Think twice about what you think you know!

[Silver Eyes]

~As this is sleepy's thread I hope he does not mind if inject the following.

We have bounce around the pros and cons as to telling the truth and talking like a politician. Bessler was good at it and I think that it is time to move on. As to telling us everything without saying nothing except to the very receptive is not new.

If anything we need to next look at the witness reports and copies of original witness statements. For example, Leibniz was known to be in a legal battle with Newton for plagiarism. Compare witness reports for discrepancies and possible conjectures of different descriptions.

I think that's a good idea Ralph. I was just coming back on to say I see your point about how something can have multiple meanings, I realized as I wrote about the trick question.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

You have the right question, but why the exclamation point (?) If you are sure then why the question mark (?) You have helped make my point of how easy it is to turn a point of view. You have asked a question and made an interjection both in one sentence. Please do not think I am critisizing you or your grammer as it is a common practice today.

Once again what would or could happen in three hundred years and a foreign language.

He's pointing at himself in a mirror ?!

Ralph, I'm generally a pretty polite person not usually given to bold or rash statements to be taken as uncontested fact just because I say so, so I allow some leeway, hence... [?!] ... It facilitates discussion imo ! (!) sounds so final & absolute ?! ... discussion not to be entered into !

I give an answer & use an exclamation point (!) to say "it's a statement" made by me.

I use a (?) to indicate that my answer may be one of several possible answers that could be considered correct, in the context given, & so it invites you to reply in the affirmative or negative, or add to it, as you have done.

No offence taken !

[sleepy]

Well thought out and well spoken arguments from both sides!At the least,we have seen the trouble with opinion versus fact.At the best,we have moved a little outside ourselves and perhaps opened doors for new ideas.Thanks so much for your input.I must now agree with rlortie and suggest we put this to bed.As for the on-going debate about truth,we'll just all have to agree to disagree,and put our efforts toward more fruitful ends.

[rlortie]

Sleepy,

Thank you for agreeing with me.

To move on, how about the statements that it would lift a man off the ground to stop the wheel, but a firm push to start it.

This reminds me of something my father taught me at a very early age. I was attempting to unscrew a pipe fitting held in a vise. I was pushing down on the wrench handle, and was not having any luck. My father told me to turn it over so that I could pull on it.

His explanation was that I could only push down with what I weighed before lifting myself off the floor. But I could pull or push up more by keeping my feet firmly planted.

This fact could play a roll in the force calculations of starting and stopping the wheel. For example what did the man weigh that stopped the wheel.

Ralph

[Jonathan]

A firm push will not lift a person; I think what is to be noted is that the wheel took more to stop than to start.

[sleepy]

The math doesn't seem right to me.This last and largest wheel I believe was estimated to be around 400 lbs.It had a 12 foot diameter and was spinning at 26 RPM.I haven't actually done the calculations,but it seems as though it converts roughly to a motorcycle going around 20 mph.Do you think you could grab a motorcycle going by at 20 mph and hope to stop it?Either the weight calculation is off or the RPM is wrong.A 400 lb wheel of that size at 26 RPM would fling a 200 lb man pretty far.I can just see the powdered wigs flying.I know I'll hear back about my math skills or lack thereof,but it's just a rough guess.

[rlortie]

A firm push will not lift a person; I think what is to be noted is that the wheel took more to stop than to start.

Jonathan,

I agree that a firm push will not lift a person nor did I intend to imply that it would.

Yes, it took more to stop than start which is my point. The firm push was to release or lift something that held the wheel in a loaded state when at rest. this is the only way I can see it capable of gaining rpm so fast.

Sleepy makes a good point about a twelve foot wheel flinging a man at 26 RPM. So how do we evaluate this discrepancy and did he only have to slow the wheel for a latch or escapement to dog it. The same one he had to give a firm push to in order to restart.

Regards

Ralph

[amateur]

Wasn't there a comment somewhere about lifting "70 pounds of brick" (although I don't know if pounds was the unit, or a translation of it)... I don't think that would be beyond a man if it wasn't moving very fast...??? Even I can lift seventy pounds (with effort :) )

[sleepy]

I remember that "70 lbs. of brick" also.I think it was noted that the bricks only slowed the wheel by 2 rpm,down to 24 rpm.Which would indicate that it was capable of lifting more weight.Unless speed is more of a factor in maintaining rotation than was previously thought.Perhaps gravity starts the wheel,but centrifugal force and the flinging of the weights is what actually drives it and develops speed.Maybe the torque decreased dramatically with slightly slower rotation,in which case a man might be able to stop the wheel if he first slowed it down a little,then grabbed it forcefully.We can't discount some sort of spring assisted start up mechanism,like in modern wind turbines.Perhaps it needed to quickly attain a certain speed before the centrifugal force would take over.That would also be the only way to explain rotational speeds greater than the speed of gravity.

[MrTim]

If you look at the drawings, all of the work the wheel performs is extracted from near the axle.
Apparently, the stopping of the wheel was done at the rim.
That should confound your math some more....

[ovyyus]

I remember that "70 lbs. of brick" also.I think it was noted that the bricks only slowed the wheel by 2 rpm,down to 24 rpm.

If you guy's can't even get the simple facts straight, there is no hope. Read up.

[Jonathan]

Sleepy's math is right, 22.3mph at the rim. But it doesn't matter because the wheel wasn't stopped at the rim, the Merseburg woodcut show that it was stopped with the handle labeled 23. It wasn't going too fast to catch, but it would lift you up well.
>the bricks only slowed the wheel by 2 rpm,down to 24 rpm.<
I don't know where that came from, it is known only that it turned at 20rpm under screw load.

[rlortie]

I was under the impression that the forum had concluded in earlier threads that the rope lifting the brick was actually a four part line as per witness description.

I have always had a problem accepting item #23 as a lever to stop the wheel. it is obvious to me that the outer radius would provide more leverage than a handle close to the axis where torque would be at it's highest. I am more inclined to think that the handle may have had something to do with changing wheel direction.

In 1980 Howard Johnson claimed to have invented a magnetic motor. The release made a big hit in the spring edition of Science and Mechanics as well as the New York Times. The rendering of this motor was drawn by an artist for S&M. The motor was never built or proven, but now everyone takes the illustration as gospel. I agree that it conforms to his patent but that still does not imply that it would work.

Why do I bring the subject of Howard Johnson up at this time? To relate to what you may find or have coincidence in Bessler's drawings.

Ralph

[Jonathan]

I for one would not grab a rim going 20mph, imagine the splinters! Even if the rim were as smooth and waxed as a bowling alley floor, I can't imagine I'd try to stop a go-kart by hanging off the back of it with my hands on that floor at 20mph!

[ovyyus]

From John's book...

...Furthermore, the machine may be of little value to the public unless it can be improved. 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... - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715.

Wolff is describing the action of the Merseburg wheel where the 6 inch diameter axle is used to raise a 60lb load with a (more than) 4 x reduction pulley. The wheel would have performed the same work if it was lifting a 15lb load (or less) directly from its axle with no pulley reduction.

If the wheel was rotating at a loaded speed of say 40 RPM, then the 60lb load weight would have been lifted about 15 feet (at best) in one minute. This wheel was obviously not very powerful and I don't think the depicted No.23 handle would present too many difficulties in stopping the wheel. Certainly the instantaneous stopping power required to overcome total wheel inertia (whatever that was) might be enough to lift someone off the ground if they were game enough to grab onto the moving rim.