To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: elemental rod  (Read 79216 times)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #75 on: June 20, 2008, 11:00:22 AM »
@Grumpy: sounds like you're headed for my Crystal Cell thread dude ;) ;D

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:,972.0.html
If you're interested, see you there. :D

Offline newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #76 on: June 20, 2008, 04:43:06 PM »
Both rods are black on the outside, and silver/metal color on the inside.  Why is this?  Could the rods be tungsten and tantalum with some sort of coating (dielectric, maybe)?

Also, he stats the elements are compressed, maybe the black outside layer is compressing the elements inside.  What do you guys think?

Offline newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #77 on: June 21, 2008, 12:16:36 AM »
Maybe uranium dioxide? That could explain the jar on the outside to keep moisture off the rods.

Offline Motorcoach1

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 307
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #78 on: June 21, 2008, 02:03:55 AM »
I haven't seen a real clear video of it , but what I did see was the carbon on the outside so i guess murcury laced rod and maybe lithum film witha special secret candy coating mmmm popcicle

Offline Bob Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #79 on: June 21, 2008, 10:17:04 PM »
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:
Could it be the rods are perhaps 2 different metals inside a carbon sleeve?

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #80 on: June 23, 2008, 11:31:33 AM »
Well anything is possible, but it seems to me that that would add up to 3 different elements,
and that's not even close to 73/74. ;)

Besides that, I do not see the guy in that Youtube video prove that he's got a negative resistor at all...
He does repeat several times, not just in that specific vid but also in some others, that "all batteries
are negative resistors" and that is just not true.
Seems to me he just has a flawed idea of what a negative resistor really is.
A normal resistor is an elecronic component that transduces electrical current into heat,
adding resistance to an electrical circuit, and causing the electrical output to be lower
than the input, whereas the thermal output is higher than the input.
A negative resistor would have these qualities in the negative, meaning that it should
transduce heat into elecrical current directly, lowering the resistance of the circuit,
and causing the electrical output to be higher than the input, whereas the thermal output
of the component should be lower than the input. Which basically means it absorbs
energy from the environment in the form of heat, thereby cooling the direct environment,
and adding this energy to the electrical energy in the system, increasing the output.

In a chemical battery, the galvanic reaction between the components is temperature
dependant up to a degree, but inputting energy into the battery does not cool down
the surroundings, and the thermal input is not tranduced into electricity, it simply
allows the chamical reaction to occur.
In resistor components, no chemical reactions take place, it is all electrodynamics.
In a battery, it is all galvanics, all chemical reactions. And they stop when the components
have all reacted.
So a battery is not a negative resistor. It is a temporary current source, yes. But not
a negative resistor. If it were, you could input some energy into the battery and always get out
more than you put in, plus the battry would actively cool the environment.

With a negative resistor, you could make a current-producing refrigerator.
A negative resistor is an over-unity device. A battery is not.

In the follow-up video where the guy "tests" his "negative resistor" he doesn't make
any sense at all...
First he points out he's got some acidic solution in which he's put his "cell", which
consists of the carbon coated steel rod inside a stainless steel tube. Then he shows a
voltage reading on the rod and the tube at 0.85V and dropping. That's not surprising,
he's got carbon and steel in acid, he's getting galvanic voltage output.
Then he hooks up a 10V battery and shows the voltage go up to 10V.
Then he disconnects the battery and shows the voltage reading drop to 1.6V and dropping.
and then he concludes that he's got a negative resistor.
But what does he base that on?
On the simple fact that the voltage reading appears to double after he's just charged both
electrodes with 10V? After a 10V charge applied to two pieces of steel seperated by a layer
of carbon, is it really that surprising that a remnant of about 0.8V is not immediately dissipated?
I don't think so.
Besides, he does not measure amperage at all.
You can't really say much about the actual energy input vs output if you only look at the volts.

All in all I do not see any negative resistor behaviour in his videos.
I do not see his carbon coated rod produce energy from nowhere, nor do I see
him for example inputting 1V at 1mA and getting output of 2V at 1mA, which would
indeed be a negative resistor style energy increase.
I do see him perform a very simple galvanic reaction and getting overexcited at a voltage reading.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2008, 12:17:06 PM by Koen1 »

Offline Drossen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2008, 08:53:47 PM »

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.

Offline Bob Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2008, 02:57:32 AM »
Thanks for the detailed analysis on my post.

Do you or anyone else think the elemental rod generator has something to do with resonance?

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2008, 12:19:54 PM »
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.:(

Offline zapnic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183

Offline zapnic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2008, 09:54:42 PM »
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 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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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)"

mhhh maybe invate Dr. Schwartz to come here?

« Last Edit: June 24, 2008, 10:31:03 PM by zapnic »

Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2008, 11:36:12 PM »
I remember the rocks he picked up were quartzine from the look of them in the video. (I used to be a rockhound as a kid.) If the rod were carbon, you would have a carbon rod coated (surrounded by) with pseudo quartz (quartz, with other various minerals). I wonder.
If you've read my comments in JD thread, "crystal" batteries correlate much with the understanding I offered there. The "holy grail" of overunity must be a non-equilibrium of atomic forces which produces transient potential MUCH higher than the potential used to create this non-equilibrium. And most importantly this transient potential is NOT reactive in pusher-pushed relationship. Otherwise it simply would not deliver overunity. The proof of absense of any overunity in this world is based on Newton's law of action and counteraction (you can't beat it by logic). If you can create action that does not result in counteraction (at least in this space), you have overunity. The counteraction may happen in some "subspace" (e.g. past or future time, or even some more strange space). So, if you are rising transient potential indirectly, via some "tweak" (maybe 3-6-9 harmonics), the counteraction happens not with the energy input, but with that other subspace, and so output can exceed input.

In fact, this understanding leads to extending Newton's law of action and counteraction in limiting it to DIRECT potential relationships. Anything INDIRECT is not covered by it.

E.g. what's the problem with opening a very small hole in a balloon full of highly pressurized gas? You at least do not need much energy to open this hole. Now imagine you do not need much energy to close it. The balloon is that "subspace", which exists basically to supply energy to THIS world that is governed by what Newton found to be a law. The question that's still not answered by physicists is from where the energy for the Big Bang appeared. So, this understanding has its place here...

I myself tend to favor past/future relationship as it allows (at least for me) to create "time looped" potentials that resemble particles. (it all, however, becomes very virtual as this way question about the "birth of the very first particle" becomes definitively unanswerable, as it transcends this reality).

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #87 on: June 25, 2008, 09:01:44 AM »

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


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........ ;D COP>10000


Offline aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2008, 01:09:23 PM »
I also just thought of this common example of COP>1.
There's no COP > 1 in modern science in any case.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: elemental rod
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2008, 02:36:26 PM »
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! :D