The Trials and Tribulations of Translating.

The Besslerwheel forum has again debated the accuracy of the English translations I provided in the Bessler's books I publish.  I don't need to rehearse the many arguments I put forth in support of the work of my friend Mike Senior, but there is another aspect to this subject which is worth bearing in mind.

I refer to the change of meanings in words over a period of time, or as wikipedia puts it, "semantic change is the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics."  - some words there, I've never encountered before!

( etymological dictionary at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=p&allowed_in_frame=0,  )

There are numerous examples which I needn't repeat here but you can read the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change - my point is this; consider the words of William Shakespear written over 400 years ago, many people find it hard to uderstand some of his writings, but if you think they're confusing, you shoud try reading Geoffrey Chaucer writing over 600 years ago!  So what are we to make of Bessler's words written only 300 years ago?

Samuel Johnson, a contemporary of Bessler's and famous for publishing the first English dictionary wrote numerous articles and books, wrote for example, ""He that has much to do will do something wrong, and of that wrong must suffer the consequences; and, if it were possible that he should always act rightly, yet when such numbers are to judge of his conduct, the bad will censure and obstruct him by malevolence, and the good sometimes by mistake."  It's easy enough to understand but the sentences are long and convoluted and you can doubtless imagine trying to translate that into German, for instance.

(Samual Johnson's dictionary at http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft#page/n5/mode/2up  )

But there is another aspect to take into account and that is Bessler's use of slang.  He was taught to use robust language in his poetry, by Christian Weise his teacher, and he did so with enthusiasm.  We therefore have to take into account the use of slang and try to understand its relationship to modern meaning.  One way to appreciate the difficulty with this is to consider just the differences between British English and American English - and we reputably, speak the same language, imagine the difference between English and German slang, separated by 300 years!

Finally there is Bessler's use of metaphors in his writing.   Metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object, and it compares two objects or things without using the words "like" or "as".  How are we to always understand that he is using metaphors in his descriptions of things?  Sometimes it's obvious, but not always.

Bessler described a land where"roast pigeons fly into your mouth," not likely but an agreeable metaphor.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

Write without slight - and hearsay evidence is not persuasive.

It's funny how we each believe from time to time that we have solved Bessler's wheel - or at least have taken a significant step along the path to success. Our path, to what seems like a valid conclusion at the time, is filled with moments of revelation interspersed subsequently with the inevitable realisation that we got it wrong. Often these 'discoveries' don't always appear to have been arrived at through a logical chain of reasoning, but are often regarded as instant revelations when the solution seems to jump out at us and we know that we have found the answer! The power of this personal conviction is of an intensity which is so powerful that the urge to share our good fortune is almost irresistible.  Is this certainty a part of a psychological flaw in our make-up, or evidence of a talent for imaginative cognitive scientific research that finds ingenuity to be essential in human reasoning?

I have had a number of these so-called revelations which supply a surprising and previously unthought of piece of artistry in a particularly dramatic way.  Many of these come in the middle of the night and lead to sleeplessness - until dawn sheds her harsh light of truth and reality and on the  subject and what seemed like a momentous revelation turns out to be a momentary lapse of reason.  Those that arrive while I'm at my workbench seem much more logical and worthy of exploration.

I completely understand why some people occasionally wax enthusiastic about the latest lightening bolt of inspiration that's hit them and make announcements which have no basis in fact - to everyone else it is nothing more than hearsay, a feature of the justice system which is not even generally admissable in court.  I tend to empathise with those who make premature announcements - been there, done that - and abusing them for doing so does not help and neither does the growing trend on the besslerwheel forum for being disrespectful to others. It's commonly advised that you shouldn't write anything to or about anyone that you wouldn't have the guts to say to their face.  But as well, the effect of the words may be softened in the presence of the recipent, by the body-language of the person uttering them.  Unfortunately the body-language element is missing on the internet and therefore the words may appear more abrasive than they seemed to the author.  Please think before you write, it may cause a slight. (definition of slight - a deliberate discourteous act usually as an expression of anger or disapproval)

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

Gravity - or the force of heaviness.

I've discussed this before but it seems an apt moment to mention it again, following comments on the Besslerwheel forum.

Many people search for the word "gravity" in Bessler's writings and some suggest that since he didn't use the word he did not ascribe the energy which drove his wheel to gravity.

Sir Isaac Newton described gravity, but he didn't use that word either.  He wrote his book, 'Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica', entirely in Latin, because that was the language used by the learned, and many books on academic and scientific subjects were written in Latin so that they could be read by people in all the European countries regardless of the reader's own native language. The name "gravity" comes from the Latin word, "gravitas", which means "heaviness". 

"Gravity" is a force that's exerted between heavy bodies that had what Newton called mass, Newton was saying that weight shouldn't any longer be regarded as simply a property possessed by a "heavy body", but that a body that seems to be heavy is in fact being attracted by another body with mass, in this case, the earth.

The fact that Bessler used all kinds or words to describe gravity is simply because the word, "gravity" had not yet been recognised in its own right as a name for the force of attraction Newton was describing.  He describes it as a heaviness, out of balance, preponderance, etc etc.

"Principia" came out in 1687 and took many years to become known throughout Europe and it's unlikely that Bessler ever had access to the book, but even so the word used was simply "heaviness" in Latin, and was not generally understood as an attraction between two masses.

So accept, as I have always done, that Bessler's wheel derived its energy from gravity - or the force of heaviness.

NOTE - you can read Newton's Principiua on line at the Cambridge digital library.  The website is http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/1

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

Update - and problems encountered along the way

This is partly an update and an account of my thoughts during the current build and the problems I'm encountering.

Bessler once commented in his Apologia Petica, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar 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, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster...'.

Now I have always believed that Bessler had five mechanisms in his wheel (and I could supply convincing evidence that this was the optimum number) and that anything less was a waste of time, but it is obvious that just getting a wheel to turn continuously, no matter how slowly, would be a perfectly acceptable proof of principle and a major achievement.  So what's the problem?

I recently decided to build just one mechanism on a test rig and try to perfect it before building more for the wheel itself.  But instead of then assembling four more mechanisms and attaching them to the wheel, I realised that the next logical step would be to test the wheel with just one mechanism - which isn't the same thing as building a single one and then making the wheel with however many I designed it for. Having designed mechanisms which operate as one of three, four or five, I see a problem in designing a wheel using just one of my mechanisms. With more than one, they are intended to operate in conjunction with each other, but with just the one, I'm wondering how to use it effectively.  Do I add one or more weights at certain points to counter the missing mechanisms and their weights?  Should I reposition the mechanism so that it is more central?  I depends on how big it is relative to the wheel's size and more importantly, how it is designed to work.

So now I have a mechanism that appears to do what I want it to do, but it is hard to fit five of them on a wheel, which means either making each smaller, or using a larger wheel.  Much better to try to adapt the single mechanisms to operate on its own in driving the wheel "very slowly,just as if it can hardly turn itself at all!" Of course another option is to build it with more than one, maybe two,three or four mechanisms, I'd have no problem fitting two or three on the existing wheel

The mechanism works according to the concept I have encoded at the end of each blog.  I know that some have suggested that I should include pictures of my work, but I can't yet until I know that it won't work.  I will try to post some pictures of my failed design using the 'kiiking' principle, unfortunately I cannibalised the parts to make this next desing, but I may have some parts remaining.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.