Hi.

I'm not a "Scientist" and I have not dedicated my life to college
studies, the laws of physics and everything else that would qualify
me to make a response to your message. Having said that, here's what
I have to say about the conservation of energy...

Yes, you will never get more energy out of something than you put
into it. However, Gravity is constantly being exerted on everthing.
Gravity is continuously in application, thereby increasing it's
results the longer it is not opposed. The amount of force applied on
a specific item seems to be directly related to how many protons,
neutrons and electrons are packed into the item being measured. If
something affected by gravity is "motionless" it is because there are
equal forces in opposition.

In my VERY limited understanding of vortecies, it would seem the
vortex allows the force applied to the media to be redirected and
organized. It seems to me, the water is allowed to accelerate,
increasing it's inertia. Because of Cohesion, the falling water
inside the vortex drags more water with it. The water is constantly
falling and dragging more water along for the ride. Also, the very
nature of the vortex, if balance correctly actually creates a
negative resistance, pulling more water along than just the applied
gravity. (studies of water flow within a pipe show that creating a
vortex inside a pipe reduces flow resistance and can, in the correct
configuration, create a negative resistance to water flow.)

Vectors can be devided up into three components, X,Y, and Z. Any
gravity applied that is not in a downward motion will not be opposed
as long as the matter remains inside the whirlpool. Opposition only
occurs at the boundry of the containing media (in this case, a tank.)
Do you believe the only gravity in the universe affecting us is
created by the earth? I don't. I believe we are affected by
gravitational pull of all things in the universe. We already know
that gravity applied directly perpendicular to the floor of the
containing vessel is opposed. What about all the other forces being
applied?

Yes, if you look at the tank as a whole, all the water is contained
within a specific space. There are walls of the tank that prevent the
applied forces from pushing the water outside the tank. Great, Net
gain is zero.

Get in your car, drive around the block 135 times, park your car
where you started from (unless you ran out of gas) and then tell me
there is no usable force associated with the combustion engine of
your car. Because after all, you, the car or the engine did not
perform any work. Your car is still in the same spot it was to begin
with. What good is your car?

In order to understand the usable power of whirlpower, you have to
look on a bigger and smaller scale simultaniously. The gravity of the
entire universe and everthing that we know is applied to all things
at once. Just because the earth is the closest thing to us, does not
mean it is the only source of gravity. Meaning, Down is not the only
direction in which things are accellerated.

Sorry, I'm going on and on. What is my point? Foremost, it is
extremely presumptuous of science to attemp to discredit something
without actually trying it because of a law that humans made up;
especially if the observations may or may not have been completely
based on universal truth of ALL facts. The very fact that science
cannot explain everything points to the idea that there are things
out there that we humans do not yet understand. I do not feel we can
fully discuss the "conservation of energy" when we do not even have a
firm grasp of all aspects of energy.

In my limited education, the way I percieve whirlpower, it would seem
as a means to organize pseudo random forces into a harnessable power
using a fluid media. You are not getting more out than you put in,
because nature is constantly adding the force of gravity at many
different angles. You are merely compensating for the gravity that is
imparted in the downward direction. By supplying electrical current
to a pump, you are facilitating the transmutation of chaotic
universal gravatational energies into a usable force.

But like I said, I don't know anything, I'm just one guy typing up
some thoughts.

As for your comments about friction, I feel friction is a primary
component to the overall stabalization of the vortex. Friction (along
with the cohesion value of the fluid media) is what defines where the
balance point lies in the creation of said vortex.

If someone sees a gross misconception on my part, please don't
hesitate to let me know. This is something I would like to develop or
see developed and I will need all the correct tools to do so.
Furthermore, I'm always open to learning new things and I know that I
don't know anything.

James E. Welsh III
DoD Space, Quality Control
OAFS



--- In whirlpower@yahoogroups.com, "colezb" <colezb@y...> wrote:
> I haven't posted here in a long time, and even when I did, my
> questions were not answered properly (this may be due to my
> innapropriate conduct in the past, however, in which case the
> reaction is understandable and due).
>
> I have some basic fundamental issues concerning whirlpower.
>
> David Dennard likened the Whirlpower Hypothesis to a black hole in
> his introduction (as well as a neutron star). That is a bad
> comparison based on the fact that it appears that most whirlpower
> stations would occur on earth (where there's more friction than in
> the vacuum of space).
>
> The main problem I have is that of friction. In all models I've
> seen, I have never seen or read of anyone being able to account for
> friction.
>
> I also have read that according to the Conservation of Energy
> Theorem, you will never get more out of an energy source than you
put
> in. I will not debate that issue until I've read more on it.
>
> Does anyone have an answer on the accountability of friction?
>
> Thank you,
>
> ~Cole Butterfield