ovyyus wrote:
Thanks for the update, Fletcher. It sounds very interesting.
Way back in 2014 (quoted below) there was discussion about an eyewitness report of a support post lifting up and down as the wheel rotated.
re Topic :
Gartner & Borlach inspected, called 'hoax'
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6271
Is this lifting of the support post explained by your current idea?
If so, does that mean the wheel/earth push/pull reaction force is perpendicular to wheel rotation?
Hi Bill .. to answer you I have to go off reservation a bit to add the context so its meaningful. Some may not be all that familiar with the story tho I know you are.
See Topic above .. feel free to correct.
Basically Gartner, Borlach and one other visited B's. place of residence in the "Green Room" Merseburg on a Sunday. B. was sick in bed with a head knock, so his brother Gottfried did the showing of the Merseburg bi-directional wheel to those in attendance that morning including the 3 mentioned. They had to observe the wheel being put thru its paces from behind a railing just like everyone else.
These viewings were before the Merseburg translocation test which came later, in response to Borlachs illustration about the wheel being hand cranked around. See the attachments, Borlach's, and B's. redraw in DT, plus a side by side. Note there are some differences - B. shows no railings and seems to indicate tongue and groove flooring and ceilings etc (or it could just be his way of shading). Anyway .. as has been noted the wheel supports go all the way from floor to ceiling (I probably would have just built a sturdy frame/cradle (maybe on wheels with a wheel chocks) that sat on the floor - unless it was important that supports went from floor to ceiling for some reason ? - like it contributed to how it worked).
The important bit is that the supports were inside floor and ceiling box frames (attached to floor and ceiling) or inside chiseled slabs, like a peg goes in a hole.
N.B. the later Kassel wheel has u shaped plinths so there was an air gap between support of floor and ceiling.
Below is Stewart Hughes translation of what Borlach published about what they observed that day.
"The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyre, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which it was observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach."
What he is saying is that as the demonstration proceeded they watched a spot mark at A near the axle on the left post. And also at B down at the support and floor box section. A gap appeared at B because the support was lifting and setting down again each revolution exposing an unpainted section. The main points are these .. the support post was not screwed, glued, or bolted to this bottom box section attached to the floor, or the fastening had become unstuck etc. So each full turn the exposed post was visible for half a turn and then it fell down again for half a turn.
It did not "chatter or hop" up and down multiple times per revolution - just the once up and then the next half down again. ** Even tho multiple 'impacting noises' were heard on the descending side of the wheel each revolution by witnesses.
Anyways ..
"Is this lifting of the support post explained by your current idea?"
It can I think, if as I've speculated the Prime Mover is the entity requiring most of the internal area (i.e. large diameter wheel) to deploy and not the "about 8 weights impacting each revolution" system, and there is only one Prime Mover (reversible for two-way operation) .. or two, one for each direction.
That would account for why it is lifted for half a turn and set down again for the other half turn. Additionally, because it shares some likenesses to MT18 but where a weight is accelerated resulting in a partial-upthrust vector from its inertia in transition. Bearing in mind that the Merseburg wheel rotated at 40 rpm - 1.5 seconds per revolution > 0.75 secs up and 0.75 secs down. If there were more than one active Prime Mover at a time then the interval would be much smaller. Since it is exactly each half turn up and down it is a coordinated reaction and not alterable.
"If so, does that mean the wheel/earth push/pull reaction force is perpendicular to wheel rotation?"
The thrusting vector has some upward component to it which if revolving fast enough could cause a lifting force sufficient to cause the support to lift in its anchored box arrangement. Providing the actual support length was slightly less than the floor to ceiling length available so there was some slack to react and move and it wasn't hard fixed. Or as IIRC jim_mich suggested it might be springy floor boards "flexing" in response to the wheels internal forces. The floor and ceiling, if wooden, would have joists etc to reduce moving and sweaking and be quite sturdy I should think but it is a possibility I guess.
Short answer is .. that gravity and inertia have their parts to play in this idea. A side effect of inertia's part may well be a temporary upthrusting force and if you didn't want that to be public knowledge you might used a sled/sturdy frame/cradle and half posts bolted to an immovable object .. or .. floor to ceiling supports and sturdy connection to same to save on materials and cost, and keep a secret !
