An Earth battery is a pair of electrodes made of two dissimilar metals, such as iron and copper, which are buried in the soil or immersed in the sea. Earth batteries act as water activated batteries and if the plates are sufficiently far apart, they can tap telluric currents. Earth batteries are sometimes referred to as Telluric power sources and Telluric generators.

[edit]History

One of the earliest examples of an earth battery was built by Alexander Bain in 1841 in order to drive a prime mover.^[1] Bain buried plates of zinc and copper in the ground about onemeter apart and used the resulting voltage, of about one volt, to operate a clock. Carl Friedrich Gauss, who had researched Earth's magnetic field, and Karl A. von Steinheil, who built one of the first electric clocks and developed the idea of an "Earth return" or "ground return", had previously investigated such devices.

Daniel Drawbaugh received U.S. Patent 211,322 for an Earth battery for electric clocks (with several improvements in the art of Earth batteries). Another early patent was obtained byEmil Jahr U.S. Patent 690,151 Method of utilizing electrical Earth currents). In 1875, James C. Bryan received U.S. Patent 160,152 for his Earth Battery. In 1885, George Dieckmann, received US patent U.S. Patent 329,724 for his Electric Earth battery. In 1898, Nathan Stubblefield ^[2] received U.S. Patent 600,457 for his electrolytic coil battery, which was a combination of an earth battery and a solenoid. (For more information see US patents 155209, 182802, 495582, 728381, 3278335, 3288648, 4153757 and 4457988.) The Earth battery, in general, generated power for early telegraph transmissions and formed part of a tuned circuit that amplified the signalling voltage over long distances.

[edit]Operation and use

The simplest earth batteries consist of conductive plates from different locations in the electropotential series, buried in the ground so that the soil acts as the electrolyte in a voltaic cell. As such, the device acts as a non-rechargeable battery. When operated only as electrolytic devices, the devices were not continuously reliable, owing to drought condition. These devices were used by early experimenters as energy sources for telegraphy. However, in the process of installing long telegraph wires, engineers discovered that there were electrical potential differences between most pairs of telegraph stations, resulting from natural electrical currents (called telluric currents^[3]) flowing through the ground. Some early experimenters did recognize that these currents were, in fact, partly responsible for extending the earth batteries' high outputs and long lifetimes. Later, experimenters would utilize these currents alone and, in these systems, the plates became polarized.

It had been long known that continuous electric currents flowed through the solid and liquid portions of the Earth^[4], and the collection of current from an electrically conductive medium in the absence of electrochemical changes (and in the absence of a thermoelectric junction) was established by Lord Kelvin.^[5][6] Lord Kelvin's "sea battery" was not a chemical battery.^[6] Lord Kelvin observed that such variables as placement of the electrodes in the magnetic field and the direction of the medium's flow affected the current output of his device. Such variables do not affect battery operation. When metal plates are immersed in a liquid medium, energy can be obtained and generated,^[7]including (but not limited to) methods known via magneto-hydrodynamic generators. In the various experiments by Lord Kelvin, metal plates were symmetrically perpendicular to the direction of the medium's flow and were carefully placed with respect to a magnetic field which differentially deflected electrons from the flowing stream. The electrodes can be asymmetrically oriented with respect to the source of energy, though.

To obtain the natural electricity, experimenters would thrust two metal plates into the ground at a certain distance from each other in the direction of a magnetic meridian, or astronomical meridian. The stronger currents flow from south to north. This phenomenon possesses a considerable uniformity of current strength and voltage. As the Earth currents flow from south to north, electrodes are positioned, beginning in the south and ending in the north, to increase the voltage at as large a distance as possible.^[8] In many early implementations, the cost was prohibitive because of an over-reliance on extreme spacing between electrodes.

It has been found that all the common metals behave relatively similarly. The two spaced electrodes, having a load in an external circuit connected between them, are disposed in an electrical medium, and energy is imparted to the medium in such manner that "free electrons" in the medium are excited. The free electrons then flow into one electrode to a greater degree than in the other electrode, thereby causing electric current to flow in the external circuit through the load. The current flows from that plate whose position in the electropotential series is near the negative end (such as palladium). The current produced is highest when the two metals are most widely separated from each other in the electropotential series, and when the material nearer the positive end is to the north, while that at the negative end is towards the south. The plates, one copper and another iron or carbon, are connected above ground by means of a wire with as little resistance as possible. In such an arrangement, the electrodes are not appreciably chemically corroded, even when they are in earth saturated with water, and are connected together by a wire for a long time.

It had been found that to strengthen the current, it was most advantageous to drive the northerly electropositive electrode deeper into the medium than the southerly electrode. The greatest currents and voltages were obtained when the difference in depth was such that a line joining the two electrodes was in the direction of the magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. When the previous methods were combined, the current was tapped and utilized in any well-known manner.

In some cases, a pair of plates with differing electrical properties, and with suitable protective coatings, were buried below the ground. A protective or other coating covered each entire plate. A copper plate could be coated with powdered coke, a processed carbonaceous material. To a zinc plate, a layer of felt could be applied. To use the natural electricity, earth batteries fed electromagnets, the load, that were part of a motor mechanism.

Crowdsourcing creative = cannibalism

by Dirk on July 21^st, 2010 - Comments (2)

There are a lot of interesting things happening around crowdsourcing, many of which intuitively seem really good. Companies like Jovoto andGenius Rocket are serving as global connectors of people who want work done with people who are willing to do it. The benefits, according to Genius Rocket, include “Providing…hundreds of custom solutions, from thousands of creative professionals.” and “Delivering agency level creative without the agency overhead.” Jovoto’s stated objectives reflect more altruism, focusing on “…the act of creation is free, collaborative and, above all, fair.” Both companies appear to have reasonable objectives: Genius Rocket is trying to maximize impact while minimizing price, while Jovoto appears based around social consciousness and the professional training of students and young practitioners for design as a profession.

The problem with these and other services is they continue to relegate creative professionals and their talent into a marginalized position in our society.

This continues a tradition that goes back to the earliest moments in human history: the power, glory, success and control went to the warriors, the manipulators, the wealth accumulators. Artists have and continue to be relegated to the fringes of society. It is true that, in a world of mass media, performance artists and particularly musicians and actors can and do share a level of cultural capital and control commensurate with those in non-creative pursuits. However the lot in life of designers remains largely anonymous, underpaid and crippled relative to their higher earning and better-regarded peers who pursue business and capitalistic success as a means unto itself, to the detriment of the collective good and human condition.

How does the crowdsourcing of creative exacerbate this problem? In lots of ways:

1. Reinforces designers are a commodity not a valuable, skilled profession. If you can go to Genius Rocket and pay much less money to get orders of magnitude more people solving your problems, this teaches the purchaser – someone who by definition has power and capital – that there is nothing special or valuable about design. It is a game to be spun out to the masses and returned at a cut rate. Would those same purchasers do that with their company’s accounting? How about their HR compliance? How about legal advice? Nope, never and no fucking way. There is a clear value chasm between the pillars of business in a structural and compliance sense and how it operates in a creative sense. People from the “business” side get rewarded with big titles, splashy salary and upward mobility. Creatives are treated as fungible and squeezed into mid-level ceiling positions. For example, my buddy Luke Wroblewski, one of the finest interface designers ever, had to append (VP) after his milquetoast title to try and communicate to the business world at-large that “I am more than a marginalized creative!” Having “hundreds” of creatives create “thousands” of concepts for a fraction of what quality work should cost further exacerbates this inequality.

2. Communicates that creative solutions are about quantity and “throwing shit at the wall”, not intentional, thoughtful problem solving. One of the critical steps in Paul Rand’s conception of design was percolation. That means, once you’ve done your research and started thinking about solutions, stepping away from the explicit problem and let it bounce around in the back of your head as you do and think about other things. This will help great ideas to form in unexpected ways and give you meaningful insights that make a profound difference. The power of percolation is, in a word, insane. SO powerful! There is no room for percolation in a world of $500 logos and $1,500 30 second videos (current projects listed on Genius Rocket). It is a world of fast food schlocky problem solving. “Quick! Have 1,000 people willing to do work for nothing throw stuff together! Some of them have gotta be good!” It is anathema to great design, an exercise in styling that succeeds as design only in cases of incredible luck or serendipity. Not only is the capable creative talent being disenfranchised from the process entirely, non-creatives are being taught that this is from where design springs forth! For shame. For absolute shame.

3. Prevents creative businesses from fairly competing in the free market. Genius Rocket gloats at disambiguating agencies, removing the “company” around the “creatives” in order to provide the work more cheaply. Great, yes, there are people who would be trying to run businesses and would stand to take money spent on creative and either spend it on overhead or keep it for profit. It sounds good on paper to provide savings by removing these costs. Yet, these people and their companies are the very infrastructure by which creative professionals are being given a platform to compete, contribute and behave as recognized, respected professionals operating within the auspices of business as it manifests in modern capitalism. Once you’ve rooted those people and their companies out of the market, then what? Is the future a world of countless, faceless creative freelancers who page thru project lists, learn to work really, really, really fast and cobble together lots of micro projects to make enough money to try and remain at parity with the Sr. Director of Blah-Blah-Blah at Alpha Dog, Inc.? Is that really in the best interests of any of us in the creative class?

Listen: I’m not naive. I understand basic supply-and-demand. I understand the technology for this sort of crowdsourcing is out there, and so long as a market can be created from pulling together enabling technology with clients and producers this is going to be part of our reality. And in truth there is a place for this type of service for tiny start-ups or other organizations that do not have the revenues or present potential to afford creative even if they wanted to. However, these services are not about providing creative for those companies who are, in essence, “in need”: they are about providing it for everyone. The $500 logo is a product that all companies are encouraged to partake in and, insodoing, even companies that really need something more are being snookered into thinking logos simply “should” cost $500, like just another can of beans on the supermarket shelf.

But we should not be encouraging it or participating in it. To their credit Jovoto is heavy on altruistic language and vision, in stark contrast to Genius Rocket and many other providers. But in some way that makes their participation even worse: they know that the creative class has it bad. They know that “fair”-ness is something that creatives enjoy in far too short a supply within the operating paradigm. It is a fine line being walked, having the vision to empower young creatives to get experience and advance themselves in order to join the professional workforce, yet unintentionally undermining that very same workforce in the process.

My “agency” designs very complex software, and no crowdsourcing application like these will ever disenfranchise me. This isn’t about me and protecting my particular fiefdom; it is about us as a healthy and diverse creative class. Once upon a time I was in the business of selling and providing “taglines and slogans”. To see the U.S. Small Business Administration is crowdsourcing their tagline for $400 – in the process literally cutting out the legs of the companies that they are ostensibly in place to assist – is absolutely heart-wrenching.

It is up to the creative class to take the leadership role in helping our constituency succeed, flourish and thrive within the operating paradigm, no matter how counter the capitalist mentality or agenda might be to our more broadly minded worldviews.

Tagged Design, theory

Intel by Involution Studios - info@goinvo.com, 617 803 7043, Map