Nathan Stubblefield Earth battery/Self Generating Induction Coil Replications

[jeanna]

introducing external magnetism to this coil when powered also creates interesting results.

like the earth mag field, perhaps? 

well in applying voltage to the copper leads and measuring things, nothing is out of the ordinary. I didn't think anything would be.

But it might if you connect some wires.

My problems lie in inconsistent iron results. I am going to build yet another dry coil. iron only. like this current coil, 3 layers w/ all open leads.

Maybe instead of a problem it is a clue?
I just told myself that one today, and I need to suss it out.
---


These are very interesting things you are doing.

What happens if you connect the end of one (Fe3) to the beginning of the other (Fe2)?(orCu2)
This is what a joule thief does and how I have had interesting things happen with my stubblefield coils too.

In one of those brochure posts above, he indicates that you might connect the outer one to the inner one. He leaves it a little vague, but, it is close to what you are already doing.
Please keep trying things and report the un success as well as the success. This always helps.

thank you,

jeanna

add:
Mezalon,
Someone recently visited with beaucoup ideas about this and we suggested he start another thread.
THIS thread migrated to be a stubblefield coil thread a loooong time ago.
His name is onthecuttingedge2005. Maybe he has started the new thread or maybe joined another?

j

[protonmom]

MW383,
What happened?  I thought you wanted to build a NS EER.  It seems you want to build an entirely new version.  That might be okay, but it kind of threw me off there for a bit.  Why not try to build a coil exactly as is instructed in the patent?  Bi-filar all the way down, then layer of cotton fabric, then bi-filar all the way back up, layer of cotton fabric,  etc., etc. 
Two ends beginning, two ends ending.  NS made several layers.  Then add the secondary.  Take the time to actually READ the instructions.  If not in the patent, then read what has been written by the members of this forum who have actually tried to do just as the patent said to do.  Just my opinion, so take it or not.

@all:  Well, my mag wire came in today.  Boy, was I ever disappointed.  The actual product looks a whole lot different than what was shown in EBAY.  It is a lot smaller, so the picture he used to sell the product must have been made to look larger.  (sigh... Buyer beware!)  Oh well, at least I have SOMETHING to start with to make the secondary now. 

[MW383]

protonmom,

I absolutely intend on building a straight up NS battery. I have been in an exploritory mode for the past week attempting to understand various aspects of the design; hence my narrow scope of experimentation. There is more to this patent than meets the eye. Critical small details that I have yet to fully comprehend. Therefore I will continue my segmented research before building a real deal battery I can bury in the earth and power my farm with!

Patents are funny business. They tell you concepts but lack in details. I am actually party to this type of thing via my own latest patent application. What happened is I wrote a very detailed paper on how my design worked. This in turn was rewritten by patent attorney representing the company I work for. In reading what patent attorney wrote and comparing to my original information; it is clearly seen that the two bodies of information are very differently written. Attorneys are professionally trained to craft words, craft concepts based on an assembly of words, and thus craft a percieved truth. A document may appear as if written in English but the 'legal' definition of words differs from the Webster's definition in many cases. There is a difference between straight English and 'legal' English. I have to assume that the same process is used in any professionally prepared patent including Stubblefield's.

I have to believe that there is design merit with the Stubblefield battery. One does not go through the efforts he did for something that was not up to par. It is up to us in re-discovering the various aspects of the design as they are not at all explained in the patent.

jeanna,

i continue to experiment with my jar battery, copper iron dry battery, and also all iron coil configuration. since I am not electrically savy, I will post a myraid of different results in a few days with the request that electrically minded people that are a part of this thread may interpret. I have laid to rest electrochemical aspects of this design since I believe they only play a minor part. As stated previously, my highest interests lie in the coil design, especially the iron portion of it.

I have built a battery that has the customary iron/copper primary coil configuration in addition to smaller wire guage copper secondary coil. Results here are not all that impressive so far. Sure I can energize the primary coil, de-energize it, and then capture energy in the secondary but this mode of output appears inconsistent with what Stubblefield was achieving.

He was dealing with power to run heavier loads which tells me that a rugged coil was being used, not some light weight guage wire with a million turns. The photographic geometry of his very own batteries is interesting to me. What I am getting at is; there may be credence to the comments that it was the primary coil that supplied useful power to externally attached devices. Which is the main reason I have backtracked a little in order to make a study of the iron portion of the coil design. As simple as this thing looks, I have to believe there is more here than meets the eye.

I'll keep playing and also keep posting!

[protonmom]

MW383,  I am glad you posted again.  That is good that you are experimenting but at the same time keeping the patent in mind.  I agree, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.  And yes, Nathan would not have powered his home nor built so many of his ""EER's" if they did not work.  We just have to find what the missing "ingredient" is.  Sometimes some of the members think they have found it, but it does not pan out.  But if two or more ideas were melded together, perhaps than we would find the key.  Also just so you know...we have had a few people come in who seemed to want to hi-jack the thread, so I (for one) am a little testy at times with someone like that.  If they have a good idea, but it is not Stubblefield related, THEN they should make a new forum.  I did not mean to upset you in any way.  Glad to know you want to follow the patent and will in good time.  Also, there is nothing wrong with adding to the patent, as there might be something you will stumble on that should have been told to us in the first place.  Just as long as it is mainly along the lines that Nathan gave us, then it should still be a NS EER.  Have you finished wrapping the primary yet?  Will you be adding a secondary?  Did you ever get a chance to read the first fifty pages or so of the forum so you could see what others have done?  It really does help.  And it might save you from making some of the same mistakes others have made.  Good luck in your quest, and don't forget to share with the rest of us if you should be lucky enough to discover something.

[MW383]

To all readers.....

Thank you for your thoughtful replies since I have been here in the past week.
(protonmom/Jeanna)

Since this seems to be a multi-faceted design, I have chosen to examine each of its facets individually in the hopes that something comes to light when all connected back together. As you know I have moved well past the electrochemical nature of the design. As I stated to Jeanna, I believe that the copper-iron voltaic couple are just there to attach a voltage to the currents flowing through the system. So technically speaking, the voltage producing aspects of the design are no more advanced than a baghdad battery.

So what does this leave us? Well obviously we have a coil design here. Coils as we know have very interesting properties especially where magnetism is concerned. Hence my complete shift into these aspects of the design. Since electromagnetism and electrical engineering are outside my technical mastery, I have been taking a research - experimentation approach here; baby steps if you will. I have some logical ability and the ability to follow a scent and right now the scent is leading me directly to the coil/magnetic aspects of the design. In several instances in the Stubblefield patent, the words induce and induction are associated with the word current.

So for the past 2 days I have stopped my desktop experimentation in order to become educated on inductive coils. And I believe I have found a trail of breadcrumbs that is enabling me to understand not only inductive coils but Stubblefield's adaptation of them. It is appearing that Stubblefield built on then known principals of inductive coils. His main contribution to this earlier body of knowledge (earlier by as much as 30 years, maybe more...) seems to be that he included voltaic production into the inductive coil design. This is innovative in my opinion, and for its designed purpose, a nice compliment to the original induction coil technology developed by other people at this time.

So we have 3 primary concepts here.
1) inductive coils and their inherent properties. (before Stubblefield)
2) incorporating voltage production into the inductive system. (Stubblefield)

STOP! : 1 + 2 will not = sustainability. are we therefore screwed? NOT AT ALL.

3) introduce a compliment into the 1+2 system. In this case the complement is earth magnetism. So in my opinion this is another nice touch by Stubblefield.

Now it is time to discuss a new line of thinking.....

A self oscillating, multi-coiled inductive system sounds great in theory but I believe not purely obtainable in reality. Too many physical laws (mainly the primary thermodynamic variety). BUT....

I theorize that by capitalizing on small amounts of naturally occurring earth magnetic fields, the sustainability threshold can be reached, and sustainable magnetic field oscillation within an inductive system can be maintained. Such a system will not violate thermodynamic laws because we simply add in an auxillary force to help things along, and it happens to be naturally occurring and free to use. Let's discuss.....

Let's say you have built a very, very efficient multi-coiled inductive system. Cool, this is a good start. Such a design involves a number of parameters; overall size aspects, distance aspects, wire lengths, wire guages, magnetic field properties of the various coils, various thresholds, energizing-collapse aspects, and all of these individual items combined. Let's decree that you had a system that was 90% efficient (i'm just picking a number here). Such efficiency would involve both excellent theoretical design and very good construction aspects of that design. This in itself is not sustainable.

So....with an external boost (like naturally occurring earth magnetics), the lost 10% can be recovered. No laws are broken here. Stubblefield had to know this. AND SO DID THE PATENT OFFICE, hence their requirement that the device be labelled as an earth battery. I absolutely do not mean to detract from the very nice thinking behind this design, in fact I think it a very practical idea regardless of inventor claims / patent office categorizations... In theory this is just plain COOL!

Since I believe that the naturally occurring magnetics are both weak and variable; finding the right place to put the induction coil / battery would be critical in making up the difference (10% in my above analogy). Hence the very deliberate process taken on identifying the right locations. Coil/Battery (whatever we term his device as) location had to literally be a pass/fail scenerio. It seems that Stubblefield ran into problems during a communications demonstration in New York due to what he determined as poor earth conditions. The demonstration was cancelled. This may have been the point in time that the rumored earth enhacements came into play (rare earths, radioactive ores). With competing communications systems existing at the time, it is quite possible that they became dominant instead of Stubblefield's. (all guesses on my part as the recorded history I have read is vague at best).

And this is where I am at today. What is needed here is expert induction coil design along Stubblefield ideology / parameters (plus others like Cook perhaps!) AND a properly located hole in the ground. Should we run into ground issues, we should have plenty of ability to compensate through other methods not available during Stubblefield's era (another guess on my part). The other thing I think we have going for us is general design optimizations that have been done on inductive type coils since the late 1800's. I would think that we should fundamentally be able to construct better devices that are more efficient and thus maybe not as sensitive to ground conditions like the original's may have been (yet another guess) The point I am making is that despite a few potential limitations, I think we can power through them. There are a lot of electrically minded people here who I am sure can have good input.

I have to believe that with a good induction coil design, this idea has to work well. I would also assume that if a 'make/break' resistance introduced to the system, it will start electron flow and exhibit cyclic characteristics identical to those of the earth in which the 'battery' is buried.

If we were to work this out from 1800's available information only; I would take Daniel McFarland Cook and combine with Nathan Stubblefield. The question I have is, exactly how much power are we talking here?

Think about it....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully I do not offend with any of this. I am very interested in this design! If I am completely off the map with any of this, then please let me know I've been off the map before and will not be offended if told so. Thanks for allowing me to participate in the discussion and theorize.