Kenneth W. Behrendt's Latest Opus

[eccentrically1]

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.

I think ironically you make the common mistake, and that is to attempt to fit what Bessler says out of context.

I don't think we will ever know conclusively, however the fact remains that the entire page appears to be made up of multiple childrens' toys. And it could be any or all of them, or none of them, in relation to what JB said in the local paper back in 1714 and which Wagner picked up on.

In that vein there may even be a better common toy not shown on this page that is a better 'fit' for some extraordinary action that we have to ultimately deduce. Personally I think the rolling hoop and stick game is a reasonable candidate but only as far as it is a generalized mechanical principle and certainly shows no PM or OU potentialities whatsoever.

Oh, the irony!

The important part of the toy page is the sentence fragment "for whoever knows how to apply it in a different manner. "
Whether one tries stork bills, jacob's ladders, push pull toys, tops, gyros, stick and hoops, button spinners, yo-yos, etc., won't make a difference unless one uses it in that different manner.

What is that manner is the question. How do we apply a game in a different manner?

[Fletcher]

One thing in support of your theory ECC1 is in Wagners' Critiques IIRC.

Wagner is discussing what is true PM. He doesn't include Cornelis Drebbel who invented an ambient force driven clock in 1598. And demonstrated it in London 4 years later IINM. Maybe he was unaware of him ?

I'd have to look up Bessler's Rebuttal in Part Two of AP to see what JB says in reply. Sometimes omissions are as important as facts. Perhaps JB wasn't aware of Drebbel as well, or chose to ignore him for good reason ?

I'll see what I can find later.

Of course a major mechanical overhaul and energy source like you suggest would work on just about anything. And that fits the 'applied in a different manner'. It fails on other levels tho, imo.

If it weren't as you suggest then it must be something else mechanically derived, that JB is alluding to.

I'll never dissuade you from your argument, and that's ok. What I do like to do is try explore everything and see if positions can be backed up objectively. That just may not be possible because JB was so tight lipped on certain things.

[Fletcher]

1. What a Perpetual Motion Machine Should Be.

For a long time there has been concern and inquiry among scholars whether one can make such a machine that, once it is set in motion, will move without the introduction of new assistance as long as the material of which it is made lasts, that is to say, if the material can last for many years, until the end of the world even, then the machine made of this material will go continuously and without new help for just as long. Many excellent geniuses have endeavored to the utmost to accomplish this, as many examples and their wonderful inventions sufficiently show, and it would be long-winded and superfluous to cite them all here; but no one yet has been so fortunate to invent this marvel. (It will probably remain a secret well into the future.)

Mine: Cornelis Drebbel’s Perpetuum Mobile Clockwork of 1598 !

Wagner's first sentence in his lying tract:

I (b) “What exactly is a Perpetuum Mobile?�

When Wagner dipped his pen in the ink, he scrawled thirty-nine points. In the first one he describes how a Perpetuum Mobile should operate. He says that it should keep on revolving and not come to a stand still as long as the materials it's made of shall last. If it should be able to do this - without any clockwork, weights to be pulled up, or springs - then it must indeed be the true device which many really ingenious minds, using their great talents, have sought, and yet have never found.

Yes, just this very wonder-device, which no-one has ever succeeded in finding despite the passage of many thousands of years - Orffyreus has, with God's help, discovered it. The thing which Wagner and the whole world call the true Perpetuum Mobile, and which he says, no-one can produce, and it must remain a hidden mystery - that is my work, and no-one else's. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Without knowing what he's doing, Wagner is widely advertising my device as the true Mobile, for the gist of this first point of his is exactly that - it is the true Mobile!

Mine : seems neither consider a Drebbel like automation to be true PM ?

Many thanks to John Collins whose electronic books make this exercise easier.

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/books_for_sale.html

[Fletcher]

XIX. All Moving Powers, Weight Especially, are Inadequate for Perpetual Motion.

From this motion one can understand and calculate all moving mechanical powers, e.g. humans, animals, weights, springs, water, wind, fire, etc. That the first two, namely humans and animals, could not and should not be used for the raising of the weights has been determined already; therefore, one of the remaining powers must necessarily be applied. It is clear that springs cannot drive constantly because they must be rewound. Fire must be fed continuously. Likewise, wind is of no use because of its variability. All that remain are weight and water (with water I include all other fluids, e.g. mercury). If one weight is to hoist another, that is to say, is to be the cause of the rising of another weight, then the hoisting weight necessarily must descend, i.e., approach the center of the earth, and because the motion must remain within the wheel, this weight can hoist no other until it has been hoisted itself and is able to descend inside the wheel once again. Accordingly, there must be a new weight to raise the previous weight again, and finally, for the thing to manage, the last weight must have a perpetual motion, i.e., when it has fallen to the lowest point of the wheel through the hoisting of another weight it must raise itself up (which, however, is impossible as shown above by the principle of gravity). The hoisting weight must be heavier than the hoisted. (otherwise, they would remain in equilibrium, and no motion would result), but in this wheel a lighter weight would eventually have to raise a heavier one as far as the heavier one has fallen and within the same amount of time; however, such an occurrence is impossible, as will be shown in XXI.

XIX (b) No motive power can suffice to produce perpetual motion

Wagner excels himself at this point, and describes in detail sources of mechanical power - human muscle-power, oxen, water, wind, fire, springs, and especially, weights. He judges them all, and the upshot is that none of them would be suitable to produce perpetual motion. Since not even one of all these possible sources of motive power could ever produce the desired effect, it must for ever remain impossible that a perpetual motion device could ever be created by anyone on this earth.

[ovyyus]

...and especially, weights.

IMO, this rebuttal in AP is sarcasm directed at Wagner for disallowing weights - everyone knew his wheel used weights.

I wonder how the 'D' toy might behave if the wrapped hammer men were replaced with spinning tops?

[Georg Künstler]

Your mind still refuses to accept that a hole is an endless lever.
It is a lever and also a curved board.

https://youtu.be/hNygez_Qn8E

Here I like to show that we have 8 levers. Endless levers.
Every cylinder can act as its own, oscillate.
And you see that all weights are moving in the same direction.
All are lifted at the same time.
We have the connectedness case, but not as your mind normally do it.
One cylinder is rolling to the rim, the other to the axle.
This is representing a long and a short lever arm.
So one can lift up the other.

[ovyyus]

Your mind still refuses to accept that a hole is an endless lever.

My mind still refuses to accept a belief as fact.

[agor95]

My best advice is not to try.

Just accept a cylinder in the said hole can be closure to or away from the pivot point.

Therefore this can cause an imbalance. So the lever is the torque from pivot point to cylinder mass.

P.S. We should allow some language tolerance.

Regards

[ME]

We should allow some language tolerance.

There's a difference between acting like a grammar nazi and promoting unchecked and false theories...

Just accept a cylinder in the said hole can be closure to or away from the pivot point.
Therefore this can cause an imbalance. So the lever is the torque from pivot point to cylinder mass.

I agree...
The cylinder will cause deceleration.

But I don't get it:
When one understands the agility of a percussion egg, then why would a slope driven cylinder behave totally reversed?

My best advice is not to try.

You may be right... better give up trying to explain random conjectures.
Have other things to do.

[Georg Künstler]

ME wrote

But I don't get it:
When one understands the agility of a percussion egg, then why would a slope driven cylinder behave totally reversed?

Both do the same, one you can see, as I am showing with the swinging cylinders,
the other is covered in the egg and has the same function.

[Fletcher]

...and especially, weights.

IMO, this rebuttal in AP is sarcasm directed at Wagner for disallowing weights - everyone knew his wheel used weights.

I wonder how the 'D' toy might behave if the wrapped hammer men were replaced with spinning tops?

Yes, it reads like sarcasm. Wagner had said somewhere else that JB had indicated that he didn't need weights IIRC. JB denied that IINM. Everything points to a weight driven wheel. Translocation tests, and the various MT woodcuts that he seems to indicate could work such as MT's 44 and 48 for example. Clearly they are weight driven with apparently the addition of other structures and/or the prime mover. JB does seem to rule out other sources of mechanical powers of human muscle-power, oxen, water, wind, fire, springs tho because of the sarcasm he doesn't explicitly say so.

'D' might standup and gain GPE. But it would be at the expense of RKE of the spinning tops, which were given KE at the get go. It'd be an interesting experiment to try out i.e. whether they would stand up and gain GPE or not.

But I don't get it:

When one understands the agility of a percussion egg, then why would a slope driven cylinder behave totally reversed?

Both do se same, one you can see, as I am showing with the swinging cylinders, the other is covered in the egg and has the same function.

Correct me if I'm wrong Georg. But the way I visualize what you are expecting is like a ball released onto a curved U track. It will gather KE proportional to its GPE lost and then roll up the other side gaining GPE again. Your back-stop device on the cylinders will stop it back-rolling down again. Like a pendulum swing stopped at its highest position. The percussion egg has shot inside which settles at its lowest position of GPE but there is a lot of frictions between the shot and also the egg casing. So egg comes to a stop quickly.

Best of luck with the build. It will prove your hypothesis one way or another. Not always easy to take the last step and risk disappointment or jubilation.

[ME]

ME wrote

But I don't get it:
When one understands the agility of a percussion egg, then why would a slope driven cylinder behave totally reversed?

Both do se same, one you can see, as I am showing with the swinging cylinders,
the other is covered in the egg and has the same function.

You mean that you actually do show that the cylinders decelerate your wheel, and like any other heavy object will lag behind because of inertia?
or, what Fletcher said.

[Fletcher]

Wagner’s Second Critique 1715

Furthermore, his motive principle is allegedly not one of the hitherto known mechanical powers, all of which can drive for only a certain time, but in reality the true perpetual motion.

Thus one can sufficiently see that his motive principle is an empty concept, and if he were to discuss it a little too far, sensible people might gather that the wheel's motion is not perpetual but derives from a hitherto known mechanical power and is therefore nothing more than a temporary motion which lasts, for example, 1, 2, 3, 4 or more hours, whole days even, depending on how long the machine has been calculated to run. He is all the more ridiculous when he alleges that his perpetual motion is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, particularly in Christ's words in the New Testament. He is careful to omit these words because the good man himself does not know of any. Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force.

Wagner and Bessler at least agree on what the known mechanical powers were, and that they were temporary (except for the 'especially weights' sarcasm as seen by JB's comments in above posts).

Questions I always wondered about. Wagner came out of his corner ready to box. He put together a rational argument and presented it well I thought. Bessler countered with the AP Part 2 Rebuttal.

Bessler eventually conducted the locked room long duration test under Karl's auspices. Something Wagner wanted.

Did Wagner retire hurt in the second round ? He didn't swing again, at least not that I can remember ?

Did that mean that his argument was severely blunted by the long duration test ? The wind blown from his sails ? So much so that he couldn't recover the initiative and had to go to ground on the subject ?

You'd think he'd keep hammering away at Bessler, but for a reason I don't know he apparently went quiet. Was this an admission of defeat ?

[ovyyus]

You'd think he'd keep hammering away at Bessler, but for a reason I don't know he apparently went quiet. Was this an admission of defeat ?

I doubt Wagner could easily explain Bessler's long duration test. Bessler's critics grew silent when Karl became his patron. Bessler never publicly demonstrated a wheel after leaving Karl's protection, so there was probably nothing for his critics to rail against.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,
hopefully you have seen that we have a variable length of a lever.

Every cylinder is swinging in his hole. with the construction of my blocking device I can no stop the cylinder in it's highest position.
That is what Fletcher has als seen.

With the construction of the blocking device, the cylinders can swing, but only in one direction.
So they are stoped at the highes point, you say GPE, and also on they are stopped a the lenght lever position, you say RPE.

What you see in the video is only the movement of the carrier wheel.
This carrier wheel is running in the Hamster cage.
So the carrier wheel has no solid stand.

So that what you are writing :

and like any other heavy object will lag behind because of inertia

will now be an advantage, because we are before, because we had a swinging going up and outside.
The cylinders are in front, turning the carrier wheel.

It together is a complex movement.