RUE

FreedomFighter wrote:

Wistiti, thank you for your interest.
So far I have found that all the materials are available on eBay in small quantities suitable for experimenting.

I agree with other posters that (as is typical in the patent system) the inventor is likely to have left out certain details whether they be ideal materials or topological improvements that can be made.

In my experiments so far I have stumbled on to 3 things:
1) If the Sulfur contacts any of the metals directly, it will corrode the metals and slowly destroy the device.
2) The device can be made using only one intermediary layer.
3) The peak charge voltage from the device remained constant for the same size device using different materials.

My first model used the following:
AZ31B bound to Chromium Oxide with PVA using a 2:1 CrO3:PVA mix
Copper bound to Sulfur with PVA using a 2:1 CrO3:PVA mix
** This model performed well with a peak voltage of 1.45V at 80 degrees ambient temperature but destroyed itself within about 5 days due to a lack of consideration for the Sulfur's corrosive tendencies. Before its demise, it was able to power a small *single* motor from a micro quadcopter with a voltage under load of about 0.4V. I was not able to collect data on the amp draw before ripping it apart and sanding the corroded surface away to expose fresh metal for the second test.

My second model was made exclusively for the purposes of a stable control test and used the following:
AZ31B bound to Chromium Oxide with PVA using a 2:1 CrO3:PVA mix
Copper with a coating of PVA ONLY
**There was no Sulfur in this model; only metals, binder, and CrO3 - it achieved the same peak voltage is the first model but with much lower instantaneous power output. It would NOT sustain the motor as the first model did.

Third model is going to require another post later today.