I believe he would have an easier time getting the Archimedes screw going as a direct drive the way his drawing interprets it working, much more so than lifting the load of stones.....I still refer to my above about us not really knowing the full potential....we only know what was displayed.
MY explanation; Yes the Archimedes screw in its self is connected by direct drive. I agree that this is the way it is depicted.
My point being when at rest there is no load placed on the screw other than friction of its own rotation. The torque required to lift the water builds as the wheel also does while accelerating to a given rpm. In doing so IMO this would imply that the wheel was capable of producing more force than demonstrated with a full head of water. This being in compliance with your following quote.
When I think about this, I can't help but think it is being held back....for this to have the ability to hold and maintain a steady rate of speed and still do work, it would have to be....else it would reach a maximum rate of speed and that would be it's work. This would be a zero potential situation IMO. So, this thing has enough OOB potential to not only accelerate to a steady rate of speed....it can also pull a load at some point while doing it.
For for the sake of trivia and understanding, it would be nice to know exactly what the elevation of that head of water was? Then the math boys could calculate the energy/force required. You are limited to the hight you can suck water regardless of torque or horse power rating, but not the elevation you can push it!
No wiki, I'm not trying to copy Bessler by 'authoring my own MT like publication', it's there to help anyone who wants the information - and as for your so-called additional drama, I'm just covering my back.
Mathematician for hire. Answers guaranteed to be an answer. If you don't like the results, will recalculate to produce an answer that's satisfactory. Payment expected before pencil moves.
Personally, I think the wheel would have hauled the load upwards then the reverse pull/tension on the hitch slackened to allow a controlled descent of the box [while the wheel kept turning in the same direction], rather than stopping the wheel & reversing it so that it acted as a brake on the way down
I also believe the machine did not reverse directions. On a cathead the end of the roll is open so you can throw added rope coils on or off to lift objects. The object is lifted by just tension by your hands and through the number of coils you put on the cathead. By decreasing the tension you allow the rope to slip on the shaft and the load can be lowered slowly. But that said bessler did have a problem in that the wheel would rotate in both directions. Anybody thats been on a cathead and using it while somebody reversed the axle direction soon got a lesson; as it is like greasing two cats tieing them by their tails and attempting to carry them around your neck. So, as Bessler lifted the load the wheel probably would slow some, and what he did not want is for it to stall and reverse. To compensate he might have went with the outside pendulums and less rpm but more leverage braking when it came to stalling and reversing it.
I am probably wrong, but can not get my head around why he only used the pendulums sometimes.
You have a lot to say on this forum but without credence to the source.
You have posted over 405 entries to date, since joining. You have never revealed anything of your self or to my knowledge even mentioned a surname or your geographic location. Even your IP address appears to be a proxy. Correct me if I am wrong! http://anonymouse.org
The address: 85.195.123.25 is a give away and leaves reason to wonder!
How can you expect to gain any forum confidence other than your usual input of philosophy That will not prove or disprove anything.
Scott, Isn't the use of such proxy IP's in violation of forum agreement???
Wow, I took some time to put up a Christmas tree and all hell breaks loose.
Ralph,
The question of my personal information is good, but here's a much better one. If I'm not posting anything of merit why would you want to change the topic of this thread to further increase it?
Your question has several real answers. The first on the list is 'it's none of your damn business.' Close second on the list is 'my lack of disclosure is no different than 30% of the other users here.' Even of those that do disclose a location some are as nebulous as 'in a galaxy far, far away' or 'over you left shoulder'. Some are more specific. European Union comes to mind.
If you had access to the tool box of philosophy you could get a hold of that tool of reason and conclude even if I were to post a location it could be made up. You might also conclude it's irrelevant. Sound reasoning might lead you to conclude there are nefarious folks on the web and one should be careful who they share information with. It's a simple matter of security.
I've had security clearances and access to classified information including personal information. Lacking a need to know I left that information where it was. I have no problem saying I wouldn't trust some with personal details You already have shown you don't have a problem snooping around in irrelevant personal business. Who knows where some would stop.
Doc disclosed the details of his wheel with you and I'd suppose if there were any clues in the wheel you would have shared them with him. Just recently you were bragging about understanding something about the wheel and a shaft and a knee that even he didn't know. Imagine that. After looking, he pointed out it wasn't even part of the wheel. That question should have been resolved much earlier than this. It's none of my business and I don't care to discuss it but I did notice your powerful reasoning ability in action.
So you just don't know who to trust. Besides the wall of my ip I have 3 other walls. It's a simple matter of security. I have had administrators on some forums attempt to load dos applications on my hard drive. Most thinking people consider security these days.
If you'd like to quibble over your ability to reason maybe Jim Mitch could vouch for you. That was a hilarious thread that digressed to 'I, Jim, am telling you, Ralph, etc.' Seemed like a real need to define what 'is' is.
Your lack of understanding of the details of this problem are evidenced by your admission of hating math but show more clearly in your rule of thumb analysis of a wheel with vertical lines. With that level of understanding you're never going to be able to analyze power in transmission. That's the principle of Doc's wheel and iirc I was the first to point that out.
This might sound like a complaint against you but it isn't. I wouldn't want you to change for anything. I know you're no real competition when it comes to finding an answer to this problem. I also know you have no real objection to useless information being posted. If you did you would have mentioned the latest juvenile postings in Doc's thread. Also I wouldn't have bothered but you asked.
We argue for two different reasons. I argue to find out what where I am so I'll have an idea of where I'm going. You argue just to argue. That's what I noticed in your exchange with Jim.
I haven't tried to access any file on your hard drive that you didn't provide a link for. I recently read there might be some bugs with the moderator control panel between revisons. Another resolution was found to be pilot error during installation.
