Talk:Earth battery

message: Any energy derived from an Earth Battery was put in when the metals were smelted, less many inefficiencies - a net loss for Mother Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Johna (talk • contribs) 
 Johna, that is incorrect. The energy that can be extracted from an earth battery is a result of the chemical potential of the materials involved. The acidity of the soil and the nobility of the metals contribute to the available energy, NOT "energy put in by smelting". The smelting process is used to purify and shape the metals into useful forms. The metals do not "store" any electrochemical energy from this refining process. 134.24.147.160 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the other patents, not just stubblefield's. Also this is the general use [in telegraphy and wireless], not just stubblefield's (he's the one most people refer to @ this device though). 204.56.7.1 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Surely what is happening here is similar to a Galvanic Cell. The article clearly states that in a drought the "batteries" are of little use. But this wouls mean that the plate made of the less noble (base) will experience galvanic corrosion. Protecting the base from corrosion will stop the battery from working. In which case the Operation and utilisation section contains many errors and should be corrected. --Dumbo1 21:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Article - Operation and utilisation 

message: As comments above already illustrated, i think it is really necessary to mark this article for Expert attention:
* the working principle of the earth battery is unclear and confusing,  is it an ordinary galvanic cell or does it (also) rely on telluric currents? and how large are the contributions of all different factors (like soil acidity & moisture, type & spacing of the metal electrodes, the local electric field induced by telluric currents, electrode surface, type of metal of the connecting wires,...)?
* there is no reference to the mentioned work of Lord Kelvin or any other, reliable source
* many patents are mentioned but these are by no means scientific proof.
The real bicky 08:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced material and further work 

message: I had my eyebrow raised the whole way through this article. The references (practically everything before the 20th century) are suspicious. All the other comments on this discussion page reassure me that my judgment isn't off. It's somewhat convincing that there are large scale electrical effects due to geological forces, but that seems orders of magnitude away from being able to bury some disks anywhere in the world and get free useful current. I'm calling chemical effects on this one. This article needs some attention .froth. (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BS 

message: There seems to be here, and other places, great confusion on what an earth battery is. In one device, it is a galvanic cell, with the soil used as an electrolyte. This is not very useful, as eventually the electrodes will corrode just like any other battery. The second device is not a galvanic battery. It is not electrochemical. It taps the earth's natural electric currents. This is the true 'telluric' battery. However, the power is very low. Galvanic effects and microbial electron shuttles interact with the battery, strengthening or weaking the current flow. The way to tell if the current being produced has a true 'telluric' component is to reverse the position of the electrodes relative to their north-south placement. But this is not foolproof because the uneven nature of the natural earth electrolyte causes some imbalance between the two electrodes. Physically moving them readjusts the soil, changing the electrolyte and thus the electrolytic current flow. It may be possible to measure this effect more easily in water, because it would form a more evenly distributed electrolyte which is less subject to distortion by continued rearrangement of the electrodes.
The value of a telluric battery may be to measure these currents, or to power a device from them. The power available a purely telluric device will be small. Yet it should be consistent and ever-lasting. The problem is preventing corrosion from galvanic effects and bacterial action. Bobkeyes (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected while reading the article that the power would be very low.  How low?  Can you quantify, please?  I'm guessing that I won't be able to run an air conditioner from a telluric battery.  But I'm holding out hope that I could run one or two LED light bulbs.   I really have no way of knowing until somebody adds solid figures to the article (e.g., "a typical telluric battery can supply up to 4.7 watts of power"). 75.163.193.197 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different devices, one name, much confusion