daxwc wrote:It would be set up so the tail hit the ground and coiled there and so the number of predetermined wraps would be the same throughout the lift.
But do we know this was method used?
If rope was allowed to wind up on axle for lift, wouldn't that method make wheel seem more powerful?
If you go by the pulley passing the rope through the pillar base as depicted, it would not "Lead", that is also to say it would not spool, it would pile up one layer on top of another making the diameter larger which would create more back torque, slowing the machine down making it less powerful!
To act as a winch the cable or rope has to be 90 degrees to the axle which in turn has to have sides so the rope can spool. As shown the rope would traverse off the end of the axle binding in the axle bearing.
In the drawings there is nothing to sustain a spooling action. If used as a capstan or windless as I prefer, the man holding the tail or bitter end would have to stand to the left in the drawing. I would estimate that no more than three wraps were used. if a four part line was used, two wraps would be sufficient to pick up the load and then loosen the tail allowing for a controlled fall.
Well there is controversy here of course; although I am convinced it is the procedure to how he was lifting the load and lowering it without making the wheel stop or spin backwards. First it was stated and complained about how the load was raised very slowly, which if he didn’t use a block and tackle would have only taken 20 sec to raise 9.5 turns out of 28 rpm. Not exactly slow, but if he had used a block and tackle it would have been 1 min 20 sec which seem more likely of a complaint.
So is there enough room on the axle to wind across without over lapping? 9.5 turns x 4 equals = 38 turns plus the 6 needed wraps to anchor for the friction = a total of 44 turns. Using a 1� rope because it really is easier to handle and work with it becomes 44� of shaft used. That comes to approximately 3.5 feet of a 6 foot axle; so yes I guess the rope would be a little big if the wheel was in the middle. If ½� rope was used I guess only 22� of axle would have been used a more likely number. That is of course if you believe he had to pull 76 feet of line to raise the load.
His drawing show 7 wraps which comes to around 14 feet raised and the load not quite at the rafter yet and no block and tackle with the tail tied off.
If rope was allowed to wind up on axle for lift, wouldn't that method make wheel seem more powerful?
No, after there is no slipping and total friction the wheel can not supply any more power. Also if a second row of wraps is started it actually brings the power down as the diameter of the axle has become bigger, just like a gear.
If you go by the pulley passing the rope through the pillar base as depicted, it would not "Lead"
That is true and I don’t think all things in the picture are truly presented which is obvious if you think about it.
I would estimate that no more than three wraps were used.
That is wrong from my experience, if it was strung like the picture and 70lb force had to be used then the smaller the line means for more wraps to get enough friction to lift it. With an 8� cathead a minimum of 5 wraps was used of 1� rope and probably 8 for ½� rope. But it all comes down to wheter the tail was tied down or free.
I guess there was always the crude way of making the load come down on a bi-directional wheel. That is to stop the wheel and unpin the tail (there will be no force on it because it is all taken up in the wraps) and unwind the tail till it slips and falls and hope the snot nosed kid’s dog from across the street isn’t walking underneath the load of stones.
After lifting the load, simply stop the wheel rotation, then give the wheel a reverse push. The wheel was described as working equally well in either direction. The load would then be lowered at the same working speed as it was lifted. This seems to be what was described by Bessler. Yes, it would seem this might over-speed the wheel, but maybe not. If the pendulums were attached, then they would act like a speed controller.
If a person was allowed to hold the end of the rope, and use it like a capstan, then I'm rather sure someone would have objected and claimed that the person was somehow lifting the weights.
Bessler stated elsewhere I thought you could not overspeed his wheel and a shove could damage it.
Jim:
If a person was allowed to hold the end of the rope, and use it like a capstan, then I'm rather sure someone would have objected and claimed that the person was somehow lifting the weights.
Yes, but you can put so many wraps on it operates itself.
After lifting the load, simply stop the wheel rotation, then give the wheel a reverse push. The wheel was described as working equally well in either direction. The load would then be lowered at the same working speed as it was lifted. This seems to be what was described by Bessler.
Jim don’t you think people would have brought complaints that lowering it in this fashion was rewinding up the spring?
Sorry Dax, but this makes me want to run away from this topic.
But it all comes down to wheter the tail was tied down or free.
How can the tail on a windless, capstan or cathead be tied down yet lower a load? If you are tying it down to the axle then it becomes a winch.
I do not understand what you mean by "tied down" if it were, then their would be no slack to reduce the friction allowing the rope to slip on the axle lowering the load.
Also, consider the friction factor between a modern day cathead and Bessler's coopered axle likely made of oak.
If demonstrations were conducted using axle as capstan, iron screw would not be in drawing and rope would be coiled on ground.
If demonstrations were conducted using axle as winch, as depicted, then according to video, as load was raised it took a shrinking force to do so.
Rope in drawing of Meresburg (6" axle not 8"; also rpm was 40 or 50) covers about half of axle at top with 6 wraps, with space in between. Space may have been for clarity. Pulley on floor could lead rope so it winded with no space in between, perspective of drawing is problem. Left edge of pulley is leading right edge of axle, and is directly beneath axle point if rope had no space in between as drawn.
Load could have been balanced at top of lift with no input from wheel necessary, if drawing method of winch type axle matches demonstration method.
Correct?
Over the years I have pretty much shied away from Bessler's drawings and text. For over 300 years man has beat it to death! Looking for hidden clues and contriving various ideas from his sketch's have been for naught.
I stay tuned here for invigoration and to exercise the brain, but my pursuit lays upon the eye witness testimonies. The ideas and concepts I now explore are either my own or suggested by others.
Man has spent equal time in trying to prove it was fraud verses it was a sustaining machine. We have no objective proof either way, other than the accepted laws of physics say it is impossible.
I found myself reading the history of the wright brothers last night and thinking of how they too were first ridiculed and called fraudsters. I think about what man has achieved over the last couple hundred years at what was once said to be impossible!
The first patent application for controlled flight that Wilbur and Orville submitted was denied, their attorney responded: "With enough energy, you can make a barn door fly"...
Follow your hunches and look outside of Bessler's confinement. I cannot think of a better way to describe it!
Great example of what the Wright brothers patented, elevator/ailerons, a fixed rudder controlling yaw making for controlled flight!
Once the secret or facsimile of Bessler's operandi is duplicated, then it will be as easy to build as the flying square of cardboard!
My favorite quotes by Jules Verne : "If man can imagine it, man will eventually build it!" "Science my lad is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they little by little lead to the truth."
