Wheel acceleration...

[rlortie]

Jonathan,

in the quote: Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.

How do you conclude that the the grind stone wheel was the only wheel?

This being one of the few substantial statements we have to work from.

It specifically states, firm horizontal axis with a lower disc or cylinder resembling a grindstone. Then he states that accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) meaning hollow, to raise the weights which is covered with stretched linen.

The word "accordingly" breaks your chain theory of this meaning the same as this. To use the term grindstone or cylinder with no reference to wheel and then the word external wheel or drum. IMO this does not describe the one wheel hypothesis. Accordingly implies, so consequently or corresponding in accordance. It takes two of anything to have a corresponding relation.

The only hang up I have is "to raise the weights" are these the weights that drive the wheel or the weights lifted by the rope to show its capabilities.

THe term lower cylinder can be an explanation for the fact that it's axis was the stated tapered pins riding in bushings that sat in half circle grooves.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

I long ago discounted the idea that centrifugal forces played a significant role in moving Bessler's wheels. We should always remember that his one directional wheels were self-starting and did so from a STANDSTILL...they did not need the centrifugal force of rotation for motion.

ken

[Jonathan]

Michael, I don't know what image you mean.
Ralph, you may have a point there. I'll attempt to cut out the middle man and translate the section myself. I'm very bad at it, so if anyone else has a clue and the book, it'd be better if you tried it too. Here is a copy I made a long time ago for that section, which is in a document posted in CB.

Daň waň man einen um seine horizontaliter vest gestellte Axin, nach Urth eines Schleiffsteins umlauffenden Discum oder niedrigen Cylindrum ein Rad neunen wil / so kan das Hanbtstüct meiner Machine auch so heissen; und demnach bestehet dieses Rad auß einem äusserlich mit gewärter Leinwand überzogenen Tympano oder Tambour, dessen Basis Cylindrica im Diameter 12. Fuß Beinländsich / die Höhe / Dicte doer Profil aber / in 15. bis 18. Zoll hält. Die mitten durchgehende Axe oder Welle ist 6. Fuß lang / und 8. Zoll im Durchschnitt dicte. Sie ruhet in ihrer Bewegung aus zwenen sast 1. Zoll dicten / am Orth etwas zugesvißten stählern Zapffen Waag-recht in denen zwenen Bfaňen oder Zapfen-Lagern / mit zwenen Courven verfehen / um an selbigen den Motum rotatorium des gautzen also verticaliter suspendirten Rades / durch benderseits zu applicirende Pendula etwa modificiren zu konnen / wie bengesügte Figuren zu Ende dieses TraEtats deutlich zeigen.

The accents above the "n"'s is a replacement for some other accent that I couldn't make out, maybe like "~", and the "E" at the end is the best I can do here for a curvy letter of the same shape. The italicized words are in a different font in the text, since they aren't German.
PS I found an error in the document which is fixed above, take that document with a pinch of salt, there are probably more errors.

[Stewart]

Hi Jonathan

You have a few mistakes in your post. I'll post my versions below. The first is the original. In the second I have changed some letters/words to their more modern equivalents so that its easier for people to translate. For example, the line above the "n" is a straight horizontal line in the original that means a double "n", so replace with "nn" (same goes with "m" but there are none here). Replace the "y"s (which look like "n"s in the Fraktur typeface) with "i"s.

Original version (italics are Roman font and indicate Latin words, everything else is Fraktur):

Dañ wañ man einen um sei-
ne horizontaliter vest gestellte Axin,
nach Arth eines Schleiffsteins um-
lauffenden Discum oder niedrigen
Cylindrum ein Rad nennen wil/ so
kan das Haubtstück meiner Machine
auch so heissen; und demnach beste-
het dieses Rad auß einem äusserlich
mit gewärter Leinwand überzoge-
nen Tympano oder Tambour, des-
sen Basis Cylindrica im Diameter
12. Fuß Reinländisch/ die Höhe/ Dicke
oder Profil aber/ in 15. bis 18. Zoll
hält. Die mitten durchgehende Axe
oder Welle ist 6. Fuß lang/ und 8. Zoll
im Durchschnitt dicke. Sie ruhet
in ihrer Bewegung auf zweyen fast
1. Zoll dicken/ am Orth etwas zuge-
spitzten stählern Zapffen Waag-recht
in denen zweyen Pfañen oder Zapfen-
Lagern/ mit zweyen Courven verse-
hen/ um an selbigen den Motum rota-
torium des gantzen also verticaliter
suspendirten Rades/ durch beyder-
seits zu applicirende Pendula etwa
modificiren zu konnen/ wie beyge-
fügte Figuren zu Ende dieses Tra-
ctats deutlich zeigen.

Adjusted version:

Dann wann man einen um seine horizontaliter fest gestellte Axin, nach Art eines Schleifsteins umlaufenden Discum oder niedrigen Cylindrum ein Rad nennen will, so kann das Hauptstück meiner Machine auch so heissen; und demnach besteht dieses Rad aus einem äusserlich mit gewärter Leinwand überzogenen Tympano oder Tambour, dessen Basis Cylindrica im Diameter 12. Fuß Rheinländisch, die Höhe, Dicke oder Profil aber, in 15. bis 18. Zoll hält. Die mitten durchgehend Axe oder Welle ist 6. Fuß lang, und 8. Zoll im Durchschnitt dicke. Sie ruht in ihrer Bewegung auf zweien fast 1. Zoll dicken, am Ort etwas zugespitzten stählern Zapfen Waagrecht in denen zweien Pfannen oder Zapfenlagern, mit zweien Courven versehen, um an selbigen den Motum rotatorium des ganzen also verticaliter suspendirten Rades, durch beiderseits zu applicirende Pendula etwa modificiren zu können, wie beigefügte Figuren zu Ende dieses Tractats deutlich zeigen.

I'll have a go at a translation and post later.

Here are some words that might help you:

Schleifstein = grindstone
umlaufend =revolving/rotating
niedrigen = low/shallow
nennen = to call/to name/to term
Hauptstück = main piece
äusserlich = externally
gewärter = protecting/guarding ?
Leinwand = canvas/cloth/screen
überzogen = to cover
12. Fuß Reinländisch = 12 Rhineland foot
Welle = shaft/axle
zweien = two/pair
zugespitzten = to taper
stählern = steel
Zapfen = journal/pin/trunnion
Waagrecht = horizontal/level
Pfannen = sockets/seats
Zapfenlagern = bearings/collars
beiderseits = on both sides
beigefügte = enclosed

horizontaliter = horizontally
Axin = axis
Discum = disc
Cylindrum = cylinder
Machine = machine
Tympano, Tympanum = a small drum; revolving cylinder
Tambour = drum/tambourine
Basis = base
Cylindrica = cylindrical
Diameter = diameter
Profil = Profile, side view
Axe = axle
Courve = curve
Motum rotatorium = rotary motion
verticaliter = vertically
suspendirt = suspend
applicir = apply, attach, connect
Pendula = pendula, pendulum
modifici = adjust, modify
Tractats = treatise, essay

Regards,
Stewart

[rlortie]

stewart,

It will be up to you and or Jonathan or other translators to work this out as I am not going there.

I would of course like the answer and settle this debate with Jonathan.

I believe that it is telling us there is a wheel within a wheel and I do not see why that is hard for some to except.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

My two cents worth... I agree with Jim and Jonathan - that it means the wheel is in the shape of a grindstone (which it obviously is), not that it contains one.

[Fletcher]

It's not hard to accept Ralph. It's just that many of us have pulled this apart over & over in past threads etc. I too will be interested in Stewart's translation to see how it reads. I have been of the opinion for some time that the reference to the grindstone is describing the look of the whole wheel. He goes on to describe it others ways. The confusing & unanswered aspect is the reference to "lower" & "upper" cylinders from memory. Does he mean "inner & outer" or doesn't it mean anything at all ? I'd like Stewarts take on that ?

As an aside & something Tinhead & I experimented with a lot - if you take the 'grindstone' reference literally it can be taken a couple of ways. One is a center flywheel or more likely a true grindstone with an offset axle. Think of a scissor or knife sharpeners treddle grindstone of that time. The foot & crank push the grindstone over TDC & it is away until it needs assistance again. In essence it acts like a "pendulum" which I'm sure you will like.

A pendulum in the configuration of a grindstone has some interesting characteristics with inertia & rotational kinetic energy if you lock & unlock the disk at appropriate times. If you are interested reading up on it do a search on the word "inertia". That should find it for you.

[Stewart]

I've always assumed that in this passage Bessler is describing the outward appearance of the wheel itself. I don't think it gives any clues as to what is inside the wheel.

Stewart

[Stewart]

Hi Fletcher

You are right that the only confusing part of that passage is the word "lower" in the translations we have seen. My take on it is as follows:

umlaufenden Discum oder niedrigen Cylindrum

rotating disc or low cylinder

I think a low cylinder means a short cylinder, which is what a disc is afterall.

Regards,
Stewart

[Fletcher]

Thanks Stewart, I appreciate it. That's pretty much what we thought at the time as well, but your explanation is more well constructed & proofed.

You've definitely got a talent & future in the translation business :)

[Jonathan]

Dang it Stewart, I thought I had something original by going from "low" to "shallow"! This is what I've gotten:

Now then its set on a horizontal axle, along the lines of a grindstone, rotating disc, or shallow cylinder, you could call it a wheel, so can that the main piece of my machine also should be called; and so consists thus wheel from outside with guarding canvas to cover the drum, is its principle component in Diameter 12 Reinlandish feet, to the zenith, but thickness or profile at 15. up to 18. inch.

[bluesgtr44]

WOW! I go out to plant a nice ash tree...suck down a few brews with my wife and take a shower, go to bed. Wake up this morning and check my post....thanks guys! So much input...and interest!

Okay...Going from John Collins interpretation, I just do not see how anyone can see it means one wheel. He definitely describes two wheels in this one. Stewart, if you can see where there might be some confusion please clear this up for me. Mr. Collins, if you are keeping up with any of this, please...again, this is not meant to insult your work at all. As you can see, your primary interpretation is the one I use. Any opinion you might have about this interpretation would also be greatly appreciated by myself.

The outer wheel lifts the "weight"...it does the exterior work, turns screws, lifts stamps, etc. The inner wheel controls the "weights" that drive the wheel to do work.

For the acceleration math and the mathmaticians. Let me put this in the form of a problem:

How would 4 equal weights be distributed within the four quadrants
of a cirle to acheive 50 rpms within 3 rotations.

Why is this important to me? I couldn't do it using WM2D...The only way it seemed possible was to remove the weight completely from the 6:00 to 9:00 quadrant. I am not sure of my results and that is why I need help on this. Think about this guys...if this is right and this speed cannot be achieved....the weight is being "lifted" and not "shifted".

I know some of you do not subscribe to this, but please...try some simple tests with WM2D and see for yourself the tremendous difference this makes in acceleration. With WM2D you can "stack" the weight disproportionatly to FAVOR maximum torque at tke off...and it still would not do it. But, I remove that weight from that quadrant and it takes off! Slowly for just a sec or two and then it goes like a hound after a fox!

Convince me (shouldn't be hard to do for a D.S.U. grad) that "shifting" the weight towards the axle in the lower left quadrant will still allow this thing to acheive 50 rpm's within 3 turns.

Let me give some background on why I started down this trail. Reading over his stuff for about the millionth time (I have no life, I am a D.S.U. grad) I tried a couple of experiments with the pendulum aspect, it does intrigue me, and in one experiment I actually got about 3 revolutions consistently. My wheel was similar to MT 19 or 20...I think. The weights were attached to arms at the ends with springs at some point. I attached a pendulum (grindstone) to the center and was working with the upper right hand quadrant, trying to "excite" the weight, so to speak. When the arm came to the 12:00 position, I had an off balanced roller (weight) that would make contact with the pendulum and actually "push" it outward, thus increasing the torque in that quadrant. This NEVER, after my 3 revolutions, came anywhere near the 50 rpm's. Maybe 8 to 10...it moved slowly. Why? That damned lower left quadrant was KILLING me! I wish I was able to save with this demo, I would have posted that one. But, with that, I saw the awesome power of the momentum in that "hells" quadrant.
That is what lead me to questions about acceleration. If he was able to get up to speed within 2 to 3 revolutions...can it be done if you have to fight that quadrant?

Steve

[bluesgtr44]

OKAY...some direct answers:

Michael-yes
Ken-hmmmmm
Jonathan-don't give up on me
Jim,Jon, Bill, Fletch - really?

LMAO - just kidding.

Michael, yes I have tried with just two spheres and it is as Bessler says. I would rather go with eight as Jonathan has explained and I agree with. It just takes so much more time to draw and the results I am looking for are simple and do not require more than four. Also, eight is much harder to watch everything moving as opposed to four, and I still get the information I am after.

Ken, You can discount the centrifulgal force as a "positive" towards making the wheel turn, but you cannot eliminate it as a "negative" from wanting to acheive perpetum quietus...or whatever the hell that phrase is he used. THIS is what has to be beaten.

In my little experiment with the MT 19 or 20 drawing, No matter how I influenced the weight in the upper right quadrant...it came back with ferocity in the lower left quadrant. Fought me all the way! I have no real faith in these drawings as a solution to his wheel...they just hit me as something useful for this particular type of experiment.

Jonathan, don't give up on me yet here. Sometimes the math doesn't seem to add up...but isn't that the whole argument against Bessler? Think about it...50 rpm's in JUST 3 revolutions. HOW? weight distribution...where would those damn weights have to be to acheive this?

Big disappointment here...Jon, Jim, Bill and Fletch all think the grindstone and the wheel are the same. Four of the biggest hitters on this forum I respect are against me on this one. My journey will be difficult, I just hope I can maintain enough of your interest to work with me on this one. It will make a difference, in my opinion...just hope you guys can see it.

If there is anything I can provide to help with this I'l do what I can. I will try to redo the wheel I had done and copy it to some other program and put it on the board for you guys...but it will take time. Again thanks for all the interest.

Steve

[Stewart]

Hi Steve

I've just checked the translation in John's DT book and it says:

"a disc or narrow cylinder"

...so either John's book has been misquoted or confused with a different translation or the translation he originally did was revised while creating the book. The good news (but perhaps not for you!) is that we are now all in agreement on this - that passage refers to the external appearance of the wheel only. This is backed up by the very next paragraph beginning: "The internal structure of the wheel.....".

Regards,
Stewart

[bluesgtr44]

Thanks Stewart...but, I disagree! I think you are running the two paragraphs together, they are two different descriptions. The second paragraph you refer to is a description of the outer wheel only...the one the weights "drive" on, the inner wheel is the "runner", the weights "run" with this wheel. The "narrow" description to me is a signifier that it is not the same as the outer wheel.

Again, I am using the statement as it appears on this web site. I believe if it is read as interpreted by J. Collins...there is a wheel inside of a wheel. No doubt! But, it depends on interpretation.

He describes one as a disc and one as a wheel...I plainly see a difference here? Am I totally off? Mr. Collins, come to my rescue!

Steve