@Grumpy: sounds like you're headed for my Crystal Cell thread dude

But I think we must keep in mind that the rod device showed AC characteristics:
or at least, the Japanese advert claimed AC output... And in most videos of
the thing one can see a bulb lit by touching it to the rods directly. This seems
to show that whatever current is produced, is not simply collected from the
rods and then inverted by a circuit to turn it into AC output at the socket,
but rather the energy can be tapped directly off the rods, which seems to
suggest that the 2 rods themselves already produce some form of AC...
Now you can stack different elements all you want, and you may very well
be able to get some nice diode and/or rectifier effects, but that is not anywhere
near an output comparable to that of a wall socket, which is what the Japanese
ads seemed to claim (according to translations made at the time).

I have been experimenting with "Crystal energy cells" for quite some time now,
along parallel lines to the related research done by Hutchison and Reid,
of which the goal is to make a cell of chemically inactive material that does
produce output. So a non-galvanic battery kind of idea.
In quite a number of my cells I use quartz and several other elements.
So far none of the cells made by Hutchison, Reid, and myself, seems to
produce more than a couple of Volts of tension, at a couple of milliAmps.
No AC, nowhere near a wallsocket.
But at least they're not galvanic batteries.

@pauldude000: Lol funny that you bring up Hutchisons cells just before
I post my message about my own experiments in that field.
We've got an active thread on the subject right here on the forum:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,972.0.html
If you're interested, see you there.

Maybe uranium dioxide? That could explain the jar on the outside to keep moisture off the rods.

FWIF, I don't know if this has been already mentioned, but it seems that carbon-coated stainless steel is a negative resistor. Check out this video on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4uP-twgoA
Could it be the rods are perhaps 2 different metals inside a carbon sleeve?
B

@Koen1

I agree that the device in the video is not a negative resistor.  However, I would like to clarify that, in the follow-up video, the liquid was water, not acid.  It is a water capacitor used in a water fuel cell for HHO gas production.

To be honest, too little clear info is available on the rod device
to make any educated guesses as to how it works...
Interpretations along different lines of reasoning have been
put forth, such as an "electrinium" interpretation which in its
own way does involve resonance and harmonic frequencies, but
the "theory" of electrinium has some "impurities" of its own and,
in my opinion, omits certain aspects of material electrodynamics
making it flawed. ("close but no cigar" type idea )

I suspect an intricate electrodynamic coherence is produced in
the atomic "crystal" lettice/matrix of the rods, micro- or nano-
layering various different elements to produce a form of diode-like
rectification both on the atomic level and between the rods themselves,
which allows the rods to absorb several wavelengths of incoming photons
(probably in the microwave and infrared regions, possibly all over the spectrum)
as well as ion charges from the surrounding air, while the accumulated
charge is shuttled back and forth between the rods.
This shuttling could aid conversion into AC output, and it could assist the
absorption function of the rods (as rectification tends to work best when there
are oscillations to rectify, and oscillations can be used in a sort of "pump"
action to "suck" charges up and "pump" them out of a capacitor)...

But that's just an educated guess.

I can imagine someone designing such a device so that the frequency
in which the charges are shuttled/oscillated are in harmony with the
wavelengths of photons intended to be absorbed as well as the exact
size, distance and elemental composition of the entire 2-rod setup.
As the Japanese ads from a few years ago showed the device inside
a seemingly specially made transparent cover, and the only other videos
I've seen them on also showed them in use in air, I suspect the air plays
a role in its function. After all, if not, they could have shown that it also
works under water, but nobody ever did so as far as I know... So that
means that either it doesn't work under water because the rods need the
interaction with air, or the device contains electronic circuitry which cannot
stand water.
I suspect a bit of both. I think circuitry was used to maintain oscillations
and transform output to a usefull format, and the rods use some interaction
with the surrounding air as part of their energy absorption "mechanism".

Oh, and it is of course possible that the rods themselves contain crystalline
lettice zones with oscillator characteristics.
A so-called "piezo" component is nothing more than a piece of crystalline
quartz shaped and sized so that it has a very specific oscillation frequency,
and when some current is applied such components are commonly used as
oscillators. It is possible that one of the microlayers or -zones in the rods
consists of such an oscillator 'crystal' material in the form of a compound
of several elements.
And it is even possible that the circuitry "picks up" on this oscillation
and "links up" with it by harmononeous resonant oscillation, thereby
enhancing the coupling between the energy movement in the rods
and that in the output circuit.

And then there's a few other possible interpretations...

So there's all kinds of speculative explanations but without any
additional info I'm afraid we'll get stuck at guessing what's going on
with the rods.

and more for same man
"
I've been looking for a dedicated Tesla group and unfortunately it's
not easy to find. I joined one group called the
teslainformationexchange@yahoogroups.com started by a guy named Neal
from The International Tesla Institute. It turned out to be nothing
but a  and Spam group that was disgracing the name of Tesla. Our
Atty. Is trying to find out who this Neal guy is. It's good to know
that I finally found a group of real Tesla fans here at USA-Tesla.

I'll start by answering Bert and JB's questions.

I am quite interested in the research you describe. In particular, can
you provide more information about the actual theory and operation of
your magnetic generator? Any closeup photos of the unit?

I posted a drawing of the flat electromagnetic panel in the group
files. I used four special Aluminum alloy plates that are 1/16th of an
inch thick by 11 ? inches wide by 7 ? inch high and placed three
1/16th inch Bismuth sheets between the Aluminum plates. Then I used
two very powerful flat permanent magnets (3''X3/4''X1/8'') attached in
the center of the plates. A special gold plated wire that is coated
with clear insulation is used to create a coil to flex the magnetic
field of the magnets. A special frequency generator is used to induce
a series of alternating frequencies to create a flow of electrons when
activating the magnetic field. We are presently experimenting with
replacing the Aluminum and bismuth with different material such as
Magnesium, Beryllium and graphite which has been showing better output
than the Aluminum and Bismuth.

I put some good photos of our prototype #8 in the group photos.

Question
This device appears to be related to the "elemental rod generator"
that was previously marketed in Japan by the ERR Company. In a
translation of the Japanese marketing documents, the inventor is
appears to also be a Dr. Schwartz from the Noah's Ark Research
Foundation. Are these units being offered for sale today?

Answer
Yes, this is related to the Rod Generator. That video was taken in
1988 by a friend of mine who came to visit me in the Philippines. His
video cam was stolen from his bag on his way back to the US so who
ever posted that video is still a mystery. Because he was planning on
showing the video to some people in the US we decided to say that one
rod contained 73 elements and the other 74. That was only to confuse
people so that they wouldn't know how really simple the rods were. I
considered my first Rod Generator a toy that needed a lot of research
and testing.

Back in 2002 my board of directors talked me into marketing small Rod
Generators to help poor countries. We pooled our money to set up a
small manufacturing plant to build our Rod Generators. We were
planning on selling them at cost to help do our part to save the world
form the Oil Companies. A week later we got a notice from the Dept. of
Energy in Japan that required the Rod Generator to be safety checked
by their laboratory before it could be sold in Japan. It took them
almost six months to test it before we received notice that it was
unsafe for public use. All the units that we had already manufactured
plus our jigs and dies had to be destroyed. That really hurt me and my
partners because we put a lot of money into that project. Since our
wife's told us not to put money into the Rod Generator we now have to
live with the old "I told you so". At least we learned a very
important lesson, I will never try to market one of my ERR generators.
When I have finished my ERR research and I fully understand how it
works, we plan on posting it on the internet. My board of directs and
myself are the ones that fund all of our Noah's Ark Research
facilities so we have no investors to account to.

Since I do a lot of lectures at different Universities we decided to
keep the big business interest and the people from the oil companies
from trying to figure out my new ERR. They like to send their people
to take close-up pictures so they can study my prototype but it won't
do them any good because we only use a small portion of the circuit
board that you see in the photos, the rest is just for show. We're
making sure that OPEC and the powerful companies don't patent my ERR
technology to keep it from the people.

Question
An earlier prototype version is apparently being demonstrated here ?
are you the demonstrator in these videos?
http://video. Google.com/ videoplay? Docid=-635987818 295327978
http://video. Google.com/ videoplay? Docid=-429834766 9641896403

Answer
Yes, this was prototype #7 that I used in my lectures at the
University of the Philippines. One of the students that attended my
lectures more than likely posted it to Google Video since many like to
take videos and still shots.

As you can see in the video I used a special flat panel alloy instead
of the rods. The big problem with prototype #7 was too much
fluctuation in output plus burned out components in the controller
that stabilized the electromagnetic field. Our latest prototype #8 is
the one that I posted in the group photos. Even though this one seems
to work very well it still needs a lot of testing.

Question
Do you have much trouble getting that "electromagnetic briefcase"
shown in the video at the above link onto airplanes when travelling?

Answer
Yes, the first time that I tried to take prototype #7 on one of my
lectures outside the country I got stopped by the airport security
because the electromagnetic field interfered with the x-ray machine.
It caused static on their screen. The inspectors were afraid because
they didn't understand how it worked. Because the unit was capable of
putting out a great deal of power without any batteries they were
afraid that it might be radiative. After x-raying it several times and
using a Geiger counter to check for radiation they finally allowed it
to be checked in only but not in my carry-on bag. I don't have any
problem with my latest ERR because it doesn't interfere with their
x-ray; it just looks like a metal plate with a circuit board when they
see it on their screen so they don't bother to ask me to open my bag.

Question
Re: The "left hand rule" anomalies you mentioned, I have noticed
variations or odd things about written about it by people in the
Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern Hemisphere in the assortment of
Electrician' s text books

Answer
The left hand rule is a very interesting research. We have noticed
many variations in our experimental coils at our facility in India
compared to the coils in Japan and the Philippines. It's best that I
don't go any farther on this subject because this could take hours and
twenty pages of text to explain. And the truth is that after all that
explaining you would be very confused. I'm even confused myself
because we are sometimes having difficulty replicating some of our
experiments. As we learn more about this theory I will post it. This
is much better because then I won't look like a fool trying to explain
parts of our theory that is still not fully understood.

Thanks for the information about photobucket, I'll check it out.

Our Foundation is planning on building a world class Tesla Museum, we
could really use any good ideas or thoughts that you might have. We
are presently setting up a planning committee.

And thanks again for the warm welcome; I look forward to a long and
lasting relationship with the group.

Dr. Schwartz (or just Ben will do fine)"

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/usa-tesla/



mhhh maybe invate Dr. Schwartz to come here?

@Aleks

That is one view to examine.

Another is the idea I have been discussing elsewhere, in that small forces can quite easily control much larger forces in the right situations.

Consider this. The Earth has a natural background electric field, which if I remember correctly is to the tune of 50v/meter. If a circuit could isolate the imbalance in the electrical field, quite a large amount of electricity could be generated merely from the electric field alone.

Quite a number of different forms of supposedly ambient energies exist, and if controlled and guided by a small amount of extraneous energy, OU would also exist in this scenario.

(Personally, I do not believe in OU, as I think all demonstrations are but an example of the fallacy of the "Closed System" logical construct, which I have yet to see one example of in reality. OU is then merely using ambient forms of energy. One simply demonstrated and common example being a solar cell. NO power is input by the user to extract power out. COP>1 exists there. The only difference is the workings of the unit is understood, that is it. Therefore it is not termed as OU or COP>1.)

Paul Andrulis

EDIT:

I also just thought of this common example of COP>1. How about comparing the power generated in a nuclear explosion in comparison to the energy used to initiate said reaction........ COP>10000

Paul

Hehe, the Tesla Radiant energy Shield eh?
Well, flippin interesting that someone claims to be able to
replicate a working version of it!
It's a pity I can't check out his files on it immediately...
But it's in the right direction.
Ian and I have also looked into the same subject in
our research related to the crystal cells.

thanks for posting that link zapnic!