In 2017 I posted this interpretation of the “great craftsman passage. Bessler wrote,
“A great craftsman would be he who, as a pound falls a quarter, four pounds shoots up four quarters”
This is an abbreviation of my original post. We saw in the first part that the word ‘quarter', referred to, not just 90 degrees but also to a clock. In the second part the word ‘quarter' also refers to a clock but this time he has used the words ‘four quarters’. ‘Four quarter’s equals ‘one whole hour’. Each hour on a clock is divided into 30 degrees, so the words ‘four quarters’ meaning ‘one hour’ as used here equals thirty degrees. To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”
Fortunately Bessler provided more information about this clue. His second image in DT is shown below.
In the next picture notice the pentagram which joins the two pictures, also note the horizontal bar on the pendulum is exactly in line with the extended chord from the pentagram.
In the picture below notice besides the pentagram there is also another feature of all the illustrations in DT - his use of the numbering the parts. This time he only uses the numbers from 1 to 10, but added together they total 55 - there’s definitely a theme here! - and when all the numbers in the right hand picture are added together they also total 55.
In the illustration below, I have filled in the pentagram in red. Originally the two drawings were on adjacent but separate pages. In the crease of the binding there were two rows of black and white lines allowing one to push together the two pages to make a perfect join at their two black borders as in the illustration.
The red line extends the upper right side chord of a pentagram in the left hand drawing, to coincide with the centre of the right circle. The triangle has a bottom angle of 30 degrees, and an upper right angle of 72 degrees and the remaining one, 78 degrees, to complete the triangle. In a pentagram that triangle has two 72 degree angles and one 36 degree but in this case the small bottom angle measures 30 degrees so the upper right one is 72 degrees which means the remaining one has to be 78 degrees.
Notice that in the the left picture the wheel contains horizontal hatchings and outside of the wheel they are vertical. In the right picture the hatch marks are vertical and there are none outside the wheel. The left picture is cut off on the right side. It looks as though we are meant to slide the right one over to the left, above the left one.
The elliptical or ovoid shape on the bottom of the triangle is designed to tell us to rotate the whole pendulum around it. I realised this was necessary because of the three lines coming out of it seemed to suggest this as a possibility. and because we know the 30 degrees is the size of the lift required in Bessler’s connectedness principle.
In the above illustration I have copied across the large triangular pendulum and tilted it so that the centre of the three verticals coming out of the ovoid are located on the centre of the left side wheel and aligned with the hatching lines The two weights identified with red circles fit precisely on the rope, showing the 30 degree lift. The blue lines demonstrate the position if we ignore red circled weights, which I think shows that they shouldn’t be ignored.
I only moved the pendulum because I didn’t need to move the actual right hand wheel. But the right wheel rotated 90 degrees would align the two sets of hatch marks.
This picture shows graphically the desired lift of 30 degrees to match the craftsman text.
NB. Subsequent to this post I found a second or corrective interpretation connected with the craftman passage. Instead of a fall of 90 degrees I propose a fall of just 45 degrees.
On a clock face, if the weighted pendulum fell from the twelve o’clock point to the six o’clock point, his maximum fall would be 180 degrees. A quarter of 180 degrees is only 45 degrees, so to paraphrase Bessler’s words as he might have intended them to mean, “ “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls a 45 degrees causes each of four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”
A more likely scenario?
Here’s a gift from Gustov :
JC
I thought this phrase was sarcasm, not a clue.
ReplyDeleteNo, it’s it a genuine clue. I agree it looks a bit sarcastic at first sight.
DeleteJC
Context is everything! Here is the whole chapter passage from AP page 291. I think he is being sarcastic/dismissive. The clue is in the context, at the beginning. The weight has to fly upwards. The pounds and ounces is just a poetic illustration of the futility of leverage alone which he mentions again later in the passage, imo.
DeleteXLIII. 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.
But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:-
A great craftsman WOULD BE that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!
Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall.
If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience!
I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will SURELY REVOLVE. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.
There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment.
Interpretation : Find a mechanical method to assist your ordinary leverage mechanisms create torque , by facilitating a weight in a twin/paired set to quickly and easily raise up. IMO !
DeleteYes the whole passage seems to sound like a taunt.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of examples of failed leverage designs which is the takeaway I get.
Uh oh...looks like JC's severe case of "Clockomania" is being showcased in this blog. He's completely obsessed with HIS clock dial interpretation of that "great craftsman verse"...no doubt about it and no use trying to tell him that HIS interpretation has multiple problems with it. Aside from that, here are a few additional problems I saw with his assertions in the blog.
ReplyDeleteAccording to JC: "To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”
It's amazing to me how JC so quickly turns the reference to a vertical distance in B's verse into an angular measurement! Maybe B intended those "quarters" in the original verses to mean just vertical distances? I don't see any justification for assuming they refer to angular measures...but, then again, I do not suffer from clockomania!
The JC points out: "This time he only uses the numbers from 1 to 10, but added together they total 55 - there’s definitely a theme here! - and when all the numbers in the right hand picture are added together they also total 55."
Those are not the sums I get from the drawing. On the left side part, the numbers add up to 28 and in the right side part they add up to 54! I don't see how he got sums of 55 for both sides.
But, he's not done yet! Next he says "The elliptical or ovoid shape on the bottom of the triangle is designed to tell us to rotate the whole pendulum around it. I realised this was necessary because of the three lines coming out of it seemed to suggest this as a possibility. and because we know the 30 degrees is the size of the lift required in Bessler’s connectedness principle."
"...we know the 30 degrees is the size of the lift required in Bessler’s connectedness principle."??? No, "we" don't know any such thing at this time...only JC "knows" it! He then uses the tilted angle of that football shaped lead weight at the bottom of the right side pendulum to justify swinging the whole pendulum around and superimposing it onto the wheel in the left side drawing! After that he then claims that "The two weights identified with red circles fit precisely on the rope, showing the 30 degree lift."
I admit that superimposition works. I decided to actually measure the angle formed by the diagonal side pieces of the right side pendulum and found it to be exactly 30°. But when I measured the angle between the blue lines in his rotated and superimposed pendulum in the left side drawing I got 33°. That's a significant error imo and would add another 12° to those other four weights that he thinks are shooting up because one weight is falling 90°. Unfortunately, after a while in his blog his description of how he is using various angles of the pendulum to justify its superimposition over onto the left side drawing turns into a lot of confusing babble. I think most reading his blog will just skip over it.
Although I'm not currently a believer in JC's pentagon wheel version of B's design, I was able to get a better pentagon out of the DT drawing than he did. Here I show how to redraw his pentagon so that it is a better shaped pentagon whose five sides are actually all equal in length. It only requires extending one line (colored yellow in my edited drawing) from a corner in the left side wheel's pentagon over to the point in the right side wheel where the large pendulum's right side diagonal piece begins to cross in front of the short rod from the axle crank that swings the pendulum:
https://i.postimg.cc/wMxFkG9q/a-better-pentagon-for-jc.jpg
However, if one does that, then that line from the left drawing over to the right drawing will no longer be parallel the to the top cross piece of pendulum.
Hopefully this won't further worsen JC's clockomania...but somehow I doubt it!
It looks like JC is distorting shapes and angles to fit his pet theory. That's not how objective science is supposed to work. You don't change the facts to fit your theory...you have to change your theory to fit the facts. But like you said...that's unlikely to happen with JC.
DeleteToward the end of John's blog he wrote:
Delete"Subsequent to this post I found a second or corrective interpretation connected with the craftsman passage. Instead of a fall of 90 degrees I propose a fall of just 45 degrees."
Now the 90 degree fall is out and a 45 degree one replaces it? He's basically telling us all with this that his previous interpretation of 90 degrees is wrong! Sounds like he's not sure how to interpret what that word "quarter" really means in the great craftsman's verse "as a pound falls a quarter". 90 or 45 degrees? What's next, 30 degrees? My suggestion for him is to get this clock dial stuff out of his mind asap. He wants to stick with a pentagon? Fine (I wouldn't though). But stop trying to find more "clues" to make it work and just concentrate on some sort of interconnected rope principle to make all of the levers automatcially shift themselves together during wheel rotation so that they keep the COG of their weights on the wheel's descending side. That is what really counts if one is hunting for an working OB wheel.
"A more likely scenario?" One scenario is as likely or as good as another until it leads to something concrete.
Delete@anon 22:23
DeleteI'm surprised that John did not find and use that pentagon you found since one of its sides lies right on the vertical border between the two drawings. So your extended yellow line does not go through the center of the right side wheel's axle and is not parallel to the pendulum's top cross bar. So what? I think it would be better for his theory to have the more regular pentagon that you found. Btw...am I the only one that noticed that the yellow line touches what can be thought of as the pivot of a Y shaped lever formed from the pendulum's right side diagonal part and the upper part of the connecting rod from the axle crank to the pendulum's cross bar? Maybe that is yet another clue from Bessler that his wheels used those Y shaped levers that SoS and DoSoS seem so obsessed with?
To the above comments - There are none so blind as those who will not see".
Deleteis a proverb meaning it is impossible to convince someone to acknowledge a truth they are determined to ignore. It highlights that willful ignorance or stubbornness is more profound than physical blindness. The phrase is often attributed to John Heywood in 1546, though it has biblical roots.
Your distorted pentagram is not accurate. The number on the left add up 28 and those on the right definitely add up to 55. The numbers involved 1-10 add up to 55.
If you are determined to disrespect my work, I wonder why you bother to visit? Is it Ken B, back again? The length of his text suggests it is him. And of course he had to mention his non-existent Y levers!
Bessler left a number of hints that questions would answered if you studied his books.
This is like the old days when the trolls took over my blog and I ended up closing the comments facility. When I turned it back on some comments expressed pleasure at having this blog to visit from time to time but it’s a pity some haters and naysayers derive pleasure from casting aspersions on me and my work.
Casting aspersions meaning : making damaging, critical, or disparaging remarks that attack someone's character, reputation, or abilities. It implies spreading unfair doubts or slanderous accusations. Common synonyms include slur, calumny, defamation, denigration, and slander.
JC
JC wrote: "This time he only uses the numbers from 1 to 10, but added together they total 55 - there’s definitely a theme here! - and when all the numbers in the right hand picture are added together they also total 55."
DeleteI agree that if you add 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10, then their sum will be 55. But, when I add all of the numbers in the right hand picture, the sum I get is 54 and not 55. Please show us exactly how you added the numbers actually shown in the right hand picture to get a sum of 55.
I don't consider anon 22:23's pentagon to be "distorted". I measured all of its side and they are all of equal length. It is your pentagon that is distorted because all of its sides are not equal! I also like the way one of the sides of anon 22:23's pentagon was exactly on that vertical divider between the two wheel drawings.
I don't think anyone is trying to "cast aspersions" on your work. They are simply pointing out all of the bugs in it that they are finding and to which you seem to be oblivious. There...a new word for you to look up!
I found it a bit hypocritical of JC to say "If you are determined to disrespect my work, I wonder why you bother to visit?" when in a previous blog's comments he was calling long time researchers on this blog an "infestation"! Apparently, he has no trouble dishing out insults to others and their research, but can be very sensitive if any come flying back to him! 😒
DeleteI feel so sad...I miss JC 80th birth day party here...I was in hospital with the cancers! Now I back thanks to God and want to give him nice gift to help him out...he must be very sad to see his scisorring thing wheel on that big duck pile...it make me sad to. But cheers up JC...please take this gift whele from me to you to help you out. It all yours to keep...you owe me nothings for it. God bless to you JC...I hope you like the late birth day gift...it up to you to pick the right size weights, ropes, and springs...it easy to make...you will have fun to do it!
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/7ZHCNkgQ/80th-B-day-Gift-Wheel-for-JC.jpg
your friend Gustov
Nice wheel, Gustov. It's rare to see pentagonal wheels on pm sites and this is probably one of the best I've seen. Looks like it uses contracting springs each lever and plus help from the falling levers on the descending side to lift up the levers on the ascending side. It'll probably have low torque but who cares if it's a runner? Someone should sim this "birthday gift" for JC.
DeleteHmm...it does not use Y levers, but...T levers?...L levers? Isn't there some sort of L shaped drafting tool in one of the DT portraits of Bessler? Anyway here's my quick graphical analysis showing the approximate location of the cog of its five weights:
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/vxcS6rV8
It is imbalanced as shown in Gustov's drawing and looks like a potential runner. But will its cog stay put when it is released and starts to turn clockwise? That is the test that all other OB type pm wheels, other than Bessler's, failed to pass. The difference between an eagle and a dead duck is that eagles can fly! Bessler's wheel was an eagle.
All of the OB pm wheel designs I'm seeing so far all have cog's that are only a small distance away from the wheel's axle. That means very low torque. It looks like, if any ever do work, they will be on the very edge of what is mechanically possible. I don't see anyway to change that situation. Even if we do finally get one of them to run, I doubt if it will be of any practical value to generate electrical power. It will be more of a scientific curiosity like one of those little glass bulb gadgets you can buy that spin in the sunlight. The scientists will want to study any working OB wheel and maybe come up with theories as to how it works. But, that's about all, imo.
DeleteALL HAIL THE ARRIVAL OF THE GUSTOV WHEEL! It is obviously a runner and will be the last minute salvation of JC's pentagonal wheel theory. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Better now while JC is still among the living and can finally see the solution come that he and others have so patiently waited lifetimes for. ALL HAIL THE ARRIVAL OF THE GUSTOV WHEEL! 😃🤸♂️👍🥇🍾🏆
DeleteIt's a clever design and i'm sure JC is happy to see someone finally design and post a five lever pentagonal wheel here. Is it a first? I'm not sure if it will be a runner, though. However, it does seem to follow this weight shifting pattern someone posted a while ago which IBM's "WATSON" AI said Bessler's wheels would have to have used if they actually stayed OB as they turned:
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/T3PqFMnN/bessler-wt-pattern-motion.jpg
Thank you for your kind words Gustov. I’ll post your picture at end of my post. I hope you recover from your cancer quickly and it works well. My wife has just finished treatment for her own cancer and is getting on well.
ReplyDeleteJC
Hi John, I have always thought that the "great craftsman " quote is the most important of Bessler's clues. It makes an absolute assertion that he might someday have to defend. Any design he claimed (later) to be a duplicate his own would have to meet this description somehow. PLEAEE tell me how you are CERTAIN the "quarters" he mentions are referring to clock rotation. Couldn't he instead referring to any unit of measure (example: a one pound weight falls a quarter of an "ell" causing 4 pounds to rise 4 quarters of an "ell")
ReplyDeleteI'm not JC but that quote “A great craftsman would be he who, as a pound falls a quarter, four pounds shoots up four quarters” seems to be impossible at first glance. However, the reality is that it is very simple to do it...when you know the correct trick to use, that is!
DeleteA better and fuller translation of the great craftsman verse is:
Delete"He/One shall be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds up four quarters. &c.
Who of this can speculate,
will soon the motion perpetuate,
who however [does] not yet know this,
all that industry is in vain."
Bessler implies that unless one knows what he's talking about in these verses, he has NO hope of achieving pm!
You want to make four 1 lb weights "shoot up" four times the vertical distance that a 1 lb drops? Of course that simply cannot be done you say? You are WRONG! Actually, it CAN be done! The secret is to find some way to EFFECTIVELY reduce the weight of the each of the four rising weights to less than 1 oz. which is over a 93.75% reduction. But, how do you do that? I'll let everyone think about it for a while and see if anyone can figure it out.
DeleteRemember Bessler's warning...if you cannot understand how to do this, then all of your efforts to build a pm wheel will be "in vain". Don't know what that phrase means? "Vain" is derived from the Latin word "vanus" which means empty, worthless, or futile so your efforts to achieve pm, according to Bessler, will be totally useless and lead to NO RESULTS! You've only been getting no results for years so far? That's because, so far, you haven't the faintest idea of what Bessler was describing in those great craftsman verses of his. He, actually being a great craftsman, however, DID understand it! Let's see if there are any potential great craftsman among those wandering cluelessly through this blog. There is probably at least one...maybe...we'll see...
Easy - spring force ' assisted lifting ' - the spring that ' assists / augments ' could be considered the " Prime Mover " or " perpetual motion structures " as they are called in the above AP Chapter XLIII - it / they need to be re-tensioned during one revolution of a runner .. -f
Delete@ -f
DeleteYES! And you are free to call it a "prime mover" if it so pleases you. Other than myself, you must be another and perhaps the only other "great craftsman" on this blog. Glad to know I'm not alone! After much searching I finally found a single online video showing exactly what Bessler was describing in those verses and you can all watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwWm_wTaXE
At first I thought it had to be hoaxed...but, no, it is genuine and perfectly illustrates Bessler's great craftsman principle. Now take another look at that most interesting Gustov wheel given to JC as a "late birthday gift". It uses the same principle, but in a slightly different way. Contracting springs on the wheel's ascending left side lift and thereby effectively REDUCE the weight of the weights there while other contracting springs on the wheel's descending right side pull down and thereby effectively INCREASE the weight of the weights there. The difference in those effective weights then allows a spatial DISTORTION in the perfectly shaped pentagon that should be formed from the centers of the five weights to take place and that then results in the center of gravity of all of the five weights being SLIGHTLY shifted over to the right and onto the descending right side of his wheel. This method of polygon distortion is really the ONLY way to finally achieve OB and the principle involved is what Bessler was hinting about in his great craftsman verses. However, he left it up to us to "speculate" or guess about what he actually meant. Well, speculation time is over with...now we know what he meant!
Yes, JC received a most important gift for his 80th birthday. Now let's see if he knows what to do with it! 🎂🎁 Unfortunately, the odds makers are predicting he will do nothing with it! Perhaps that is to be his destiny? Time will tell...
Of course JC will ignore that wheel. He has no other choice because there are no scissor mechs in it and nothing is "falling" through 90 or even 45 degrees. He's like an old fashion phonograph needle that must stay in a record's groove at all times and that record can never be changed to a different one!
Delete@anon22:29
DeleteThx for your revelation that ob can be achieved using a distorted polygon of weights. Iow the distortion that puts the weights coq on one side of a wheel's axle is maintained despite the rotation of the wheel that carries the weights which are each at the end of a spring suspended lever. That distortion maintenance would be automatic and require no added energy. It makes a lot of sense, As a pm wheel turns and tries to lower the location of its weights cog the polygon automatically "rolls" right back into resume its original distorted shape and orientation inside of the wheel. Yes, that has got to be the answer. I'm going to see if I can make a sim of Gustov's wheel and see what happens to its cog as it is made to rotate via a motor. If its cog stays OB then I'll try removing the motor and seeing if the wheel can keep itself in motion.
You'd think his Ai could draw with symmetry by now
DeleteY’all are tripping if you think springs are the secret sauce. Omg, how far we haven’t come. 😱
ReplyDeleteIf you know what the "secret sauce" really is, then why not share the recipe with us?
DeleteDear John,
DeleteI agree quarter is meant as 1/4 of the clock or hour or 90 degrees. I do not agree 4 quarters would be 30 degrees, 4 quarters would be 12 hours or 360 degrees. I believe Mr. Bessler meant as the pendulum weight travels thru one quarter (90 degrees), the lifting or shifter weight would travel thru four quarters of the wheel travel.
Regards,
Roger Strickler