Bedini Earth Light

[NickZ]

jehdds:
I wonder is it is possible to use carbon or graphite powder mixed in with the Epsom and the salt substitute to make dry electrolyte cells, using no heat or any water. They would of course need to be sealed up later.
Dry salts won't conduct very well, but, they might conduct much better when used along with carbon powders. What would be the advantage, if any? Well, possibly that the water contained inside the salts would not be affected or lost, as with the glue cell, and that the cell would continue working without needing additional waterings. Worth a try?

[NickZ]

If both of the same type electrodes are of the same size, the voltages can be as much as 0.3 to -0. 6 volts, but with very little or no current. That is the difference.
Potential is one thing, but current is another. It takes a difference in potential to create current flux. Test to see how much current you get from that type cell, I think that you'll find that it won't be much. Right? That is why I use a carbon electrolyte, as well as a carbon rod, as there is a potential different between them and the aluminum or magnesium, but very little current. Each type of carbon or graphite is different, just like the two different salts work better than one, for the same reason, a different in potentials
I guess we must learn to use only potential, if we expect to get past the galvanic hurdle, as it is the current flux lines that create oxidation, in the presence of oxygen or water. No current and no oxygen means no oxidation, yet the leds bulbs are still lit, although somewhat dimmer.

[kcarring]

Dear kcarring,
Why is heating the components a Joke? I distinctly remember many experiments in chemistry lab using heat. Please expound on your meaning of Joke.

Is there a better way to assemble a variety of salts to impart an intrinsic stress to the lattice besides heating that we can do readily aside from placing all in solution? Please let us know if you have any suggestions that would help this quest, meant with all sincerity and intrigue.

My choice of wording: Joke was bad, and for that I apologize to everyone.
What I should have said was counterintuitive, or overly simplistic.

Perhaps though it is a good working method in the sense that it's quick, see how one performs in that setting, then move on to a better composition, if need be.

It is my belief, as said, those who have really put in the time, have good intentions to get others' involved, i.e. "The John's" -- but we should not expect that their tutorials will encompass all that they have discovered. If you have ever listened to John's amplifiers and put them up against the supposed some of the said "best" in the world, i.e. Shoreline's, Air Tight's etc, worth 10, 20 even 100 X more, they stand up VERY well. You don't see him revealing his semiconductor doping recipes for such devices either.

So yes, I am a skeptic! And when I follow a schematic for an SSG and I play with it for a year and the best I can do, is say 85% efficiency - I don't for a second think that the schematic is the end all say all of what John has done with the patent. I wouldn't expect him to spell it all out on paper worldwide for all to see if he did in fact obtain 120%, because 90% of the people would never understand the subtle differences anyway.

Given that, I wouldn't expect his battery research to be any different. He is an inspiring clever fellow, and if I see him cooking up a bunch of salts ina copper cup and testing it, no I am not going to rule out the possibility of him using a test tube in the corner of the lab you can't see! That's all I'm saying, and the same goes with John H.

So...

to answer your question, Jim, I do not claim to be an expert, but yes I do have a few ideas I am eager to start testing, beyond the 15 cells I've built, 8 of which are still running (which to me proves nothing, really, beyond the fact I built a battery that can produce uA's and restore to uA's after shorting, it's still only uA's) and it will begin by closely examining what I am truly working with from a chemical reaction point of view, and then finding non-water solvents suitable to try diffusional methods or vaporization methods using layering and slow crystal growth, stuff we experimenting with in chem class, which followed the simpler and less effective quickly methods like heating the solution up hot. There is also a binary solvent method, Vapor Diffussion but I will have to look that up again I've forgotten the method. And sublimation. In the end though the simplest method is really just what IB has done, slow evaporation - it may not yield THE BEST results and tends to waste a lot of materials... but it does work, and does not yield blobby off colored undersized crystals. I am still using up the copper / mag / aluminum that I have, but as of late I think maybe I will get away from such galvanic positioned metals. And such soft metals. just my 2c

[jehdds]

If both of the same type electrodes are of the same size, the voltages can be as much as 0.3 to -0. 6 volts, but with very little or no current. That is the difference.
Potential is one thing, but current is another. It takes a difference in potential to create current flux.

Nick,
Where are you ascertaining the .3 to .6V for identical electrodes?
Please share the source of this.
Thanks again. I have made a cell that has two identical electrodes Graphite/Graphite.
Now it shows 1.4 Volts and .62mA. I have sealed it in a glass jar. I will test it in one week.
It will be interesting to see what the voltage and current will be. I would assume that any "fluffy" charge would have disappeared by that time.
What would one assume the current should be with identical electrodes?
Very Best Regards,
Jim

[jehdds]

Guys,
This link was sent to me by a friend and great observer of things and who has forgotten more than I will ever know.
Pressure and temp and importance etc.
BBC News - Metal undergoes novel transition under extreme pressure
Very best regards,
Jim

[NickZ]

I doubt that all the combinations of carbons have been tried. You have not mentioned what you are using as the electrolyte.The tests that I have read about have been conducted with similar metals mostly, not carbon or graphite, that I can remember, and all had less than 1/2 volt output.
I've never even heard of anyone getting close to 1.4 volts, and that much current, with any test on two similar electrodes of any type.
That is outstanding. I hope that it holds up under a load, as that is what really matters.
The cell running tests like John B was showing are what is needed, as many cells start out great only to lose the levels after a while. Almost all cells.
Glad to hear of your graphite/graphite test cell results.

[jehdds]

I doubt that all the combinations of carbons have been tried. You have not mentioned what you are using as the electrolyte.The tests that I have read about have been conducted with similar metals mostly, not carbon or graphite, that I can remember, and all had less than 1/2 volt output.
I've never even heard of anyone getting close to 1.4 volts, and that much current, with any test on two similar electrodes of any type.
That is outstanding. I hope that it holds up under a load, as that is what really matters.
The cell running tests like John B was showing are what is needed, as many cells start out great only to lose the levels after a while. Almost all cells.
Glad to hear of your graphite/graphite test cell results.

Nick,
I agree. These cells can start hot but drop. That is why my quest is now focused
More on the electrolyte. I would like to establish NON GALVANIC functioning.
This is why I asked how you determined .3-.6v for identical electrode material.
As well as current. I will guess less than 1 V and uA after a week.
But Why did you say.6v?
Electrolyte= Epsoms 20g, ZnO 10g, Rochelle 10g, barium titanate 10g, carbon powder 1gm, Nano ferrite toner powder for magnetic copy machine .5gm
Feldspathic porcelain powder 1gm, europium .5 gm, galina and pyrite doping, .1 gm KCl. Heated to molten. NO Water added. Polrized with .2 Amp 30v.
Time will tell. I am hoping amalgamation of piezo compounds will be of advantage with more subtle thermal changes.
Very Best Regards,
Jim

[Haggardhagi]

hahah....a little fire

@kcarring and all
i appreciate your ideas on dropping the fire a little. On the same note, that little bit of fire you added into the forum seemed to get everyone movin a bit. Good to see everyone all fired up and looking at some new angles. The idea of examining the electrolytes used, different doping agents, and going back to the evaporation idea really tickles me. (this may have been what you were talking about kcarring) Has anyone tried any evaporation techniques with any "volatile" liquids? I'm really not too familiar with what is electrolyte and what is not, but acetone sure likes to evaporate quickly...could this also be a solvent for the crystals? By the way...

@IB and All
Has anyone else made any literal crystal cells? Are they still functional? Have we tried these in a vacuum? Have we tried literal crystal cells using plates vs. thin wires as electrodes? What happens if we can trap that electrolyte around an already formed crystal? Will the crystal transmit through its "skin."

the quantum levels of alchemy, What is really going on here?
Many new concepts and ideas are being explored right now, all within a very wide spectrum. I implore us all to keep up the work, have faith, we are all pioneers, and the support and the tinge of fire, all seem to be helpful. Thank you my friends,
Aloha

[NickZ]

jehdds and All:
So, it looks like your electrolyte mix may be helping to raise the output.
I noticed that you are also using carbon powder in it, along with the salts.
What does the cell output before the polarization? In comparison what will the two graphite electrodes put out using just a wet paper towel?

I think that the dry salts along with graphite powder may work out.
Can you give that a try to see what happens?

Sounds like you have a chemicals supermarket around the corner...
I just have a beach to draw from, but the prices are hard to beat, and fit my budget. The beach gives me calcium carbonate, carbon, quartz, and beach sand, which is all I ever use in my cells. I may use ocean salt water and let it evaporate off the pulverized carbon, in one of my tests.

My latest beach wood carbon cells are giving almost a volt each, and are only 3/8"by3/4" in size, made from the aluminum capacitor cans, and carbon rods. So, for non galvanic cells using no water, and no heat, that's not so bad. As two of them are the size of one AA battery, and fit nicely into the plastic AA battery holders. I use the 4 AA size plastic holders which can hold 8 cells. Two or more of those can be placed in series to obtain 12 volts or more.
In order to light leds BRIGHTLY, using no current, it takes a lot of volts, the more the better.

[NickZ]

jehdds and All:
I just tried the two similar carbon rods as electrodes to see what they would output. I used a wet paper towel as the electrolyte between the rods. Their best output was to 0.6. So, two same type carbon electrodes do produce some voltage.
I also tried adding regular salt to carbon powder, and also got about the same 0.6 v. which means that the salt did not add much to the regular carbons output. This was just using wood carbon powder and regular table salt. Also a piece of aluminum wire on the - of my meter, and a carbon rod on the + of the meter and touching the powdered electrolyte.

[jehdds]

jehdds and All:
I just tried the two similar carbon rods as electrodes to see what they would output. I used a wet paper towel as the electrolyte between the rods. Their best output was to 0.6. So, two same type carbon electrodes do produce some voltage.
I also tried adding regular salt to carbon powder, and also got about the same 0.6 v. which means that the salt did not add much to the regular carbons output. This was just using wood carbon powder and regular table salt. Also a piece of aluminum wire on the - of my meter, and a carbon rod on the + of the meter and touching the powdered electrolyte.

Nick,
Caveat. Paper towel is NOT a good item to use due to unknown reagents and ph of pulp matrix etc. I just tried this paper towel technique using one piece of graphite broken in half to ensure identical make up and am only seeing .060V at best.
Similar does not equal identical. Are the carbon electrodes identical?
Adding Aluminum to the equation may alter things as well.

Thanks for the test but the control for paper towel is not a viable electrolyte that will work for all.

Very Best Regards,
Jim

[NickZ]

I tried it with several types of wet paper and were about the same output. The aluminum wire was not used on the carbon rods, and yes the rods are identical. Adding a little table salt to the electrolyte did not raise the output, but did make it more consistant. No mA showing on the meter.
In any case my readings are nowhere close to your 1.4 v. Still the main thing is how your well your cell will hold up to a load. Will it light a red led by itself?

[NickZ]

Just tried another test on a single carbon rod wrapped with wet paper and also got a reading, this time as much as 0.92 volts. So, the wet paper is doing something to effect things, and may not be an accurate test. But what it?
Still no mA.

[jehdds]

Nick,
I made a Mg/Mg cell last night.
After bench sitting over night it registers
.67 volts and 465uA.
Could you share how you are anticipating or calculating what voltage is to be expected using identical electrodes? Both of my Mg electrodes were pre- coated with the oxide layer before assembly with the taffy polycrystalline type electrolyte.
One electrode on this Cell I burnished graphite on to the oxide as I have done in previous videos. Interesting phenomenon. Again trying to build data support for any confirmation of non galvanic functioning.
All thoughts welcome.
Very best regards
Jim

[NickZ]

My feelings are that there is a charge in the air that is causing the field effect that we are noticing, and also contributing to the non galvanic effect.
It is something that I'm seeing, and not necessarily reading about.
Just how high that voltage with no current (hardly), can go up to, may not really be known. Because what it is, or how to reading it accurately, may also be something else. But, it has nothing to do with sacrificial cathodes or anodes.
I also have a regular capacitor that will maintain about a half volt permanent output, when using the caps can as the negative, but again with no current. I can imagine a pcb full of those type of caps all placed in series powering a load, like as a series of leds which can also produce some voltage on their own.
I think this charge is like static electricity, and how high it can get probably depends on several factors like the type of electrodes, and electrolyte that is used in the cell. So, to develop that type of cell, again is something else, and maybe it will not have any current levels to it, just potential.