The large amount of disinformation and misunderstanding is what holds many back...

Here are some good resources,
http://www.rexresearch.com/clemengn/clemeng.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm

AC

Hi onepower,

I read just about everything I could get my hands on, about the Clem engine, many if not most of those design where made up.

The cone was never used I new this from the start, but people keep pushing it.

The 7 stage piston pump could be the main part of the system. I was using gear pumps in my testing and realize this was not the best pump for this project. Wear is s big factor, and pressure drop.

When I did some high pressure test, there were cavitation internal explosion occurring coming from the jets outlets. Like a small gun going off.

One important fact using just hydraulic oil, it got very dark while running a few prototypes and settle to the bottom but was not iron from the metal. More like carbon ash, almost like something was burning inside the system.

Cooking oil worked very well at higher pressure, not the same burning effect as hydraulic oil. But over night when it cool down, it turn into a thick grease when it was mixing with air.

The Clem engine would have to be a closed loop if cooking oil was used, the cavitation of micro bubbles could still occur.

As for size, this also matters. You still have to get torque and rpm's to do any type of mechanical work.

Again, I'm not calling myself a expert, I just have years of experience building many prototype dealing the the Clem Engine theories.

Tom

Hey Tommey
It's important to understand there are time lines and a learning curve involved with the process of invention.

In the pictures below we can see Viktor Schauberger started with a spiral cone shaped device supposedly similar in form to the oil pump Clem discovered self-running. However the later designs of both Schauberger and Clem look very similar in form to a torque converter. The descriptions are also very similar speaking of rotating spiral channels, moving fluids and exit nozzles.

There is another possibility I think we both understand as maker/inventors. As Einstein implied, the secret to creativity is knowing when to hide our sources. Many inventors never invented anything and heard about a technology, were involved with others or it was given to them. For example, Alfred Hubbard was not an inventor and he was supposedly a 16 year old busboy for Nikola Tesla who gave the technology to him. So we could ask, did Clem invent this machine or did he read about something or was it given to him and the whole story about a self-running tar pump made up?. So everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

As well, in the literature there are many other similar devices/phenomena which used oil, oil and water, water, water and air, steam, steam and water as well as water with any number of substances added to it. Viktor Schauberger spoke of adding minerals and/or "carbones" ie. hydrocarbons to his water to enhance the effect.

I like your video's, right or wrong there pretty cool and creative. I was raised on a farm and built/fabricated almost everything just because I could, still do. I look at some of the cheap stuff people try to sell and think I can do better and give it a go. If nothing else, it's one hell of a hobby and you never know...

AC

Hi onepower,

I agree, but even those claims are questionable when nobody has a video of a working model.

I think research is very important, I seen some people talk about physics and lots of pictures. The real way of learning is just build it and be willing not to stop.

Some even talk about not using math, yet try building a dog house without basic math.

We have thousand of designs that claim to be OU, we also have experts in many fields in this forum that try to duplicate these builds.

I believe 99% of these claims are just that, yet nobody has yet copy a single OU device yet.

I tested the Clem engine theories, none of them created more energy output vs input.

But have seen the phase change needed to push it beyond OU.

Tom

Quote from: TommeyReed on April 12, 2023, 06:55:53 PM
Hi onepower,

I agree, but even those claims are questionable when nobody has a video of a working model.

I think research is very important, I seen some people talk about physics and lots of pictures. The real way of learning is just build it and be willing not to stop.

Some even talk about not using math, yet try building a dog house without basic math.

We have thousand of designs that claim to be OU, we also have experts in many fields in this forum that try to duplicate these builds.

I believe 99% of these claims are just that, yet nobody has yet copy a single OU device yet.

I tested the Clem engine theories, none of them created more energy output vs input.

But have seen the phase change needed to push it beyond OU.

Tom

Yes Tommy
With such a gathering of intelligence that we have here, wouldn't you think that somebody among us would be able to overcome the laws of physics