+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Volvelles or Disks (/thread-5366.html)
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - DG97EEB - 15-02-2026
It's a nice idea, but one that has been tested extensively. In my experience, even with a drift mechanism, the mechanical coupling can't simultaneously produce the high autocorrelation, low repetition, Zipfian distribution, and entropy profile that VMS exhibits.
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - AliciaNelPresente - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 11:49 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a nice idea, but one that has been tested extensively. In my experience, even with a drift mechanism, the mechanical coupling can't simultaneously produce the high autocorrelation, low repetition, Zipfian distribution, and entropy profile that VMS exhibits.
Hi Ed,
I'm really intrigued by the tests you mentioned. Would you mind sharing any links or specific thread titles from the forum where this was discussed? (From the forum or any other source please)
The high autocorrelation isn't a linguistic choice. It’s a physical one. If the rings are interlocked, the state of the first glyph (the Gallow) forces the starting position of the next.
About the Zipf’s Law and Entropy, in a natural language, you have infinite ways to combine letters. In a machine/volvelle, you only have a finite number of ''gear teeth''. This 'limited menu' is exactly what creates the low entropy and the flattened Zipfian curve that Mr René Zandbergen and Mr Jorge Stolfi identified.
If we assume the author was simply aligning rings and writing down the result instead of writing sentences, those "impossible" patterns become the natural result of using a tool like that.
Alicia
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - nablator - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 12:26 PM)AliciaNelPresente Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In a machine/volvelle, you only have a finite number of ''gear teeth''.
Wouldn't this force integer ratios between the number of prefixes/stems/suffixes? So you would find the same number of possible prefixes for each stem, etc.?
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - AliciaNelPresente - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 01:17 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-02-2026, 12:26 PM)AliciaNelPresente Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In a machine/volvelle, you only have a finite number of ''gear teeth''.
Wouldn't this force integer ratios between the number of prefixes/stems/suffixes? So you would find the same number of possible prefixes for each stem, etc.?
You are right, if we were dealing with simple, fully visible permutations like a standard combination lock, we would see perfect integer ratios. Every prefix would meet every root eventually.
But the "gaps" and the lack of symmetry you mention are actually what convince me more of the mechanical hypothesis, not less:
1. You are assuming the scribe can see the entire "Middle Ring" at all times. But look at traditional Volvelles or even the Alberti Cipher Disk. The top disk often acts as a Mask. If the "Gallow" Ring has a cut-out window that only reveals 30 degrees of the ring below it, then mechanically, Prefix A can physically ONLY pair with Roots 1-5. It will never touch Roots 6-24, even though they are on the same wheel. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This creates the "statistical gaps" you see.
2. In industrial cam systems, not every tooth creates an output.
Imagine a 24-tooth gear, then 15 teeth have glyphs. 9 teeth are "Nulls" (blanks/spaces).
The machine cycles with a perfect integer ratio, but the text output looks irregular and "Zipfian" because 37% of the mechanical operations result in silence or white space.
So, the "missing integers" in the text statistics aren't proof that the machine doesn't exist.
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - DG97EEB - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 12:26 PM)AliciaNelPresente Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-02-2026, 11:49 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a nice idea, but one that has been tested extensively. In my experience, even with a drift mechanism, the mechanical coupling can't simultaneously produce the high autocorrelation, low repetition, Zipfian distribution, and entropy profile that VMS exhibits.
Hi Ed,
I'm really intrigued by the tests you mentioned. Would you mind sharing any links or specific thread titles from the forum where this was discussed? (From the forum or any other source please)
The high autocorrelation isn't a linguistic choice. It’s a physical one. If the rings are interlocked, the state of the first glyph (the Gallow) forces the starting position of the next.
About the Zipf’s Law and Entropy, in a natural language, you have infinite ways to combine letters. In a machine/volvelle, you only have a finite number of ''gear teeth''. This 'limited menu' is exactly what creates the low entropy and the flattened Zipfian curve that Mr René Zandbergen and Mr Jorge Stolfi identified.
If we assume the author was simply aligning rings and writing down the result instead of writing sentences, those "impossible" patterns become the natural result of using a tool like that.
Alicia
Hi Alicia,
I'm working on a couple of papers and haven't published anything yet, but below is a summary of where we get to.. I'm sure others will challenge the exact numbers, but that's not really the point of my reply.
The autocorrelation issue in VMS isn't character-to-character, it's word-length-to-word-length. Adjacent words tend to have similar lengths (AC1 around +0.16). A geared ring constrains which glyph follows which, but for it to produce word-length clustering you'd need something controlling how many rings engage per word, and that's a separate mechanism sitting on top of the volvelle. Once you need that, the volvelle isn't really doing the explanatory work any more.
On the Zipf point, a finite mechanism with a limited number of gear positions actually predicts the opposite of what we see. If each position is roughly equiprobable you get a flat distribution, not a Zipfian one. Zipf requires that some outputs are massively more frequent than others, which in natural language comes from the fact that common words carry common meanings. VMS has a robust Zipf distribution. That's one of the stronger arguments that something language-like is going on, not something mechanical.
The entropy is indeed lower than most European languages, you're right, but the pattern of how it varies, by position within a word, by position on a line, by position on a page, and by manuscript section, looks linguistic rather than mechanical. A volvelle would give you roughly uniform entropy across all those dimensions. VMS doesn't do that. First-line words differ systematically from mid-page words, Herbal-A sections differ from Biological sections, and there are at least two scribal hands with different frequency profiles. Each of those needs a separate bolt-on to the volvelle model, and at some point the bolt-ons are doing all the work.
What you're really getting towards is constrained Markov chains, drift mechanisms over lookup tables, coupled ring simulations etc, and the consistent result is that you can match some VMS statistics but not the full package simultaneously. Tight coupling gives you the autocorrelation but produces about 14% repeated words (VMS has around 2%). Loosening the coupling fixes repetition but kills autocorrelation. There's a narrow statistical zone where VMS sits that none of the mechanical models reach without becoming circular.
None of this means the idea is worthless, by the way. If you strip away the physical metaphor, what you're really proposing is a state-dependent generation system with constrained transitions, which is a perfectly reasonable computational model. The question is whether calling it a volvelle adds explanatory power or just dresses up the problem in hardware. I'd say Rob's challenge still stands: What specific configuration of rings and teeth produces the observed frequency distributions? If you can answer that concretely, with numbers, you'd have something genuinely new.
Looking forward to seeing where you take this.
Thanks,
Ed
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - AliciaNelPresente - 15-02-2026
Hi Ed,
Please don't worry about the exact numbers. I completely understand the context of your argument, thank you for raising the level. It is great that you are working on a paper, if you have a pre-print or draft ready at any point, I would be delighted to offer a detailed review from the mechanical perspective.
Now, let's address the core of your critique. You argue that a simple machine would produce flat distributions and uniform entropy, and that to fix this, we have to add "bolt-ons" until the model becomes circular.
I believe this conclusion comes from viewing the Volvelle as a Random Number Generator, when in reality, we should be viewing it as a State Machine with Physical Interference.
---
''On the Zipf point, a finite mechanism with a limited number of gear positions actually predicts the opposite of what we see. If each position is roughly equiprobable you get a flat distribution, not a Zipfian one''
This is only true if every tooth on the gear is unique. But think about Hardware Redundancy. Imagine a gear with 24 teeth (or positions or whatever).
If I paint the syllable "ol" on 12 teeth. And I paint the syllable "daiin" on 1 tooth.
Even if the wheel spins with perfect random probability (flat distribution of movement), the result will be strictly Zipfian. "ol" will appear 12 times more often simply because it occupies more physical surface area on the Volvella. The Zipf curve in the VMS isn't proof of "common meaning", it is a map of repetition in the manufacturing of the wheel.
---
Adjacent words tend to have similar lengths... for it to produce word-length clustering you'd need something controlling how many rings engage per word, and that's a separate mechanism sitting on top of the volvelle.
You don't need a separate mechanism. You just need Nulls (Empty Teeth) and Gear Interference. If the third ring (Suffixes) has a cluster of 5 blank slots (empty teeth), whenever the gear hits that patch, the words generated are shorter (Root only).
About the Interference: If the rings have coprime tooth counts (Let's say that: Ring A has 17 teeth, Ring B has 19 teeth), they create a Moiré Pattern or "beat frequency": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The "Blank Patch" on Ring B will align with Ring A for a sequence of turns, creating a "cluster" of short words, then drift away to create a cluster of long words. The autocorrelation is just the mathematical interference pattern of two mismatched gears spinning together.
---
First-line words differ systematically from mid-page words... A volvelle would give you roughly uniform entropy across all those dimensions.
A volvelle gives uniform entropy only if it never stops. But a scribe has to physically stop at the end of a line.
This creates a Reset Cycle. If the machine is mechanically reset to a "Home Position" (using the Gallow as a lever) at the start of every line, the first word is drawn from a highly constrained set (Low Entropy). As the gears turn and "drift" away from the start, the possible states expand (Higher Entropy), until the Carriage Return resets it again. The positional variation isn't linguistic. It’s the tension and release cycle of the return mechanism.
---
I'd say Rob's challenge still stands: What specific configuration of rings and teeth produces the observed frequency distributions?
To answer this concretely, the specific configuration isn't a language simulation. It is a 3-Ring Stack configured as follows:
1. High Redundancy on the Middle Ring: Painting frequent roots like "chol" on 50% of the teeth solves the Zipf/Frequency issue.
2. Coprime Tooth Counts (Like 17 vs 19): Mismatching the rings solves the Length Autocorrelation/Clustering issue.
3. Line-Start Mechanics (Reset): Resetting the lever at the margin solves the Entropy/Positional issue.
I don't need "bolt-ons." I just need friction, geometry, and a scribe who resets the lever when he hits the margin.
Alicia from Sicily
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - nablator - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 06:49 PM)AliciaNelPresente Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To answer this concretely, the specific configuration isn't a language simulation. It is a 3-Ring Stack configured as follows:
1. High Redundancy on the Middle Ring: Painting frequent roots like "chol" on 50% of the teeth solves the Zipf/Frequency issue.
2. Coprime Tooth Counts (Like 17 vs 19): Mismatching the rings solves the Length Autocorrelation/Clustering issue.
3. Line-Start Mechanics (Reset): Resetting the lever at the margin solves the Entropy/Positional issue.
Why not try it with a specific configuration of wheels/markings and we'll see how close you can get to Voynichese in practice.
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - AliciaNelPresente - 15-02-2026
I have to smile because this is the second time in 48 hours that someone has essentially asked: 'Alicia, you present an interesting theory, but... could you please solve this 600-year-old mystery and give us the exact blueprint right here and now?'
Seriously though, I think I just offered a very specific architectural blueprint in my replies above. I gave you the Gear Ratios, the Tooth Distribution, and the Reset Mechanism.
Have you verified or tested that specific setup yet?
Why don't we start there? I'm not dodging the question. I'm inviting you to the workbench.
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - Rafal - 15-02-2026
Alicia, are you thinking all these gearwork things yourself or are you using AI ?
Volvelles and cipher rings were much simpler things that you expect them to be, especially in the 1400s.
And Voynichese isn't that regular as you may think. There is a lot of words that won't match prefix-core-suffix scheme or even (prefix)-(core)-(suffix) where (prefix) means that there is a word part from list of prefixes or not.
Today people are using computers and still are unable to write a program that would generate all Voynichese words by rules (and not using the prepared list).
And generating some logic with gears is much harder than with a computer, believe me.
As other say, If you have some brilliant idea, show us the sketch of your supposed machine. But you will probably discover how hard is to go from vague ideas to details.
RE: [split] Volvelles or Disks - AliciaNelPresente - 15-02-2026
(15-02-2026, 07:27 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Alicia, are you thinking all these gearwork things yourself or are you using AI ?
Volvelles and cipher rings were much simpler things that you expect them to be, especially in the 1400s.
And Voynichese isn't that regular as you may think. There is a lot of words that won't match prefix-core-suffix scheme or even (prefix)-(core)-(suffix) where (prefix) means that there is a word part from list of prefixes or not.
Today people are using computers and still are unable to write a program that would generate all Voynichese words by rules (and not using the prepared list).
And generating some logic with gears is much harder than with a computer, believe me.
As other say, If you have some brilliant idea, show us the sketch of your supposed machine. But you will probably discover how hard is to go from vague ideas to details.
Hi Rafal,
To answer your first question: No, I am not "thinking via AI."
I am thinking via Stolfi: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and Zandbergen: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Have you read them recently? If not, you should, because my entire argument is based on public documentation available to everyone. Just open ''The cardan grille...'' paper, press CTRL + F and type ''wheel''.
You state that "Voynichese isn't that regular" and that "a lot of words won't match the prefix-core-suffix scheme." With all due respect, the academic literature explicitly contradicts this.
According to Jorge Stolfi’s Word Grammar, the Crust-Mantle-Core structure explains approximately 96% of all text words. If a theory covers 96% of a dataset, we don't call the remaining 4% "proof of irregularity." In science, we call that Signal vs. Noise. Or, in our theory, Mechanical Slippage.
You also mention that "generating some logic with gears is much harder than with a computer."
Actually, René demonstrated exactly the opposite in his paper The Cardan grille approach.... He proved that a simple 3-wheel mechanism naturally produces the Binomial Word Length Distribution found in the VMS, something that is incredibly hard to fake with a computer rule-set but is the default output of three rotating rings.
So, to address your challenge: "Show us the sketch." The sketch has been in front of us for years.
- Stolfi’s Core-Mantle-Crust diagram is not just a grammar, it is the blueprint of the rings (Inner, Middle, Outer).
- Zandbergen’s 3-Wheel Generator provides the mechanism that explains the binomial distribution.
I am not inventing "vague ideas." If you think the text is irregular, you are arguing against the math, not against me.
Alicia