@hans: it's better than reading a good novel!  The coil part is certainly the key, and determining what is happening.

We should build a few of these devices and set up a testing procedure.  Would be good to have people in different parts of the world participate so we can see how the earth's magnetic field influences the devices. Either everyone should build exactly the same device or we should  come up with a bunch of configurations and let one person try each one to save time.   Different wire gauges, different number of turns on primary & secondary obviously make a big difference in the results obtained.  Do people agree that with some experimental results we may be able to get a better picture of what's going on?

The iron wire has to be exposed but not touch it self so side by side would be the answer your looking for.  As well somewhere it said the larger the capacitor you have the easier it flows so a big cap for the initial experiments may be very fruitful. Like the big blue tin can looking ones that folks use for large storage low voltage. Just a thought.
                                                                                                     Joe

@ Localjoe:

Thanks for the compliment on the video.  It was hurried and a little crude with a few mistakes but, I wanted to get the info out there.  I will look into your resistor idea.  Thanks again for posting this topic.  Very exciting.

@ George:

Yes, it is.  And the cap is fully charged and will light it on its own also.  With your experiment, according to the galvanic chart published here earlier by me, you should have read .85 vdc just by the metal difference.  I have always been able to better that galvanic number by a good percentage, and you should too.  First, were your electrodes set up so the copper was to the north and the aluminum to the south aligned on the north/south meridian?  (NOT) the magnetic north, depending on your location it will be different.  I have found this makes a difference which is very measurable.  What Localjoe suggested in the very begining, which I did, was to plant your most positive metal to the north (in your case, the copper) and then, probe around along the n/s alignment a few inches deep to obtain the true polar north south by using the area that shows the highest readings.  Then, sink your aluminum rod there.  I'll bet you find a big improvement by doing this.  Also, by reading the articles posted on this thread, I read that the south post/pole should be not as deep as the one to the north.  By experimenting with these parameters, you should be easily able to exceed the galvanic chart's numbers.  I have in the past but with my current setup, I am only in the ground 2" with the magnesium block so I know I am giving up something there.  Still looking for a mag rod of some decent length.  Best of luck.

@ Hans:

I am greatly enjoying reading your posts.  This is like a treasure hunt where we have a few pieces of a map, and need to fill in the rest.  It should be fun.  Thanks for your efforts here.

Bill

I have a question.  I have been thinking a lot lately (which might be considered dangerous by some) and I want to raise this issue.  We can continue in another topic so as to not clutter this thread, but I will ask it here.  Have I achieved O.U. by lighting an led from an earth battery?  I am obviously not the first, Stubblefield,( and others) localjoe, and the guy on the video with an led in his bathroom, etc.  What I am asking is this:  Is putting some rods in the earth and obtaining electricity (at any measurable amount) O.U.?  I have always thought of O.U. as getting more out of a system than you put in.  If this is the definition, I would say, yes we have.  But, (there is always a but) if true than what about solar power?  Take a few silicon wafers and stick them in the sunlight and...bingo....electricity.  Would solar also be considered O.U.?  If not, why not?

If both questions above are answered in the affirmative, then what is all of the "debate" in science about O.U. being unobtainable by "known" laws?  If the answer to the above questions is no to both, then, what is O.U.?

As I said, this might need another topic created to discuss but, I would like the people working on these experiments with the earth batteries to respond with their opinions.

I am already planning a field trip to Murry, Ky, to check out Stubblefield's museum and possibly view some records and maybe some saved devices.  Thanks.

Bill

Here's something off the web on Stubblefield:

---

Nathan Stubblefield's observations of natural electrical manifestations led him to consider the taking of "free" electrical energy from the earth. His excessive study of theoretical literature taught that no such advantage could be obtained by using earth batteries. Writers contended that vast amounts of energy could never be used to drive the engine-works of industry by earth battery power. He saw that, unless a new breakthrough in the art could be found, the theoreticians would be correct.

Older linesmen taught Stubblefield about sensitive ground spots: how "uncommonly great" electrical activity had to be patiently searched out. These electrical hot spots, when compared with most adjoining ground, were like electrical oil wells. Finding the "right spot" would do more than simply insure good ground connection for telegraph lines. Certain ground power points could actually power the lines! Motivated toward deeper research by his own natural observations and intuitive sensation, Stubblefield devised several earth batteries. His own peculiar ability to sense earth energies taught that it was vast in quantity, yet untapped by humanity. The means for drawing out the energy could be found!

Stubblefield knew that ground probes, placed into various spots, reveal an amazing degree of electrical activity. These currents varied across any chosen plot of ground. Wet soils often reverse the expected electrical strength; weakening rather than strengthening their magnitude. Stubblefield knew that a proper placement of metallic ground probes could produce stronger currents for use. But he did not anticipate what he then accidentally discovered. His initial experiments involved the development and examination of simple earth batteries: buried metallic arrangements, which produced weak electrolytic power. Mr. Stubblefield observed a strange "earth-charging phenomenon", reporting that the burial of an "earth energy cell" required time to build up charge. During the first phase of this charge building process, the characteristic weak output was observed. This was usually a volt at half an ampere, the general electrolytic output of buried metals.

From his linesman mentors, Stubblefield knew that placement of any grounded metal was the key toward deriving power. If properly placed, the energetic output of his cell would be phenomenal. Finding such a power point, he buried the cell. The process took a week or more to build strength. Once the cell was "saturated", however, it became (in his words) "a conduit of earth charge". This mysterious transition from weak battery to energy conduit required time.

Typical of his curt statements, Mr. Stubblefield simply stated that the fully saturated coil suddenly "manifested an electromotive force far greater than any known wet-cell". This state being achieved, the cell flowed over in "commercial electrical volumes".

He did not claim complete knowledge of the phenomenon. He observed that the activity "reached into weeks and months of continuous work night and day".

Stubblefield envisioned the energy cell as a "plug", drawing out the electrical charge of the ground. The cell coils acted as a lumped conductor. Charge saturated this conductor and flowed up into it, powering any electrically connected appliance. After repeated exhumations, the copper element of these cells was found "not acted on in any perceptible degree ... even after repeated renewals".

Mr. Stubblefield described means by which such cells could be connected in series at short distances from one another. "With these, acting as electrodes ... you draw from the electrical energy of the earth a constant E.M.F. of commercial value". That phrase... "acting as electrodes..." is the heart of the Stubblefield energy cell. It is not a battery. It absorbs and flows over with the stupendous energy of the earth's charge.

This device, an earthed electrode, drew up enough natural electric charge from the earth to operate motors, pumps, arc lamps, and all the components of his ground telephone system. The implementation of his earth energy technology would have changed the nature of American Society, were it permitted free market expression in its day.

Mr. Stubblefield later stated in very plain language that the earth was filled with "an electrical ocean". This electrical ocean was surging with huge "electrical waves" which could be felt, brimming over in certain places. No doubt, he was one who felt the ground energy. Stubblefield sensed that the ground currents arrived in powerful electrical waves. In Stubblefield's visionary approach, the electrical waves permeated the ground. These electrical waves were like ocean waves: ceaselessly surging and cresting over.

---
Source: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/nathan-s.htm

@bill

I think the distinction between overunity and free energy often gets blurred in the professional and private sectors.  with my limited knowledge on any of these subjects, i have come to an understanding that an object in order to be classified as overunity, energy must have been used to in turn to create more energy from an object.  Much like the Newman motor that uses 9V batteries to run a massive water pump.
on the other hand, solar cells and earth batteries are probably better termed as receivers and/or  converters.   These are tools that are used to tap the energy that is around us already. Isn't this what is called free/zero-point energy? 
As the future of energy production evolves, i think that the most ideal path would be learning how to tap into the energy that is constantly around us. 

@ Hans:

I agree 100%. I also think the term used by BRAHMA is very appropriate..."Converters".  Why try to create something from nothing when there is so much out there just begging to be converted.

@Localjoe:

I agree also about going after the more simple, elegant methods of energy conversion or reception.  Speaking of coils, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an ignition coil just a large cap?  It works with dc and takes 12vdc to 50,000vdc or more.  Would it take my 1.6 vdc to 5,000 volts? Or 8,000 volts?  What if the coil were buried in the ground also?  So many questions, so little time.

@ akashh:

Good info there. The more information we have, the better. Thanks.

Thanks to all who answered my question on O.U.  I feel like I am tapping into a source of power for free energy by reception and or conversion so, I agree it makes the O.U. question moot.  Back to work now.

Bill

Hans:

My car runs on 12 volts dc right?  The coil there ups that from 12 volts to 50,000 volts doesn't it?  By pulse, do you mean (like in the old days before computer controlled ignition) when the distributor lined up with the spark plug wire terminal for a certain cylinder, the coil discharged and then was recharged such that the voltages were released in pulses when sparking from the electrode to the engine block ground?  I have seen several "Jaccobs Ladders" constructed from car ignition coils which were only hooked directly to dc power via battery or power supply. They appeared to supply a continues high voltage until the spark climbed up the gap at the top and started again at the bottom.

Pardon my ignorance here, I am still re-reading my electronics textbooks that I thankfully still have on hand. The old ignition systems utilized a condenser also but I thought that was used for the times when the coil was not firing.  If you would not mind explaining this, I would appreciate it. I am also attempting to find information on how to make coils which is not so easy to come by thus far.  Thanks Hans.

Bill