Ive studied Schauberger and feel inclined to say a few words.
I believe that Frank Germano has a good understanding of Schaubergers 'implosion technology' but he does not fully understand it. He needs money to try out ideas in the hope of a breakthrough. Frank has put a lot of time and effort into gathering and presenting information on Schauberger.
I don't think gb484 is a malicious spammer and can understand why his tentative post has received the response it has but feel inclined, as I'm still something of an outsider on this forum, to try and give him a little support.
Viktor Schauberger should drop straight into the nut case / dreamer/ con man categories, yet strangely, he does not seem to raise the ire of the 'scientific' community.
He was certainly treated seriously by the people in charge of weapons development in Germany in WW2 and was pretty much forced to continue with his developments.
There are many who were able to confirm his ideas and devices did things that were seemingly not possible but operation paperclip ( the US had teams who gathered all German technology as they advanced across Europe) ensured no evidence of his work was left for anyone else.
His concept of how nature works fits well with green energy.
He and others like Nik Tesla, Walter Russell, Rudolf Steiner, 'not encumbered by science' saw that we only use the destructive side of a balanced system, the male or hot aspect. The constructive, cool, female aspect is hidden from us by the hot aspect, yet offers energy without destruction. Hence the term implosion.
The most obvious example of implosion is vortecular motion but the more we try to understand and explain the anomalous behaviour apparent in the vortex the less the scientists seem to like it.
Victor's ideas and understanding stemmed from observation of the trout fish. How could it remain motionless for as long as it wished in a fast flowing stream ? Why did it always flee upstream ? How did it get up a 30ft vertical waterfall ? Why did it flee downstream if a small amount of hot water was introduced to the flow, upstream from the fish ?
I did some experiments with a copper coated plastic trout in an energetic stream flow and was able to demonstrate a few grammes of reduced resistance to flow, as I toyed with bipolar materials in a monopolar medium but am confident that my scientific friends will find ways of proving me beyond stupid.
check out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4723367/ and ponder the windhex or vortex shredder that was invented by some hillbilly who ' didn't know you couldn't '
or ponder Austrian engineer Franz Zotlöterer's low-head power plant that makes use of the kinetic energy inherent in an artificially induced vortex.
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/06/water_vortex_drives_power_plan.htmlmuch more lekky from this low head flow than some on the Micro Hydro list approve of.
But I began to understand how the anomalous hydrobrake device works that we regularly fit to storm water systems to regulate outflow.
Noel
