Merseburg wheel part

[ovyyus]

But wagner didn't give a description of his wheel.

Wagner's wheel is irrelevant (if it actually existed) because he thought the wheel was wound up with an internal spring, which could not have been the case. His observations are valuable nonetheless.

[eccentrically1]

One can also readily conclude that his internal motive principle or so-called superior force has no hundredweight force because his apprentice - a weakling who together with his leather waistcoat and blue apron does not weigh a hundredweight but is able to halt the wheel by grasping the axle twice - made it clear that the wheel cannot raise a hundredweight; for a body weighing less than a hundredweight suffices to bring the wheel to a complete standstill within 2 seconds, and as soon as the wheel stops moving, almost all internal impetus is gone.

I thought this referred to the K wheel. Hundredweight, not 70 lbs.
Wagner doesn't say he had a spring in his wheel either, he said it had heavy weights at the periphery to accomplish the same lift.

[eccentrically1]

The below from Wagner suggests there was no pulley reduction applied the the Merseburg wheel lift demonstration. (Taken from Wagner's critique)

Anyone who was simpleminded enough to believe that the wheel has a constant 70-pound superior force with which it raised a box of 70 pounds above the second-story window to a maximum height of 10 to 12 ells at the experiment --as one observes partly in the copper engraving and partly in reports elsewhere-- will be able to understand how such a wheel is possible. I too accomplish this end with a wheel of the same dimensions, made heavy by weights distributed over the periphery, and when it is in full swing it raises a 70-pound box 10 to 12 ells high without slowing the operation noticeably. When the wheel has raised the box 12 ells high, it has revolved only 15 times; because the diameter of the axle is 6 inches or 1/4 ell, it hoists more than 3/4 ell of rope with each revolution. Within this amount of time (which, if the wheel revolves almost once every second, measures some 17 or 18 seconds and thus slightly more than 1/4 minute) the movement of a wheel this size at this speed cannot change noticeably.

[eccentrically1]

I understand the dilemma about the apprentice. My only explanation is the wheel itself was very light.
And there were probably fewer weights inside than they were led to believe.
It only took 4 lbs at the rim to balance the 70 lbs.

[ovyyus]

Wagner was describing the Merseburg wheel. A drawing of Wagner's wheel design shows a spring wound turnspit device driving the axle inside the wheel.

[jim_mich]

From PM-AAMS:

Wagner goes on to accuse Orffyreus of being an accomplished swindler who won't engage in a serious conversation. He recalls numerous conversations with the inventor during which he is supposed to have made many outrageous claims for his machines. Orffyreus replies, "When did I ever give you any information about my machine? When did you ever call on me at Merseburg? When were you in my machine-room there?"

Copyright © 1997-2003 John Collins. All rights reserved. 35

It seems that Wagner paid Orffyreus just one visit while he resided at Draschwitz. "I received him warmly, but our acquaintance lasted just as long as it took him to swallow his breakfast. I hadn't seen him before and I haven't seem him since, and yet he spouts forth all manner of false rumours, as if he knew all about my craftsmanship from long years of unbroken conversation with me. The only purpose of his labours is to destroy me and my work utterly".

So if Wagner visited Bessler only once in Draschwitz, then Wagner only saw the 2nd wheel, which wheel was indeed probably halted by the apprentice grasping the axle twice. Wagner seems to mix and match information from different wheels. Wagner watches the apprentice stop the 9 foot Draschwitz wheel that lifted about 40 pounds, and then claims a wheel capable of lifting a hundred weight cannot stopped in the same way. And that might be true. Which is probably why the 4th Kasel wheel is shown without the handle on the axle.

The Draschwitz wheel was a one way wheel that stored residual out-of-balance when stopped. If the wheel gained it force from its motion, rather than from gravity, then most of the wheel torque would quit when the wheel was stopped. And thus Wagner's statement makes sense when he said,

as soon as the wheel stops moving, almost all internal impetus is gone.

This lends credibility to the wheel gaining its impetus from motion rather than from out-of-balance weights.

[daxwc]

Yes, I noticed this before. This is Wagner's wheel, but done in the same demonstration setup, but did Wagner ever really see a Bessler demonstration or just information he got from other people? I think if there was a mechanical advantage that was noticeable Wagner and everybody at the demonstration would have been all over it; these are some of the finest minds of the country of Hess.

[eccentrically1]

Yes I know about that drawing, it doesn't show weights at the periphery. I don't think this is what he built, referring to his wheel of the same dimensions made heavy by weights distributed over the periphery. Why would he say that if his wheel had the spring driven gear train?

[daxwc]

eccentrically1

I understand the dilemma about the apprentice. My only explanation is the wheel itself was very light.

I agree; here is the lightest I think it could have been taken into consideration Bessler was seen with a box of weights.

8 weights at 4lbs = 32lbs
12 ‘ Frame with 8 spokes (Draschwitz witness) 110lbs
Waxed linen 15 lbs.
Internal shrapnel 20lbs
= wheel of 177lbs.

One could probably stop 177 lb. wheel going at 40 rpm with those handles.

[daxwc]

Why would he say that if his wheel had the spring driven gear train?

Oh, this was just bragging he could build a wheel like Bessler’s to the demonstration, which he probably got just from looking at the same drawing in GB that we are looking at.

[daxwc]

Jim Quote:

The Draschwitz wheel was a one way wheel that stored residual out-of-balance when stopped. If the wheel gained it force from its motion, rather than from gravity, then most of the wheel torque would quit when the wheel was stopped. And thus Wagner's statement makes sense when he said, Wagner wrote:

as soon as the wheel stops moving, almost all internal impetus is gone.

This lends credibility to the wheel gaining its impetus from motion rather than from out-of-balance weights.

What exactly are you trying to say Jim? First wheel was OB and the second style not? You really think he had two principles.

[ovyyus]

Jim's CF concept (if it worked) could be applied to react directly against the wheel, ie: the balanced at rest two-way wheels, or it could be applied to react against lifting weights, ie: the OOB one-way wheels. I imagine it as the same basic principle for both, just applied differently.

[rasselasss]

Bessler disliked Wagner and we are led to believe vice-versa,but if we examine the evidence, Wagner put his reputation on the line by publishing drawings and descriptions,whether he built them or not( i think he said he did), ...he could been have ruined if anyone had built and disproved his deliberations....he was by no means a fool to be taken lightly....his heavy wheel idea lifting 70lbs. would have been easily replicated.

[Stewart]

Jim, how is it that you can understand the specific 'true meaning' behind words written 300 years ago while only reading an English translation/interpretation of them?

Let me answer that - he can't! I've been biting my tongue for some time now over Jim's attempts at understanding Bessler's writings. The main reason I've not got involved in the discussions is that there are so many flawed translations and assumptions that it's a monumental task to explain the truth and I just don't have the time. I also can't help but think is it even worth entering into a discussion with a closed-minded and obstinate person? I also hate writing confrontational posts. On the one hand I like Jim a lot and think he's a valued member of the forum and I agree with a lot of what he says, but on the other I find it hard to bear hearing him misrepresent Bessler and his wheel through his flawed attempts at interpreting Bessler's writings, and I also don't like the way he tries to force his ideas on people as though they are fact. I find it to be baffling behaviour from someone of obvious intellect, and I think it's quite irresponsible from a high-standing member of the forum. So, I'm sorry Jim, brace yourself, but I feel this needs to be said...

Jim accuses others of not listening to Bessler's words when in fact he is probably the worst culprit and often tries to find ways he can twist Bessler's words to fit his own theory of how the wheel might work. Jim claims to have a greater insight into Bessler's writings simple because he grew up around English speaking people of German descent who might occasionally slip a modern German word into their speech. Anyone with any commonsense will realise that would in no way help you to master 18th Century German and Latin writings. (In fact Ed grew up in the same area as Jim and even has German ancestors and he acknowledges the ludicrousy of Jim's suggestion.) Jim doesn't speak German or read German or Latin, and has never read any of Bessler's writings in the original languages. His main source of information is English translations that are not entirely accurate, particularly when describing technical terms from the time period. (In fact the translator often just ignores words that he doesn't understand.) Taking such translations, Jim will then twist them further from their original meaning to fit his theory. Also quoting sentences and parts of sentences out of context (particularly when that context is not understood) is about as useful as the following example, and should be taken about as seriously!...

ein Pudel-Hund [a poodle]

läufft [runs]

in mein Rad [in my wheel]

The fact of the matter is that Jim, like the majority of people, does not know exactly what Bessler says, having not read the original writings in old German and Latin. I have, and I can tell you that details are missing. This is unfortunate for Jim and not of course his fault, and I imagine it must be incredibly frustrating, but it is why he should not be trying to tell people what Bessler says or means, or at least should be prefacing his thoughts with "I think" or "in my opinion" instead of putting on an air of superior knowledge and presenting his thoughts as if they are facts.

As an amusing example of people often not knowing what Bessler actually says, take the following sentence from page 19 of AP (Bessler is relating skills he was taught while staying with the man he saved from drowning)...

Hiernechst hat er mich noch gelehret/
Wie man das Lotium probiret/
Und letztlich führte mich alhie
Der Mann auf die Anatomi'.

Next he has taught me further,
how one tests urine,
and finally the man led me
to anatomy.

The translation in John Collins AP book has the following...

"I learned all about the preparation of lotions, and finally I was initiated into the secrets of anatomy."

I'm sure you'll agree that there's a big difference between preparing lotions and testing urine! In John's, the Latin word 'lotium' (urine) has not been translated correctly, but neither has the verb 'probiren/probieren' which means 'to test/try' (it can also mean 'to taste' and in Uroscopy urine was tasted as a test to determine if the patient had diabetes!). If a word in common usage like 'urine' is translated wrongly, imagine the potential confusion over technical terms that were not commonly used. And I have seen it cause problems for that translator, which then causes problems for people here who hang on Bessler's every word. (It's not just a problem for English translators, often native Germans fluent in German struggle to understand uncommon technical terms from the 1700s. Even Christian Wagner did not understand certain mechanical terms used by Bessler because of his lack of experience in the field). Also with AP the original writing is rhyming poetry and is more concise than the translation in John's book which fills out the sentences with some artistic licence. You can see in the sentence above that Bessler says "and finally the man led me to anatomy", whereas John's translation says "and finally I was initiated into the secrets of anatomy". The word 'secrets' does not exist in the original, and adds an unnecessary air of mystery. So if you think you understand how Bessler talks and what he means, then think again.

The biggest problem it seems for Jim, which causes him to ignore or try and twist Bessler's words, is accepting that Bessler's wheel turns because it is "overbalanced". Bessler tells us in many places that his wheel is an "overbalanced" one, and by that we mean a wheel that has an imbalance of weight which causes it to rotate. There's no escaping this fact, that is if we are to believe what Bessler says, and if we don't believe what Bessler says to be true then these discussions are pointless anyway.

I've shown on many occasions in various topics on this forum (example link) how and where Bessler describes his wheel as an "overbalanced" one, but Jim refuses to listen despite direct statements from Bessler about his wheel such as "Und daß es hat die Uberwage/ [And that it has overbalance,]". Even without Bessler telling us his wheel is an "overbalanced" one, it should be pretty self-evident anyway from the witness testimonies about the operation of the uni-directional wheels that they must be out of balance for them to spontaneously self-start (assuming no fraud is envolved such as wound springs as shown in Wagner's device, and which Bessler denies). I think even Jim would agree that these wheels are out of balance. Where Jim seems to have a problem is that the bi-directional wheels were balanced at rest. He assumes this means that they can't therefore be "overbalanced" wheels when in operation. So it seems to me just because Jim is unable to imagine a wheel that can be balanced at rest but after giving it a push becomes out of balance, he jumps to the conclusion that the wheels can't possible be overbalanced ones. I've questioned him on this directly before and he chose to just ignore me, so I'm assuming he can't think of a way, which amazes me for someone so invested in CF.

I should just remind people that although it's clear (if we believe what Bessler tells us) that the cause of rotation of the wheels was an imbalance of weight, it shouldn't necessarily be assumed that gravity is the power source of the wheels - for example I have built battery-powered overbalanced wheels.

Anyway, I can and probably will at some point address all the things that Jim has said in his attempt to try and persuade people that Bessler's wheel was not an "overbalanced" one. I just hope that it's obvious to everyone that Jim does not know what he's talking about in regards to interpreting Bessler's writings. He proves it again with the following...

'orgy' means a ritual. The 'ritual' of lifting and dropping of the box of bricks was performed several times, as often as desired.

I nearly died laughing at that! 'orgiis' here means 'fathoms' (German: Klafters)!

Also it's not even the right quote that Bill was originally talking about. The quote Bill is refering to comes from a letter from Wolff to Leibnitz (dated 19th December 1715), whereas that quote comes from the attestation of the Merseburg wheel that was reproduced in DT.

Anyway, I'll get back to trying to help with some of the quotes and translations that have arisen in this topic now...

Here's the Latin text from the attestation in DT (page 127):

"... Quem rapidum motum
ea pariter obtinuit, cum cista
una cum sex integris lateribus
muralibus ad 70. lb. incirca
ponderans & quidem difficili,
8. ulnis à perpendiculari rece-
denti, per fenestram proce-
denti & ad tectum elevato &
inde in atrium aliquot orgiis
dependulo funi aliquoties,
quoties nempe desideratum
fuit, annexa & à Machinæ im-
petu in altum ad ipsum usque
tectum est elevata. ..."

and my rough translation:

"... Which rapid motion it likewise maintained when a box together with six whole wall-bricks, weighing about 70 pounds approximately, was attached several times in fact by an awkward rope sloping from the perpendicular 8 yards, proceeding through a window and rising all the way to the roof and from there hanging down several fathoms into the courtyard, and is raised aloft all the way to the roof by the machine's impetus, as often as of course was requested. ..."

Here's the German text from the attestation in DT (page 127):

"... welchen gleichen
schnellen motum selbige auch
conserviret/ als ein Kasten mit
sechs gantzen Mauer-Ziegel-
Steinen incl. des Kastens à 70.
Pf. incirca und zwar durch einen
beschwerlichen acht Ellen von
der perpendiculari scheeff zum
Fenster hinauß bis ans Tach und
von dar etliche Claftern hinunter
in den Hof gehenden Zug zu et-
lichen malen und bis ans Dach
hinauf gezogen so offt man es
begehret angehenckt worden. ..." 

and my rough translation:

"... which the same quick motion it also conserved when a box with six whole wall-bricks (including the box about 70 pounds approximately) was attached several times infact via an awkward pull/rope inclining from the perpendicular eight ells to the window [then] out until at the roof and
from there going down several fathoms into the courtyard, and was pulled up until at the roof as often as one requested it. ..."

And now for the original quote from Wolff's letter to Leibnitz. Here's the latin text:

"... Praeterea exigui usus fore machinam
in vita humana, nisi perficiatur, certum mihi videtur, quia
pondus quidem 60 librarum attollebat, quod tamen trochlearum
ope ad subquadruplum ante reducebatur, ut ascensus esset ad-
modum tardus. ..."

My translation attempt follows, but be warned it's a work in progress as I've not translated the whole letter yet and I'm wary about just attempting to translate this part without the whole context. It should at least help you to get a better understanding of what is written, for example "trochlearum" is plural (pulleys). Here it is...

"... In addition the machine would be of little use in human life, unless it may be perfected, it certainly seems to me, because it was raising up a weight of at least 60 pounds, which however was first reduced by the help of pulleys about four times, that the ascent would be very slow. ..."

It does seem possible grammatically to also get the following for the last part: "..., in order that the ascent would be slow enough.". The difference between the two would be the slow ascent being the desired result of using the pulley reduction, rather than a negative result of using it to try to increase the power. Anyway, see what you think. I'll also give it some more thought and I can explain the details of the grammar if need be. As I said before though, I really should translate the whole letter, but it's not at the top of my list of translating priorities at the moment.

Stewart

[eccentrically1]

Thanks, Stewart! I messaged you about the pulley phrase, i remember you said it ran into the spine of the book.