AP Wheel Geometry

[Silvertiger]

Bessler was precise. Did you see the precision drafting tools on his desk in his portrait? I don't know what it leads to either. I just know what isn't there.

[Oystein]

Are you joking?

Do I not write STEP 1 ?

I say STEP 1, the first step!!! The first step is not to draw 6 lines going inward towards some point by computer is it?

A line goes from A to B. First you find A, that is what I have done at the rim. Then you find point B (where the line should go to). I have NOT come to that part yet because you say I am wrong, even before I have drawn any lines... How come?

I have just established where point A of a line is on the rim! Is that not easy to see?

I have simply just said where point A is. That is the first thing you do, when you draw a line by hand isn't it?

[Oystein]

DELETED

[Silvertiger]

I never said you were wrong. Please, keep the code talk on your thread. This is geometry...not codes. I moved the content to this thread so you could talk about your codes without being interrupted. Also, you're English is pretty messy. I'm not quite sure what exactly you were saying two posts up. Make a video.

[Oystein]

I think most people understand the placement of the 6 dots, I have no time to make it simpler than I have done.

You know I am parenting as I write, and I am not an English native, so it takes time to write perfect English, and I don't have that time avail, nor to make videoes. I could write perfect Norwegian to you, if you like that though :-)

It was you that challenged me and said I was wrong about the 15 equally spaced points at the rim, hopefully by misunderstanding what I meant. So, now I have learned that it is possible to misunderstand that I am actually just talking about the 6 rim points/joints placement, at this stage, and the old Evclid formula deduced from the AP page, leading us there.

I was asked by a person on your thread what I believe of 7 in Bessler work, he got it! You better ask him to stop asking me then :-) Now it's deleted.

Baby crying...

[ovaron]

Oystein,
I find your explanation very convincing! Thank you very much.
Your relevations and explanations are very much appreciated. Hope you reveal even more to the ignorant, like me ;)

[Fletcher]

Ditto Oystein ..

I'm very well aware that you are choosing what you want to show us. And that you haven't given numerous example of repetition which would strengthen your arguments. I have to accept your word there.

I also know that you are only revealing a small part of your future books contents. So far I think it is fascinating.

And so to me the analogy is we are sitting beside the motorway looking down on bumper to bumper cars streaming by. But I have no idea how busy it was 15 minutes ago or what its like back up the road. So I can't comment on the road congestion without flying above it so I can see the whole thing.

That's why your completed books will allow us to follow thru from start to finish and judge for ourselves whether your conclusions were sound or without substance. Only at that time IMO.

[Oystein]

I'll thank you in my own thread :-)

[Silvertiger]

Oystein, you're fine. I literally had no way of knowing beforehand whether the geometry provided by an accurate measurement of the AP Wheel would disagree with your research or not. I don't see the future. I was doing honest work and sharing my results as I went along, in real time. I have no agenda here. All I did was share what I learned simply by measuring and drawing. My degree is in Computer Aided Drafting and Design. I am extremely good at it. Surely you don't fault me for doing what comes naturally and through extensive training? All I know is the method I used cannot be refuted, for it is straightforward basic geometry....and I have absolutely no clue what that means for you. Just keep your mind open. I don't really understand codes and because of that I can't be interested in them. But I'll put this another way: If someone had hired me freelance as a professional to measure the drawing and break down its geometry, they would not have been disappointed, and I would have been paid for my professional service. This is real work you're looking at, not a fabrication from one's imagination. Try not to insult my work, my training, or my intelligence in the future please? It's bad form. You only got angry because you believed that my tiny bit of easy work was treading on your toes of 20 plus years of research. I can't help that. I did not set out to do that nor did I see it coming. You allowed yourself to to get angry at me over it, and for what? For doing what I went to school for? Come on, see reason. It's like saying an engineer has been taught wrong and has been doing his job wrong. Doesn't really make sense to say things like that as they are not true. Otherwise, that person would not be an engineer. Know what I mean?

[Silvertiger]

If I shared this with a peer review panel, they would agree with the work. They would have no choice. To me, it's like someone showing that 2+2=4 and then having someone argue with it. It is easier to seek personal validation than it is to seek what is simply right in front of us. Simple geometry is all I have done. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing grand. Just another day at the office. Anyone interested in simple truth should just go back and look at the first post and see if they can find any fault or error in the method. Look at the percent error. Does anyone on here know what that means? I only ask because some simply may not have had education in this regard that I use every day like breathing. I was curious as to whether the pentagon would actually fit and so I tested the hypothesis and it did not work. I had no idea it wouldn't fit. Please don't tell me that I am wrong simply because you don't like it. I don't know why the septagon fits...I didn't draw it. I am not Bessler. I don't know his reasoning. But that doesn't change the results. I do know that if I had tested it and it DID fit, you would be ecstatic about it, not angry. See the dilemma? I'm trying to be helpful and share new knowledge by using the tools and methods that I learned and so others can benefit. Is the sharing of knowledge truly frowned upon on this forum? I hope not. I am still in debt to over $60k in student loans...surely that is a testament to knowing something.

[johannesbender]

i would like to highlight something , without sounding condensenting or like i know more .

i really think using cad or measuring tools on the woodcut drawing itself is a big gamble , you have to reconstruct the geometry mathematical.

starting from a single point , the centre of the circle , then the circle , then reconstruct the rest .

the woodcut/drawing can only be used as visual reference in my oppinion , that is if its even of geometrical importance at all.

i tried having a go at it myself by various methods from measuring , to cad tracing , and by geometrical mathematical hand reconstruction a long time ago too , but i am just ghosting here and reading and enjoying the different views and revelations , and i agree that mathematical reconstruction of the geometry is the correct manner to approach, http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

regards.

reason for edit : spelling gremlins ! no really !

[Oystein]

I really don't see what you are arguing.

What are you claiming?

Are you saying that the dots I have drawn on the rim of AP Wheel drawing is not placed where I have drawn them?

Or are you saying that the angle (degrees) of the white area has a different number than I and JC wrote?

I am certain that I see where you are mistaken, but in reality you are hang up on the angle of the white fields. This is NOT what I nor John Collins is talking about.

This is how I still see it. You have made no proof that you are talking of AND are simulating, what I and JC are talking about here.

I don't have time to go in depths on this.

As an example I can even see in your movie that you are measuring angles between lines that don't have a common anchor-point. I have only worked on this AP Wheel for let's say 15 years.. I am educated and work as a computer and software engineer. I have worked with Working Model 2D for several years. I know a little or two about this stuff.

You are on a side track by trying to apply the angle of the opening in the white fields to the circumference's total 360 degrees.

It does NOT work this way.

The software will only give you what you are asking for. Ask the right question and you will see

We all know that 4 white areas fit onto one black area, right? It has been shown in here 10-15 years ago.

1 black holds 4 white

3 white + (3 black x4) = 15

Then you say the white field covers ca. 27 degrees. Yes their inside angle is 26-27 degrees, but what does that have to do with what I talk about?

27 degrees x 15 is ?????????????????????????????????????????

We are not talking of the same angle. I am talking of the spacing of the outer points, but you are talking of an inside angle of a figure.

[johannesbender]

ghosting mode : off

yes , thats where i agree with you ,you divide the circle not the other way around .

ghosting mode : on

cheers

[Oystein]

And johannesbender was right back then. Thus the figure will interact and have common geometry with MT 137

[Silvertiger]

They only hold 4 if you draw your lines from the center of the wheel. But in the AP Wheel they don't converge at the center. They converge on the circumference of the axle. Do you have an idea of what I mean?