FAQs for John Collins

[Guest]

[MrTim unleashes a monster....]
Hi John!
In several accounts of the canvas-covered wheel(s), it mentions the 'framework'. Is there any indication in your sources whether this took a radial form or was a lattice (#) structure?
Thanks for your time!

[John Collins]

Hi Mr. Tim, no there is no indication about the shape of the framework as far as I know. We have descriptions of the external appearance of the wheels and we know that they revolved around an axle. But the rest is conjecture. There is nothing to say that the inside the canvas covering there could not be a pair of arms or two pairs of arms or evn an odd number of them fixed to the axle - or something else entirely.

I have often speculated about the framework and in my book I tried to work out logically what form it took, taking into account the problems involved in actually building a twelve foot wide wheel. I suggested that JB began with a half diameter (or less) construction of robust design and then added the extra lengths to the radii once the basic structure had been mounted on a solid base. The base plate for attaching the mechanism to, might take the form of a square, triangle or circle, or it might consist of individual arms of any conceivable number. I suggested that because the wheel was twelve feet wide, he would require some staging to allow access to at least the axle of the wheel which would of course be more than six feet above ground level.

Sorry I can't add anything but speculation to this answer Mr. Tim but I hope it helps.

John Collins

[Joel Wright]

Hello all,I have a question for John Collins or anyone knowledgable concerning the cylindrical weights that weighed four pounds,the ones that Johann Christian Wolff saw wrapped in a handkerchief .Is there any mention of how long they were and or what the diameter might have been.Buy the way nice discussion board Scott...........Joel Wright

[John Collins]

No, what you have written is about all that was said about the weights. They were estimated to weigh about four pounds each and were thought to be cylindrical. The translation of the original German into 'cylindrical' is also open to interpretation. It might for instance have meant 'rounded', or 'curved'. Bear these thoughts in mind when considering what the weights might have been like and question why they were wrapped in a handkerchief. Remember also that in those days a handkerchief could be very large and was sometimes worn around the neck like a scarf.

[Georg Künstler]

It was described that the weights are cylindrical and pierced in the middle.
The maximal high of the cylinder could be the thickness of the big wheel. So this dimension is known: smaller than thickness of big wheel.

The diameter of the cylindrical weights are also calculateable.
First, they cant be greater than the big wheel. When we know the weight of 4 pounds each, and know the material, we can calculate, depending on the maximal high, the diameter.

In addition we know, the weights acted in pairs, so the diameter can not be greater than half of the big wheel.

So if you think point of point of the clues, you get a nearly perfect description of the weights.

Best regrards

Georg

[John Collins]

Apologies Georg for correcting you but there is no documentation that says that the weights were pierced in the middle, there is only Wolff's supposition that they were.

Quoting from my book Wolff says, "...to prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical. 'I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel."

Kind regards

John Collins

[John Lindsay]

In my opinion the cylindrical weights were actually axles for "wheel-like" objects inside the bigger wheel. He probably didn't want the ends of them to be seen because some one may have deduced what and how they were attached to other things. John

[Joel Wright]

RE:For reference.A four pound lead solid cylinder shaped weight measures one inch diameter by ten inches in length.Lead,two inches in diameter is five inches in length.Four pounds of black cherry(dense heavy wood)is three inches in diameter by sixteen inches in length.I would like to hear from anyone who's done measurments of different materials in length and diameter that weigh four pounds...........Joel Wright

[Jonathan]

Keep in mind that John Collins says that cylindrical could be interpreted to mean rounded or curved. That leaves room for the weights to be spherical or any number of odd but less likely shapes.

[Joel Wright]

One shape at a time Jonathan,for the time being I'm concentrating on solid cylinder shapes that weigh four pounds.The purpose is to get a idea of size of possible materials that could have been used in the 1700's.Example plastic, nylon can be discounted.Although I 'm trying to find out how to cast metals into different shapes.I need the formula for sand thats used to form molds for casting.Does any one have knowledge of formulas for sand mixtures for casting.Something that will be sufficent for the heat of casting of lead will be fine..Thanks...............Joel Wright

[John Collins]

With regard to the weight of the weights (if you see what I mean) Bessler said that he used lead, iron and brass in his wheel, so I think it's safe to assume that they were made of one of those materials. If the weights banged down with some force, which descriptions of the noise accompanying the wheel's rotation lead me to believe, then lead or brass might prove too maleable and might become misshapen and interfere with the running of the wheel - so therefore I'd favour iron. Bessler had the skills of a blacksmith in his repetoir so making weights would not prove a problem. there was also a court blacksmith available if he himself did not have the tools.

John Collins

[grim]

Hello Joel

You can go to www.matweb.com, and they have a neat calculator there where you can plug in shapes, various materials, etc. and it calculates weights for you.

Yes they have one for cylindrical shapes, you just plug in the outside diameter, inside diameter (hole size), length, material type and hit calculate and it's there.

It is an invaluable tool, and its free. Other services are available and free if you register and log in, the calculator is just straight-up free.

Best regards

grim

[TommyK]

"I have often speculated about the framework and in my book I tried to work out logically what form it took, taking into account the problems involved in actually building a twelve foot wide wheel."

In that I assume you refer to height or diameter and not width.
Also I have read that the count Karl stated the wheel was so simple that a carpenters boy could build it if he saw the inside of the wheel.
Besslers Apoligia sort of confuses that as he mentions anvils, springs and chains which I assume would be knowledge of a blacksmiths boy at that time in history and not that of a carpenter.
Also it was said that the wheel was contructed, of light weight wood, so I would think the wheel would not have weighed more then 100 pounds for it was also noted that Bessler easily moved the wheel from support to support.

[Jonathan]

No, it wasn't easy to move from one support to the next, I thought it said somehwere (maybe on this page even, it has been awhile since I've read this) that they had to remove the weights, and even then it took a couple of people.

[John Collins]

Hi TommyK. You said "In that I assume you refer to height or diameter and not width. "
No I was trying to work out how much the wheel weighed minus its weights as the wheel had to have them removed prior to translocation. I designed on paper a structure that I might have built had I been Bessler, calculated the volume of wood used, worked out its weight using specific gravity comparisons, added the weight of the canvas covering (estimated) and came to a weight of around 400 - 500 pounds. That agrees with the facts stated that Bessler could not lift the wheel with the weights in and only just managed it with them removed.

You also wrote, "Also I have read that the count Karl stated the wheel was so simple that a carpenters boy could build it if he saw the inside of the wheel."

Yes this is true

You also wrote "Besslers Apoligia sort of confuses that as he mentions anvils, springs and chains which I assume would be knowledge of a blacksmiths boy at that time in history and not that of a carpenter. "

No the quote specificall mentions the name menuisier which mean joiner or carpenter.

You added "Also it was said that the wheel was contructed, of light weight wood, so I would think the wheel would not have weighed more then 100 pounds for it was also noted that Bessler easily moved the wheel from support to support."

Not so, see above and Jonathan's response.

John