Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[MrTim]

Floor to ceiling support posts would serve one main purpose: To keep the wheel from falling over sideways if it was only mounted on floor supports (you need a lot of bracing to keep the uprights from shifting sideways, being only 2 connections for a framework (basically |_|), instead of floor to ceiling support posts which would have 4, i.e. a rectangular frame. much harder to push over... ;-)

[Roxaway59]

MrTim I think you are right about that.

If I built a very large wheel and I wanted a strong and simple way to secure it that would be the best way.

Anything else and I would have to think about some kind of sturdy braced stand that wouldn't be as good.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hey Mr Tim .. I hear yuh .. makes each post over 4 meters high ..

Alternatively .. IF you had a box frame ( square sides and bottom plate ( boxed ) I_I ) it would only have to be 2 meters high ( to the axle ) and the extra unused wood could then strengthen the frame for twisting forces - and then you'd have the not insignificant potential, if you were short on quid, to start a traveling business and earn ticket entry price to view your " outdoors " carnival wheel - then take down the tent and transport it on the back of a wagon to the next town the following day - " roll up roll up and see the amazing wheel that everyone is talking about " - oh yeah, he never did that, not even before working for Karl - they were always in a room of a house ..

Not to be taken seriously, or maybe it is lol ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
Seams like a good way to do it to me. The simplest, the easiest and the strongest. I don't see the reason to ridicule him-------------------Sam

[SHADOW]

Bonjour,
lors de mes essais avec des roues de 2m contenant des bras excentrés, j'ai trouvé plus simple en m'appuyant sur le plafond pour limité les sauts de châssis, mais Fletcher à raison concernant un châssis mobile renforcé et lesté!

Hello,
during my tests with wheels of 2m containing eccentric arms, I found it easier to rely on the ceiling for limited chassis jumps, but Fletcher is right about a mobile chassis reinforced and weighted!

[Sam Peppiatt]

No SHADOW, I don't think so; it was too big of a jump. Other things had to precede it--Sam

[johannesbender]

I still have no proper explanation for why he used those supports from floor to ceiling , perhaps it needed to be secured in place to prevent something from going wrong from impact/jumps/imbalance , but i doubt the supports is what makes it work in such a case a half support bolted to the floor should work too .

[daxwc]

JB: I still have no proper explanation for why he used those supports from floor to ceiling , perhaps it needed to be secured in place to prevent something from going wrong from impact/jumps/imbalance , but i doubt the supports is what makes it work in such a case a half support bolted to the floor should work too .

IT is so odd; I mean none of us built our wheels in this fashion. I could have secured it to the garage rafter but I didn’t. It is against human nature. IF you found out his table top model did the same?

"Copilot: You make a good point. Traditional mills from that era indeed did not use floor-to-ceiling supports. They were often built with more practical and common construction methods of the time, like sturdy braced stands or supporting frameworks anchored to the ground."

Anyway this little doggy is moving along. Still impatiently waiting for Fletcher to catch up with the pack and show us something new :)))

[johannesbender]

I don't know , i don't think i even have an opinion on those supports to share.

[daxwc]

Yah yah... said I would let it go... I know. Just like a pittbull with a toy duck.

GB: For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the
Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was
that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of
his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig
Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first
time. (page 7) But later it was demonstrated on many
occasions in the presence of the Count himself and many
others persons of high rank, including renowned
mathematicians, engineers and scholars versed in all of
Nature’s curiosities. The machine was even moved about
from one place to another, but never failed to run as designed,
and as a result of all this it could clearly be attested that the
device’s performance was authentic.

GB 55 [ 1 ell = 22.3 inches, Gera First Wheel: 2.5 x 22.3 = 55.75 / 12 = 4.6 feet ]"

[daxwc]

GB:
Explanation of the Engraving.
1. The size, width, height and circumference of the
Machine.

2. The thickness or profile of the machine within which the
art is concealed.

3. The main shaft upon which the machine is mounted and
runs.

4. The wooden posts upon which the machine is suspended
and can run.

5. The place for the pounding or stamping.

6. The four stampers themselves, which are lifted twice.

7. Signifies the arms on the shaft and the stampers.

8. The 2 pendula to equalize both sides.

9. The wooden strips which are attached to the forcer or
piston.

10. The pistons themselves, or pegs, for screwing into the
shaft.

11. The weights which are located on the pendula.

12. Two posts for the guardrail, door and one pendulum’s
hook.

13. Is a crosspiece for one end of the pendula.

14. An iron screw to which the rope is attached.

15. Here the rope is wound around the shaft.

Two posts for the guardrail and pivot for pendulum. Just too much indicators that pendulums were real. We have other comments on the guardrail being real.

GB:
With these provisos, indeed, the machine would
continue its perpetual course indefinitely.

N.2. The thickness or profile of the machine, within which
the art is hidden.

N.3. The shaft or axle, to which the machine is affixed and
around which it runs.

N.4. The post upon which the machine hangs.

N.5. The place for the pounding or stamping.

N.6. The four stampers themselves.

N.7. Means the arms on the shaft and the stampers.

N.8. Are the 2 pendula for balance, which allow the motion
to continue, but also without (page11) hindering the running,
but which can be taken down, yes, but which in truth hinder
the speed of revolution, if they are attached, very slightly.

N.9. Are the wooden pieces on which the aforesaid Pendula
are hung and which are attached to the piston on the shaft.

N.10. Are the pistons and the pegs themselves, which are
screwed into the shaft.

N.11. Shows the two corners of the pendula with the weights
affixed.

N.12. Are the 2 wooden posts which next to the machine
carry the wooden guardrail, together with its door and one of
the pendula.

N.13. Is a crosspiece for the end of the pendula

Bessler did not write GB. I believe he may have published it although it might have been Karl.

[daxwc]

One of these men wrote GB:

We, the undersigned, have no hesitation in stating, upon the respectful,
seemly and obedient request of the honourable inventor, that
everything we have here attested is in exact accordance with the
Truth, and in appending our signatures hereto we have entertained no
reservations whatsoever. (Page 19)

Signed, Merseburg, 31st October 1715,
by
Wolff Dietrick Bose
August Leidenfrost - Councillor to Polish Court and
Elector of Saxony
Carl August Hûbner
M Christoph Semler - Dean of Ulrich (Saxony)
Julius Bernhard von Rohr,
Friedrick Hoffman - Doctor
M.Christian Wolff - High Councillor and Prof. Math at Halle
Dr. Johann Buckhard Mencke - High Councillor to the King of
Poland and Historian.
(Page 20)
Christian Benit - Professor of Mathematics
Johann Just Walbaum - Teacher of Mathematics.

From the flow of GB and the continuous use of “we” it in my belief one of these men wrote GB.

GB:
SECOND TESTIMONIAL
Issued from the same Office of the Hoch-Fûrst.
I, Johann Andreas Weise, at the time in question the appointed
Official in charge of this Department, hereby affirm and declare:-
After the renowned mathematician, Dr Orffyreus, had duly made a
most humble application to the Court, I yesterday was ordered,
together with other local magistrates, to betake myself to the so-called
“Green Court” by the Sistine Gate, in
order to witness the trial, set for today, of the P.M. machine made by
the aforementioned Dr Orffyreus, and take detailed note of everything
that takes place, including all tests that are carried out, and make an
equally detailed report on it all.

[John Collins]

In my book PM;AAMS? I wrote “ Gruendlicher Bericht was written by Christian Benit and Johann Just. Walbaum -
both spectators at the event.” I think they were maths teachers.

JC

[daxwc]

Thanks JC.

My biggest surprise with all that was the Gera small wheel was moved around.

[Fletcher]

Hey dax .. it might seem that I'm bouncing you between pillar and post ;7)

But there is a reason for me slowly building the picture - that is to get you used to the idea, or at least the possibility that things can be done differently ..

My hypothesis about a different way of lifting weights that was not brute force lifting unfortunately didn't come to me in a rare dream - it came from trying to understand what the 2 hammermen toys C & D were about in the TP, and what was special behind SB's - what is special is simply the arms ( inertia ) of the bent-arm " A " swinging thru control the time taken for the action/reaction of my MOI changer Prime Mover - which must be slowed down to get full recovery and torque ..

And this ' upgraded ' Prime Mover structure didn't leap out at me and grab me by the throat - I had to nut it out one very slow brick at a time into some sort of potentially viable solution to a runner mechanics ..

Now, I may never be able to convince anyone that it was B's. solution, so I call it my potential solution ..