Message to Ist:

More like a few microns worth of gold coating on the connectors perhaps?  Chances are you have an unbelievably tiny amount of gold to harvest from your old equipment.  SOL!   lol

MileHigh

why are you responding to that post from a different thread in this one? ever heard of a PM? are you mental?

@ tinu:

Quote from tinu: " 5. I was posting here because I’ve got enough nonsense. “Earth battery” is a non-free crap. Or, if you prefer, it is exactly as free as any other battery one can make without ever making use of Earth. Just use the damn magnesium, carbon and some electrolyte (water and salt, or just piss in it – you may be surprised; I’ve also heard that troll piss is better but hey, don’t take my word for it). Such a battery, built in a bare glass/container, will be smaller, cleaner and it will function wherever placed, even in outer space, if properly designed. So where is your “Earth” involved into that battery? Don’t bother; it’s rhetorical."

Well, this displays quite a bit of ignorance of the EER and how it works.  Go ahead, use the mg and carbon rods like you say, and then attempt to do what I can do and then, 2 years later, see if it is still working.  I already know the answer to that one.  Electrodes that are NOT in the earth can't tap or receive telluric currents, it is as simple as that.  I have dug my system up 2 times now, first after one year and, almost a year after that.  I have posted photos of my electrodes...guess what?  No degradation as Stubblefield has predicted. IF you had read of all of our work in this area, you might already know that.  To make comments and false observations and draw false conclusions as you have done without doing any research is really a waste of time.

So, go ahead and make your EER your way.  Try to light 400 leds or even just a single 48" tube.  I am waiting to see your results posted as well as your videos.

For anyone that wants to know how an EER works, just Google Nathan Stubblefield.  It is all explained in his patents and interviews.  Then, you can check out our many earth battery/EER topics here on OU.  Also read my topic on Tariel Kapandze who is getting over 100 kw out of the earth, yes for free, with his system.

Bill

well said bill, thank you. i started to explain that in my response but decided it was a waste of my time and just called his statements what they were, a red herring logical fallacy.

Just to clarify this statement from Bill:

Try to light 400 leds or even just a single 48" tube.

The earth battery is charging his capacitor first, and then the capacitor powers the lights at a much higher current than the earth battery can sustain itself.

That's because the earth battery has a very high output impedance.  So there is a unknown statistic about the earth battery.  The stat is for 24 hours worth of earth battery energy accumulation, how long can you light up a single 48" fluorescent tube?  It would help to be more precise about the tube illumination level also because most JT setups that fire fluorescent tubes don't do it at full standard brightness.

Just keepin' it real.

MileHigh

Hi,

The only thing I can think of is my NiMH battery was 700mAh and yours is 2500mAh.

I can email you my address, but no PM because someone periodically logs into my account and checks my PM's. So they might be doing it to yours ass well.

@ Bill,

I appreciate your experiments but it can not change the status of Earth battery. Earth battery is a useless piece of technology. Its applicability was low even in times when electricity was a rare commodity.

Few aspects defining the main characteristics of an Earth battery:
Power is very low. Voltage can not be increased by series connecting two or more batteries.
Internal resistance is very high and, even worst, it is variable.
Battery picks up electrical noises and it can not be shielded in a convenient way.
Cost of setting it up is huge compared to the power it delivers.
Complete and almost unbelievable waste of valuable materials and metals, whereas a regular battery would need only grams or milligrams to perform better.
Electrodes do consume.
Flexibility in use is awful. Zero mobility, etc. etc.

The fact that electrodes catch some currents (either man-made or natural) is not a relevant feature; power so gained is insignificant or the electrodes could have been made from the same material. I’d like to be very clear about this point: the main feature of the contraption is not capturing the telluric currents but generating emf from redox potentials (meaning the contraption is mainly a “battery in a container”, to be more clear). The day an Earth battery will generate power using electrodes made of exactly the same material I will look again into the telluric currents issue but until then it is futile to do it. Until that day, it is just another typical free-energy manipulation: speaking about something (“telluric currents”) that is hidden behind something else (“electrochemical potentials”) and moreover, the well known part of the story (in this  case the “electrochemical potentials”) is twisted around and dragged into dirt (literally here) until no normal person could discern the truth from the lies.

So, I apologize if you felt offended and rest assured that I am not ignorant and that I fully understand the bitter taste you might have felt after conducting some experiments just to find out the final applicability is inexistent. Welcome to the world of shadows and please don’t let the surrounding lies be traps for others.

Cheers,
Tinu

Right your run time on you battery is not enuff to charge a bcap from .5 where i start  to well overunity of the run AA with a minor loss so let me send you one . I only ask you get some of My batteries to do the test properly .D cells will work even better . also i tried it a while back with a nicad 850 ma and achieved the same results so i suspect jt efficiency is not like mine . Mine is more like 99% . I need you to check to get a real number if you like .

@ Bill,

I appreciate your experiments but it can not change the status of Earth battery. Earth battery is a useless piece of technology. Its applicability was low even in times when electricity was a rare commodity.

Few aspects defining the main characteristics of an Earth battery:
Power is very low. Voltage can not be increased by series connecting two or more batteries.
Internal resistance is very high and, even worst, it is variable.
Battery picks up electrical noises and it can not be shielded in a convenient way.
Cost of setting it up is huge compared to the power it delivers.
Complete and almost unbelievable waste of valuable materials and metals, whereas a regular battery would need only grams or milligrams to perform better.
Electrodes do consume.
Flexibility in use is awful. Zero mobility, etc. etc.

The fact that electrodes catch some currents (either man-made or natural) is not a relevant feature; power so gained is insignificant or the electrodes could have been made from the same material. I’d like to be very clear about this point: the main feature of the contraption is not capturing the telluric currents but generating emf from redox potentials (meaning the contraption is mainly a “battery in a container”, to be more clear). The day an Earth battery will generate power using electrodes made of exactly the same material I will look again into the telluric currents issue but until then it is futile to do it. Until that day, it is just another typical free-energy manipulation: speaking about something (“telluric currents”) that is hidden behind something else (“electrochemical potentials”) and moreover, the well known part of the story (in this  case the “electrochemical potentials”) is twisted around and dragged into dirt (literally here) until no normal person could discern the truth from the lies.

So, I apologize if you felt offended and rest assured that I am not ignorant and that I fully understand the bitter taste you might have felt after conducting some experiments just to find out the final applicability is inexistent. Welcome to the world of shadows and please don’t let the surrounding lies be traps for others.

Cheers,
Tinu

Tinu:

I don't know where to start here.  If you had read of our early experiments you would have seen that a number of us did some testing to rule out galvanic only as the reason for the energy.  In different areas of the world, we took a copper pipe and cut 2 sections of it from the same pipe, stuck them in the ground and aligned them as required and...guess what?  You guessed it, we still received real energy from them.  I don't remember exactly but I believe mine were putting out about a volt and a few mA's. (These experiments were documented on our other topics.)  so what you said is incorrect.

Also, Jim (Electricme) in Australia has hooked a number of his electrodes in series and has achieved over 16 volts, so, you are incorrect about that as well.

Tariel Kapanadze has achieved over 100kw from his system and that is documented on yet another topic.  I call that real power don't you?

I have also heard the old and tired explanation that this is just current "leaking" from the grid.  That was worth looking into so we did.  Guess what?  Grid power that "leaked" should be (at least here in the states) 60 hz right?  So how come our scopes show about 4hz from our EER's?  This low freq. is what we would expect to see according to the work done by Stubblefield, the Russians, etc.  Do you think this "leaked" power suddenly changed freqs.?  Also, Stubblefield lit his farm and home and heated his home and ran the telephone system of Murry, KY all on his electrodes.  Was that "leaked" power from the grid too?  Oh wait, there was NO grid in Murry, KY at that time where he lived so I think we can rule that out.

I am only offended that you would post things that we as a group have tested and confirmed without doing so yourself, or even reading about those that did.  You post things that you "believe" to be correct but as you can now see (hopefully) they are not.  I just don't want yours or anyone else's disinformation, or misinformation to discourage others from working with these devices.

The fact of the matter is that anyone can do these simple experiments as we have been doing them and get similar results.  It seems that it is only the folks that "know" this can't work that don't do them that post absolutes about why they don't work.  It is NOT a battery.  We were incorrect about that too in the beginning.  Stubblefield, in order to get his patent, was forced to change the name of his device to include the word "battery".  That is why we now refer to them as EER's or earth energy receivers.  We learn along the way as we go and are not afraid to admit when we had something wrong.  I believe it was Jeanna that pointed this out to all of us.  Just about all of my videos of my experiments I had been calling them earth batteries, which we now know is wrong.

I may never get to the output level of Tariel Kapanadze but I will continue to try.  Jim was the first in our group to be able to run an electric motor from his EER and later I operated my Bedini motor from mine.  Are EER's going to save everyone from the power companies?  Probably not. 

So, I have no problem with you personally, just please refrain from posting things as facts when they are not.  I mean, if Jim reads this and finds out he can't put his electrodes in series, he will laugh. So will any of us that have seen his videos of him doing it.  So if you have a real interest in learning about these devices, start reading and experimenting, you might like it.  Then you too will know.

Thanks,

Bill

lol, that picture is a fake. you would have better luck trying to light a bulb with a PMM. obviously you have never even made a simple potato battery before... seriously, do you really think a single potato can light up an incandescent of that size? fail, epic fail...

Well, I guess that proves what you know.