Hans your right about the thermocouple i wasen't thinking clearly but i did read that one end of each steel and copper should be exposed in the ground ... I couldnt find what it said to do with the other two ends on top ... now if we connected those ends on top to the plates or rods were using .. take bill's example with the magnesium and the carbon.  The initial voltage induced by the rods goes through the coil then the two ends on the bottom in the earth might complete the circuit making an electromagnet. This could be way off but getting the results were getting now with just simple things and realizing that it is polarized ac or pulsed dc then feeding that into this bimetal coil should make a rotating magnetic feild if the ends in the earth are shorted.  Now after realizing i can run a battery in series with the ground rods we've been using and still get the power out on the other side it would be safe to say that two metals such as iron and copper  can form a link or path in the ground.  I feel that once we understand how the rotating magnetic feild is created in the primary bimetal coil it will be a little more obvious how this plug works and should be easier to understand.   

Stubblefield continued:

Before we analyse Stubblefield?s device we must digress here for a moment, for any analysis would not be complete unless we looked at the precursor of the idea.

In 1875 James Chapman Bryan patented an Earth battery which is similar in concept to Stubblefield?s. It is certain that Stubblefield was aware of the patent since he had to list it as ?prior art? in his patent application.

Modern patents list all prior art that had been quoted, on the old patents this is not the case. Nevertheless the requirement to disclose prior art was a requirement then as it is now.

What is here of immense interest to me is that Bryan was a resident of Philadelphia when he applied for his patent. It is certain that Bryan was aware of Keely?s work. I doubt that there would have been any person that did nor know about Keely in Philadelphia in 1875, during these years Keely was big news and his activities were regularly reported.

There are any number of patents on earth batteries, all relying on a galvanic action. Only two of these patents are different in character. Bryan?s and Stubblefield?s.

So what are these differences?

In the other patents two dissimilar metals were buried in the ground which were connected to insulated wires. The moisture in the ground acts as an electrolyte and a direct current develops between the different metals. I will not explain here how galvanic action works, I assume that the readers here in the forum are familiar with it.

The important part is that the resultant current is DC !

DC when connected to a coil generates a magnetic field. THIS FIELD IS STATIC !

As long as the current flows the field exists, when the current is withdrawn the field collapses. We call this an electromagnet.

All other patents accept this as given, Bryan?s and Stubblefield?s DO NOT !





The obvious difference between these devices and the standard approach is that here we have SECONDARY COILS !

Both Bryan and Stubblefield are clearly expecting an oscillating field of some sort that energises these secondary coils. So where are these oscillations coming from? Not from any galvanic action, that is certain.

To analyse this we must have a look next at Keely and Leedskalnin.

This will be discussed in the next exciting chapter 

Hans von Lieven


EDIT Sorry guys, forgot to attach Bryan's patent. Here it is:

Hans i don't know if you saw it but i took a freq reading and i posted results some depths were 40 hz some were 60. How would DC give a freq reading? Thats what brought me to the conclusion that using the rods we have as the power source would create a rotating magnetic field as opposed to a static dc one.  Now on the topic of the secondary copper coil wound around the whole plug i know there were reports of it having dc output but his patent and other places refer to the output of this cell as secondary current. We do know that some power tools will run off dc and other assorted ac items so maybe somebody got confused along the lines and called it dc when in essence it was polarized ac or pulsed dc.  I could be wrong but after reading all the postings here on this forum and evaluating some of the likeness and differences this conclusion seems logical.
                                                           

Exactly my point Joe,

If the device was dependent on pure galvanic action there should be no oscillations. There aren't any in a galvanic battery. So where are they coming from? This is what we are trying to determine.

Hans von Lieven

@Bill I just saw your video. Awesome man , the same thing happened when i measured amperage, try taking a resistor inline and the measure it meaning positive to resistor then + probe to other side of resistor and - probe to - ground electrode i think that will give you a more stable current measurement.  Again great work, folks are really starting to take an interest.
                                                                                           Joe