On 14/03/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Esa, Thanks for the excellent links. You seem to have spent a lot of time investigating Schauberger's work. Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature. The seemingly static vortex coils, for example, are described as "energizing," "living," and "resonating." In the classical scientific sense of these terms, such claims are hogwash.
the first thing to realize about what PKS have available in their shop is that these are not items that viktor schauberger or walter schauberger developed. as far as i can see, there is not a single viktor-schauberger-created original item for sale, or a re-production thereof. none of his suggestions on air-conditioning, water-purification (mountain-spring-quality-water) devices, or others for energy production are being manufactured right now - they are hardly even understood, or even replicated to a simple degree. there are a few people such as Klaus Rauber ( http://www.implosion-ev.de ) and Fritz Watzl, who have, somewhat created a type of a repulsine, but not at all the device that was prototyped in the 1940s. what PKS have for sale is a good over-view of all the books available on Schauberger, both in english and the german languages. also a few DVDs, but by no means all the documentaries available on Schauberger/Vortices/Implosion. when it comes to documentaries and books, they are mostly beginner introductions, i.e., this is what he did, this is when he did it, and now its up to you you and you to do research&development in order to actually have a device, or anything close to what he was suggesting. the three items on http://www.pks.or.at/drinkingwater.html , from what i can see, are developed by a swiss company (first one), Klaus Rauber (the hyperbolic copper cone for water-oxygenation/energization), and Klaus Rauber & Emil Schreiber (the swirly pipes) . the swirly pipes are the closest to what Viktor Schauberger did, as witnessed by the Pöpel Report that was conducted in the University of Stuttgart in 1952, by Prof. Franz Pöpel. this seems to be the most interesting for, erm, people coming at this from a university/math/physics angle. the Pöpel Report has been released as an appendix to a book called Energy Evolution, by Callum Coats. here are some aspects of the Pöpel Report: "Concerning the Preliminary Investigation of Helicoid pipes with Various Shapes of Pipes wall The Multiple In-winding, Convoluting Flow Processes Influence of the Form & Material of Pipes on Development of In-winding Flow Processes Structural Change in Water as Consequence of Multiple In-winding Flowing Motion The Prevention of Encrustation" the Institute of Ecological Technology ( www.iet-community.org ) have however done their own experiments and testing as regards to the Pöpel Report, and have published some of their results in the iet-community report#1. ive, below, pasted some of the material in the report - in case there is interest. the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report is the report of "negative friction" - i.e. that the pipes, through which the water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the flow of water, and to negate friction. i suppose anyone really interested, and into their german language, could easily find the Pöpel Report via University of Stuttgart - and see what they think of it.
It may turn out that Schauberger's work is far more related to the Aether Physics Model than I had originally believed. If there are any English speaking persons directly affiliated with PKS who would like to communicate with me on this, I would gladly work with them.
Jörg Schauberger can be contacted via <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, if that is of any help. since lately ive been coming across people from universities etc who seem to be interested in the math aspect of all this, it would be great to get the Radlberger book on Walter Schauberger's hyperbolic cone geometry/math translated into the english language - if it contains the mathematical key to what Viktor was (somewhat) achieving with the limited understanding the engineers had back then.. also, Brian Desborough does mention in his book "Blueprint for a Better World" his firm opinion that whatever Schauberger, Keely and Tesla were working on, meshes in with his and Lord Kelvin's "Atomic Vortex Theory". it seemed to hint at a dynamic ether, so maybe you'll find something of interest there. as regards the dynamic ether, i trust you have seen "Energy from the Vacuum part1" released by Cheniere Media? Bearden does his best to try and explain this vacuum or the void, from which energy can be jacked out of. Dave
http://www.implosionresearch.com/water.html http://sulis-health.co.uk/sulis/water.shtml#jug
Sulis health is run by Alick Bartholomew who wrote a nice little beginners guide booklet (The Schauberger Keys), and a book (Hidden Nature) on the subject.. and Centre of Implosion Research seem to have been doing their own related research, altho i didn't really benefit that much from their 72 minute audio-tape , ive basically exhausted the beginners information that there is, and am looking to move on to the acoustic aspects of it, instead of looping around looking at devices x y and z and trying to figure those, or Viktor's way of thinking out. what is however interesting is that come august 2007, there will be a International Workshop on Natural Energies, held in Malmö, Sweden, partly organized by the IET-community, and that should be an interesting get-together. also, Klaus Rauber did mention that he has a new website incoming, hopefully with more information and in the english language. * This report is based on the experiments made by Viktor Schauberger and Prof. Franz Popel at the Institute of Technology in Stuttgart in 1952 [31]. One of the objectives of these experiments was to investigate the possibility of using different kinds of pipes with rotating water, in order to separate the water phase from a suspension of hydrophobic material. The underlying idea was to use a vessel connected to a straight pipe from below. Water was injected tangentially and was allowed to swirl down into the pipe. A vortex would appear, and particles in the swirling flow would accumulate at the centre of the vortex, where the pressure was the least. With suitably designed pipes it was then possible to separate the hydrophobic material. The importance of the design of the inlet vessel was also studied. By using a rectangular and a round vessel, two rather different cases could be studied. Not only straight pipes were used, but also conical and spiralling pipes were used. Pipes made of different materials, such as glass and copper, were studied as well. The experiments were extended into investigating the frictional losses of different pipes and materials. The results were rather astonishing. Schauberger and Popel observed that the frictional resistance decreased the more conical and spiralling the pipes were made. Pipes made of copper had a lower flow resistance than pipes made of glass. The spiralling copper pipe produced an undulating friction curve as the flow was increased. At some flows a negative friction was observed, as if water seemed to lose contact with the walls and fall freely through the pipe. How to interpret this remains to be seen. An underlying principle of the Stuttgart experiments is the rotation of water around its own axis, while it is flowing along a spiralling path with decreasing radius. The rotational velocity increases towards the centre where a sub-pressure exists. Let us study a "bath tub vortex" to illustrate this. With a slow enough flow, water flows more or less straight down into the pipe. But at a critical flow a transition takes place, a bifurcation, and water starts to swirl in a vortex. In order to make water organize itself into this kind of flow, we only have to create the right conditions, which in turn will generate the spontaneous emergence of a subpressure axis. This could be arranged by using a suitable geometry of the vessels, or by introducing different kinds of guide vanes, pressure sinks etc. (More generally, we have to look at the system and its interaction with its surroundings as a whole.) The system then is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, where it is always changing but where its structure is yet stable. (By giving the peripheral water a vaulting toroidal flow.) 1.4 A new perspective This is a perspective that is very similar to that of Viktor Schauberger's way of reasoning. He early observed that untouched watercourses had a kind of structural stability. From those observations he suggested methods for river regulation — based on the perspective of giving water impulses for self-organization to take place. By using suitable guide vanes and by taking into account the effect of the surrounding vegetation on water flow and temperature, he could make a watercourse self-organize into a stable river bed. This way of regulating rivers and watercourses differs from the traditional ways, which tries to steer the flow and which disregards the 'eco-system' that the flowing water and its interaction with the river bed and vegetation makes up — with floods and bank erosion as the natural result. Schauberger e.g. noted that the sediment transport capacity of the flow affected sand and bank development, which affected vegetation, which in turn affected the flow image of the water, through among other things the vegetation's cooling effect. The system bites itself in the tail, as it were. A problem has been to interpret the language of Schauberger, as it was more that of a naturalist than of a hydrologist. He more looked at the wholeness of the system, than to its detailed composition, and focused on its flow image, without knowing or modelling the underlying mechanisms. Such a perspective does not look for as detailed a model as possible, but for the simplest model that has the same kind of fundamental properties as the system. It is a perspective that is close to that of modern chaos science. It has shown that disparate and seemingly complex behaviours often can be captured by (ridiculously) simple models5. This is due to the fact that dynamical behaviours at e.g. phase transitions are universal, and appears in a wide range of systems [14, 43]. This is the perspective we will bring with us, as we in this report reinterpret and reexamine parts of the Stuttgart experiments and some of the possible applications. We will replicate some of these experiments, and from this try to evolve useful models, which can help to bridge the perspective of Viktor Schauberger with that of the modern natural sciences. This leads naturally to some of the main applications — water treatment and restoration of watercourses. We will take a closer look at these in this report. (5) Consider by contrast the complexity of a traditional approach at modelling a highly non-linear system such as free surface flow with an air funnel. hope this helped
