Kenneth W. Behrendt's Latest Opus

[Oystein]

Nice to know.

After a prior discussion with Ken, I understood that he was "another place" and that his conclusions couldn't be trusted as anything remotely connected to truth.

When he told that he arrived at the wheels secret construction from applying lengths of things in the portrait and applying the modern 26 letter english alphabet gematric/numeric values, I was more than sceptic.

But when he got angry for showing that Both AP, MT and both his public machine drawings use the somewhat older alphabet values, even demonstrated in AP by using a cæsar cipher ROT 12/(24) Not ROT 13/(26) that he was convinced of.

When he got angry, and rejected the information and the cæsar cipher in AP as nonsense, I knew that everything he derived at from that point had to be nonsense.He should have re-evaluated his work and thanked for new insight, but turned the other way, looking for confirmation biasing information only.

We must always bu curious of new evidence, and humbly adjust our research if our result is found to be based on disproven or highly unlikely information. We must not be afraid to thank people for giving new insight, nor let go of pet ideas and adjust accordingly or openly investigate several possible outcomes.

Happy reseach
Oystein

[justsomeone]

Come on Ovaron, take one for the team! Finish the 800 pages and give us a chapter by chapter review. 😉

[Georg Künstler]

I have bought the paper book from Ken.
I had a look to his 'solution'.
Sorry to say, it looks not as an solution for me.

[Silvertiger]

Earlier in the thread, the toys page of MT was discussed. I was just curious if anyone knows what exactly A and B are. Thanks.

Edit: Nevermind. Found it on JC's blog. :)

[WaltzCee]

Sorry to say, it looks not as an solution for me.

Or anyone. Ken's throwing a hail Mary
ISO a buck. Whoring after the filthy lucre.

When he got angry. . .

When someone is that emotionally attached to their answer
they're usually wrong. You can make a living betting against
them.

[Silvertiger]

Sounds plausible. I'm surprised he hasn't attempted to build it. Doesn't sound
as though it would be that difficult

If Ken got his design to work in a simulation, it's because he set it up to work. He most likely didn't have the right coefficients of friction for the parts (I imagine it would be very tedious to calculate those for 40 cords, 8 pivots, 16 springs, and 96 hooks - I think that's all of them) and the aerodynamics plugged in.
I would be surprised if anyone actually built it.

How could Ken possibly get a sim to even run at all with so many components? I have tried to draw wheels with 32 or 64 weights...the sim won't even run one frame. Also, if I have too many objects in WM, I reach a point where I cannot modify existing objects, create new objects or constraints, or do much of anything. WM will simply say an internal limit has been reached and there is not enough memory. With the number of objects and constraints described here, he couldn't even DRAW that wheel, much less sim it, unless I'm missing something, such as a script - which I don't know about - or anything else that might make it possible.

I use WM2d v5.0 - so I am also unfamiliar with the capabilities of later versions. I used to have a newer version but that computer crashed and WM couldn't be retrieved. I don't remember the version, but it could draw rounded rectangles. Other than that, it had the exact same drawing and simming restrictions as 5.0.

[eccentrically1]

I don’t know, I think he might have it running slow, maybe 1 rpm .

[ovaron]

How could Ken possibly get a sim to even run at all with so many components? I have tried to draw wheels with 32 or 64 weights...the sim won't even run one frame. Also, if I have too many objects in WM, I reach a point where I cannot modify existing objects, create new objects or constraints, or do much of anything. WM will simply say an internal limit has been reached and there is not enough memory. With the number of objects and constraints described here, he couldn't even DRAW that wheel, much less sim it, unless I'm missing something, such as a script - which I don't know about - or anything else that might make it possible.

That's really interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't simulate his solution at all. In Bessler's biography he also seems to fantasize a lot.
According to his story, Landgrave Karl, for example, saw a table model of the wheel before he brought him to Wiessenstein and hired him as Commerzienrath. This clearly contradicts what Bessler himself wrote in his apology, while he built his wheel at Weissenstein.

Has anyone ever heard of a Dutch engineer Georg Michael Meetsma who wanted to see the wheel during the Weissenstein test run but was only allowed to listen at the locked door?
Or is anyone aware that Gärtner said about the Weissenstein test that there must have been a secret mechanism in the door that stopped the wheel when the door was locked and started it again when it was opened?

This facts (and others) are unknown to me or are they just fantasy?

[John Collins]

Although Bessler built his wheel at Weissenstein, Karl insisted on seeing the wheel’s interior before granting patronage so it seems logical that he might have seen a small model first, before allowing Bessler and his family to move in. I have not seen documented proof that that is the way it happened but common sense supports that conclusion, so in a way Ken is right but it is only an assumption.

Meetsma arrived without an appointment to view the machine, so no one was there to let him in. He could only listen at the door.

Gärtner was Bessler’s sworn enemy and did all in his power to disrespect everything Bessler did.

JC

[ovaron]

It sounds logical, but it is not documented, so it originates from the fantasy of the author.
And if it should have been so, then the logical conclusion is that Bessler must have been a liar, because he wrote in his Apologia in chapter XLVII:

"Die erste Frage: Obs geschehen,
Und ob ein großer Herr gesehen,
Von innen das Inventum mein?
Hierauf antworte ich nun Nein."

So he denied that someone had seen the inside.

[Stewart]

Hi All

Sorry that I've been away for so long. Last year turned into a nightmare with the death of a close friend and colleague who founded the organisation I work for. That has inevitably delayed the publication of my own translations and books about Bessler and his wheels for the time being, but I was making good progress for a while last year and I am looking forward to getting back to them as soon as I can later in the year. Sorry to anyone who private messaged me while I've been away and who I didn't manage to get back here to respond to; my inbox is now showing as empty however.

I don't have much time to spend here at the moment, but Ed heard about Ken's book and pointed me to this topic and I read some posts and of course I felt compelled to comment!

In this post by Ovyyus:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 028#166028

there is a transcription and translation by Hans von Lieven which are erroneous and show the word 'doch' being transcribed as 'Joch' and 'stecket' being transcribed as 'Arbeit'. This has led to misinterpretations concerning yokes etc. I went to some effort in the past to prove that this was wrong (see this topic for example: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9743#79743). Here's my evidence reproduced again:



The actual transcription and translation gives: "Five children's games in which however there is also something special, whoever knows of another way to apply them." (It talks of five games/toys - plural not singular)

Three days ago I bought the ebook. Torturing myself through the first chapter. I won't read it any further. Bessler's story/biography is full of mistakes. Too much the author fantasizes without sticking to real facts.

You obviously weren't around on the forum during the time that Ken inhabited it and relentlessly spewed fourth his verbal diarrhoea, ruining the forum for everyone! Had you been there you'd know there's nothing of interest in his book and even if there was you'd die of old age or boredom before you ever found it! (NB. just my opinion - I've not actually read the book nor do I intend or need to)

Has anyone ever heard of a Dutch engineer Georg Michael Meetsma who wanted to see the wheel during the Weissenstein test run but was only allowed to listen at the locked door?

As John has said, Meetsma was not present at the test but could hear the wheel running in the locked room at castle Weissenstein. The source of this is a testimonial by Meetsma written in old Dutch at the end of DT.

It sounds logical, but it is not documented, so it originates from the fantasy of the author.
And if it should have been so, then the logical conclusion is that Bessler must have been a liar, because he wrote in his Apologia in chapter XLVII:
...
So he denied that someone had seen the inside.

At the point that AP was written Bessler had not completed construction of the Kassel wheel. Karl was shown the workings of the Kassel wheel after it was constructed and therefore at the time of writing Karl had not seen the internal mechanism and according to Bessler neither had any other great man.

Anyway, I hope you're all keeping well. Good luck with the ongoing research.

All the best
Stewart

[Stewart]

Having read back what I posted last night I think I should just clarify the last point about Karl seeing the interior of the wheel.

The first item in the contract (dated August 1716) between Karl and Bessler stipulates that Karl would promise to pay Bessler 4000 Rthl. immediately upon the "faithful, honest and secret communication of his invention" in a way that would allow Karl to determine that it would perform as Bessler claimed. I'm not sure if that would have involved demonstrating any sort of mechanical device, but as John surmises it is not unreasonable to think that might have happened, however I don't recall having read anything to confirm that.

The second item in the contract stipulates that in October (if not sooner) Bessler was to come to a residence allotted by Karl in the local area with his belongings, equipment, people, and whatever was necessary for development of his new work, and to consider the quick planning of a model of the Perpetuum Mobile to be made in a high room no later than about Easter of the following year (1717).

The third item stipulates that once the new Perpetuum Mobile is completed, its interior structure would be shown to Karl who would pay Bessler another 4000 Rthl. if he was sufficiently satisfied and the machine demonstrated a reasonable effect for its size.

The contract continues with three more items including appointing Bessler as Councillor of Commerce.

As I said in my previous post, when Bessler wrote in chapter 47 of AP about no great man having seen inside the wheel, that was true, as the Kassel wheel was not finished at that time and Karl had therefore not yet inspected it. However, I'm not sure whether Bessler had already divulged the invention to Karl, as agreed in the first item of the contract, when he wrote chapter 47.

As for a table top version of the wheel, Bessler does talk about having made one in 1728:

"1728 - produced (to amuse curious spectators and customers) a very nice little Perpetuum Mobile, that one could move from one table to the other."

Stewart

[Fletcher]

Hi Stewart .. welcome back. Sorry to hear about your loss, but good to hear again your well presented translations, and balance and reasoned arguments.

Thought you might be interested in the chronology pages of BW.com http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... Chronology and orffyre.com http://www.orffyre.com/chronology.html for comparison. Someone needs to edit the BW.com page I'd say.

It seems Bessler had built at least 3 previous public wheels, one of which (or parts thereof) suitable to convince Karl with ? And then possibly his very first prototype from the 1712 success if he had retained that in secret.

The 1728 table top wheel.

And he constructed a last wheel in 1745 to go to his landlord, which was never taken delivery of, I believe. Because he died tho it wasn't included in the death inventory held by his widow, IIRC.

..........................

FWIW I have written in the margin of my MT publication your same translation (provided by you to the forum) from 15/04/18 about "Five children's games in which however there is also something special, whoever knows of another way to apply them".

[DrWhat]

If there was no wheel sitting around when he died, I reckon he suicided.

[John Collins]

Thank you Stewart for the excellent post, good to hear from you again.

Good point DrWhat, although he might have kept the wheels in pieces.

JC