[quote]I'll look for it, but somewhere he alludes to the "raising and lowering" of loads could be done with his device. I imagined a governing affect as far as lowering goes....I could be wrong.
Steve[/quote]
its in the DT in the SECOND TESTIMONIAL
The inventor also caused the wheel to
238
rotate in the reverse direction; in fact, during the course of the
test, it ran several times in each direction. He then attached a
rope to the axle – the other end being allowed to hang down out
of the window. This far end was attached to a chest full of
bricks - about 70 lb weight in all – and this load was raised and
lowered several times by the machine.
If the machine was also lowering the weight, and assuming once it began to lower, the wheel began accelerating, I would say the wheel would have been impossible to stop if you add the load to the acceleration!
So how did he stop it or once the load hit the ground would the cord go haywire? Hmmm!
jim_mich wrote:If we assume that the wheel contained oscillating weights, then trying to force them to move faster than their natural rhythm would cause a resistance, much like a clock escapement.
Very true, but sliding weights sooner than they would naturally is quite possible if they are drilled, and sliding on a wire type thing which you cause to tilt, or better even, rotate. Uses up far less energy .