Yes, you can get energy from an “Earth Battery” No, it ain’t free

April 29th, 2010
submit to reddit Share

I received a question today from someone who asked me if I “believe in” earth batteries and whether an earth battery can actually produce energy. Apparently they had read about it online or seen some of the Youtube videos out there. They may have also read the Wikipedia article, which is totally wrong.

An earth battery is pretty simple in principle. Two metal rods are driven into the ground, ideally in soil that is reasonably wet or at least moist and has a slightly acidic pH. The rods are made of dissimilar material, for example iron and zinc or carbon and zinc or copper and iron. If the rods are connected to a voltage meter, you will find that there is a small amount of electricity being produced. The voltage is generally low and the potential amperage is low as well, but if the conditions are descent you can use this current to drive a small load such as an LED or a digital watch.

In theory you could produce a lot more voltage and electrical power if you simply added more and more rods and connected them together. Just like any battery, when connected in series, multiple battery units will produce higher voltages. When connected in parallel, the voltage will remain the same, but the potential maximum amperage will be increased. Therefore, it would be possible to power your house with enough rods stuck in the ground.


However, here’s the big party killer: The electricity is not limitless, it’s not free (although some websites that sell the supplies claim it is) and it’s not even really coming from the ground, but rather from the metal rods. When the rods are placed in ground they undergo a simple chemical reaction – they begin to corrode. If the ground is fairly dry and composed of inert material like sand, then they will corrode slowly, but if it’s moist and composed of more reactive organic matter, they will corrode faster. As they corrode, they an electrical potential is produced. Because the two rods are made of different materials, they corrode at different rates and produce dissimilar electrical potential. When connected, voltage flows between the two. This is why more corrosive soil conditions lead to more electricity being produced.

The soil is just incidental to the reaction. In fact, soil is not a very efficient medium for producing the kind of reaction necessary to produce an electrical current. If you wanted this same setup to produce more electricity and do so more efficiently, you could replace the soil with something zinc chloride, which is basically how a zinc-carbon battery works. You could also replace it with an acid, which is how some other battery types work. These substances have better electrolytic properties.

Unfortunately, the effect is not going to last very long. As the metal rods corrode, the electricity produced will be reduced. This may be remedied (at least temporarily) by pulling the rods out of the ground and grinding off the layers of corrosion that build up on their outside. This will at least bring the raw metal back in contact with the soil and allow it to corrode quickly again, but it’s only a temporary fix, as before long the metal will all be gone and all that will be left is some worthless oxide.

Really, what you’re doing is just powering your stuff on a disposable battery, a very crude, very inefficient battery. You would not try to power your home on AA batteries because it would be astronomically expensive. Doing so with one of these things would be the same deal, only even worse!

There is, however, a practical use for this principle. In the environment, some metals (for example zinc) are more prone to oxidation than other metals (for example iron) and produce a greater electrical potential when they oxidize. By connecting a piece of zinc to an iron structure in a corrosive environment, the zinc will corrode and in the process, produce electrons which give the iron a negative electrical potential. This opposes the oxidation of the iron and acts to slow the rate at which it rusts. It is known as galvanic or cathodic protection.


This entry was posted on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 9:57 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, media, Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



137 Responses to “Yes, you can get energy from an “Earth Battery” No, it ain’t free”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. 101
    Shafe Says:

    Your: 2nd person possessive adjective

    You’re: Contraction of “you are”

    Yore: Well… never mind


    Quote Comment
  2. 102
    Mauser 98K Says:

    lol, Shafe

    but the Dunning-Kruger Effect door swings both ways…

    but my crystal cell clock is still running at the same voltage it was on my video.. showing no signs of slowing down.. my radio still running well off the crystal cell pack..

    i took one of my cells that i built last year apart, there is no grey transfer of corrosion in the crystalline substance.. the red oxide layer i put into the copper tube is still in tact.. the magnesium rod has no noticeable signs of corrosion..

    if there is a galvanic action or redox action at play here it is so minute to suggest that it is not the principle form of operation..

    ill let you know next year if they still work well..


    Quote Comment
  3. 103
    DV82XL Says:

    The fact that you would think that a visual examination of the electrolyte is sufficient evidence of anything is yet another indication that you are out of your depth. The only test that you might be able to do with equipment you are likely to be able to acquire that would give some indication of what (if anything) was going on in these cells would be to compare old and new samples stoichiometrically to determine both a profile and concentration values of the various ionic species present. Unfortunately for you, doing such an assay and the subsequent calculations, would require that you get a grasp of redox chemistry and chemical thermodynamics, the tenets of both of which you are claiming to violate.


    Quote Comment
  4. 104
    Mauser 98K Says:

    well i took a micrometer reading on the diameter of the magnesium rod.. i also took one when i machined it to size b4 assembly.. the readings were about the same (+/- .001-.002in), as were the thickness of the tubing..

    if it is corroding or dissolving then it is very very slow..

    but i have not claimed to violate anything.. that is what your saying, not me..

    but i do not have access to a spectrometer or the other equipment to assay the crystalline mixture.. i could probably get it done at the college where i went..

    i had my instructor to test out a few things when i was going there.. he was very interested in the magnetic launcher and Newman motor i had built.. in fact he took the motor to a power company expo and used it to run a small fan to blow on him while he sat in the booth.. he laughed at the power company engineers who kept putting their meters on it and were stumped that it drew so little current for the size (100mA current draw for a 10lb motor).. i got pestered by the military for a month after i demonstrated the magnetic launcher i had built.. small, portable, and able to launch a 3/8 steel ball through a stove pipe with nothing but magnetism.. scared the hell out of the other students.. lol

    i don’t know if they would allow me to use their equipment after i graduated now or not.. all i can do is ask..


    Quote Comment
  5. 105
    Mauser 98K Says:

    but the problem with doing an assay or spectrograph analysis of the crystalline mix is that it will always show some sort of transfer of the metals into it.. just the normal oxidization of metals gives off ions that will transfer to the object it is in intimate contact with.. just air oxidization can cause this to happen.. just a normal assay will not give accurate results..

    one would have to do a percentage of metal transfer and compare that with the normal decomposition rate of the materials in question.. only then by comparing the normal decomposition rate with the current one being observed can one make a educated guess on whither the decomposition rate has increased or not for normal conditions.. but to do this one would have to know the exact time length that the metals have been in contact with the crystal substance…

    and a true accurate reading can also only be done under controlled conditions as to not contaminate the experiment….


    Quote Comment
  6. 106
    Mauser 98K Says:

    scratch that last one. you already said percentage testing..


    Quote Comment
  7. 107
    Tim Says:

    Hi

    Agreed many earth batteries rely on chemical reaction on the plates, but your simplified explanation is missing the orginal details of how this subject came to be. The earth battery effect was discovered during the olden times of setting up telegraphic poles for morse code. The ground plates for the telegrpahic lines intercepted telluric currents, natural earth currents that are measured today for geological analysis. (these are real, scientificaly proven and used)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current

    Seems that the effect is greater when the plates are placed North to South, and voltage changed between day and night, also greater voltages measured when plates where placed near trees, and when north electrode is buried deeper than south. None of these things point to standard electrochecmicle reactions – this is harvesting the telluric current – which is free energy.


    Quote Comment
  8. 108
    DV82XL Says:

            Tim said:

    …telluric currents, natural earth currents that are measured today for geological analysis. (these are real, scientificaly proven and used)

    We dealt with Telluric currents up thread if you look and they are not exploitable for free energy. They have some use in the field of subsurface mapping and imaging, but they are not strong enough, or reliable enough to serve as a source of power. While indeed some use was made of these in early telegraphy, they proved more of a nuisance to the system as it grew and apparatus had to be designed to minimize the impact of these stray currents.


    Quote Comment
  9. 109
    Mauser 98K Says:

    yes, the telluric currents are very weak.. i have demonstrated this by using 2 stainless plates 1x1ft square buried approximately 100ft apart.. while i did get voltage in the AC range the current was in the uA range.. about 450uA..

    bigger plates do make for more current, but the size of them would have to be pretty big to get a few mA of current.. but the currents do get greater as the plates are moved outwards and away from each other..

    the crust of the planet is highly conductive because of the moisture and mineral contents.. a conductive medium in the presence of a magnetic field will produce a voltage.. but the crust is also a closed loop setup.. imagine it like a piece of wire that is connected at each end.. when this wire is passed through the magnetic field it induces a voltage, but because the voltage is in a closed loop system there is an opposing magnetic field setup in the earths crust creating a magnetic field of its own..

    this phenomenon can be demonstrated by using a stack of magnets and a copper ring.. drop the copper ring over the magnet stack and the resulting magnetic field will oppose those of the magnets that are stacked and the ring will fall slowly down the stack.. but if you were to cut the ring to where the loop was open there would be no magnetic field setup and the ring would fall in free fall..

    the reason the currents are effected by the daytime/nighttime is theorized to be because of the electromagnetic radiation that the sun puts out.. when it is daytime the currents will be greater, because the solar rays and other wavelengths of radiation are in a direct line of sight with that section of the earths crust.. when it is dark there is less of these wavelengths in direct contact with that section of the planet and therefor the currents will drop off a little.

    these currents are greatly effected by the solar cycles and are greatest when it is solar maximum.. solar flares were the worst nightmare for the telluric power systems.. when there was a flare the crust and atmosphere would become greatly charged and cause voltage and current spikes that could even weld the contacts in the telegraph systems up..

    this is what happened during the Carrington event of 1859.. a massive solar flare induced such a power spike in the telegraph systems that it set them on fire, melted them, and welded the contacts up.. just imagine being the poor guy trying to use one at the time.. but if a Carrington event were to happen today, the resulting power spike in the power systems of the exposed portion of the planet would plunge that side back into the dark ages.. if it were to hit the US, in theory it would take 5-10 years to rebuild everything.. our aging power infrastructure would be toasted..

    but with today technology even the normal spikes could be stored for later use.. you can get useable power from these systems.. the collection apparatus just has to be so big that it would not be economically feasible.. not to mention it would disrupt the profits of the multimillion dollar power companies that have a monopoly on electricity..

    but we have some pretty cool super capacitor technology that can be used to collect and store electricity.. just imagine some of Tesla radiant energy patents with an accumulator made out of super caps instead of a normal condenser setup.. instead of a fast discharge you could run something for a short time.. of course one would have to have several setups to use while the others charged up.. or one could set it up to switch accumulator packs when the voltage dropped to a certain preset limit..

    im doing something similar myself.. i got a self charging power pack with a 2way switch and an LED light in my room that im using for a nightlight.. when it dims ill flip the switch and run on another pack while the other pack charges.. so far i have not had to charge this setup from an external source yet.. only been doing this for about 2 weeks, but it is showing promise for LED lights and small solid state applications..


    Quote Comment
  10. 110
    Mauser 98K Says:

    but Tim, id be careful here with claims that free energy is possible.. i made the mistake of that when i said it was.. i even posted pictures, links, and videos of it working but the naysayers never even looked at it..

    if you go by some of the logic i have seen from the free energy is not possible crowd then free energy cannot exist no matter what.. like an argument earlier in this thread.. it was argued that being money and power went into the making of the materials that it meant that the energy was not free..

    by this argument it means that solar power is not free, nor is wind.. because all kinds of power and money went into the making of the materials.. even though the panel or wind turbine will make electricity for as long as there is a sun and wind and a solar panel or wind turbine, it cannot be free energy because sooner or later you’ll have to replace something if it wears out or gets damaged.. it does not matter if the power source never needs charging or refueling, it can’t be free because of the above argument..

    but this is the argument these people always make as to the reason that it cannot be done.. they themselves do not know how it can be done nor can they refute the possibility, so they run to the same script as to why it cannot be done. whither it be a lecture on the laws of the universe and reasons it can’t be done or in this case because power went into the making of the parts, it might wear out, break, or something might have to be replaced… this is the reason it is not free energy and the reasons why it will never be free energy..

    and no matter what you do, no matter what you prove or disprove, they will always insist that your a liar, a crank, a crackpot, or that you have no grasp on anything.. they cannot prove what they say so they attack the person rather than the technology.. totally convinced of their own superiority over everyone else they will try to change the subject, make the messenger look like a nut, or even use different aliases to attack you on forums and make it look like there is a majority opinion of the matter that they argue..

    news flash for these self appointed experts…. once you stop trying to disprove the technology and start attacking the person and insisting that you do not need to prove your side with hard evidence then that just proves to everyone that you do not know what is going on.. it looses you your credibility..


    Quote Comment
  11. 111
    DV82XL Says:

            Mauser 98K said:

    news flash for these self appointed experts…. once you stop trying to disprove the technology and start attacking the person and insisting that you do not need to prove your side with hard evidence then that just proves to everyone that you do not know what is going on.. it looses you your credibility..

    So then I would guess kid, if you attended a show performed by a skilled stage magicians you would immediately accept as fact they could read minds and teleport small objects simply on the bases of the illusions they created without further proof. After all you have seen then do it with your own eyes, and if someone did not take the time to show you exactly how it was done you would feel comfortable accepting as fact they were not using trickery and that indeed they had those special powers. No? Because that is in essence what you are demanding that we do.

    Videos and anecdotes (and even live stage performances) are meaningless as proof of phenomena that fly in the face of established fact and the basic Laws of physics. You can make whatever claims you want, but the proof that they are valid always falls on you.


    Quote Comment
  12. 112
    Shafe Says:

            Mauser 98K said:

    by this argument it means that solar power is not free, nor is wind.. because all kinds of power and money went into the making of the materials.. even though the panel or wind turbine will make electricity for as long as there is a sun and wind and a solar panel or wind turbine, it cannot be free energy because sooner or later you’ll have to replace something if it wears out or gets damaged.. it does not matter if the power source never needs charging or refueling, it can’t be free because of the above argument..

    I wouldn’t dismiss that argument so lightly. The capital and maintenance costs of solar and wind energy are massive compared to the value of the energy produced.


    Quote Comment
  13. 113
    DV82XL Says:

            Shafe said:

    I wouldn’t dismiss that argument so lightly. The capital and maintenance costs of solar and wind energy are massive compared to the value of the energy produced.

    It’s not just the capital costs but the EROEI in many instances. There are a wide variety of estimates of solar PV’s EROI some of which have what might be typified as employing creative accounting and the case for solar thermal is even worse. Wind’s EROEI ultimately depends on MTBF estimates which have to be very generous to keep it positive. Wave and tidal values are all over the place, and without good numbers from working installations, are conjecture at best at this point.


    Quote Comment
  14. 114
    Mauser 98K Says:

    well Nelson, i also provided the information to build your own apparatus so you wouldn’t have to just take my word for it.. .. i have given you the proof and information you need to build it, test it, and make your own decisions on the situation..

    but there is that key word.. “established fact” like i said b4, the established facts of the time were that it was impossible to break the sound barrier.. it was im possible to go faster than 50mph. it was impossible to fly. it was impossible to go into space, to go to other planets.. people were killed and burned for the “established facts” for heresy.. the “established Facts” are being changed all the time as we gain more knowledge of what is actually possible.. hiding behind these laws without trying it for yourself just makes you a scientific coward..

    thank you for proving my point that i made above..

    see what i mean Tim? the laws of physics lecture came out and no evidence was given to dispute the technology. the only thing that was given was an argument directed solely at the person..


    Quote Comment
  15. 115
    Mauser 98K Says:

    but as usual Shafe, you information was to the point and logical.. thank you..


    Quote Comment
  16. 116
    Mauser 98K Says:

    oh, and by the way Nelson, they can read minds and teleport small objects.. through the use of brainwave scanning technology they have gotten pretty darn close to reading minds.. they place electrodes on the head and use a computer to decrypt the wave patterns to give the most logical possibility to what that person is thinking.. it is still in the experimental stages at the moment but they are doing it..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11199031/Mind-reading-device-invented-by-scientists-to-eavesdrop-on-inner-voice.html

    you see, the brain is just like a computer, and most of the software is standardized as to how we think and operate.. the nerve impulses of our thoughts and movements can be translated into data that can then be read on a screen.. it is not science fiction and does not violate the laws of physics..

    and as to the magician reading the mind of someone.. there is stunning scientific evidence of people that are more sensitive than others to magnetic and electrical radiation.. Hitler and the Russians experimented with these people in their paranormal research programs. the US even researched this to a great degree..there is still research going on in this area. and there is documented proof that it is possible for some people to do this impossible feat that violates your laws of the universe..

    for the teleportation, this has been done.. no person as far as i know has been beamed up yet, but they have done it none the less.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/26/scientist-teleport-matter-more-than-three-feet/

    the above article is from 2009.. they have got it a lot better since then.. http://phys.org/news/2012-09-km-physicists-quantum-teleportation-distance.html

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/16/scientists-report-teleportation-of-physical-objects-from-one-location-to-another/

    and this information is just what they will release to the public..

    so you see, as usual your argument that you directed at me again shows just how much you do not know about the situation.. now quote me some more laws of the universe that can’t be broken..


    Quote Comment
  17. 117
    Shafe Says:

            DV82XL said:

    It’s not just the capital costs but the EROEI in many instances. There are a wide variety of estimates of solar PV’s EROI some of which have what might be typified as employing creative accounting and the case for solar thermal is even worse. Wind’s EROEI ultimately depends on MTBF estimates which have to be very generous to keep it positive. Wave and tidal values are all over the place, and without good numbers from working installations, are conjecture at best at this point.

    Yeah, how was it stated? I’ll be convinced when I see a photovoltaic plant that can produce enough PVs to operate itself. Something like that?

    Anyway, I can take only so much of free energy hobbyists being compared to Galileo or Chuck Yeager. I’m going to have to ignore further posts to this thread. The discussion has grown so circular it’s creating an inanity vortex.


    Quote Comment
  18. 118
    DV82XL Says:

            Shafe said:

    Anyway, I can take only so much of free energy hobbyists being compared to Galileo or Chuck Yeager. I’m going to have to ignore further posts to this thread. The discussion has grown so circular it’s creating an inanity vortex.

    Ya I’m going to do the same as it is clear that we have a new incumbent for the coveted position of Depleted Cranium Village Idiot and we know how any attempt to engage rationally with one of those works out.


    Quote Comment
  19. 119
    Mauser 98K Says:

    bahahahaha..

    without any experience in the field in question, without ever having looked at the evidence,without ever having tried it for yourself, without ever disproving a thing,without ever showing a shred of evidence to back up your argument, your just going to insult the other party and then run away like you are the victor patting yourself on the back..

    this has gotten to the point of monolithic stupidity..

    i have asked you time and time again to disprove the tech i posted about with solid evidence, but all you do is run off at the mouth and tell me that you do not need to provide evidence…

    i posted how to do it. i posted pictures. i posted videos.. i even walked you through the steps of building the thing, but all you seem to be able to focus on is my character and the irrelevant.. this is not skepticism.. this is just dismissing anything that goes against your opinions and avoiding the situation all together because you are too dam afraid to admit that you do not know..

    i have posted evidence of everything i have said on this forum. i have posted links and sources.. i have told you how and where..

    name calling and dismissing any evidence because you cannot disprove something makes you look like the biggest gaping vagina on the web..

    does the things i posted about work or not? this is the question that has been asked time and time again ever since the first insults started flying.. and i am asking it again.. does it work or not? if you cannot answer this simple question with a simple yes or no with evidence backing up your statement then it means that you do not know all the facts and are just operating on the ideas that your opinions are fact without any real information to back up your claims..

    is it free energy device? no.. i never said the circuit or the crystal batteries were.. not once did i ever state that i had a free energy device.. what i did was to post some alternative power sources, and claimed that they did work, and got attacked for it..

    and who compared anyone to Galileo or Chuck Yeager?


    Quote Comment
  20. 120
    Mauser 98K Says:

    and what part of your arguments calling me names instead of disproving the technology was an engagement of rationality? i put out a little information on alternate power, alternate power sources that are being built by people all over the world, power sources that work and are proven to work and i get attacked. get told i do not know what the hell im talking about..

    it is you who do not know what the hell your talking about..

    am i supposed to take the empty ramblings of a guy who obviously does not have a grasp on reality as the only scientific proof, when millions of other people have tried the technology and showed it working as was stated?

    you have been anything but rational.. you have showed that you cannot be rational..

    instead of having a scientific debate where both sides provide their evidence, we have a situation where one side provides information and the other side just shoots it down without anything to back up their side and starts attacking the other parties character when they are challenged..

    is this your rationality? if it is then your a moron..

    you cannot handle the evidence..and instead of facing the evidence you attack things that have nothing to do with the situation, to try and get out of having to strain that pea you call a brain..

    yea i said it, your a pea brain….

    go away till you can have an intelligent debate you pea brain..


    Quote Comment
  21. 121
    Mauser 98K Says:

    but for the rest of the folks out there who are interested in a different kind of power cell..

    borax, Epsom Salts, potassium chloride (salt substitute), Alum.

    each one by weight in equal parts are thoroughly mixed dry..

    copper tubing or a copper pipe cap and a magnesium anode rod from a water heater.. you want to size these two components so that when the rod is inserted into the copper there is atleast 1/2in to 9/16in all around the anode rod..

    place an 1/8in to 1/4in thick insulation sheet of PC board or other high temp non conductive sheet in the bottom of the copper cup to prevent shorting of the electrodes.. this is done b4 the cutting of the magnesium rod so that you can recess the rod below the top of the cup.. this is done so that after the cell is sealed off nothing is exposed to the atmosphere..

    you want to drill the magnesium rod to accept a small screw to attach a wire to at this time.. add on the wire because it will be impossible to do so after you fill and seal the cell..

    if you want you can also put a small screw into the copper cup at this time also.. you will need to use a screw that does not stick to far into the cell to prevent shorting of the cell. you also want to keep the screw in the hole or plug it during the filling and melting phase or it will run out of the hole..

    add in the dry mixture from above into the copper cup and around the magnesium rod.

    heat the copper cup just until the contents melt.. do not over heat as it will cause the contents to bubble out and result in air bubbles and large pockets of air in the cell..

    only add enough to the cell to where the level stops 1/4in from the top of the cell.. this is done so you can seal it off with silicone or hot glue after the contents solidify to prevent absorption of moisture into the mixture.. if this is not done it will absorb moisture from the air and you will have a galvanic cell that will corrode. trust me, you do not want to skip this step..

    after the cell has a good fill allow this to cool for several hours till it is setup hard..

    after it has hardened for a couple hours it is time to seal it off to prevent moisture from being absorbed..

    you can now test the cell… it should read about 1.2-1.5Vdc and 200-300mA.. this will drop off a little in the first week to month to a lower permanent output somewhere in the 15-30mA range depending on the cell..

    but after the cell has aged a month or two they act strangely.. most standard batteries that work on the galvanic method are stable more or less in their output.. the crystal cells will fluctuate up and down under a no load condition both in voltage and amperage.. i have watched the ones i have fluctuate as much as .2Vdc in 1 second and bounce back up, sometimes above the previous readings only to bounce down and then up again..

    when testing almost every type of battery on the market that uses the galvanic principle, what voltage you see on the meter when you first hook it up is what you get.. the galvanic setup is stable more or less..

    is there a galvanic action present? possibly. but it sure does not behave like a standard galvanic action.

    but the contents must be kept dry as possible to function properly..even a humid day if the cell is unsealed will cause it to become sopping wet.. if it gets wet then the electrolyte resistance will go down, the electrodes will corrode, and the performance will suffer badly..

    this is the same process i posted b4 in a previous comment that caught me hell.. i reposted so everyone who is serious bout improving their education could see the process and play with it themselves.. the best way to know if something works for sure is to test it out yourself.. don’t just take my word for it..

    but as stated b4, this is not a free energy device.. it can be run down to an extent but never completely killed.. when run down it can either be hit with a direct voltage for a few minutes or it can be left alone for a few hours and it will climb back up on its own..

    but the first cells i built last year still operate well enough to run a Joule Thief circuit or run a Quartz clock..and i have abused the crap out of them..

    but there will be no more replies to negative comments aimed at me, so don’t even bother.. it is unfortunate that this thread turned into the pissing match it did in the first place… i will now just put the information out and it is up to you to test it out and come up with your own decision. believe me then great, if not then ok, that is your right.. not saying you have to believe or not.. im not going to force my ideas or opinions on anyone and then call them names when they don’t accept them..

    im not going to argue anymore.. i am here to educate and not to bash other people for their beliefs. ill put the info out and help those interested but i will not reply or argue with those who are just here to argue..

    if you have a question i can help with i will do my best to help you out.. until then, happy experimenting..


    Quote Comment
  22. 122
    Mauser 98K Says:

    this is a link to the companion circuit that goes with the crystal cells for charging small Ni-Cad batteries or running LEDs….

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10933907_832674253487225_3180963154292841924_n.jpg?oh=54c3badf8bdafcf4bd2390197c82054b&oe=55AACEC1

    it is just a type of oscillator with an output and is based on the Joule Thief circuit.. i have done a few modification to the circuit and it can run on currents as low as 3-5mA and voltages as low a .5Vdc by adjusting the potentiometer.. with the addition of a germanium transistor the voltage can be as low as 0.15Vdc..

    i moved the output from the bottom of the transistor emitter and placed it across the coil itself.. this allows me to see full back voltage..

    when the LED or battery charger option is used the resulting load changes the frequency a little and the current consumption drops a little rather than going up like the standard Joule Thief circuit does.. the addition of the 27K resistor also dropped the current consumption a little. i have experimented with a diode rather than a resistor and got good results..

    this circuit also works real well with the earth batteries for lighting LEDs and charging small Ni-Cad batteries..

    this is also the circuit i have been using to run a 12V LED nightlight for the last couple weeks with the crystal cells..

    but unlike the standard Joule Thief circuit, this one can be used to regulate power to LEDs from larger power sources than the LED can handle..

    being the LED is in the circuit backwards from what it would normally be it never sees the voltage or current of the input source.. with the use of the potentiometer you can run even a small 3V LED off of a 12V battery.. i have already done this and it works quiet well…

    this circuit also works well using the Bedini Alkaline Alum Rechargeable Battery that is made by converting an old Lead Acid battery to use a water/Alum mix rather than the sulfuric acid.. this conversion works well with batteries that still take some charge but are iffy..

    the voltage will be lower than a standard Lead Acid battery (11.8V rather than 12.8V) but is safer and can be deep cycled a lot further than most other batteries.. (down to 1V vs 10V for a standard battery)

    for a hobby battery it is great to use with this circuit because of the absence of corrosive acids and toxic gasses.. you can put it on the above circuit running some LEDs with a low setting of the potentiometer and you can run it all the way down to 1V.. this will take a good long while with a 400CCA lawn mower battery after it is converted..

    these batteries will also charge a lot faster than a standard Lead Acid battery.. less than 1 hour from 9-10Vdc compared to over 2-3 hours with a standard battery..

    you will need a different charger to recharge the battery if you do run it down to 1V.. the standard chargers will not usually operate that far down so i wouldn’t run it down past 8-9Vdc as a rule with a standard charger..

    but on the deal of calling this oscillation amplification circuit obsolete or useless.. garden lights and some battery operated LED lanterns sold today have a standard oscillation amplifier in them..it is much smaller but they have them… if it is good enough for a multi million dollar cooperation like Ray-O-Vac then it is good enough for me..


    Quote Comment
  23. 123
    Mauser 98K Says:

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11156367_833236890097628_8133677424977147417_n.jpg?oh=fe95f6039f5e7b4ec89a45e483cafe9d&oe=55984AB1

    still trying to get the power consumption down some more for my crystal cell LED driver..

    the LEDs are from a LED motion detector light and run off of 9V.. i have gotten the consumption down to just a shade under 5mA on high and will operate all the way down to 400uA..

    im going to drop the 2N3055 transistor for a more efficient NPN transistor that will operate on less voltage and amperage..

    the toroid is out of a small B&W television.. i didn’t even wind the coils and just used what was there.. there are hundreds of turns of what looks to be #30-#35 AWG wire..

    this setup is different than the past circuits i have built.. they all drew more current when a larger voltage was applied. with this circuit the higher the voltage input the lower the amperage draw is for the same brightness.. 4 cells in series draws 2mA at 4.6Vdc on high and 300uA on lowest setting..

    if i can just get the current consumption down to below 400uA on high then i can run the thing off of atmospheric electricity.. the output of atmospheric electricity is not very high (in the uA range) but the voltage can be as high as 10Vac if everything is tuned to resonance..

    im not sure if i can get it down that far and still run the LEDs at full voltage/amperage or not.. im sure going to try it though..

    but im almost close to the output of the telluric currents i tested for in my yard.. i got around .7Vac and 200uA with two 1ft X 1ft stainless plates that were spaced 100ft apart.. im confident i can improve upon this output with some adjustments..

    i do not need much to run this new circuit setup.. all i need is .5V useable volts and 400uA of useable current.. with this i can run any standard 3V LED..

    but b4 i get the standard overunity questions.. no it will not run itself.. this is going to be an open system if i get it all sorted out.. what that means is that it gets its power from outside the system and does not make its own power..

    so far this is not a free energy device.. it will only be once i get it running off of atmospheric electricity or ground currents.. but in any case it will not run your electric stove.. this first setup will be for small lighting applications, later i will try to scale it up for solid state applications.. that is the way this stuff works, build it small till you get it figured out and then scale it up for more power..

    in either case, for the larger load operations ill most likely have to set the circuit up charging an accumulator so i can run low current solid state items.. for low current applications you can use the ultra capacitors just like a battery..

    might be able to charge the small Ni-Cad batteries with it also, but we will have to see.. but that isn’t a reality yet and is wishful thinking till it is done..


    Quote Comment
  24. 124
    Mauser 98K Says:

    Look Ma, No batteries..

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11182043_834647459956571_1079751835526489210_n.jpg?oh=148eb17ae8052a4dab7d4b0473eb6c81&oe=55D9CB2D


    Quote Comment
  25. 125
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I can’t believe this is still going on


    Quote Comment
  26. 126
    BMS Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I can’t believe this is still going on

    It’s not. It has deteriorated to one person repeatedly spamming the comments section of your site.


    Quote Comment
  27. 127
    Mauser 98K Says:

    who is spamming? Nelson asked me for proof so i documented some of my works.. even the impossible one in the last picture that is running without a battery.. he repeatedly blasted me for the notion i could run something without batteries in it and no outside power being input..

    but i tried to provide proof of which i spake to begin with, and then he started insulting me and calling me clueless and stupid, so i told him off..

    i was all willing to have a civilized debate. i even showed links, documentation,and other evidence, which he rejected out of principle i recon.. but when he starts attacking my character ill defend myself..

    all he had to do is provide a little scientific evidence as to why my claims (which i clearly proved) were a crank, silly, and stupid. and why i was clueless, stupid, and the village idiot..

    when he just goes off on me, and dismisses the evidence, and does not even look at the evidence i provide after he asked me to provide it, and then starts attacking me personally, am i just supposed to run off with my tail between my legs and not defend myself or my character? im not wired that way..


    Quote Comment
  28. 128
    Mauser 98K Says:

    Slander and Defamation of character is not a scientific debate..


    Quote Comment
  29. 129
    Anon Says:

            Mauser 98K said:

    Slander and Defamation of character is not a scientific debate..

    It’s only slander if it’s spoken.


    Quote Comment
  30. 130
    Mauser 98K Says:

    but i would have been happy to admit defeat if the opposing evidence (that he never posted) would have proven that it was impossible..

    why is it impossible? because he said so? if i had not tried these things myself i would have been inclined to agree with him.. but i have tried these setups and they do work to an extent..

    as stated b4, they will never run your stove. but they can be used to light small LED lights and run small transistorized radios..

    are these setups useful? for some applications they are.. are they useful to the point of replacing the power grid? no, they are not..

    my argument was not whither or not they would replace the power grid or was useful in the ways that everyone wanted.. the argument was whither or not it was possible to produce any long lasting power out of these setups..

    and instead of proving it was not possible to get self sustaining power out of these systems i get attacked..

    if someone would have just posted scientific evidence of the reasons (other than they said so) the reasons why it was not possible then i would have went on my merry way.. if these systems were not producing power, even though the power is small, i would be just as skeptical as to the mere possibility of it being possible..

    yes, it is possible. no it will not replace the power grid..

    my posts are not spamming, this is stating a fact and providing evidence to backup my claims.. i was asked to provide evidence and am doing so..

    isn’t that the way it works, the party that claims something provides evidence to what he claims?.. well it is supposed to work that way. but when the opposing party does not even look at it and just rejects it without reviewing it then what is the point..

    i posted my information and am awaiting the answer to whither it is possible to get any power out of the systems i posted about.. keep in mind i never claimed free energy, so that is not an issue here.. the only issue here is “does it produce power?” “is it possible to get long lasting power from the devices in question?” that is all im asking..

    any insults or negative comments will not be replied to because it is not evidence of possibility or impossibility and is therefore moot and irrelevant…


    Quote Comment
  31. 131
    Mauser 98K Says:

    that is correct Anon.. i think the correct term is “Libel” or written defamation..

    my bad..


    Quote Comment
  32. 132
    THX1138 Says:

    Nothing Mauser 98K is incorrect. He’s working on important grassroots-investigated science. You’ll never get the corporations to help in this endeavor.

    Speaking of the big corporations, such as NASA, and about every other “scientific” organization… they will not even look at the well-established Electric Universe Theory, which has been validated by the Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfvén. To summarize and simplify, electricity is everywhere in the universe, from macro galactic scales to nano atomic scales, and it is “free” just like there is free food in the forest, from the animals to the weeds that are more nutritious and safer than agricultural products.

    If you are interested in investigating this further, here’s a starting point: picture of the day | thunderbolts.info
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ or better yet, beginner’s guide | thunderbolts.info
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/beginners-guide/

    People should perhaps try to extract themselves from the Idiocracy which has captured and held their minds in a box, and allow people free expression and investigation; and allowed to question “accepted” science. After all “accepted” science has been proven wrong over and over throughout history, a la Copernicus, Galileo, and now Newtonian and Einsteinian theories are being falsified right and left.

    I, for one, Mauser 98, intend to investigate your links and hope that I can find you on your own website somewhere, where you can continue your investigations with support from constructive dialog with “inquiring minds”, and without ad hominem attacks.

    As a practical matter, I am particularly interested in getting some years worth of additional use from my deep cycle batteries by changing the chemistry. They may be too far gone, but it would certainly be nice if I could save $200 and use them a while longer, and perhaps to better advantage.

    I thank you Mauser 98 for your diligent efforts to getting useful information out on the web.


    Quote Comment
  33. 133
    THX1138 Says:

    Some thoughts upon re-reading Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    His thesis was an instance of itself. The prevalent opinion was that scientific knowledge accumulates incrementally toward ever more accurate approximations of “the truth”, embodied in facts that are “out there”. Kuhn’s study of the history of science-plus some observations from the psychology of perception-led him to conclude that incremental accumulation only occurs within the purview of a “paradigm”: a set of general assumptions, common procedures, and preferred instrumentation. His contention that occasionally paradigms change in a revolutionary way that breaks the continuity of incremental accumulation was itself a revolution in epistemology.

    Contrary to that prevalent opinion, data and observations are not fixed and stable but dependent on the paradigm in which they occur. They “are not ‘the given’ of experience but rather ‘the collected with difficulty’. [T]hey are selected for the fruitful elaboration of an accepted paradigm” (p. 126). When paradigms change, perceptions change, and the transition “is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals” (p. 85). Science becomes a whole new ball game.

    Kuhn describes a process in which intervals of “normal science” are separated by episodes of “extraordinary science”. A science begins with more-or-less aimless fact-gathering. In the absence of a conceptual context, facts “seem equally relevant” and their gathering “produces a morass” (p. 15-16). A multiplicity of schools spend most of their time arguing over and reformulating fundamentals. At some point, a unifying idea persuades everyone to accept it as fundamental. That frees up researchers to explore its ramifications in depth and in detail.

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/


    Quote Comment
  34. 134
    DV82XL Says:

    Pseudoscience is a practice in which people convince themselves that what they’re doing is science – that it meets scientific standards – but, on closer examination, it turns out that they’re merely aping the methods of science. Those that are not well grounded in the fundamentals run the risk of being drawn into these belief systems which are intellectual black holes: as they approach them they find themselves getting drawn in. Eventually they pass the event horizon, and there is no escape. They really believe that what they believe is rational and reasonable and perhaps even scientifically credible. But the truth is that they are duping themselves.

    Not only do they not understand the basics of the science they think they are practicing, as evidenced by the above, they desperately misinterpret the philosophy of science, reading into the works of people like Kuhn justification for their idiotic notions that just aren’t there.

    They are hopeless dreamers and pathetic wannabes that salve their flimsy egos with the vain belief that ‘all those experts are wrong,’ a state from which they could then reclaim some equality long lost as those that were willing to work blew past them academically and professionally. They are also the natural prey of charlatans and mountebanks who if not selling them shares in some scheme, are pedaling books that promise to show them secret knowledge. That none of it ever works outside their imaginations doesn’t seem to bother them in the least.

    And then they come to places like this, why I’ll never know. No one that counts here will ever believe that they are anything but fools, will never treat them with anything but derision, and will never accept them as peers. All I can think is they must have a need to be humiliated.


    Quote Comment
  35. 135
    Anon Says:

            THX1138 said:

    Nothing Mauser 98K is incorrect.

    Basically everything the person named after obsolete killing device wrote was incorrect.

            THX1138 said:

    He’s working on important grassroots-investigated science. You’ll never get the corporations to help in this endeavor.

    Not really, he’s just wasting his time.

            THX1138 said:

    Speaking of the big corporations, such as NASA, and about every other “scientific” organization…

    NASA wasted money investigating the EmDrive.

            THX1138 said:

    they will not even look at the well-established Electric Universe Theory,

    Which has been well established to be wrong.

            THX1138 said:

    which has been validated by the Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfvén.

    A smart guy to be sure but he took his work in a narrow area of physics and extrapolated it well beyond its domain of applicability.

            THX1138 said:

    People should perhaps try to extract themselves from the Idiocracy which has captured and held their minds in a box, and allow people free expression and investigation; and allowed to question “accepted” science. After all “accepted” science has been proven wrong over and over throughout history, a la Copernicus, Galileo, and now Newtonian and Einsteinian theories are being falsified right and left.

    You obviously don’t understand how science works.


    Quote Comment
  36. 136
    BMS Says:

            DV82XL said:

    And then they come to places like this, why I’ll never know.

    The answer is so clear and commonplace that it has become a cliche in just about every movie to feature a mad scientist:

    “Fools! I will destroy you all!”

    It’s how they think.


    Quote Comment
  37. 137
    DV82XL Says:

            Anon said:

    A smart guy to be sure but he took his work in a narrow area of physics and extrapolated it well beyond its domain of applicability.

    Let’s make this clear: Hannes Alfvén, along with others, extended a well-formed hypothesis called Plasma Cosmology that was taken very seriously by the scientific community, but upon examination was shown inconsistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and rejected by most. However there were for a number of years legitimate scientists that tried to reconcile the hypothesis with observation and papers were published in high-impact journals and conferences were held, but in the end they failed to make any real progress. This is science at work. Now scientist are human, and like all humans can get trapped in the sunk cost fallacy, and a few active in this area did, but the accusation that these ideas were ignored by a hidebound, entrenched scientific community are simply wrong.

    Electric Universe on the other hand is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas (which lack any consistency between various flavors) which proponents like to claim have some kind of relation to the work of Alfvén and others, but simply does not except in a very superficial way. That Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas is a good indication of how intellectually bankrupt they are.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string VEmyVY to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam