# Talk:Bookwheel

This mechanism appears bulky, with a lot of wasted space.  An improvement in design could be effected by having much smaller gears or sprockets at the top and and having the books suspended on a pair of bicycle chains, rising and falling in close proximity.  This would reduce the depth of the mechanism to about 1 meter or less.  It could even be contained within a podium with the book to be read being suspended at the apex of the top sprocket. Photojack53 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This material has been present for years but has no references. As the original creator of this page, I know it does not come from "One Good Turn," the only listed reference as of this edit. Moving to talk page for time being. Geethree (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
As the engraving shows, the gearing employs three types of gears. The central gear is fixed to the stand, and thus immobile relative to the ground, while the intermediate and outermost gears are free to rotate around their axes. A simple calculation shows that if the outermost gears have the same shape as the central gear, then no matter the size of the intermediate gear, the outermost gears will not rotate relative to the ground, thus making the books remain at a constant angle.
Ramelli's design was copied by subsequent authors. It appears in Heinrich Zeising's "Theatrum machinarum" (1611), printed by Henning Gross and possibly engraved by a young Andreas Bretschneider. It also appears in a German copy of Ramelli's work appearing in 1620. It too was printed by Gross and engraved by Bretschneider although the plate clearly differs from Zeising's edition. The book wheel was copied once again in a Chinese work edited by the Jesuit missionary Terrence Schreck. This Chinese copy is notable because it misrepresents Ramelli's original epicyclic gearing arrangement, perhaps indicating a lack of mechanical competence on the part of the engraver. The book wheel makes a final appearance in 1719. Grollier de Serviere criticized Ramelli's overly complicated design and presented a much simpler gimballed design.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bookwheel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's my review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
Gave this a few copy edits. Here are my comments:

The two alternative names are significant enough to be in boldface, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
Expand the lead a little to include information about the inventor, the year it was invented, etc.
"Unnecessarily elaborate": not sure if that's neutral.
Per WP:MINREF, include a citation after the direct quotation after "... tormented by gout".
Would recommend using {{Commons category}} instead of having the gallery, per WP:IG.
dupdet didn't turn up anything, so that's good.
Short and sweet: nice work. On hold for a fortnight. 23W 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Made edits per your suggestions, thanks for your review! The only one I did not make was the "unnecessarily elaborate" change, as it is my understanding that that is a well-attested and uncontroversial claim about the bookwheel. See for instance this page which discusses "design for showmanship's sake" with additional sourced statements. Geethree (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 @Geethree: I see. Changes look good, looks like I'll pass. 23W 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that "in contemporary times" they have inspired art and a blog title. But should the article make it clearer, at the start, that they are no longer used for their original purpose? The lede says "The books are rotated vertically ..." and this suggests they use still in use. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. I'll touch up the lede. Geethree (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the mechanical principle involved is, too, "absolutely identical". This is not "a slight matter of scale" as User:Andy Dingley thinks, because a principle is independent of such things.
About sources:

I added a link to where the gear mechanism of the boat lift is visible. Please don't tell me that you need more proof that the two mechanisms work identically, or I would have to believe that you were absolutely retarded.
About the designer of the boat lift claiming to have found the mechanical principle independently: Sorry, I saw that on TV. They showed a LEGO model with five gears of the same size in a line. Can't quote a source, unfortunately. Go ahead and take that half-sentence out if you must.
--BjKa (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that your addition merely said "principle", but gave no indication as to which principle you were alluding. Now that you've made it clearer that it's just the epicyclic gearing to keep the caissons / books level, then yes that's a reasonable claim to make. It does work independently of scale too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the Falkirk Wheel involve filling caissons with water? Even at first glance it doesn't exactly look similar, does it? One might argue that traditional water wheels have a closer resemblance? You need at least one WP:RS for all the claims made about any similarity, otherwise it's just WP:OR i.e. your opinion. Very sorry if you think I am "absolutely retarded". Please establish a clear consensus here before you re-add. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't look similar. I never used the word "similar", and it seems I have in the meantime also convinced its original user. But unfortunately you restored that wording which you are criticizing.
I am trying to say that the gearing principle is identical. This is evident from the picture I linked to (which you unfortunately removed), and which I used as proof.
If you're really interested, here's an explanation: Yes, there are no books on the Falkirk Wheel, but caissons filled with water. And the identical mechanical principle which keeps your individual bookstands right side up and the books from tumbling all over your floor when you rotate the Bookwheel also keeps the individual caissons right side up and from tipping over and spilling ships all over the countryside when the Falkirk Wheel turns.
If we really want to go into this in detail, we could include that pic of the gears, next to the pic of the gears of the Bookwheel. But originally I did not believe the whole matter important enough to go to such lenghts. A simple "See also: Falkirk Wheel" would have been quite enough for me.
I understand that my contributions may be , but I believe your simple revert is no improvement.
--BjKa (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah right, so you trickle-feed the books, into one of the compartments, until they are heavy enough to rotate the device, yes? It's no good including pictures, or picture details, or "full explanations", or anything else. We need a reliable external source that makes the comparison. What about "See also: Ferris Wheel" etc., etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Even without any source for the comparison, we need a source for the supposed "claim" by Tony Kettle? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Absent a source, this is a clear WP:OR/WP:SYN issue (in my opinion also WP:RELEVANCE). I have done some preliminary searches on google/google books and can find no references of any kind that mention both the bookwheel and the Falkirk wheel. I feel very confident in reverting this content until a source can be provided. Geethree (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The Category:Epicyclical gearing, quite correctly added by Andy Dingley, shows there are a number of relevant articles, not just the one for Falkirk Wheel. I don't feel that adding "See also: Falkirk Wheel" is appropriate or helpful here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

English is not my first language, so I may get this wrong. We have a section called "Mordern reproduction"; I think it might be more correct to talk of either replicas or reconstructions. Nø (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the "History and design" section, it is noted that *maybe* someone also invented this principle (except the axis of rotation was different, so it's not the same invention) in China up to 1000 years earlier than Agostino Ramelli. This potential Chinese invention is entirely irrelevant, as the book wheel as known to Europeans was invented by Agostino Ramelli. We do not credit Martians for inventions Earthlings have come up with on their own, even the Martians did it first -- unless someone can trace that the supposed Chinese invention allowed Agostino Ramelli to design his version, that someone in China has made the same invention is irrelevant, except as a binote on yet another thing more than one culture has invented independently. 87.104.34.113 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

1) The reference provided ("The Book on the Book Shelf") discusses the possibility of an earlier Chinese invention within the context of the bookwheel. So at least one published reference thought it was relevant, and I think that would trump your personal disagreement.
2) Wikipedia is not a history of Europe and it's inappropriate to compare (however figuratively) Chinese inventors to "Martians." If Chinese inventors invented a similar device, it is extremely relevant in an article about that device. This article is about the bookwheel, not "the bookwheel as known to Europeans." Geethree (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)