Language: 
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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison  (Read 487407 times)

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #135 on: March 16, 2008, 06:03:26 PM »
Yeah, I thought the same thing myself when I watched the videos.   ("wow , he has alot of high energy equipment crammed into that tiny apt").

I wouldn't want to be exposed to random scalar waves either.   ;)

« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 06:10:35 AM by Feynman »

Offline dcarlson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #136 on: March 16, 2008, 08:33:56 PM »
03/16/08 - Rock: Electrons Run Through It
 New results in Science Express show that a chunk of hematite can conduct electrons under certain chemical conditions. In addition, the current causes some mineral surfaces to build up while others degrade. These results with iron oxide might be important for water quality, soil evolution, and environmental cleanup. "Considering iron as an important nutrient, the finding could help us understand how soils evolve from nutrient rich to nutrient poor," says lead investigator Kevin Rosso, a chemist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "And it has implications for other common minerals such as pyrite and manganese oxides -- even particles in the atmosphere." Scientists have long known that electrons can travel through some iron oxides when a voltage is applied, but they have assumed that electrons stemming from chemical reactions alone won't move spontaneously through the mineral's bulk. That long-standing assumption has caused chemists to treat different faces of a hunk of mineral as independent entities that don't 'communicate' with each other. New results, published online March 6, 2008 in Science Express, suggest otherwise. "Now we know reactions at different faces of these minerals can couple together and yield behavior unique to semiconducting minerals," says Rosso. The team wondered if the iron being deposited on the top came from iron dissolving from the sides, building up in solution, and then redepositing. To test this, they separated the six cube surfaces into groups: They took two cubes, protected four sides from the solution on one, and on the other, protected the top and bottom. The acidic solution chewed away the unprotected surfaces, as expected. But the chemists didn't see any buildup on the unprotected top and bottom faces and instead saw degradation. This indicated the breakdown and buildup were not independent of each other. "The hematite won't grow pyramids without that surface being connected to the dissolving ones," says Rosso. The required physical connection hinted at electron conduction. Iron in solution, or Fe(II), contains one more electron than the iron in the crystal, Fe(III). If Fe(II) landed on the top, it might react with the surface, incorporate into the crystal and give up its electron. The electron could then flow through the crystal to the sides, where an atom of Fe(III) could pick up the electron and dissolve into the solution. To prove this, the chemists connected the electron flow with a wire. When they repeated the first experiment but connected the two cubes with a dab of silver, the team restored the pyramid buildup. Additional experiments allowed them to measure the electrical potential driving the current flow, which came out to 200 millivolts -- about 6% of the power needed for a keychain LED light, or about twice as much as in a nerve cell. / (Could there be a connection to 'telluric currents'? - JWD) - Source

Offline jeanna

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3546
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #137 on: March 16, 2008, 09:11:26 PM »
Quote
Additional experiments allowed them to measure the electrical potential driving the current flow, which came out to 200 millivolts -- about 6% of the power needed for a keychain LED light, or about twice as much as in a nerve cell. / (Could there be a connection to 'telluric currents'? - JWD) - Source
@dcarlson,
Thank you. I found that a helpful article. And I like the connection to the nerve cell. (I have been thinking about that wrt coilguns this week.)
 ;) ;)
jeanna

Offline dcarlson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8

Offline jeanna

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3546
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #139 on: March 17, 2008, 05:15:02 AM »
Thanks, another interesting read. It explained a reason for homogenization too.
Thanks
jeanna

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #140 on: March 17, 2008, 11:37:15 AM »
well didn't we already have that electrinium battery pdf?

And although a nice read, it is not really extremely helpfull.
I mean, what exactly does it mean when the author says
the two elements chosen should have a harmonious resonant
relationship?
As if every element has its own single frequency or something?

And the authors remarks about the "sludge" in a battery being
pure "electrinium compound" doesn't sound very sensible either...
After all, that would mean that for example zinc-carbon compound
is "electrinium" and outputs electricity when polarised? But
zinc and carbon are totally different sized atoms with totally different
valences, and how exactly does that compute with the demand
of harmonic resonance between the two?

I get the feeling the author of that doc should have studied actual
science a bit more, and the new age vibrationology a little less.

Offline ian middleton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #141 on: March 17, 2008, 01:47:57 PM »
G'day all,

@Koen: I Have to agree. This is not a document I would pin any hopes on. But if the author is living off "the grid" I would like to know more about it. ;D


@dcarlson: The links you gave and the information in them are most valuable. Maybe not because they are realistic in todays terms but they do provide an alternative view .
There are some elements in the PDF that we are using today, and some concepts which closely match the lines of research this group is conducting. Any information needs to be looked at carefully.

Maybe  the sludge might be useful in one of our mixes, who knows ?

Ian

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #142 on: March 17, 2008, 02:18:38 PM »
Has anyone thought of using the fastest corroding metal and the least fastest as two substances mixed together with water? Does anyone know what those metals are?

 Or by just using the fastest mixed with water and the slowest as the negative and positive cores. I would think the inner core would have a high osculation pressure making it the positive and the outer having a lower osculation pressure making it the negative.

 I am also interested in the sludge in the bottom of the car battery's that was mentioned. I have plenty of old car battery's and I will take one apart and check this. Based on what was said, I should be able to use that sludge to create a power cell that should last forever.

 This is very interesting and I think it's worth checking into.

Offline sutra

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #143 on: March 17, 2008, 05:19:01 PM »
Hi everybody...

Don't you think guys that with such ideas you are going a bit out of focus?

As far I understood Hutchinson's power Cell (Converter) is based on the Casimir Effect and piezoelectricity (should be completely water-free)....I think that you are risking to go back to galvanic reactions (driven in moist ambient).

On the original video, Hutchinson mixes the ingredients on a simple piece of news paper....and the "special" chemical he uses look to me so much dry....just like powder... If I may ask:

Why do you led in water-based chemical reactions?

Yes, through water, crystallisation is probably easy but as far as I remember from the school, it is really difficult to prevent crystals, obtained in such a way, to adsorb / absorb moisture....for me the risk of developing galvanic reactions is too high in that way...that's why some of your cell acquire more power after some day....

I also think that the necessity of two different metals as electrodes, could confirm my doubts....
...theorically, once that a voltage discharge is created in the quartz particles and there is a correct alignment among them, the electrons will automatically flow in the correct direction building up voltage and current without necessity of "pulling" them with metals of different electro-negativity.

Please consider my words in a constructive way, not as a critic on your great work.

Ciao
 

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #144 on: March 17, 2008, 08:18:49 PM »
@nightlife: well of course, if you have a lot of used batteries from which
you can harvest some sludge, and you want to try if that can be turned into
a power cell, then by all means do try and post your findings! :)
But be carefull! Batteries tend to be quite toxic, and we really don't want
you poisoning yourself or your cat or whoever now, do we? ;)
One of the difficulties with that "electrinium battery" idea is that the
author at some point suggests that an electrinium compound should
be polarised and encased in a third element, which has the same
temperature sensitivity (expansion coefficient) as the electrinium
compound, and is a suitable material for the desired electron flow.
So I guess you should determine the thermal sensitivity of the
sludge compound, and find a conductive or semiconductive
material that has the same sensitivity to encase it in. It seems to
me that this material should if possible be a pure elemental substance
and not a compound...

About the fastest corroding metals, I don't really follow what you mean...
I mean, of course the most "corrosive", or actually most chemically reactive
metals are the alkalimetals, you know, all the way to the left of the periodic
table, and the least chemically active beside the noble gases that are totally
inactive, are the Fluoride group all the way to the right of the table...
And yes, if you mix them in water they do indeed react; or at least most of
them do, and quite aggressively too. During these reactions a lot of energy
can be released in the form of heat. But after reaction you are generally left
with a very non-reactive compound, which is chemically neutral.
In fact, this is the sludge in the batteries we're talking about. ;)
Now some compounds do have some interesting electrical properties,
like the famous Galena, which is a crystalline form of Lead Sulphate (PbS).
Galena was used in crystal radios in the 1920s and is a semiconductive
compound. But since then much more efficient semiconductors have been developed.
Anyways, all of such compounds can theoretically be polarised to a
degree, some more than others due to their material structure.
Old (and modern) car batteries often used lead plates and sulphuric acid, didn't they?
Well, then any sludge on the bottom should be mostly PbS... but not in
crystalline form...
And if you can figure out a way to safely (!) collect some of that (or just buy
some galena and crush it) and can figure out how to make that into a solid
block (encased in some other material), while polarising it, then you might be able to
make a nice "electrinium battery" replication attempt. :)
But like I said before, take precautions before you start digging into old batteries eh? ;)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #145 on: March 17, 2008, 09:29:27 PM »
Don't you think guys that with such ideas you are going a bit out of focus?

As far I understood Hutchinson's power Cell (Converter) is based on the Casimir Effect and piezoelectricity (should be completely water-free)....I think that you are risking to go back to galvanic reactions (driven in moist ambient).

Well... in fact, Hutchison did use water in his mixes...
And yes, I do think we should try to keep things as dry as possible, because we do not want to get a galvanic cell.
 

Quote
On the original video, Hutchinson mixes the ingredients on a simple piece of news paper....and the "special" chemical he uses look to me so much dry....just like powder...
Don't forget that "tech tv" video is a demo video, it is vague, montaged, resequenced and cut, and Hutchison does not tell nearly all there is
to know about the concept. The mix of powders that he shows in the newspaper is indeed a mix of powders. The can he uses is indeed a metal can. What metal?
He doesn't say. The rod he uses to mix the stuff and as central electrode is of similarly unknown material. He heats it for an unspecified time at unspecified
temperature, and puts an unspecified "high voltage" on the electrodes for again an unspecified period of time. You see, the video is mostly a demo to show
off how he can make these mystery energy cell dirt cheap as if it's a piece of cake, and to promote his zpe energy connection. It does not show the entire
procedure or method in detail, it does not provide the details of the materials used, it does not explain all the related theory behind it. Nor does Hutchison
freely share those details; he is quite secretive about the entire subject.

Quote
If I may ask:

Why do you led in water-based chemical reactions?

Yes, through water, crystallisation is probably easy but as far as I remember from the school, it is really difficult to prevent crystals, obtained in such a way, to adsorb / absorb moisture....for me the risk of developing galvanic reactions is too high in that way...that's why some of your cell acquire more power after some day....
The reason why I add water to my mixes, is that in baking a ceramic, it is very difficult if not impossible to form bonds
between different silicates and metals without using water to facilitate the chemical reactions.
Otherwise, the only way to make a solid from a mix of rock and mineral powder is to fuse them at extremely high temperature,
something like 1300/1400+ degrees.
Believe me, if I had the facilities to do that, then I would be doing so right now :)
If you can suggsest a method to produce a solid material based on silicate and mineral compounds, at "kitchen" temperatures (up to 250/300 degrees max?
at least, Hutchisons little electric heater can't have been much more than that) without using water, then I would like to hear your ideas.

As for me, I try to aim the amounts of ingredient compounds I use so that there is only very little excess water after all obvious chemical reactions
have taken place, so that the resulting material should contain as little water as possible. After that, I generally leave my cells to dry and settle
in a moderately warm and dry place, and I also have a box overloaded with dehumidfier packs which I put them in, to try and get as much as possible
of the remaining water out.

Quote
I also think that the necessity of two different metals as electrodes, could confirm my doubts....
I am not sure if you should view the results of some of our experimental cells as confirmation of your doubts (? of our methods? or of our entire endeavour?)
but I like to see them as just experimental results, which in my own view serve to gain a better understanding of the processes and
preferred arrangement of the ideal cell. Obviously these are not the ideal ultimate cell types. These are variations in which we try our ideas of possible
ingredients.
As for the necessity to use different metals, that is also not entirely fixed...
Most of my cells are either unpolarised or polarised with a low voltage, and
I think in that method the two different metals may help the material "self polarise"
(to some small degree) while it is settling and solidifying.
That said, I have also tried some other materials; for example, I made a bit of a sloppy
cell with a galvanised steel tube and a similarly galvanised steel nail as the central
electrode only about a month or two ago. That showed a voltage of around 200 mV and
a flimsy 0.005mA when I last tested it, if I recall correctly. Well anyway, I made a number
of iron-iron, aluminium-aluminium, and copper-copper cells, but most of them were duds
and the ones that weren't were not at all impressive, millivolts. But that may have been
due to the different material mix I used back then...
I will dig up that galvanised steel cell and test it again, to check if it's still going.

Quote
...theorically, once that a voltage discharge is created in the quartz particles and there is a correct alignment among them, the electrons will automatically flow in the correct direction building up voltage and current without necessity of "pulling" them with metals of different electro-negativity.
Heh, well, that depends on whose theory you follow. ;)
Yes, in just about every theoretical approach you should be able to use two similar metal electrodes, because once the
cell material has solidified it has an internal structure that is such, that electrons moving through it "automatically" move
in one direction and not in the opposite direction.
So yes, when the ideal material and method has been established, we should try to make cells with two similar electrodes.
That is, if you wish to minimise galvanic reaction.
On the other hand, if the cell is entirely dry, there will be no galvanic reaction, and it just so happens that the junction
between different metals and materials has certain electrodynamic properties, that may or may not aid electron emission
from a specific crystalline matrix inside the polycrystalline material.
;) Like i said, it depends on what theory you follow, and my theoretical approach is slighlty more complex than just
assuming we can "align the quartz particles" so that electrons flow in one direction. Oh, that's part of it, sort of,
but it's not nearly the whole story...

I hope you see now why we use water in our experiments.

If you have other questions or suggestions, please do post them,
your input may lead to valuable insights. ;)

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #146 on: March 17, 2008, 09:50:51 PM »
@Ian: sludge in the mix? hmm... ;)
Well I guess it depends on the rest of your mix eh...
I would say try to make sure the sludge compound integrates with the
ceramic matrix... So choose ingredients that link nicely with
the sludge, but slightly better with eachother, and still form a nice
matrix. Or choose a sludge to go with your compound.

Then again, for the more adventurous experimenter ;) it may suffice to
determine the composition of a conductive ceramic mix and
dumping a large amount of dried and powdered battery sludge
in there, then baking it into a powder and polarising it...

Now it seems highly unlikely to me that the "sludge" from dead
alkaline batteried would be usefull at all, as that is simply a
zinc-carbon compound (in nearly all cases). That said, zinc (oxide)
and carbon are ingredients that can help to make a ceramic conductive,
so they might be applicable in the ceramic mix after all... But then
perhaps simply using zinc/zinc oxide powder and carbon powder
would be easier than dismantling tons of dead batteries to get the
tiny bit of sludge out.
NiCad or PbS, if you can find them maybe ancient AgCu sludge might be
usefull, at least this is a two metal compound.
Unfortunately the current trend is to move toward metal-"ion" a.k.a.
metal-"hydride" batteries, which only contain metals like lithium or nickel.
... phasing out the electrinium supply, do you think? ;)

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #147 on: March 18, 2008, 08:05:45 AM »
Koen1, thank you for the caution but please note that I am a automotive technician and I am very aware of the dangers of battery contents.

 I wasn't able to play with the idea today due to being very busy. Mondays, LOL, I hate them as much as Fridays. I will try to do this tomorrow as well as couple other things I have in my head.

Offline Koen1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #148 on: March 18, 2008, 08:28:38 PM »
Koen1, thank you for the caution but please note that I am a automotive technician and I am very aware of the dangers of battery contents.

alright, sorry.
Better to warn people a thousand times than to have one person kill himself... ;)

Offline ian middleton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
« Reply #149 on: March 20, 2008, 01:36:56 AM »
G'day all,

Yesterday I managed to plate ( coat) an aluminium electrode with gallium. Turned it into a pretty cool looking mirror. The electrode is actually 20mm diameter pipe ( 3/4 in) .
Using a larger diameter cleaned copper pipe about 100mm length for the cathode.
Made up a standard mix (ingedients aready posted) and heated in hot sand for 3 hours.
The sand allowed a slow cool down for the next 5 hours after the stove was turned off.

So I have a large diameter copper tube into which the mix is poured and inserted into the middle  of that  was the gallium coated aluminium pipe. A voltage was applied from the bug zapper.

When I measured the voltage at the start of polarization in was onlt 1.8V.
Not suprising seeing a wet cell would suck every bit of current from the bug zapper and lower its voltage. As the cell dried, over a period of 8 hours or so , the voltage increased and I finally pulled it at 640V.  I could have left it longer.
 The aluminium electrode was attatched to the +ve and the outer copper to the -ve.

As soon as the polarizing voltage was disconnected the voltage on the cell dropped like a stone.
Within 20 seconds the voltage had fallen to 1.8V and continued to fall.
After a minute it had gone down to 10 mV.

In true Aussie style I thought "Bugger!"  ;D only to see the voltage move through zero and increase in the opposite polarity. The aluminium electrode, which was supposed to + was now at
-1.08V. That is where it has stayed all night.
So the damn thing changed it polarity right before me in the space of 3 or 4 minutes.

 A quick current check with a 10Kohm load pulled it down to 0.8V @ 80uA.

A bit dissapointing seeing I was hoping the gallium would open a quantum flux gate and release mega fryons tuned to the galactic center. Ah well, next week perhaps  ;)

I must admit though the gallium coated aluminium tube did look pretty swish, I just might just chuck all this in and go and make artistic wind chimes for those guys in Byron bay. ;D ;D ;D

See you later

Ian