Nathan Stubblefield Earth battery/Self Generating Induction Coil Replications

[Pirate88179]

@ akashh:

I think we have shown results thus far that put this beyond pure galvanic reaction.  How far beyond is up to debate.  If it were just galvanic than the closer the electrodes, the better the power which has not been the case for me.  Plus, when it rains, my voltage drops and I get much better as the ground dries out.  If you read in the earlier posts about the old telegraph stations, their "electrodes" were hundreds of miles apart, how would pure galvanic reaction apply to this?

If you look at my video I posted earlier, you can see my electrodes are about 4 feet apart.  I have not tried 5 feet yet but 4 feet was better than 3 feet, etc. Another point to consider, if just galvanic then why would an alignment of n/s on the meridian make any difference at all? (Which it clearly did for me)

Don't think for a moment that I claim to know all of what this is about, I don't.  But, I am gathering information along the way that will help me to decide what it isn't.  Do I think that galvanic reaction plays a part in all of this?  Yes, I do, which is why I purchased the carbon rod.  I did get some smaller voltages off of two copper pipes once they were aligned on the n/s meridian but not as much as I am getting now.  I am not totally sure of this but if you made a regular battery with two copper electrodes I don't think it would have any voltage.  there is so much more here than we know right now.

I like your suggestion of the coil to step up the voltage but, and here is my ignorance showing, will that not cut the amps proportionately as in Ohm's law?  If not, this would be the way to go...also a series hookup of multiple electrodes to add the voltages and the amps is something I intend to explore.  Keep us posted of your efforts once you begin. there are possibly a lot of variables here and we need a lot of people experimenting to make some sense of this.

@ George:

Good luck with your efforts, keep us posted.  I'll try to leave a few volts in the earth for you. (grin)

Bill

[hansvonlieven]

I think we have shown results thus far that put this beyond pure galvanic reaction.  How far beyond is up to debate.  If it were just galvanic than the closer the electrodes, the better the power which has not been the case for me.  Plus, when it rains, my voltage drops and I get much better as the ground dries out.

G'day Bill,

You are absolutely right, galvanic action has little, if anything, to do with it. There are forces here at work that are at present poorly understood. Stubblefield and some others knew this. For some reason they were not allowed to mention these phenomena in their patents. There are at least two patents that allude to it, I will cover this in my paper.

I am in two minds as to how I should proceed from here. This looks like a fairly lengthy inquiry and I don't know if I should post my findings in dribs and drabs as it were or if I should wait until the paper is finished before I post.

Posting in bits and pieces has the advantage of outside input, bits and pieces as they occur is very frustrating for the reader.

I leave it to you guys, whatever you want me to do, you've got it.

Hans von Lieven

[FreeEnergy]

it don't matter, post whatever you have now and whatever you post later we can always compare

[hansvonlieven]

Nathan B. Stubblefield   1860 - 1928

It was many years ago when I first came across Nathan Stubblefield?s patent for an ?Earth Battery?.  This was in the days before the internet,  when looking up patents was a time and money consuming business and all you got was the patent. I cannot remember exactly why I purchased it, the most likely reason being that it was cited in another patent I was researching at the time. I didn?t know who Stubblefield was and what he had done other than acquire a patent.

So I took the patent at face value. It didn?t make sense.

It describes a device which uses a copper coil wound together with an iron coil side by side which is immersed in water. So far so good. The water as an electrolyte would cause the iron and copper to react with each other creating a galvanic element capable of generating electricity. Next he tells us that the copper wire must be insulated! From the iron wire! He also states that insulating the iron wire has no detrimental effect on the operation of the device.

There is no way a galvanic action can take place between insulated wires, no matter what the electrolyte.

And if that is not enough he tells us that one can put a secondary coil over the contraption and extract power from it.

This is impossible. A galvanic cell produces direct current ( DC ). You can wind as many coils as you want around a battery and no current will flow in that coil. It needs to be either an alternating current ( AC  ) or a pulsed DC do induce a current in this coil.

Even at that stage I had a drawer full of patents of unworkable and impossible devices which had been sanctioned by patent examiners and I decided it was one of those and disregarded it.

A few days ago Localjoe brought Stubblefield up in a discussion on earth batteries and I vaguely remembered the patent and my reaction to it.

Years ago, when I discovered that I could retrieve any patent I needed at the touch of a button through the internet I had discarded two filing cabinets full of patents, so I could not look the patent up in my own records. This was fortuitous.

In order to retrieve the patent to refresh my memory I had to do a search on Stubblefield. This for the first time gave me some knowledge about the man.

To my surprise he was not the kind of backyard idiot patenting an impossible device he thought would work based on ignorance of the underlying scientific principles as I had assumed, but a man of considerable achievement and learning.

He was also a close friend of Tesla and a contemporary of Keely.

The clincher came when I read this:
Nathan Stubblefield took out a patent for the earth-battery, except, the patent-office demanded he call it "Earth Battery", Stubblefield wanted to call it "Electro-magnetic Induction Amplifier".  (Source Wikipedia)

This explained a number of things.

I believe what happened is that the USPTO rejected his original application and forced a number of changes. By having to call it a battery he now had to make it look like one in order to get his patent.

This is why there are two contradictory descriptions of the device in the same patent.

He complied with the requests but left the real idea behind the device in place, hence the confusion.

That the device worked, of that there is no doubt.

He ran massive installations of electrical equipment on these batteries as the only power source for years, he operated a whole local telephone system on it. There are photographs of his various devices, I even found a photograph that shows his ?earth batteries?.

So what was he doing and how did the device work?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

Hans von Lieven

Sorry guys, but you wanted it this way 

[tishatang]

Hi all,

This is a subject close to my heart.  I am not in a position now to do any experiments, but I am enclosing a link to a related subject, underground antennas.  This is by Gerry Vassilatos  who wrote about Stubblefield in his book  "Lost Science".

It seems telluric currents are biodynamic.  That is, they respond to our mental attention.  Here is the link:

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/ground-ant.htm

It is rather long, but a good read into the nature of underground currents and how they respond to our wishes.  Here is a short quote:

                       "OBSERVATION 3
There are other effects one notices, especially when tuning faint stations with ground antennas. It seems that tuned stations actually become stronger in the act of being heard, a bizarre effect requiring fine order readjustments. Indeed, continued reception of faint stations evidence definite auto-magnification effects. Obtained only through the use of analogue (variable capacity) tuning systems, the tuning process seemingly magnifies the strength of any faintly received signal. One may thus begin with a signal "granule", and end with a booming volume. Such entuned signal growth only occurs with continued attentive reception, a remarkable phenomenon in which receivers literally draw and automagnify signals on demand of the listening site. This strange connective "supply-response" function does not occur without human agency however. In absence of the human "recipient", no such amplification occurs, a curiosity which will find numerous skeptics and critics. But try the experiment for yourself.

Tune a weak station and leave the room. The signal fades away. Walk in again and quickly tune the signal. Walk away once more. The signal fades. Once more, tune the signal and walk back from the receiver. With very minor waverings, the signal strength will remain unchanged...until you walk directly before the receiver. Stay this time. Tune the signal and wait. You will literally hear the signal gradually rising in volume. The faint signal will gradually, almost perceptibly, grow in strength for you as you remain in the room. Now tune the signal carefully, rocking the dial to the left or right of center. Each readjustment raises the signal strength, until the volume is strong. Periodic minor adjustments will reveal a remarkable volume magnification, one which can reach enormous and fixed volume levels. This observation takes time and patience. With such patience, one can thus literally obtain a "signal bonfire" from a "signal spark". We have observed a signal increase while attentions are being focussed on the signal, with a subsequent complete fade back to faintness after the recipients have been removed.

Why can you tune such a weak station, periodically making "fine adjustments", and obtain a signal magnification? Tuning a weak signal through a ground antenna, and then observing the manner in which that signal actually "grows" in strength for a human recipient, is a demonstration of radionic significance. The same has been observed when radionic currents are selected through tuning instruments, and allowed to stimulate a biomonitored plant. The results are always the same, plant responses indicating the gradual increase of radionic current strength. Unlike aerial currents, ground signals are more intensely radionic in nature. They actively seek to infuse appropriate bio-organismic "capacities". Ground currents enter the receiver and are there entuned. The receiving circuit projects an infusive and thready auric radiance which floods the listening space until its natural saturation has been reached.

Those who are in the listening space add an additional absorptivity, a capacity to allow a continued projection of auric emanations. This continued projectivity into proximal recipients produces several characteristic attributes. Recipients who possess an innate desire, an emotional response for the signals, produce sudden surges in the reception strength. When attention is strongly focussed on some faint signal, then it will grow. The ground emerging signals will therefore intensify for you and those with you in a room, pouring into the listening space and being thus articulated among human "capacities". As radio signals are loaded with the articulation of human attention, the signal will grow more rapidly. It has recently been observed that the very same signal, when later left unattended, will fade back into the crashing background. Desirous attempts made to relocate and raise the same signal are not unsuccessful. The absence of appropriate numbers in the human recipients will modify the rapidity of signal growth. The humanly guided tuning process which engages such signals actually entunes the recipients in a radionic manner.

The refinement and entunement of such signals are very obviously a radionic phenomenon of the deepest significance. Entuned magnification effects are therefore radionic entunement effects, the magnification of human articulations by human recipients. Neither electrical nor radio currents possess the articulate nature capable of exhibiting such a detailed biodynamic function. We have previously demonstrated this phenomenon with biomonitored plants, an effect which experimenters may easily reproduce. The implications of this strange effect are enormous for the theoretician. They compel the examination of every notion of radiosignal causality. The only researcher who has treated this effect is Eric Dollard, whose excellent work describes "energy reciprocation" between Tesla impulse transmitters and receivers.

The fact that signals may be drawn from ground on human demand, and automagnified by human presence, should provoke heated debate. How can one explain the veritable control of a distant transmitter by a small receiver? In a biodynamic sense, we are not required to address distant transmitters, since ground currents automagnify with regularity. The additional energy which feeds radionically entuned and capacity-demanded ground signals is sourced within the great subterranean depths."

*********

I think Stubblefield had a strong mental connection with these forces.  I suggest experimenters be patient and leave their projects buried over a longer period of time and mentally suggest the voltages grow to a more usable level.  Nothing to lose by using some extra will power.

It might be worth trying a variable capacitor out of an old radio in some sort of tank circuit to fine tune the AC component of the output?  That would be similar to the experiments within the referenced article.

Hope this helps,
Tishatang