I am saying that a 100 lb weight lifted 15 ft in the air will have 1500 ft-lbs of energy in it.  That's it, no more.  If I am pumping a bellows 1 foot with 100 lbs of force which is about how hard I estimate were leaning on Guillumes bellows because I am using most of my weight then there is enough energy in the weight to pump the bellows 15 times.  ( This assumes there is no friction, and the bellows magically open and fill themselves with air.)  The bellows are being pumped through there cycle about every 5 seconds.  If the above weight system were used  the machinery would be doing fantastic if it worked for a whole minute which is not practical for a process that may take an hour or more.    Escapements can be made to  control how fast that happens assuming the weight and its mechanisms are pumping too  fast.  They will also use up some of the energy in the process.   What I am unclear on is how much energy the escapement uses.  It could be small say 5%.  It could also be very large like 90%.

On 8/1/2013 10:46 AM, <Franz Johann Gottskrieger> wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
I will be showing and discussing at QPT. Just need to determine a sponsor. (no, i don't want to ask you. I would rather you be there to "judge". Finding knowledgeable technology judges is impossible.)

As far as the GM goes, you need to redirect your thought process. This is not something to be geared up or down, this is merely a self governed power source. And stop considering the drum wheel or the crown as the drive. Those will work fine if you merely want to slowly rotate your tanning drum. But the word is "slowly". Recognize that a common tower clock mechanism of the size we are discussing had an oscillation period of about 8 seconds to rotate the crown a total of 5 degrees, or about an hour for a single rotation of a wheel only three feet in diameter. 

I have thoughts on creating better speed, but as you see, finding documentation is, well, finding a needle in a wheat field.

Your biggest issue is friction loss. I estimate that your GM is losing 80-85 percent of its efficiency due to its friction coefficient. Which is why the dogs tire so quickly, but the river power has no problem. We can overcome that simply by overpowering with additional drop weight. But personally, I think it a better use of our cumulative resources if you were to focus on the friction issue while I work out the stage development in the Glockenwerk (the actual name for this stuff.) Yes, the current plan has it attached and running the GM at Lillies 2015.

Yes, I think this should be taken slowly and cautiously. Mechanical failure is a possibility, and potentially fatal at GM size. See the link I gave you. Failure in a tower clock mechanism punched thru a two foot stone wall. Which is why we aren't building for the GM today. But we are building TOWARD it!


On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Jerry Harder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

SOOO....   Having reached a dead end and posted to the net I then found the word 'strob'  That opened up everything and I found the sources you mentioned and of course have figured out that both forms of the verge and foliot  design are period, and both appropriate to be hanging around in the great machine with the crown wheel version being the most appropriate (later version) but the double pinwheel ie strob version being easier to build (out of wood at least). But when did I ever take the easy way out. 

So which one do you have half built?  You are ahead of me on this, right?

On 8/1/2013 2:58 AM, john heitman wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
not only is that type period, it is recognized as frontrunner for the first truly mechanical only movement.

The man who was to be come Pope Sylvester II had what is acknowledged as the first completely mechanical clock in 996 CE, and it supposedly had this radial pin design.  But that is all buried in my notes as to the quote source.

However, to give you the reference you are desperately seeking:

1327 CE - Richard of Wallingford ("Tractus Horologii Astonomici") wrote on a tower clock he built for the Abbey St. Albans that it had a "strobe escapement", two wheels on the same axle with alternating radial teeth/ verge suspended BETWEEN them, with a short cross piece oscillating as the wheels rotated past. (no currently known period examples exist, primarily because they lost as much as several hours a day, and were quickly changed over in the 1600s to the vertical pendulum because those lose only minutes a day.

Part of the problem is that a) the first treatise on clock making wasn't until 1364 when the son of a clockmaker expounded upon his father's work, and b) as stated above, they were all changed over to the vertical pendulum in the 1600s.

So,Good Master, since I seem to have gotten you hooked,  your other research terms should include "escapements" and, oddly, "engines".

The best site I found, however, was  Full out presentation on the subject. I can give you more if you like, but that is the mother lode.


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Miklos.Farma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
You want to read this book:

Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales 1300-1800, by Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift

It has a rather large section on the verge and foiliot designs, and a number of very good sources.


On 8/1/2013 12:58 AM, Jerry Harder wrote:
I have been doing some research on clock escapements.  Turns out pendulum escapements aren't period by about 65 years.  Verge and foliot with a crown wheel where the pallets engage with opposite sides of the crown wheel are.  There are some verge and foiliot escapement designs which have 2 gears with pins that replace the crown wheel and the pallets both engage the top of these two pin gears.  I am looking to prove or disprove weather this type is also period.  Any help would be appreciated.  A simple search on firefox gives a great overview on wickipedia, and shows the two pin-wheeled type.