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]"
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
I have thoughts on creating better speed, but as you see,
finding documentation is, well, finding a needle in a wheat
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
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!
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
On 8/1/2013 2:58 AM, john heitman wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
not only is that type period, it is
recognized as frontrunner for the first truly mechanical
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
However, to give you the reference you are
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".