Nathan Stubblefield Earth battery/Self Generating Induction Coil Replications

[Branko]

I make mistake, and I send post to Dr. Stiffler topic. I write this:

Akashh,

I know that with radioactive is easy to make electricity. Just use plate in air, capacitance and ground (this is Tesla's system for radiant receiver).
But I more like 'clean' ionization (high voltage and high frequency). My investigation go through that idea. I make ionization around plate in air, and free ions and electrons in air going through that path to ground. Transformer for that ionization need to be without ground, and that HF energy need to be recycle. It could make great virtual area. Highest the voltage or greatest space between two transformer plates, and highest height, will make greatest ionization 'cloud' in the air for collecting air current (stratosphere to ground).

On my pages (you ask about coil) i have my equations for coil. But it is standard air coil, and work in the ground will be little different. Important is to have inductance and parasitic capacitance information (for air coil I have good equation). Problem is with resistance, because it is function of frequency (for air coil I make some equations). If frequency is low (I think it is in that earth battery system), resistance can be just measure with standard instrument. Voltage 'amplification' or Q factor is Q=wL/R.

I think that important is to know Tesla's measurement of thunders part of spectrum (from his patent words its is around 30-70 km wave length).

And his bifilar winding coil, has good properties (because of high parasitic capacitance between winding).

My investigation is little different, but source of that energy is the same.

[tishatang]

Hi Branko

In looking at your site, I offer the following link as good reading material.

http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

If you replace the capacitor just above ground in your circuit with a tuned tank circuit, it might raise the voltage dramatically?  Especially if tuned to a harmonic of the received radiant RF energy.

Just an idea.

Tishatang

[Localjoe]

Good work folks,
                  Ive been away for a few days and just had a chance to catch up.  Two main comments id like to focus on, 

Bill you hit it right on the head of the nail and ive been thinking about it for a minute... Take the reactor diagram from hans and what we have is some emmitting em radiation and inducing current in that coil... We have the sun which emmits uv and a few other types i think why cant we design a coil to be affected by those waves... To find this answer we must evaluate exactly what that uranium does to the magnetic feild and then see if theres a chart that rates different isotopes and effects on magnetic feilds, after that we might be able to deduce what determines yield vs coil size  and  design for where em spectrum this works.  Different wavelengths of light/energy no matter how long or short can be caputred by a antenna either the physical length or half wave length or making one electrically the same size...... So theres something there... and were using silicon wafers silly us...  Good side topic to start in another thread.. summertime.

Second note- Cuprious oxide is the base for a homemade solar panel.... what does this have to do with everything.. made me think.. It can recieve certain wavelengths after cooked down to that part of the metal.

Third note and most important-  The micro tpu idea running off of this is great, and like he said one charge 5 mins or so , if we had that thing constantly filling a small step up circuit connected to a cap, that could then dump into what is there starting cap of there device or possibly power a small function generator.

This is where we need some of the electronics guys help so im calling out, if any of you folks with solid circuit building knowledge can help us we need to design a small dc step up circuit currently the highest voltage is bills readings somewhere in between 1.4 to 1.7 v and a little over 2 milli amps not micro so weve got a little power here, were also able to light up led's with a cap connected. If any folks have any ideas for us on how this could power a small function generator, osiclator, or dc step up for micro or regular tpu, This would be MUCH APPRECIATED
                                                                                                         Joe

[hansvonlieven]

Stubblefield continued


G'day guys,

I know how tempting it is to shoot off right here and start with a series of wild experiments in the hope something will come of it.

Perhaps it is time for a bit of reflection on what we have so far and see if we can draw any useful conclusions from it. We have examined the work of Keely, Stubblefield, Tesla, Hubbard, Barbat etc. and found that there is a lot more than anecdotal evidence that these guys were playing around with a phenomenon that is currently unacknowledged by mainstream science.

Contrary to popular belief, especially in a forum such as this, there is nothing sinister in this.

Science is loath to admit into a body of accepted knowledge anything that does not conform with its standard of what constitutes acceptable proof. That is proper. Otherwise there would be no difference between science and speculation, however well founded.

By the same token mainstream science is painfully aware that current theories are full of holes in major areas and there is a worldwide effort to fill these gaps and arrive at a better understanding of the world around us and its mysteries. We call that research.

So let us not discard everything that science stands for in favour of some crackpot theory that perhaps sounds nice or fits in better with some metaphysical or religious model.

Scientific investigative procedures are quite sound and have stood the test of time. They do allow for the most outlandish and speculative hypotheses though the burden of proof lies with the one putting up the theories. Extraordinary statements in science require an extraordinary level of substantiation and replication before they become acceptable.

Why am I bringing this up here?

Because it is relevant to our current project, not only that, but relevant to the entire OU debate.

Essentially the difference between the OU movement and mainstream science is that science accepts the laws of conservation of energy whereas the OU movement does not.

There is much talk about energy from a vacuum (Bearden) and energy out of nothing (Omnibus). Such notions are of course idiotic.

Logic dictates that if you can pull something out of a vacuum, or a nothing if you prefer, it wasn?t a vacuum or a nothing to start with.

But there are instances where energy appears seemingly out of nowhere in contradiction to the conservation of energy laws (Sonoluminescence is a well documented example of this).

Which brings us to Helmholtz.

Helmholtz?s seminal work ?Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft? (On the conservation of force) has become a cornerstone of contemporary science and is accepted as fact.

Well, almost.

Helmholtz states in his book that there is an exception to this, which he partially retracted and qualified some 36 years later. This statement is refuted by science. (see my earlier post that contains the full quote).

The work of Keely, Stubblefield, Hubbard, Barbat and to some extend Tesla rest squarely on that premise by Helmholtz.

So why did Helmholtz say it in the first instance and what brought him to retract it partially years later?

Helmholtz was no idiot. Not only was he a great thinker but he was a great experimenter as well. He made a great many discoveries, especially in resonance and acoustics which are part of accepted science today. He furnished impeccable proof for his discoveries.

I think that Helmholtz found something in his experiments that supported this idea but he was unable to furnish sufficient proof to satisfy his peers.

I believe that Helmholtz is right. It is now up to us to prove it and bring the whole OU idea into the realm of accepted and doable science.

Helmholtz worked with pressure waves. So did Keely. The others use different forms of energy to get the same effects. We need to follow this line of approach and find the fundamental principles involved if we want to solve this.


Hans von Lieven

[Pirate88179]

@ Localjoe:

I agree 100%.  I was just thinking before I read your post that the Dr. Stiffler replications use a coil, (ferrite coil aka am radio ANTENNA) and, so do the folks over on the micro tpu topic.  So, I think the drill here is to not "generate" electricity but to "receive" it.  I think that when all is said and done, ALL of this is related somehow. (Stiffler, tpu, Stubblefield, etc.)  If I am not mistaken, the sun fires photons at us at an alarming rate.  They strike the earth.  Do they bounce off?  Are they soaked up by the earth?  A photon is a unity of energy and, unless it is converted somehow, it does not just go away.  The information Hans is giving us is important.  It will help to steer us in the right direction.  I also agree that we need the assistance of the electronics guys in designing our circuits. (coils)

@ Hans:

Everything in your last post agrees with my thoughts as well.  If we could only figure out why Helmholtz retracted his statement so long afterward this might be a key.  I agree is was probably pressure of the "accepted" understanding of the time.  Everyone here by now should know how I feel about that. (The earth is flat, heavier than air craft can't fly, etc.)  I also agree that we need to approach this in a somewhat organized manner.  There will be plenty of experimentation to do and we will need all of us to do it. I feel a little bad that I have not been able to achieve higher voltages than my posted results.  We just found out this week that my Father has Leukemia and the prognosis is not very good at this point. He and my Mom live in Florida so there is not much I can do right now but, I really look forward to the posts here which help me to take my mind off of things for a bit.  I love to think and I would rather be thinking of energy, ou, coils, etc than my Father's condition.

Bill