Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

IMO , the post lifting and dropping was made up to support the hidden crank allegation.

[eccentrically1]

C of AM
L = mvr = mass times velocity times radius (or radius times linear momentum).
The variables (v and r) vary if the object changes shape ( ice skater) or distance from the center of rotation changes. So the moon's gravity pulls a tidal bulge up. The earth pushes it forward, the gravitational interaction of the moon to the earth causes the moon to be accelerated by the extra mass of the bulge, and to conserve momentum it moves to a higher and slower orbit . The earth's spin decelerates also to satisfy the C of AM. That’s the best way I know to explain it.
So the challenge for a wheel to gain angular momentum from the earth is to move to a higher, slower orbit (gravitational slingshot), so to speak. The variables (radius and angular velocity) for the moon change because it has a net external torque from earth's tidal bulge that was created by its own gravity. The variables for a skater change because they change shape (arms out to in) but because they have no net external torque their angular velocity increases to satisfy C of AM.
The earth and moon are a collision of gravity force. Earth and lunar force.
The skater is a single spinning object. No collision. No net external torque. But changing MoI.
I'm sure B's wheel didn't gain momentum from a gravitational slingshot like the moon.
So if its angular velocity around the earth or its radius from the earth didn't change then the earth didn't give up any of its angular momentum to it.

IMO!

[agor95]

The skater is a single spinning object. No collision. No net external torque. But changing MoI.
I'm sure B's wheel didn't gain momentum from a gravitational slingshot like the moon.
So if its angular velocity around the earth or its radius from the earth didn't change then the earth didn't give up any of its angular momentum to it.

If we are to move along the Skater needs to be accelerated. Then by moving the shape [arms] they can cause and increase in their momentum [rotational].

However the work to move those arms need to be net zero.
And again the arms need to be reset to carry out the pumping process.

Good Luck

[eccentrically1]

The skater is just an example of C of AM, not a possible path forward to solve B's wheel, if that's what you mean.
We could explain some of his wheel's performances using a mechanism that "pumps" weights in and out; that would look like a peacock's tail I suppose.
But it wouldn't explain the 54 day test.
I think we'd solve this sooner if we concentrated on how that was accomplished rather than the short demos.
Ultimately that's what it took to satisfy all of the observers.

[WaltzCee]

Hey Fletcher, you might owe these folks some clams for using their image.

https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/det ... V-10160598

[agor95]

The skater is just an example of C of AM, not a possible path forward to solve B's wheel, if that's what you mean.

Well if we move away and look at the solution without getting bogged down with Bessler's wheel details, quotes and clues.

Then we have an external acceleration and internal movements that cause increased rotation.

That is the meaning of my last post.

Regards

[mryy]

In AP there are two metaphors about a shotgun and dog. I was searching medieval German shotguns and found this interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock

There is a part in the wheellock mechanism called a dog:

"The dog is a spring-loaded arm pivoted on the outside of the lock plate. A sparking material, usually a small piece of iron pyrite, is clamped and held by vise-like jaws at the swinging end of the arm..."

In German this "dog" part is termed "hahn" which translates to rooster/cock.


Select Quote:

"I worked also with sulphur and with gunpowder, and constructed air-guns which shot far and accurately, becoming a very good shot myself." AP 257 Collins

[eccentrically1]

The skater is just an example of C of AM, not a possible path forward to solve B's wheel, if that's what you mean.

Well if we move away and look at the solution without getting bogged down with Bessler's wheel details, quotes and clues.

Then we have an external acceleration and internal movements that cause increased rotation.

That is the meaning of my last post.

Regards

That’s my approach, to not get bogged down. Anything we (or anyone on our butt hurt planet)can find that approaches 54 days is a possible solution (definitely for his wheels but definitely NOT for perpetual motion). We’d never know for sure. But we could move away; or I would if there was a general consensus that we found the most likely answer.
A net external torque is a requirement, yes.

[Fletcher]

IMO , the post lifting and dropping was made up to support the hidden crank allegation.

That's a possibility jb .. but Borlach and Gartner and Wagner would be brave men imo to go to print with a fabrication of that order and be subject to libel proceedings should anyone care enough to pursue it. Not to mention the credibility and reputational damage that might occur if it was proved a lie. They were trying to discredit B. and showed how they thought it could have been hand cranked thru the support post. Borlach signed the comments below his engraving showing the person pulling the lever etc. And that means he and the others signed up to the lifting and falling post observation that is detailed. Yet they do not make the direct link to the crank mechanism and leave it as unfinished business that they don't fully explain. For instance if there were a crank arrangement as they show the crank could not have any slack in it, and not for only half a turn, imo.

ATEOTD both parties were trying to discredit the other in the court of public opinion, until Karl stepped in later putting an end to public defamation of B. and his wheels by proclamation and penalty.

What is interesting to me is B's. reply in DT to this engraving and comments. Remembering that this was a visit to the "Green Room" demonstration well prior to the translocation tests at a different location in the castle. B. refutes the claims of his Merseburg wheel being hand cranked and as evidence cites 3 witness testimonials from the TRANSLOCATION test - where it was NOT observed that the support post lifted and fell again each rotation by any witness present. What B. doesn't do is address the support post lifting and falling at ALL - he completely doesn't mention it or defend it. It's like it never happened or was never said. That errs me towards the observation at the earlier Green Room demo by the 3 was a real observation, on balance. But it was gone by the time of the translocation tests. B. still hadn't changed the plinths from box frames to the later Kassel U shaped air gap plinths to blow the hand cranked theory out of the water. Then again he didn't need to because it was a translocation to different supports and the upgrade didn't have to happen until the Kassel wheel.

So on balance I tend to think the 3 did see the support post rise and fall each revolution. Bill's question to me was could I explain it in my idea. Yes, I think I can as I suggested from the inertial forces derived from the Prime Mover actions and circumstances. If the lifting and falling post was a barefaced lie then all the better for me as far as I'm concerned.

Hey Fletcher, you might owe these folks some clams for using their image.

https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/det ... V-10160598

You might owe them some clams Walt ! - the image I used was from JC's DT which has a small difference from the one you posted. Take a close look at the right hand side window fame in your image to find one difference.

[Fletcher]

MT 20, the levers that flip the weights up and over , in to out.

I wonder why he put stops on top of the frame?

The weights could have turned the complete 180 without them.

I guess he put the rim stops in like shown to suggest that the flip-over lever-weights arrive with full velocity and KE, transferring that force in the direction of rotation. Perhaps suggesting not only would the flip outwards create positional torque imbalance but also not waste any energy from that 180 degree "swing" and impact. It's hard to imagine them suggesting anything else. Of course the design is flawed and does not work because the big driver lever-weight, which loses GPE and which causes the flip over, positionally negates the supposed torque and momentum transfer imbalance - or at least it is not sustainable and MT20 finds its force balanced position and stops like other ordinary OOB wheels with no asymmetric torque capability.

Rather than the weights lead the wheel, did he mean the weights should pull the wheel instead of push it?

How would the weights lag behind the speed of the wheel?

Everything turns at the same speed inside there, which means the weights can't shift faster than what the wheel is turning.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

Since no one else is jumping in to discuss your post ECC1 I might as well give my opinions.


Here are some observations and experiments I performed ..

MT19 is directly before MT20 - they are essentially the same base wheel format with the same driver setup (the big weighted levers that move downwards (and increase radius) short distances). Apparently to B. it was worth the added work and effort making the extra woodcut and to illustrate 2 separate steps (MT19 to MT20) where MT19 is very obviously incorporated into MT20.

MT20 adds the flip-over lever-weights with rope and ratchet pulleys, and rim stops as you discussed.

Interestingly imo MT20 has a single letter added at the position of the flip-lever, directly above the ratchet-pulley. That being the bent-arm A, or pantagraph / SB analogy etc etc. ... I've pulled from my files ovyyus's rendition where I had included the bent-arm A shown in the original B. woodcut illustration so everyone can get an idea of the original placement.

Having pondered this illustration for many years and the comment about B. telling his friend to "put the horse before the cart" I built some time ago a few sims based on a similar principle with some additions. I included a pantagraph application (suggested to me by the bent-arm A inclusion) as a link between the driver lever-weight and the flip lever-weight instead of the rope to ratchet-pulley as shown in MT20. n.b. I started out with a linear multi-section SB and simplified the design to a single pantagraph as linear space isn't an issue for a sim. They both behave exactly the same imo (levers) and one could replace the other as is usually the case.

I figured that arranged in this way it would give some unusual movements that the ratchet-pulley couldn't. And it did behave as I had anticipated. Under this arrangement there was no arriving at the rim stop with full velocity so rim stops were not really necessary in the sim. And as I saw it the horse and cart took turns, the horse became the cart and the cart became the horse lol.

You can watch the animation below of a basic experimental sim I built at the time to see the mech COM lateral displacement pre and post flip, and the height recovery of the mech COM in this static environment test. I had posted screen grabs of the progression of movements and motions in the sim in a past discussion topic. The updated animation today visually takes the presentation up a notch or two for those interested and may be more meaningful than just start, middle, and finished pics.




...................

[eccentrically1]

Nice sim, fletcher, the pantograph helps to show that flip..
As you say it reaches a force balanced position as the driver drops to an under balanced location.
But I don’t see how it addresses my question about what B meant re the horse before the cart: did he mean the weights should pull the wheel rather than push it.
Also how would it be possible for the weights to lag behind the wheels when they were turning so fast?
These were responses to Sam’s comments earlier in the thread.page 40.

[mryy]

Nice sim, fletcher, the pantograph helps to show that flip..
As you say it reaches a force balanced position as the driver drops to an under balanced location.
But I don’t see how it addresses my question about what B meant re the horse before the cart: did he mean the weights should pull the wheel rather than push it.
Also how would it be possible for the weights to lag behind the wheels when they were turning so fast?
These were responses to Sam’s comments earlier in the thread.page 40.

IMO B. meant that the pivot ends of the 4 long levers should be attached near the center of the wheel like MT 18 for example, instead of at the rim. The horse is the weight and the cart is the wheel itself. In this configuration the weight is striking the rim stop from the center out -- horse leading the cart. Long levers impart greater transfer of rotational energy to the rim of the wheel, unlike that unuseful weight attached to the short arm as shown. See upload where I re-sketched MT 20 (from offyre.com) for illustration purpose only. Looking a bit like my design eh? I like that ...

[eccentrically1]

To me even in that configuration the 'horse' is still pushing the 'cart' around. I guess it doesn't matter, either way it doesn't work. I suppose an actual horse could push an actual cart if it was designed properly.

[agor95]

To me even in that configuration the 'horse' is still pushing the 'cart' around. I guess it doesn't matter, either way it doesn't work. I suppose an actual horse could push an actual cart if it was designed properly.

The horse could loose mass. I expect manure is involved :)

[mryy]

To me even in that configuration the 'horse' is still pushing the 'cart' around. I guess it doesn't matter, either way it doesn't work. I suppose an actual horse could push an actual cart if it was designed properly.

This is what B. says of MT 20:

"No. 20 Here the previous levers work somewhat more peculiarly and raise up special weights and turn outward to the over balance. For this reason side A is always heavier, my friend supposed but I denied. I then reminded him to harness the horse in front." MT Collins

He merely states that the horse should be in front of the cart, leading it and effecting movement. So does it mean the weight should be doing the "pulling"? I don't think that's even possible (or matters) as he was being loosely figurative. Now the horse-weights pointing to the center of the wheel are useless as noted in MT 19. See upload for his thoughts on MT 10, 17 & 18 which use long levers, however emanating from the center. He praises them.