In my previous blog, I suggested that it made more sense to try to replicate Bessler's single-direction wheels than his later, admittedly more difficult to make, dual-direction ones, and I forgot to add that my comparison was to the Kassel wheel, which rotated at 26 RPM, unloaded. The previous, Merseburg wheel, rotated much faster at 40 RPM, despite being dual-directional.
At first sight this may seem to damage my argument about two mirror image windmills rotating at half the speed of a single one, but I still think they would if their components were identical in all size respects, but what it does also do is back up Bessler's contention that he could design wheels which could revolve faster or slower and with more power or less as required. He also suggested that a wheel of 20 ells could be built - more than 40 feet in diameter! At that time, John Rowley, Master Model-maker and engineer to King George I, designed and built a tidal wheel for pumping water into the Royal Palace at Windsor measuring "twenty four foot diameter and twelve foot broad; for the new brass engine with brasses to the crank, forcing rods and a new crank." So that kind of size was not inconceivable.
My point is that what ever size and speed and lifting power was possible, we cannot make any assumptions about the mechanism inside the wheels other than to reflect on Bessler's own words about the Merseburg wheel:-
"I constructed my great work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted. Why did I make this wheel, you may well ask, and so I will now give you my answer. During my stay in Obergreisslau my detractors put out the cunning falsehood (in order to deceive the world) that my device, like a clock, needed to be wound up. This caused me to make some changes to the mechanism so that all intelligent people would appreciate the falseness of such a proposition. People then began to believe - and they freely admitted it - that the wheel did not require winding up."The dual-directional wheel was more difficult to make than the single-directional one so logic suggests that the first one would be the place to start. However I know there are many people out there who are still convinced that there is more to making the wheel dual-directional than simply adding mirror imaged mechanisms to the same axle, as I described in my previous blog. In further defense of my belief in keeping it simple by concentrating on the first two wheels, I shall point to the fact that the first two wheels measured 4 inches and 6 inches in thickness, respectively; but the second two were nearly a foot thick, so twice that of the second wheel, and the last one was eighteen inches thick. This implies the extra thickness was needed to accommodate two sets of mirrored mechanisms.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
