Bedini Earth Light

[ibpointless2]

@all,

I would not exclude wet cells from this thread since even Bedini, John Huntinckson have done here wet cells. I agree that solid state is great but i think power for the lifetime of ones living is great all by itself.

I want dry cells too but so far only wet cells has given me usable.

What you guys think?

Fausto.

I don't think we should get rid of wet cells just yet. I'm still working on some right now and I'm trying to find a good mix that won't corrode the metals. having a wet cell that doesn't corrode the metals is a greater feat than a dry cell doing the same. The problem is that most wet cells are galvanic but we're searching for a non-galvanic wet cell. I am sure we can find a wet cell that won't corrode the metals, we just need to keep doing what we're doing. I even taken a step backwards to study water batteries and see how and why certain metals corrode, I've learn many things from taking this step back. I'm taking what i've learn from the step back and applying it to a crystal cell that is really wet and so far the cell is holding up, its not perfect but when I make it better I'll post what i've done.

Fausto don't stop what you're doing, a wet cell that doesn't corrode the metals can happen. I look forward to your videos and learn from them. We all learn off each other and if we stop one branch of cells from ever getting posted than we will restrict our learning. After all the water batteries are the things that made this thread happen in the first place, remember the salt air battery from Lasersaber, the Concrete cell, and the many others that got us where we are now.

Personally the Bedini alum cells will last for a long time, but they go dead with no water. They're great things to have in-case of emergency if you need light and a radio because they can be stored for a long time and only need water to turn them on. As for the Hutchinson cells I consider them a fake, the video he made was just a ruse and the real cells are not that great either. The Marcus Reid cells are the best and they contain water in them too and maintain a perpetual output and its the Marcus Reid cells that make me think a wet cell is possible. Both Wet and Dry cells have their advantage and we should not restrict our cells to just one.

[mikrovolt]

I see The dry crystal cells with dc coupling as a 10k resistor or a high impedance unit. In order to develop a crystal cell model or platform for
experimentation the smaller dry cells such as IB uses are fast easy way to
find the right combinations.

John designed the star cell, the model has enough output in order to make
further design and experimentation a pleasure.
I believe it is possible to scale up, improve what John and the team started.
There are resonant circuits that get around the DC impedance issue.

The water cells are another approach, they are where we started.
The water lowers the impedance and are practical in learning about cells.
Because they tend to oxidize over time protective coatings were developed to significantly reduce
the corrosion of the electrodes. This was a breakthrough for dry cells for many reasons.
Because of the ambient humidity, the diode gateway as a negative resistor and the piezo pressure as the crystals dry and expand.

There is still a need for water cells, the availability of getting a kiln processed crystal cell is a problem at this time.
The materials used may be more toward the natural radiant type leaning toward the cold cathode.

[NickZ]

Guys:
Didn't we prove that wet cells do create oxidation, and a lowering of the output? Haven't we been through this many times before. So the newbies have to hear it now, this time around?
Dried glue cells may be an exception, as well as some other cells, like the Reid cells. Because although the glue contains water, and so does the Epsom, as does any other salt, that moisture trapped in the glue and salt (once it has dried) is no longer being used or needed for the operation of the cell. Because there is another reaction or conversion process going on, instead. A NON GALVANIC REACTION.
If you don't believe it just keep working on the wet cells, you'll get it, sooner of later.
Galvanic reaction is based on the break down of a sacrificial metal, or is it not galvanic. No such thing as a galvanic reaction that does not break down the metal. It does, and also contaminate the electrolyte, and build up impedance by bunching up the hydrogen ions onto the positive plate, restricting the ion flow, until little juice can be produced. It does not need to even have water to do this, if there is enough oxygen and humidity present in the air. The cell uses up the moisture, rusts the electrodes, and it dies, or its back to watering it and watch it rust some more. Like the 5 grade science experiment. Is this what some of you are talking about, and what you are looking for? Is that what this thread is all about? I don't think so.
Or do you think that you can improve on the 150 year old existing galvanic liquid or gel based battery technology? Think of how many scientists are also working on this, all over the world, in some of the best labs.

[ibpointless2]

Guys:
Didn't we prove that wet cells do create oxidation, and a lowering of the output? Haven't we been through this many times before. So the newbies have to hear it now, this time around?
Dried glue cells may be an exception, as well as some other cells, like the Reid cells. Because although the glue contains water, and so does the Epsom, as does any other salt, that moisture trapped in the glue and salt (once it has dried) is no longer being used or needed for the operation of the cell. Because there is another reaction or conversion process going on, instead. A NON GALVANIC REACTION.
If you don't believe it just keep working on the wet cells, you'll get it, sooner of later.
Galvanic reaction is based on the break down of a sacrificial metal, or is it not galvanic. No such thing as a galvanic reaction that does not break down the metal. It does, and also contaminate the electrolyte, and build up impedance by bunching up the hydrogen ions onto the positive plate, restricting the ion flow, until little juice can be produced. It does not need to even have water to do this, if there is enough oxygen and humidity present in the air. The cell uses up the moisture, rusts the electrodes, and it dies, or its back to watering it and watch it rust some more. Like the 5 grade science experiment. Is this what some of you are talking about, and what you are looking for? Is that what this thread is all about? I don't think so.
Or do you think that you can improve on the 150 year old existing galvanic liquid or gel based battery technology? Think of how many scientists are also working on this, all over the world, in some of the best labs.

Yes I guess you could say we did test that water was corroding away the metals. I've done so many test proving water corroded metals I can't count them anymore. But all it takes is one white crow(Marcus Reid cells) to prove that not all crows are black. We could not exclude water cells or wet cells just yet, wet or dry we can learn many things from each other. This is why I've taken a step back to learn about Water cells and why they corrode that I can apply what I learn to better improve my Crystal cell. Now if a cell is clearly water battery type cell we should point it out, unless the creator of the cell can prove that the cell doesn't corrode the metals than we should learn from them from what they post.

Now as for Letsreplicate post to me to try different salt substitutes. I have gone through town to find different types of salt sub with different ingredients. I will not post fully what has happen just yet because the cells are still drying out but I did find something odd about one cell with a certain type of salt sub in it. A certain Salt sub has really started to corrode both metals right away while the other salt subs don't show this. It will be interesting to see what happens when the cell are fully dry.

[LetsReplicate]

Set back the lifter research 10 years?

Lifters ARE asymmetrical capacitors exactly like Townsend's experiments.

Even the US Army verified ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the force demonstrated. It is not a simple ionic wind force - there are effects going on that nobody can claim to know exactly what - and that includes YOU. Sorry, but not everything can simply be written off as some basic effect that fits your little box no matter how much you want to prove the Earth is flat.

Your self-proclaimed "expertise" is being revealed for what it really is bit by it in all the threads that you are "contributing" to.

Well look what we have here... The prodigal troll returns to insult people that aren't me by claiming that they are me, it is such a poor method... I'm not supposed to talk to trolls, but you made an interesting point that is worth responding to.

The "orders of magnitude" claim is a VERY OLD rumor and lifters can be tested against gravity meters (a mirror falling in a "perfect" vacuum on top of, underneath and beside the lifters) which results in the conclusion that the lifters have 0 effect on the local gravity and the effect is entirely electrostatic induction and dependent on local particle density (if you'd read a book on the subject published after the cold war, you'd know that). The effect can also be used to "fly forward" instead of just "up", which implies a force and not gravity modification. Even if lifters have 3 times more thrust than could normally be predicted from ion wind, that doesn't magically make them anti-gravity, it means the MATH for ion wind needs to be modified to include plates of different sizes (and it has). The fact that they are asymmetrical capacitors does not mean they actually modify gravity, only that there is a force associated them that can lift the craft.

Half the people involved in lifter technology still genuinely believe that they are working with anti-gravity. Due to believing they are magical, they never progress beyond tabletop proof of concept toys. Lifters CAN BE self contained, and they SHOULD BE by now. The military has been flying B2 bombers (an advanced method) for more than a decade and yet not one independent researcher even has a self contained unit yet. The anti-gravity claim has prevented independent researchers from properly understanding how to scale the technology into anything useful. As it stands the independent research on the subject is still 60 years behind the military research.

This was Ibpointless2's analogy, not mine, but it is a very fitting analogy.

It is interesting that I have gotten PMs from several members thanking me for "injecting some reality" into the discussions, so it looks like not everybody shares your low opinion of me. I'm not here to stroke people's egos, I'm here to get answers to "free energy" and give people the benefit of my research. Wild claims that aren't backed up by experiments slow down the quest as do claims that the professionals are wasting their time. That is the reason no reputable person bothers to examine and verify your claims (regardless of whether any of them are correct), all you do is insult people until they stop arguing with you and that gains more support for me than it does you. So by all means keep up your sad string of insults because all you are doing is getting more people to agree with me.

Letsreplicate:
As I've mentioned, this thread is about non galvanic cells dry cells. As You do not believe they can even exist, then why don't you find a thread that fits your way of thinking . We have been through this many times before. And you LetsReplicate have NOT replicated and shown us anything new, so don't bore us with your negative know it all answers.
My cells have no water and no salts, they are bone dry and months old. Open you eyes. Since no proof is good enough for you, Please move on to another thread where you can continue your wet cell theory, or show us your non galvanic dry cells. The only bubble that you are bursting is your own.
Again, we have heard this all before, and you are disrupting this thread.
NickZ

The thread is called "Bedini Earth Light" and it is primarily about trying to extract energy from cells with an alum substrate that has been expanded to include all salt cells.

There are 3 stages to these cells: wet, dry and semi-dry. The "free energy" gain effects only occur in the semi-dry cells because the fully dry cells DO result in an open circuit (I've had the result many times in testing so far, with many different mixes, the substrate does not electrically bond to both electrodes when fully dry). It doesn't matter HOW we achieve the semi-dry state in the cell, it only matters that the cell must be semi-dry to be BOTH an electrolyte AND a crystal. Pure crystal has has no charge bias to it that would allow for the rectified energy production that we see from the cell (microphone crystals produce AC), and a wet electrolyte does not explain the current production in pulses or pressure transduction. The ONLY explanation is that the cells are a combination of the two which means they MUST retain their galvanic properties as well as having semiconductor properties. A dry banana is still a banana, and a dry galvanic cell is still a galvanic cell. Now can we please stop talking about galvanic reactions and talk about crystal structures in the substrate? That is the energy producing part of the cells.

I'm only taking about the cells at their peak of energy production, which is when they are at the optimum level of dryness for the cell to work (not "wet" as you repeatedly claim). If water can be added to re-achieve the peak energy production repeatedly, that is an advantage, not a hindrance.

The Tripenny produces USABLE DC power from the salt cell oscillators using tessellation, if that isn't an advancement over the "lights an LED to an nondescript level" and "has voltage" tests, then I don't know what would be... I've been saying from the beginning that we need to convert the energy to EMF so there there is room in the cells for more energy to enter and the Tripenny is a step along that road. The Tripenny can handle many assorted types of these cells and can be extended to produce higher voltages, and larger currents. The advancement is that the cells that are above the DC output voltage all source their current to the output in parallel and all the cells below the DC output voltage are sourcing energy with voltage gain to push up the DC output while sourcing energy to the higher oscillators using EMF: it is the best of both worlds, has usable output power, and is expandable. If you think you can do better, I invite you provide a schematic.

Yes, the "no water" argument has been done ad nauseum and it isn't getting us anywhere. Presence of water and appearance of corrosion is not the sole property of galvanic reactions and the arguments against galvanic involvement are simply a rose by a different name. This argument is like flogging a dead horse but the few hydrophobics keep bringing it up over and over. "To water, or not to water" is not what we should be discussing here, what we should be discussing is how to get energy out of the cells and what the most powerful substrate mixture is. If you think that would better be done in another thread, then I will gladly move to a different one as long as you promise not to dicker with me about the presence of water in some of the cells.

I'm looking for a cell recipe that actually works for my 22 gauge aluminum-copper bifilar pancakes without destroying the aluminum wire and preferably without the need for ohmic leads as they will have to be steel and will only waste energy that I want channeled into the the core. I don't really care how well Elmer's glue cells "should work" work because the aluminum lead does not survive drying of the glue (despite my "trusting" IB ). That happens in both the control tests with just glue, and happens even faster with potassium chloride (which produces MUCH more visible corrosion). I'm in this discussion to "find the best recipe" for MY cells, not just build replications of low power test cells. To advance we need to "take a step forward" and actually DO something to get power out of the cells, not just argue about chemistry. There is too much water in the Elmer's glue for my 22-gauge wire cells and claims that there isn't doesn't make the aluminum lead not break. THAT is why I'm more interested in Diveflyfish's mixtures for these cells: they have a much lower amount of water in use for the drying stage of the cell (while it is in contact with the metal). Whether water needs to be added to the substrate after production to grow the crystal structure doesn't concern me at all and as soon as I stop being criticized for it, I will stop talking about it.

Now as for Letsreplicate post to me to try different salt substitutes. I have gone through town to find different types of salt sub with different ingredients. I will not post fully what has happen just yet because the cells are still drying out but I did find something odd about one cell with a certain type of salt sub in it. A certain Salt sub has really started to corrode both metals right away while the other salt subs don't show this. It will be interesting to see what happens when the cell are fully dry.

THAT is the kind of information we need, thank you. This should allow us to know if Morton's has a useful active ingredients so people can get a comparable salt sub that isn't Morton's. Do you have one that uses Sodium ferrocynaide like Sifto? It wouldn't surprise me if that is one of the more damaging additives.

[NickZ]

@ Ib2 and All:
Thanks for doing those tests. If you already found what works, you'd think that to look for what doesn't work as well, is possibly not the best way to spend ones time, or money. I hope that people will appreciate your efforts.
Most regular batteries show signs of oxidation, especially after a while, and they still can operate and last a long while. I have piles of dead regular batteries. All of which failed in time... that is why I never liked regular batteries, even though they did work for a while.
I was impressed by Lidmotors replication of your tiny Epsom/salt sub cell, as it looks like a sealed electrical component, instead of a water cell.
Electrostatic cells sounds interesting to me.
If you do the test that Brad showed, the one where you hold one piece of copper in one hand and Mg in the other hand, you will get an output reading on a meter between both metals. Is this reading a galvanic reaction, also?
This is what I have been trying to nail down. So, help me out with this.

@ Plengo: Although I agree that it is hard and somewhat frustrating to get energy from dry cells, it has also been hard to replicate Dr. Stifflers PSEC circuit. But, lets not give up, on either of them, just because they are hard nuts to crack. The future is in solid state.


To mention that the thread started with wet cells, years ago, does not include mentioning WHY we are not working on them anymore. Or should we be recommending to back track and replicate what did not work very well, like salt water cells, cement cells, etz...We must learn from our experiments, or repeat the same mistakes.
For those new here you can check previous posts, to get an idea of what has been tried already, and save yourselves some time and effort, on what was found not to work well, and why.

[ibpointless2]

THAT is the kind of information we need, thank you. This should allow us to know if Morton's has a useful active ingredients so people can get a comparable salt sub that isn't Morton's. Do you have one that uses Sodium ferrocynaide like Sifto? It wouldn't surprise me if that is one of the more damaging additives.

None of the salt substitutes I bought contain any thing that says "sodium ferrocynaide". Better yet none of my salt substitute contain any type of sodium for that matter. Salt substitute is suppose to be sodium free. I've made glue cell using salt (sodium) before and they never do good and the sodium really corrodes the metals. I think you're biggest problem is that you have a salt substitute that contains a form of sodium, this would make it a "lite-salt" and not a salt substitute. Even if it contains very little sodium it still can be enough to do damage.

I did find a salt substitute that contains much the same as Morton's and it has that one ingredient that Morton has that I think is the real reason why the cells work. So I'm hoping that the other salt that contains much the same as Morton works out because I can get more of it for cheaper. The other salt substitutes are very different and even look and feel different. Some salt substitutes look like salt and the others look look like flour, some are fine grain and others have huge grains. But we will see when they cell dry.

[FrozenWaterLab]

Nice info Fausto tnks
Hope you don't mind a few questions

@FrozenWaterLab,
great idea.
I will very soon post all the sites I have been buying things from
and show in a video too.

Good Idea!

@All,

I would like to explain some of my findings but in a more "organic" way. I have cells running since July/August of 2011 and they ALL are still running with same intensity as day one.
I have been using over 50 different formulas and physical geometries to find the correct combination.

Could you list the diferent formula you have used in a
worst - first and best - last type order?

Then a list of the geometries Worst to Best and why you believe so.
I know this might take a bit but this type thing might spur others ideas.
I will be sharing all I learn also

A few things have stood up as signs of how this "organic cell" likes to work. Alum plays an important row as a crystal entity and preservation mechanism.
Water is the "gas" while evaporating or being consumed by the cell.

If you expose the cell to the "air" the water will "evaporate/be consumed" faster and the cell will loose its intensity. More water revives it. More water also increases the corrosion. Too much water kills the cell by "drowning".
As the water evaporates cells becomes alive if not much corrosion progressed.

If you encapsulates the cell in a "housing" where some form of containment is protecting it, it will perform much longer until the water is consumed. While the process goes, the crystal grows even more and more organic the cell becomes.

A second "housing" that keeps the whole "air-water" level is maintained the cell performs even better and much longer without having to add more water. Depending in how tight is that second "housing"

You may be right that encapsulation is good for the water type cell.
Testing need to be done with a control that is not sealed and findings stated.
I know statements have been made and I believe them BUT without supporting data it is difficult to try to replicate

So, the cell lives like a tree and follows a specific life cycle:
- it must be born. Meaning, the day one builds the cell. It is in a inactive form just like a seed.
- it must be activated. Adding water causes it to become active and puts it on its initial stage of embryonic development.
- it must replicate. With initial water activation, cells starts growing its crystal structure. The amount of water here is "extremely important" in that too much water will force too much corrosion and destroy the cell. Too little water will not allow the cell to grow its crystal structure to a level bigger then the initial corrosion. This is crucial point that experimentation and geometry are key elements.

Have you tryed the Oxide formation on both electrods?
If you have was there still corrosion?
Weather you have or not dose one corrode more than the other?


- it must reach maturity and eat is own food. If you activate the cell, you must keep it using more water as food otherwise the cell will permanently die.

Dose this mean it will not revive if water is added or dose it just go dormant till
you can add water?

It must consume the initial water while growing otherwise it will not grow at all. So, after activation one must pay attention on how much water it is there and wait until the first "water food" is consume. DO NOT ADD MORE WATER until the cell digest it COMPLETELY and becomes less intense. That is the mature state. Now the cell is almost not emitting light and "seams" to be dead but it is not.

So how much water would you say is in a cell when you make it?
In other words what is your method of cell construction?

- it needs to live. After the maturity staged is reached add more water in very small quantities and the cell will start growing every time and produce light as its fruit, just like a tree does. This is the phase where we all want, where the cell can be replenished with food (water) and produce so that we can harvest its fruits (light). Here I have found that the "second housing" can keep the cell in a self contained environment where one does not need to add much water for long periods simply because this containment holds the water and via condensation (very visible if you use a transparent container such as glass bottle) and keeping humidity at a constant level. Some of the water is consumed by the cell and transformed into O2 and H2 which escapes the container and needs to be replaced with added water.

I see that secondary containment is the Plastic bottle.
(Simple and direct and inexpensive)
But I don't understand what the first level of containment consists of??

- it needs to be harvested. If you remove the light (LED) from the cell she will die because its fruit (light) must be harvested otherwise the crystal structure will stop growing and she will become like a rock which will close all her inner "veins" making her unable to consume water by simply "lack of use" (fundamental law).

So from this I assume a non revivable death

Please, understand that my explanation above is based on real science of observation, replication, measurements and theory application. Even though it sounds very not scientific I think my terminology above does work and if taken with a child's heart can be applied so that others can learn in a very intuitive manner.

Geometry is extremely important. Surface area plays an important role in current production but it is not the only factor. Scaling the surface are will not help if the geometry is not correct. The cell needs its "veins" to be able to carry water through her whole body. Too big of a surface area can actually hinder that and kill the performance of the cell. Smaller cells have been performing much better than big ones.

Fausto.

Have you played much with thickness of the electrolyte/crystal medium.
I saw where DiveFlyFish just used a water layer between the Oxide coated elements but don't remember the output or any further long-term data.
Is their a point of diminishing return or Optimal thickness to area ratio??

I am setting up the kiln and thinking about my testing steps.
Will list soon.

Again very insightful analogy

FrznWtr

[FrozenWaterLab]

Guys:
Didn't we prove that wet cells do create oxidation, and a lowering of the output? Haven't we been through this many times before. So the newbies have to hear it now, this time around?
Dried glue cells may be an exception, as well as some other cells, like the Reid cells. Because although the glue contains water, and so does the Epsom, as does any other salt, that moisture trapped in the glue and salt (once it has dried) is no longer being used or needed for the operation of the cell. Because there is another reaction or conversion process going on, instead. A NON GALVANIC REACTION.
If you don't believe it just keep working on the wet cells, you'll get it, sooner of later.
Galvanic reaction is based on the break down of a sacrificial metal, or is it not galvanic. No such thing as a galvanic reaction that does not break down the metal. It does, and also contaminate the electrolyte, and build up impedance by bunching up the hydrogen ions onto the positive plate, restricting the ion flow, until little juice can be produced. It does not need to even have water to do this, if there is enough oxygen and humidity present in the air. The cell uses up the moisture, rusts the electrodes, and it dies, or its back to watering it and watch it rust some more. Like the 5 grade science experiment. Is this what some of you are talking about, and what you are looking for? Is that what this thread is all about? I don't think so.
Or do you think that you can improve on the 150 year old existing galvanic liquid or gel based battery technology? Think of how many scientists are also working on this, all over the world, in some of the best labs.

@NickZ
Am I wrong in thinking that the Oxide coating stops or significantly slows the detereation of the element?

@all
Has anyone coated elements and hung them in water next to an untreated one?

Have you all determined weather sealing the cell might have detrimental effects due to exchange of gases being hampered? I have read the whole thread but I don't have a grasp on this yet.

FrznWtr

[NickZ]

LetsReplicate:
I want to apologize to you. I am sorry, if I have insulted you.
I would only like to mention that you have not actually heard or understood my point. It really has nothing to do with water, oxidation, salt types or most of what we have been discussing.
My point is to mention and to show that there is something entirely different than the text book example of how current galvanic secondary rechargeable chemical batteries work. It appears that is not important, or significant to you, as well as possibly to some of the other guys.
So, Please excuse my disinterest in the pursuit of wet cells, I had though that we are here working towards something else.
NickZ

[FrozenWaterLab]

I'm looking for a cell recipe that actually works for my 22 gauge aluminum-copper bifilar pancakes without destroying the aluminum wire and preferably without the need for ohmic leads as they will have to be steel and will only waste energy that I want channeled into the the core. I'm in this discussion to "find the best recipe" for MY cells, not just build replications of low power test cells. To advance we need to "take a step forward" and actually DO something to get power out of the cells, not just argue about chemistry. There is too much water in the Elmer's glue for my 22-gauge wire cells and claims that there isn't doesn't make the aluminum lead not break. THAT is why I'm more interested in Diveflyfish's mixtures for these cells: they have a much lower amount of water in use for the drying stage of the cell (while it is in contact with the metal). Whether water needs to be added to the substrate after production to grow the crystal structure doesn't concern me at all and as soon as I stop being criticized for it, I will stop talking about it.


THAT is the kind of information we need, thank you. This should allow us to know if Morton's has a useful active ingredients so people can get a comparable salt sub that isn't Morton's. Do you have one that uses Sodium ferrocynaide like Sifto? It wouldn't surprise me if that is one of the more damaging additives.

So you've done allot of tests.
How bout publishing the results.
Might save someone some time.
And while I'm at it I'll say that the U-tube's are great and allot of info is conveyed all at once.
But then how bout writing it down here so it can be referred to or printed for study?
I'm new so I better shut up huh
FrznWtr

[FrozenWaterLab]

@ Plengo and All:


My carbon/quartz cells use no water, nor do they need any water added later, and are sealed from the outside air, and can still light leds. Series connection of multiple cells of this type will produce any voltage needed, but with practically no current. Another proof of the non-galvanic nature of this kind of led light production, is this No Current, Potential Only, type of cell. No oxidation and no current should also mean, no wearing out, and so the cells can last a very long time, dry as a bone...

NickZ

NickZ
Could you do a drawing of this cell and give the Volts and Amps both single cell and any combinations you are using? Also age related info.
FrznWtr

[Aaron]

letsreplicate is a troll organization

Well look what we have here... The prodigal troll returns to insult people that aren't me by claiming that they are me, it is such a poor method... I'm not supposed to talk to trolls, but you made an interesting point that is worth responding to.

The "orders of magnitude" claim is a VERY OLD rumor and lifters can be tested against gravity meters (a mirror falling in a "perfect" vacuum on top of, underneath and beside the lifters) which results in the conclusion that the lifters have 0 effect on the local gravity and the effect is entirely electrostatic induction and dependent on local particle density (if you'd read a book on the subject published after the cold war, you'd know that). The effect can also be used to "fly forward" instead of just "up", which implies a force and not gravity modification. Even if lifters have 3 times more thrust than could normally be predicted from ion wind, that doesn't magically make them anti-gravity, it means the MATH for ion wind needs to be modified to include plates of different sizes (and it has). The fact that they are asymmetrical capacitors does not mean they actually modify gravity, only that there is a force associated them that can lift the craft.

Half the people involved in lifter technology still genuinely believe that they are working with anti-gravity. Due to believing they are magical, they never progress beyond tabletop proof of concept toys. Lifters CAN BE self contained, and they SHOULD BE by now. The military has been flying B2 bombers (an advanced method) for more than a decade and yet not one independent researcher even has a self contained unit yet. The anti-gravity claim has prevented independent researchers from properly understanding how to scale the technology into anything useful. As it stands the independent research on the subject is still 60 years behind the military research.

You are a pseudo-skeptic troll that is dedicated to spreading disinformation. Diana Lehuna, Geoffrey Ingram and any others related to Lets Replicate are permanently banned from this forum. We have received too many complaints that your distractions are unappreciated.

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

From the Defense Technical Information Center - a U.S. Military website:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416740.pdf

Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor
Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi
Army Research Laboratory
2800 Powder Mill Road
Adelphi, Maryland 20783-1197

This report done by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory states:

"The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed effect on the capacitor."

Rumor? This IS military research, troll. Read a book published after the cold war? This report is in 2003! And moving forward can have inertia because of moving forward into the downward push of gravitational potential - you are simply making things out of thin air. You have set a record for false arguments out of anyone I have ever seen.

You say: "As it stands the independent research on the subject is still 60 years behind the military research."

Again, it is in plain English - the U.S. ARMY - not some independent research.

You further display an outstanding demonstration of troll ignorance with this statement: "Even if lifters have 3 times more thrust"

You don't even know the difference between "3 times more" and 3 orders of magnitude! The lifting force being 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than the ion wind is not some simple different - it is ENORMOUS!

This isn't relevant to this thread but I will leave it as yet another record of your attempt to spread disinformation implying the claim was a rumor and that military research is far ahead - lol, this is military research less than 10 years old. Whether it is altering gravity is irrelevant - your claims about what it is - is 100% FALSE. Math needs to be updated so that it fits your paradigm! That is ridiculous. Please keep your James Randi pseudo-skeptic disinformation campaign and move it to another website. Do not sign up for another account here under another name.

[NickZ]

FrozenWaterLab:
Those are all very good questions, and is the reason that we are here, experimenting to improve cell performance.
I can only comment on what I have done personally or the types of cells that I've made. I have not needed to first add an oxidized layer to protect my cells, as they are not working by a galvanic reaction, and I've seen no oxidation yet. The only metal that would react negatively to oxidation is the aluminum capacitor cans, as the rest of the cell is only dry pulverized and compressed carbon, and a carbon rod as the positive electrode.
These cells don't use nor have any other electrolyte, and can be made using only two items, although the optional carbon rods does raise the cells output.
Cell voltages of these totally dry quartz/carbon cells can generally range from 0.70 to 0.93 volts, and 2 to 5 mA, each, although I have made some with up to 1.2 volts. And some that can light a red led by itself, with no oscillator. My strongest cells at 1.7 volts, are not made with plain wood carbon, but used zinc/carbon D cell materials from Dead 10 year old batteries, such are used in the video I made a few months ago:

P1010117.MOV - YouTube



In order for the carbon to work it must have good conductivity. The better the carbon conducts the higher is the output. I test the different carbon samples first using a meter. Carbon doping test can also be done for increased outputs. Most of my newest type of cells are only a few months old still.

Although these next crystal cells are not mine, they do give more examples of somewhat similar types of electrolyte materials using quartz/calcite/ iron pyrite in the cells that have been tried.
Joel Harvey's Crystal Battery, Endless Battery, SSEP Solid State Electron Pump. Study "Conclusion" - YouTube

Also John Bedini's solid state cells:
Solid State Crystal Batteries In Series 2 - YouTube

Another picture of one of my cells. with 1.2 volts and 10 mA.

[voire]

Yay!

You are a pseudo-skeptic troll that is dedicated to spreading disinformation. Diana Lehuna, Geoffrey Ingram and any others related to Lets Replicate are permanently banned from this forum. We have received too many complaints that your distractions are unappreciated

Thanks Aaron! He was even getting on lurkers nerves, like me!