You're position on the Clem engine, if I'm not mistaken, is that the force
reaction of the high velocity fluid exiting the rotor nozzles is (can be)
greater than the force required to maintain the rotor at a given critical
speed. In simple action/reaction terms, I can't see how this can be
achieved. Can you explain how this can occur, in general terms? Do you
assume that at some critical fluid velocity there is a condition reached
where fluid flow 'resistance', through the rotor, swings negative?
I've always thought a connection exists between the Clem engine and the
turbine work of Victor Schauberger. We have an idea of the shape of
Schaubergers vortex turbines (spiral tubes/cones) - do we have any firm
idea of Clem's? I have witnessed how votex fluid motion can be 'split' by
resonant pressure waves, so that one portion of the fluid flow has a
velocity in one direction while another portion (the inner vortex fluid)
can be made to flow in the opposite direction. It could be possible, IMO,
that Schauberger took advantage of this effect, what about Clem?
The tar sprayer/pump - what was the general design of the one that captured
Clem's imagination? Have you experimented/examined one of these tar sprayers?
I know, I know, too many questions <g>.
Regards, Bill.
At 18:22 11/09/98 -0500, Norman Wootan wrote:
>I don't think the Clem performance has anything to do with the Perkins
Heating
>Principle.
>Keep in mind that Perkins got the patent on the heating effect that Griggs
has
>been
>researching. There are amazingly at least 8 patents on shear heating in a
>fluid such as the Griggs patent. Perkins got there first. Interesting is
the
>fact that both men live very close
>to one another in Georgia. I still believe that the Clem is based on the
>disproportionate
>nozzle thrust vs. energy needed to accelerate the fluid out to the nozzles.
>That is my
>theory and I will stick to it. Others may have other explanations so let's
>hear them. Norm