Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Robinhood46]

I think my problem is referring to these advantages as "mechanical advantage".

Obviously there is an advantage to pushing or pulling, a load on a wagon, as apposed to carrying it or dragging it along the ground.
What is the ratio of the mechanical advantage created by doing so?
What is the ration of the mechanical advantage of changing a very stiff rope on a small pulley for a very flexible rope?
What is the ratio of the mechanical advantage of changing pulley diameters, or greasing rusty bearings?
There are no ratios involved, because they are not mechanical advantages, created by principals in mechanics that have an effect on the effort being applied to a load.

As i have stated, my problem is calling them a mechanical advantage.
Can we at least agree that there isn't a ratio between changing pulley diameters, greasing the bearings or changing rope for more or less flexible rope?

Google;
What are the 3 mechanical advantages?

1.4 Types of Mechanical Advantage Systems Mechanical advantage systems can be categorized into three main types based on the desired outcome: force advantage, distance advantage, and speed advantage.

My argument is that efficiency advantages, are not the same as mechanical advantages.
Things that make the mechanical advantage more or less effective are not mechanical advantages in the same way a lever, a pulley (correctly used) or gears are.

[Robinhood46]

It appears that i am wrong, to not like certain aspects of a pulley system being called a mechanical advantage, because they are considered to be mechanical advantages.
There does appear to be some ambiguity in the text found on this site;
https://hzpt.com/does-pulley-size-incre ... vantage-1/


"In simple terms, the size of a pulley can indeed influence the mechanical advantage. The mechanical advantage of a pulley system is determined by the number of pulley wheels in the system, rather than the size of the wheels themselves. However, the diameter of the pulley can affect the speed of the load movement and the force required. A larger pulley wheel will move a load slower than a smaller wheel, but it will require less effort. Conversely, a smaller wheel will move the load faster but will require more effort. Therefore, while the size of the pulley does not directly increase the mechanical advantage, it can indirectly influence it by affecting the speed and effort required".

"The mechanical advantage of a pulley system is determined by the number of pulley wheels in the system, rather than the size of the wheels themselves".

What does "rather than the size of the wheels themselves" mean, if it doesn't mean the size of the wheels themselves doesn't play a role in the mechanical advantage of a pulley system?
I hope you can answer this Daxwc.

Should we consider the size of the wheels to be a sub, or secondary mechanical advantage?
Or am i just talking nonsense, because it's my turn to have a brain fart?

[johannesbender]

I have an idea for you guys , 3 pulleys with diameters as mentioned , sounds like a simple build , force and distance in vs force and distance out , record a video report back .

[Robinhood46]

I have an idea for you guys , 3 pulleys with diameters as mentioned , sounds like a simple build , force and distance in vs force and distance out , record a video report back .

Are you seriously suggesting we don't know that the distance in, will be identical to the distance out, excluding any stretching going on or slack being taken up, without actually building three pulleys all fixed of whatever diameter?

The question of different forces is a valid question, and the answer will be that there needs to be more force on the in end than is available on the out end.
I don't see what we will be achieving by creating the set up.
The only thing i find interesting in the debate, is where does the 1 to 5 ratio mentioned in the text come from? because i really can't see it coming from the different pulley diameters.

[daxwc]

Robinhood46: The only thing i find interesting in the debate, is where does the 1 to 5 ratio mentioned in the text come from? because i really can't see it coming from the different pulley diameters.

For me there is only two possibilities:
1) A block and tackle was used even though the picture doesn’t show one. There was compliants that it lifted so slow implying a block and tackle was used.
2) The witness made a mistake just like I did starting this off.

[Robinhood46]

Robinhood46: The only thing i find interesting in the debate, is where does the 1 to 5 ratio mentioned in the text come from? because i really can't see it coming from the different pulley diameters.

For me there is only two possibilities:
1) A block and tackle was used even though the picture doesn’t show one. There was compliants that it lifted so slow implying a block and tackle was used.
2) The witness made a mistake just like I did starting this off.

I agree with your 2 possibilities, although i do find them to be unlikely, and i prefer a third possibility.

3) The ratio between the wheel and the axle, with the rope wrapped around it, was 5 to 1. This covers the 5 to 1 ratio and the complaints that it lifted so slow. Just as with the picture not showing the block and tackle, the picture could also not correctly represent the ratio between the wheel and the axle.

[John Collins]

From my book PMAAMS? Wolff’s letter, re Merseburg wheel…

“.. 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. The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction”..

I don’t necessarily think the speed had to be slow, but rather it might be over too quickly if allowed or able to lift the weight faster. This was a demonstration which took time between each lift, so a slower lift could give more time for spectators to watch at their leisure.

JC

[johannesbender]

I have an idea for you guys , 3 pulleys with diameters as mentioned , sounds like a simple build , force and distance in vs force and distance out , record a video report back .

Are you seriously suggesting we don't know that the distance in, will be identical to the distance out, excluding any stretching going on or slack being taken up, without actually building three pulleys all fixed of whatever diameter?

The question of different forces is a valid question, and the answer will be that there needs to be more force on the in end than is available on the out end.
I don't see what we will be achieving by creating the set up.
The only thing i find interesting in the debate, is where does the 1 to 5 ratio mentioned in the text come from? because i really can't see it coming from the different pulley diameters.

Never suggested anyone not knowing anything , you seem to read things that aren't written (try again) , i have followed the back and forth comments with interest , and the easy way to settle and determine fact from doubt is to build it and see .

[Sam Peppiatt]

It's hard to know for sure what Wolffe meant. You would think that he would know that the size of the pulley wouldn't change the speed of the lift but, then of coarse he was a scientist.

I get the feeling you guys haven't done much hoisting. You wouldn't want it too fast; or you would run the box of bricks up through the head frame. Especially if you have to stop it by hand. To me it kind of shows that Wolffe was an idiot, at least when it comes to mechanics-------------------Sam

[agor95]

I get the feeling you guys haven't done much hoisting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Kzje9nF4A

[daxwc]

JC: 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.

This sounds exactly like a block and tackle as at 4 times is the classic double.

Robinhood46: 3) The ratio between the wheel and the axle, with the rope wrapped around it, was 5 to 1. This covers the 5 to 1 ratio and the complaints that it lifted so slow. Just as with the picture not showing the block and tackle, the picture could also not correctly represent the ratio between the wheel and the axle.

Why would Wolff speculate this way? He has no idea the path of the weights nor where they are in the wheel also it nowhere comes near 5 to 1 which what the quote isn’t as JC has corrected us but 4 to 1. We know the dimensions of the wheel and axle. It would be nice if this was the answer but it just can’t be in my humble opinion.



.

[Robinhood46]

I think attaching a rope to a pulley reduced more than 4 times, would correspond better with a 5 to 1 ratio being responsible for the slow lifting, than a block and tackle that nobody mentions, or additional pulleys that weren't mentioned either.
Obviously we can only speculate, and any possibility is a possibility, so we are all free to assume whatever we want, as long as we stay within the possible.

[daxwc]

Bessler's decision to exclude the block and tackle from his drawings can be attributed to savvy salesmanship. By leaving it out, usually linked with boosting mechanical advantage, he wanted to show that his perpetual motion wheel had its own strength and power, no extra help needed.

[daxwc]

Robinhood46; I think attaching a rope to a pulley reduced more than 4 times, would correspond better with a 5 to 1 ratio being responsible for the slow lifting, than a block and tackle that nobody mentions, or additional pulleys that weren't mentioned either.

Maybe I don’t understand your argument do you mean axle diameter to floor pulley diameter?

Either way it wouldn’t slow it down just the floor sheave turns faster not the load lifts slower or faster.

[Robinhood46]

Maybe I don’t understand your argument do you mean axle diameter to floor pulley diameter?

No, i mean wheel diameter to the axle diameter that has the rope attached to it. The pulley doing the pulling of the rope.