Talk:Viktor Schauberger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Lao Wai wilfully sabotaging the Viktor Schauberger booklist

I have now twice fixed the booklist, from which he removesevery single book, except the one that is _not even available_. Why in the world is he allowed to do this, please? Also, he is removing immense amounts of information from the wikipedia-entry. why? why in the world?

Well the reasons ought to be obvious. This is an open edited entry and I did not like those "sources". The entries were not, in my opinion, encyclopaedic. In fact given the claims of involvement in advanced German aircraft design from soem highly questionable book I do not see how anyone can defend these "sources". The websites are even worse. I have asked for advice and I will get back to you, but I reserve the right to edit as I feel like. That is not willful sabotage. Notice at the bottom there someone else has questioned the POV nature of this article. Lao Wai 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
if you had only removed the UFO related things, then fine. but. you didnt. what you removed were: ALL books written by Alick Bartholomew, Callum Coats and Olof Alexandersson, which are the core of Schauberger research. you went and removed all "in-print" books, and left in the only out-of-print book (Schauberger Companion). why do this? is it because they all mention schauberger-implosion-antigravity-devices, which, when attaining a specific RPM, had to be bolted down in order to not fly off?
also, you removed most of the schauberger-links, and the schauberger-mailinglist, claiming that they do not work, when 1) only one doesnt work (which i removed) 2) the rest work 3) the mailinglist would be a decent place to have a conversation about schauberger-related matters.
explain why you had to remove the books, that are a central way to get information on Viktor Schauberger, please. explain why you picked "the schauberger companion" as the only book to be left in, when you could just by going on amazon find out that it is rare, and out of print. i have all the books on schauberger, except "nature as teacher", which is hard to get a hold of, and i have not ever even heard of the schauberger companion. i would love to meet Callum Coats and ask him what was the content of this book, but i would more so like to meet you and ask you why you chose that book over every other book? all the books in the booklist are based on, enlarge upon, and focus on Viktor Schauberger - why remove them?
Granted, there is no singular one good "everything" book on Schauberger, although "hidden nature" and "living energies" and "living water" get very close. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" documentary on Schauberger, in english. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" webpage on Schauberger, in english, unfortunately. all these 3 things are a right shame. however, i do not quite understand why removing Frank Germano's research on Viktor Schauberger, is somehow be justified in your mind?
Well yes. I did it precisely because they take the anti-gravity devices seriously. That is pretty much what I mean by "non-encyclopedic". In fact I would like to remove them all, but I am in the process if checking to see what they are like. Actually I don't think I said it was only because they did not work. Again "non-encyclopedic". I did go to Amazon. It never occurred to me to check if it was rare. It looked like the only vaguely non-flakey book and even that one was dubious to me. If Germano publishes anything in a peer reviewed journal I will be happy to look at it. What this looks like to me is a distortion of a real man's work by including UFO theories that I suspect are not very, ummm, can't think of a polite word for it. The fact that these claims are backed up by wedsites is immaterial. I would like to see some real published academic work. Do you have any? When Mr Germano starts going off into perpetual motion machines I tend to turn off. Lao Wai 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Viktor Schauberger. It does not matter whether or not his theories are accepted by mainstream science or not, only that these were the areas he studied. I do not think there are grounds to remove sources based on what "you feel like." You don't simply remove sources because you feel like it without giving a valid reason. I fail to see how the sources are "non-encyclopedic" as they provide a great deal of incite into Schauberger and his work. Have you even read them Lao Wai? If not the only grounds by your own admission for removing those sources is "you dont like them" which is infact the only POV I see in the article. --] --Nazrac 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lao Wai you are what is wrong with wikipedia. If you really want to know what science really is nowadays you can go to Physics Communication and leave your biggot ideas behind. Yes, we can.--83.134.64.207 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ... after negotiations with an American company, =

could you please be more precise? which company? thanks a lot in advance 70.84.56.171


- Donner-Gerschheimer consortium.

[edit] ... All patents are Austrian. ...

almost correct. but at least one patent regarding vortices (Forellenturbine) ist french.

as described in "Olof Alexandersson: Lebendes Wasser (1999), 259 Seiten, ISBN 385068377X" guess it should also be available in english since Alexandersson wrote it originally in swedish. 66.98.131.224


some patents were registered in u.s., great britain, switzerland, czech republic, france, germany.. and so on. even a brazilian patent

[edit] Cleanup and NPOV

The cleanup notice refers to the fact that this article has things like "We recommend checking these patents out at RexResearch (note, not all are there) ( http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm ) There are also patents in we believe germany, austria, switzerland and the czech republic. Much hunting will have to be done to get a proper website with all the patents sorted and with further information." This is not encyclopedic writing. Additionally, I'm not sure we need a synopsis of every patent the guy made, some of which are quite banal ("Conduits, channels, and other water sluices for the transporting felled trees or logs").

the Logflume patent is in no way banal - these logflumes allegedly usurped the unviolable Law of Archimedes - and enabled heavier-than-water objects to be transported utilizing centripetal movement, and temperature gradients.

The NPOV refers to the fact that this article asserts many things as facts which it does not reference and are likely not from reputable sources, yet it does not make any overt indication of this. NPOV states that anything which may be considered a controversial point of view must be labeled as such and attributed if it is to be included. A claim like: "It is believed that his implosion technology was used in the "Foo Fighter" advanced weapons programs during WWII as documented by Nick Cook. He produced several working prototypes, but the Russian and American military confiscated his work at the end of the war," needs to be fully referenced in all parts of it. --Fastfission 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is outrages who is paying you to sneak around here and remove informations witch are correct. Are these informations to embarrassing for your employee ? Are you working for one of the agency's payed by the oil boys to spread misinformation everywhere where there is the danger of people becoming aware?

If the article asserts things that are factually innaccurate or disputed, that is not considered POV. Put the factually disputed tag on the article, not a POV tag. As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether or not Schauberger's work is accepted by mainstream science or not, only that he infact studied these areas. If there is a dispute on whether or not he actually studied certain theories such as vortex implosion engines, UFO technology ect. it should be mentioned in the article that "some sources allege..." (and cite them) rather than removing reference to that subject matter altogether. Because you don't agree with someone is no reason to remove it. Instead try discussing it on the talk page or simply revise that part of the article and give your reasons for doing so on the talk page. --Nazrac 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"If there is a dispute on whether or not he actually studied certain theories such as vortex implosion engines, UFO technology ect. it should be mentioned in the article that "some sources allege..."" Uhhhh.... no. You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for some other online encyclopedia, which doesn't require reliable sources and doesn't specifically prohibit disguising lunatic fringe POVs with weasel words like "Some sources allege". -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page is not very encyclopedic. Mailing lists?? Come on! 1812ahill 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just finished reading Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point". Cook is a respected and unbiased editor for Jane's. Many needed citations can be found in his book, which he personally researched by travelling and visiting primary sources. (It might be noted, as Cook points out, that VS was not merely a "forester" but also an engineer.) I'd suggest that Cook's book might serve as a fulcrum to help editors sort out what's "encyclopedic" -- since the subject is controversial and intellectually complex. Finally, I'll mention that his family maintains a museum in Germany, which might be a reliable source. Twang 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

the "museum" is in Bad Ischl, Austria. more info at http://www.viktor-schauberger.at/ they have open doors every once in a while - and yes, the whole Schauberger archive is in this "museum"., also, Nick Cook visited PKS and was available on the may 9th 2007. "Meet the price-winning Author Nick Cook at PKS - PKS, Bad Ischl, Wed., 9th of May 2007 - The air-craft-expert, journalist and author ("The Hunt for Zero Point"), Mr. Nick Cook from London, will be guest at the PKS-institute. He will answer your questions about his research in the field of "Free Energy" and about the influence of Viktor Schauberger on the search of Anti-Gravity-Propulsion. Mr. Cook will stay during the PKS-Open-Day on Wednesday, 9th of May, from 4 to 7 p.m.""

Hello. A couple of points. Hopefully the following definitions in itself clears this up. These may be obvious and known but seems here to be in need of reminding. In our follies sometimes we lose sight of the obvious.

Here is the dictionary definition of the word encyclopedia

–noun 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. 2. (initial capital letter) the French work edited by Diderot and D'Alembert, published in the 18th century, distinguished by its representation of the views of the Enlightenment. Also, en·cy·clo·pae·di·a.

[Origin: 1525–35; < NL encyclopaedia < Gk enkyklopaidía, a misreading of enkýklios paideía circular (i.e., well-rounded) education. See encyclical, pedi-2]

The definition of the word Neutral is...

neu·tral /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-truhl, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during World War II. 2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral. [Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L neutrālis grammatically neuter. See neuter, -al1]

Neuter is as such....

neu·ter /ˈnutər, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-ter, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. Grammar. a. noting or pertaining to a gender that refers to things classed as neither masculine nor feminine. b. (of a verb) intransitive. 2. Biology. having no organs of reproduction; without sex; asexual. 3. Zoology. having imperfectly developed sexual organs, as the worker bees and ants. 4. Botany. having neither stamens nor pistils; asexual. 5. neutral; siding with no one. [Origin: 1350–1400; < L neuter neither (of two), equiv. to ne not + uter either (of two); r. ME neutre < MF < L, as above]

Well rounded education and not of either (two)!! I love Etymology! I think this shows up a lot about the situation that has happened. Surely we should bring into question somethings objectivity before we start to edit something. For people to share their views not for their own means but to understand and give the subject fair representation even under scrutiny is surely more amicable. To give an objective telling of the life of someone's views or life's work so one may study in freedom, to perhaps explore and come to their own understandings of what that person's life presents, reveals to them surely is the basic ethos and core principle of this website which we have all as human beings been given responsibility to make sure it is accurate and sound in itself as possible, which including the sources upon which the stated facts are based is obviously part of. Surely to censor a life's work is to ignore that life. A person can never be in their whole life be completely wrong or right factually or morally nor have the right to judge for in doing so we judge ourselves. I urge people to put down their mental arms and look at things with openness and intrigue. With a kindness, a seriousness and care. It is apparent that to deny one's work may deny any truth that may lie in it. For the falseness of it is perhaps truth in itself. It would be good to see this article redone with more information on his works and his life as it seems a little thin for someone who appears to have touched on such broad, detailed and interesting subjects. I came across him through my intrigue in sacred geometry and Schauberger's life has shown me more things to look into and explore, but has also hit upon things which I have observed in my own workings which is very encouraging, but so have many other things living and dead, human and non-human. Perhaps some of us are frightened of wasting our time with things that apparently look like nonsense, but surely the point of the pointless story is its pointlessness! In all life is discovery, so why burden ourselves with fear which has lead us into so much turmoil? Why be afraid of death and ending when it only serves to take us home? Truth is never an authority. Ignorance is never freedom. We have a lot to learn from each other. It is a shame upon all of us that we are bound by dispute and behave in ever offensively condescending manners rather than working together to find out what is. May you all resolve your conflict whatever it's nature and live in peace and harmony. I bid everyone good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.205.40 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself a lot of time and energy by not writing out your long, irrelevant rant. Bottom line is that Wikipedia aims to report what reliable sources say about a subject. Not "what anyone with access to a printing press" says; what reliable sources say. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4C water anomaly point

I believe Schauberger worked out how to generate large amounts of energy from the motion of cold water, by utilising the fact that water reaches its maximum density at about 4^ Celsius, i.e. just above the melting point of ice. Does anyone know anything about this?

Meltingpot 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water is densest when cold (and at the time of the full moon) - Say what?

Er - I thought at first it was supposed to be some reference to tides, but that wouldn't affect the density of all water everywhere, and in fact the full moon doesn't mean tides are any higher or lower or anything else. It's just fully lit because of relative geometry between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, not because it's at perigee. Is it instead supposed to be some sort of mythological reference? If so, it should be noted in the article that it was something *Schauberger* believed and not something that's factually true.--Dbutler1986 (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As the user who originally typed that paragraph exists no longer and I can't ask him for clarification, I've assumed he was describing something Shauberger believed and have edited the article to reflect that assumption. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)