2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/altscien/mys00069.txt

Text File | 1994-06-10 | 14.9 KB | 341 lines

A NEW BEGINNING FOR THERMODYNAMICS

The reactions and questions received on my articles "Vortex - The
Natural Movement" and "Understanding Water Power" show that there
is much interest in the subject of thermodynamics.

In fact, the "laws of thermodynamics" have long been the subject
of heated debate, especially between the promoters and the
detractors of another field - that of "perpetual motion".

Joachim Kirchhoff, who has done a thorough research on the
development and the history of thermodynamics (1) has shown that
these laws, and especially the basic assumption of conservation
of energy, can be traced back to an authoritative pronunciation
of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, made in the year 1775,
saying that henceforth, the Academy "will no longer accept or
deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion". Their reasoning
was, that perpetual motion is impossible to achieve and that the
search for it is time consuming and very expensive. According to
the members of the academy, those bright minds dedicating their
time and resources to this search, could be utilized much better
in other, more reasonable endeavors.

So the fact that until that time, no one had succeeded in
constructing a workable device of "perpetual motion", was used
as the reason to forbid, de facto, any further research in that
direction. The "laws" thus established and enshrined as the laws
of thermodynamics, have entered the official screening process
of all new inventions. Patent offices all over the world have
more or less consistently refused since then to grant recognition
to anything that was, in their opinion, infringing upon these
laws.

Herbrand writes (2) that prof. Pollermann of the Julich Atomic
Research Institute in Germany, who is an "expert" preexaminer of
patents in the energy sector, has given a negative opinion on 43%
of the patent applications referred to him! He reasons that "the
natural laws accepted by science must be followed" and says that
many people (in his view irrationally) "wish to make use of the
eternal forces of gravitation and magnetism".

We can see from this how efficient our current patent system is
in suppressing any real renewal in the field of physics. I have
written about the subject of patents in an earlier article (3).

Conservation of energy

There is such a thing as conservation of energy. However our
understanding of the concept is largely incomplete. By negating
the idea of an ether, which I called "space background" (4), we
have limited our conception of energy to that which is observable
on the purely physical plane. All electric and magnetic as well
as gravitational phenomena however, are not purely physical. They
require for their understanding a conception of a higher
dimensional space background, which is, to use the term of Moray,
a "sea of energy".

Conservation of energy in the current form of understanding is
a useless concept, as it negates the existence of this giant
reservoir of energy, and does not take into account the constant
interchange (through the phenomena of electricity, magnetism and
gravitation), of our world of physical existence with that
reservoir. Generation of electrical energy through magnetism
for example, is not limited to the mechanical motive power
applied to a generator and the movement of electrons through a
wire, but involves a complex exchange between space background
and physical machinery.In this context, it may be profitable to
remember a statement that Robert Meyer (5) made in connection
with the concept of conservation of energy. He said: "Seeing
gravity as the cause of the falling of things, we talk
about gravitation and thereby overlook, that an essential
characteristic of any 'force' (energy) is to unify within itself
the attributes of indestructibility and mutability."

This statement should set us thinking. Meyer in fact asserts that
energy, in addition to being indestructible, is also able to
change form. This implies that we can not necessarily think in
terms of unidirectional mutability, a concept which
thermodynamics has however maintained since the inception of its
famous "laws".

Now the specific form of energy which is the subject of
thermodynamics is heat.

What is heat?

As a first step in our approach to the understanding of
thermodynamics, we must try to understand what is this substance
that forms the basis of the theory. Heat has at first been
imagined to be a fluid and has been given the name "caloric".
Soon caloric theory, which was at the basis of our famous "laws",
gave way to the contemporary understanding, that heat is an
excited state of matter, transferred through direct contact or
through the mediation of electromagnetic waves of the infrared
band. Absence of heat, or the temperature of absolute zero, is
defined as a complete absence of molecular motion.

We shall, for the time being, accept this concept and add some
other thoughts:

 Heat is a property of matter. Without matter, no heat.

 The molecular motion that we call heat is a chaotic, a random
motion.

An increase of heat is an increase of randomity in matter. A
decrease of heat denotes progressively greater order of molecular
alignment.

Two kinds of motion

In this universe, we have two basic kinds of motion: centrifugal
and centripetal.

Centrifugal motion is outward directed. It is an expanding, a
radiating, explosive motion. It has a tendency to increase the
randomity in matter and thereby cause heat.

This is the kind of motion we are accustomed to. It has been used
in our technology since the discovery of the fire, and especially
since the invention of the steam engine and the consequent
industrial revolution. Our continued and exclusive use of this
motion has given us useful but dangerous machinery, polluting
internal combustion engines, radio and microwave technology that
has definite negative effects on human, animal and plant life and
last but not least the daughter of the atomic bomb, our atomic
power plant, which is little more than a steam turbine using a
very dangerous source of heat, radioactive uranium.

We do not have to look far to see the results of this technology:
A decrease in atmospheric oxygen from 30% to 21% since the start
of the industrial revolution, a crisis of raw materials and
energy of gigantic proportions just around the corner, and a
situation where it is almost impossible today to find some clean
air to breathe or some real fresh, healthy spring water to drink.

Centripetal motion on the other hand is inward directed. It is
a contracting, a gravitative, an implosive kind of motion. It has
a tendency to align and derandomize the particles of matter and
causes a decrease in temperature. Centripetal motion is
associated with the animating force we call life, which physics
in its desire to be "objective" or "scientific" has steadfastly
refused to look at.

Here we have the key to resolving the riddle of thermodynamics.
We can see how nature, using both these types of motion in a
balanced way, can ever regenerate itself. It simply goes, over
and over again, through a whole cycle of

chaos       -> buildup      -> decay      -> chaos,

using the centripetal or vortex motion in the buildup part of the
cycle and the radiative, heat generating motion in the decay
part.

Entropy

The idea of entropy, of the constant and irreversible winding
down of the universe, was introduced with the second law of
thermodynamics. This law is based on an observation of James
Watt's steam machine, which was the only technological
utilization of thermal energy available at the time.

Entropy is associated with radiation. It signifies an ever
increasing randomity of motion, an expenditure of the "innate
energy of a system". According to the current views of
thermodynamics, there is no antidote to entropy. Once expended,
energy is said to be lost forever in that giant heat sink, which
we imagine the vast reaches of the universe to be.

One of the great minds of this century, an outsider to
established science, has recognized the folly of this view and
coined a term for the antidote. He calls it syntropy. In his book
"Cosmography", R. Buckminster Fuller writes (6): "The reader will
discover that the inexorable course of the gradual running down
of the energy of the universe  that is, entropy  is only part of
the picture. Entropy has a complementary phase, which we
designated syntropy".

We can now assert that syntropy is real, and that it is closely
associated with the second kind of motion discussed above, with
the centripetal, the vortex motion.

While radiation is an entropic phenomenon, gravitation is an
expression of syntropy.

Gravitation

We know much about radiation, but comparatively little is known
about its "negative" twin, gravitation. I am using the term
gravitation here in a much wider sense than is generally done in
physics. Gravitation in this context means an electromagnetic
phenomenon associated with a vortex in space background. It is
a twin of radiation, only with the vector inversed. Gravitation
is a pulling phenomenon, and the effect we are most familiar with
is that gravitation keeps us firmly glued to this planet. But
gravitation is more than that. It can manifest itself in just as
wide a range of wavelengths as does radiation.

Gravitation in this extended sense explains for instance the
phenomenon found in most "free energy" devices, which often show
a marked cooling effect on their immediate environment. This is
simply radiation in reverse, caused by an independent source of
gravitation, a point of attraction, which causes energy to
"inflow" towards that point, rather than expanding outwards from
it, as we usually observe.

Antigravity thereby becomes accessible to engineering. If
gravitation is nothing but an inverse radiation, a pulling
phenomenon associated with a vortex, all we need to do in order
to obtain levitation or antigravity is to establish an
independent source of gravitation and orient it in opposition to
the gravitation of this planet. Applications in space propulsion
would be comparatively easy to engineer.

How do we establish an independent source of gravitation? We
establish, by whatever means available, magnetic, mechanic or
otherwise, a strong vortex in the background field of space.
There are numerous examples of such occurrences in the tales that
surround the field of "free energy", that have not been
understood so far and therefore were incredulously dismissed as
the fantasies of a bunch of loonies.

Maybe we should look at these phenomena again and try to
understand them with the new conception we now have of gravity?

The thermodynamic cycle

The thermodynamic cycle as currently understood is a one way
street. It leads from a source of heat (fuel) via combustion to
motion, but the heat must be constantly renewed through more
fuel, as it is "lost" to the environment in the process.
In an article based on the research of Viktor Schauberger,
regarding the functions of vortex motion, Schaffer (7) writes in
1972:

"If the second law (of thermodynamics) does not hold true in the
case of vortex motion, one could postulate the following cycle:

Heat -> Vortex -> Motion -> Friction -> Heat

Vortices therefore should be able to change heat energy into
motive energy. This would necessitate an acceleration of flow and
a cooling effect. Both of these can be observed in the case of
vortices".

I will not attempt to provide a mathematical description for this
circular process, but in the terms used in this article, I want
to restate what has been proposed by Schaffer, to put forth a new
and radically different thermodynamic circular process:

Centrifugal motion
(expansive, explosive)

Radiation
->
Heat increase
->
Centripetal motion
(cont active, implosive)
->
Gravitation
->
Heat decrease

This is the natural thermodynamic cycle of this universe.
Using this cycle, that is, using both the centrifugal and the
centripetal part and thus establishing a stable pulsation, it
will be possible to engineer new clean forms of motionproducing
and energyproducing machinery, that do not depend on fuel such
as petrol, coal or gas for their motion. Does that sound like a
perpetuum mobile?

What is a perpetuum mobile?

I think we have to reconsider our strict negation of the
possibility of any perpetuum mobile, which ultimately is based
on nothing other than the ideas of the honorable members of the
French Academy of Sciences of 1775. In fact, any machine which
is constructed according to the principles of nature, using the
cycle as described here, will have the characteristics of what
used to be called a perpetuum mobile.

This does not mean, that the law of conservation of energy is
violated.

We have simply extended our conception of this law, to include,
besides the immediately visible physical universe, also the "sea
of energy" which is the higher dimensional space background.

We have found a way, in other words, to tap into the very
wheelwork of nature and utilize its energies more efficiently.

At this point, I would like to thank all those inventors who have
encountered these phenomena in their research and who, despite
a completely inadequate scientific basis, have persisted to make
their inventions reality. I would like to acknowledge that their
inventions are real. Despite any refusal of patent examiners and
despite the usual incredulity they have encountered everywhere.

It should also be said that this article would not have been
possible without the immense work Viktor Schauberger has done in
observing and describing the mechanics inherent in the vortex
motion of water, and without those that have collected and
published what was left of Schauberger's writings to keep the
flame of this knowledge alive for future generations.

One last word about thermodynamics: It seems that things went
wrong when we were trying to imagine a closed system. That is
something achievable only in theory. Because every system
existing within this universe is in constant and continuous
exchange with the rest of the universe. And how this universe is
made, what it consists of and how it functions, we have not even
remotely begun to understand.

Josef Hasslberger
Rome, 8 May 1993

References:

1. Kirchhoff, Joachim "Perpetuum Mobile und KlimaKatastrophe" in
raum&zeit No. 45 and 46

2. Herbrand, Ludwig "Erinnerungen eines Entwicklungsingenieurs",
page 10, own computer printing by Ludwig Herbrand, D5 144 Wegberg

3. Hasslberger, Josef "The inventor and society" in raum&zeit
(american) No. 4, October 1989

4. Hasslberger, Josef "Vortex, the natural movement" in EXPLORE!
No.5,Vol.3, 1992

5. Quoted from a letter of Neise, Theodor Ludwig, published
in raum&zeit No. 63, 1993, page 98

6. Fuller, R. Buckminster "Cosmography",page 51. Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1992

7. Schaffer, Bernhard "Die Wirbelfunktion als Energiequelle" in
Implosion, No. 43.