Here's another perspective about the amount of push force required to get it to accelerate away RH - nothing further said about it - tho that might be inconsequential in that it was a very light push which indicates only a small movement required ..
This time it is relation to the Merseburg translocation and lifting tests - from the official certificate issued and signed by the many witnesses etc ..
Merseburg ...
Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg, signed 31st October, 1715
The inventor first put in motion his six ells (11.15 feet) in diameter and one foot thick machine, which was still resting on the same wooden support upon which it had previously been mounted. It was stopped and re-started, turned both left and right as many times as was requested by the members of the Commission, or the spectators. The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as soon as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation, even when a box was lifted, which had been filled with six whole bricks weighing together about seventy pounds. ...
I don't think there is any doubt about the gentleness of the push needed to get it going. I think that is plenty clear enough.
What information does that give us about the internal workings?
The only things i can think it tells us, is in sub categories of any eventual mechanism. If type A it could mean this, type B could mean another thing and type C something else.
Comparing different ways to interpret the information we have is interesting, but not as useful as establish details. I don't think we have managed to establish any additional details that help us, in the sense of pointing us in the right direction.
In other words, everything is still open for speculation, i don't even get the impression of eliminating any options to reduce the playing field.
I'm not saying it isn't a useful discussion, obviously. It's always useful to scratch about in the hope of finding a new detail that helps us get nearer to understand how he did it. Generally when we scratch a bit, even if we don't manage to find the right path, we can often, at least close a path or two.
don't think there is any doubt about the gentleness of the push needed to get it going. I think that is plenty clear enough.
I don't.
A wheel that amplifies GPE by constantly and precisely keeping weights out of the centre of gravity and having the ability to regulate its torque capability by automatically increasing its amplification of GPE as greater loads are placed upon it.
I cannot confirm or deny your theory. I personally don't think it automatically increased its amplification. Perhaps it did?... I believe Bessler specifically designed the loads to match his wheel to show it in its best light. I suspect whatever mechanism was employed had some natural frequency of replenishment, which encouraged the wheel to turn at a certain speed.
A wheel resting on the support it has been mounted on , and a wheel with the ability to move from one set of supports to another , and people being able inspecting the journals and such , contradicts single pieced floor to ceiling fixed supports , but a support lifting somewhat up and down and drawings contradicts short length supports too imo , who knows why they write in such confusing ways.
The fact that the uni directional wheel started on release indicates there was no specific velocity requirement to start if it did so under its own power , but i imagine there was something about the design that made bidirectionality difficult off the bat , because did he not mention it took quite the thinking to design ?
Last edited by johannesbender on Wed Jul 17, 2024 9:38 am, edited 3 times in total.
Certificat pour roue essayée à Merseburg, signé le 31 octobre 1715.
L'inventeur mit d'abord en mouvement sa machine de six aunes (11,15 pieds) de diamètre et d'un pied d'épaisseur, qui reposait toujours sur le même support de bois sur lequel elle avait été montée auparavant. On l'arrêtait et on la remettait en marche, on la faisait tourner à gauche et à droite autant de fois que le demandaient les membres de la Commission ou les spectateurs. On la mettait en marche par une très légère poussée avec seulement deux doigts et on l'accélérait dès qu'un des poids, caché à l'intérieur, commençait à tomber. En un tour environ , la machine avait acquis une rotation forte et régulière, même lorsqu'on soulevait une caisse qui avait été remplie de six briques entières pesant ensemble environ soixante-dix livres. ...
Last edited by SHADOW on Wed Jul 17, 2024 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
SHADOW wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 9:35 am
Certificat pour roue essayée à Merseburg, signé le 31 octobre 1715.
L'inventeur mit d'abord en mouvement sa machine de six aunes (11,15 pieds) de diamètre et d'un pied d'épaisseur, qui reposait toujours sur le même support de bois sur lequel elle avait été montée auparavant. On l'arrêtait et on la remettait en marche, on la faisait tourner à gauche et à droite autant de fois que le demandaient les membres de la Commission ou les spectateurs. On la mettait en marche par une très légère poussée avec seulement deux doigts et on l'accélérait dès qu'un des poids, caché à l'intérieur, commençait à tomber. En un tour environ , la machine avait acquis une rotation forte et régulière, même lorsqu'on soulevait une caisse qui avait été remplie de six briques entières pesant ensemble environ soixante-dix livres. ...
Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg, signed on 31 October 1715.
The inventor first set in motion his six-inch (11.15-foot) diameter, one foot thick machine, which still rested on the same wooden support on which it had been mounted previously. It was stopped and restarted, turned left and right as many times as the members of the Commission or the spectators asked. It was started by a very slight push with only two fingers and it was accelerated as soon as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. In about one turn the machine had acquired a strong and steady rotation, even when lifting a case which had been filled with six whole bricks weighing together about seventy pounds. ...
imo , if the design and function was such a simple concept as quoted so many times , why did Bessler not start out with a bidirectional design , did he not say were you to make a bidirectional wheel too you would understand miracles (or am i imagining this) , so there must have been something about unidirectionality that formed part of the solution for the first wheel , why was it not bidirectional from the get go.
I would have thought a unidirectional wheel is simpler to build than a bidirectional.
With a unidirectional wheel, everything can be designed to enhance the advantaged gained easier, because it only needs to operate in one direction.
The fact that the uni directional wheel started on release indicates there was no specific velocity requirement to start if it did so under its own power , but i imagine there was something about the design that made bidirectionality difficult off the bat , because did he not mention it took quite the thinking to design ?
No it doesn't. If it maintained its preload, it would trigger the next action, which would maintain the preload....etc.
How would you design a bi direction wheel, purely mechanical, even with clockwork?..... It needs to stop under certain conditions so you can turn it the other way. How do you make it stop? How do you make the preload temporary? Im sure the answer could present itself if you already knew what the prime mover was.
The fact that the uni directional wheel started on release indicates there was no specific velocity requirement to start if it did so under its own power , but i imagine there was something about the design that made bidirectionality difficult off the bat , because did he not mention it took quite the thinking to design ?
No it doesn't. If it maintained its preload, it would trigger the next action, which would maintain the preload....etc.
How would you design a bi direction wheel, purely mechanical, even with clockwork?..... It needs to stop under certain conditions so you can turn it the other way. How do you make it stop? How do you make the preload temporary? Im sure the answer could present itself if you already knew what the prime mover was.
It would have to maintain its "preload" to be able to make a single revolution if by preload you mean the state that it needs to be in to deliver torque , but that does not mean a starting velocity was a definite requirement ,by demonstration of the unidirectional wheel it started at release (zero velocity) .
Bessler makes the point a couple of times that (paraphrased) the motion must come in to existence from within the design itself and not from added momentum (without external assistance ... like a hand turning it up to speed) , so whatever means it derived its torque from , did so from standstill
If i or someone answer this , then the answer would be in a manner which details my/theire own convictions of the design , and i am reasoning about the unidirectional wheel , imo lets just say i believe the wheel was balanced but the components that enabled a biased net torque , was what made it one directional , those components imo applied the influence on one side of the wheel only .
So if I were to make a bidirectional wheel , i would make the components which apply and influence the directionality of the net torque bias , to be switchable in direction , and to engage and disengage to stop and start the net biased torque , therefor the wheel itself as a hull around these component through its initial direction of rotation becomes the mechanism which interacts with the mechanisms inside which selects directionality and engages/disengages to start and stop the influence on the wheel for torque bias .
But that is just my personal opinion of "How would you design a bi direction wheel, purely mechanical, even with clockwork?" , the facts could be very different for Bessler's design , but no one knows because no one has one too.
Robinhood46 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 10:46 am
I would have thought a unidirectional wheel is simpler to build than a bidirectional.
With a unidirectional wheel, everything can be designed to enhance the advantaged gained easier, because it only needs to operate in one direction.
The questions to be asked is , what about the design made it one directional , and why would it have been easier , there are many designs that people design here and elsewhere that can rotate in both directions yet dont work , and why was it not bidirectional at the time he came up with the solution , it sounds like whatever enabled the design to be a functional solution - was something that was directionally limited in the first place .
In your example the direction of the winding and the escapement's pawl and ratchet determines the direction.
Not at all, the wheel is totally independent of the winding direction and pawl, it doesn't care 🙂
This suggests that the main motor is not affected in any direction by the change of direction of the VISIBLE wheel.
Not everything I present is functional, but a surprise can't be completely ruled out. Thank you very much.
