Talk:Viktor Schauberger

Consideration for Deletion
I have nothing to do with this article; writing, editing, or otherwise. I am not seriously interested in perpetual motion, but I am rather interested in anyone of note who has claimed to have made such devices. This person is obviously someone of note. Therefore, I strongly object to the deletion of this article. 74.197.184.250 (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is a stub or something and seriously lacks merit:
 * No bird has such a whirling thing on its head, nor a fish on its tail. Only man made use of this natural brake-screw for forward propulsion.

A propeller would automatically make the animal a subject of continual motion of not perpetual. How is it supposed to control motion in a fluid if it uses a propeller?

It is flagged with multiple issues. Getting someone to read the man's work and make a reasonable commentary on it would be a start.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Issues
The article is effectively a mix up of unreferenced material, that presents speculation as scientific fact. There is no reliable evidence to support these claims, and as such the article requires full referencing and a clear distinction made between the reality of physical science and Viktor Schauberger's unsophisticated and uneducated work.

I am not a skilled wikipedian but I came to this article wanting to find some information about Schauberger's life and work. I had hoped that the article would include a brief outline of his ideas, theories and beliefs. If such ideas, theories and beliefs are not accepted by, or are in opposition to mainstream science; then that is notable and important, but it does not justify excluding such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.5.207 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourcable claims are also made about Schauberger's life, such as "meeting with Hitler" and being held "captive by the US". These claims need to be referenced, or alternatively presented as the conspiracy claims distributed via the internet that they actually are. This does not dispute whether the claims are true or not, but I am sure that they are unsourcable (reliably!) and hence they should be speedily deleted.

Hopefully, someone will prove me wrong and provide a list of neutral sources, but I doubt that.


 * Yes, I tend to agree. This is not a forum for POV-pushing and the unencyclopedic (?!) writing is in very bad form. I recommend the article is protected from edits by IP addresses so that a period of accurate article development may take place. Tachyon502 (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Schauberger booklist
I have now twice fixed the booklist, from which he removesevery single book, except the one that is _not even available_. Why in the world is he allowed to do this, please? Also, he is removing immense amounts of information from the wikipedia-entry. why? why in the world?


 * Well the reasons ought to be obvious. This is an open edited entry and I did not like those "sources".  The entries were not, in my opinion, encyclopaedic.  In fact given the claims of involvement in advanced German aircraft design from soem highly questionable book I do not see how anyone can defend these "sources".  The websites are even worse.  I have asked for advice and I will get back to you, but I reserve the right to edit as I feel like.  That is not willful sabotage.  Notice at the bottom there someone else has questioned the POV nature of this article. Lao Wai 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * if you had only removed the UFO related things, then fine. but. you didnt. what you removed were: ALL books written by Alick Bartholomew, Callum Coats and Olof Alexandersson, which are the core of Schauberger research. you went and removed all "in-print" books, and left in the only out-of-print book (Schauberger Companion). why do this? is it because they all mention schauberger-implosion-antigravity-devices, which, when attaining a specific RPM, had to be bolted down in order to not fly off?
 * also, you removed most of the schauberger-links, and the schauberger-mailinglist, claiming that they do not work, when 1) only one doesnt work (which i removed) 2) the rest work 3) the mailinglist would be a decent place to have a conversation about schauberger-related matters.
 * explain why you had to remove the books, that are a central way to get information on Viktor Schauberger, please. explain why you picked "the schauberger companion" as the only book to be left in, when you could just by going on amazon find out that it is rare, and out of print. i have all the books on schauberger, except "nature as teacher", which is hard to get a hold of, and i have not ever even heard of the schauberger companion. i would love to meet Callum Coats and ask him what was the content of this book, but i would more so like to meet you and ask you why you chose that book over every other book? all the books in the booklist are based on, enlarge upon, and focus on Viktor Schauberger - why remove them?
 * Granted, there is no singular one good "everything" book on Schauberger, although "hidden nature" and "living energies" and "living water" get very close. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" documentary on Schauberger, in english. Granted, there is no singular good "everything" webpage on Schauberger, in english, unfortunately. all these 3 things are a right shame. however, i do not quite understand why removing Frank Germano's research on Viktor Schauberger, is somehow be justified in your mind?


 * Well yes. I did it precisely because they take the anti-gravity devices seriously.  That is pretty much what I mean by "non-encyclopedic".  In fact I would like to remove them all, but I am in the process if checking to see what they are like.  Actually I don't think I said it was only because they did not work.  Again "non-encyclopedic".  I did go to Amazon.  It never occurred to me to check if it was rare.  It looked like the only vaguely non-flakey book and even that one was dubious to me.  If Germano publishes anything in a peer reviewed journal I will be happy to look at it.  What this looks like to me is a distortion of a real man's work by including UFO theories that I suspect are not very, ummm, can't think of a polite word for it.  The fact that these claims are backed up by wedsites is immaterial.  I would like to see some real published academic work.  Do you have any?  When Mr Germano starts going off into perpetual motion machines I tend to turn off.  Lao Wai 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Viktor Schauberger. It does not matter whether or not his theories are accepted by mainstream science or not, only that these were the areas he studied. I do not think there are grounds to remove sources based on what "you feel like." You don't simply remove sources because you feel like it without giving a valid reason. I fail to see how the sources are "non-encyclopedic" as they provide a great deal of incite into Schauberger and his work. Have you even read them Lao Wai? If not the only grounds by your own admission for removing those sources is "you dont like them" which is infact the only POV I see in the article. --] --Nazrac 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lao Wai you are what is wrong with wikipedia. If you really want to know what science really is nowadays you can go to Physics Communication and leave your biggot ideas behind. Yes, we can.--83.134.64.207 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Lao Wai has made his apparently Luddite opinions tediously clear. That he is unable to entertain the possibility of engineering principles that do not conform to current dogma is no reason for us not to move on with an open mind. Have a look at Nick Cook's 'Hunt for Zero Point'. He found Schauberger neither ignorant nor uneducated and offers a rather more cogent and reasoned point of view buttressed by actual research. Please spare us more of Mr. Wai's hectoring assertions of what is and is not possible. Cportman (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cportman (talk • contribs)

... after negotiations with an American company,
could you please be more precise? which company? thanks a lot in advance 70.84.56.171

- Donner-Gerschheimer consortium.

... All patents are Austrian. ...
almost correct. but at least one patent regarding vortices (Forellenturbine) ist french.

as described in "Olof Alexandersson: Lebendes Wasser (1999), 259 Seiten, ISBN 385068377X" guess it should also be available in english since Alexandersson wrote it originally in swedish. 66.98.131.224

some patents were registered in u.s., great britain, switzerland, czech republic, france, germany.. and so on. even a brazilian patent

Cleanup and NPOV
The cleanup notice refers to the fact that this article has things like "We recommend checking these patents out at RexResearch (note, not all are there) ( http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm ) There are also patents in we believe germany, austria, switzerland and the czech republic. Much hunting will have to be done to get a proper website with all the patents sorted and with further information." This is not encyclopedic writing. Additionally, I'm not sure we need a synopsis of every patent the guy made, some of which are quite banal ("Conduits, channels, and other water sluices for the transporting felled trees or logs").


 * the Logflume patent is in no way banal - these logflumes allegedly usurped the unviolable Law of Archimedes - and enabled heavier-than-water objects to be transported utilizing centripetal movement, and temperature gradients.

The NPOV refers to the fact that this article asserts many things as facts which it does not reference and are likely not from reputable sources, yet it does not make any overt indication of this. NPOV states that anything which may be considered a controversial point of view must be labeled as such and attributed if it is to be included. A claim like: "It is believed that his implosion technology was used in the "Foo Fighter" advanced weapons programs during WWII as documented by Nick Cook. He produced several working prototypes, but the Russian and American military confiscated his work at the end of the war," needs to be fully referenced in all parts of it. --Fastfission 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is outrages who is paying you to sneak around here and remove informations witch are correct. Are these informations to embarrassing for your employee ? Are you working for one of the agency's payed by the oil boys to spread misinformation everywhere where there is the danger of people becoming aware?

If the article asserts things that are factually innaccurate or disputed, that is not considered POV. Put the factually disputed tag on the article, not a POV tag. As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether or not Schauberger's work is accepted by mainstream science or not, only that he infact studied these areas. If there is a dispute on whether or not he actually studied certain theories such as vortex implosion engines, UFO technology ect. it should be mentioned in the article that "some sources allege..." (and cite them) rather than removing reference to that subject matter altogether. Because you don't agree with someone is no reason to remove it. Instead try discussing it on the talk page or simply revise that part of the article and give your reasons for doing so on the talk page. --Nazrac 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "If there is a dispute on whether or not he actually studied certain theories such as vortex implosion engines, UFO technology ect. it should be mentioned in the article that "some sources allege..."" Uhhhh.... no.  You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for some other online encyclopedia, which doesn't require reliable sources and doesn't specifically prohibit disguising lunatic fringe POVs with weasel words like "Some sources allege". -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page is not very encyclopedic. Mailing lists?? Come on! 1812ahill 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just finished reading Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point". Cook is a respected and unbiased editor for Jane's. Many needed citations can be found in his book, which he personally researched by travelling and visiting primary sources. (It might be noted, as Cook points out, that VS was not merely a "forester" but also an engineer.) I'd suggest that Cook's book might serve as a fulcrum to help editors sort out what's "encyclopedic" -- since the subject is controversial and intellectually complex. Finally, I'll mention that his family maintains a museum in Germany, which might be a reliable source. Twang 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

the "museum" is in Bad Ischl, Austria. more info at http://www.viktor-schauberger.at/ they have open doors every once in a while - and yes, the whole Schauberger archive is in this "museum"., also, Nick Cook visited PKS and was available on the may 9th 2007. "Meet the price-winning Author Nick Cook at PKS - PKS, Bad Ischl, Wed., 9th of May 2007 - The air-craft-expert, journalist and author ("The Hunt for Zero Point"), Mr. Nick Cook from London, will be guest at the PKS-institute. He will answer your questions about his research in the field of "Free Energy" and about the influence of Viktor Schauberger on the search of Anti-Gravity-Propulsion. Mr. Cook will stay during the PKS-Open-Day on Wednesday, 9th of May, from 4 to 7 p.m.""

Hello. A couple of points. Hopefully the following definitions in itself clears this up. These may be obvious and known but seems here to be in need of reminding. In our follies sometimes we lose sight of the obvious.
 * Here is the dictionary definition of the word encyclopedia

–noun 1.	a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. 2.	(initial capital letter) the French work edited by Diderot and D'Alembert, published in the 18th century, distinguished by its representation of the views of the Enlightenment. Also, en·cy·clo·pae·di·a.

[Origin: 1525–35; < NL encyclopaedia < Gk enkyklopaidía, a misreading of enkýklios paideía circular (i.e., well-rounded) education. See encyclical, pedi-2]
 * The definition of the word Neutral is...

neu·tral     /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-truhl, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.	not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during World War II. 2.	not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral. [Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L neutrālis grammatically neuter. See neuter, -al1]
 * Neuter is as such....

neu·ter     /ˈnutər, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-ter, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.	Grammar. a.	noting or pertaining to a gender that refers to things classed as neither masculine nor feminine. b.	(of a verb) intransitive. 2.	Biology. having no organs of reproduction; without sex; asexual. 3.	Zoology. having imperfectly developed sexual organs, as the worker bees and ants. 4.	Botany. having neither stamens nor pistils; asexual. 5.	neutral; siding with no one. [Origin: 1350–1400; < L neuter neither (of two), equiv. to ne not + uter either (of two); r. ME neutre < MF < L, as above]

Well rounded education and not of either (two)!! I love Etymology! I think this shows up a lot about the situation that has happened. Surely we should bring into question somethings objectivity before we start to edit something. For people to share their views not for their own means but to understand and give the subject fair representation even under scrutiny is surely more amicable. To give an objective telling of the life of someone's views or life's work so one may study in freedom, to perhaps explore and come to their own understandings of what that person's life presents, reveals to them surely is the basic ethos and core principle of this website which we have all as human beings been given responsibility to make sure it is accurate and sound in itself as possible, which including the sources upon which the stated facts are based is obviously part of. Surely to censor a life's work is to ignore that life. A person can never be in their whole life be completely wrong or right factually or morally nor have the right to judge for in doing so we judge ourselves. I urge people to put down their mental arms and look at things with openness and intrigue. With a kindness, a seriousness and care. It is apparent that to deny one's work may deny any truth that may lie in it. For the falseness of it is perhaps truth in itself. It would be good to see this article redone with more information on his works and his life as it seems a little thin for someone who appears to have touched on such broad, detailed and interesting subjects. I came across him through my intrigue in sacred geometry and Schauberger's life has shown me more things to look into and explore, but has also hit upon things which I have observed in my own workings which is very encouraging, but so have many other things living and dead, human and non-human. Perhaps some of us are frightened of wasting our time with things that apparently look like nonsense, but surely the point of the pointless story is its pointlessness! In all life is discovery, so why burden ourselves with fear which has lead us into so much turmoil? Why be afraid of death and ending when it only serves to take us home? Truth is never an authority. Ignorance is never freedom. We have a lot to learn from each other. It is a shame upon all of us that we are bound by dispute and behave in ever offensively condescending manners rather than working together to find out what is. May you all resolve your conflict whatever it's nature and live in peace and harmony. I bid everyone good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.205.40 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You could have saved yourself a lot of time and energy by not writing out your long, irrelevant rant. Bottom line is that Wikipedia aims to report what reliable sources say about a subject.  Not "what anyone with access to a printing press" says; what reliable sources say. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally i didn't find the words written by the person who contributed prior to you as 'irrelevant'. Personally i welcomed them, so i at least consider it time well spent. I personally consider your initial comment as unneccessary, although you are wholly entitled to make it, and likewise i will also draw my own assunmptions from it. And while distracted in the process of commenting on each others opinions of our opinions (rather than directly on the subject of Victor Schauberger) the remainder of your comment i consider valid, but ultilmately of what consequence is that?. All that aside, and more to the point, I am interested as to how 'reliable sources' might be defined and decided? and by whom? (note: with my final question, i am not attacking, criticising, etc, i am 'enquiring?' so plesae be passionate and enthusiastic by all means, though be assured an aggressive defence of an alternative point of view is not really neccessary and perhaps not conducive to a co-operative expression of knowledge and information)Enquiring (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

4C water anomaly point
I believe Schauberger worked out how to generate large amounts of energy from the motion of cold water, by utilising the fact that water reaches its maximum density at about 4^ Celsius, i.e. just above the melting point of ice. Does anyone know anything about this? Meltingpot 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Water is densest at 4 degrees Celsius, but it’s not that much denser than water at other temperatures. Exploiting tiny differences in the density of water of different temperatures would be a very inefficient way of producing power. The only ways I know of that produce significant amounts of power from cold water are hydroelectric power (dams), tidal power, wave power, and power from ocean currents (analogous to wind power). Each of these involves falling water or water that is moving somewhat rapidly. Pulu (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Water is densest when cold (and at the time of the full moon) - Say what?
Er - I thought at first it was supposed to be some reference to tides, but that wouldn't affect the density of all water everywhere, and in fact the full moon doesn't mean tides are any higher or lower or anything else. It's just fully lit because of relative geometry between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, not because it's at perigee. Is it instead supposed to be some sort of mythological reference? If so, it should be noted in the article that it was something *Schauberger* believed and not something that's factually true.--Dbutler1986 (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a weird one eh? Maybe because it means the sun and the moon are on opposite sides of the earth? Anyway - clearly nonsense, but if it's something he believed then I suppose it should indeed be in... --Oolong (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As the user who originally typed that paragraph exists no longer and I can't ask him for clarification, I've assumed he was describing something Shauberger believed and have edited the article to reflect that assumption. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "He claimed that nature creates vortexes to create equilibriums" could use elaboration and some similar warnings. I just watched "Nature was my Teacher" which explains his mystical theories about how all of physics is describable in terms of vortices, so vortices were central to his ideas. He relates spinning water with Life Energy (whatever that is), as well as with gravity. The film says he thought claims that water can be born and can die, and it sounds like he's saying it can be created and destroyed. The film also claims that he built a flying saucer in 1945 that was 50m across (wider than the wing span of a 737) that can hover and fly at nearly Mach 2, all miraculously using turning water inside it. Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947. The rest of the film is of similar quality. Pulu (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Article has issues"
Really it does not enhance Wikipedia's credibility to say things about additional references or sources for verification in reference to pages describing delusional fairy tales. Can't we have a comedy tag that simply says its OK to ROFLAO?--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the referenced books does support the claims. This man is stranger than fiction, but at least the unsupported claims about him creating an UFO army isn't present. I think none of the tags are appropriate. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the page should probably be uplifted to comedy status, or perhaps at the top it could read "Viktor Schauberger - For related terms please see Schizophrenia"!!
 * The article has near-on no references for HUGE claims, and presents these claims as fact, that's the problem. This makes it look like a fan site and so it may as well be an article on a UFO conspiracy site. "During World War II, Schauberger was meeting with Hitler" - hmmmm, a likely tale Tachyon502 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is well known he worked on what would spur the nazi-UFO myth. Do note that the text says he didn't, but he did work on experimental engines. This is well sourced. If you think of nazi-UFOs you are incidentally victim of the same slippery slope logic that conspiracy theorists exhibit. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And what huge claims? The sources are in the books, and tons of people people met hitler. His background did appeal to nazi's after all. Otherwise I can't see what "HUGE CLAIMS" the article comes with. It is pretty matter of fact and it is wells sourced. I do wish they were cited with page numbers. But unless you can verify that the mentioned stuff are not in the biographies I don't think such accusations are worth it. The article is hard to work with as it is. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes certainly, many people did meet Hitler. However the article presents something else entirely, that Schauberger was "meeting with" Hitler - thus distinctly implying some form of working relationship. This is not well-sourced or referenced in the article - if a precise reference can be located than it's inclusion no longer remains debatable. Along with the many other unreferenced comments. Where is your proof for his background appealing to Nazi's? This is a subjective, unsubstantiated claim. Ironically it is well-documented that the Nazi regime DID work on "UFO's" - in the sense of modern, uniquely designed air vehicles. But again, Schauberger's part in this is merely speculation and conspiracy.
 * I have reverted your previous edit, pseudoscience pertains to the presentation of non-scientific information as scientific fact, something that Schauberger and his related modern-day conspiracy theory have both done. Whilst I agree that the said comment probably does not belong in the introduction, it certainly does not fit in the Early Years, Later Years or World War II sections. Perhaps the article needs some restructuring? What do you think we could do to make it more factual and well-organised? Cheers Tachyon502 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent excellent additions make it clearer. He did not himself do pseudoscience, but it is rather the conspiracy theorists who has embraced him that make it seem so. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He WAS a pseudoscientist! He, himself, presented non-scientific information as a scientific work, and invented scientific sounding jargon to try and make his ideas sound reputable. The conspiracy theorists jumping on board his ideas has only accentuated this. I have reverted the edits - they have made the article exceptionally biased and do not accurately depict the features that Viktor Schauberger is renowned for - he was not an inventor of anything that worked, nor anything that was useful or worthwhile, he simply proclaimed that he was. The article needs to correctly portray this. Tachyon502 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He himself did not present non-scientific information as scientific work. VS did not "invent scientific sounding jargon", but instead the translation from German to English may have lost the literal translation, and instead the translator may have 'invent[ed] scientific sounding jargon', as this was the closest to the translation. This happens continually with translations, i'm sure you understand.  This is clearly your POV, and therefore I have updated the article again. As for your comment on not being "an inventor of anything that worked nor anything that was useful or worthwhile", this is again your POV, as in many instances, the performance or efficiency of log flumes etc. was increased.  The conspiracy theorists 'jumping on board' has nothing to do with the previous designed or theorised VS technology.  "None of his work has received mainstream acceptance" is yet again another POV.  I would be happy to claim that VS was a 'narcissist' if your source had a degree in Psychology, which I'm not sure is the case.  I am open to discussion on this page to omit, or re-insert future modifications regarding the reference of Joseph Silk MrAnderson7 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed content from the Introduction
IP user 128.232.237.98 added 3 sentences to the introduction. I have removed them, because there are problems with each one - 1. “Schauberger's work is not real though.” This sentence is simply un-encyclopedic. What do you mean by ‘not real’? Please expain what you are trying to say. Many of the devices he designed were built and tested, that seems pretty real to me - although I recognise that some of the designs are not based on accepted theory. 2. “A lot of people on the internet think he made UFO's for the government, but it is a conspiracy theory.“ A pretty tall claim there, and not one source. There may well be some references to Schauberger in UFO conspiracies, but the introduction is not the right place for it. I propose adding a new section to the article (perhaps call it “Controversy”?) so that we can cover this particular issue properly. 3. “Schauberger was not a real scientist.” Schauberger never claimed to be a scientist, and the intro already lists his various occupations. The sentence is redundant, unless perhaps you are trying to clarify that he did not have a qualification. Logicman1966 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV with doubtful reference
I have again removed this section again: Schauberger believed he was "more intelligent than all of the world's existing scientists" and evidence suggests that he was possibly a narcissist. It requires proper references for both the quote, and as stated previously, I would be happy to claim that VS was a 'narcissist' if the source had a degree in Psychology, which I'm not sure is the case. I am open to discussion on this page to omit, or re-insert future modifications regarding the reference of Joseph Silk. Please discuss before re-inserting this information MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources say he was a narcissist, it is reasonable to include that in this article. However, given the pejorative nature of term narcissist, the burden of proof should be on those who claim he was a narcissist, not on those who claim he was not. (Somehow, I have a feeling that he was not.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion relating removal of "multiple issues"
I wish to discuss the removal of the 'Neutrality', 'Original Resarch', 'Fan Site' and 'Additional references or sources for verification' tags from the header of this article. MrAnderson7 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no and no. A reference can not be sifted through and removed as to a personal judgement of the reference. The key factor is a references reliability. So far, since I added the tags the only edits that have been made are largely POV and have added to the problem. The article presents heavy bias that Schauberger actually did something significant and was an "inventor". Historical evidence suggests otherwise, Schauberger was a grandiose, delusional narcissist and pseudoscientist who invented scientific sounding jargon to describe his "inventions" and used true scientific words in an inappropriate context such as his well-documented misuse of the term diamagnetism.
 * Further, the edits to the controversy section are wholly incorrect. Yes, the principle of conservation of energy is based upon the assumptions that the observable universe is both finite and in thermodynamic equilibrium. These assumptions have been rigourously proven by both COBE and more recently WMAP. The recent edits are unfortunately incoherent and presented in favour of Schauberger's pseudoscience. As such, the tags should really not be removed and I am reverting the article to it's previous form of factually based, documented truth. I hope editors of the article are willing to assist by editing neutrally and not editing in a manner similar to Schauberger himself - writing uninformed, unreferenced, uneducated nonsense everywhere!!!
 * Forgive my slight rant!!! Tachyon502 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These recent edits I consider as blatant vandalism. No discussion was given on this page for the removal of great chunks of information including solid references from the article.  Please stop MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tachyon, you need to cool down. Clearly you have very strong opinions on Schauberger, however some of your recent edits do not show good faith. I’m sure the last thing any of us want is an all-out edit war. Can I suggest you show a little more respect towards your fellow editors, and discuss drastic content changes before making them. By the way, rants are generally unhelpful on talk pages, they just fan the flames and makes the situation more confrontational.


 * Can I clear up one misunderstanding you have – Schauberger WAS an inventor : he designed a number of devices, built and tested prototypes, and obtained patents for them. That qualifies him for the title of inventor. How well the devices worked is a separate issue.


 * I have just made a few new edits (actually re-doing some of my edits that you deleted); they are not controversial, so please leave them. Can I also suggest that in future you read the edit summaries of other people’s edits before simply trashing them. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! Firstly MrAnderson, I have reverted your edit to the page. Whilst the reference in German is potentially useful, wikipedia's guidelines suggest we should find references in English. Online translators are still notoriously inaccurate, and the reference is therefore totally unverifiable. Perhaps it may be possible to find an official translator on Wikipedia, although I do not know what wiki's guidelines say about this. Also, your change to the introduction is unfortunately inaccurate, Schauberger's work has not been accepted within any field anywhere, hence to say not within western science is highly misleading. I also thank you for your edits to the page on the Jenter kit I have been working on. What a lovely coincidence that you also have an interest in beekeeping. I would like to remind you that no edits are vandalism when they contribute to the neutrality and information quality contained within an article.
 * And Logicman, thankyou for your post. I do indeed need to cool down and thanks for reminding me of such! I have become very frustrated with the fact that the Schauberger "conspiracy" appears to be being reflected in the wikipedia article, I really feel that the article should accurately present what Schauberger did and did not do and not to further push the concept of Schauberger as a maverick in his field - which he most certainly wasn't. Although this does not excuse my ranting, so please accept my apologies.
 * I think you're probably right, although I would not like to classify him as an inventor! However, all definitions of "inventor" I can find say nothing about whether or not the devices created worked or otherwise. So he should be credited as an inventor, albeit stating that the inventions did not work. Sorry to have removed your edits, I tried to verify all of the changes made to the article when reverting but inevitably I missed some. I do really question the authenticity of the Klimator reference though, this is just another wiki site somewhere. Surely there must be somewhere more verifiable?
 * Perhaps most importantly, the article clearly needs a major shake around to prevent these disagreements and in order to maintain factual accuracy and neutrality. I think we need to reliably verify some information or cull it, especially big claims such as that he worked with Hitler during WWII. The article also potentially needs new sections, detailing Schauberger's creations, what they were supposed to do, Schaubergers claims as to how they worked, and the reasons why they do not work. Perhaps we should start with discussing the introduction, is everyone happy with it? I feel the list of things he tried to make is too much and the same space might be better used for a simpler brief summary detailing what Schauberger is best known for, with the list of devices coming later in the article. I am open to suggestions and ideas...? Tachyon502 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible a decision can be made on the omission or addition of German references, considering VS was Austrian, and therefore most information has to be sourced from German/European references? The only reason I stated that an online translator can be used (see previous edit) was for the editors of this article that cannot speak German to verify the content. Just because an 'online translator' is 'notoriously inaccurate' does not make it unverifiable...
 * Regarding the comment about Schaubergers work 'not being accepted by any field anywhere'. Please keep a NPOV. I have references, which you have deleted repeatedly, that state his technology was used, printed in local technical journals, discussed by European scientists/engineers of the time, and received payment for a number of services for increasing efficiency of log flumes, pipe flows, dam construction, plow design etc. in his home country and Germany.  It is unfortunate there are a number of 'conspiracy theories' about 'free power' which seam to cloud some editors view.  Fortunately VS' work with forestry/trees/farming is being used by farmers not only in the EU, but Australia, NZ, UK, US etc., in biodynamic/organic examples with quite favourable results.  The Agricultural research institute in Linz (Austria) carried out numerous studies on VS' principles of farming, and found increases in yield of grain/crops etc., with less fungal infections.  Unfortunately these studies are in German therefore are 'unverifiable'.
 * "....he should be credited as an inventor, albeit stating that the inventions did not work." Are we chasing our tails here? As I said previously, please remain with a NPOV. A good proportion of his inventions did work, and were used in plain sight by the government and research departments in Austria, Yugoslavia and Bavaria/Germany. He even received payment for his working inventions.  Just because you think it didn't happen, doesn't mean you have to trash it. So have we have agreed he is an inventor, and he isn't a Pseudo-scientist?  Is there anything more you would like to throw out there and we can get it out the way on this page and not the actual article?  Perhaps your inclusion of the narcissist comment?  Or is there something new from another psychologist/astrophysicist?  - MrAnderson7 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Foreign literature is clearly WP:RS and WP:V - "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" does not hold thus the german sources can be used. If you can provide WP:RS for your claims I would be very happy because there are really few third-parties who has written about him at all, skeptic or not. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientist?
It is not clear if Schauberger claimed to be a scientist, but if he was, in the words of this article, a “forest caretaker, naturalist, philosopher, inventor and biomimicry experimenter”, then he probably qualifies as a scientist. I consider him to be somewhat of an enigma.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific Genius and Uneducated Guesswork" reference
I have previously questioned one of the references issued by Tachyon502 on the VS page, namely the reference: "Scientific Genius and Uneducated Guesswork", Professor Joseph Silk, Oxford University Press, 2000. I have contacted numerous Oxford University Press departments both locally and overseas and they have never heard of or have reference to this publication. I then emailed professor J.Silk about this reference, to which he replied "i have not written this book. it's an erroneous citation!". Because of this new information, I have removed this reference and the associated POV material MrAnderson7 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 128.232.237.98
While the quotes are interesting the rest is quantifiable OR, opinions and not sourced. I mean, if anything the "water is living"-paragraph is a precedent for gaia-theory and not patently false as you believe. I think it's important to note that schauberger is outside scientific tradition and hence has to be understood under a different hermeneutics. Even then, it is patently unsourced. Could you fix the sourcing? Or at least since you seem to possess the sources use them to explain his viewpoint. Personally it is clear to me that his viewpoint of "unnatural" is at core of his viewpoints. Also, if you possess any sources on replications of his devices (that I have not been able to find, tho not trying too hard) then I'd love to see that as well. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems there is some relationship between our good friend Tachyon and this IP 128.232.237.98. Call it a hunch.MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed: Schauberger's theories have not received acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. None of his theories have been shown to be accurate and most are not reproducible - a key factor in determining scientific validity under the Scientific method and Occam's Razor. This has also raised suggestions that Schauberger's work is in fact pseudoscience." As again, I find that VS' designs, and theories have been proven to work. Let's not get caught up in the later years, but instead focus on the log flume design.  It worked and increased performance of the transport of logs to a measurable (and referenced for that matter) extent.  Therefore his theories did work for that particular design.  His work is not Pseudo-science.  Again, for previously stated reasons, before adding this sort of mundane POV, discuss here. MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, this is Tachyon. I have decided simply not to reply to your previous posts as I work as a PhD student under Joseph Silk and know his book to be fact. I have a copy in front of me. However, if you do not want it included that is fine, I understand it is not widely available. Although I appreciate your candid story of having been in contact with him, I have decided to simply provide other sources to remove the absurd POV, weasel words and pseduoscience that has afflicted this article and still is. A bumblebee does not defy gravity, this is ridiculous. Peswiki is not a reference. Please, please, I mean this in the most sincere way, you have a thorough misunderstanding of a pseudoscientist. You believe him to be some sort of revolutionary and I understand that you clearly want this reflected in the article, but this is not fact, this is a misguided opinion. Please stop believing things you read on the internet, buy a book on actual science (I would recommend University Physics by Young & Freedman as an introduction) and learn about mechanics. You are trying really helpfully to contribute scientific material to the article, but your understanding is letting you down.
 * Where have Schauberger's designs been shown to work? Find a reference that proves this, that is not an unreliable source, or a source published by Schauberger and I will, of course, stop removing it from the article. His log flumes did not work at all, contrary to what a random youtube documentary, and books pushing pseudoscience will try and make you believe. It would be wonderful if someone had solved all the ill's of the world and defied the known physical laws, but no-one has. You simply have to accept this.
 * I would also agree that perhaps the "water is living" paragraph is a precedent for gaia theory, perhaps he actually did think of something original! But gaia theory is not widely accepted scientifically either, in fact to the contrary, it's largely considered as a pseudoscience - although, in this example, by no means is this clearly the case. Schauberger is not just outside scientific tradition, he is outside of science and logic, reason and justification - his work has been overwhelmingly discredited. The fact that some people still believe his theories is astounding in our day and age and a true credit to the displeasures of allowing anyone to create a webpage with any nonsense they see fit on it.
 * Which bits do you feel are unsourced? Several pieces are from Phillip Best's book - easily buyable for you to check Mr Anderson :) - I simply haven't repeated the referencing multiple times. If you could let me know that would be great and I will do my best to update the references.
 * I think you're definately correct that his viewpoint of "unnatural" dominates his thought processes - I think he perceived technology and the way society had progressed as very much out of touch with nature. Who could possibly flaw him on that?! I know that I totally agree with him. But that doesn't make his theories correct - it makes him a keen philosopher but not a revolutionary designer of technology. I am trying to find some well-sourced studies showing specific, individual replication of each of his devices independently, unfortunately trying to find scientific studies amongst the wealth of internet crackpots studies is no mean feat and I expect these papers to be thin on the ground to begin with, when even a basic understanding of physics allows one to disprove them. Thanks, I'll be in touch. 128.232.237.98 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tachyon(A PhD student in astrophysics...) What a quizzical method of logic. Because you are a PhD student with Prof. Jo Silk, this allows you to bask in his glory and remove a number of references, which just so happen to have sold thousands of copies, be published and available to the general public, contains ISBN numbers, and you can easily buy them from AMAZON.  Regarding your reference as "..not widely available.." does not do this publication justice, as said previously, I spoke to the publishers in both my country and your home town who had NEVER had this publication on record.  I even spoke to the 'author' of this mystical book, who denied anything to do with the book.  So before you start removing references that you haven't read, but are public knowledge and contain experiments and details of test performed by external companies/countries etc., let us know what your beef is with them so we can help you understand why they have been added and should remain.
 * There is no misunderstanding of psdeudoscience. "His log flumes did not work at all..." Really? Prove it!  Please prove to me from your anti-European 'western world' bunker in Oxford University, why Schauberger didn't receive payment from the royals in Austria for increasing the performance of the log flumes by a substantial amount?  Prove to me the increase of logging in the area was increased by the referenced percentage.  The references proved it, and yet it was removed.  I have more that I can throw at you, but lets take baby steps first as I understand you still have an urge to tell us you are still a student, PhD or not..
 * Regarding the physics text book you suggested...How basic do you think we are on here? I consider that as a blatant insult on your behalf to suggest my physics level represents some first year freshman, still wet behind their ears.  Before hurling such patent abuse, I suggest you hold your tongue and think twice about the intelligence level on here.  I don't have to tell you whether I work as a grounds keeper or work in particle physics R&D for commercial applications.  It doesn't matter, lets keep it that way.
 * Before you start flouting your unfinished PhD student status, and your kindergarten physics books resources, I highly recommend you read the citations we have been placing at the bottom of the article. These prove that some of VS work has been tested by EXTERNAL companies/countries/experts etc.  I'm sorry you aren't fluent in German and have access to original sourced material, but that doesn't stop you from reading the appropriate translated publications that you keep removing.  Until then, most of the clap trap that has been added by you is just internet sourced wish-wash that google regurgitates, and what ever the university card will allow you to borrow from Oxford.
 * VS based most of his experimentation on logic and results. --Read the books--. Show me some references that his work has been discredited.  I am eager to see what you can find.  A number of VS findings can be replicated.  A prime example is the curved copper pipe experiment as detailed in "Energy Evolution" by Callum Coats (another person who can speak some funky European language called German, who translated VS works.)  This experiment was replicated by the then experts in fluid dynamics from Germany, Austria and Yugoslavia.  You can find their reports, but I think the language would get in the way again as some of the translated nomenclature may be a bit fussy, or sound like your favourite word; "pseudo-science".  Using this engineering style 'experimental approach', the results obtained allowed VS to design and build the trout turbine.
 * When you said: "Schauberger is not just outside scientific tradition, he is outside of science and logic, reason and justification - his work has been overwhelmingly discredited." PROVE IT.  Show me the experiments that have proven this to be correct.  Until then you will just have to put up with the suitably referenced material we are using.
 * MrAnderson7 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Anderson. Thank you :) (for writing what i would love to be articulate and informed/educated enough to have written. Ideally it would not have become necessary, but very obviously it had. So, 'Thank You' - in my opinion your a saving grace of wikipedia)Enquiring (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tachyon, it's no surprise you're a physics PhD but I doubt it is very relevant here at all. Hydrology is something quite different, and VS has to be understood in terms of his historical context. Eg. "On many occasions Schauberger demonstrated his lack of understanding of physical concepts" is not sourced; you should qualify who says this. And the whole paragraph smells of WP:OR. Like he says "As the propeller rotates, so does the resistance rise by the square of the rotational velocity.", it goes on to explain "In fact, everything that undergoes air or water resistance experiences an increase in drag with the square of velocity - this is also true for animals of all kinds, including bumblebees[8] and trout.[9] This is contrary to Schauberger's claims of learning about fluid mechanics by observing trout behaviour." - This doesn't follow logically at all. How is this contrary to his claims of learning fluid mechanics by observing trout while confirming exactly what he said? I am afraid what you've written is merely making a WP:POINT because it doesn't actually make any sense other than to argue against things that haven't been said. If you are gonna have a criticism section please cite the person doing the criticism instead. Sadly the whole paragraph and most of your edits have the same problem; They don't add anything POV. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found |source and it is not WP:RS. Also don't you mean Philip Ball instead of Best? Because his book is a fictionary novel and would hardly qualify as a source but perhaps bears mention (along with conspiracy theories). --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have modified the article back to previous edits, as I have previously, previously and previously discussed in this discussion section why I have removed the POV, poor referencing, and overall poor reasoning as to the removal of great chunks of this article. The article is on Viktor Schauberger and what he believed.  Whether it worked or not.  Tachyon502, if you want to edit the article, DISCUSS HERE so we can come to a mutual agreement before you vandalise it with your POV. Stop removing references on books of people who have read his literature.  Might I suggest your time would be better spent on other articles such as "Die Glocke"? MrAnderson7 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a small comment from me: People who spend this much time editing and re-editing have way too much time on their hands. I wanted to know something about this man's background. I can form my own opinion about all the theories surrounding his man. This is a free encyclopedia, not a forum for intellectual testosterone-hozing.It's just an article, for pete's sake! It's not about life's truths...perhaps it is about life thruthiness, though... (comment made by Jan Lissens)

Serious cleanup required.
This article is littered with unreferenced statements - citation-needed tags dating back one or two years...you name it.

I plan to delete everything that remains un-cited after all this time - if you have references for anything here - please present them ASAP...otherwise this article is going to get a LOT shorter.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Quality
I can't believe I actually read through all of these comments. The article on Viktor Schauberger is a mess, and I can certainly see why. I'll make one single observation at this point in time. In expressing something as historical fact -- as opposed to mythos, or conspiracy theory, or unverified speculation -- the quality of the citation must be taken into consideration. There have been dozens of inconsistent and conflicting reports related to Viktor Schauberger and his involvement with aircraft research in Nazi Germany -- and they are inconsistent because each of these works, many of which have been cited as references in this article, are highly speculative and poorly supported by facts. One of the books even erroneously reports the circumstances of Schauberger's death -- absurdly careless since that is something that could have easily been checked.

The fact that something is a published work that has an ISBN number (as one of you expressed so eloquently) does not substantiate the quality of the citation. This is true even of a more respected author such as Nick Cook who -- if you read his book critically -- you will find sadly based much of this work on information from Igro Witkowski, a Polish UFOlogist, and his unnameable sources.

There is a lot of garbage out there, on a whole host of different subjects, that are published works with ISBN's. Instead of picking up snippets of "information" out of UFOlogy and similar sources, please be a little more serious about checking not only your sources. . . but their sources as well.

Respect Wikipedia, and respect the proper categorization of what you are posting on the articles as fact, or theory, or urban myth, or speculation, or whatever. Otherwise, Wikipedia can become just one more Internet source that cannot be taken seriously. And that would be too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaissanceAgain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Post-War Captivity of Viktor Schauberger in US
A claim is made in the Wikipedia article that "At the end of the war Schauberger was apprehended by US intelligence agents, and kept in custody for 9 months. They confiscated all his documents and prototypes, and interrogated him to determine his activities during the war.[5]"

Although this was represented in the book by Nick Cook, it is simply a repetition of an earlier unsubstantiated claim by Canadian author Ernst Zundel (publishing under the name of Mattern Friedrich) in the book "UFO - Nazi Secret Weapon?". Zundel/Friedrich claimed that “Viktor Schauberger lived for some years in the United States after the war where he was reported to be working on UFO projects. His articles were greatly discussed and then one day in Chicago he just vanished. His battered body was found and as to who killed Schauberger or why has never been discovered. One version has it that gangsters tried to beat his revolutionising secrets out of him and accidentally killed him.”

The lack of credibility in this original claim, repeated by Nick Cook, is attested to by the fact that Zundel's account of Schauberger's death is also completely inaccurate. He didn't even die in Chicago, but in Austria! What makes this even worse is that, if you go to http://www.zundelsite.org/, you will see Zundel's real agenda for spreading tales like this.

I would propose that this reference to his captivity in the US be removed unless there is better independent substantiation. Any discussion? NaissanceAgain (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The lack of credibilty of Zundel lies with his reputation as a "poeta laureatus" of the Third Reich after its decay. He published several issues now banned by law in Germany and Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.220.203 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sindelar's PhD thesis
Just found this: http://www.pks.or.at/menu_en.html: "Christine Sindelar finished her dissertation on Instream River Training at the Technical University Graz, Austria, especially looking at "Meandering Ramps" as constructed by river-engineer Otmar Grober - based on the work of Viktor Schauberger." .. the thesis is in English, can be downloaded from http://portal.tugraz.at/portal/page/portal/Files/i2130/pdf/Lehre/dissertationen/englisch/PhD-thesis-Sindelar.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.144.211 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup.
So, many people agree that this article is a train-wreck. It contains an enormous quantity of uncited and highly dubious material. Those uncited sections have been there for at least three years now - and show no sign that they will ever be cleaned up and properly referenced.

Therefore, in accordance with WP:REF - I've removed every uncited fact that is likely to be contended.

If you want to put some of this material back, you'd better find references for everything you say, or it'll just be deleted again in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies.

I know this seems harsh - and I know some people are going to be upset that their fine words were deleted - but that's how Wikipedia works.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed claims based on unreliable sources
All of the sources given in the article are highly unreliable, so I have moved most of the article content here. Some of the claims may be true, but they need to be supported by reliable sources. I left one line that made a light-weight claim about his work. I also left a quote that illustrates his world view, even though it is taken from a self-published source.


 * The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Schauberger developed his own theories based on what he observed in nature. At the command of Adolf Hitler he built actuators for airplanes, ships, silent turbines, self-cleaning pipes and equipment for cleaning and so-called "refinement" of water to create spring water, which he used as a remedy.


 * In 1922 for Adolf I, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe, Schauberger designed and had built several log flumes which reduced the timber transport costs to one tenth the previous cost and allowed transport of woods such as beech and fir.
 * In 1945 Schauberger started to work on his "Klimator". The function of the Klimator is to cool and warm the air in living spaces.


 * At the end of the war Schauberger was apprehended by US intelligence agents, and kept in custody for 9 months. They confiscated all his documents and prototypes, and interrogated him to determine his activities during the war.


 * Due to issues with translation from German to English, a number of papers and publications are in broken English. In Implosion magazine, a magazine released by Schauberger's family, he said that aeronautical and marine engineers had incorrectly designed the propeller. He stated:
 * "“As best demonstrated by Nature in the case of the aerofoil maple-seed, today’s propeller is a pressure-screw and therefore a braking screw, whose purpose is to allow the heavy maple-seed to fall parachute-like slowly towards the ground and to be carried away sideways by the wind in the process. No bird has such a whirling thing on its head, nor a fish on its tail. Only man made use of this natural brake-screw for forward propulsion. As the propeller rotates, so does the resistance rise by the square of the rotational velocity. This is also a sign that this supposed propulsive device is unnaturally constructed and therefore out of place.”"


 * In another edition of Implosion Magazine, he says:
 * "'In contrast, all 'technical' machines, i.e. all dynamos, turbines, pressure pumps, propellers, explosion and steam driven engines, all furnaces, gas and electric heating appliances, all soil-tilling and harvesting machinery, etc. provide a developmentally harmful ex-pulse to initiate motion. Because of this and without exception, the atom lattice thus moved ruptures, resulting in the disintegration of the molecular (bacteriophagous) formations in suspension. In unnaturally moved air or water decadent stresses appear, causing the decay of the decisive energy-concentrates. This leads to the build-up of decadent potential and the decomposition of the blood of the Earth, and thus to a total economic collapse along the whole course of development.'"

The unreliable sources given are:

Olof Alexandersson, Living Water
The book cover claims that Schauberger made ground breaking scientific discoveries, revolutionized many areas and "showed how air and water could be harnessed as fuels". These are huge claims that have no support in science history or science.

Siegbert Lattacher, Auf den Spuren des legendären Naturforschers
A write-up on the book found on German book sites (presumably from the book cover or the publisher). The book seems to claim that Scahuberger "put the entire world view of the natural sciences into question". It also claims that Schauberger successfully built a machine that defied all scientific laws. Again, a book that directly contradicts science.
 * I have read some about Schauberger, such as in Hidden Nature: The Startling Insights of Viktor Schauberger by Alick Bartholomew. Mostly unorthodox sources; orthodox sources are hard to find. “machine that defied all scientific laws”. What exactly do you mean?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If no proper sources exist you unfortunately can't write a proper Wikipedia article about it. Please read Verifiability which explains why you can't "fall back" on improper sources.
 * On the side-point about "machines that defy scientific laws"; I don't know what the original author meant by that. But it is plainly obvious that a book that makes such a claim is not a reliable source. If the source can't cover Schauberger's work in a reliable way (by making absurd claims), then we can't assume that anything else in the source (for example facts about his life) should be considered reliable either. Please see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information about this. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the side-point about "machines that defy scientific laws"; I don't know what the original author meant by that. But it is plainly obvious that a book that makes such a claim is not a reliable source. If the source can't cover Schauberger's work in a reliable way (by making absurd claims), then we can't assume that anything else in the source (for example facts about his life) should be considered reliable either. Please see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information about this. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Callum Coats, Living Energies
The book cover claims that Schauberger "demonstrated how Nature's abundance is the result of a complex interaction of energies that actually create matter, not the other way around as orthodox science believes". This explicitly contradicts scientific consensus, making the source unreliable.
 * It contradicts scientific consensus because Schauberger did.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a proper source could state that Schauberger believed that he had proven this (if this was the case). But since the source claims that he actually managed to prove it (which is complete nonsense) the source can be considered unreliable. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point
The book cover makes it clear that this is a conspiracy theory book on the cover-up of anti-gravity/UFO technology. As a conspiracy theory book, it can not be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards.

Viktor Schauberger, Implosion Magazine
This is a self-published magazine and as such not a reliable source.

The quotes taken from the magazine did not comply with the Wikipedia quotation guidelines. In a previous version of the article, the quotes tried to "explain" why scientists/engineers had failed to duplicate/understand Schauberger's results. That wasn't a valid use of quotes as such claims must be supported by reliable, secondary sources.

Documentaries
I removed the three recommended documentaries. The Borderland Science Research Foundation focuses on UFOs and pseudo science. Callum Coats has (as mentioned above) written books where he claims that Schauberger proved "orthodox science" wrong. Recommending such documentaries violates WP:NPOV, which states that articles should reflect what reliable sources say on the topic.

Short
This is unreasonable. The talk page is so extensive, yet the article is so short. Shouldn't the article be expanded?Schauberger did apparently advocate a number of unorthodox ideas, so he may be represented in unorthodox sources more than orthodox. Information from unorthodox sources could be added, given that the subject of the article is in itself unorthodox-ideas. Such information could be qualified with something like “According to ____” or “____ said X about Schauberger” (preferable to weasel words like “it is said” or “supposedly”).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) undefined 07:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC) undefined 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a good source (http://books.google.com/books?id=ndUAAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA961&dq=viktor+schauberger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MFeQUoyXBIK9iwKa14HYCQ&ved=0CJYBEOgBMBU#v=onepage&q=viktor%20schauberger&f=false). It's from the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos 1933-1945, which apparently is not specialized in controversial claims. Here are some others:
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=8XZMAAAAYAAJ&q=viktor+schauberger&dq=viktor+schauberger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MFeQUoyXBIK9iwKa14HYCQ&ved=0CMYBEOgBMB8 Gardens Illustrated, Issues 86-88
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=jl4BW6B0aF8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=viktor+schauberger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MFeQUoyXBIK9iwKa14HYCQ&ved=0CKoCEOgBMDM#v=onepage&q=viktor%20schauberger&f=false The Crisis of Innovation in Water and Wastewater
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=O6m4rw9EkRkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%2B%22viktor+schauberger%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eFmQUviEB8m8igL8zYGwCQ&ved=0CPwCEOgBMDg#v=onepage&q=%2B%22viktor%20schauberger%22&f=false (translated) Wasserbelebung am Beispiel Grander-Technologie: Eine empirische Erhebung Title in English: Water revitalization example Grander Technology: An empirical survey among industrial userssiNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * By the way, with respect to the needs of WP:NPOV, this article should first and foremost be focused on Viktor Schauberger's life history and not necessarily so much focus needs to be placed on his theories.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia


 * Thank you.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added some information, including his place of birth and death. One source I cited was, which I figured would be reliable, in the sense of being neutral, because it treated Thomas Edison pretty neutrally, so I figured it would do the same for Schauberger


 * I also added, “Alick Bartholomew has written a book about Schauberger's unorthodox ideas.” (The book is Hidden Nature: The Startling Insights of Viktor Schauberger.) Per NPOV, the way I phrased this did not openly endorse Schauberger's views. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is not how Wikipedia works. You need to use reliable sources to support claims. The claim "Schauberg thought X" needs to be supported by a reliable source; it doesn't matter if X itself is sane or crazy. It's also fine that the article is short. The fact that the talk page is full of bogus claims about him is irrelevant. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be encyclopedic if the article could summarize the ideas/theories/beliefs that this man had - he was a man - and he had ideas. I believe doing that would not violate a neutral POV. Such a thing could easily be done without reference to any controversial 'achievements', 'accomplishments' or disputable historical events. Can anybody here explain why the article has failed to do this for so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.36.9 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is unreasonable. The talk page is so extensive, yet the article is so short. Shouldn't the article be expanded? (10 years later): Yes. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Shambles
It seems a load of creepy pedants have cut the entire guts out of the article. According to Wikipedia he existed and that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.232.208 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disenchanted at the end of his life
Near the end of his life: "If I reveal everything it will only be hushed up because it not only involves the whole scientific establishment but also the doctrines of the Church. All power politics will collapse once the truth emerges that science is the actual causative agent of cancer. (...) The whole of science and all its hangers-on are nothing but a band of thieves who are suspended like marionettes and must dance to whatever tune their well-camouflaged slave-masters deem necessary" (link #2 in )

We are not explaining how his opinion of science evolved during his carreer. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Viktor Schauberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101121091450/http://www.pks.or.at:80/menu_en.html to http://www.pks.or.at/menu_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your Edit War just makes conspiracy seem viable
Hello, I came to this article to read about VS, and instead found another instance of the ridiculousness that is Wikipedia editing. I don't care about the UFO technology or whether it existed. I don't care if there are no sources for Hitler and Schauberger having meetings. But as noted in [| Shambles] above, this article has been gutted. Was there no reliable source that said he helped construct log flumes?? Article claims that he "was an Austrian forest caretaker", is there no source as to what forest(s) he was taking care of?? Not one mention of an invention. Not one mention of his claimed "pseudo-science". This is silly. It makes one either WANT to vandalize the article, or agree with conspiracy theories that his work has been scrubbed and swept under the rug. Wcichello (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

More content, pls.
Hi, what a weird non-article this is. While I agree that VS's work is not scientific, a brief detour to similar figures - e.g. E. von Däniken - shows articles that present the work, and then demonstrate that is is not valid. Here, there's just nothing. The article shouldn't make claims that VS proved or established etc. anything, but can still indicate the area of his interests. And the area is valid enough. Vortices and turbulence do exist, they can be tremendously powerful, and damaging, like tornadoes, they are studied scientifically and the results used in practice (aircraft construction), while not all their properties are fully understood even today. VS was not formally trained in science, he was a technician, an engineer of sorts, with hypotheses informed and expressed mainly by hands-on experience, experimental (and undocumented) design and (more or less coherent) personal philosophical musings. To the degree that he worked in a field not fully explored, coining new terminology for his findings is not only to be expected, but almost a requirement. That he did not succeed makes him a dead end, yes, at best perhaps a forerunner, if something turns out to work after all (you never know, as the heliocentrists found out), a fringe scientist, by all means, but he wasn't any kind of fraud or scam artist best forgotten. Wrt. to RS, I agree that one cannot use acolyte hagiography to establish extraordinary claims about scientific results, but one can use them to document VS's convictions and beliefs, that is, one can use them for the first part, to document his work. That he did work, I take it, is uncontroversial. IOW, I am all for expanding the article, in practice perhaps reinserting some of the deleted material, carefully sifted to make a "scientifically deflated" article about a man who lived an interesting, and to some people obviously inspiring life. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We cannot write an article based on nothing. Reliable sources are needed. For Däniken, there are lots of good sources. For Schauberger, not so much.
 * He did not "coin new terminology", he used existing terminology and gave it new meaning.
 * "he wasn't any kind of fraud or scam artist" No, but he was a crackpot whose ideas were ignorant and worthless.
 * "one can use [acolyte hagiography] to document VS's convictions and beliefs" No. That would be propagating WP:PROFRINGE ideas. If an aspect is not mentioned in reliable sources, we should ignore it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thx for answering. If one were to be consistent, one should probably delete the article, then, because then VS is not notable. Could be the outcome, fine by me. It's the emptiness here that's weird.
 * I agree on RS, but RS for what? That he lived and worked and had particular interests? I think many sources are reliable for such uncontroversial information.
 * I agree that they are not RS for extraordinary claims when it comes to science, of course; i.e. the results many (including himself) claim.
 * Re terminology, if you say so. Only, it was used as an argument, I argued against the argument. Idk what is old and new wrt. the relevant scientific fields.
 * Crackpot, ok, but his name pops up, and people come here to see why. Either drop him as not notable, or tell people what they need to know about him. An empty article is neither/nor.
 * Hagiography: If you reread, you'll se I wrote "one cannot", so on that point, we happily agree.
 * T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist?
I'm adding this section to give room to the authors who want to change the description "pseudoscientist". Please add your well sourced contributions here. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, although it is obviously true, it is unsourced. The German Wikipedia article de:Viktor Schauberger is much longer, there have been many fights over the word "Pseudowissenschaft", evidenced in the Talk archives, but the result is that the word is not there. I think we need to remove it here too.
 * Of course, "scientist" is out of the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The German page uses the word "parascientist" which is a long standing compromise there. We could do the same here.--Nillurcheier (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no source for that either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The German page is providing one, however broken, I'll check it. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sources for "parascientist" (German "Parawissenschaftler"):

https://www.orpanit.de/wissenswertes/viktor-schauberger-und-der-wasserwirbler/ https://www.ochis.science/viktor-schauberger/ https://www.universeofenergy.de/viktor-schauberger/ https://www.exklusiv-muenchen.de/news/lebensmittelluftverschmutzung-58991 https://www.profil.at/wissenschaft/traum-vom-perpetuum-mobile-5761288 Nillurcheier (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A two-step approach seems necessary. It is undisputed that he propagated "free energy". It is also undisputed that free energy is para if not pseudoscience. Hence the word "parascientist" fits. Nillurcheier (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, two-step approaches are called WP:SYNTH and a special case of WP:OR. The phrase "Erfinder, Naturforscher und Parawissenschaftler" or "Erfinder, Naturphilosoph und Parawissenschaftler" in your links are clearly copied from or inspired by the German Wikipedia article. Essentially nobody uses "Parawissenschaft" unless they got it from GWUP, who in turn got it from sociologist de:Edgar Wunder.
 * I would like the word in the article too (pseudo, not para; para is milquetoast), but at the moment, I fear we will have to go without it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still see several options. What about "supporter/promoter of free energy, which is commonly categorized as a pseudoscientific concept" or similar formulations. Of course with 2 high quality sources. Nillurcheier (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's very, very, very poor writing to state, in this article, that Schauberger was a pseudoscientist, then include no further information in this article backing up that claim. Please fix! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)