Kenneth W. Behrendt's Latest Opus

[ovyyus]

Ken's wheel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nP7KY6_EAM

[Fletcher]

Thanks for that Bill (and Ken) ..

My first impressions are that I am watching an animation thru 360 degrees. Not a downloaded avi file (a kinetic sim) animation of 360 degrees rotation downloaded from a WM2D sim to Youtube.

I say that because there appears to be some unusual activities going on. (I read Ken's descriptives etc and tried to follow them while watching the clip).

If you look at the rope and spring connection points on each Y weighted-lever, and indeed the lever pivot point itself they are steadily migrating from one side of the lever to the opposite side, and back again strategically. This would give a constant overall imbalance like the clip shows with the placement of the system CoM icon below and to the right of axle as seen.

Yet IMO a true sim (avi) wouldn't show this 'migration effect' and the connection points and pivots would remain in a fixed position relative to the Y lever-weight i.e. not migrate or slip.

I may be doing Ken a disservice here and am open to other explanations for why these 'connections and pivots' are changing places and back again ? I really don't think it is a resolution thing for a three foot model !

[Fletcher]

Here's a screen grab to show what I mean about 'migration'.

I added the arrows to show transitions and, the blue circle to show the System Com/CoG placement.

ETA: I am making the assumption that the original sim was built to proportion i.e. 3 foot diameter wheel. Altho 2D the parts dimensions should be relative IINM. Ken's Youtube vid doesn't show the x and y axis or background grid to get an idea of the model dimensions. And I can't off hand see why he'd make an extremely small one which might cause some resolution 'problems'. But that would likely be in overlap etc rather than migration and slippage effects AFAIK.

[ME]

The swinging motions of the drum's eight weighted levers about their pivot pins (with the exception of the lever whose pivot pin moves between the drum's 4:30 and 6:00 positions and is, thus, in contact with its radial stop piece and not swinging about its pivot pin) during each 45 degree segment of drum rotation allows the center of gravity of the eight weighted levers to remain on the descending side of the axle despite the rotation of the drum. This constantly offset center of gravity then produces a torque that can accelerate the axle and its attached drum or allow them to rotate at a constant speed if the axle is attached to some outside piece of machinery which it operates.

We could follow the mechanisms, but their connections don't seem to follow that thing we think of as being the drum.
It seems we have to optically compare the motion of the mechanisms with what looks like a big circular 'wool' that's offset a tiny bit to the left.

...we can barely notice it.

[Fletcher]

Yes, you are right ME.

Yet Ken refers to the 'drum' in his vid commentary.

The true Center of Rotation (CoR) for everything except for the optical 'drum' and the levers is where you show it just above the CoM icon which is directly below the CoR on average, as you'd expect.

So imo the sim must be hidden motor driven (it's not accelerating (altho slowed down)), at a constant rpm (guessing at 60 rpm but unknown). There doesn't appear to be any load of significance to limit it to a constant rpm however, unless motor driven.

That would mean that the optical drum (with levers) is also hidden motor driven at the same rpm but at a different CoR. And their masses are insignificant so as to not affect the system CoM icon placement significantly.

Without better background information I'd have to say the the vid animation is for demonstration purposes of an 'ideal' OOB wheel sim based on Ken's mechanical principles. IOW's not realistic of real world or sim world either, IMO.

Perhaps he will divulge other information and force me to recant on my opinion expressed today. I hope so !

[justsomeone]

I am sorry, but his design is laughable! I kinda feel sorry for him. There are so many Bessler statements and clues that contradict this design. Not worth anyone's time listing them all. Eight hundred pages of B S, I assume.

[Fletcher]

And yet it shows how incredibly difficult it is to be objective and self critique ones own design or pet theory in private or in public, no matter how sane or knowledgeable you might be. I guess it is the emotional investment that scuppers rational intent. I expect no one is immune to it to some degree.

I guess that's the importance of peer review process IF one hasn't actually built a real world model that works.

In Ken's defense he may or may not have a workable design gravity PM principle but that doesn't automatically mean everything he has 'deduced' and written about is worthless in its entirety. He may have got much of it right but veered off the path, or took a wrong turn, at some point.

Classic physics says that his is a closed path system of weights travel, in the presence of conservative gravity force, and therefore can not accumulate momentum and RKE. But then that is what is said about all weight driven PM wheels thru antiquity. Yet Bessler put a horse in front that created asymmetric torque to the wheel, imo.

[WaltzCee]

It's like Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football all over again. Who could have guessed?

The swinging motions of the drum's eight weighted levers about their pivot pins (with the exception of the lever whose pivot pin moves between the drum's 4:30 and 6:00 positions and is, thus, in contact with its radial stop piece and not swinging about its pivot pin) during each 45 degree segment of drum rotation allows the center of gravity of the eight weighted levers to remain on the descending side of the axle despite the rotation of the drum. This constantly offset center of gravity then produces a torque that can accelerate the axle and its attached drum or allow them to rotate at a constant speed if the axle is attached to some outside piece of machinery which it operates.

.

The bold might explain the migrating pivots. Maybe the onboard energy source is moving those pivots.

If Ken expects that within a year someone is going to make a model of this wheel he should maybe come here and add a little bit of clarification to the details.

He's not going to find the help anywhere else in the world that he'll find right here.

[eccentrically1]

If the mechanisms are all identical - and by necessity, they have to be identical - then the wheel is balanced. The forces balance. The springs, the cords, the attachment points, the shape of the levers, the size of the lead ingots; none of that matters. Not even the fact he doesn't use stork bills.
I guarantee this won't work if anyone built it. It would balance in any position.

He probably didn't give the cords any mass, or any friction for the pivots, or used a hidden motor, or something similar, for this to work in a simulation. An unknown onboard energy source is not a good argument.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi eccentrically1,
I agree with your description, it will not work.

It has no own start energy, caused from gravity.

it is balanced and stay balanced, because The axle is not allowed to move.

All weights are running on a circle path.

[eccentrically1]

A non-circular path, or a gravity start, or a moving axle, would only be a temporary unbalanced condition. In a short time, the forces would balance. #reinventingthependulum

[ME]

What can we expect?

It's not that, with more than a decade of simulation experience (see Ken's forum contributions), he's mere showcasing an arbitrary idea and only assume it is something that works for reasons like 'just because'.
This design here is the sum-conclusion of Ken's livelong search and research.
It's the closing statement of his encyclopedia sized book.
It is advertised as Bessler's long lost secret.
We even have got this 'pro-tip' in the video comments to get mesmerized by the mechanism by putting the video in a loop.
What could possibly be wrong here?

*breathe*

The issue is, we can't actually tell from mere observation if the simulation either freeweels or is secretly motorized.
From what we can observe in the video is that even for the best case scenario we are left to wonder if that mechanical show actually doesn't produce too much counter torque... And we just don't know. We neither have the ability to test and verify, nor have any simulated measurements from the 'inventor'.
But Ken does!! (right?)

By the looks of it, it's nowhere near justifying any 'peer review' as it just only showcases an arbitrary attempt.
With those pivots moving unrelated to the display wheel (however that came to be), it's impossible to replicate in real life.
Sure, with a 'discerning mind' we could find all the information we need - most likely in Ken's book. So what is it we actually observe?

The bold might explain the migrating pivots. Maybe the onboard energy source is moving those pivots.

It might.
The pivots actually do not migrate simply because they all rotate around another center. That circle we see is simply not the circle of rotation. There's also no interaction with that shown circle. The circle we see is just only for the show.
Even when it is possible to move those pivots to the side then those pivots need to be constantly moved upwards while rotating around - for geometry reasons, see 'importance of raising weights'.
In the most positive scenario we could assume that Ken still found a way. But that would also imply that we can simply conclude that the mechanism we see is simply not the mechanism "that works".
That onboard energy source is simply not shown.

We need at least some kind of mechanism to make such shift happen because relating things to an arbitrary reference point is not enough.
e.g.: As we hopefully know, a parked bicycle wheel will not suddenly become perpetual in relation to that goalpost it is leaning against when your perspective makes it shift a tiny bit off-center to the axle of the wheel.
When we find another way to shift, and it is not alike a rotating Roberval mechanism, then we also don't need those puppeteering slingshots. Just adding some weights on those shifted pivots could be enough (?)

One way or the other, we are not being helped in getting convinced this is actually the "real thing".
There's no indication that this design accelerates. The descriptions actually has all the indicators that suggests that mere rotation should be good enough.
Even worse, when enough "emotional investment" automatically buys self-deception then Ken will likely denounce any kind of peer and any kind of review. Unless it's helping his 'cause'.
We can assume all kinds of things but one thing is clear, perpetual motion is not shown in the video.

Luckily a replication attempt is not exceptionally hard. Now I can easily verify for myself the accuracy and sense of my own words: see attachment.
(It's possible I may have forgotten to spin-up that shifted hoax-wheel... "oops")

[justsomeone]

I just wanted to say hi Ken. I know you are following this thread. Why not come back under another user name ( like James Lindgard did several times ) and state your case. 😊

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,
really good animation or simulation of Ken's Wheel !!

What is missing in Ken's Wheel is only the Hamster Cage.

The form of Ken's Wheel will deformed by its own weight, and again you have an tumbling forward falling, tilting mechanism !!

An other internal mechanism of the walker.

It is a running Version, only put it in an Hamster Cage.

Think about it how a structure will be deformed by its own weight.
It will not be round anymore !!
And it will fall over and over again.

[ME]

Thanks!

What you see is a part of a simulation of Ken's Wheel... or, my interpretation from what's shown in the video.
You only see an animated loop for one-eighths of a rotation, around 3.4 seconds in the simulation.
The velocity chart shows that it tends to decelerating until it stops.
And that's no wonder because for a single mechanism its mass drops twice (@ top-right, bottom-left) per rotation.
It's of no consequence that it tries to drag another dowsing twig sideways, as this is still only possible when the combined Center of mass gets lowered.
And when on a wheel: a weight that gets lowered, rotates around the wheel for 180 degrees, then lowered again, and rotates around the wheel for a final 180; the overbalance will be found on the wrong side (...sigh, importance of raising weight topic)

But Ken's wheel design is Ken's wheel design and not a someone else's.
What you see is my attempt to explain that Ken's design doesn't work as shown while trying to avoid labeling.
Maybe someone learns something new. And I hope it's me. Especially when someone can show how and where this 'explanation' of mine goes wrong.

If we trust Ken then he still has some hidden strings somewhere, so there may be still hope I entirely missed the working principle.
The thing it clearly doesn't do is deforming. Perhaps in real-life it will sack a little, but as far as I understand that isn't a helpful feature.
I'll eagerly await upcoming user 'ken_behrendt2' for some further explanation.

-

Your wheel is your wheel and not Ken's wheel.
What is actually missing in your wheel-proposal is the experimental evidence that a flexible design can tumble at all.
You say it does and write it in red, but I'm not really convinced.

Because categorizing with some conviction is actually a meaningless exercise, I will, for the same reason as with Ken's design, try to explain how that opinion came to be with provable backyard examples.

- A ball is able to roll freely because its point of contact is the point of rotation and (with a sturdy enough ball) exactly below the center of mass.
- Take out some air pressure, and that ball becomes more flexible. Instead of a point of contact, it now has an area of contact below the center of mass. The amount of friction is not affected, yet the point of rotation is a bit further away and at the edge of that area. So you need to force and shift the center of gravity over some distance until it hovers outside that area before it can topple over.

I think I understand that reasoned idea of putting something (like a cylinder) inside this flattened ball (or another flexible, or even non-flexible container) in the hope it will do this shifting for you. By utilizing some internal ramp on the ascending side, it should gain speed and push the Center of Mass of the whole system over its point of rotation.
Only, whatever you put inside the container, it will always be a 'slave' of the rotation of the container. With 'slave' I mean, it will always lag behind the orientation. It first needs to sense its contact before it can accelerate. By the time it arrives at the desired destination the flexing container may either have found a new orientation, or just stopped because the added 'helper' added too much counter torque at the ascending side. And as such the inserted 'helper-device' simply adds to the reluctance to accelerate the whole thing.