# Using the Earth as a battery

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by Hindian, Jan 10, 2005.

1. ### HindianGuest

Since the earth stores billions of electrons, is there any way the
earth could be used as a usable battery? I guess its not a good
conductor but has any method been devised to make it a good conductor?

What about the ionosphere. Lots of charged particles there. If there
was some way to tap into the ionosphere, would that mean free flow of
electricity to the earth?

Just thinking out loud.

2. ### Sam WormleyGuest

How many electrons do you think there are in a grain of sand?
What's your definition of battery?

3. ### peterGuest

Hello,
The system earth-ionosphere is not a battery but rather like a
condenser. The electrical field strength is in normal times
approximately 100 to 150 V/m.
Thats great, would you say. Alas, the dielectric is to performing, too
good an insulator, and all you can expect is a columnal current of about
20pA/m^2.
By the way, the isea is not new and others have been disappointed...
Peter

4. ### HindianGuest

I'm sure there are many. But I'm talking about free electons. As in
electrons not bound to atoms. When lightning discharges to ground,
where do all the electrons go.

Does not the earth carry a charge of some sort, why can't we use this
charge?

5. ### Uncle AlGuest

Hey schmuck - 96,500 Coulombs/mole electrons near enough. "billions
of electrons" HA HA HA!

Not a one. The entire planet is electrically neutral. Make a gold
leaf electormeter. Nothing.

< is there any way the
[snip crap]

A battery is a set of two or more electrochemical cells. What is the
other planet, idiot?

6. ### Sam WormleyGuest

The Earth is electrically neutral.... remove electrons from atom (as
in a thunder cloud) and they jump back (as in lightning). The energy to
drive thunderstorms come from the sun.

7. ### peterGuest

I admit, Iwas a bit puzzled by this abusively rude answer, seemingly to
my response. Could you couple yourself in the future to the message you
are commenting this vehemently? Still better, moderate your excessive prose!
peter

8. ### HindianGuest

I understand free electrons do not remain free for long. But does it
mean there are no electrons free in the earth.

In one of Tesla's experiments, he was trying to transmit electicity
through the earth by simulating a lightning strike. Or so i
understand. I know he didn't succeed (or did he?)

Now if the earth neutralises charges so well/quickly, was that
experiment doomed to failure from the start.

9. ### Sam WormleyGuest

You should ask yourself where do free electrons come from?
You should do a search and find out what Tesla was doing.

10. ### HindianGuest

Hi peter,

The US has a project called HAARP which charges up the ionosphere to
study it for communication & defence applications. If they find ways
of overcoming the insulative properties of the ionosphere and
discharging it, perhaps it might be a mass source of power.

Sadly I don't know enough to comment on how that might be possible.

11. ### HindianGuest

Well this is my last post on the subject. Perhaps I'm
misunderstanding some basic physics theory.

Free electrons come from chemical/physical reactions where an electron
is removed from orbit of an atom. Not sure if that is what you are
getting at.

When I rub my shoe on a rug, the shoe can pick up static electricity.
Enough to give me a shock if I touch a positively charged object. How
is it possible that tectonic plates of the earth rubbing together so
vigoursly causing an earth quake can release no electrons. Is there
no chemical or physical reaction in the earth generating surplus
electrons.

Maybe I'm too dense for this branch of physics :-(

Thanks for your replies. I'll read up more on Tesla.

12. ### Sam WormleyGuest

Actually you've got it right.... the point is that atoms are neutral
unless some process that requires an energy sources removes electrons
as in your example of shoe on a rug or in a billowing thunder cloud.
And you are right... it happens all around us...

Hindian--I don't want to discourage you. You started the thread wanting
to know if the Earth's free elections could be used as an energy source.
And I want to impart to you that.

1. there is no net imbalance of charge on the earth

2. that energy sources on the earth ultimately derive from the sun
(with the exception of some heat from radioactivity inside the
earth)

3. the Conservation of Energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofEnergy.html

4. the Laws of Thermodynamics
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CombinedLawofThermodynamics.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SecondLawofThermodynamics.html

13. ### Uncle AlGuest

The vehemence of my response is scaled to the stooopidity of your
proposal.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Don't you have the slightest inkling of a hint that anything "obvious"
to an untutored layman has already been visited and discarded by
untold numbers of trained (and desperate - untenured faculty) minds?

14. ### Sam WormleyGuest

HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior
of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and
use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian
and defense purposes.

HAARP does *not* in any way *charge* up the ionosphere!

The energy source that ionizes the upper atmosphere is our sun.

15. ### Bob MyersGuest

You are thinking of electrons themselves as possessing
energy, when in fact they do not (ignoring, for a moment,
the energy represented by their mass). They possess
CHARGE, but charge is not energy. There is a potential
energy (which is represented by the electric field) that
"comes into being" when two charged particles of opposite sign
are removed from each other's presence (i.e., it takes
energy to do this, and that energy is "stored" in the form
of the field between the charged particles), or conversely
when two particles of the same sign charge are forced
together.

The mechanical analog to this is the potential energy
represented by a mass which has been raised to some
distance above its original position; there is potential
energy due to the attractive force of gravity, which can
then be recovered if the object is permitted to fall. But
this does not mean that the object itself originally
"contained energy" (again ignoring the energy represent
by its mass, courtesy of St. Albert).

Bob M.

17. ### Uncle AlGuest

Teenager, eh? Globally bathetic.

18. ### Jim BlackGuest

Are you sure that's really a good idea?

"Thus, it seems that what really happened was that Tesla sent off that
fireball or EMP burst, which collided with that alien intelligence
survey spacecraft!"

"....They had discovered why Tesla was reluctant to put the magnifying
transmitter into operation. Not only could it be used to mess up radio
communication, but also as a global magnetic mind control weapon, and
to control the forces of nature. And the Russians were using it...."
http://www.thelivingweb.net/tesla.html

"in addition, intelligent ufo activity was also being
reported in indonesia. this is not very surprising
since both god's angels and satan's angels would
have a great interest in monitoring the scalar tesla
hyperdimensional technology progress of the us military."
http://www.syzygyjob.net/warissues/messages/96384.shtml

Good point!

20. ### Guest

The magnetic field around earth can and has been used to produce
electricity by tethers. A HUGE amount can be produced... the drawback
is that it saps the kinetic energy of the vehicle you're producing
electricity for. So it's a trade off.

Dave