Kenneth W. Behrendt's Latest Opus

[Fletcher]

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?

.. snip ..

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.

I think it was simple as Bessler and Karl said.

I think ironically you make the common mistake, and that is to attempt to fit what Bessler says out of context. The Bessler context for both MT9 and MT10 comments in his unpublished MT was the woodcuts associated with them.

Of course anyone is free to speculate about the context as he likes, as Ken did, tho I don't think he mentioned a particular MT.

[eccentrically1]

I don’t know if Ken ever mentions a particular mt or not, I haven’t read his book. I imagine it would be difficult to write about him and not, though.

"No. 16: This model shows how the weights are connected and how they raise the internal spheres at A up and around. The accompanying special figure shows how the edge of the wheel appears at the tensions when it is opened."
- Johann Bessler

Here he literally tells us how the weights are connected. Do you think that is what he meant? Sometimes context isn’t so straightforward?

[Sam Peppiatt]

I'm trying, really I am, lets see if I have it straight now. It's not just any simple lever, it's a complicated simple lever.

I'm sorry, but that's the dizzy limit! I think I've had enough---------

Sam Peppiatt

[eccentrically1]

No Sam, it’s an overly complicated design that uses simple levers (after the complications are reduced) to attempt overbalance. You didn’t read it I guess?

[Fletcher]

I don’t know if Ken ever mentions a particular mt or not, I haven’t read his book. I imagine it would be difficult to write about him and not, though.

I guess we'll either have to buy a copy of Ken's book, or wait for someone to tell us the answer to that who has read Ken's book. I'm still in thinking about buying it mode and would prefer to read a review or two first I guess.

"No. 16: This model shows how the weights are connected and how they raise the internal spheres at A up and around. The accompanying special figure shows how the edge of the wheel appears at the tensions when it is opened."

- Johann Bessler

Here he literally tells us how the weights are connected. Do you think that is what he meant?

Sometimes context isn’t so straightforward?

Here is the earlier translation from the hard copy of JC's MT publication - underlining mine.

"No. 16: This model shows how the weights are connected together and how, at the same time, they pull the internal spheres at A up and around. The accompanying special figure shows how the rim of the wheel has some openings for the pullers.

- Johann Bessler"

Yes (with a caveat); it is consistent with MT's 9 and 10, in terms of an in-series connection protocol. Tho everyone who has ever attempted to build or sim such things as they present ends up with a non-runner i.e. it keels.

Therefore the caveat is that the in-series rope linkages etc as shown are inadequate to aid the function and building of a PM wheel, and are therefore included for representation purposes only, of a generalized concept or principle. They appear as they do early on in Bessler's MT, while he is building the lesson plan and laying foundations for what is to come.

Somewhere further into the book is where the true relevance and application methodology might have been revealed had he not been forced to remove a small number of woodcuts and destroy them, leaving the Toys Page by accounts.

IMO.

[Georg Künstler]

In the

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

You have also an simple rotating Lever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tunFHjR3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwAsx6pHi4U

We can make 4 with such holes were the Artist is Walking, jumping.

The artist is loose connected, can make his own moves.
But still we have the connected principle.

If you further had a look that we have rolling cylinders, then you see how they land on the curved board.
The hole is a curved board !!
An endless long lever

A rolling cylinder has a complete different function as an pendulum.
it can be stopped in the movement, and therefore it produces torque.

When we use Besslers word that the weights act in pairs, then one artist/(cylinder is going to the rim, the other Artist/cylinder is going to the axle.

One Artist/cylinder can lift the other.

In fact we have with this holes a possibility for a short and a Long Lever.

Easy to build for a carpenters apprentice.
No Cords, no springs, only 4 rotating Levers.

Look how the artist is extending and shorting the Lever arm.
2 Artist/cylinders work together with an of set of 180 degrees.

[Fletcher]

The artist is loose connected, can make his own moves.

But still we have the connected principle.

When we use Besslers word that the weights act in pairs, then one artist/cylinder is going to the rim, the other artist/cylinder is going to the axle.

Hi Georg .. I guess my position about the correct interpretation of Bessler's clues comes down to just one thing. Have you got the correct DNA, to use the metaphor ?

If you answer yes then you may have a working sim as Ken purports to do. This is not definitive proof that you got it right, however a real-world build would be.

In this thread and others I often point back to Bessler's unpublished at his death (and perhaps less tainted than other works) MT. The manuscript seems to have some logical order to its flow. Its presentation as it is must have had some importance and relevance to Bessler because he compiled most of it that way.

In Bessler's own words he gives us what I consider to be his 'prime directives', perhaps chronologically of importance as I suggest ?

MT9 - connectedness principle must be enacted, else nothing can be accomplished
MT10 - principle is good, not complete and requires correct handle-construction
MT15 - nothing of the Prime Mover can be seen or deduced

And if we have diligently found and combined correctly these 'prime directives' then perhaps we can assemble the DNA for a Bessler type PM wheel ?

And if alternatively we have stretched our grey matter to the limits, over countless generations, with no success, then we collectively must be assembling the DNA incorrectly. We get an inert protein soup but no amoeba.

More than that. Perhaps if we read the Bessler clues again (from AP and DT for example), such as .. (to use your examples) ..

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time" – AP pg 295

Perhaps we will not be so quick to assert we know what this word picture must mean. Perhaps we will avoid the deliberate mind trap laid for us and begin to suspect that all is not is as it seems, even when words are uttered truthfully and accurately. Context is everything !

[eccentrically1]

Therefore the caveat is that the in-series rope linkages etc as shown are inadequate to aid the function and building of a PM wheel, and are therefore included for representation purposes only, of a generalized concept or principle.

What do you think would make that rope linkage concept adequate for building a PM wheel?

It's the same answer for any general concept or principle in MT: an energy source.

No. 13 This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.

The importance of lifting up the weights.

[ovyyus]

More specifically, the importance of a prime mover for lifting up the weights.

[eccentrically1]

I prefer to call it an energy source, if I’m not mistaken a prime mover is just the mechanism that the energy is transferred through.
If I push a table across the floor , I’m the prime mover, but not the source of energy.

[Fletcher]

Therefore the caveat is that the in-series rope linkages etc as shown are inadequate to aid the function and building of a PM wheel, and are therefore included for representation purposes only, of a generalized concept or principle.

What do you think would make that rope linkage concept adequate for building a PM wheel?

It's the same answer for any general concept or principle in MT: an energy source.

No. 13 This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.

The importance of lifting up the weights.

You are of course welcome to focus in on an energy source and Prime Mover structure that utilizes that energy source i.e. a scientifically recognizable method of cause (fire, chemical, pressure, temperature) and effect (mechanical method) to lift weights in an OOB wheel.

"What do you think would make that rope linkage concept adequate for building a PM wheel?"

I'd look to involve storks' bills (scissors, pantographs) actions in my 3 prime directives solution, because in MT38 Bessler says ..

"... but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills."

- Johann Bessler

.. and they feature significantly in the Toys Page in various guises. They are imo themselves not the main event or actor in the show, they are sub-prime ;7) Which is why they get a mention later in the chronology with yet again another in-series connected lever-weight wheel.

ETA: fwiw I don't think Ken's sim uses any SBs' actions in his connected principle ?

[Georg Künstler]

I have ordered Ken's book to have a look and study his concept.

But as far as I know from that was written above, I don't think that his concept is right.

From the description it is to complicated to build and in comparison to my calculation the Output of 0.2 Watt is to less.

0.2 Watt can easily consumed by friction or can be caused by a rounding error in his calculation.

And to answer Fletchers question

Have you got the correct DNA, to use the metaphor ?

yes I think so.
I wait for my carpenter to finish the wood work.

The prime mover is the carrier Wheel itself !!
It has "es ist ein Rad und auch kein Rad, weil es Felgen und auch keine hat"
It's a wheel and not a wheel either, because it has rims and none
A tumbling octagon.
It allows the 8 cylinders to shift and to lift all simultaneously in a tilt swing.
8 knockings per turn.
Some are going to the rim, some to the axle, later Change the place.
Going around like a "Herde", stop and go.
The cylinders can be made from lead.
Start with a finger push/pull, runs in both directions.
It is a positive feedback Loop.
Self accelerating.

Waiting for confirmation of the concept after the complete build.

[eccentrically1]

Therefore the caveat is that the in-series rope linkages etc as shown are inadequate to aid the function and building of a PM wheel, and are therefore included for representation purposes only, of a generalized concept or principle.

What do you think would make that rope linkage concept adequate for building a PM wheel?

It's the same answer for any general concept or principle in MT: an energy source.

No. 13 This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.

The importance of lifting up the weights.

You are of course welcome to focus in on an energy source and Prime Mover structure that utilizes that energy source i.e. a scientifically recognizable method of cause (fire, chemical, pressure, temperature) and effect (mechanical method) to lift weights in an OOB wheel.

"What do you think would make that rope linkage concept adequate for building a PM wheel?"

I'd look to involve storks' bills (scissors, pantographs) actions in my 3 prime directives solution, because in MT38 Bessler says ..

"... but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills."

- Johann Bessler

.. and they feature significantly in the Toys Page in various guises. They are imo themselves not the main event or actor in the show, they are sub-prime ;7) Which is why they get a mention later in the chronology with yet again another in-series connected lever-weight wheel.

ETA: fwiw I don't think Ken's sim uses any SBs' actions in his connected principle ?

Yes, I'd agree storkbills aren't the main actor in the show, despite the toy page. But I'll have to disagree, I'd argue they aren't in the show at all. One thing that gets a number of mentions in the MT's from JB is friction. Numbers 4, 13, 30, 41 and 46. The more connectedness a design has (i.e., stork bill pivots), the more friction it has to overcome.

"The closest you can come to perpetual motion is a simple flywheel with frictionless bearings. It would turn forever, but produce no output of useful work. Any "improvements" you make on this, no matter how ingenious, using gears, shifting weights, magnets, fluids, quantum mechanics, etc., only reduces its performance."

I don't think Ken's design has SB's either. From the description, it has 8 lever arms, and each arm has extra "hands" for the cord linkages to the other arms. 40 cords and 96 hooks I think.

[cloud camper]

I was able to download the first 67 pages of the book for free as the free Kindle sample. No diagrams are included tho.

[Fletcher]

Yes, I'd agree storkbills aren't the main actor in the show, despite the toy page.

But I'll have to disagree, I'd argue they aren't in the show at all.

One thing that gets a number of mentions in the MT's from JB is friction. Numbers 4, 13, 30, 41 and 46. The more connectedness a design has (i.e. stork bill pivots), the more friction it has to overcome.

When contemplating JB's (and the witness) statements ('clues') in his various books I for one start to form mental pictures of mechanical arrangements that seem to fit the descriptions. And attempt to bring the various thought forms into one coherent mind map. And that way hope to have a complete mechanical arrangement that ticks all the boxes. The boxes being JB's 'clues' and what I also believe would be the requirements for a gravity enabled self-rotating wheel. So for me there are two checklists to satisfy.

The problem is if I leave out some of JB's clues then what was the point of him writing or highlighting them, other than deliberate deflection and misinformation ? If I go down that rabbit hole it eventually leads to a place called Erehwon.

So JB took the time and effort to single out SB's in his unpublished MT. Particularly in MT38 (which he says belongs with 14, 15, 16 .. because they pull up masses) where he says there is a correct application of the SB's [plural] (obviously not as shown in MT38 which is a derivative of the previous Spiral Springs (replacing SB's) application and function of MT37). And in MT41 where he says he wants to assure us that there is something special behind SB's, and mentions that horizontal application has less frictions.

I think we all recognize that less frictions is a good thing to strive for because they waste energy and so should be minimized if possible. But I think JB's mentioning of horizontal SB's was just a technical pointer to efficiency of any design with SB's. So the focus for me shifts back to MT38 and the Toys Page.

What I think I know is that using SB's like seen and applied in MT38, to shift mass radially, was not what JB meant about the specialness behind SB's or their correct application, IMO. And besides they have too much friction ;7)

But they were functionally important somehow, but not for direct radial weight displacement, IMO.