@Lasersaber

Some ideas , i wonder if tried them ?

Guys,  just a thought and a quick mention.  I wonder if there is a requirement for 'spacing' between all those wires.  It may be that the cotton is providing this space resulting in some kind of capacitance to enhance the effect.  I only mention this because we have invariably used windings with spacing in our own resistors and it definitely encourages the required resonance.  Nothing accurately measured as yet - regarding optimised spacings. Just a general observation.

Regards,
Rosemary

 

Rose:

Interesting thought.  I could not afford the cotton covered wire at the time of my own experiments but I found that, using cotton cord about the same diameter as the wires worked well.  I just wound that in between the iron and copper and it did a good job of insulation.  When winding a second layer, I just cut some cotton from a T-shirt in strips and insulated the first layer against the second.

I think what you are suggesting may be worth looking into.  The wires should be close, but not so close as to touch.  Hmmm.  We need to think about this.

Bill

Hi Pirate.   
That's actually a really good idea.  I'm going to try it as it will be less expensive than cotton coated and I'm not sure how easy it's to get in this 3rd Wold Outback of ours.    Actually I mustn't say that.  I'm awfully proud of our country at the moment.

Anyway - day has dawned and I'm off to CAMPUS.  How nice is that.   

Kindest regards Bill and take good care of yourself
Rosie

Here's what I'm going to try...

1) Wind iron wire with a spacer thats a little larger than the copper wire (sting or use insulated copper wire for spacing).

2) Remove (unwind) whatever you used as the spacer.

3) Put a layer of cotton over the iron wire.

4) Wind the bare copper wire over this cotton layer between the iron wires where the spacer left a groove.

5) Then wrap a cotton layer over the bare copper and start the second row of iron wire.

I don't know how well this will work yet.  It's just a thought I had last night.

DonL

It may be that the cotton is providing this space resulting in some kind of capacitance to enhance the effect. 

You have some capacitance already in the parallel coil wires. The damp cotton dielectric should be an added capacitance or place to build up charge. Think of an old time rolled paper capacitor. The patent states to have a continuous interposed layer of cotton. I haven't seen anyone do a full interpose yet or it appears to me they haven't. This would increase the area of charge and make the coil larger in volume with every wind. I think I may understand Stubblefields comment on the cotton covered iron wire now. If you use cotton covered iron wire without the interposed cotton layer it still works. But the area of charge is not as great. Using cotton on both wires with the interposed cotton would give more area of charge.
Comments needed on this line of thought.

You have some capacitance already in the parallel coil wires. The damp cotton dielectric should be an added capacitance or place to build up charge. Think of an old time rolled paper capacitor. The patent states to have a continuous interposed layer of cotton. I haven't seen anyone do a full interpose yet or it appears to me they haven't. This would increase the area of charge and make the coil larger in volume with every wind. I think I may understand Stubblefields comment on the cotton covered iron wire now. If you use cotton covered iron wire without the interposed cotton layer it still works. But the area of charge is not as great. Using cotton on both wires with the interposed cotton would give more area of charge.
Comments needed on this line of thought.

Hello IotaYodi, Guys,

What's really at issue is whether we're dealing with a battery here in any conventional use of the word.  Traditionally a battery requires an electrolytic solution of sorts or a solvent that is capable of conducting a charge - I think the definition goes?  Something like that?  A galvanic action - again as I understand it - requires an electrolytic solution to conduct between two metals.  Bottom line is that there is no way this is traditionally enabled without the use of a 'salt bridge' or some sort of acid or alkaline solvent or base?  I'm struggling here and apologies to purists if the terms are wrong.  I actually know some chemists who post at EF.com and I intend asking them. 

Now - as I see it - and sorry it's so ponderous.  The traditional Nathan Stubblefield battery only requires water.  But there is a complex build of primary windings and secondaries that somehow combine just about all the standard properties of an inductor/resistor/core/primaries? secondaries? - the whole usual electrical circuit schebang - wrapped up in one construct.  Literally.  And we also know now that it works.  And we know that IF it's a battery in any traditional sense - then it certainly does not use a solvent.  It recommends the use of water.  Therefore IF it's a battery it contradicts our standard definition of the term.

Then.  The variation that Laser has given us - has no secondary - but it's been dosed in a saline solution that may very well have permeated through the whole structure.  That may, indeed - represent some sort of solvent solution.  In which case it may also be a battery of sorts.  But then we also need to know if it's dry or wet or what?  No doubt time will tell.

But Laser also shows us that it's enough to dampen the cotton to increase the conductivity on the circuit.  And that dampening is done with tap water.  Not necessarily the purest type of water but I don't think anyone can argue that it's a solvent.  And again.  It works.  But even more interesting is this.  The dampening only ENHANCES the effect.  It's there without the water.  And that's the point where the definition of 'battery' in any conventional sense - is simply no longer correct.  It's now properly - a generator.  And it's generating it's energies by pure inductive laws in a way that is certainly NOT traditionally allowed.

And I'm not sure that we can argue the flow of electrons - as traditionally understood to be part of current flow - at all.  There must first be an essential 'valence' condition in the atoms to enable an electron flow.  I personally don't buy into the flow of electrons in any current.  But classicists and our members here that subscribe to this?  Surely you must concede that this would first require an imbalanced valance condition.  There is none in H2O.  None at all. Maybe here and there the odd 2H2O or whatever.  But that's it.  And from what I understood in the brief learning that I managed at EF.com - when the water molecule separates it invariably results in some form of hydrogen or 'gas' release - that is not actually recoverable.  IF - and again it's a big IF - we're arguing any kind of electrolytic process then what we would need to argue is that water molecule is first disassembling - if that's the term - and the reassembling back into a water molecule without any evident loss to that structure.  Which would be extraordinary.  Frankly I seriously think we need some expert guidance as to what could be going on here.  And I intend asking.  Or if there are any chemists amongs our members - perhaps they can step up to the plate?

I also know a brilliant experimentalist in Jetijs - and I will certainly ask him to help us out here.  It's easily within his competence to put up this test and variants of this, as required, and I suspect he'll manage this more quickly and more efficiently than anything I, personally can manage.  I really think this experiment is that significant that it really needs our best efforts and our best talents.

Regards,
Rosemary

edited

Hello Everyone,

This coil has been replicated by myself and quite a few others. A few years ago, I built a few micro Stubblefield coils. Many experiments have been performed and they both worked well. Lasersaber's mini coil is about twice the size of the coils that I made. Each one produced about 1 volt and anywhere from 4 to 50 milliamps depending on the configuration. As Stubblefield showed in the patent, the electricity generated is purely galvanic/voltaic. And the secondary makes use of the magnetic field generated. Nothing new there.

From what I understand by the grace of God he didn't wet the coils at all. He just had to show something the patent examiners could understand. The diligent seeker of truth will find out what was the main driving force behind all the power he generated.

Bottom line is, anyone building this type of coil is missing a key component which is not revealed in the patent and so, while it is a wonderful piece to demonstrate certain principles, I believe it will never be a practical power producer.

Blessings,

Littlechristgod

I don't see in the patent "Electrical Battery 600,457" where Nathan (Mr. Stubblefield) said to use salt in the water.  Is there another patent that says to use salt?  I just see water.

Hi DonL  - I spent a frustrating night.  I couldn't access our internet - anyway it seems we're back up.  Laser used a salt solution to rust off the galvanized iron.  I'm always intrigued with the variations that experimentalists introduce to a construct.  It's usually based on some kind of insight.  I"m not sure what Laser was seeing here.  I'd love him to explain this.

We don't know what's in LaserSaber's water.  It cold be from a well with  hard metals in it.

I think he's told us that - very specifically - that he only uses tap water and one assumes - with that much emphasis - that it's standard mains supply.  But I'm open to correction.

LaserSaber also used galvanized coated wire not bare iron wire.

Does this vary from the Nathan Stubblefield construct? 

This needs many varied replications to determine what is causing this effect.

I SO agree with you here. 

LaserSaber - DON"T disassemble that coil until someone can replicated it!!! 

I must say I agree entirely with this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary