Energy from the Ground - Self powered generator by Barbosa and Leal

[TinselKoala]

Should be noticed that Dragon has said this about enclosed schematic

Quote
It's simply my interpretation of the patent drawings and could very well be wrong or incomplete to some degree.
end Quote

It is correct wrt the "ground" non-connection as claimed by B&L and also as appears in the first sketches attributed to Clarence, I believe. It is not correct with respect to the circuit allegedly used _now_ by Clarence, where this non-connection now connects to the mains input, turning the ground rod array into a big resistor.

So how anyone could call Clarence's circuit a "replication" of the B&L claims is beyond me, since this fundamental element of the "captor" circuit is completely different.

Also I am not quite certain what Dragon implies by "Ferro resonance"
I will ask him...
** And here is the response from dragon
ferroresonance is a condition that occurs in a system where there is a non linear inductance in series with a capacitive link. If the system is being driven by a frequency, such as a 50/60 hz line, and the inductance shifts to a level that makes the capacitive link resonant then it creates a short circuit or a switch of sorts. This can cause high voltage conditions to occur and/or over current situations that can damage components.

When the current in the loop varies the inductance of the coil changes based on the saturation of the core. If the conditions are right this forms a resonant series LC in which case has only the resistance of the conductors to deter transfer - basically a dead short

Sounds like he's at least read the documents I linked up above, even if not fully understood them. Now let's see if he can explain how this condition could possibly occur in the B&L circuit or the one Clarence is allegedly using-- especially without blowing the inverter and/or battery charger.


I'd also like to know why one rod should be deeper than the other. Was it the "North" rod that is supposed to be deeper? Is this the case in the Southern Hemisphere as well? Where is some actual data that I can examine, comparing the results from ground rods sunk to various depths? Is it possible to see an image of the original laboratory notebook where the original data on ground rod depth was recorded?

-)

[Pirate88179]

It is correct wrt the "ground" non-connection as claimed by B&L and also as appears in the first sketches attributed to Clarence, I believe. It is not correct with respect to the circuit allegedly used _now_ by Clarence, where this non-connection now connects to the mains input, turning the ground rod array into a big resistor.

So how anyone could call Clarence's circuit a "replication" of the B&L claims is beyond me, since this fundamental element of the "captor" circuit is completely different.

Sounds like he's at least read the documents I linked up above, even if not fully understood them. Now let's see if he can explain how this condition could possibly occur in the B&L circuit or the one Clarence is allegedly using-- especially without blowing the inverter and/or battery charger.


I'd also like to know why one rod should be deeper than the other. Was it the "North" rod that is supposed to be deeper? Is this the case in the Southern Hemisphere as well? Where is some actual data that I can examine, comparing the results from ground rods sunk to various depths? Is it possible to see an image of the original laboratory notebook where the original data on ground rod depth was recorded?

-)

Actually, according to some Russian research from years ago, the north is the plus and should be deeper such that the bottom of your electrodes form the same angle as the magnetic dip angle for your area.  (taking into consideration the distance between them) In my case here I think that was 20 degrees or so.  (I published a chart on the old earth battery topic years ago and I am on a different computer now and it is not saved in favorites)  The south electrode is -.  But, it is not magnetic North South but the meridian North South.  In my case the deviation is only 3 degrees but in many cases it would be much more than that.

Earth batteries do work but, no more OU than solar.  Yes I used carbon and magnesium for the electrodes which will give a galvanic result of (I am going from memory here) 1.3-1.5 volts yet, I was obtaining 2.7 volts and higher.  Enough to power a JT camera circuit using two 10F super caps to light a 48" floro tube and also, at another test, 400 leds.

Funny thing is, when it rained, my volts and power went lower...my best results were in the middle of summer with a dry ground condition.

Possibly off topic but maybe not as my experiments with energy from the ground really worked.  (and still do)

Bill

[TinselKoala]

Those are great results Bill, but I'm wondering if you did any control experiments to determine if it was indeed some kind of magnetic field effect, or was more "earth battery" electrochemistry in action. For example, did you try two ground rods that were east-west instead of north south, to see if you got no or greatly reduced output power? There are a handful of other control experiments that come to mind that would test the hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field, or "telluric currents" have something to do with the power output you found. But without some kind of control comparison, we have a demonstration, not an experiment, and causality cannot be determined from demonstrations.

Did you try different depths yourself? I am afraid I don't trust much Russian reporting if it's not in peer-reviewed journals, and sometimes not even then. There are some great Russian scientists of course, but there are also more than their fair share of hoaxers, misinterpreters and simple false claimants.

It's not completely off-topic, since Clarence allegedly isn't using the non-contact ground wire any more.  But then it isn't really a B&L replication any more, either, is it.

[Pirate88179]

Those are great results Bill, but I'm wondering if you did any control experiments to determine if it was indeed some kind of magnetic field effect, or was more "earth battery" electrochemistry in action. For example, did you try two ground rods that were east-west instead of north south, to see if you got no or greatly reduced output power? There are a handful of other control experiments that come to mind that would test the hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field, or "telluric currents" have something to do with the power output you found. But without some kind of control comparison, we have a demonstration, not an experiment, and causality cannot be determined from demonstrations.

Did you try different depths yourself? I am afraid I don't trust much Russian reporting if it's not in peer-reviewed journals, and sometimes not even then. There are some great Russian scientists of course, but there are also more than their fair share of hoaxers, misinterpreters and simple false claimants.

It's not completely off-topic, since Clarence allegedly isn't using the non-contact ground wire any more.  But then it isn't really a B&L replication any more, either, is it.

Well, before I had my good set-up with the large carbon rod and 5 lb mag. block, I actually did have my first few tests done in an east/west configuration.  I had not read that Russian report at that time and I just stuck the electrodes in my garden and it turned out they were east/west.
Not an apples/apples test because my new set-up has much more surface area and mass so...the short answer is no.

In the early days, I did use 2 pieces of copper pipe cut from the same 6' pipe (again, stuck in the ground east/west at same depth) and got .7 volts.  This was to dispel folks that claimed only galvanic action for others results in that topic area. However, there was not much power, maybe 2 mA's if I recall.

I really have no idea about the dip angle being relevant or not but I had read that and since I was using the new electrodes I figured I would give it a go.  When it worked as well as it did, I just kept seeing how much I could light up from it and didn't even consider moving it around to see if it mattered or not.  I am not endorsing that Russian study, just mentioning it as it seemed relevant here as of late.

I believe Stubblefield also mentioned placing the electrodes on a north/south alignment and he claimed no erosion of any of the metals used.  I can not substantiate this as I have not dug up my magnesium since I buried it. (It may be 90% gone for all I know) I have pulled the carbon rods twice and they are fine.  (They are easy to pull out)

If I get time this summer, I may see what is happening out there and repair the damage the lawn guys did to my wires and give it another go.  I can also post more scope shots since I should be better with my scope now than back then...maybe not...we will see.  There are some high spikes flying all over the place and I think that was what was filling my super caps vs what I could measure with my dmm.

Here is a shot I took hopefully showing all of the spikes...which, of course, could easily be man made and leakage from the wiring in my area.

Bill

PS  The spikes do not really show up in the photos...they flash on and off the scope and jump all over the place.  I will check my video I made of them and if they show up better...I will edit a link here.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBAU4HAMfs
TK  You can see those spikes especially near the end of the video.  I have not seen this vid in years and, it shows up pretty well.  I still have no idea what those 3 overlapping waves were or, that waveform at the end of the vid.

[Pirate88179]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaUBxUJrGzY 
100 LEDs powered from the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fV-xjRy3I4
18" floro tube powered from the ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kL8ys8m0-4
48" floro tube powered from the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLzdHRovnbo
200 leds powered from the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauOlhNK0iY
Bedini motor powered from the ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqKEed7AOI
400 leds powered from the ground.

Bill

***EDIT***  I wanted to add that more than likely some, or a lot of this energy may be galvanic but, from the numbers, I don't see how all of it can be.