Author Topic: Nathan Stubblefield Earth battery/Self Generating Induction Coil Replications (Read 1717098 times)

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #465 on:** December 26, 2007, 04:30:48 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 26, 2007, 03:44:53 AM

(snip)

Now, about my "series" connections. You are correct of course but I don't see a way to connect it any other way. what I mean is if I go from carbon (+) to zinc (-) I have a dead short. that is what I tried a while back. I go from carbon on one cell to the zinc on the other and it does not know it is two cells and it is like hooking up a wire from the + on your car battery to the -, not good. Maybe I am missing something basic and simple here (probably) but that is why I tried to just tie all the plus and all the minus electrodes together which is, of course (now that you pointed it out) a parallel connection. Any thoughts on how to connect the + of one cell to the - of the other without a short? Thank you.

Bill

@ Bill

If you take a hypothetical, of two batteries and connect a lead from the positive of one and the negative of the other, and measure output there, or tie them together, it will alway look like a short, until you measure the output from the negative of the one the the positive of the other.

It may indeed not work as I posted earlier, but it must be tried. Just connect carbon to zinc and then measure the output of the other carbon and zinc and see if you have garnered more voltage. You also should attempt an amperage reading while you had them wired in parallel and see if it was increased.

Christmas Cheers,
Bruce

jeanna · « **Reply #466 on:** December 26, 2007, 05:40:16 AM »

Yikes! three pages in one day as I looked away! where to begin?
First Thank you Hans for a superb article.

I took my wired copper pipes and wired zinc nail outside in the snow flurries today. In a very brief amount of time I checked a few things and then I had to leave for the day, which is why this post comes afterr all those very useful ideas discussed today.

Results report follows:
I have 2 copper pipes and 1 zinc coated spike to which I soldered one copper wire each.
I arranged these elements together to see if I could see any voltage above the zero that I got 6 weeks ago (and again more recently) when I tried to put them together in 'series ' style.

So, the first was another control that I get about o.9v with the cu - zn cell.

Then I put 2 cu pipes with their wires next to the cu pipe that is still in the ground (that's 3 cu pipes connected) and then put the zinc with its soldered wire up against the last cu pipe and I got 0.45v. WHAT? Is that what one leg of a parallel circuit shows? I really want to repeat this with photos. It started to rain so I stopped. I sure hope the sky lets up a bit tomorrow. I am not satisfied that I have done justice to this since I ran it only once before it rained.

I will also repeat something else, ?I think ? I had cu - zn - cu and got a lot of fluctuations from 0.45v to zero and back up to 0.25v -- very active.

Last night and today, I was thinking that if I could set up a cap for each cell and then have the caps somehow join their charges into a single cell, or an array of some kind, it might get us somewhere. (And I come to find out you have been talking about this all day) I find this whole group is thinking together. And THAT is how we will succeed!!!

I also think we should do some coils along with this. Hans has given us a lot to work with and if there is a tesla coil person (was that you Arctic_Knight ) it would be great. It won't be straight up I suspect, but some tesla coil experience in here might help.

I don't know that I ever used a rectifier but it should be easy enough to find out how. It may indeed give some extra voltage.

I also re-read Tom Bearden's treatice about how to get charge from the source and then use the charge without depleting the source. It is so simple and brilliant. In it he makes the point that the amperage doesn't "happen" until there is a way for it to move in a direction. We need only look for voltage in our meters and the amperage will be something we can get from it by running a circuit properly from it.

looking forward to more,

jeanna

duff · « **Reply #467 on:** December 26, 2007, 06:12:03 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 26, 2007, 03:05:33 AM

@Duff:

Thanks for the info. I look forward to getting the other information as well.

Bill,

I could not find the exact document I was thinking of but here something you might find interesting.

Patent 3,361,957
Telluric current response device having spaced conductors for positioning adjacent the earth's surface.

-Duff

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #468 on:** December 26, 2007, 06:26:28 AM »

Wow! So many great posts here on Christmans day. What a dedicated group of experimenters and researchers we have here.

@ Bruce:

I'm glad you joined us. I have been following your work on the micro tpu topic with much interest. Very nice work over there. I will follow your suggestion and see what happens. It is an easy experiment to do. I will also check the amps reading in para. also. I just thought that if I connect + to the - it would short the cell and I would get nothing. I beleive I attempted this a while back but, now that I have 2 exactly the same cells to work with (same materials and same surface area on same allignment) it might turn out differently. What I was picturing in my mind was like taking two car batteries and running a lead from + to _ on each and then measuring volts but, if I did that the wire would melt. In my scenerio I guess one would go from + on one bat. to - on the other and visa versa. That works as this is how they run golf carts on multiple batteries in series, right? But, no way to know without trying and I will do so. Your tpu knowledge will come in handy for us here before it's over I'm sure.

@sid10:

Nice photo of the meter. That is the setting I used (mA) when I measured my amps and I believe my figure of 2.5 (or thereabouts) was in milliamps. I don't recall the figure you had, I think it was like .9 amps? This, on this scale would be .9 milliamps. You electrical guys can correct me if I am wrong about this. Otherwise this would mean I am getting 2.5 amps which I do not believe to be true. Your point about leds being photovoltaic is correct. I tested a few of my red and blue ones and got several millivolts by just using a maglight flashlight shinning on it. Amazing little things these leds. you may be right about the green maybe a better yeild. I don't have any of those and could not try it.

@ Jeanna:

Wow, you are doing a lot of work out there!!! According to the galvanic chart I have here, which was posted way, way back, you will probably get .9 vdc from these materials. I am not saying that this is galvanic, or just galvanic at all. I am doing a bit better than what the chart shows but it is a good base reference. So maybe you will get about 1.1 or so. But, if you are able to hook into series, then, who knows?

The fluctuations you mentioned interest me. This might be exactly what Hans is speaking of when telling us to measure using the rectifier bridge. (Gee, a year ago, if you told me I would be typing the words rectifier bridge, I would have thought you were crazy as I didn't even know what one was) Could it be that my led circuit with the cap is almost acting like a rectifier of some sort? You know, a diode and a cap.? I only have one cap. but am getting more in the near future. (hopefully) I also think that checking for ac using Hans's idea of the audio amp. is a good one to really see if any volts are on the secondary. If so, ac present. I wish I had more money for these experiments.

I hope everyone continues to come up with these great ideas. The more experimenters we have, the better we can do. I am seeing some confusing things out in my little garden, but it is trying to tell me something. Once I understand what is really going on, there is no telling what might happen. More experimentation to come.

Bill

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #469 on:** December 26, 2007, 07:14:20 AM »

@ All

I am sure that you all have seen this already, but I decided to highlight the parts I feel are most relevant for experimenters. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

From Wiki:
"To obtain the natural electricity, experimenters would thrust two metal plates into the ground at a certain distance from each other in the direction of a magnetic meridian, or astronomical meridian. The stronger currents flow from south to north. This phenomenon possesses a considerable uniformity of current strength and voltage. As the Earth currents flow from south to north, electrodes are positioned, beginning in the south and ending in the north, to increase the voltage at as large a distance as possible. In many early implementations, the cost was prohibitive because of an over-reliance on extreme spacing between electrodes.

It has been found that all the common metals behave relatively similarly. The two spaced electrodes, having a load in an external circuit connected between them, are disposed in an electrical medium, and energy is imparted to the medium in such manner that "free electrons" in the medium are excited. The free electrons then flow into one electrode to a greater degree than in the other electrode, thereby causing electric current to flow in the external circuit through the load. The current flows from that plate whose position in the electropotential series is near the negative end (such as palladium). The current produced is highest when the two metals are most widely separated from each other in the electropotential series, and when the material nearer the positive end is to the north, while that at the negative end is towards the south. The plates, one copper and another iron or carbon, are connected above ground by means of a wire with as little resistance as possible. In such an arrangement, the electrodes are not appreciably chemically corroded, even when they are in earth saturated with water, and are connected together by a wire for a long time.

It had been found that to strengthen the current, it was most advantageous to drive the northerly electropositive electrode deeper into the medium than the southerly electrode. The greatest currents and voltages were obtained when the difference in depth was such that a line joining the two electrodes was in the direction of the magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. When the previous methods were combined, the current was tapped and utilized in any well-known manner.

In some cases, a pair of plates with differing electrical properties, and with suitable protective coatings, were buried below the ground. A protective or other coating covered each entire plate. A copper plate could be coated with powered coke, a processed carbonaceous material. To a zinc plate, a layer of felt could be applied. To use the natural electricity, earth batteries fed electromagnets, the load, that were part of a motor mechanism."

I learned a bunch from those few paragraphs and think to implement this as soon as I return home. Goal: Forever running micro tpu.

Bruce

Reisender · « **Reply #470 on:** December 26, 2007, 07:14:36 AM »

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #471 on:** December 26, 2007, 07:59:13 AM »

@ Bruce:

Yes, I believe we have seen that before, I know I have because, except for using the plates, that is exactly what I am doing. (as far as I know) + to polar north, - to polar south. The greatest potential is seen when moving the electrodes apart, to a point, at least for me. I have a very small area to work with here at my little apartment. Possibly, if I moved them 200 feet away it might improve yet again and to a higher degree. I have no way to know or find out. I did some testing involving placing the north elecrrode in deeper than the south and did see some improvement, but not a lot. My best is with the carbon rod (now 8.5 inches long) and the magnesium block (only three inches long) I want to get another mag. block to put into the series tests but for now, I am using 2 zinc coated spikes. They are actually deeper than the carbon now, but I had my meter on them when pushing them in and it got better the deeper I went so I kept going.

@ Hans:

A thought just occured to me about Stubblefield. After reading your research post I began to think about a picture I saw of some of Stubblefields earth batteries all laying in a barrel or bucket. It seems obvious to me that he was using them in series to get useful electricity as they appeared to be wired together. So, what if there turns out to be no ac component or even pulsed dc and his "coil" arrangements are nothing more than an efficient "antenna" to receive the telluric currents? As Bruce posted, the way to get more surface area easily is to use coils. A ten turn coil has probably more surface area than an eight foot long piece of metal. What do you think? I know he used two different types of metal in his arrangement and he did that for a reason as well. I don't know why at this point.

@ Duff:

Thanks for the patent info. I will look at it and see what it is.

Bill

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #472 on:** December 26, 2007, 08:19:20 AM »

@ Duff:

That patent info is great stuff!!!! The first part of the device just looks like a chain-link fence though, ha ha. The one thing at the begining of the patent wording struck me. The telluric currents have diurnal characteristics and move up vertically from the ground toward the sun. I had to look up diurnal and got three different but similar meanings all having to do with the center of the earth and the sun. IF this is true, then my poles should be horizontal not vertical and we should probably be using plates not rods. (harder to obtain) How does this guy "know" this I wonder? Has this been proven do you think? Does anyone here know about this? Thanks again for the info.

Bill

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #473 on:** December 26, 2007, 09:54:34 AM »

G'day Gentlemen,

I am glad you like my essay, there will be a few more if you wish.

I have noticed that all of you are using digital multimeters. They are terrific, I own one myself, but they are not very well suited for the kind of work you are doing. For what you are trying to find out you absolutely need an analogue meter. It's the next best thing to an oscilloscope.

Let me explain.

A digital multimeter takes a sample of, say a voltage, every second and displays the result. The result is very accurate, and that is where those meters shine. The reason why the sampling rate is so slow is that the display would be unreadable if there were any fluctuations in say the voltage. The figures just would whizz up and down with the voltage and you could not read the numbers.

In an analogue meter the needle moves with the current in real time. This gives you the opportunity to observe fluctuations and trends. The values are not as accurate as in a digital meter since you have only two inches or three of scale to work with, therefore the resolution is poorer. But for observing movement in the current there is nothing like it. In the old days we had a lot of nicknames for certain needle phenomena. There was the tick, the fall, the long fall, the hiccup, the floating needle and so forth. They all meant something.

I would strongly suggest you guys go out there and get one of those things. It does not have to be an expensive one since all you want to do with it is to observe trends. For precise measurements you have your digital one.

You should be able to find something reasonable for about twenty bucks or so. I guarantee you will never regret it.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

pese · « **Reply #474 on:** December 26, 2007, 12:25:13 PM »

http://www.icehouse.net/john34/stubblefield.html

on end of this paper.

Pese

P.S.
i am very sceptic about this)

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #475 on:** December 26, 2007, 03:44:11 PM »

Quote from: btentzer on December 26, 2007, 07:14:20 AM

(snip)
It had been found that to strengthen the current, it was most advantageous to drive the northerly electropositive electrode deeper into the medium than the southerly electrode. The greatest currents and voltages were obtained when the difference in depth was such that a line joining the two electrodes was in the direction of the magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. When the previous methods were combined, the current was tapped and utilized in any well-known manner.
(snip)

Hello all,

Magnetic Inclination:
What is Inclination (I)?

At a given location, the Inclination is the angle between the magnetic field vector and the horizontal plane (the plane is tangent to the surface of the Earth at that point). The inclination is positive when the magnetic field points downward into the earth and negative when it points upward.

Online calculator to determine true North and South for your location. Just enter your zip code:

DECLINATION CALCULATOR AND INCLINATION CALCULATOR:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/jsp/IGRFWMM.jsp

What is Declination (D)?

Declination is the angle of difference between true North and magnetic North. For instance, if the declination at a certain point were 10? W, then a compass at that location pointing north (magnetic) would actually align 10? W of true North. True North would be 10? E relative to the magnetic North direction given by the compass. Declination varies with location and slowly changes in time.

Note: Inclination is the angle you want between the bottom of your North electrode and the bottom of your South electrode.

Example: For me, my declination is 3 degrees East and my inclination is 61 degrees. So, to start I want to find my true north, by offsetting my compass by 3 degrees West and there it will be.

I want to set the angle between my bottom electrodes at a 61 degree angle. I hope that helps!

Holiday Cheers,
Bruce

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #476 on:** December 26, 2007, 04:14:44 PM »

Quote from: mramos on December 26, 2007, 04:05:22 PM

Bruce,

The calculator is broken?

I had true north. If I had the rest (angles), I can get the polls the lengths I need before I drive them in. Will try it again. I would love to see current over voltage. But so far no current on the analog meter..

I was shocked the iron and copper worked best voltage wise.

Thanks! It works now!

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #477 on:** December 26, 2007, 06:01:24 PM »

@ All:

In case some of you newer fellows have not read all of the previous posts here, of which there are many I know, my best readings are 1.82vdc and 2.5 milliamps. My total highest reading was 2.19 vdc but that was after I charged the cell from a 9 volt battery for about 40 seconds. I believe Hans is right about these digital meters. I have an old analog meter in my electronics toolbox that I used years ago. I will dig that out and re-check some things later today if I get a chance. Possibly, it will not read any milliamps at all...we will see.

@ Bruce:

My angle is 3 degrees (declination) here in Kentucky, USA and my angle on the bottom of the electrodes is about 60 degreees, roughly speaking. What I did in the begining as per Localjoe's suggestion was to place an electrode in the ground and then placed my meter probe on it and stabbed around in the ground with the other probe on angles slightly off of magnetic north and, low and behold, my best reading with the meter was 3 degrees. I sank my other electrode along this line, but farther away which also helped. The meter probes only have a limited reach as we all know, but once I established the line, I just stayed aligned with it only at a greater distance. Also, from what I have read, I should not be able to get more than 1.5 vdc if just pure galvanic action here. Plus, check out my picture posted earlier of the carbon rod after being burried in the earth cell for over two months. No sign of destruction as of yet. Could there be microscopic destruction? Sure, but I don't have a microscope to check this. I'll bet if I had it immersed in salt water for that time period with another dissimilar metal, there would be obvious damage.

My list of tests to perform is growing each day. I will try to get out there and knock some of these out and report back.

Bill

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #478 on:** December 26, 2007, 08:30:30 PM »

G'day Bill,

You should be able to read mA on your meter.

Years ago I did some work in a factory that built these things. Always curious, I had a good look at what they were doing and asked some questions. From memory they were using meter movements that had a full scale deflection of 100 mA. I was told that this was the type of movement most manufacturers used in their multimeters.

So you should be right.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #479 on:** December 26, 2007, 10:19:47 PM »

G'day Gentlemen,

Have a look at this patent. It is a patent for an orgone, motor granted in 2006.

The fascinating thing is the perpendicular arrangement of the coils. The sort of thing I have been discussing lately. I have included one of the drawings from the patent to give you an idea what I am on about.

The plot thickens.

Hans von Lieven

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Nathan Stubblefield Earth battery/Self Generating Induction Coil Replications (Read 1717098 times)

Bruce_TPU

Re: Earth battery expermients

jeanna

Re: Earth battery expermients

duff

Re: Earth battery expermients

Pirate88179

Re: Earth battery expermients

Bruce_TPU

Re: Earth battery expermients

Reisender

Re: Earth battery expermients

Pirate88179

Re: Earth battery expermients

Pirate88179

Re: Earth battery expermients

hansvonlieven

Re: Earth battery expermients

pese

More Earth battery expermients

Bruce_TPU

Re: Earth battery expermients

Bruce_TPU

Re: Earth battery expermients

Pirate88179

Re: Earth battery expermients

hansvonlieven

Re: Earth battery expermients

hansvonlieven

Re: Earth battery expermients