IÂ’d like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.
To me
it is not clear clear that Bessler is telling the reader that the "pair" involves matched mechanisms that are diametrically opposed from each other or located 180° from each other around the wheel.
To me it is clear that the weights are lead and not brass clock weights. They are attached in pairs and those on the right side of the wheel have no matching or diametrically connection with those on the left side. They are not located 180 degrees from each other. They exchange places because they flip over each 1/2 turn of the wheel.
<Thus, a wheel containing 8 such mechanisms would have them arranged into four opposed pairs, each at an angular interval of 45° from its two nearest neighboring opposed pairs.>
Wrong! There can be eight or an odd number of pairs the angular interval is varied with the number of pairs and rpm chosen. They are not in opposition as they do not have any relation to each other nor do they clutter the peacocks tail by ascending higher than nine o'clock.
<We are further told by Bessler that the weight(s) in one of the opposed pair's mechanisms is moved outward toward the rim of the wheel while the weight(s) in the other mechanism is moved inward toward the axle of the wheel. Obviously, it was the imbalance of this that provided the torque that accelerated the wheels.>
Ken, go back and read the quote, their is no mention of "opposed pairs"
Yes one pair moves by the outer falling downward while pushing its mate inward. It then through that which I am not ready to reveal forces a pair of weights on the descending side to literally stack up against the rim at three o'clock. When they "unstack" they are heading in a different position causing the inner to become the outer as so quoted.
<We are not, I think, however, told how many weights were in each of the two opposed mechanisms that made up each opposed pair of mechanisms. I've variously tried three, two, and, recently, only one weight in each of the mechanisms that made up an opposed pair of such mechanisms.>
You are told by Bessler, by him stating that variations of his design were possible. Here once again you refer to opposed mechanisms when there is nothing in the quote to lead to this assumption. The opposition if any would be considered within each pair of weights, not between pairs.
<Now, I am convinced that the "magic" number is TWO weights per mechanism. I show my latest approach to this whole problem with the design for the "Carpenter's Boy's Wheel" over in my "...Updates" thread in the Community Buzz forum.>
Ken, how do the TWO weights in your Carpenter's Boy's wheel exchange places and how are they diametrically opposing the weights 180 degrees apart?
Everything I have stated here, I can physicaly attribute to as 90% of it is sitting in my shop.
God! I love a good head on debate without personal degradation involved.
Ralph
