Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison

[Koen1]

so why not try the easy way first !?

Because there is no easy way... The author, in my opinion, shows that he has not really thought this thing
through deeply enough... Or at least, that is the impression I get...

use direct carbon-iron polarisation by auto crystallizing a simple rod of steel (4mm),

Excuse me? What do you mean "auto-crystallising"? Are you suggsting I heat a steel rod to its melting point,
then have it crystallise? What good would that do?

with no others complicated thing, i would like to have your analysis on that too ! if the iron-carbon direct association give an electrinium producing too lot of volts, i do not see any problem with that....

Well the problem I have with the simple electrinium unit described in his chapter 9 is as follows:
He says we should use for example steel as the negative and gold or platinum as the positive, and then
to use steel as the encasing body. He also says we can use steel, Si, Ge, C, and other materials as casing.
In the chapter 10 description of the prototype he then opts for Si casing with Fe and Ag as negative resp. positive
elements.
So according to him, Fe is more negative than Ag, and steel (Fe + 0-2% C) is more negative than Au and Pt.
First of all he is being very unclear as to what exactly he means with this "positive"/"negative" terminology.
There are very clear terms for such things, but he does not use them.
Let us assume for a minute that he means the electronegativity per element. That would give
iron a 1.83, silver a 1.93, platinum a 2.28 and gold a 2.54, while silicium has 1.9.
So that would make Fe the least electronegative and relatively electropositive...
Now definition of electronegativity is "the ability of an atom to attract electrons for covalent bonding",
so this basically says that if these materials are put together, gold will "pull in" electrons from
the other materials the strongest, then platiunum, then silver, then silicium, then iron.
Other way around, the materials that will most easily give away an electron are the same
series in reverse.
That seems to imply that the materials are in fact oppositely charged compared to the discription
given by the author: Fe is in fact more positive than Ag, but tha author claims it is the other way around.
This makes me question how correct he is in his reasoning.

Secondly, just think about the unit suggested in chapter 9:
so we have steel and gold as compound elements, which is basically Fe-Au (let's just forget for a second
that steel is Fe + 0-2% C). Then we cast this in an encasing of steel.
What we end up with is obviously a block of steel with a certain amount of gold particles in it.
So what he claims is apparently that, if we make a block of steel with some gold particles
in it, which would in normal terminology be called a block of Steel-Gold alloy,
that this block now produces lots of electricity?
Highly unlikely, in my opinion. Even if there were any electricity produced by the "electrinium compound",
the steel casing would allow the electrons to flow back in so-called Eddies and localised currents,
and the entire thing should basically "short-circuit" itself and at best become hot.

Third, as far as I know the mixing of two metals, especially if one or both are liquid, is called
alloying. Also, the mixing of metals is not the same as water-based chemistry.
The author seems to think that we can simply take a bunch of loose atoms of Iron and
a bunch of loose atoms of Silver and have them react into Silver-Iron. It is not that simple.
Iron and Silver are both metals, and in solution they will tend to react with other elements
and not so easily with eachother. If they do react in a solution it is quite likely there will be
hydrides or hydroxides formed, and not pure Fe-Ag molecules.
And then, even if you do have molecules of the compound, for example the Fe-Au molecules
for use in the steel casing, then just imagine what happens when you pour molten steel over them?
Bye bye seperate molecules, hello big blob of liquid alloy! No molecules left to polarise,
it is now a molten metal that will form one big crystal with some gold atoms spread
out through the metal.

Fourth, let's assume he does have a point and when two dissimilar atoms are combined they
can form a pair of which one acts as the positive and the other as the negative "pole".
Obviously we are then talking about the relatively positive atom that binds with the relatively
negative atom to form a neutral compound. So, in this bond, does the positive atom
receive an electron from the negative atom? That would seem to imply the e-field runs
from the negative to the positive atom... Why would this now neutral compound still want
to attract electrons on either side? Why would there be an external e-field to the molecule?
After all, we must have an external e-field for any effects to be observable at all...

Or does the author perhaps intend to say that the "positive" atom must more easily give its
electron to the "negative" atom, and that this "negative" atom then transfers this to the casing
more easily than giving it back to the "positive" atom, while the "positive" atom absorbs one electron
from the casing more easily than that it takes one from the "negative" atom?
That seems quite contradictory: after all, it would mean that the "positive" atom must be more
positive than the casing in order to absorb the electron from it, but at the same time the "negative"
atom must be more negative than the casing in order to donate an electron to it, and meanwhile
the "negative" atom must be more positive than the "positive" atom in order to absorb an electron
from it. That does not work. Casing=>atomA=>atomB=>Casing cannot be nn=>n=>p=>pp because
nn cannot be pp at the same time.

So you see, I get the impression that the author did not really think it though very well after all.
It seems to me that he has looked at it from one angle while forgetting to take into account
how it looks from the other angle. From the angle of pure electrovalent bonding it seems to
make sense, but from the angle of n-p bias conduction it does not seem to make sense.

It comes down to something very close to the opposite polarity issue Ian and I have been
considering for a while. The polarisation of the dielectric particles that make the e-field
in an electret must be opposed to the n-p bias of the entire material block (the casing)
for such a type of "battery" to work. And that is a problem in constructing them, because
whenever you apply electric fields to polarise the material it doesn't just polarise the
dielectric molecules, but it also changes the division of p- and n- pollution in the semi-
conductor material which kills the intended effect.

That's my view. At the moment.

if it is easy it must be easy, the author his a real master, i can sense it in his expression of his understanding

I do not agree. I agree that the author is convinced this will work. But I have serious doubts about the depth of his insight.
But I tried to explain this above.

and we can find an another way to do with silver-iron ?? well may be yes may be not but do not take the peanut, try easy first !!? = iron-carbon

I strongly feel that the experiments I have been doing are very, very closely related to the ideas of the author of Electrinium,
and that I have already found his simplistic view to be too simple. In my experience, this is not how compounds behave. Simply putting
electret-like dielectric compounds inside a (semi)conductive coating does not produce electricity. Yes, it produces electrical charge,
just like an electret, but that is not current.
That's exactly where we are now: we can make electret-like cells that give a nice voltage, but it's the amperage that we're trying to boost now.
The charge is there, the current is just lacking.
Experiments have shown that using too conductive materials seems to kill the output entirely, probably shorts the cell by internal Eddies.
Besides, if it would work as simply as stated in the pdf, do you not think we had heard something about the first successful electrinium battery by now?
It's been almost 30 years since the author wrote it, he must have tried to make one by now. I think he tried and failed and gave up...

regards,
Koen

[Koen1]

yes i beleive that only one short hot hot red rod of steel will crystallize while putting a lot of volts at low current

so it may possible that no one have tried this, but in this forum i have seen a topic showing steel rod producing overunity!!

Are you sure you're not talking about the carbon rod that seems to show OU? That one's different, it just works in a B field and
when pulsed with hV, and even then only 2 people claim to have seen the OU effect...

I have not seen a steel rod produce OU on the forum... can you please give that link or the title of that thread?

And I think just applying a hV low amp current to a red hot steel rod has been done before because it is relatively simple.
But you can try it if you like.
I suspect it may be possible to achieve a circular magnetisation in the rod that way, but I doubt it will produce actual current.

i do not want to argue more in the forum, cause i will put all the extrac from electrinium to make you understand the dark side of your understanding

If you would explain to me what you mean with "the dark side of my understanding" I might understand what you mean.
Besides that, I was not agruing at all.
I was just explaining to you how I see the electrinium theory. I see it as partially very interesting reasoning, and partially
too simplistic and based on a lack of actual hands-on experimenting.
you asked me to explain my view, and I did.
There was no arguing going on. We were not in a verbal fight.
Or at least, not as far as I noticed...

when i ask you to talk about CARBON-IRON do not talk about nothing else, no gold no platinium etc etc easy it's easy, so i could not trust you anymore due to your non hability to respond sincerely to my posts

That, and pardon my French, is bullshit Drannom.
You asked me to explain to you what my view is on the authors theory and on the suggested electrinium units.
I explain to you why I sincerely doubt the realism of the authors claims, I explain to you why in detail using and
referring to the authors own examples, I explain where I see problems in that reasoning that the author himself
did not address and perhaps not realise when he wrote the text, I explain what I think he omitted and why I think
if will not work if you do incorporate those pieces of information into the theory, and I feel that is an extremely
complete analysis of why such a unit will not work. 
It does not matter if the materials are Iron and Gold, Iron and Silver or Iron and Carbon, because that does not
change a single thing in my analysis of the authors reasoning.

Your conclusion that you cannot "trust" me because I do not reply sincerely to your posts is complete nonsense.
If you cannot follow or understand my analysis then that is a problem due to your own limitations, and not due to
any lack of sincerety nor to a lack of willingness to explain from me.
If you don't like what I say then that's ok, but do not try to spin it and turn it into a matter of me not being sincere,
because that is simply not true and I do in fact resent any such allegation.

why not look to my reptilians topic, it seems that this forum is full of non sincere members

One more remark like that and you can choke on your croissant for all I care.
I'm giving you an honest and quite extensive answer, and you reward me by insulting me?
Asshole.

[Koen1]

@Ian & all:
Brief update on the Quirk: it is still not solid.
The stainless steel box with Quirk in it is still the same,
although a little bit has dripped over the sides, but at least the
stuff hasn't actually "climbed out" of the container. It is still
vry gooey and liquid/slimey stuff, has not hardened yet.
The Quirk around the copper rod wrapped in alu foil did not
stay in place, it has crawled out of the foil on both the top
and bottom end. Instead of squeezing it back in I decided to leave it.
The Quirk in the aluminium cylinder that I used to cook it up in,
the thin lining of quirk between that alu cylinder wall and the cylinder
of copper foil has not come out. Some of it has, but that's only
a little bit at the top. Most of the stuff seems to still be between the
alu and the copper. What is interesting is that the aluminium tube now
appears to be "sweating" some substance... In certain regions one
can clearly see how droplets have formed on the outside cylinder
wall while there is absolutely no trace of them dripping down from the
top of the cylinder. The "sweat" droplets also seem slightly gooey
and bubbly, which suggests the stuff reacted with something.
I will take a picture of it if I get a chance, so you guys can see what
the cylinder looks like now. It is clearly no longer a neat pure aluminium tube,
that's for sure.
Lol could we call it "Germalluminium"?

Also, with the recent revisit of the electrinium theory, I have come to
ponder the n-p polarisation problem again.
The problem remains: we can make electret-like dielectrically
polarised material that produces a nice and fairly constant voltage,
but it has (near) zero current = amperage. We can make a diode-like
material that does have a n-p bias thus allows only one direction of
current, but it does not have an internal dielectric field that produces
actual potential difference, so it needs an external potential difference
to work. The polarisation directions of these are opposed to eachother,
so attempts to combine the two will result in a material where the
n-p bias to current is opposed to the dielectric potential difference,
and thus still zero current will flow.
What we need is a method to polarise these two "elements" oppositely
in the same block of material, at the same time.
Obviously it is impossible to apply two opposite elecrical fields simultaneously.
(ok, not impossible, but the net field will be zero)
So I have been thinking of using an electrical field to polarise one,
while using a magnetic field to polarise the other...
I do not know if that will work, to be honest. It seems that, if we were to
wind a coil around the material as to get a "coiled coil", this should
induce another linear A-field along this "coiled coil"'s axis. Although
it is an A-field, there is no actual current supplied in that direction
through a closed circuit... Would this result in electro"static" polarisation
of the material in between?
Hmmm... well, even if it would, any applied direct electric field would most
likely still pull the positive particles to the negative electrode and vice versa,
so even then it seems it is improbable such a simultaneous opposite polarisation
can be achieved in one block of material in this manner.

Suggestions?

[jeanna]

Go for it Koen,

I have been wondering for a while now if wrapping a chunk of crystal in a wire,then pulsing the wire would orient the polarities within the crystal into a way that would allow us to use / extract the electricity that is within the crystal.

----------

Along what seems to me to be similar lines, I have found that while using similar metals for electrodes (in this case Al) The one on the outer edge seems to always be the + and the one in the center the -.

By that I mean If I connect the red lead to the outside the meter will show a positive voltage.

I could speculate on its meaning, but I won't.

However, it may be a place to begin experimenting.

The voltages and amps on my crystal are still rising, but perhaps stabilizing as the crystal becomes dry. 0.537vdc  15uA on the cheese pot. I moved the probe to a piece of foil a bit  away from the pot where no crystal could have migrated. (no Ga    )

jeanna

[Drannom]

It's not fair to use the MP i have sent to you, it was to not butter you anymore here, there is another MP that you have not use yet !

Don't ask why i don't trust you ! you have just use my PM against me !

i am not an ass hole, and you can not handle a private MP converstion

and what about military diodes ??

and who are you to destroy the electrinium.pdf ?

there is a schist, start a topic on the electrinium ? not me, i have seen enough of you

i will always remember to never write a PM again to try to solve a problem with a member

not fair not fair really not fair