gravity is diminishing with rising RPM, it's more practical to go for 125% effiency for a series of five short reactionless accelerations-and-collisions, than 125% effiency on a series of five longer, higher-displacement ones... cos otherwise the momentum yield will start decreasing too early at too low an RPM.

    In a nutshell, the whole exploit depends upon the fact that gravity's acceleration is constant, whilst mechanical speeds are variable, hence taking smaller bites of reactionless momentum rise per cycle allows momentum yields to be maintained to higher RPM's, and this is the likely reason for the scissorjack - increasing the number of scissor sections decreases the size of the chunks of reactionless momentum being bitten off and digested each cycle, thus keeping a consistent yield to higher RPM and thus greater OU efficiency.


    Again, this all follows as an incontrovertible consequence of the fact that there's no such thing as "excess KE" - a system can only ever have the right amount of KE as a function of its inertia and velocity.. hence 'mechanical OU' can only mean "cut-price momentum", which can only accumulate via a series of reactionless accelerations w/ inelastic collisions. The answer is, literally, in the question. Define your objectives (mech OU), work backwards from there, and you're led inexorably to a conclusion that is uniquely and exclusively consistent with all of B.'s claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for taking the time to post your comment Mr V. There is much to contemplate in what you say, and yet I cannot respond in like manner without explaining the concept I’m working on. Karl was surprised that no one had thought of the solution before and that comment supports Bessler’s stated fear that people might think the solution wasn’t worth the money he asked for it. So apologies for not answering in detail.

      JC

      Delete
  15. John, I think one "cross" is a structure that is some kind of spokes of a wheel. I think one cross contains an unstable mechanism and it is sufficient for an unbalancing operation, but a very slow one. He probably just duplicated that cross, and put them at different angles and connected them with ropes and pulleys.

    ReplyDelete
  16. RAF John, Why did Mr.Bessler put such emphasis on M.T. 25? The only other drawing that He rates highly is M.T.138. Your thought on this?Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can’t answer that RAF, I haven’t paid much attention to MT for a long time. For me there is only The Toys page, 138,:139, 140 and 141, plus MT 137.

      JC

      Delete
  17. So,
    If you had 5 storkbills around the wheel, one contracting at say 45° BTDC the X's would expand. This expansion if connected to the other 4 by a cunning mechanism would squeeze them. Thereby raising the weights. One falling pound raising 4pounds,no ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS,
      This anon is STEVO

      Delete
    2. Clever but not in my design Steve. 🤔

      JC

      Delete
  18. RAF Yes, M.T.137 is unique in the drawings. I see in it multiple A- frames spaced around the wheel straddling the hub. I see crossbars also but pointing UPWARD!not downward as in all other drawings. The apex of the A measures 30 degrees. What shape stands out to you John? Thanks

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Wheel, odd numbers and the Pyramids.

You might think there cannot be any connection of interest to us, between Bessler’s wheel and the pyramids, but I will explained. As many...