Are you not interested where that power could come from 

YES.  Very interested.  WHAT is your point?  I don't think that justifies you DEMANDING further tests to satisfy your curiosity.  Lasersaber does NOT claim OU.  How exactly would you enjoy me DEMANDING that you conduct these tests and give us the results?  That's exactly the same thing.  What's lacking is a certain want of courtesy.  Just revisit your posts.  The implication is that it is IRRESPONSIBLE to suggest that there's anything significant in these tests - this in support of Omnibus who described the tests as TRIVIAL.  Here is your actual quote.

I am highly assuming that the same happens with the proposed NS coils of lasersabre. If he claims, that it isn't the case, and his power comes from somewhere else, it is his job, to prove it or at least try to eliminate the most disturbing factors. Understood?

Not only are you somewhat liberal in your assumptions but it's ALARMING to see that you find any need at all to eliminate what you find as 'the most disturbing factors.' as you put it.  So.  It is absolutely NOT understandable NOR understood.  Laser has construed NOTHING.  You, on the contrary have construed EVERYTHING. 

What good example?

I am referring to the good example set by Laser, of experimenting and then reporting on the experimental results.  May we impose on you to do the same?  Until you've replicated that test I strongly recommend that you withhold ALL your negative criticisms.  I think that would be more in the interest of good research disciplines than ASSUMING explanations especially in view of the fact that your explanations are shown to be spurious.

If I find out the very first time in my life how a galvanic cell works and then start a topic on that, is this a good example? No.

On the contrary.  If I ever found out about anything at all that promoted clean green energy and then did not do my damnedest to understand it - then indeed - you may criticise me.  And I have NEVER questioned the galvanic effect.  I have questioned anyone's right to use the term in conjunction with a 'battery supply energy source' when there's a clear want of evidence that any electrolytic process is taking place anywhere at all.  The galvanic effect is associated here with a battery effect.  I sincerely believe that it is more in the nature of a generative effect and will hold to that opinion until I hear from a chemist that this is wrong.

If I find out the very first time in my life that I can pick up some voltage when putting a cable into the air and then start a topic on it, is this a good example? No.

It certainly is NOT the first time in my life that I find I can pick up voltage by putting a cable in the air.  Where exactly do you construe this ASSUMPTION?

We are talking about commonly known things in electricity.

NOT TRUE.  I have now had the good fortune to speak to more than a few EXPERTS and only one of them had heard of a Nathan Stubblefield Battery.

And even if both of these examples are not well known by the individual one can easily apply this knowledge yourself with a simple google search.

Which is EXACTLY what I did.  Check my reference.  And the result of that search shows me that Omnibus' and your own definition of battery is somewhat FLAWED. 

And that's why I didn't start a topic a year ago about "collecting free energy from the air".

No-one on this thread has EVER talked about getting free energy from the air.  You diminish the level of interest and knowledge here by this association.  And that much is self-evidently your objective.

This would have been a joke, but you are talking about such a thing as if it's the "killa device from outa space".

NOT TRUE.  I have NEVER claimed to get voltage from thin air.  Therefore are your snide associations absolutely NOT appropriate.  What I think is a 'killa device from outa space' as you so crassly put it, is the simple fact that laser is teaching us the innate properties in the galvanic effect that elevate it to a generative effect.  That IS interesting.

If both of the above examples aren't the case, then he needs to prove it, as I said before. Unless this happens, there is absolutely nothing special to it, because it's most likely a power source from the grid.

Since neither examples are the case then Laser need prove NOTHING.

And - nothwithstanding the alarming association of the 'sicknesses' in the Stubblefield family - there is NOTHING harmful in the use of copper in conjunction with iron.  Else the entire human population in the first world and the most of us in the second and third world - would have learned of this before now.

Rosemary

i wonder if the rate at which the atmospheric electrolyte enters the coil is proportional to its mass. if one were to create a giant coil, would the mass be too large for that atmospheric fluid to replenish the charge of the coil while its running, or would its larger output cause the coil to breakdown faster because its not gathering electrolyte as fast as it would have with the small coil, being that it atmospherically drew alot less.

My ultimate NS coil mentioned in the other topic a while back would be the size of a 55 gallon drum using like 8 gauge wire or larger.

I have obviously not built one yet as I have had neither the time nor the money but....I have not given up on the idea.

Bill

  To avoid any confusion on my part for some. The copper and iron wires around the core are of equal length. That is considered 1 or unity. That is the primary. The copper coil wound on top of that is the secondary. I assume most of you address it in this manner.

Good point to reference.
My bare gal. steel wire and enamel insulated copper wire are of the exact same length and turns.

The gal. bare steel wire is 20 awg and the enamel insulated copper wire is 18 awg.

DonL

A note about this device running on "RF", or even induced house current.
If this were an RF induced device, the voltage potential would be between one end of the coil winding and the other, not between the two conductors AT THE SAME END.
I want to know how two conductors, running side by side, in very close proximity can develop two separate electrical potentials from the same EM field? Two vertical antennas of the same height, in the same location, will develop the same voltage potentials with the same polarity, across their length. One will not develop the opposite polarity at the same end.
This is the same with these parallel conductors. If they are acting as antennas for any type of EMF, then the voltages along their lengths will be virtually identical. Even if you have a diode developed by the oxides, there is no differential in potential between the two conductors and therefore no conduction will occur across the diode.
The RF theory is a straw man. Don't pay any attention to it. If you want further clarification on this subject, please PM me so we don't have to waste any more thread space on it.

Cheers,

Ted

Of course.  THANK YOU TED.  A really good point.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

@dllabarre

most likely your copper iron pair has developed a charge.

if your are able - could you please see if you can squeeze your coil together a bit?
stubblefield says compressed in his patent. MK1's brought this up too.

i don't think it's for purely galvanic reasons.

just curious if this changes your voltage readings.

thanks.

nap

NOT TRUE.  I am more than willing to report on failed experiments.  And I've seen many threads where experimenters own up to failed tests.  I personally think failed tests are as important as any other - because they're scientifically relevant and required for progress.

That's a good sign then. I am eagerly awaiting to see some youtube videos from the experimenters here on this thread.

 
J.

@Rosemary, i suppose by atmospheric electrolyte i mean any and all of the EM, RF, ELF, etc that may be affecting the coil.

when i see a battery "ghost charge" voltage back up i dont link that to stressing of the plates. nor do i say its the plates stressing when my electrolytic caps charge themselves up to around 5V on their own.

to me this is the Earth's radiant energy doing this.. when using a Joule Thief with very low switching sensitivity it can be seen better, as the battery drops below switching voltage the LED will start to blink, because the atmosphere is brining its voltage back up automatically, until switching V is hit again and the cycle repeats. the LED will blink until the rate at which the atmospheric intake is not enough to overcome the low voltage in the battery and sustain a steady oscillation.

lets say i have a capacitor that sits on a table, and every 5 or ten minutes it has built up enough charge to turn a small DC motor for about one second.
lets say i put 50 of these capacitors in a bank and had them running and idling all at different times. it could be possible for me to time their discharges just right, so the small DC motor turns almost consistently, just from the electrolyte within them atmospherically charging.

i believe the stubblefield is similar, but i do not know if i were to create a super large electrolytic cap, would it gather the same type of charge but proportionally larger? or would it still receive the same amount of charge as the smaller one. likewise with the stubblefield. however i believe since the Earth itself is so large an increase in the mass of our coil would also increase its reception.