I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Moderator: scott
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
The "principal part of the machine" is the outer drum, he calls it a grindstone because he is painting a verbal picture for what it looks like. No one ever said PM had to be a wheel, so he was being clear about that.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
AgingYoung
- Aficionado
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:44 am
- Location: Houston, TX
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Jonathan,
You're making conclusions that I don't see in the text. I'm still building a grindstone. We've looked at the same information and have come to different conclusions. What can I say.
Gene
You're making conclusions that I don't see in the text. I'm still building a grindstone. We've looked at the same information and have come to different conclusions. What can I say.
Gene
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
I agree with Jonathan. Bessler was describing his wheel as looking like, or taking the shape of, a grindstone - which it did.
-
michael_vanston
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:19 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Gene, I am unable to see in any of my copies of Bessler's books where he makes such a claim.Bessler called the principal part of his machine a grindstone.
I believe you are taking his statement out of context. In your translation copy of Das Triumphans you quote
I read this as saying some people in Bessler's time are calling the grindstone a wheel and hence the principal part of his machine could also be called a wheel.For as a grindstone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named.
A wheel was not a grindstone nor was Bessler's PMM but you could call it that if you wished. That is what he was saying.
It's like me saying;
"A billy-cart (go-cart) may be called a 'dream machine', so may the principal part of my BMW be named".
Am I saying the principal part of my BMW is a billy-cart or a dream machine?
My copy of DT is a little different translation to your quote and puts what I am saying a little clearer.(pg 190 DT)
He is not saying his device is a grindstone he is saying it is like a wheel just like the word wheel is also used to describe a grindstone.Consider now a disc or narrow cylinder revolving about its horizontal axis rather in the manner of a gridstone; if you call this a 'wheel' then that is also a description of the main part of my machine. This wheel consists of a tympanum or drum covered externally with stretched canvas....
Michael
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
If one is to except that the canvas covered wheel is that described as a grindstone, Then what is . <also a description of the main part of my machine. This wheel consists of a tympanum or drum covered externally with stretched canvas....>
The modern usage of "tympanum or drum is excepted as " to separate or cover"
Now if the whole wheel is that like a grindstone then why the descriptive statement that the wheel consists of externally stretched canvas?
Could this not be considered a grindstone like wheel being the main part of my wheel that is or consists of a covered canvas frame resembling a drum?
Ralph
The modern usage of "tympanum or drum is excepted as " to separate or cover"
Now if the whole wheel is that like a grindstone then why the descriptive statement that the wheel consists of externally stretched canvas?
Could this not be considered a grindstone like wheel being the main part of my wheel that is or consists of a covered canvas frame resembling a drum?
Ralph
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
The wheel is like the shape of a grindstone. But it is not solid rock, it is wood frame with canvas skin.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
His wheel looked like and cold be described as a grindstone. But that does not satisfy the statement <main part of my machine.> note the period here) Then he stars a new sentence <This wheel consists of a tympanum or drum covered externally with stretched canvas.>
Now if it was not for the explicit use of the terms consisting of tympanum (divide) or drum covered with stretched canvas, I would agree that all reference could apply to the wheel being one and the same, but it does not. To me he is saying that there is a wheel resembling a grindstone that is covered with canvas resembling a drum. I am not arguing that the grindstone description is made of stone. Nor do I consider it to describe the described drum in a separate sentence.
Question: Does the German language of early 1700 have a word that can translate to "flywheel"?? Maybe the word or term did not exist and grindstone was the closest comparison.
Gosh I love the play on words. I am sick, I wish to get well, I am told that if I collect myself a well kept supply of fresh well water, It may help me get well. Well, if the well supplied well water makes me well, I will be well surprised. :-)
And how did this topic get so deeply imbedded in Jim_mich's thread "looking for Latch Ideas"
Ralph
Now if it was not for the explicit use of the terms consisting of tympanum (divide) or drum covered with stretched canvas, I would agree that all reference could apply to the wheel being one and the same, but it does not. To me he is saying that there is a wheel resembling a grindstone that is covered with canvas resembling a drum. I am not arguing that the grindstone description is made of stone. Nor do I consider it to describe the described drum in a separate sentence.
Question: Does the German language of early 1700 have a word that can translate to "flywheel"?? Maybe the word or term did not exist and grindstone was the closest comparison.
Gosh I love the play on words. I am sick, I wish to get well, I am told that if I collect myself a well kept supply of fresh well water, It may help me get well. Well, if the well supplied well water makes me well, I will be well surprised. :-)
And how did this topic get so deeply imbedded in Jim_mich's thread "looking for Latch Ideas"
Ralph
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Dictionary translates flywheel to Schwungrad. Schwungrad is listed with two mechanical meanings: flywheel, or clock balance-wheel. Literal translation is "momentum wheel." The words Schwung and Rad are already familiar to us as we have seen them used in the original German text. The compound word Schwungrad might not have been used in Bessler's time, although it seems unlikely. Those with really old dictionaries, please feel free to chime in.
Thank you, Ralph, you've caused me to stumble upon the answer to a question that has nagged me for a year.
Chris
Thank you, Ralph, you've caused me to stumble upon the answer to a question that has nagged me for a year.
Chris
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Gene and Ralph...
I find myself continuing to be in agreement with the consensus here. When Bessler writes:
Anyway, if you've been following my "...Updates" thread over in the Community Buzz forum, then you know I am currently pursuing the idea that Bessler's wheels used weights attached to short flexible tapered steel arms that were fixed to the rim of the wheels.
In rereading that passage in DT, I was struck by the line:
As this process occurs, the arms begin to store recoil energy that is then rapidly used to move the weights upward when this energy is used as the arms again achieve an upright position near the bottom of the wheel.
This motion of the flexible arms and their attached weights is almost identical to that which takes place in whip that is "cracked". I've been studying the physics of whips lately and am amazed by what I am learning about them. When one cracks a whip, one causes a transverse wave of material to travel from the base of the whip to its tip. As the wave moves down the length of the whip, its amplitude decreases rapidly while the velocity of the impulse increases dramatically. There were some measurements done using an 8 foot long raw hide whip that indicated the tip of it was actually moving at about 1400 miles per hour or nearly twice the speed of sound! Thus, that loud crack produced by such a whip is, in reality, a miniature "sonic boom"!
I think Bessler's secret mechanism used tapered steel rods that, like metal whips, were capable of rapidly moving their attached weights back up to their stops before the arm reached the wheel's 6:00 position and possible before this. Such asymmetric weight shifting action would then result in a weight path within the drum that always kept its CG to one side of the wheel's axle so that, in the case of the one directional wheel, the wheel was permanently overbalanced whether it was stationary or in motion.
In the past, I have discounted the effects of CF in Bessler's wheels, but now I am starting to think that they played an important role in the "cracking" of those metalling whips within his wheels!
ken
I find myself continuing to be in agreement with the consensus here. When Bessler writes:
he is merely saying that the shape and motion of this invention is similar to that of a solid stone grindstone and that is all. I can not see how you can reach the conclusion from this that the drum somehow contained a separate flywheel.For as a grindstone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named.
Anyway, if you've been following my "...Updates" thread over in the Community Buzz forum, then you know I am currently pursuing the idea that Bessler's wheels used weights attached to short flexible tapered steel arms that were fixed to the rim of the wheels.
In rereading that passage in DT, I was struck by the line:
I think this mention of force due to "swinging" is supposed to describe the process taking place on the descending side of the wheel by which the weights "droop" and begin to flex and then compress the flexible arms that they are attached to.The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.
As this process occurs, the arms begin to store recoil energy that is then rapidly used to move the weights upward when this energy is used as the arms again achieve an upright position near the bottom of the wheel.
This motion of the flexible arms and their attached weights is almost identical to that which takes place in whip that is "cracked". I've been studying the physics of whips lately and am amazed by what I am learning about them. When one cracks a whip, one causes a transverse wave of material to travel from the base of the whip to its tip. As the wave moves down the length of the whip, its amplitude decreases rapidly while the velocity of the impulse increases dramatically. There were some measurements done using an 8 foot long raw hide whip that indicated the tip of it was actually moving at about 1400 miles per hour or nearly twice the speed of sound! Thus, that loud crack produced by such a whip is, in reality, a miniature "sonic boom"!
I think Bessler's secret mechanism used tapered steel rods that, like metal whips, were capable of rapidly moving their attached weights back up to their stops before the arm reached the wheel's 6:00 position and possible before this. Such asymmetric weight shifting action would then result in a weight path within the drum that always kept its CG to one side of the wheel's axle so that, in the case of the one directional wheel, the wheel was permanently overbalanced whether it was stationary or in motion.
In the past, I have discounted the effects of CF in Bessler's wheels, but now I am starting to think that they played an important role in the "cracking" of those metalling whips within his wheels!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Ken,
Dispose; Quite a word for setting weights into rotation, causing them to deviate from a horizontal to vertical or vise versa, and then gain force from their own swinging. (see dispose and incline)..
I wonder what was in the wheel that caused this disposing. Was it the frame of the canvas wheel that looks like a drum or was it something within the drum that looked like a grindstone. what ever it was the main part of his wheel that set the weights into rotation, and to do so had to deviate them from there natural position or trajectory.
To accomplish this action it had to produce enough energy by mass kinetic or centrifugal force to lift more than was falling via an inclined path . maybe the ratio between the inner main principle and the outer drum had something to do with this. I thank racer270 (Gordy)for stating this in his upper post.
Bacons version, Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, pp. 16-23
I am aware of the fact that this forum is biased in John Collins version of the above. Without wishing any offense is it not the scientific thing to attempt substantiating both versions in an impartial manner.
Bessler does not say that the main principle of his wheel looks like a grindstone and/or a drum. He says the the main principle is composed of a tympanum or drum and states that it is this external wheel or drum that is raising the weights
It is obvious that we can debate this until the cows come home. That is fine with me, especially when I see responses such as chris's statement above saying that it was of help.
It is also obvious that the outer drum would exhibit all properties of a flywheel. so you will get no debate regarding this statement. I just do not except that it was the sole or solus part to have such properties.
Chris, thank you for the response on the word flywheel. I do not know how I helped you but glad all this debating is not in vain.
Ralph
disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging,
Dispose; Quite a word for setting weights into rotation, causing them to deviate from a horizontal to vertical or vise versa, and then gain force from their own swinging. (see dispose and incline)..
I wonder what was in the wheel that caused this disposing. Was it the frame of the canvas wheel that looks like a drum or was it something within the drum that looked like a grindstone. what ever it was the main part of his wheel that set the weights into rotation, and to do so had to deviate them from there natural position or trajectory.
To accomplish this action it had to produce enough energy by mass kinetic or centrifugal force to lift more than was falling via an inclined path . maybe the ratio between the inner main principle and the outer drum had something to do with this. I thank racer270 (Gordy)for stating this in his upper post.
Bacons version, Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, pp. 16-23
.Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally
I am aware of the fact that this forum is biased in John Collins version of the above. Without wishing any offense is it not the scientific thing to attempt substantiating both versions in an impartial manner.
Bessler does not say that the main principle of his wheel looks like a grindstone and/or a drum. He says the the main principle is composed of a tympanum or drum and states that it is this external wheel or drum that is raising the weights
It is obvious that we can debate this until the cows come home. That is fine with me, especially when I see responses such as chris's statement above saying that it was of help.
It is also obvious that the outer drum would exhibit all properties of a flywheel. so you will get no debate regarding this statement. I just do not except that it was the sole or solus part to have such properties.
Chris, thank you for the response on the word flywheel. I do not know how I helped you but glad all this debating is not in vain.
Ralph
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Ralph, you seem to be making it a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.
servo is simplex, bardus - or something to that effect :)
servo is simplex, bardus - or something to that effect :)
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Ken,
Once again its a play on wording.
It is you that keeps comparing it to imply solid stone grindstone. I do not believe it actualy is such a thing, but I do believe it is a wheel within a wheel. To me it is a way to define the difference between the inner wheel and the outer drum.
As a principle part, there has to be other parts to compare it to, how else can you derive principle part if there were none.
Ovyyus,
<servo is simplex, bardus - or something to that effect :)>
Yes it is getting over complicated but for some reason I am enjoying it.
I have no idea what your above quote refers to other than maybe what I am doing. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bull___ :-)
What ever I am not backing down until someone can convince me that such words as "dispose" and "principle part" are not intended to be used for a reason.
Once again its a play on wording.
I can reach that conclusion by emphasizing on the above words "so may the principle part of my machine"he is merely saying that the shape and motion of this invention is similar to that of a solid stone grindstone and that is all. I can not see how you can reach the conclusion from this that the drum somehow contained a separate flywheel.For as a grindstone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named.
It is you that keeps comparing it to imply solid stone grindstone. I do not believe it actualy is such a thing, but I do believe it is a wheel within a wheel. To me it is a way to define the difference between the inner wheel and the outer drum.
As a principle part, there has to be other parts to compare it to, how else can you derive principle part if there were none.
Ovyyus,
<servo is simplex, bardus - or something to that effect :)>
Yes it is getting over complicated but for some reason I am enjoying it.
I have no idea what your above quote refers to other than maybe what I am doing. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bull___ :-)
What ever I am not backing down until someone can convince me that such words as "dispose" and "principle part" are not intended to be used for a reason.
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Ralph, the "principle part" of his wheel would be the wheel itself - that large cylindrical part that looks a bit like a grindstone. Not the stampers or the water screw or all the other attachments, just the big wheel bit.
That's my interpretation anyway.
My dictionary explains 'dispose' thusly:
dis·pose
To place or set in a particular order; arrange; to put into correct, definitive, or conclusive form; to put into a willing or receptive frame of mind; incline.
That's my interpretation anyway.
My dictionary explains 'dispose' thusly:
dis·pose
To place or set in a particular order; arrange; to put into correct, definitive, or conclusive form; to put into a willing or receptive frame of mind; incline.
Last edited by ovyyus on Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Ralph,
This wheel within a wheel concept has been discussed a number of times before. When you go back and look at the original German it does NOT support the idea of a wheel within a wheel. The problem stems from translations that were not done well. Translating from one language to another is sometimes more an art than a science, especially when you span 300 years.
You're free to believe and think what you want. Or you can do a little more research and see the truth.
This wheel within a wheel concept has been discussed a number of times before. When you go back and look at the original German it does NOT support the idea of a wheel within a wheel. The problem stems from translations that were not done well. Translating from one language to another is sometimes more an art than a science, especially when you span 300 years.
You're free to believe and think what you want. Or you can do a little more research and see the truth.
re: I'm Looking for Latch Ideas
Jim_mich
You make a very good point, < You're free to believe and think what you want. Or you can do a little more research and see the truth.>
What I think is that I may be wrong or I may be right. For an educational eye opening debate I believe that I (We) need to substantiate both thoughts. I would love to research and see the truth. To my knowledge no one has found the truth and that is what we are after.
If there is actual identifiable truth that there was not a secondary device that kept the weights in motion while being lifted by the drum. Believe me I will be the first to back down from this debate and say I agree.
So far I have seen nothing that sways me one way more than the other, except for the repeated quotes and consensus of this board. I do not consider the will of the majority to be substantial proof that I may be wrong. Over time and research majority consensus has been proven wrong as often as right.
first I apologize for this debate taking up your latch thread. I would have to go back to the beginning to see how it got started here. and I would be more than happy if we could move it elsewhere.
Yes I am well aware that we have discussed this before on a number of threads. Problem is I have never seen any substantial proof of a second wheel existing or not existing.
You state that I can do a little more research and find the truth. I beg of you, please help guide me in that direction. I admit that my own research leans to other ideas and does not always use a wheel within a wheel, but then I am not attempting to duplicate as some are.
I state not always, as one of my present designs does. it also puts the term "dispose" and its meaning of incline to the test in such a manner that fits Besslers description. I did not design it with that thought in mind, and it is a coincidence that it has turned out that way.
With all due respect and apologies for cluttering up your thread.
Ralph
You make a very good point, < You're free to believe and think what you want. Or you can do a little more research and see the truth.>
What I think is that I may be wrong or I may be right. For an educational eye opening debate I believe that I (We) need to substantiate both thoughts. I would love to research and see the truth. To my knowledge no one has found the truth and that is what we are after.
If there is actual identifiable truth that there was not a secondary device that kept the weights in motion while being lifted by the drum. Believe me I will be the first to back down from this debate and say I agree.
So far I have seen nothing that sways me one way more than the other, except for the repeated quotes and consensus of this board. I do not consider the will of the majority to be substantial proof that I may be wrong. Over time and research majority consensus has been proven wrong as often as right.
first I apologize for this debate taking up your latch thread. I would have to go back to the beginning to see how it got started here. and I would be more than happy if we could move it elsewhere.
Yes I am well aware that we have discussed this before on a number of threads. Problem is I have never seen any substantial proof of a second wheel existing or not existing.
You state that I can do a little more research and find the truth. I beg of you, please help guide me in that direction. I admit that my own research leans to other ideas and does not always use a wheel within a wheel, but then I am not attempting to duplicate as some are.
I state not always, as one of my present designs does. it also puts the term "dispose" and its meaning of incline to the test in such a manner that fits Besslers description. I did not design it with that thought in mind, and it is a coincidence that it has turned out that way.
With all due respect and apologies for cluttering up your thread.
Ralph