Merseburg wheel part

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
Stewart
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 11:04 am
Location: England

Post by Stewart »

eccentrically1 wrote:Thanks, Stewart! I messaged you about the pulley phrase, i remember you said it ran into the spine of the book.
You're welcome. I just found your messages again. I have b&w scans of the original handwritten letter which seems to be bound into a book and some word endings are slightly unclear as they go into the spine a bit. I did my own transcription, but also compared mine to the printed version of the Wolff letter collection and whoever transcribed it for that came up with the same thing for those words, so I think we're ok transcription-wise.
eccentrically1 wrote:Yes I know about that drawing, it doesn't show weights at the periphery.
Yes it does - see the highlight on the attached image. That is definitely the wheel that Bessler is discussing in part 2 of AP.

Stewart
Attachments
wagners_peripheral_weights.jpg
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Stewart Quote:
And I have seen it cause problems for that translator, which then causes problems for people here who hang on Bessler's every word.
Guilty as charged; but I love the chase of the mystery. Like a drug I end up going to the translator, even though it has bitten me in the ass so many times. My only defense is you come drag me out and members learn the truth.



Stewart:
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.
That was me looking for evidence on Bill’s theory; I didn’t mean to confuse people by changing the subject. I realised soon after that I had made a mistake on orgiis and should have come clean, but… well you know why.




Stewart:
"... 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. ..."
Thank you and even more for the German version.




Stewart:
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.
Did they have a mechanical use in mind that needed to be slower? Ideas Stewart?
What goes around, comes around.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

Stewart wrote: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.
Thanks Stewart, your input is always helpful.

So, it seems Wolff was describing use of a pulley reduction in the lift demonstration. If so then why was it used? I find it difficult to imagine that Bessler would choose to intentionally slow the lifting speed of the box of bricks given that he seemed to always be fending off accusations that his wheel had too little power. Yet if it was a requirement for lifting the box of bricks then why didn't Wagner jump on it in his criticism? Perhaps Wagner didn't realise it was part of the setup because he never actually saw the Merseburg wheel in operation?
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Is it possible Bill that Wolff wanted to use a reverse pulley system to quicken picking up the load which would have lessened the power more?
Hmm… that doesn’t really make sense when all he had to do was increase the axle diameter with a hub.

ovyyus:
Perhaps Wagner didn't realise it was part of the setup because he never actually saw the Merseburg wheel in operation?
Well it has been stated before by JC that the drawing was made before the wheel was built in his book.
What goes around, comes around.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

jim_mich wrote: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.
I don't see how. The Draschwitz wheel was claimed (I assume by Bessler) to be able to lift a weight of 40 lbs from it's axle. There is no indication that this wheel had any stopping handle attached to its axle in Borlach's drawing. If we assume the axle was 6 inches diameter then we are still left with an apparent data conflict. How can this over 9 feet diameter wheel lift 40 lbs from its axle while turning at 50 RPM and still be stopped in 2 seconds by grabbing hold of it's axle twice? It does not seem plausible therefore, once again, something is not right.
Last edited by ovyyus on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Bill:
How can this over 9 feet diameter wheel lift 40 lbs from its axle while turning at 50 RPM and still be stopped in 2 seconds by grabbing hold of it's axle twice? It does not seem plausible therefore, once again, something is not right.
You can stop a fan by sticking your finger in it; it’s not all about speed as it is inertia. The demonstrations do not tell us how much the wheels weighed; the biggest factor. Also braking with your hands is more effective than most assume, as constant friction is used and your arms are the leverage.
What goes around, comes around.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by ovyyus »

If your 50 RPM fan developed 40 lbs of torque at 3 inches radius then you might lose your finger even if the fan had no inertia at all! I dare you to try it :D

How much the wheel weighs is secondary to how much it can lift and how fast it can lift it. Constant output power is not a specific function of engine weight.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

Agreed; but your arms to middle of your body can add 3' of leverage.
70lb load F x L = W x X
Fx 36�=70lbs x3�
F= 5.8 lbs to equalize

Now add in the momentum of the wheel, for which you need a weight.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3303
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by John Collins »

Thanks Stewart, for clearing that up. In relation to your comment,
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 think its worth remembering, as I said in my book, that Wolff was negotiating with Peter the Great, to go to St Petersberg and he wished to have control of the development of Bessler's wheel if Peter did buy it. so he seemed to downplay its worth while suggesting that it might be improved by someone wih the right credentials, i.e., himself.

I also suggested that without the pulleys the ascent might be over too quickly for an effective demonstration and even though he was reducing the impressive lifting capabilities, he might have thought the longer pull more impressive.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

Re: re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by rlortie »

daxwc wrote:Agreed; but your arms to middle of your body can add 3' of leverage.
70lb load F x L = W x X
Fx 36�=70lbs x3�
F= 5.8 lbs to equalize

Now add in the momentum of the wheel, for which you need a weight.
When I was a young pup! My father caught me attempting to UN-thread a pipe fitting, pipe held in the vise while I was pushing down on the wrench.

He informed me that I was doing it wrong, I should turn it over so that I had to pull up. He explained that by pushing down, all I could achieve was the force of my weight. I could apply more force than my weight by pulling up with arms extended.

So was the wheel stopped on the down-stroke or the up-stroke?

Ralph
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by eccentrically1 »

ovyyus wrote:How much the wheel weighs is secondary to how much it can lift and how fast it can lift it. Constant output power is not a specific function of engine weight.
I'd rather try to stop a flywheel that weighed 150 lbs. going 40 rpm than a flywheel that weighed 300 lbs. going 40 rpm!
The weight is secondary to power out, but is primary to manual braking. One of the reasons he switched to oil cloth from wooden slats perhaps?
Not only would it be easier to stop if it was light, but just as important, it would be easier to start.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by daxwc »

JC:
I also suggested that without the pulleys the ascent might be over too quickly for an effective demonstration and even though he was reducing the impressive lifting capabilities, he might have thought the longer pull more impressive.
Could they have been trying to match rpm and power to a normal water wheel? Seems a possibility then they were looking for 10 rpm input into existing equipment.

In most wheel-driven mills, a large gear-wheel called the pit wheel is mounted on the same axle as the water wheel and this drives a smaller gear-wheel, the wallower, on a main driveshaft running vertically from the bottom to the top of the building. This system of gearing ensures that the main shaft turns faster than the water wheel, which typically rotates at around 10 rpm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gristmill
What goes around, comes around.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Re: re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by nicbordeaux »

One reason which would enable a big wheel to be stopped easily (irrespective if from the hub or not) is if the "force" of the wheel is greater on (let's assume) the descending side than the ascending side, in other words if the wheel has a power cycle and curve, grabbing it at the moment at which it had just the energy to pull itself up through the upstrok would be "easy" .l
ovyyus wrote:Wagner claimed the wheel was stopped easily by Bessler's skinny assistant grabbing hold of the axle. I assume he meant the axle handle. If the wheel could lift 70lbs directly from its axle while rotating at over 40 RPM as claimed then how could it be stopped easily by someone grabbing hold of the handle?

If the unloaded wheel rotated at 50 RPM then the constant braking force required at the handle to bring it to 40 RPM would be about 18lbs (based on depicted handle length and a claimed 70lb axle lift force). To bring the wheel to a complete stop would require much more force at the handle for a longer period of time. That doesn't sound easy at all.

At these required force levels the handle seems both dangerous and impractical for stopping the wheel. Perhaps Bessler's claim of 70lbs lifted directly from the axle is wrong?
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
rasselasss
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm
Location: northern ireland

Post by rasselasss »

No-one in their right mind would attempt to stop a 12 foot wheel turning at 40-50 rpm at the hub/,short handle,the hub is simply not the place to do it,ie.if you spin a bicycle/motor bike/tractor wheel the natural way to stop it would be at the circumference. it would be lunacy to attempt otherwise.....i think Bessler just wanted and succeeded to confuse such was his fear of giving any insight to his device....i can see Wagners point of view of a "spring"possibly the explanation of why the wheel was positioned at 2 stories height instead of ground level to conduct the test...(lowering the load winds the spring enabling it the force to bring the load back up).....i'm "off the wall"with this line of thinking but its worth thought.
User avatar
barksalot
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:29 am
Location: marion. indiana

re: Merseburg wheel part

Post by barksalot »

When I was like 12 to 15 years old I use to fly control line model airplanes.

The engines were light weight and powerful, but no flywheel only a light weight propeller made from nylon or wood. You were not going to stop that propeller with any body part unless you were ready for a lot of pain. If the engine needed to be stopped for any reason a hand towel thrown into the prop (whaaaap) it was at a dead stop in a second.

Sort of over kill for an example, because these engines ran at around 10,000RPM, but shows power vs inertia.

Mike
Post Reply