Posted by John Collins (194.164.38.163) on June 03, 2003 at 00:10:46:
In Reply to: Question for John Collins posted by Joel Wright on June 02, 2003 at 22:19:55:
Good question and (another) that has exercised my mind over the years. In my book I discussed this problem and wondered if it meant that the thickness of the wheel varied from the outer diameter towards the inner - in other words the outer half, say of the diameter of the wheel was maybe thicker because that was where the weights were able to move around required more depth, and the area immediately surrounding the axle could have been three inches thinner. Or it could just be a vaguery of the translation and mean that wheel was "about" 15 to 18 inches thick.
There may be a record of materials ordered but I haven't found it and although such things would need paperwork, I suspect that such paperwork might be thrown away after it had all been supplied and accounted for. In my research I did a lot of investigation into the work of John Rowley who was master of mechanics to King George I. Records of the jobs he did exist and the comissions received, but no record of the material used remain. The records just show that he was given the job and it was delivered and he was paid.
JC
: The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.
: Do you have a answer to why orffyreus would say 15 to 18 inches thick when he's so clear and sure about the other measurements of the wheel .The thickness is seems to be the only measurment that varies.Also is their any record of materials that may have been ordered for the constrution of the wheel,from Carl's stocks or sources of orders...........Thank You Joel Wright