Viktor Schauberger

[nutronjon]

Moderation note: this post originally appeared in the Why do heavenly bodies spin? thread. It was moved because it is about rumored WWII aircraft, not astronomy.

The skaters spin and flying saucer do share physical law in common.

The UnMuseum - Nazi Flying Saucers

Victor Schauberger

Schauberger was born in Austria in 1885 and was considered by many to be a crackpot. Schauberger himself is quoted as saying, "They call me deranged. The hope is they are right..." While his professional training was as a "forester," Cook, after visiting the Schauberger's grandson and examining his papers and the machinery he had constructed, concluded that Schauberger was actually more of an engineer. Schauberger believed that machines could be designed better so that they would be "going with the flow of nature" rather than against it.

One of Schauberger's projects was to produce a flying machine, saucer shaped, that used a "vortex propulsion" system. His theory was that "if water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation, known as a 'colloidal,' a build-up of energy results, which, with immense power, can cause levitation."

According to some accounts, Schauberger built several models, one of which was almost five feet in diameter and was powered by a 1/20 hp electric engine. Some reports indicated that one of the models actually flew. In an echo of the story of the Schriever disc, Schauberger wrote to a friend that a full-sized prototype of one of his designs was constructed using prison labor at the Mauhausen concentration camp. This craft flew on February 19th of 1945 near Prague and obtained an altitude of 45,000 feet in only 3 minutes. The letter goes on to say the prototype was destroyed by the Nazis before it could be captured by the Allies.

After the war Schauberger moved to the United States, where some contend he worked on secret projects for the U.S. government. He died in 1958, apparently claiming his ideas had been stolen.



Schauberger's models.


Cook concluded that if the stories about Schauberger's work were true, his devices must have created an anti-gravity effect. Cook even visited a location in the remote Sudeten Mountains in Poland where antigravity experiments were supposed to have taken place using a bell-shaped device that glowed a pale blue when operating.

Advantages of Disc Aircraft

The "Legend" of German flying saucers is fascinating, but is any of it true? It certainly seems likely that there was some experimentation with the concept within the Reich, as there was in the United States. Disc-shaped aircraft have several advantages, including low stall speed and low drag, even at high speeds. The rounded shape can also lower the craft's radar profile making it "stealthy."

The low stall/drag of the shape would have been particularly interesting to the Germans at the end of the war. Months of bombing had reduced German runways to rubble. A saucer-shaped craft might have been able to lift off the ground with a short runway or even do a vertical-takeoff-and -landing with no runway at all.

In his book Cook concludes that Nazis flying saucer technology was appropriated by the United States and the Soviet Union at the end of the war. This suggestion is not wholly without merit, since it is now clear that US and USSR rocketry development in the 50's and 60's owed a lot to German scientists. These engineers, quietly brought into the United States via operation "Paperclip," assisted the United States in its space program and its Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union. Similarly, according to author Jim Wilson in an article in Popular Mechanics in July 1997, there are records that suggest at least two people, brothers named Walter and Reimar Horten, were sought by the United States after the war because of their participation in German military saucer programs.

UFOs and Antigravity Myths (this is continued at the site)

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Moderation note: this post originally appeared in the Why do heavenly bodies spin? thread. It was moved because it is about rumored WWII aircraft, not astronomy.

The skaters spin and flying saucer do share physical law in common.

I have to agree that a spinning disk shaped aircraft would have several advantages over a standard aircraft not the least of which would be an extremely stable fight pattern. All you have to do is watch a Frisbee and you can see some inherent advantages. Powering such a craft however is problematic at the very least. I tried to design such a craft when I was young but I failed to show a propulsion system that was workable.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I have to agree that a spinning disk shaped aircraft would have several advantages over a standard aircraft not the least of which would be an extremely stable fight pattern. All you have to do is watch a Frisbee and you can see some inherent advantages. Powering such a craft however is problematic at the very least. I tried to design such a craft when I was young but I failed to show a propulsion system that was workable.

This is the problem. People try to use force to propel things away from gravitational pull, when in fact what they should be looking for is ways of negating it, so that craft weigh nothing in relation to its pull, meaning only minimum propulsion is needed to direct craft in the desired direction as with dirigibles and indeed rockets in space. Macho mechanics have to defy gravity, not understand and work with knowledge of it, hence they expand more energy than would be necessary if they took the alternative course. I believe Schauberger and others may have stumbled upon this in the past but can it be proved now? Not by us, certainly but that doesn't mean it isn't true, just unprovable within a forum like this.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

This is the problem. People try to use force to propel things away from gravitational pull, when in fact what they should be looking for is ways of negating it, so that craft weigh nothing in relation to its pull, meaning only minimum propulsion is needed to direct craft in the desired direction as with dirigibles and indeed rockets in space.

The great difficulty in looking for a means of negating the force of gravity – to be precise, a way to change the attractive force experienced by two bodies due to gravity , without changing the mass , or the distance between them - is that there is no experimentally validated scientific theory suggesting it is possible, no empirical observation that it occurs. There is also no theory or evidence suggesting that the mass of a body can be decreased other than by the usual means of removing some of its matter.

There is no theory or experimental evidence that this change in force or mass, commonly termed antigravity, more precisely described as a difference between inertial and gravitational mass, ever occurs, or can occur.

Although differences between inertial and gravitational mass is not known to be consistent with any physical theory, physicists, engineers, and futurists have speculated at length about the consequences of a body with negative gravitational and inertial mass, which is not inconsistent with theory. However, to the best of my knowledge, no theory suggest the existence of such matter, even though some quantum mechanical effects suggest that a more general form of “exotic matter” may be possible, put could not be used to lift objects (see: Exotic matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In short, Paige is proposing that people look for an effect that all scientific theory and evidence indicates does not and cannot exist. Such a search would surely be difficult, almost surely unsuccessful, and worse, likely to result in the searcher, our of frustration with the difficulty of finding such an effect using legitimate scientific methods, accepting ideas unsupported by experimental evidence, or worse, ideas promoted by intentional deception and unintentionally individual and group self-deception. Although such a pursuit can lead to enjoyable social interaction with fellow searchers, I don’t think its ultimately psychologically healthy, nor useful to science of humankind.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

Macho mechanics have to defy gravity, not understand and work with knowledge of it, hence they expand more energy than would be necessary if they took the alternative course.

This claim implies that engineers have available to them design alternatives to build more efficient machines than they do, but chose not to because doing so would insult their sense of masculinity. Ignore than over 13% of aerospace engineers are female (source: “Employed persons by detailed occupation and sex, 2006 annual averages”, US Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics), I don’t believe this has ever occurred in the field of aerospace engineering. This discipline has always sought the greatest possible mechanical efficiency, driven by such factors as the need for tactical superiority in wars and low transportation cost in business. Aircraft are actually surprisingly efficient: for example, a Boeing 747-8I has distance-payload/fuel mass of about 18000 kg, vs. about 12000 for a 2008 Toyota Prius, at 8 times the speed, and with the ability to cross oceans!

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

I believe Schauberger and others may have stumbled upon this in the past but can it be proved now? Not by us, certainly but that doesn't mean it isn't true, just unprovable within a forum like this.

As the many websites and publications dedicated to Viktor Schauberger listed in the his wikipedia article show, so do many people. However, there is no scientific support for the belief. No one, even Schauberger in the fourteen years after some claim he built an antigravity device, reproduced or even appears to have seriously worked on such a device. It appears uncertain if Schauberger ever stated that he believed his “Repulsin discoid motors” were other than air pumps – his claims appear to focus not on some non-aerodynamic explanation for their propulsion, but that they were “over unity” (AKA perpetual motion) machines, doing more mechanical work than the work put into them by their motors. His only publication appears to be a 1933 philosophical work, "Our Senseless Toil (‘Unsere Sinnlose Arbeit’) - The Cause of the World Crisis". The major theme of his life works appear to be that explosion is ultimately bad for living things, implosion good. His training appears to be in hunting and forestry – despite recent (1990+) claims to the contrary, I find no evidence of any mathematical or scientific studies or writing by Schauberger, or evidence that he had much knowledge of math, science, or engineering. There’s evidence that Schauberger was mentally ill, having been confined to a mental hospital for some time in 1941, although it’s claimed that this was the result of “An intrigue caused by the Viennese Association of Engineers”, or possibly the Nazi SS, not a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis.

According to many sources, just before his death, Schauberger was coerced by US and Canadian companies into revealing his secrets and surrendering his patents for aircraft and power-generating machines.

In short, Schauberger appears to be a fringe cult figure. Even though he left many drawings of the devices he and others claimed could generate free power, improve human and plant health, and propel air and water craft to incredible speeds with nearly no power input, no device created from these drawings has supported these claims. Though this provides interesting insights into the psychology and sociology of fringe science, conspiracy theories, and related social movements, I don’t think Shauberger contributed anything of scientific or technological value.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

The great difficulty in looking for a means of negating the force of gravity – to be precise, a way to change the attractive force experienced by two bodies due to gravity , without changing the mass , or the distance between them - is that there is no experimentally validated scientific theory suggesting it is possible, no empirical observation that it occurs. There is also no theory or evidence suggesting that the mass of a body can be decreased other than by the usual means of removing some of its matter.

There is no theory or experimental evidence that this change in force or mass, commonly termed antigravity, more precisely described as a difference between inertial and gravitational mass, ever occurs, or can occur.

Although differences between inertial and gravitational mass is not known to be consistent with any physical theory, physicists, engineers, and futurists have speculated at length about the consequences of a body with negative gravitational and inertial mass, which is not inconsistent with theory. However, to the best of my knowledge, no theory suggest the existence of such matter, even though some quantum mechanical effects suggest that a more general form of “exotic matter” may be possible, put could not be used to lift objects (see: Exotic matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In short, Paige is proposing that people look for an effect that all scientific theory and evidence indicates does not and cannot exist. Such a search would surely be difficult, almost surely unsuccessful, and worse, likely to result in the searcher, our of frustration with the difficulty of finding such an effect using legitimate scientific methods, accepting ideas unsupported by experimental evidence, or worse, ideas promoted by intentional deception and unintentionally individual and group self-deception. Although such a pursuit can lead to enjoyable social interaction with fellow searchers, I don’t think its ultimately psychologically healthy, nor useful to science of humankind.This claim implies that engineers have available to them design alternatives to build more efficient machines than they do, but chose not to because doing so would insult their sense of masculinity. Ignore than over 13% of aerospace engineers are female (source: “Employed persons by detailed occupation and sex, 2006 annual averages”, US Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics), I don’t believe this has ever occurred in the field of aerospace engineering. This discipline has always sought the greatest possible mechanical efficiency, driven by such factors as the need for tactical superiority in wars and low transportation cost in business. Aircraft are actually surprisingly efficient: for example, a Boeing 747-8I has distance-payload/fuel mass of about 18000 kg, vs. about 12000 for a 2008 Toyota Prius, at 8 times the speed, and with the ability to cross oceans!As the many websites and publications dedicated to Viktor Schauberger listed in the his wikipedia article show, so do many people. However, there is no scientific support for the belief. No one, even Schauberger in the fourteen years after some claim he built an antigravity device, reproduced or even appears to have seriously worked on such a device. It appears uncertain if Schauberger ever stated that he believed his “Repulsin discoid motors” were other than air pumps – his claims appear to focus not on some non-aerodynamic explanation for their propulsion, but that they were “over unity” (AKA perpetual motion) machines, doing more mechanical work than the work put into them by their motors. His only publication appears to be a 1933 philosophical work, "Our Senseless Toil (‘Unsere Sinnlose Arbeit’) - The Cause of the World Crisis". The major theme of his life works appear to be that explosion is ultimately bad for living things, implosion good. His training appears to be in hunting and forestry – despite recent (1990+) claims to the contrary, I find no evidence of any mathematical or scientific studies or writing by Schauberger, or evidence that he had much knowledge of math, science, or engineering. There’s evidence that Schauberger was mentally ill, having been confined to a mental hospital for some time in 1941, although it’s claimed that this was the result of “An intrigue caused by the Viennese Association of Engineers”, or possibly the Nazi SS, not a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis.

According to many sources, just before his death, Schauberger was coerced by US and Canadian companies into revealing his secrets and surrendering his patents for aircraft and power-generating machines.

In short, Schauberger appears to be a fringe cult figure. Even though he left many drawings of the devices he and others claimed could generate free power, improve human and plant health, and propel air and water craft to incredible speeds with nearly no power input, no device created from these drawings has supported these claims. Though this provides interesting insights into the psychology and sociology of fringe science, conspiracy theories, and related social movements, I don’t think Shauberger contributed anything of scientific or technological value.

Firstly, what percentage of women are there on the planet? Secondly what percentage are scientists? Thirdly, what percentage worked on the original German rocket research, during WWII? Next, watching comedy films in which sex is parodied - what item is repeatedly used to symbolize the male sexual organ?

With regards to Schauberger being committed - I can only indicate what happened to Russian dissidents under communism as not all were sent to labour camps but some were sent to mental asylums because it was considered insane to buck the system (He may have been genuinely insane but I'm putting forward the benefit of the doubt).

Discoveries are not made by followers of fashion but rebels who buck the system and make new finds. As I found to my cost, despite the lies they told, Scientology was a closed system that tried to give the opposite impression. How does this fit in? Simply put, the only thing they ever allowed and encouraged, despite implying the opposite, was rehashed ideas based on previous work by the founder or those closely associated with the early days of the cult. I have not found this society any better. I am on the fringe too but that doesn't invalidate my work or my belief in it, only that others have no faith in it as I do. In 'theory' others in the educational field won't look at it because there is no 'experimental fact' behind it. So if I don't have qualifications in the field, no-one will use it, even if it turns out to be valid, when someone with qualifications stumbles upon the same ideas as they are bound to.

There is a TV program called 'Dragons Den' in the UK that has turned down several ideas that have later turned out to be profitable and deemed useful by the public. There are writers like James Herriot and George Bernard Shaw, whose work were turned down by countless publishers. Then there were the pundits of the day who said trains couldn't travel faster than ten miles an hour without suffocating the passengers (Second class in cattle trucks behind the engines maybe) or that Man would never fly or get into space. Then of course there's Gallileo and the Inquisition, and Mary Anning and the fossils. As Charles Fort would say 'The list of The Damned goes on and on...', including meteors, which he championed and a leading French scientist of the day said couldn't be from space and the peasants were mistaken in what they had witnessed (I've seen a daylight UFO and it was no swamp gas, venus, the moon or a conventional plane). Always there are people who say that something is 'inconceivable' or ''theoretically impossible'
but it doesn't make it so.

All society does (and Scientology's attitude only confirmed it) is refine the crudity of previous work and sometimes steals it (Schaubergers included?). To confirm this what is happening in Iraq with its oil resources and why did China invade Tibet - in neither case was it to help the people or why leave Mugabe in charge of Zimbabwe? Even the Nazi's claimed to be liberators as did the Japanese and did we really need to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, let alone one? (And what about the experimental bombs dropped on Iraq and the depleted uranium shells?). Society's and individuals get stuck in consciousness prisons and in their addiction they can see no way out or indeed other way of living - hence the need for philosophers to point this out and religious messiah's to lead a prison break (How do you know you're addicted? You can't give up your addiction. You rationalize your position but still hang onto it for dear life (subject or object)). Why do you think banks will only lend you money if you don't need it? Because addicts don't take risks. ('If' by Rudyard Kipling).

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

Even the Nazi's claimed to be liberators as did the Japanese and did we really need to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, let alone one? (And what about the experimental bombs dropped on Iraq and the depleted uranium shells?). ).

Paige, yes we did need to drop atomic bombs on Japan, there is much evidence that Japan was developing atomic bombs to drop on the USA, even that Japan had detonated it's own test atomic bomb just days before we dropped ours. One thing that is beyond any doubt is that Japan was set on world domination and they used biological weapons to do this that took the lives of millions of people. The US was a target of those bio weapons and china was their test ground where people were still suffering from the bio weapon bacteria they dropped decades after the war was over. Dropping those bombs saved many times as many lives as they took. If we would have had to invade the Japanese mainland there would have been millions of casualties, most would have been Japanese civilians. I would how ever like to understand what you mean by experimental bomb dropped on Iraq that involved depleted uranium.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Paige, yes we did need to drop atomic bombs on Japan, there is much evidence that Japan was developing atomic bombs to drop on the USA, even that Japan had detonated it's own test atomic bomb just days before we dropped ours. One thing that is beyond any doubt is that Japan was set on world domination and they used biological weapons to do this that took the lives of millions of people. The US was a target of those bio weapons and china was their test ground where people were still suffering from the bio weapon bacteria they dropped decades after the war was over. Dropping those bombs saved many times as many lives as they took. If we would have had to invade the Japanese mainland there would have been millions of casualties, most would have been Japanese civilians. I would how ever like to understand what you mean by experimental bomb dropped on Iraq that involved depleted uranium.

Fair comment - one government can be as bad as another and employ any means at its disposal to get its own way, like any schoolboy bully will. It is well known about the Germans attempt to get nuclear weapons and bomb America, so it is logical that they may have passed on the results of their work to their allies.

Depleted uranium shells were apparently used by both British and American forces in tanks and possibly artillery weapons. There was a big stink about it at the time of the invasion and just after, when deformed babies started being born in Iraq (I'm sure there are still sites on the internet about it, if you want to research it). I remember that it was claimed they were used because they pierced armour better than conventional shells. The effects on the civilian population however turned out to be more devastating over time as mentioned because explosions sent vapourised particles into the air.

Schaubergers idea falls in with cold fusion (implosion) as opposed to nuclear explosions and fission: Logically he was right - implosion forms matter(productionism - energy to matter)/ explosion destroys it (reductionism - matter blasted to bits). As for his other ideas being lost in time - why did the American and Canadian Governments 'steal' his patents, if they were worthless? As for very little of his work being written down - the French Linguist Saussure suffered from the same thing but is still considered a genius in his field. Entrepeneurs are creative business people who succeed because they are not held back by education that tells them what they can or can't do (What is or isn't possible) and so it is with people on the fringe. This is what I mean by consciousness prisons. You get trapped in a belief system that tells you what is and isn't true and you never step outside that set of rules.

[paigetheoracle]

Parkes radio telescope in Australia has discovered a pulsar wobbling on its axis, helping confirm Einsteins theory of gravity. Is it known what happens to a body in precession, in space? Does it react differently to a spinning top on Earth, which careers all over the place when spin is lost and if so why?

[Moontanman]

It's difficult for me to see the comparison of the US abs Japan in the second world as just neighborhood bullies trying to get their own way. I think the Japanese of that time were indeed bent on world domination no matter how many people had to die top make their dream a reality. the US was indeed attacked and dragged into the war. Even the Japanese admiral who launched the attack on pear Harbor thought it was a mistake to awaken the sleeping giant of the US. I don't really see any other alternative for the US or it's allies in that war.

Yes I've seen that stuff and it is blown way out of proportion at the very least. Depleted uranium is poisonous and should not have been used but its not the radioactive horror that was portrayed in many of the articles about it's use. Uranium is far more poisonous as a heavy metal, it's radioactivity is not a big deal when compared with it's chemical toxicity. Depleted uranium wasn't used on Iraq to kill the by standers it was used because it makes a good tank killer weapon. Depleted uraniunm is used in armor pearcing shells only, It makes an ideal armor pearcing round. It is not used because it is poisonous. It was intended to be used in a nuclear war with the soviets in a battle theater where chemical biological and nuclear weapons would make depleted uranium look a vitamin. Some where down the line decisions were made that to the rest of us made no sense. Depleted uranium armor piercing rounds should have been replaced by less poisonous tungsten shells. They weren't but I honestly don't think there was a group of people who sat back and decided that the use of depleted uranium was a good thing because it would cause collateral deaths.

I am honestly not sure any of his patents were stolen at all, many sources say he wasn't as great as the hype says he was. Many people say he was just a lightning rod for conspiracy theories. i really don't know. I do know that Heim theory was taken seriously by the US government and since it hit with a lot of fanfare nothing of substance has come from it. this of course might be because there was nothing to it after all but i have read nothing about it either way. Tesla is another inventor that has attracted a lot of conspiracy theories but the truth is he didn't do much if any of the fantastic stuff attributed to his name.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I am honestly not sure any of his patents were stolen at all, many sources say he wasn't as great as the hype says he was. Many people say he was just a lightning rod for conspiracy theories. i really don't know. I do know that Heim theory was taken seriously by the US government and since it hit with a lot of fanfare nothing of substance has come from it. this of course might be because there was nothing to it after all but i have read nothing about it either way. Tesla is another inventor that has attracted a lot of conspiracy theories but the truth is he didn't do much if any of the fantastic stuff attributed to his name.

I wasn't thinking of the DU tank shells as being used deliberately to kill civilians but there was a bomb dropped by plane that was displayed prominently on TV when it hit a building at night, completely demolishing it.

As for the morality of WWII, it was a question of survival and bargains to keep the peace between the Allies.

As for Tesla and Schauberger, as I said in the linguistics forum - a civilization is known by its written works and if you don't get into print your ideas don't spread into the public domain and are lost forever as I've discovered to my cost (Use it or lose it, law)