Kenneth W. Behrendt's Latest Opus

[eccentrically1]

I don't know for sure. There are some fanatics that might try. But any and all failed attempts would be dismissed by his disclaimer. It works in his wm2d, therefore they did something wrong.

[ovyyus]

Ken wouldn't be the first person to use this method to find others to build his design.

[eccentrically1]

No, but he’s the first to a tome of that length. I’m sure the detail is excruciatingly exact judging from his posts. Can you imagine trying to build this for him ( even if he or someone paid you), then having him measure all the parts, etc. and declare it doesn’t work because (pick one). 🧐

[Sam Peppiatt]

I think you are going to have to draw me a picture-------------

I don't get it-----------------Peppiatt

[eccentrically1]

It’s too complicated to draw because of the layers of cords connecting the levers to each other. You’d need a 3D rendering similar to agor95’s design on his website to be able to turn the drawing in space to see those cord connections. From the description, each lever has 5 cords such that each occupies a separate layer depth-wise in the 4� drum so as the levers move the cords don’t touch each other.
It sounds like mt9 with fewer levers, more cord connections between, and springs at the ends.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Well good luck with that!

[Fletcher]

The 3 feet diameter Gera prototype wheel’s axle and its attached drum with its collection of eight wooden weighed levers (each holding a single six ounce lead ingot end weight with two steel screws), 40 coordinating cords, 16 steel extension springs, and 96 little metal attachment hooks (80 for the cords and another 16 to attach one end of each spring to its place on a spring hook attachment anchor pin in the drum) only weighed a little over six pounds. The wooden base that supported the drum’s axle end pivots also weighted about six pounds and like the drum frame pieces and axle was most likely made from European white oak which is a very strong wood.

Surely no one's ever tried this?

Here is his sim in words:

As a weighted lever’s pivot pin’s center axis, during clockwise drum rotation, moved around the axle from the drum’s 6:00 position to its 9:00 position on its ascending side, the lever’s pair of parallel main arms and their attached lead ingot end weight would, due to the pull of gravity, slowly rotate counterclockwise away from the lever’s wooden radial stop piece that was located on and physically attached to the pair of parallel radial drum frame pieces that held the lever’s steel pivot pin and would thereby try to assume a more vertical orientation.

At the 9:00 position of the drum, the two little steel extension springs attached to another of the three parallel pairs of arms of the weighted lever would achieve their maximum stretch which was only 0.5 inch. Then, as the weighted lever’s pivot pin’s center axis rotated past the drum’s 9:00 position and eventually onward to its 4:30 position located on the descending side of the drum, the weighted lever would change the direction it was rotating about its pivot pin. For this part of the lever’s journey around the drum’s axle, the pair of parallel main arms holding the 6 ounce lead ingot end weight would begin rotating clockwise and back toward its radial stop again until final contact with the stop piece was made shortly after the weighted lever’s pivot pin’s center axis had passed the 3:00 position of the drum. At this location, the two springs attached to the weighted lever would also have returned to their normal
unstretched lengths which were 1 inch at a minimum.

The net effect, as all of the one-directional Gera prototype wheel’s eight weighted levers rotated in their own directions and rates about their particular pivot pins during drum rotation, was that their collective center of gravity would always remain on one side of the center axis of the axle which was on its descending side. This imbalance then produced a constant torque that accelerated the prototype wheel. The axle torque was always greatest when the prototype wheel was stationary and its constant power output, just a mere 0.2 watts, was greatest immediately after its self-starting had commenced.

It’s too complicated to draw because of the layers of cords connecting the levers to each other. You’d need a 3D rendering similar to agor95’s design on his website to be able to turn the drawing in space to see those cord connections. From the description, each lever has 5 cords such that each occupies a separate layer depth-wise in the 4� drum so as the levers move the cords don’t touch each other.

It sounds like mt9 with fewer levers, more cord connections between, and springs at the ends.

FWIW ... here's MT 9 and MT 10 and what JB said about them for comparison purposes.

Quotes from Wiki Page re: MT

"No. 9: Because one has learned that little is to be accomplished with the sphere-wheels like those just now seen in the figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights! In all places where I have found weight-figures, these weights are seen to be simple and nothing is attached to the belts or chains. Such is the case with Leopold, but nothing is to be accomplished with his thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being."

- Johann Bessler

"No. 10: This is exactly the previous model, except that the weight-poles are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction."

- Johann Bessler

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
all this attempts will fail because all are looking on an overbalanced wheel by weights.

Then a calculation is made which is leading to the conclusion that it will not generate any torque.

The wheels are overbalanced when in motion !!
All are using the speed difference between up and down of the weights.
Fast up and slow down.

With a small wheel you never can achieve this.
The acceleration must be above g for the weights going up.

When you have a look to MT138 then you see a shot up function.
A safety gate which is hit laterally catapults its weight upwards.

So the side impact is used to spread the forces into up and down.

The down force is used to turn the wheel, the up force to lift the weight.
All of this are my opinions.

[raj]

Absolutely right, my dear Georg!

"The down force is used to turn the wheel, the up force to lift the weight"

More weights on the descending side moving slowly downwards and away from the axle with their GPE, providing surplus torque to lift fewer weights on the ascending side, moving faster upwards and nearer to axle against gravitational pull, regaining lost GPE.

Raj

[eccentrically1]

FWIW ... here's MT 9 and MT 10 and what JB said about them for comparison purposes.

...nothing is attached to the belts or chains.

... the correct handle-construction."

If his design has 8 levers, then I imagine that is why the levers need the "additional parallel arms" ("handle construction"? - at precise angles to each other), for attaching those 40 cords.
That must be the connectedness principle Ken thinks he's discovered.

From this description

As a weighted lever’s pivot pin’s center axis, during clockwise drum rotation, moved around
the axle from the drum’s 6:00 position to its 9:00 position on its ascending side, the lever’s
pair of parallel main arms and their attached lead ingot end weight would, due to the pull of
gravity, slowly rotate counterclockwise away from the lever’s wooden radial stop piece that
was located on and physically attached to the pair of parallel radial drum frame pieces that
held the lever’s steel pivot pin and would thereby try to assume a more vertical orientation.

This is just classic MT9

and

Then, as the weighted lever’s pivot pin’s center axis rotated past the
drum’s 9:00 position and eventually onward to its 4:30 position located on the descending
side of the drum, the weighted lever would change the direction it was rotating about its pivot
pin. For this part of the lever’s journey around the drum’s axle, the pair of parallel main arms
holding the 6 ounce lead ingot end weight would begin rotating clockwise and back toward its
radial stop again until final contact with the stop piece was made shortly after the weighted
lever’s pivot pin’s center axis had passed the 3:00 position of the drum.

This is the magic step. The weighted lever would change the direction it was rotating about its pivot, i.e., counterclockwise due to the pull of gravity, to clockwise, somehow. So the lever is in a "more vertical orientation" at 9 o'clock and would be pulled into position by the multiple connections to the other levers.

Sorry but I'm not seeing anything other than a simple leverage design.

[Fletcher]

FWIW ... here's MT 9 and MT 10 and what JB said about them for comparison purposes.

JB wrote (wiki page):

...nothing is attached to the belts or chains.

... the correct handle-construction."

If his design has 8 levers, then I imagine that is why the levers need the "additional parallel arms" ("handle construction"? - at precise angles to each other), for attaching those 40 cords.

That must be the connectedness principle Ken thinks he's discovered.

*** So Ken is definitely on the right path by exploring a necessary connectedness principle, by my reckoning. The question is has he hit upon the right method of connectedness between lever-weights ? IMO.

IMO the "...nothing is attached to the belts or chains." gives a wrong emphasis to the intended and actual meaning there !

FWIW, here's how I understand/interpret the meaning of the two common translations of MT's 9 and 10, in easy speak.

Quotes from Wiki Page re: MT

"No. 9: Because one has learned that little is to be accomplished with the sphere-wheels like those just now seen in the figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights! In all places where I have found weight-figures, these weights are seen to be simple and nothing is attached to the belts or chains. Such is the case with Leopold, but nothing is to be accomplished with his thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being."

- Johann Bessler

John Collins published MT translation (original).

"No. 9: Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figures and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely: on weights. To be sure, in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts or chains, even in Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of movement (later corrected in discussion at BW.com to connectivity/connectedness) is activated; but here I neither wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being."

- Johann Bessler

My amalgam of the two translation attempts, for clarity sake. Not necessarily an exact translation.

"No. 9: Because experience shows that little is to be accomplished with the sphere/ball-driven wheels like those seen in the previous figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights (i.e. lever-weights) ! To be certain, in all the lever-weight designs I have seen, these lever-weights are shown to be simple where nothing is connected together with belts or chains, even in Leopold. Nothing can be accomplished with any device unless my principle of connectedness is enabled; but for the time being I do not wish to show or discuss the figure further."

Quotes from Wiki Page re: MT

"No. 10: This is exactly the previous model, except that the weight-poles are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction."

- Johann Bessler

John Collins published MT translation (original).

"No. 10: This is just the same as the previous model, except that the weighted rods are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very differently at the appropriate place and grasp the correct construction."

- Johann Bessler

My amalgam of the two translation attempts, for clarity sake. Not necessarily an exact translation.

"No. 10: This is just the same as the previous model, except that the weight-poles (lever-weights) are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not complete until I draw it very differently at the appropriate place and reveal the correct handle-construction."

[eccentrically1]

Well, those all say the same thing to me. The differences don’t seem to change the meanings.

I think his connected principle is referring to something other than how the levers connect to each other. I don’t think the levers were connected to each other at all. I think the levers and weights were free to move in their own space; although I don’t think they moved very much at all in that space. I think the connected principle could be a reference to how the wheel’s motion connected the wheel’s internal space to its environment.

This is supposed to be simple, right? It’s easy to understand how weight can do work on an axle while descending. We can preset the PE. How can a weight do work on an axle while ascending? Everyone keeps falling into that inertia trap. It just needs a nudge to get over the top.

“The fundamental laws of physics don’t prohibit perpetual motion. The properties of physical objects conspire to prevent it�.

The weights all have the same amount of time to rotate.
They all have the same distance to rotate.
It’s not the weights, it’s the connectedness principle.

The only legitimate way forward I see is those ascending and descending weights bringing in enough thermal energy to give that nudge, possibly even using bellows as a pressurizing component to enhance that advantage further. And I remember you or Bill said the dynamic motion of the wheel could have been utilized (flaps on the rim as pumps was it?). I know it sounds implausible but has anyone given it anywhere near the serious thought they’ve given other solutions? And we know it doesn’t have to be much energy brought in , especially for the long test.

Anyway, good luck to anyone that tries this build, it doesn’t seem like a carpenter’s boy could knock it out in a day.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Let me make sure I've got this straight; the design is so complicated it's impossible to make a drawing of it, yet is just a simple lever????

This forum really should be for geniuses only--------------

You have been right all along, I don't come close to qualifying,

Sam Peppiatt

[eccentrically1]

Not just any simple lever. Did you read any of the description at the link John posted on the first post? Go read it, if you dare.

[Fletcher]

Here's what Ken says Sam, and hints at complexity to find (in his opinion) .. one paragraph in the synopsis on his Amazon Page.

https://www.amazon.com/Triumphant-Orffy ... way&sr=8-1

" snip ... After discovering an unsuspected source of hidden instructions Bessler left to guide future reverse engineers of his wheels and then using them to construct and test over two thousand computer models, author and researcher Kenneth W. Behrendt can finally reveal the long-sought secret of Bessler’s wheels and do so with enough detail to allow them to be duplicated today! This groundbreaking treatment of the subject should be of great interest to anybody wondering about the possibility of self-motive machinery in general or seeking to explore the topic of Bessler’s wheels at a far deeper level than was previously possible."