Bessler's (4th) Kassel wheel Archimedes screw pump calculations

[jim_mich]

Bessler's added description of the scale drawing:

NB. from the small measure stick, which is 3 Ells or 6 feet long, everything else can be accurately measured, it will all be true/correct. Made by Orffyre g.

But Jim sticks his fingers in his ears while yelling, "No, no, no! Bill is wrong". What ridiculous thing will he have us believe next? :D

You are wrong again Bill. The caption that you quote is from the Merseburge wheel:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Merseburg_wheel1.jpg
This Merseburg wheel DOES NOT show the water pump. The label at the bottom correctly states that everything can be accurately measured from that drawing. But the water screw is NOT in that scaled drawing.
The Kassel wheel DOES NOT make the same claim that everything can be scaled:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Kassel-1stFigure.jpg
So it is very possible that the water screw in the Kassel drawing is not to scale.

Why do you keep trying to twist thing by using half-truths? Then you claim I'm the one that is wrong. Then I have to go back and research to find the proof that I'm right or wrong.

These discussions would be much more pleasant and productive if you guys would quit claiming that what I write is ridiculous and fantasy.

I do know of what I write.

PS. Link to Stewart's post: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11248

[ovyyus]

The Kassel wheel DOES NOT make the same claim that everything can be scaled.

It should be obvious. Bessler included the ruler scale on his drawings for the purpose of describing the proper scaling and size of the components of his drawings. A ruler scale serves no other purpose. Of course that simple fact probably won't make sense to you because you need to selectively change some components of his drawings in order to support your current pet theory. Desperate stuff.

[jim_mich]

Of course that simple fact probably won't make sense to you because you need to selectively change some components of his drawings in order to support your current pet theory. Desperate stuff.

That is down right rude, to make such assumptions that I change things to make them fit my "pet theory".

You selectively omit and ignore information that does not fit your own pet theories. The hammer-mill energy requirements closely match the hundred-weight lift. You add some sort of imagined pulley reduction based upon very flimsy evidence to make the hundred-weight lift match your water screw numbers. Then you ignore the hammer-mill numbers because there is no way to twist them around to suit your wimpy values.

So explain why the hammer-mill calculation matches the hundred-weight lifting calculations, but then the water screw calculations are off by a factor of about 5 from the other two calculation. Go ahead, put you foot into your mouth. I've explained what I think is the cause of the discrepancy, i.e., no solid written info on the water screw size, thus the actual true size is unknown.

Now let's here your explanation. Or will you just ignore facts that get in the way of YOUR pet theory?

[ovyyus]

So explain why the hammer-mill calculation matches the hundred-weight lifting calculations...

Easy. Following your example of selective manipulation of Bessler's scale drawing, all I need to do is assume the size of these components was drawn wrong by whatever factor I might make up :D

[jim_mich]

So explain why the hammer-mill calculation matches the hundred-weight lifting calculations...

Easy. Following your example of selectively manipulating Bessler's scale drawing, all I need to do is assume the size of these components was drawn wrong by whatever factor I might make up :D

From AP, published by Bessler in October 1719:

I state this since I once -

1. Attached a cord or rope to the wheel’s axle, and led it over two pulleys out of the window. With the aid of this arrangement I was able to raise a chest full of stones, weighing approximately a hundredweight, as high as the height of the building itself would permit. (page 22)

2. Attached some planks of hard solid wood, average cross section (shaped like the outline of the prismatic solids) five inches, and length 7 feet, to the device; these were then moved and raised by arms attached to the axle by means of a type of cradle similar to those found in fullers’ –or paper-mills.

3. Used the motive power in the spinning peritrochium to drive an Archimedes Screw standing in a large reservoir of water, thereby raising the water and creating a veritable cascade.

The hammers-mill stampers of the Kassel wheel were 5 inch square by 7 feet long, according to Bessler's own words. This makes each hammer stamper volume to be 1.215 Cu.Ft. European red oak weighs about 46.8 lb/Cu.Ft. This makes each hammer weigh about 56.875 lbs.

The hammer stampers are drawn to scale when compared to the 12 foot wheel. By scaling the drawing the hammers were lifted about 11 inches. Two such hammers are shown. Each hammer stamper was lifted twice per wheel rotation. Thus the total lift each rotation = 11 inches × 2 lifts × 2 hammers = 44 inches = 3.666 Feet of lifting per wheel rotation.

3.666 feet × 26 RPM = 95.3333 feet of hammer lifting per minute.
95.3333 ÷ 60 = 1.58888 feet of hammer lifting per second.

HP = weight_lbs × lift_speed_per_second ÷ 550
HP = 56.875 × 1.58888 ÷ 550
HP = 0.1643
Converted to Watt = 122.5 Watts.

No fudging was done. The only estimate was the lift height each stroke and the assumption of which type of wood was used. The stamper size was straight from Bessler's own documents.

So, don't anyone dare claim I am manipulating the scale to suit my pet theory. Just don't ever say that again. I'm getting really fed up with such accusations.

So once again I ask you to explain why the hammer-mill calculation matches the hundred-weight lifting calculations, but then the water screw calculations are off by a factor of about 4 or 5 from the other two calculation.

My answer, which you ridicule and reject, is that the water screw or the pulleys were not drawn to scale. My answer is that the water screw was about twice the size shown, -or- the driving pulleys were not the size shown, thus causing the water screw to rotate about 4 or 5 time faster. Also, water screws and primitive vee-belt pulleys are terribly inefficient and produce a lot of friction.

Edit: Friction of a water screw and primitive belt and pulley could easily consume many Watts of energy. Remember that energy was originally figured out by using paddles stirring water. A water screw is one BIG paddle doing a lot of STIRRING.

[daxwc]

Jim:

So, don't anyone dare claim I am manipulating the scale to suit my pet theory. Just don't ever say that again. I'm getting really fed up with such accusations.

What are you going to do exactly?

[ovyyus]

By scaling the drawing the hammers were lifted about 11 inches.

So the scale is accurate when you need it to be?

Related background reading for those interested: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5619

[jim_mich]

First off, let me correct one small error that I made. I attributed a quote to the wrong author back on page 8:

Leibniz used the Latin word "trochlearum" to describe a reduction of speed. Bessler used "peritrochium" (English: Axis in peritrochio) in describing his wheel. I maintain they all mean the same thing, which is as pictured by Bessler.

The word "trochlearum" was written by Wolff to Leibniz. It was not written by Leibniz. It is a Latin word that means pulley or pulley wheel. And I still maintain that this pulley wheel that caused a slow lifting speed was the "peritrochium" style of Bessler's wheel, consisting of a large wheel and a small axle, which acts as the pulley, around which the rope is wrapped.
----------------------------

By scaling the drawing the hammers were lifted about 11 inches.

So the scale is accurate when you need it to be?

Wolff reported the lifting of the load of 6 whole bricks (70 lbs) as being quite slow due to a 4 x pulley reduction (see attached 4 x pulley reduction diagram).

Weisse reported that wheel speed was the same whether lifting or lowering the 70 lb load. The similar lifting/lowering speed might be consistent with the relatively light loading due to a 4 x pulley reduction lift.

The depicted handle size and its practical applied stopping force also appears more consistent with a 4 x pulley reduction lift wheel torque.

A picture emerges of a wheel that was intended to demonstrate the practical application of lifting a box of 6 bricks to the height of 1 storey (standard building practice lift at the time). In order to demonstrate this standard lift Bessler was forced to employ a 4 x reduction pulley due to the wheels limited available torque. This means that the wheel was not capable of lifting 70 lbs directly from its 6 inch axle. Furthermore, this conclusion helps explain the practical and safe use of the depicted axle handle where the required breaking force applied to the handle would be no more than a few pounds in order to stop the wheel. Of course that would also mean the wheel was actually 4 x less powerful than its marketing campaign might have us believe.

First off, Wolff wrote that the lifted weight for the Merseburg wheel was 60 lbs (according to JC's book) and not the 70 lbs that Bill quotes.

Next, Bill speculates that the "4 X pulley reduction" was a block and tack arrangement. It is obvious to me that the so-called pulley reduction was Bessler's wheel design, which was a peritrochium, which is a wheel and a pulley axle combination commonly used for lifting heavy loads. Such a peritrochium makes for slow lifting.

My point is, Bill, that you do a LOT more speculating than I do. The scale is considered accurate when it is confirmed by written information by Bessler listing the dimensions of components in the drawing, and not when a drawing is speculated to be accurate because a separate different drawing has a statement saying its to scale.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote:

These discussions would be much more pleasant and productive if you guys would quit claiming that what I write is ridiculous and fantasy.

Jim, I for one do not consider the debate between you and Bill ridiculous or fantasy, I consider it wasted time debating trivia. It is of no value except for one who may wish to build an exact duplicate of Bessler's machine.

To build a duplicate, one must first learn the source of power, whether it is motion or OB gravity. I of course will stick to the latter. If my present build proves fruitful, I expect it to produce torque in foot pounds, and what Bessler achieved is irrelevant.

IMO rather than spending time calculating what Bessler's machine achieved, would be better spent working on your own machine that you claim will run on motion.

I expect to get response rebuking my statement, stating that these facts are relevant and necessary. That of course being personal opinion. But they are of little value without first having a runner.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

were the hammers lifted for two hours?

[ovyyus]

Next, Bill speculates that the "4 X pulley reduction" was a block and tack arrangement. It is obvious to me that the so-called pulley reduction was Bessler's wheel design...

There you have it. Jim thinks my opinion is pure speculation but Jim thinks his opinion is obvious and straight forward fact. Such is the nature of strong belief.

Everyone is free to form their own conclusions about Jim's opinions, including his various interpretations of the historical data and his speculation about so-called 'motion wheels'. That's a fact.

[jim_mich]

were the hammers lifted for two hours?

Why is this relevant?

It is possible the hammer-mill was run for a couple hours, but I've never read any accounts stating any specific run time for them.

[Unbalanced]

This is more or less irrelevant to this thread but the subject of the four spoke pulley has been brought back here and although it has been discussed before, I would like to add the following.

In my opinion, (I hate having to preface with that) this four spoke pulley is more telling about the configuration of the internal mechanism than any other words or clues we have pondered on or debated thus far.

Round pulleys were in common use in 1717. The round drum axle was used in lifting the stones/bricks.

What this four spoke pulley tells me is that for any one revolution of the wheel, there were four (for lack of a better term) power sectors. This indicates to me that there were four major weights supplying the power with each revolution.

This four spoke pulley system was a means of extracting an even power output from an uneven power source.

edit to add: Likewise the four stamp mill vs any other number.

[jim_mich]

What this four spoke pulley tells me is that for any one revolution of the wheel, there were four (for lack of a better term) power sectors. This indicates to me that there were four major weights supplying the power with each revolution.

I can see why you might think that, but the large mass of the wheel and its large diameter would have produced a very good flywheel effect, which would have done a very good job of smoothing out any power stroke pulse.

I've always thought the four spoke pulley was a bit odd. But if you think about it, the axle of the wheel could be constructed with four holes into which the four pulley forks were inserted. Then when not needed the four pulley forks could be removed.

The vee shape of the pulley forks would grab the rope real well as the rope got wedged into the vee. The down-side to this is it causes a lot of friction.

In my opinion, (I hate having to preface with that)

I agree. But the trolls are not smart enough to understand that most everything posted is opinions

[Unbalanced]

Jim-Mich Wrote

I've always thought the four spoke pulley was a bit odd. But if you think about it, the axle of the wheel could be constructed with four holes into which the four pulley forks were inserted. Then when not needed the four pulley forks could be removed.

Hello Jim,

I can relate to your opinion of expediancy being the reason for the four spoke pulley but why then make a square pulley on the Archemedies screw? A square pulley on a round barrel...

As well this illustration shows that the spokes that interface with the articulating arms have not been removed even though they are not being used.

I am not familiar with any eyewitness accounts of this or any other iteration of JB's wheels being used to pump water in this fashion. It seems to me to be more of an advertisement as to the various ways in which his wheels might be used as though he was trying to attract a buyer from the mining sector with it.