Posted by Shauberger's wife (150.101.147.208) on September 07, 2003 at 23:40:35:
In Reply to: Re: Changing the name posted by Schauberger on September 07, 2003 at 21:50:29:
Now now Wictor, iffen I tolds ya vance, I tolds ya de zowsand upteem tywmes - stoip annoyink all zeez poiple viz yer seely oiwdeas - GEEPZ WUZ MUN, YAR DEED AWLRUDY DOINT YA NEW!
Shauberger's wife
: I would be interested to know how the centrifugal force is translated to motive force irrespective of gravity in the device Georg proposes. I have only seen positive results obtained with liquid systems. The outward migration of a solvent mass in a closed system. A centrifugal mass replacement flywheel generator, if you will. My point regarding the Kunstler device being, namely, that if centrifugal/centripetal force is the sole motive force, then it should work laying on it's side without the aid/detriment of gravity.
:
: : : I take this information to mean that your understanding leads you to believe that the wheel would run laying on it's side with the axle pointing skyward? Now that would be quite a machine!
: : He has stated in the past that centrifugal force can be substituted for gravity. Thus, gravity is not needed. He has ALSO stated that the centrifugal force versions would be FAR more powerful than the gravity driven versions. This reminds me of the machines created by Felix Wurth. I believe he is another German who has created overunity devices which create energy from centrifugal force instead of gravity.
: : For that matter, I also believe that shauberger's devices used centrifugal force as their source of energy, NOT "implosion" as is commonly believed. There are several other devices that could be similerly be named in regard to centrifugal force.
: : However, I am NOT convinced that resonance is the ONLY way to extract the gravitational and centrifugal forces as sources of energy. Sorry to contradict you, George. I believe you may have a PART of the answer, but not the WHOLE answer.
: : Lurker.