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 J¸lich Atomic Research Institute in Germany, who is an "expert" pre-examiner 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 ëforceí (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:

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 de-randomize 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 ---> build-up ---> decay ---> chaos,

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


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 Wattís 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.


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.

Anti-gravity 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 anti-gravity 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, Schäffer (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 Schäffer, to put forth a new and radically different thermodynamic circular process:


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 motion-producing and energy-producing machinery, that do not depend on fuel such as petrol, coal or gas for their motion. Does that sound like a perpetual motion?

What is a perpetual motion?

I think we have to reconsider our strict negation of the possibility of any perpetual motion, 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 perpetual motion.

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 Schaubergerís 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
8 May 1993


  1. Kirchhoff, Joachim "Perpetuum Mobile und Klima-Katastrophe" in raum&zeit No. 45 and 46
  2. Herbrand, Ludwig "Erinnerungen eines Entwicklungsingenieurs", page 10, own computer printing by Ludwig Herbrand, D-5144 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. Schäffer, Bernhard "Die Wirbelfunktion als Energiequelle" in Implosion, No. 43.