Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Crystal Batteries

edited January 2013 in General Science
I started wondering "How would one make the initial charge for the PMH without a generator or a manufactured car battery?" This led me to cement, earth, water/saltwater batteries and finally, crystal batteries. The main reason these have caught my attention is because their lifespan seems to be off the records (some have claimed to run LEDs for 2+ years and motors for 6 months before just shutting them down). Others have had 6 motors at a time running off earth batteries, so it makes you wonder what is possible when connecting a ton of these in series (for more voltage) or in parallel (for more amperage).

Crystal batteries are basically any kind of crystal (Salt, sugar, alum, borax, etc) grown around 2 disimilar metals used for 2 electrodes to produce current (from my research and experiments, aluminum is good enough for - and copper is best for +). I'm not so sure about salt, as it might corrode metals, but what I'm basically talking about are alum/borax type crystals.

The corrosion of the metals seems to be nonexistent, as opposed to water batteries or saltwater batteries, and there are debates over whether this is the common galvanic reaction found in most batteries. There are also a few researchers who have used gel-like substance with metals and noticed the corrosion took a much slower rate. This might mean that the structure of a crystal has the same effect as water batteries but without the corrosion.

I'm not sure if many people are familiar with them, so I'll explain briefly some key points:

John Bedini and John Hutchison has worked on them (they are also called "Hutchison cells") more than anyone else, I think.
There are a few youtube channelers who are really doing some amazing work (lidmotor, ibpointless and lasersaber stand out).

Check these out:

Literal Crystal Battery Running a Pulse Motor

Polycrystalline Literal Crystal Battery

(notice the voltage goes from 0.55V - 0.51V then back up and down again, then later on it goes from 0.54 to 0.57 then between those ratios)

The Hutchison Cell

(Ignore him dancing in drag queen outfit and pay attention when he says "this is the solution to the energy crisis, in my opinion". Maybe he's right?)

12V Earth Battery

Crystal Cell Running Magnet Motor 2+ weeks (before he took it down)

Earth Battery Runs Six Motors Continuously

Growing Alum crystals is fairly easy:

Wild stuff.


  • Thanks for this. I am researching the basis of our current electrical theory and this fits right in place.

    We call them crystals, the ancients called them stones. "Even the stones will cry out" is a famous saying, and reveals the weird experiences people had around stones.

    From stones we get so much but fundamentally we get magnetism and electricity. Electricity from stones was not though important for millennia, but magnetism had an immediate use for direction or orientation finding at sea etc. It was literally a stone called lodestone that was used, a crystal direction finder.
    Metal, extracted from stone or rock seemed to exhibit this property in certain circumstances but it was not presented to the West until Gilbert. What the ancient Alchemists and metallurgists knew and took for granted was demonized by the religious establishment in the west, and the monarchies that feared their treasuries would be made worthless by "devilry".

    Consequently elctricity and magnetism were separated by centuries in terms of scientific enquiry, and the link between them was broken, Electra , that is amber was picked instead of Lithos, crystal or stone. The connection between the two is clear but unbalanced. The invention of the electron sealed the fate of magnetic theory.

    It seems funny that Ed should inspire such a movement back to the origins of this knowledge and i think Lithos or crystal should be the basic notion. Lithic or lithicity is clearly an effect that has force that attracts and repels, and produces sparks. Do we need to use the electron concept or the magnetron concept to explain it? The plasma concept seems to be growing in favour and as a substance concept ti meets with Ed's theoretical construct of a substance that is the north and south individual magnets behaviourally.

    Ground crystals if ground fine enough will become a plasma. It will also be "fluid", that is able to flow whether as a solid liquid or gas, viscous or otherwise.

    This is a draft of the basic analysis of the current state of electro magnetic theory. Inspired by Ed's observations it draws upon Webers research and the research of others even today. The modern dielectric and diamagnetic models, though better, carry forward a fundamental misconception which is due to the retention of mass as matter that is essentially solid particles. In factno particle physicists thinks of particles any more, they think of electrical energy from which magnetic energy is derived, and space is a fluid filled up of these 2 energies, kind of "congealing",

    However Weber, like Ed thought that magnetic dipoles or monopoles, (i prefer magnetron, and one researcher uses magneton) should be the basis of all these phenomenon.

    My analysis indicates that the magnetic dipole is the most logical fundamental.
  • Although I believe Ed moved the monoliths conventionally, with lever and pulley and other tackle, it is possible that he made motors that helped turn the pulleys, and wind the chains and ropes.
    By carefully balancing one against the other even a little motor would help lift by lever action. Hydraulic levers also give an amazing advantage.

    Looking carefully at some of the pictures reveals that ed cemented metal rods into the monoliths. This would give him purchase at the right tipping point, but they may also have provided power to run electric winding gear!
This discussion has been closed.