Speculations on the witness's evidence

[eccentrically1]

To summarize,

John C. thought bessler could have made the K wheel faster and even more powerful.

If the rotation rate was governed internally by pendulums similar to the drawings and along the lines of Ralph's description, if I'm picturing it correctly, then an adjustment to the pendulum(s) would slow it down (to reduce axle friction for the 53 day demo and the need for lubrication).

Or, the pendulums actually were the mechanisms as Ralph says, again if I'm picturing what he's saying correctly, and the adjustment would be to the pendulum/mechanism.

Or, the mechanisms could have had a different configuration from the M wheel, or Ralph's theory, to reduce the rotation and the pendulums weren't necessary internally as a separate component from the mechanism, or externally (obviously).

In order for the K wheel to perform heavier lifts than the Meresburg wheel to compensate for the slower rotation, John C said he could have used extra weights, attached so that it was necessary to widen the K wheel (which would increase its mass and inertia compared to the M wheel and explain its ability to lift a man trying to stop it at the rim (unless that was observed with the M wheel and I'm getting them confused with each other. But if the M wheel was capable of it, then surely the K wheel would be, even at a slower rpm).

Or the mechanical design and size of the K wheel unintentionally limited the rpm and additional weights were necessary and pendulums again played no part. The general evolution of the wheels was as they grew in size, the rpm dropped; they followed that pattern of size/speed/strength (bigger, slower, stronger).

So then, from the wiki Output page:


4.65 foot diameter Gera - 60 or more rpm; 4 pounds

9.3 foot diameter Drashwitz - 50 rpm; 40 pounds

11.15 foot diameter Meresburg - 40 to 50 rpm; 70 to 80 pounds

12 foot diameter Kassel - 20 to 26 rpm; 112 pounds

Finally, mechanical advantage, and size and number of weights, in any of the wheels is irrelevant to measured output power.

Is John right? Could the Kassel wheel have been made faster, more powerful?

[rlortie]

I am taking a respite from this thread and with apology give it back to its author John Collins.

please refer any question or remarks regarding my input here to FWG2's new thread at; http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5024

Ralph

[ruggerodk]

Didn't Bessler said something about a maximum size, when he was asked how large he could make his machine?

IF there was a limit to the size, any wheel larger than maximum would fail to work on his principle....

ruggero ;-)

[John Collins]

This should answer your question, ruggero, and others discussed here.

"If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!"
from 'Apologia Poetica' publsihed by john collins

JC

[ruggerodk]

Dear JC
I was referring to this in AP, XLVII page 296-297:

Fifthly:- “Could I undertake to construct even larger wheels - and
to what size do I think they could be taken?�

Answer - with the help of good assistants I would have thought
that something well over 20 ells in diameter would be possible,
should anyone think such a thing desirable, and if the Lord should
grant me the necessary strength and health.

The Kassel wheel being 6 ells = 12 feet = 3.65 meters (1 foot = 0.3048 meters), this could be in the area of 20-25 ells = 40-50 feet = 12-15 meters.

For commercial buildings we might usually look at 3 metres floor to floor - so we are talking about a wheel of 4-5 stories high!

ruggero ;-)

[ovyyus]

If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one... Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose.

If true then why did Bessler put up with constant damaging criticism about the limited power of his wheel when he could so easily make them more powerful? Once again there appears inconsistency between what was said and what was done.

[ruggerodk]

Dear Ovyyus,
It seem like Bessler is aware of a power limit:

"I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold."

Though I'm not sure what is the correct translation of the Bessler's latin word "Quadratim", as I've found both Quadrat (square) and Fourfold (four times).....

ruggero ;-)

[John Collins]

Bill, I think anything bigger than the Kassel and Merseberg wheels would have had to be built outside, and, given Bessler's apparent paranoia about someone stealing his invention, he wasn't going down that road.

Don't forget that it was at this same times that Newcomen was demonstrating his steam engine. These guys were just as paranoid as Bessler was.

In his The Steam-Engine of Thomas Newcomen, the author L.T.C. Rolt says that

'A number of continentals visited Britain and at least one disguised himself as an artisan to discover the secrets of the engine

.

and further on

". . . Later on Mr. Newcomen built the first fire-engine in England in the year 1712 . . . at Dudley Castle, in Staffordshire. . . . The fame of this excellent pumping engine soon spread across England and many people came to see it, both from England and from foreign nations. All of them wanted to make use of the invention at their own mines and exerted themselves to acquire the knowledge needed to make and erect such a wonderful engine, but the inventors, Newcomen and Calley (Newcomen's original assistant) were exceedingly jealous and very anxious to preserve exclusively for themselves and their children, the knowledge of making and operating their invention, which had cost them such unprecedented toil. Even the Spanish ambassador to the Court of St. James's who came all the way from London with a large suite of foreigners, to see the engine, was not even allowed to enter the engine house however large a reward he offered and had to return very dissatisfied without having seen anything but the wonderful results, that this small engine was able to produce."

Curious isn't it, that both the first steam engine and the first gravity wheel appeared in the same year.

JC

[DrWhat]

That artisan may have been Bessler! Sneaking around being the imposter he was used to being. Wouldn't surprise me...

D

[ovyyus]

Bill, I think anything bigger than the Kassel and Merseberg wheels would have had to be built outside...

John, it seems you missed the point. Bessler said,

If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one...

A 6-Ell wheel is the Kassel wheel. Bessler said that if he wanted to he could make his 12 feet diameter Kassel wheel revolve with more force and power than a 24 feet diameter wheel. Yet Bessler continued to put up with the single greatest criticism levelled at his machine - it showed very limited power. Bessler's statement appears inconsistent with actual performance.

[John Collins]

Yes, I know that Bill, I was just saying that he wouldn't make it larger than 6 ells without building it outside and that was out of the question.

I agree that there is an inconsistency in his words but since I tend to believe what he said, I assume that he was bragging about what he could do, but he only had the Kassel wheel to show off, and that was configured in that way, in my opinion, because it needed to run slower for the longevity test.

He was I think, torn between producing a wheel that would run slowly - and having a much more powerful, faster spinning one, that might grind to a halt in the longevity test. I doubt Karl would have granted him the time and funds to build different versions of his wheels, so he had what he had and tried to make the best of it.

JC

[ovyyus]

John, Bessler stated that his Kassel wheel was his most powerful (about 25 Watts output). Therefore his Merseburg wheel was less powerful than his Kassel wheel. So why did Bessler not increase power to a "perfectly calculated degree" to the Merseburg wheel in order to overcome the single most damaging criticism that stood in the way of a sale?

Perhaps Bessler could not make his wheels more powerful as he claimed, but that would suggest he lied (people do lie). On the other hand, perhaps making his wheels more powerful would reveal too many tell-tale signs of his intrinsic power source.

[Michael]

What's with the "dear" ruggy? This taint no swinger club. Lol.

[jim_mich]

Bill,

It is simply your personal opinion that Bessler's last Kassel (4th) wheel was only about 25 Watts based on the your assumption that it used a pulley reduction system to lift the 112 pounds of weight. If you calculate the lifting of the 112 pound "hundred weight" load by wrapping a rope around the 8 inch wooden axle (as pictured by Bessler) and using an upper speed of 26 RPM then it produced 137.8 Watts of actual work plus whatever was wasted by friction. If you use the a lower speed of 20 RPM which was stated as the water pumping speed then it produced 106 Watts of power.

Pumping water using an Archimedes screw would have produced the most friction of any of Bessler's demonstrations. Note that the conversion of work into calories was first calculated by a paddle stirring water. A screw pump is a very large paddle stirring water.

When driving the hammer mill it lifted two 5 inch square by 7 foot long hard wood hammers to a height of about 11 inches twice each rotation. This calculates to about 122.5 Watts at 26 RPM or 94.2 Watts at 20 RPM. Lifting such wooden hammers would have produced much more friction than a rope over a couple of pulleys.

So both calculations of lifting weight and lifting hammers are in the 100 Watt to 120 Watt range.

If Bessler's wheel produced 100 Watts at 20 RPM then at 3000 RPM (a speed typical of internal combustion engines) its output would be in the 20 HP range. My point being its weakness was because of its slow speed, not because it lacked torque.

[jim_mich]

Fourfold power increase...

If a weight is accelerated up to twice the wheel speed then its (centrifugal) force and (KE) power is multiplied up even as much as fourfold.