BULLENERGY
Scientific dilemma
Conservation of energy with dissymmetry
Why many scientists have such a hard time
Dr. Egely writes in his book “Forbidden Inventions”: “Curie was the first to use the term dissymmetry, i.e. lack of symmetry. How should we apply this idea to circumvent the conservation of energy? From what has been said so far, one can conclude that one must find at least two triggering effects where the energy is not conserved. We can expect this effect only after mutual interaction of these effects, and in the form of energy surplus or deficiency. We now clarify that we can also add or remove energy from a system in the case of an effect, so it does not remain closed.
This is only the case with non-conservative systems. There are many of these in practice, for example windmills or ship propellers. Either give energy to their environment or take energy from it.”
A gyroscope does not draw energy from its surroundings. If there were no losses due to air resistance and friction, it would run forever. In this respect, it is a symmetric system for which the present law of conservation of energy holds.
And further Dr. Egely writes: “However, this does not apply to systems which are non-conservative because of their velocity or time-dependent, for example vortex fields. They can absorb or release energy at any time. Now it is time to solve the original task quite simply with formal logic. For this, we need two systems where non-conservative force fields are present.
These requirements are met by vortex-like and velocity- or time-dependent force fields.”
Rolf Crane’s invention is a spinning top in which a whirlwind is raging. Both are not linearly related and are dissymmetrical. Therefore, the system has not one but two independent energy conservation laws, even though the systems have a connection.
Wolfgang Vogt, Dipl. Wirt-Ing
Today, we are very much guided by emotions without questioning the technical background. This hinders us from a realistic assessment of physical effects and ultimately from making progress. Not the doctrine, the existing knowledge, is the cornerstone of knowledge, but the observable measurement result. According to Dr. Egely, Rolf Kranen has entered a previously unexplored technical field with his invention. In my eyes, it is not completely out of the question that Rolf Kranen can fail in this. But it would be a great folly not to give his invention a chance. Because the chances for success are much greater than the risks. This is also the assessment of Dr. Egely – who has so many years of real research experience.
BULLENERGY
Regenerative Innovative