Gentleman and Ladies,
I have split my screen into two open threads, allowing me to respond to pertinent posts and parts thereof in this thread. Please bear with me as this may prove to be a lengthy post.
Starting with John Collins introductory post I will copy, drag and paste from one window to the other.
There is a tendency, in my opinion, to rely too much on witness statements. I refer, for instance, to the comment by Fischer von Erlach, that suggested he heard "the sound of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned". This statement is worthy of further investigation.
A tendency to rely indeed! A pendulum driven clock sustains itself by a small impetus imparted to the pendulum via the escapement mechanism with each cycle of said pendulum. This impetus maintains the pendulums amplitude at the desired cycle time.
I do not believe that Fischer heard weights falling but rather small children playing with clubs. Small hammer weights falling on the dampener weights, an applied impetus driving the ascending pendulums up and inward. Thus removing the properties of their mass. This replaces the James Kelly exterior mounted basting brush.
These small hammer weights pivoting close to the rim reset themselves once every 180 degrees and are within themselves balanced in relation to the axis of the wheel.
in agreement that the wheel could be started in either direction with ease. The only question of doubt lies in his comment that he could hear the sounds of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned.
If Scott's post from 2002 and my input are on target, then the impetus applied creating the noise would be on the ascending side of the wheel. Similar to Johns theory of 'Kiking' or pumping a swing, the input is applied on the upswing. Same as in a clock!
Now we refer back to the toy page and the second depiction of the hammer toy with twisted clothing holding double pointed picks rather than hammers. To reverse direction one does not need two sets of mechanisms. The latching reset system of the small impetus hammers is simply reversed. To change direction they simply fall on the opposite side of the wheel.
Also we don't know if the internal mechanisms were mirror images for each direction - or not. Did he deaden only the reverse traveling weights or did the one or more of the forwarding ones also need deadening?
This paragraph is now IMO considered irrelevant, there was no need for mirrored images for each direction, and swinging pendulums make very little noise. Again comparing it to a clock the only noise heard is the clicking of the escapement wheel as it applies impetus to the pendulum.
Next we have Wolff's estimate of the Merseberg weights as being about four pounds, did that apply to the weights used in the Kassel wheel? Was that single four pound weight the only one on the end of a lever or whatever it was attached to, or where there more on each one? Do we even know if that four pound weight actually came from the wheel or was it just one he used to hand out for people to see? Maybe there were much heavier weights used.
I have read somewhere that another eye witness reported seeing a box of weights removed from the wheel when it was moved and set up on it's second set of pillars. I am biased to believe that all the bob weights were of the same size keeping the wheel in balance. It is unlikely that the smaller hammer weights were removed as this would give the secret away! IMO the weights removed was the pendulum bob weights.
Round cylindrical weights: The weights James and I normally used are barbell weights of 2.5 and 5 pounds. these weights are 5/8" in thickness and only the diameter is changed. I use 14 gauge flat bar for levers and pendulum rods, a complete mechanism can be place within a plane of 1" thick. Four pendulums per plane. Eight mechanisms can be installed in a wheel 2-1/4" thick inside measurement.
We assume that the Kassel wheel was the most powerful because it had the biggest depth, being eighteen inches, whereas the Merseberg was only one foot thick, but the latter turned at almost twice the speed of the former, and in either direction. We have Bessler's words telling us that he could reconfigure his wheels to turn either very slowly or much faster, but we don't know whether this was achieved with different weights or more or fewer mechanisms or a change in the range of movement inside the wheel. We don't know what it is that altered the wheel's speed nor its power
bigger depth means more pendulums, four on each added plane. Speed and cycle time is set by length of pendulum rod. The maximum length would be to center the pendulum pivot point at center of radius of wheel thus giving it it's slowest speed.
He could make the device slower or faster, not by adding or removing weights but by shortening the rod length and moving the pivot point outward accordingly, keeping the bob and impulse hammer in contact. Removing pendulums would also drop the output torque value.
If Bessler was able to make a wheel such as the Merseberg wheel, with a speed of 50 RPM, isn't it conceivable that he could have made the Kassel wheel capable of 50 RPM or more? The reason for the slower RPM could be because he had in mind the long duration test and a slower speed might have been thought less risky due to decreased wear and tear.
Did he not say something to the effect that he could make his wheels slower or faster with more or less power and that the limitations were only in its size which he could make bigger or smaller?
Yes it is quite possible that the Kassel wheel was deliberately designed for a slower speed with longevity in mind. I would say; not for the wear and tear on the mechanisms but for the sake of the lack of lubrication of the axle bearings.
The greater depth of the Kassel wheel may have been due to extra weights on the ends of levers to compensate for the slower speed. They would need to be added horizontally in order to maintain the same mechanical advantage so that might explain the increase in depth. The only reason for adding weight would be to increase power, maybe because he wished to slow down the Kassel wheel - so slowing the speed down seems to me to confirm planning for the long duration test.
Rather than stating; 'extra weights on the ends of levers to compensate for slower speed', I would simply say; the greater depth was required to add more pendulums to compensate for the lost torque due to pendulum cycle time which governed the speed.
The reason I'm saying this is that we all make assumptions on the size and number of weights, to try to estimate the potential output of the wheel when really it is pure guess work,
I could not agree more! hopefully the input that Scott, James and I have presented here will fulfill or make obsolete some of these assumptions.
Ralph Lortie
