Viktor Schauberger’s life’s work was not buried with him. The thoughts he threw out to the world continue after his death, and inspire other scientists to condnue his works.

Soon after Viktor Schauberger’s death a working co­operation was established between those who were closest to him. The Biotechnical Academy was formed in Austria under the leadership of Walter Schauberger. In West Germany an association for the advancement of biotechnology (Verein Zur Forderung Der Biotechnik) was started, to be followed by similar associations in Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. Since the beginning of the 1960s many academic courses have been running with a bias towards biotechnological studies. The periodical, Implosion, started by Kokaly in 1961, has published four issues a year since then.

At the end of the 1960s Walter Schauberger founded the Pythagoras-Kepler-School (P. K.S.) which is now the centre of research into technological ways of copying Nature.

A group of young academics from this school set up the Gruppe Der Neuen under the leadership of Dr Norbert Harthun, in West Germany in 1969. In association with P. K. S. they produce a periodical Komische Evolution, which deals with alternatives and relationships within society and technology.

At the end of the 1950s in Sweden an unofficial science group was formed, that in 1963 became constituted the Swedish Science group for Biological Technology. The group was reformed in 1968 as Biotec, the Scandinavian Institute for Biological Technology, which ceased in 1978. Since 1979 work has continued at the Institute for Ecological Technology.

For nearly two decades of intensive research, Walter Schau­berger has followed a path, in part different from that of his


Walter Schauberger.

father. He has attempted within classical physics to try to find confirmation of what his father and himself had discovered. He has often found that Viktor Schauberger’s theories are strengthened by the discoveries of famous physicists through­out history, though these discoveries have so far been inter­preted in different ways.

Walter Schauberger and a team of scientists are now working through classical scientific models of reality and comparing them with Nature. If they deviate from Nature’s reality, then attempts are made to correlate the existing models, and to create new ones that can better exist with Nature. These scientists hope to prove what Viktor Schau­berger understood intuitively, namely, that our existing scientific world is false. While Nature is shown to be following a ‘centripetal dynamic’ direction in an expanding motion towards the beyond, – a transcendental goal-, science has set itself dramatically opposed to this, epitomised by its mechan­istic technology, its models, and its theories.

This new research wants now to present a number of facts which have not been seriously studied. These demand a total change of our conventional world understanding, the physical and technological understanding about reality by Newtonian physical mathematics, Euclidean Geometry, and materialistic ideology. These scientists, however, maintain that a revision of this understanding of reality is long overdue, considering discoveries made by such great physicists as Gauss, Lobat – chefski, Rienann, Einstein, Planck and others, who unmasked the current static world picture for what it is.

Professor G. Pleskot of Vienna University says this about the work of Walter Schauberger and his team:

Resulting from this research project, a completely uncon­ventional concept is introduced by reconsidering the theo­retical basis for all forms of technical development using ‘humanizing techniques’, which can be defined as being in harmony with, rather than, as occurs at present, in oppo­sition to, the continuous development of mankind.

While present techniques have developed basically from Euclid’s geometry and the philosophical concepts of Aristotle-Newton, the ideas of Ing. Schauberger’s Pytha – goras-Kepler-School have so advanced that the Euclidian principle now represents the transcendental field to which in reality the non-Euclidian principle adhered.

In considering further the intellectual concept of Pythagoras- Kepler – Gauss – Planck – Hasenohrl – Einstein, Schau­berger recognized in the law of sound the synthesis of both principles as a basic law of the universe. Through this basic law, the natural combination of the pair of dialectic principles, such as continuity-discontinuity or time-energy is demonstrated.

Schauberger’s desire is now to harness the principles of Aristode- Euclid – Newton, now so greatly revised, to those of Pythagoras, developed over four hundred years since

Kepler. This development can also be seen in the fields of technology, economics and politics. In this way, there would be the opportunity to create new schemes, which were both natural in concept and worthwhile for mankind. Thus it is clear that Schauberger’s concept is on a grand scale and modern in principle. In my view, it deserves generous support now.


Pythagoras-Kepler School. Biotechnical Academy, Bad Ischl.

Here it is also of interest to note that if we accept the law of the formation and development of sound as a general law of the universe, it follows mathematically that the universe has a spiral structure. If the theory of the law of sound is correct then Viktor Schauberger’s understanding of the ‘cycloid spiral motion’ as being life’s own developing motion, is confirmed.3

The discoveries of two well-known physicists seem to support Viktor Schauberger’s theories. The first is Ludwig Bolzmann (1804-1906) whose special field of research was steam technology, the efficiency of which he wanted to improve. To reach the pressures and the high temperatures that this technology demanded, Bolzmann found that the steam’s or gas’s molecules must be made to move in a straight line for high efficiency. At the same time he made the disappointing discovery that it was virtually impossible to create this straight-line movement, even with two-atom gases, such as hydrogen. When the two-atom gas was exposed to a moving impulse, it wanted to begin to spin, whereby its own rotation ‘ate up’ a large part of the energy created, leaving only a small amount to remain. It was even worse with multiple – atom gases, such as water steam, where a ‘straight motion’ was even more difficult to achieve. Bolzmann was very disap­pointed by these findings, for he thought the study of heat and heat technology were the most important base for the existing technology, and if high efficiency could not be obtained, then it must mean that Nature is mistaken. Low efficiency will cause such extensive fuel depletion, that soon we will exhaust the world’s energy supplies, he thought The situation today shows that Bolzmann’s fears were justified. At the same time, however, his discoveries confirm Viktor Schauberger’s argu­ment that Nature tries to prevent straight line motion. Small particles wish rather to move in a ‘planetary’ orbit, rather than to be forced into the straight-line motion which suits our technology. When technologists now continue to use this incorrect model of motion, they are also responsible for the plundering of earth’s oil and coal supplies.

The other scientist who, without knowing it, confirmed with his experiments Viktor Schauberger’s ‘spiral motion’ theory was Felix Ehrenhaft (1879-1952), Professor of Physics at Vienna University. Ehrenhaft developed the experiments of other scientists concerning the study of small particles of matter in magnetic fields and/or concentrated light rays. Fine powdered material, for example silver, copper, chrome, coal etc. and even fine water droplets were introduced into evacuated glass tubes. As a tube was shaken the particles moved in suspension. If the particles were then exposed to concentrated rays of light, they started to follow certain paths, in that they turned into a path in a uniform way. Ehrenhaft wrote about this:

Totally new and surprising was that the particles’ motion in the field was not straight, but flowed in screw-like paths with a most regular form, size and uniformity… drops of methyl orange for example… moved in this way.

Similar results were obtained when the particles were exposed to the influence of a magnetic field. Local gas flows or the ‘charge’ of the particles were no explanation for the screw­like paths that resulted, which remained unaffected by such influences.

Also interesting was the fact that a centripetal power occurred that influenced particles 130 times more strongly than gravity.

Ehrenhaft’s comments on the tests:

It is improbable that these phenomena of motion in light or magnetic fields can be explained with the help of existing hypotheses; we may be forced to turn to new ones.

Walter Schauberger has interpreted the test as follows:

Each energy particle in motion produces a field – an energy room – which is dependent on the motion, and the more concentrated this field is, the more it influences the surroundings, so that particles with a larger mass than the field producing particle can be drawn into the field. These particles of silver, nickel or carbon in comparison to light photons must be like huge boulders, but they were still drawn into the photons’ swirling dance. We must therefore learn to move matter, when we can, in the way electrons and photons move… and so with relatively small amounts of energy we will be able to move ‘mountains’.

In short, Ehrenhaft’s experiments indicate that Nature’s


Virbela Flowforms are designed using a method developed by A. John Wilkes since 1970. The illustration shows one such vessel in series. Water streaming through the system pulsates rhythmically in a vortical meander creating a figure of eight flow path.

The quality of water thus treated is being investigated for its increased life supportive capacity, for the rhythmical character of all organisms and that of the overall environment maintains the reciprocal relationship between them.

most basic elements move in the spiral motion that Viktor Schauberger wanted to copy.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>