The Stubblefield Papers

Nathan B. Stubblefield 1860 - 1928

It was many years ago when I first came across Nathan Stubblefield's patent for an "Earth Battery". This was in the

days before the internet, when looking up patents was a time and money consuming business and all you got was

the patent. I cannot remember exactly why I purchased it, the most likely reason being that it was cited in another

patent I was researching at the time. I didn't know who Stubblefield was and what he had done other than acquire a

patent.

So I took the patent at face value. It didn't make sense.

It describes a device which uses a copper coil wound together with an iron coil side by side which is immersed in

water. So far so good. The water as an electrolyte would cause the iron and copper to react with each other creating

a galvanic element capable of generating electricity. Next he tells us that the copper wire must be insulated! From

the iron wire! He also states that insulating the iron wire has no detrimental effect on the operation of the device.

There is no way a galvanic action can take place between insulated wires, no matter what the electrolyte.

And if that is not enough he tells us that one can put a secondary coil over the contraption and extract power from

it.

This is impossible. A galvanic cell produces direct current ( DC ). You can wind as many coils as you want around a

battery and no current will flow in that coil. It needs to be either an alternating current ( AC ) or a pulsed DC do

induce a current in this coil.

Even at that stage I had a drawer full of patents of unworkable and impossible devices which had been sanctioned

by patent examiners and I decided it was one of those and disregarded it.

A few days ago Localjoe brought Stubblefield up in a discussion on earth batteries and I vaguely remembered the

patent and my reaction to it.

Years ago, when I discovered that I could retrieve any patent I needed at the touch of a button through the internet

and store it electronically, I had discarded two filing cabinets full of patents, so I could not look the patent up in my

own records. This was fortuitous.

In order to retrieve the patent to refresh my memory I had to do a search on Stubblefield. This for the first time gave

me some knowledge about the man.

To my surprise he was not the kind of backyard idiot patenting an impossible device he thought would work, based

on ignorance of the underlying scientific principles as I had assumed, but a man of considerable achievement and

learning.

He was also a close friend of Tesla and a contemporary of Keely.

The clincher came when I read this: Nathan Stubblefield took out a patent for the earth-battery, except, the patent-

office demanded he call it "Earth Battery", Stubblefield wanted to call it "Electro-magnetic Induction

Amplifier". (Source Wikipedia)

This explained a number of things.

THE STUBBLEFIELD PAPERS http://keelytech.com/stubblefield.html

1 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

I believe what happened is that the USPTO rejected his original application and forced a number of changes. By

having to call it a battery he now had to make it look like one in order to get his patent.

This is why there are two contradictory descriptions of the device in the same patent.

He complied with the requests but left the real idea behind the device in place, hence the confusion.

That the device worked, of that there is no doubt.

He ran massive installations of electrical equipment on these batteries as the only power source for years, he

operated a whole local telephone system on it. There are photographs of his various devices, I even found a

photograph that shows his "earth batteries".

So what was he doing and how did the device work?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

Hans von Lieven

Sorry guys, but you wanted it this way.

G'day all,

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 !


2 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

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.

Hans von Lieven

G'day everybody,

There is perhaps more to this than meets the eye, some of it not so good.

This is an excerpt from an article about Stubblefield written by one of his grandchildren:

o Grandpa was now once again blamed by his wife of 36 years for accidently poisoning three of their nine

children through inadvertencies. Neither, at the time of their experimenting with various mixtures of Pitchblende

and salt crystals within their 85 farmland soil, knew it was contaminating Teleph-on-delgreen. From 1881 to

1906, the soil-coil RF antenna "hotspots" -- that made it possible for Grandpa Nathan Stubblefield to develop

and patent the 1898 induction earth batteries and 1908 Wireless Telephone -- did contaminate their foodstuffs

and water.

o o It wasn't until 1906 when their son Tesla died teething on a potato from one of the RF antenna "hotspots," --

that they realized that it could have been the RF antenna "hotspots," mixtures of Pitchblende, salt crystals and

other active metals that created the healthy looking but tainted vegetable gardens. The watermelons, tobacco and

other vegetation they had commenced growing and selling since their courtship in 1880, when he was 20 and


3 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

Ada Mae, 16 years of age became an invitation for both invention and the destruction of a family.

o o They couldn't shake the sense of dread, so Ada Mae on their 36th anniversary, 1917, left Grandpa Nat

stranded. He moved his gear to a one room hut and became a stranger than fiction recluse. On summer nights,

he would shock his neighbors by lighting up hill sides from his hut, with his buried RF induction transmitting

coils.

One wonders what he did to the ground, the batteries as patented could not do this.

Hans von Lieven

G'day guys.

I have to go back to my earlier post, I have just remembered something which might be of importance here. When

talking about Stubblefield contaminating the earth I quoted:

o o It wasn't until 1906 when their son Tesla died teething on a potato from one of the RF antenna "hotspots," --

that they realized that it could have been the RF antenna "hotspots," mixtures of Pitchblende, salt crystals and

other active metals that created the healthy looking but tainted vegetable gardens.

I missed it on the first reading through but then I remembered what Pitchblende is. It is an old fashioned German

term for a mineral that is now known as Uraninite.

IT IS RADIOACTIVE !

Now what the f*ck was Stubblefield doing with radioactive materials and what has this to do with the earth

batteries.

This is getting weirder every day! I am having a fine time researching this.

Hans von Lieven

G'day once more,

The discovery that there was radioactivity involved in Stubblefield's earth batteries puts an entirely different

complexion on the matter.

My attention was drawn to William BARBAT 's Self-Sustaining Electrical Generator US Patent Application #

2007/0007844

In it Barbat says:

This disclosure introduces a technical field in which practical electrical energy is created in accordance with

the overlooked exception to the energy-conservation rule that Herman von Helmholtz described in his 1847

doctrine on energy conservation: "If . . . bodies possess forces which depend upon time and velocity, or which act

in directions other than lines which unite each pair of material points, . . . then combinations of such bodies are

possible in which force may be either lost or gained ad infinitum." A transverse inductive force qualifies for

Helmholtz's ad infinitum rule, but this force is not sufficient of itself to cause a greater energy output than input

when applied to electrons of normal mass due to their unique charge-to-mass ratio. However, the increased

acceleration of conduction electrons of less-than-normal inertial mass, as occurs in photoconductors, doped

semiconductors, and superconductors, is proportional to the normal electron mass divided by the low electron

mass, and the magnification of harnessable inductive energy is proportional to the greater relative acceleration,

squared.

And further:


4 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

Magnification of magnetic force and energy was demonstrated by E. Leimer (1915) in the coil of a speaker

phone and in the coil of a galvanometer when he irradiated a radio antenna-wire with radium. A 10-milligram,

linear radium source produced a measured 2.6-fold increase in electrical current in the antenna-wire in

comparing inaudible radio reception without radium to audible reception with radium.

He then says:

The same year that the English translation of Leimer's paper appeared in Scientific American, 16-year old

Alfred M. Hubbard of Seattle, Wash., reportedly invented a fuelless generator, which he later admitted employed

radium. Applicant interprets this as implying that Leimer's energy-magnification was utilized by Hubbard with

feedback to make it self-sustaining.

And further

Lester J. Hendershot of Pittsburgh, Pa., reportedly demonstrated a fuelless generator in 1928 that was claimed

by Hubbard to be a copy of his own device

Further down:

U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,433 to Brown superficially resembles the drawing of Hubbard's device. Brown's device

appears to have the same number and essentially the same general arrangement of wire coils as Hubbard's

generator, as nearly as can be understood from the newspaper articles depicting that device. Apparently no

information concerning either the Hubbard or Hendershot devices was considered during prosecution of the

'433 patent. Brown discusses the conversion of energy of radioactive decay products, principally alpha

emissions, to electrical energy by amplifying electrical oscillations in a high-Q L-C circuit irradiated by

radioactive materials. "During the absorption process, each alpha particle will collide with one or more atoms

in the conductor knocking electrons from their orbits and imparting some kinetic energy to the electrons in the

conductor thereby increasing its conductivity."

These are the relevant passages in Barbat's patent application as far as our current enquiry is concerned.

Since everything that Barbat argues is based on a statement by Helmholtz in his groundbreaking paper "Ueber die

Erhaltung der Kraft" (On the Conservation of Force) I reasoned that the best place to start was right there. Having

read the paper in the original German many years ago I needed to refresh my memory, especially since I could not

remember any exception to the conservation of energy rule.

No wonder I could not remember it. It is an obscure comment by Helmholtz which he later was said to have

retracted.

This is an English translation of the passage with a comment by Roberto Torretti in his book "The Philosophy of

Physics" of which this is a photocopy.


5 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

If Helmholtz had solid reasons, perhaps based on some observation of his, for making this statement we don't know

about it. Be that as it may, it appears that this statement formed the basis of research for a number of people,

including Keely, Stubblefield, Hubbard, Leimer, Brown and now Barbat. There is no evidence I am aware of that

Tesla used this as well, though he must have been aware of it since he worked with Stubblefield.

I have not been able so far to locate Leimer's work so I will treat his research as read for the time being.

In my view these people interpreted Helmholtz in this way:

If a flow of force is created by a primary system that creates a flow of force in a secondary system by resonance, the

output in the secondary system can be magnified by levelling a flow of force of a different character and velocity

perpendicular to it. The resultant output in the secondary system is then larger than the input from both flows.

This is a big statement for it describes perpetual motion.

Or, perhaps more generally: The interaction of the two antagonistic flows creates a beat frequency which

heterodynes with a larger field of unknown character and absorbs energy from it by resonance.

Keely did it with pressure waves, Brown, Stubblefield, Hubbard and Leimer used radioactivity and Barbat uses

light, which he gets to interact with his secondary coil by coating the coil with cuprous oxide, turning it effectively

into a solar cell.

Enough for now, there is more research to be done, but this is the way it looks to me at this stage of the proceedings.

Feel free to comment

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

As sometimes happens in research fortuitous co-incidences happen that help a great deal. In this case it is a new

thread opened up by Stefan http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,844.0/topicseen.html

entitled: Amazing nuclear power converter via oscillating tank circuits !

This is a fascinating circuit in that it describes the Stubblefield earth battery the way I understand it now. In fact,

other than irradiating the secondary coil with U 238 from the inside, as opposed to Stubblefield who irradiated the

secondary from outside with pitchblende, the idea is exactly the same.


6 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

This fits in also with Barbat's patent. Perhaps we are onto something here, time will tell.

Thanks Stefan.

Here is the original photo with descriptions of the device in question.


7 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

G'day guys,

I know how tempting it is to shoot off right here and start with a series of wild experiments in the hope something

will come of it.

Perhaps it is time for a bit of reflection on what we have so far and see if we can draw any useful conclusions from

it. We have examined the work of Keely, Stubblefield, Tesla, Hubbard, Barbat etc. and found that there is a lot more

than anecdotal evidence that these guys were playing around with a phenomenon that is currently unacknowledged

by mainstream science.

Contrary to popular belief, especially in a forum such as this, there is nothing sinister in this.

Science is loath to admit into a body of accepted knowledge anything that does not conform with its standard of

what constitutes acceptable proof. That is proper. Otherwise there would be no difference between science and

speculation, however well founded.

By the same token mainstream science is painfully aware that current theories are full of holes in major areas and

there is a worldwide effort to fill these gaps and arrive at a better understanding of the world around us and its

mysteries. We call that research.

So let us not discard everything that science stands for in favour of some crackpot theory that perhaps sounds nice

or fits in better with some metaphysical or religious model.

Scientific investigative procedures are quite sound and have stood the test of time. They do allow for the most

outlandish and speculative hypotheses though the burden of proof lies with the one putting up the theories.


8 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

Extraordinary statements in science require an extraordinary level of substantiation and replication before they

become acceptable.

Why am I bringing this up here?

Because it is relevant to our current project, not only that, but relevant to the entire OU debate.

Essentially the difference between the OU movement and mainstream science is that science accepts the laws of

conservation of energy whereas the OU movement does not.

There is much talk about energy from a vacuum (Bedini) and energy out of nothing (Omnibus). Such notions are of

course idiotic.

Logic dictates that if you can pull something out of a vacuum, or a nothing if you prefer, it wasn't a vacuum or a

nothing to start with.

But there are instances where energy appears seemingly out of nowhere in contradiction to the conservation of

energy laws (Sonoluminescence is a well documented example of this).

Which brings us to Helmholtz.

Helmholtz's seminal work "Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft" (On the conservation of force) has become a cornerstone

of contemporary science and is accepted as fact.

Well, almost.

Helmholtz states in his book that there is an exception to this, which he partially retracted and qualified some 36

years later. This statement is refuted by science. (see my earlier post that contains the full quote).

The work of Keely, Stubblefield, Hubbard, Barbat and to some extend Tesla rest squarely on that premise.

So why did Helmholtz say it in the first instance and what brought him to retract it partially years later?

Helmholtz was no idiot. Not only was he a great thinker but he was a great experimenter as well. He made a great

many discoveries, especially in resonance and acoustics which are part of accepted science today. He furnished

impeccable proof for his discoveries.

I think that Helmholtz found something in his experiments that supported this idea but he was unable to furnish

sufficient proof to satisfy his peers.

I believe that Helmholtz is right. It is now up to us to prove it and bring the whole OU idea into the realm of

accepted and doable science.

Helmholtz worked with pressure waves. So did Keely. The others use different forms of energy to get the same

effects. We need to follow this line of approach and find the fundamental principles involved if we want to solve

this.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

Here is my next essay in the Stubblefield series. As you might remember, what started out as a simple project

looking into Earth Batteries turned up Stubblefield. It became evident that the Stubblefield device was more than a

simple galvanic battery using the earth as an electrolyte.

The main proof of this was that Stubblefield took his energy from a secondary coil, which indicates the presence of

an alternating, or pulsed current, which galvanic action cannot generate. He was not the only one that did this. (see


9 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

earlier posts)

Following that line of research and trying to track down the origin of these oscillations turned up a number of

devices where inventors allegedly made use of this phenomenon in different ways, unconnected with earth batteries.

There appeared to be a principle at work that so far is unacknowledged by conventional science.

Starting with the assumption that all these people could not have been "pissing in the wind" as it were, as many of

them had demonstrated working devices which science was at a loss to explain, I felt it necessary to re-examine the

laws of conservation of energy.

The concept of conservation of energy was first expressed in detail by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) in his

seminal book "Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraft" (On the Conservation of Force) published in 1847.

Helmholtz' paper rests squarely on the philosophical considerations of Parmenides (ca. 510 - 450 BC). Parmenides

is best known for his famous statement, here in Latin, which is the famous version, "ex nihilo nihil fit" (out of

nothing comes nothing).

Parmenides reasoned further: Since nothing can come from nothing and since there are evidently things in existence,

a nothing as such (a perfect vacuum if you wish), cannot exist in nature. Modern quantum mechanics says the same.

The corollary to this is, that if a something cannot come from a nothing, and since a nothing cannot exist, a

something cannot turn into a nothing and therefore must be eternally present.

This applies to everything, matter, energy, thought and whatever else. These things must have an eternal existence

though they can change form.

This is the philosophical foundation of the conservation of energy laws. Incidentally, this is also the foundation for

Socrates' (ca. 470 - 399 BC) famous dissertation on the immortality of the soul.

But back to Helmholtz.

Helmholtz, by way of a number of examples of real devices, shows that all of the energy in a system can be

accounted for.

This is all well known, so why am I bringing this up here?

Because this is not all that Helmholtz said. In seeming contradiction to his entire dissertation he makes, in the same

volume, the following statement:

If the natural bodies also exhibit forces (Kraefte) which depend on time and speed or react in directions other than

the straight lines joining each pair of acting material points - eg rotary ones - then systems of such bodies would be

possible in which energy (Kraft) is either lost or gained ad infinitum. (page 19f)

This has been termed by many "Helmholtz' exception to the rule of the conservation of energy".

Needless to say that, whilst accepting the body of Helmholtz' work, science refutes this. It is also said that

Helmholtz later retracted this statement. This is not true. He merely qualified it in 1881, by saying that this holds

only true if Newton's Third Law of Motion is generally valid.

So what was Helmholtz really saying here?

I do not believe for a minute that Helmholtz meant that there is an exception to the rule of the conservation of

energy. His entire dissertation would be pointless otherwise. You do not put out a paper of that magnitude and then

invalidate the whole thing with one sentence in the same breath.

Helmholtz was no ordinary academic. He was an experimenter and inventor. He invented amongst other things the

Helmholtz resonators, Helmholtz coils and the ophthalmoscope, a device that can look at the retina, which is still

used today by doctors worldwide in almost unchanged form. In other words a practical man as well as an


10 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

intellectual giant.

Because of his outstanding contribution to the sciences the German Kaiser bestowed upon him the inheritable

aristocratic title of "von", an honour rarely bestowed for reasons other than political or commercial.

Helmholtz never gave any reasons for this statement; if he did, nothing has been recorded, but he would not have

said something like this lightly.

Somewhere in his experiments he must have found evidence of this, though probably he could not gather sufficient

proof to demonstrate the principle to his peers.

What he meant, in my view, is, that under certain circumstances when forces meet on specific vectors a gate opens

which allows energy of enormous magnitude to escape from, or to, an underlying energy field (the ether if you wish)

that has the potential of being exploited. Thus, the conservation of energy laws are still operational, though

seemingly violated.

This is the mechanism I am trying to track down. There is evidence that this phenomenon is real. Since we do not

understand the precise conditions that must be set up for this to occur, many of the discoveries that have been made

in this area are not reproducible and have come about by chance.

I have just come across a device which, if real, might give us an opportunity to investigate this very thing and nail

down, at least in part, some of the requirements for successful exploitation.

The device is remarkable for its utter simplicity. It was invented by Roy J. Meyers and patented in 1913. He called it

an "Absorber". It has an interesting history.

Robert A Nelson writes:

Almost 100 years ago, Meyers served a 3-1/2 year sentence in the Arizona state prison at Florence. Before his

incarceration, he had already invented an improved trolley wheel head that prevented it from jumping off the

wire. While he was imprisoned, he was inspired to invent a device that would draw electricity from the

atmosphere. He conferred with Superintendent Sims and Parole Clerk Sanders, and convinced them to give him

the opportunity to develop his idea in a wooden shed on the grounds of the penitentiary. Within a few weeks,

using easily available materials (chrome steel magnets and iron wire), he constructed the first crude working

model, and used it to spark the gas engines of the prison's pump house. His second model developed 8 volts.

Miss Kate Barnard, who was State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections of Oklahoma, was a guest of

Superintendent Sims at the time, and she saw the machine in operation. Miss Barnard was so impressed by it

and by Meyers' essential integrity (despite the lapse that had gotten him imprisoned) that she told the story of

Roy Meyers when later she appeared before the Arizona legislature to address them concerning prison reform.

The legislature and Governor Hunt were convinced to grant Meyers an unsupervised leave of absence for 30

days to travel to Washington DC in order to apply for a patent.

Meyers gave this account of his trip:

"When I arrived in Washington and laid my plans before the patent office experts, they merely smiled and told me

that I would have to build a model and demonstrate my claims --- that it seemed strange that I, unknown as I am

in the electrical world, should have accomplished the things for which Edison, Tesla and other experts have been

striving for years. "They could not grasp the meaning of my drawings nor the explanation I tried to make to

them. There was little time to spare, as I had only 20 days left of my leave, but I set to work in a few days was

able to take a crude model around to the patent office to make a demonstration.

"Arriving at the patent office I telephoned to a friend who had been so kind as to introduce me and aid me in

reaching the proper officials. The absorber was hoisted on two short poles and made to work. While they were as

yet unable to understand the principles involved and hardly willing to believe their eyes, they were forced to

admit that I had something new and different, and they told me that there would be no further objection; that I

might file my application without further delay.


11 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

(Technology World Magazine, 1912)

I have tracked down the patent and already published it here in the forum in an earlier post. This is my analysis:

Meyers shows two embodiments in his patent. A basic version that is said to work and a more sophisticated version,

somewhat different in design. The drawings in the patent are rather crude and untidy and because of this difficult to

understand. I have created new graphics that show more clearly what is involved.

This is the bare bones version:

The diagram is self explanatory. Meyers says nothing about the length of iron wire between the magnets though they

do not seem to be critical and can be quite short, say 3 or 4 feet. Alignment with the earth's magnetic field is

essential within a few degrees. It does not have to be perfect. The device is said to work better if somewhat elevated

but it is a difference in performance, not workability.

The second drawing is far more intriguing and revealing. Here it is:


12 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

In this device we see a departure from the original layout. The left hand side shows the "antenna" in diagrammatic

form, the left is the rectifier circuit as schematic.

The "antenna" can be used on its own or as part of an array. The units (as drawn) can be arranged horizontally,

vertically or both. The zinc plates should be folded as shown and arranged with "their mouths open" towards North

and South. It does not matter which way the magnets face, South to magnetic North or South to magnetic South, the

effect is the same. The zinc plate circuit must be electrically insulated from the magnet circuit.

The rectifier circuit is a standard bridge rectifier with a difference. In the patent Meyer uses mercury vapour valves

but states that other elements can be used. What makes the circuit different are his "intensifiers" which consist of

bifilar wound coils wound on an insulating coil former or a steel tube. I am not an electronics engineer but I would

venture to suggest that the coils, wired as shown, would act as a condenser rather than a coil. If substituting the

coils with condensers would give the same effect I cannot say at this stage.

Comments:


13 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

The first thing that comes to mind is Meyer's unorthodox use of magnetism. He insists that his wires are magnetic

conductors such as iron wire and then connects them to a point on his magnets where there is no magnetism. Let us

have a closer look at his "antenna"

It is well known that if you join two magnets they become one. Similarly if you cut a magnet in half you will not get

one south magnet and one north magnet but two magnets with south and north each. By joining the two magnets

with an iron bridge they become one as in the diagram above.

Now let us have a look at the magnetic fields of his two designs:

This is where my analysis of Meyer's device becomes speculative. Meyer is evidently connecting the neutral zones

between the poles of his magnets with a magnetic conductor. It is as if he is creating some sort of "neutral channel".

He is clearly expecting the flow he is channelling to have at least partly a magnetic nature. This flow would have to

be perpendicular to the magnetic flux of the magnets because this is where the channel is.

If Helmholtz is right with his assertion this is exactly the kind of place where the phenomenon he talks about is

likely to occur. We know Helmholtz invented the Helmholtz coil. It looks like this:


14 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

There is some odd behaviour associated with this coil arrangement when the coils are moved to a specific distance

from each other. Perhaps he discovered something strange there. From a magnetism point of view there is no

difference between the coils and Meyer's magnet. The arrangement is the same.

In the Helmholtz device as in the Meyer device something strange occurs at the midpoint.

There is another well known device where something strange happens at the midpoint between poles. The Faraday

disk.

The Faraday disk presents a paradox that has never been satisfactorily explained.

The paradox is this:

If you turn the disk as shown at the midpoint of a magnetic field an electric current is generated between the axle

and the rim of the disk.

If the disk is stationary and the magnet is revolved around the disk there is no electricity, though the relative

movement is the same.

And now it gets really weird. If you revolve the disk with the magnet there is electricity again, even though there is

no relative movement between the two components.

The question is, where is the electricity coming from?

When you really look at it Meyer's device looks very much like a Faraday disk except it is stationary.

Maybe in Meyer's device the earth does the spinning for you.


15 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

You see, when you align the device north - south, as you must, the earth's spin is perpendicular to the magnetic flux

and in line with the "channel", just like a Faraday disk spinning with the magnet!

Perhaps, just perhaps, Helmholtz is right and we are on the right track.

Hans von Lieven

Here is another article I came across on the net that I feel is relevant. It is about an experiment trying to replicate

some of Dr. Hooper's work on what he termed "Motional E-Fields".

The author is only known as "Sparky".

The Motional E-Field.

This is one of my most interesting projects that I have kept private. While experimenting for several years on this

project, I decided to release what information I have concerning this extremely exciting subject. The experiments

I will explain could Kill you. Use Extreme caution. You have been warned, proceed at your own risk.

Lots of folks have tried in vain to build a machine that exploits the Motional E Field. The problem is a basic

understanding of HOW it works. Notice, I did not say why it works. I don't have a clue as to WHY it works. I have

read everything I could find on the subject, it is vague on what's out there about it. I will leave WHY it works to

Bearden, Sweet, Kaluza-Klien and others who profess to know this. I do recommend reading "Nothing is

Something" by Floyd Sweet found with a good search program. But even then he is trying to explain where this

mystery potential is coming from, instead of explaining how to actually build a device to produce it. A normal

wound coil has induction. A Bifilar coil connected in reverse-Parallel {Ends Tied} has very little. We will use

both in a device to exploit the MEF. The experiment will be just that, not a full time working device ready to

power your house or car. Purchase {3} rolls of 24 gauge at 100 feet each magnet wire. I use the GC brand part#

L3-612. Gather {2} empty plastic spools with a 1 inch bore. The GC brand comes on these 1 inch bore spools,

very handy. Take {2} rolls of the 24 gauge wire and wind them on a empty spool. We are making a bifilar coil.

Take your time and wind it carefully keeping the wires together as you wind. You need good balanced bifilar coil.

Make sure the wires are the same length, 100 feet. When you get through, clip the ends equal and tie them

together. Now test your bifilar wire. It must NOT conduct any electrical potential and or current. Hold it next to

a spinning magnet assembly of sorts with a good meter set on AC. Nothing.... it must not conduct anything, this

is very important. The bifilar coil will be your pick up coil, but NOT as NORMAL electrical conduction. Take

your last roll of wire and leave it on the spool and we will use it as the exciter coil. These coils have no cores,

and you will see why later.

Find or purchase {2} ferrite magnets 2" x 6" x 1" will do. We are only doing an experiment.

You will not have a continuous output, so go this route first. Do not use Neo's, their lattice domains are very

tight. You will have to demagnetize these magnets to about 10 to 20 gauss. How you do it is up to you. One can

wrap the magnets with magnet wire and dump cap voltage against the fields, or use heat. This is common, so I

won't go into that procedure here. Once the magnets are demagnetized, we need to treat them. We need to impress

a 60 Hz field in the now loosened domains of the magnets. Wrap the magnets separately with 100 feet of #19 or

#20 wire each. Wire these in series and connect them to a veriac on the lowest level. Go do something else for 2

or 3 hours. You can build conditioning coils on forms that slide over the magnets for easy removal and

installation. After 2 or 3 hours remove the coils and check the magnets with a scope. You should see a weak 60

hz signal on the magnets. Carefully place the bifilar coil and the exciter coil between the {2} magnets. Space

them as far apart as possible without the spools hanging off the edges of the magnets. use plastic ties to keep

them in place.

Connect the Exciter coil to a generator at 8 to 12 volts at 2 to 3 ma at 60hz. Place a load across the bifilar coil,

such as a light. See if the bulb will flash. If it does, place more bulbs in line with the load. It may even blow the

bulb. This field is regulated by load. You may have to experiment with the exciter voltage to get the effect to

occur. All one wishes to do is vibrate the magnet. do not overdrive the magnet with the exciter voltage. This will


16 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

not last long, the magnets will loose the 60Hz signal. Perhaps Barium ferrite IS needed to keep the 60hz signal

or the whole design is not shielded properly or it will always run down. Barium has high electron emissivity and

promotes electron scattering when excited. The point is: Something of the electrical nature lit the bulbs from a

non-conductive coil. The bifilar coil was not connected to anything but the bulbs placed between the {2} treated

magnets.

Now, HOW it works. As current flows through a wire the electrons act like magnets when they MOVE. Now if they

don't move, they just have a electrical field around them. If we move this current through the bifilar coil, the

magnetism cancels. But moving the electron magnetism will actually add. The magnet domains have been

loosened. Their domains are not locked in a position they can shuttle some what within the structure. But they

still have a very small amount of magnetism. It is like billions of small magnets vibrating about the domains

because of the 60hz exciter coil. They also have a 60hz signal that we supplied to the magnets. Because they

have a slight charge on top of being small magnets the E-Field will manifest into the bifilar coil. But this is not

the normal conductive current. In fact any normal conductive current abounds, it will cancel the effect. This is

the reason the bifilar coil must be made so carefully. You MUST have the least amount of induction in your

bifilar coil as possible. This is the reason I use no core. I want a small exciter signal that does not interfere with

the bifilar coil, so the exciter coil has no core either.

All the exciter coil does is vibrate the domains which have the 60hz signal placed on all those billions of atoms

already that are very slightly magnetized in the domains. Moving a electrical charge against another charge by

separate wire cancels the magnetism in both wires and adds.

This is the Motional E-Field.

I have added this graphic to show the experimental arrangement.

This experiment is of interest because here we see again the creation of a perpendicular field similar to what

Stubblefield, Barbat and others are relying on, in line with Barbat's interpretation of Helmholtz.


17 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

Hans von Lieven


18 of 18 7/14/2011 2:07 PM

The Stubblefield Papers

Documents

Transcript of The Stubblefield Papers