______________________________________________________________________________
| File Name : H2OVORTX.ASC | Online Date : 05/18/95 |
| Contributed by : Josef Hasslberger| Dir Category : ENERGY |
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
| Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - keelynet@ix.netcom.com |
| WWW sites - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb & http://www.protree.com |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Due to the nature of the two papers entitled WATER1 and WATER2, I have taken
the liberty of combining them into a single EXCELLENT FILE, both files were
sent directly to KeelyNet courtesy of Mr. Josef Hasslberger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNDERSTANDING WATER POWER - (WATER1)
by Josef Hasslberger, Rome, Italy
In 1989 (Vol. 2, No. 1) raum&zeit published an article by Ludwig Herbrand,
dealing with a development in Water Power, termed in that article the
"Herbrand Turbine". While it seems that Herbrand is not the inventor of this
technology, the present author nevertheless believes that there is something
about water power that present scientific thinking and engineering are not
aware of. He believes that the work of the austrian genius Viktor Schauberger
holds the key to understanding Herbrand's story.
Historical
The sequence of "historical" events that led to Herbrand's discovery is as
follows: Herbrand, in the early thirties, was a student of electrical
engineering at the Aachen Technical College. The theme that was given him for
his graduation thesis was the "Recalculation of the generators in the
Rheinfelden power plant." Part of the thesis was also to make a comparison
with an article that had appeared in the ETZ technical magazine of 1932, page
233.
The power plant of Rheinfelden is a plant that directly utilizes the flow of
the Rhein river's water, feeding it through turbines without the use of a dam.
The power plant described in the ETZ magazine's article instead was a plant
constructed in 1926 at Ryburg-Schwoerstadt, about 12 miles up river from
Rheinfelden. The description was as follows:
"The dam and the power plant's generator building span the width of the river
and dam up the water to about 12 meters above the low water side. The driving
power is provided by four turbines with an exceptional (for that time)
capacity of 250 m3/sec. The power of each generator is 35.000 KVA."
The Rheinfelden power plant was an older construction, built in the last
decade of the nineteenth century. It had twenty turbines. As the total water
flow of the Rhein river at that point is about 1000 m3/sec, each turbine
received approximately 50 m3/sec of water. The power of each one of the
generators, calculated according to established principles, was 500 to 600 KW,
the plant reaching a total power of 10 to 12 MW.
However in this same power plant, some generators had recently been installed
that were designed for a much higher power output than the older turbines.
They were designed by Prof. Finzi of the Aachen Technical College and
constructed by J.M. Voith of Heidenheim/Brenz. A description of these
generators was as follows:
"They are built to yield 32,500 KVA and can be run with a 10 % overload
indefinitely, thus actually producing 35,000 KVA. The tension is 10,000 Volts
at 50 Hertz and 75 rpm, with a factor of cos phi of 0.7. Because of the
continuous overload factor, all stresses are kept to a minimum."
Herbrand recalculated the wiring of one of these generators and was much
astonished when making his comparison to find that these new Rheinfelden
generators without a dam and with only one fifth of the capacity (50 m3/sec)
produced as much electric power as the huge generators at Ryburg with their
capacity of 250 m3/sec and a head water dammed up 12 meters high.
He turned to his professor in dismay and Finzi's answer, as related to us by
Herbrand, was:
"Do not worry. It is correct. The generator has been working without problems
for some time now. Make the calculations backwards and you will see for
yourself. We are electrical engineers. Why, those other problems are not ours
to solve, we leave them to the water boys. We have repeated our measurements
and the generator's yield of power is exactly as specified. The only thing is
- no one knows about this."
Soon came the war and circumstances did not permit Herbrand to obtain an
electrical engineering job. Only many years later did he remember his
graduation thesis and he has tried since then to offer his calculations to
government and industry - without success. He also tried to obtain a patent
but was refused as his proposal violated the law of conservation of energy, so
he was told.
These are the "historical" facts of the matter. Without wanting to take away
from Herbrand's achievement, it would seem more correct to name the turbine a
"Finzi-Herbrand-Turbine", because the actual designer was Professor Finzi, not
Herbrand.
In any case, Herbrand's great merit is to have come out publicly trying to get
the idea used more broadly.
Calculations of yield
The kinetic energy of a water turbine is calculated with the following
formula:
E kin = m/2 . v2 (KW).
m is the usable amount of water measured in m3/sec and v is the velocity of
the water, expressed in m/sec.
Generally, v is calculated by the use of the following formula:
v = ! 2 . g . h
whereby g is gravity with 9.81 m/sec2 and h is the difference in level between
the head water and the water on the lower side expressed in meters.
But here the matter becomes critical and we should clearly understand that the
latter formula is only a secondary formula to find a v-equivalent in the
special case of gravitational water pressure resulting from a difference in
water levels. For the calculation of v in flowing water this formula is
neither usable nor necessary. The velocity of flowing water can be quantified
by direct measurement.
The important concept here is that water can gain its velocity in two
distinctly different ways.
Water can be held up by a dam and at the point where we release it through a
nozzle or say through a turbine, it will experience a strong acceleration. The
resulting velocity can be calculated by use of the above formula.
If we take for instance a difference in water levels of 12 meters, we get a
velocity of the water of
! 2 x 9.81 x 12 = 15.34 m/sec.
Should the capacity of flow be 250 m3/sec then we get a kinetic energy of
250/2 x 15.34 x 15.34 = 29,414 KW,
approximating the above description of the generators of the Ryburg-
Schwoerstadt power plant.
The second way in which water may reach a certain velocity is the normal
flowing of a river and in particular the natural vortex movement of water.
In our example of the Rheinfelden power plant, the velocity of water flow
through the turbine was 35 m/sec, much higher than in Ryburg-Schwoerstadt.
This higher velocity of flow was reached in two stages.
A small island located in midstream provided the means for the first increase
in velocity, as the water was forced to flow on one side only of the island.
The water, finding itself in a much more narrow bed, increased its velocity of
flow.
A further increase was achieved by a funnel-like construction of the inlet
towards the turbine, restricting the diameter of the water's flow even further
and increasing the velocity so as to pass the turbine at a considerable 35
m/sec (approximately 80 mph).
So the kinetic energy, in accordance with our first formula as given above,
was
50/2 x 35 x 35 = 30,625 KW.
We see that with a fifth of the amount of water per second, but with a
considerably increased velocity of flow, the same kinetic energy can be
obtained as with 250 m3/sec and a water level difference of 12 meters.
If we wished to obtain an equivalent of v = 35 m/sec through GRAVITATIONALLY
INDUCED WATER PRESSURE, we would need a dam 62.4 meters (nearly 200 ft!) high.
How is it possible that by simply restricting the space in which water may
flow, we can free such tremendous energies?
Herbrand has calculated the effect of contraction by introducing a factor n.
He found that an increase of the factor n, that is, a greater contraction,
will increase the energy of the water but he has come to recognize that this
concept is impossible to grasp for our scientific "experts".
Viktor Schauberger: "We are using the wrong kind of motion!"
The Austrian forest warden and inventor Viktor Schauberger has researched and
successfully applied the laws of motion of water. He said that we are using
the wrong kind of motion, referring to all of our technological
"achievements", from the internal combustion engine to our way of putting
streams of water into an unnatural straitjacket.
In order to understand the discovery of Herbrand it is important to know that
the NATURAL MOTION of water is a CENTRIPETAL VORTICAL movement, turning or
"rolling" inward around the axis of motion of the water's flow. This kind of
motion tends to accelerate and contract the stream of water, accumulating
kinetic energy in the form of an increased velocity.
A simple example for this is the vortex that forms when a bathtub is emptied
of water. We can also observe the same kind of motion on a simple tap of
water. In fact, if the water leaves the tap without disturbances such as
bubbles of air or other disturbing flows, we see that the water takes a SPIRAL
course, accelerating and CONTRACTING on its way.
Anyone who has doubts as to the fact that the natural spiral movement can
increase the kinetic energy of water, need only remember the extraordinary
energies contained in tornadoes and hurricane winds. These energies are
ACCUMULATED by just the same spiral movement.
In the early years of his carreer as a forest warden, Schauberger has utilized
this effect to allow the transport of heavy beechwood logs in wooden water
sluices, very much to the amazement of his seniors and visiting scientists.
Science at that time, just as today, could not explain how it was possible to
transport beech logs in a flow of water, as the wood of the beech tree has a
specific weight higher than that of water.
Considering this, it is no wonder that also Herbrand's observations were to
meet disbelief and even outright hostility from our scientifically educated
"experts".
Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy
This discussion about Rheinfelden and Herbrand's turbine lets us fly square
into the teeth of recognized authority. We are seemingly violating the
hallowed principle of the conservation of energy. I say seemingly, because all
things considered, conservation of energy is assured. Just that a stream of
water is not a "closed system" as our scientists would like to believe.
In fact, there are no real closed systems in this world and thus
thermodynamics, at least its second law, as well as the law of conservation of
energy, are not correct as currently stated.
The author has dealt with the basic assumptions of physics and the law of
conservation of energy in a previous article.
Gravity and Inertia
In closing I would like to point out that gravity and inertia, although they
do show analogous effects, are not identical.
Even though we cannot subjectively distinguish the earth's gravity from an
acceleration of 1 g (9.81 m/sec2), say in a spacecraft, when we talk about
water we must distinguish well between gravitation and inertia.
A mass of water held up by a dam is a mass which under the influence of
gravity exerts a certain pressure and thus is able to drive a turbine. The
energy utilized in this case is primarily the gravitationally induced
pressure, not the inertial force that comes from motion.
A moving mass of water has an inertial mass which by force of inertia is able
to drive a turbine. In this case, the force we are primarily using is a direct
result of the velocity of motion.
The difference here lies in the natural or unnatural motion of the water.
According to current scientific knowledge we hold up the water by a dam, thus
stopping its natural flow and losing the inherent inertial forces, in order to
use the gravitational pressure of this now motionless mass of water to drive
turbines.
It would be much more effective to use the natural motion of water and, if
possible, to accelerate that motion, in order to gain more energy out of a
fast flowing mass of water than we could ever get out of a dammed-up
motionless mass, because
E kin = m/2 . v2.
In other words, the kinetic energy INCREASES with the square of the velocity!
Schauberger has explained the principles of motion to us, Prof. Finzi has
built the turbine and Herbrand has recognized the paradox and has tried to
bring it into the public domain.
How long will it take us to finally understand that in our technological
solutions we must work with nature and not against it?
Schauberger had a word for this (freely translated):
Observe, understand and THEN COPY nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic Hydropower - (WATER2)
The "suction turbine" or "jet turbine" of Viktor Schauberger
Hydropower engineering, up to this day, is almost esclusively concerned with
two variables, one being the altitude differential between head water and
turbine and the other the quantity of water that can be brought to flow
through the turbines.
A third important variable, the velocity of flow of water, is generally not
thought to be important. It is taken into consideration only as the velocity
resulting from the release of water pressure connected to and dependent on
altitude differential but not as an important factor in its own right. In
fact, current design of hydropower facilities normally excludes utilization of
the dynamic energy potential inherent in the free flow of water. In fact a dam
destroys this natural energy potential by bringing the water from its dynamic
state of flow to a static state, a complete absence of motion.
If we study the writings of Viktor Schauberger and Ludwig Herbrand, we find
that the energy inherent in the free and unhindered flow of water may be
potentially much greater than that obtainable from the exclusive use of
pressure resulting from altitude differential.
A normal flow of water rather than an altitude-induced pressure, has been used
in mills and old blacksmith hammerworks of the pre-industrial era.
Schauberger
In recent times, it was Viktor Schauberger, the Austrian inventor and genial
observer of nature's ways who first advocated the use of increased water
velocity rather than water pressure for the production of hydroelectric power.
He obtained a patent for what he termed a jet turbine (Strahlturbine) as early
as the year 1930. (1)
The principles used by Schauberger in order to increase water velocity were
the jet configuration of the water inlet pipe and the promotion, by spiral
ribbings on the inside of the jet, of a vortex motion of the water.
Schauberger's patent actually gives us two very important clues to innovative
changes in hydropower technology.
The first one is, that a pipe configured as a funnel or jet will increase the
velocity of the water's flow by restricting the space available in which the
water may flow. This increase in velocity is especially great if the funnel or
jet allows the water to form a characteristic flow pattern known as a vortex.
This vortex pattern itself has a tendency, quite separate from the jet-effect,
to increase the velocity of the water, to decrease its temperature and to
augment the water's density.
The second innovation proposed by Schauberger is a revolutionary design of the
turbine, obtaining rotation at very high speeds and at the same time avoiding
the usual difficulties of cavitation found in normal high speed turbine
designs.
In fact Schauberger's turbine wheel is of conical shape, with blades
spiralling down the surface of the cone in a corkscrew pattern, and it is
located in the center of the jet of water. The corkscrew turbine wheel parts
the flow of water, takes up the water's dynamic energy and lets the flow
continue without major disruption.
Turbines of current design "hack" the water into thousands of destructive
counter flows and cross vortices, thus wasting much of the available energy
and causing the common problem of cavitation, a super fast corrosion and
destruction of the turbine blade material.
Here is the description of this new type of turbine as given in Schauberger's
patent number 117 749:
"The subject of the invention is a hydropower machine, which utilizes the
living energy of a jet of water for the purpose of power generation.
According to the invention, the turbine wheel is a cone with corkscrew-like
blades. The cone is aligned with its axis in the direction of the axis of the
jet. In this way the jet of water is split and diverted out of its course and
thus gives its whole living energy to the spinning cone in a way that,
providing the lenght of the cone and the width of its base are in a correct
relation to each other and provided the blades are set at the correct angle,
these parameters depending on the speed of the water jet, the water will flow
out of the machine without agitation.
The illustration is an approximate schematic representation of the invention.
The spinning cone, which is aligned with its axis (1) in the direction of the
water jet leaving the jet pipe (2), is made up of blades (3) in the form of a
corkscrew.
The ends (4) of these blades (3) are bent somewhat upwards against the
direction of the arriving water jet in order to cause a diversion of the jet
and to transfer as much as possible of the living energy of the jet to the
spinning cone.
On the inside of the jet pipe (2) there are screw-like ribs (5) promoting a
spin, which according to actual observations increase the speed of the water
jet and the efficiency of the machine.
PATENT CLAIMS:
1. A jet turbine, distinguished by the fact that in the path of the water jet
and aligned with its axis so as to split the jet, there is a turbine wheel
in the form of a cone, the surface of which is formed of corkscrew-like
blades.
2. A jet turbine according to claim 1, distinguished by a jet pipe (2) with
ribs (5) slanted in the direction of spin of the turbine wheel."
This patent was applied for in 1926 and granted in 1930. It seems that
Schauberger actually used a small turbine of this design in a stream of water
near the forest wardens' building during those years, but no reliable records
are available. (2)
Herbrand
Another instance of the use of the dynamic powers of flowing water has been
documented by Ludwig Herbrand, a german engineer who as a student in the mid
1930's was called to evaluate and calculate the parameters of some generators
and exciter units that had recently been installed in the Rheinfelden power
station, as well as to design electrical overload protection and relevant
switching mechanisms for these generators. He was also required to compare the
generators with those of another power station that had been described in an
article of a specialized magazine.
Much to the dismay of the then young and inquisitive engineering student, it
seemed that the generators under examination were supplying more electrical
energy than they should have, according to accepted theory. One of the
generators of the Rheinfel den power plant, with 50 cubic meters of water per
second and an altitude differential of only one meter supplied just as much
power as a generator in near Ryburg-Schw”rstadt, which had a capacity of 250
cubic meters of water per second and an altitude differential from head waters
to turbine of 12 meters! (3)
That fact was confirmed by prof. Finzi, the designer of the turbines and
generators, saying to young Herbrand:
"Do not worry about this. It is correct. The generator has been working
without problems for some time now. Make the calculations backwards and you
will see for yourself. We are electrical engineers. Why, those other problems
are not ours to solve, we leave them to the water people. We have repeated our
measurements and the generator's yield of power is exactly as specified. The
only thing is - no one knows about this." (4)
Herbrand was soon drafted into the army and World War II did not allow him to
pursue the matter further. Only much later, in the 1970s and 1980s, Herbrand
came back to the calculations made for his engineering exams and tried - so
far without success - to interest industry and government in this different
and more efficient use of hydropower.
Technical facts
I shall attempt to delineate here the technical facts, using calculations that
are based on accepted formulas and physical considerations confirmed by actual
experiment, to show that with a different approach to hydropower engineering,
we could obtain significantly more electrical power than is being extracted
from hydro resources today, with simpler machinery and less expenditure, as
well as less disturbance to the environment.
As mentioned above, current hydropower engineering works with water pressure,
obtained as a result of the altitude differential between head waters and
location of the turbine. This pressure, when released through the turbine,
results in a momentary acceleration of the water and thus in a certain
velocity of the water jet. This velocity is calculated with the formula
v = û 2 g h
v being the velocity, g the gravitational acceleration of the earth (9.81
m/sec2) and h the altitude differential measured in meters.
Example:
An altitude of 12 m results in a velocity of û 2 . 9.81 . 12 = 15.3 m/sec.
The progression of velocity in relation to altitude differential is shown in
the following table.
altitude diff. 12 m 24 m 36 m 48 m 60 m
velocity 15.3 m/sec 21.7 m/sec 26.6 m/sec 30.7 m/sec 34.3 m/sec
altitude diff. 72 m 84 m 96 m 108 m 120 m
velocity 37.6 m/sec 40.6 m/sec 43.4 m/sec 46 m/sec 48.5 m/sec
altitude diff. 132 m 144 m 156 m 168 m 180 m
velocity 50.9 m/sec 53.15 m/sec 55.3 m/sec 57.4 m/sec 59.4 m/sec
altitude diff. 192 m 204 m 216 m 228 m 240 m
velocity 61.4 m/sec 63.3 m/sec 65.1 m/sec 66.9 m/sec 68.6 m/sec
These values are rendered graphically below. (Mr. Hasslberger says these were
originally in WordPerfect and this is an ASCII document making their import
impossible.)
We see that the curve of velocity at first increases more steeply and then
tends to flatten with higher altitude differentials.
Let us now examine the energy output in kilowatt with increasing altitude
differential.
The increase of energy output is linear, as shown in the graphic above.
The electric energy that can be obtained from water is calculated on the basis
of the velocity of flow and the mass of the water, i.e. magnitude of flow
measured in cubic meters per second, according to the formula
E kin = m/2 . v 2 (kw)
An example, assuming a velocity of 25 m/sec and a mass of 5 cubic meters per
second:
5 : 2 = 2.5 . 25 . 25 = 1562.5 kw
For the purpose of comparison, here are some further examples (assuming a
small constant flow of water, only 2 cubic meters per second):
velocity 15 m/sec 20 m/sec 25 m/sec 30 m/sec 35 m/sec
energy 225 kw 400 kw 625 kw 900 kw 1225 kw
velocity 40 m/sec 45 m/sec 50 m/sec 55 m/sec 60 m/sec
energy 1600 kw 2025 kw 2500 kw 3025 kw 3600 kw
velocity 65 m/sec 70 m/sec 75 m/sec 80 m/sec 85 m/sec
energy 4225 kw 4900 kw 5625 kw 6400 kw 7225 kw
velociyt 90 m/sec 95 m/sec 100 m/sec 105 m/sec 110 m/sec
energy 8100 kw 9025 kw 10000 kw 11025 kw 12100 kw
A threefold increase of velocity leads to a ninefold increase of power output.
The curve of energy increase plotted against water velocity is shown in this
third graphic.
We see from this, that a velocity increase brings progressively larger
increases of energy. Therefore, the higher the velocity of the water, the
greater the overall efficiency of the power plant!
For the purpose of utilizing hydropower for generating electrical energy, it
is quite irrelevant whether the velocity of the water is the result of
pressure obtained through an altitude differential or whether it is obtained
in some other way, such as encouraging the natural tendency of water to flow.
And it seems that we can increase the velocity of flow of water almost at
will.
How to increase electrical output
There are two basic variables in hydropower engineering that determine
electrical output. They are the amount of water available and the velocity of
flow. The first variable, the amount of water available, depends very much on
location and is generally not subject to increase by human intervention.
It is the second variable, the velocity of the water's flow, which can be
manipulated in many ways. Apart from increasing water pressure, which is a
comparatively inefficient way to increase flow velocity, this parameter can be
influenced by other, more simple and more cost effective engineering
solutions.
It is a common principle in rocketry to increase the velocity of flow of the
hot exhaust gases by a restriction of the path of flow of these gases. This is
called the jet principle and has been used successfully for decades.
The same principle can be used to increase the velocity of a flow of water,
such as a river. In fact, where a river is forced, by the natural
configuration of terrain, to flow through a narrow gorge, the velocity at the
narrowest point is much higher than it is before and after the river's passage
through the gorge. This effect can be utilized by finding a natural gorge or
by artificially narrowing a river's bed so as to bring about an increase in
water velocity.
Another way to increase velocity of flow in water is to promote the formation
of a longitudinal vortex. This is a rolling or spinning motion, the axis of
which coincides with the direction of flow of the water. Such vortices have
the property of causing an increase of the velocity of flow, and a contraction
of the diameter of the space needed by the body of water. They also cause a
lowering of the water's temperature and thus an increase in its density. (The
highest specific density of water is reached at a temperature of + 4ø C.)
Water has a natural tendency to form vortices, especially if its flow is
accelerated by some external influence such as gravity. We can observe this by
noting the swirl with which a full bathtub or sink or any other container full
of water empties, if the water is forced to flow through a pipe connected to a
hole in the bottom of the container. But even a simple water faucet, releasing
a flow of water, will show this same phenomenon if the water flows relatively
undisturbed, without bubbles or agitation. As the water picks up speed, it
forms a distinctly funnel-shaped vortex right before our eyes.
A confirmation of this tendency of vortices to increase water velocity (or in
other words to decrease resistance to the water's flow) comes from experiments
performed in 1952 at the Technical College in Stuttgart by Prof. Franz P”pel
and Viktor Schauberger.
The experiments were performed with pipes of different materials and different
shapes, to determine if either materials or shapes had an influence on the
resistance of the flow of water in pipes.
It seems that best results were achieved with copper pipes, and that this
material caused less resistance to the water's flow than even the smooth glass
pipes used as comparison. But the most important datum emerging from these
experiments is, that by using a certain spiral configured pipe, based on the
form of the kudu antelope's horn, the friction in this pipe decreased with an
increase in velocity and at a certain point, the water flowed with a negative
resistance. (5)
Theory and practice
The best theory is not worth the paper it is written on, if it cannot be put
into practice. We shall therefore examine the practical utilization of these
principles in hydropower engineering.
The object is to increase the velocity of the flow of water to such a degree
that the resulting jet will release more kinetic energy than conventional
utilization of water pressure achieved with comparable means.
Step 1: As a first step, a river's normal flow is brought to higher velocity
by the expedient of a wall that gradually restricts the river's bed.
This will increase the normal velocity of flow of 2 - 5 m/sec to a
sizeable 10 - 15 m/sec.
Step 2: At this point, in order to further increase velocity, we must provide
a channel of flow that more closely resembles the shape of a natural
vortex. We do this by channelling the already swiftly flowing water
at the narrowest point of the river bed into an approximately round
"funnel" or "jet-pipe" which gradually further restricts the diameter
of the water's channel of flow and thereby causes a further increase
in velocity.
In order to aid this process, we can promote the formation of a vortex in the
funnel or jet-pipe which will ensure that the water exits the jet at a
considerable velocity. This is done either by spiral ribs on the inside of the
jet-pipe as proposed by Schauberger, or by forming the whole pipe in a
slightly "corkscrew" configuration.
Installing a turbine and generator at the release point of the water jet,
preferably of the design proposed by Schauberger, will now provide an output
of electrical power much higher than that achieved by comparable means in the
conventional way.
Where step 1 is not practicable because of the river being too small, step 2
can still be profitably combined with current small hydropower plant design,
by altering the shape of the penstock to a funnel or jet-pipe configuration,
thus obtaining part of the velocity increase from normal use of gravity and
part by the specific action of the jet effect and the vortex flow.
No theoretical limitation
Are there limits to how fast a water-jet can be made to flow? This is a
question we should obviously ask ourselves before embarking on this kind of
project.
It seems that theoretically there are no limitations, as long as the vortex
mode of flow is used. If water is forced to flow in straight pipes, resistance
increases with the increase of velocity. Not so when we allow the water to
flow at its natural mode, accomodating the resulting vortex in our pipe
design. In this case, resistance can be very low and even negative, as shown
by the experiments performed in Stuttgart.
For purposes of estimating the potential benefits of using the dynamic powers
inherent in the flow of water, we can conservatively assume that we should be
able to obtain, without particular difficulties, velocities between 40 and 50
m/sec. This is an estimation based on the observation of Herbrand that at the
Rheinfelden power plant a velocity of 35 m/sec was achieved.
We can see from the above statistical tables that 45 m/sec of velocity are
equivalent to an altitude differential of more than 100 meters. And assuming
that we have a flow of water of 10 cbm/sec, we can predict (at v = 45 m/sec)
an energy output of 10 megawatt. This is a considerable amount of power and it
can be obtained almost anywhere along the normal course of a river, without
the costly and environmentally questionable practice of constructing a man
made lake to obtain 100 meters of altitude differnetial.
If it is true that the water's velocity of flow can be increased almost at
will and with comparatively simple means at a fraction of the cost of current
hydropower designs, someone might ask: Why are we not using this obviously
superior method?
Fixed ideas and the "law of conservation of energy"
It is very hard to un-learn something one studied and especially if what was
learned was then needed to pass an examination. The weight of socalled
"natural laws" brought to bear to support these doctrines makes it even more
difficult for any one person to stand up and say "hey, we have overlooked
something here!"
Of course "everybody knows" that water has to be pressurized if we are to use
it for hydroelectric power generation. And everybody knows as well, that the
technology of hydropower engineering has been well in hand since the turn of
the century. So why bother to look any further?
Not so Ludwig Herbrand. He has fought an unceasing battle for more than 20
years now, to obtain recognition for this new technology. Literally hundreds
of letters to government and industry, as well as international institutions
with just so many negative replies, more or less politely telling him that his
proposals are not welcome.
It is difficult to break through this barrier of "knowledge", especially when
the experts think they see a violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Conservation of energy is invoked when calculations do not seem to permit a
higher energy output. But in this case we have a factor that has been
neglected in our calculations, not a violation of conservation laws.
Water is an accumulator of energy
There is some evidence that the decrease of water temperature that is a
consequence of vortex motion provides the energy to the water that we then see
as kinetic energy in the form of increased water velocity. In this way a
vortex would transform heat (which is random molecular motion) into dynamic
energy (which is motion in a certain direction). Schauberger stressed the fact
that water could store enormous amounts of energy by being heated up. He
states in an article about the Danube river that in order to warm up 1 cubic
meter of water by only 0.1 degree C, one needs about 42,700 kgm of energy,
saying that this goes to show the enormous energies that are bound when water
is heated up and are released when water cools down. (6)
Thermodynamics, as taught in our schools and universities does not allow for
such a two-way transformation of heat at low temperature differentials.
Thermodynamics is based on observation of steam machines and has little to do
with nature, although some insist that the socalled laws of thermodynamics are
"natural laws". Nevertheless, thermodynamics is not able to explain certain
natural phenomena. (7)
In calculations of electrical power yield, velocity is not considered
separately but as a result only and exclusively of altitude differential. That
is like saying, there is no other way of achieving water velocity than
pressure. It may be the way the experts calculate, but physical reality is
different. Water velocity, as we have seen, is not exclusively linked to
pressure but may be achieved with different means.
Thus the correct way to calculate is to start from velocity and arrive at the
power output. Altitude differential and the velocity equivalent as calculated
in the formula given above are a special case, not the general rule.
We must distinguish between the pressure-induced velocity equivalent and the
natural velocity of flowing water. That is to say we must distinguish between
gravity and inertia. These two forces are similar in their effects but they
are nevertheless two distinctly different forces. This article does not allow
a detailed examination of the physical forces involved. For those who are
interested in this subject, I would like to refer to an article I have written
on the basics of physics in EXPLORE! in 1992. (8)
It is hoped that this article may contribute to overcoming the knowledge
barrier, the various "everybody knows" in this particular field. To anyone
wishing to utilize the dynamic powers of water I recommend a study of the
writings of Viktor Schauberg er, the great master of hydro engineering who
remained an outsider to official science all of his life, because his views
were so radically different from those of the professors of his time.
Josef Hasslberger
Rome, December 1993
References:
1) Patent granted to Viktor Schauberger by Austrian Patent Office,
number 117 749 of 10 May 1930
2) Implosion nr. 58, pg 31 article (unsigned) "Kann Energie wachsen?"
3) Hasslberger, Josef "Understanding Water Power"
EXPLORE! Vol. 4 number 1, 1993
4) Herbrand, Ludwig "Das Geheimnis der Wasserkraft", 1. Nov. 1990, S. 9
5) Alexandersson, Olof "Living Water" Gateway Books, Bath, UK
6) Schauberger, Viktor "Das Problem der Donauregulierung" in Implosion nr. 23
7) Hasslberger, Josef "A new Beginning for Thermodynamics"
EXPLORE! Vol. 4 number 5, 1993
8) Hasslberger, Josef "Physics - At the End of a Blind Alley?"
EXPLORE! Vol. 3 number 5, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------------