Merseburg wheel part

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7601
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Jim Quote:
Bill's wheel output values are so weak at to be pathetic. There is no way that Bill's weak rotational torque could ever cause such a big 11 to 12 foot wheel to accelerate up to speed and also lift the box of bricks.
Daxwc:
That said, there is a big unknown because the wheel never slows or is burdened by the load.
Connection? Has to affect both ways, why do they seem conflicting acceleration and laden unvariable speed.

I don’t agree Bill is wrong because it depends so much on where of the wheel the power is being generated from. If one 4lb weight always applied its weight perpendicular then it would lift 14lbs and could be brought up to speed fairly quick and satisfy Bessler’s squared calculation.

Equalizing force needed at rim of wheel.

With 14lb load F x L = W x X
Fx 72� = 14lbs x 3�
F=.58 lbs

70lb load F x L = W x X
Fx 72�=70lbs x3�
F= 2.9lbs

Both seem in the realm of plausibility to me, but Bill's seems more likely. Unless the machine weighs a lot less in the 300 lb range.
Last edited by daxwc on Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

That's right sorry, I don't know what I was thinking there.
So only 3.182 lbs of force needed for the lifts.
The weights weighed about 4 lbs.
So only one weight would have accomplished the lift.
Hmm.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Bill wants to leverage the wheel even more by a factor of "more than 4 times", or in other words a block and tackle leverage of 5, added to the 20 to 1 ration of the axle to the rim, which would make the rim force a mere 10.2 ounces to lift the 70 lbs of bricks.


PS. your (daxwc) math is wrong. You mix 141" (11.75 feet diameter) with 3" axle radius. You need to work in either radius or diameter, and net mix them.


Image
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Yes, the continuous lifting action of one 4 pound weight out near the rim would more or less balance against the 70 pounds of bricks at the axle. That is how a peritrochium wheel works.


Image
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7601
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Yes, sorry. I will fix it; using the wrong type of lever also. Not that that will matter much, but all those pulleys there is efficiency losses too.
Last edited by daxwc on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

A peritrochium water wheel from the middle ages...

Image


Image
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

daxwc wrote:That said, there is a big unknown because the wheel never slows or is burdened by the load. Why is that? What would cause that?
But that was not the case for the Kassel wheel which was measured as slowing down from 26 RPM unloaded to 20 RPM when the water screw load was attached.

So why was the Merseburg wheel reported as not changing speed during the lifting and lowering of the 70 lb box of bricks and yet the Kassel wheel changed speed under application of the water screw which was, arguably, a lighter load? Something is not right.

Why does the axle handle seem completely unsuitable for the job of stopping a wheel which is as powerful as the one Jim believes in? Something is not right.

The Merseburg wheel was reported as accelerating to over 40 RPM in just 1 revolution, while supposedly lifting a 70 lb box of bricks directly from its axle! Yet this same wheel can be stopped by grabbing hold of the axle handle? Something is not right.

Why did Wolff and Leibniz (and others) discredit the ability of the wheel to do useful work if it could supposedly lift a 70 lb box of bricks directly from its axle to a height of 14 feet in just 12 seconds? Something is not right.

Why did Wagner (who never lied, as far as I can tell) say it was untrue that the wheel could lift a hundred weight directly from its axle? Something is not right.

I could go on but it seems clear that there are real conflicts between the marketing claims made for the power of the wheel and various reports which tend to suggest that it was not very powerful at all. Something is not right and Jim's protestations to the contrary do not help make it right.

Where is the convincing argument which settles the matter of a small axle handle being able to stop such a supposedly powerful wheel? Where is the convincing argument to account for Wolff's observations of slow lift and pulley reduction? Where is the convincing argument to account for loaded/unloaded wheel speed discrepancies? Where is the convincing argument which discounts the views of important witnesses who described the power of the wheel in terms of 'not able to do anything'?

Why do all these discrepancies appear to resolve with a wheel that is less powerful and of lighter construction than the one some would have us believe in?

Perhaps I'm just narrow minded and can't let my mind expand to understand the true meaning of these apparent contradictions :P
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote:A peritrochium water wheel from the middle ages...
Jim, this grand old water wheel crane has an obvious pulley reduction ratio of 5:1. Yet by your hanky folding method of calculating reduction, and thinking like a workman, it was refered to back then as a 'more than 2 times reduction'. Would that be correct?

Great picture, BTW.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote:Bill wants to leverage the wheel even more by a factor of "more than 4 times", or in other words a block and tackle leverage of 5, added to the 20 to 1 ration of the axle to the rim, which would make the rim force a mere 10.2 ounces to lift the 70 lbs of bricks.
Incorrect. The Merseburg wheel was 12 feet diameter. The axle was 6 inches diameter. The rim to axle ratio is therefore 24:1. If a 70 lb load is applied to the axle via a 4:1 pulley reduction then effective load at the axle is 17.5 lbs. Equivalent rim force required in order to balance 17.5 pounds at the axle is 0.73 lb. In order to accelerate the 12 foot wheel up to 40 RPM in just 1 revolution while under a 17.5 lb axle load we would need much more than 0.73 lbs of force applied at the rim.

See Jim, fair consideration makes it not so pathetic as you might believe.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

0.73 lbs is 11.63 ounces verse my statement of 10.2 ounces is really not much difference, only 1.4 ounce. What was it Bessler said? And ounce of difference here or there ...

The first two wheels had very little power. They were mere toys. From those weak wheels, Bessler's wheels acquired a reputation of being weak and useless. As Bessler increased the size and power of his wheels, the reputation of his wheels followed him.

Bessler's enemies did not want to believe much of anything about his wheels.

Let's face facts. His wheels were relatively weak, specially when compared to water wheels or people/animal wheels. But to insist that they were even weaker and needed a block and tackle is just plain insulting to the facts.

As far as Bessler showing a grab-bar to stop the wheel, we have no witness reports that it was used, or even that it existed, other than in the one set of wood-cut picture where Bessler labeled it as such. It probably existed, but I doubt it worked very well for stopping the wheel.

Last night I wrote up an account of my experience with a brick-layer building the chimney of my home many years ago. I didn't post it. But here is a shorter version...
The young helper mixed motor, filled buckets with bricks or mortar, about 40 lbs each, and pulled them upward 20 feet to where I was on the roof, using a simple rope over a single pulley. It took the young man about 5 seconds to do the pulling, about 7 pulls, each about 3 feet, each about 3/4 second to pull. We moved about 120 buckets of cement and mortar each day. About 6 of the 8 hours was spent lifting buckets, the rest of the time was setting up and etc. So he lifted a bucket about every 3 minutes. The time between was spent by me walking the buckets about 20 feet across the roof to the brick layer, and by the young man mixing mortar in a cement mixer and filling and moving buckets.

If the lifting had taken 17 to 20 seconds instead of the 5 or so seconds that we experienced, then I would have said that Bessler's lifting of bricks was too slow.

I have a lifetime of many experiences to draw on. It is these experiences that guide my thinking. Bill says something is not right. I don't see it that way.

I can't help it is Bessler's enemies dis-believed Bessler's wheels.

Bessler's wheels were not very strong. But neither were they some wimpy weaklings as Bill would have us believe.

I just replaced the drive motor that circulates the warm air of my furnace. It is 5 inch diameter by 4 inch long. It has three speeds, 1/5 HP, 1/6 HP, 1/7 HP. I calculate Bessler's 12 foot wheel produced about 1/6 HP. All this little furnace motor does is spin a drum-shape blower fan. It takes all of this little motor's effort just to overcome air friction and pressure. 1/6 HP is not very much. Your automobile probably has about 120 HP, or about 720 times as much power as Bessler's wheel or my blower fan motor.

So when Bill tries to reduce the power of Bessler's wheel by a factor of 5, I cry foul. It is already too weak at about 1/6 HP. If a block and tackle were used, it would taken five times as long to raise the weights. At 15 to 20 seconds the lift time was already too long. Five times as long would seem like eternity to workmen.


Image
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by Ed »

Jim, I don't believe Bill is trying to "have us believe" anything. He is simply going where the data seems to lead... something it seems you should try a bit more. And if you say peritrochium one more time, I will cry foul! It's like punctum quietus all over again...
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote:0.73 lbs is 11.63 ounces verse my statement of 10.2 ounces is really not much difference, only 1.4 ounce. What was it Bessler said? And ounce of difference here or there ...
Jim, you seem to conveniently miss the point. The above figures are to balance the axle load. The actual required force at the rim in order to accelerate the already loaded wheel up to 40 RPM in 1 revolution would have been much greater than 10 to 12 ounces. As I already stated, if you bothered to read my post.
jim_mich wrote:Bessler's enemies did not want to believe much of anything about his wheels.
Wolff and Leibniz were not Bessler's enemies. But I guess you won't read this part of my post.
jim_mich wrote:So when Bill tries to reduce the power of Bessler's wheel by a factor of 5, I cry foul.
No, I never said a factor of 5. Read my post.
jim_mich wrote:At 15 to 20 seconds the lift time was already too long. Five times as long would seem like eternity to workmen.
That seems to be the point Wolff was trying to make. FWIW.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

So Ed, it seem I've made my point of contention? It's just that for so long now there was been this pulley reduction by block and tackle being put forth, when it was very obvious to me that the slow speed was simply due to the small axle on a large wheel (see, I didn't use the verboten word), and it looks like the whole, "reduced more than four times" is not even in the quotation.


Image
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by jim_mich »

Jim_Mich wrote:So when Bill tries to reduce the power of Bessler's wheel by a factor of 5, I cry foul.
Bill wrote:No, I never said a factor of 5. Read my post.
But you did claim "block and tackle", so as to reduce the speed "more than four times", and block and tackles only reduce speed in even increments, so "more than four times" must end up as "five times", or possibly even more.


Image
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote:...and it looks like the whole, "reduced more than four times" is not even in the quotation.
Hang on a minute, I thought you said these 300 year old words had clear meaning for you and that we were all close minded and stupid?

Jim, if you read the post properly then you would have noticed that quote provided by Daxwc was from DT, whereas the "reduced more than 4 times" quote is from:
Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, dated 19th December, 1715 wrote:Furthermore, the machine may be of little value to the public unless it can be improved. At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow.
jim_mich wrote:...so "more than four times" must end up as "five times", or possibly even more.
Must it? So now you possibly might even pick a number higher than 5 times? What next. It seems a sensible discussion with you on this matter just isn't going to be possible because you're mind is already made up. Duh.
Last edited by ovyyus on Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply