
Oxford Electric Bell - TheAuditor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell
======
userbinator
As the article mentions, the battery is likely a Zamboni pile, which has an
extremely high internal resistance (i.e. can only supply very low currents)
but is made for high voltage, electrostatic applications like this bell.
That's why it lasted so long - modern battery chemistries have much lower
internal resistance, and self-discharge would mean it being completely
depleted in much less time. The battery in this bell has such high internal
resistance that the self-discharge is many orders of magnitude less.

The characteristics of these batteries are different enough that you'll find
lots of claims of "perpetual motion" on the Internet from people who have made
them and found how long they can last when powering low-current loads like
LEDs!

~~~
angersock
But this could be extremely handy for something doesn't use a lot of current,
right, like an MSP430 or similar?

~~~
LaikaF
Why can't I buy LED lights that use these batteries and stick on things people
run into in the dark?

------
Spooky23
I've always found things like this amazing. The "Centennial Light" is a
lightbulb that has been in near-continuous operation for 113 years!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
The wiki also lists it being shut off without specifying the reasons. "The
fire department says that the bulb is at least 113 years old and has been
turned off only a handful of times."

I really doubt there's anywhere in the US where power has run uninterrupted
for 100+ years. Even the use of backup generators is fairly modern and those
fail or run out of fuel as well.

Neat little thing, but I think back then they hand-wound the filament using
much stronger and thicker (and with more resistance) wire than what we use
today. Or used, considering that style of lightbulb is more or less dead.
Dunno, I'm not impressed by this the same way I am by the pitch experiment or
the ever-ringing bell.

~~~
katbyte
I've often heard that light bulbs are not manufactured to as high standards as
they could be.

[http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-
conspiracy/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/)

But i have no idea how much truth there is to it.

~~~
Spooky23
I don't think it's a conspiracy, it's just cutting costs of a commodity to
meet expected lifespans.

If you buy 130 volt-rated bulbs (120V is typical), they are built to a better
standard and can survive exposure to poor quality electric service.

It's one of those things not taken into account by the cargo-cult conversion
to CFL and LED -- the electronics in these bulbs are built for good
conditions. Try running the newer bulbs for extended periods off of portable
generators.

------
tokenadult
From the lede of this Wikipedia article: "which has run almost continuously
ever since, apart from occasional short interruptions caused by high
humidity." Well, that's not the same as "have not stopped," or "has not
stopped." The submission headline here is an exaggeration.

~~~
Avshalom
Until one of those interruptions is 174 years long the title is completely
accurate.

~~~
tokenadult
Could you explain that, please? Hacker News has a policy of preferring that
articles are submitted with their original title[1] (which was manifestly NOT
done here), and to me the article is a lot less interesting than its
submission title promises. I am a Wikipedian, and once in a great while I see
an article on Wikipedia that is actually well written enough to be worth
submitting to Hacker News, a community of thoughtful discussion that prizes
submissions that "gratif[y] one's intellectual curiosity."

But most submissions from Wikipedia to Hacker News, and especially the
submissions that are submitted with heavily altered titles, don't gratify
anyone's intellectual curiosity so much as raise all kinds of questions about
incomplete research or writing in the original underlying Wikipedia article.
Here, the description appears to be of a very low-energy system that
occasionally halts entirely and may not really be doing anything very
remarkable. It's hard to tell how the energy flows or steadiness of motion in
this system compare to other electro-mechanical systems that just weren't made
quite as long ago, and that weren't judged by such relaxed standards.

[1] "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
Avshalom
The phrase 'has not stopped for 174 years' is ambiguous the event that has not
occurred could be 'stopping' or could be 'stopping for 174 years'.

As to every other sentence you wrote: its a community, whatever you think is
appropriate is only slightly relevant and even what dang thinks is only
slightly more relevant.

------
andmarios
I have a Casio calculator (fx-100s) that still goes strong on its original
battery since I bought it, 18 years ago! I use it a few times every week.

~~~
batmansbelt
It might be solar powered.

~~~
andmarios
No, it only has an AA battery. I also have a remote control from a Sharp radio
system which still works after 24 years with its original batteries! But this
one is used very rarely, say 2-3 times every year.

~~~
logicallee
maybe someone else uses it too and replaced the aa battery? Maybe you replaced
it but don't remember?

~~~
andmarios
No because they both have these japanese batteries that most japanese
electronics come with but you can't find them anywhere in the stores. If
someone had replaced them, it would be with a known brand. Besides the
calculator is always on my home office and I live alone.

I was very surprised too when I found out about a year ago.

------
mrfusion
I'm really confused how an electrostatic battery would get charged?

Is there a limit to how much energy can be stored in such a way? It seems like
it might be a promising avenue for new battery research, no? Are there major
limitations I'm not seeing?

~~~
pjc50
It's not an electrostatic battery. It's a perfectly normal non-rechargeable
battery made of a very large number of thin cells; it provides high voltage
but almost no current. However it also has a very low self-discharge, which
would be a problem for almost any "wet" cell in this situation.

One nanoampere for 100 years is a very small number of amp-hours.

~~~
VLM
You can engineering estimate it in your head as one kilo-day per year and one
kilo-hour in a century, and a nano 1e-9 is a kilo-kilo-kilo so to less than
one sig fig its of the order of a thousandth of an amphour per century.

Thermal noise is around a nanovolt per Hz at 50 ohms and room temp (Very
roughly) so it would be a trick to use this power level to do much
electronically, like generate a measurable radio signal. A much larger battery
might be able to power a (edited: continuous) radio beacon.

~~~
pjc50
Ah, I'd not thought of breaking out the Feynman estimation. I make it more
like 1e6 hours to a century though?

~~~
VLM
Ouch thats correct, so more like about an aH per century.

------
stuaxo
It is a shame they don't have a video or an animated gif of this dynamic
object.

~~~
aylons
Here it goes:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dx1-f8xQio&feature=kp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dx1-f8xQio&feature=kp)

Not as dynamic as one would expect, though.

Edit: Reproduction, easier to see:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKwSHtQwzD8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKwSHtQwzD8)

~~~
thrillscience
Here's a better video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsBak0oCgdY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsBak0oCgdY)

------
pflanze
See also (different source about the same bell):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5995422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5995422)

------
JoeAltmaier
Strange the article seems compelled to mention that its not an example of
perpetual motion. Why not also say its not magic, nor controlled by the gods?

~~~
corin_
Simply because there are far more people who are likely to forget the rules of
science and think "wow, 174 years, it keeps going forever!" than people who
think "wow, 174 years, must be magic"

------
jankeromnes
that has _

~~~
pooper
thank you. I can understand (not agree with but understand) some people
insisting on writing name of companies with plural verbs like Google are and
Microsoft have but a battery bell is a singular word no matter which way you
slice and dice.

~~~
josai
To be fair, judging by previous comments, it's likely the writer is not a
native english speaker. English grammar is hard, and people make mistakes.

I for one would like HN to be an inclusive international community, and that
means not jumping down people's throats just because their english is not
100%. I'd like to see any of us native english speakers try to submit
something to a foreign language site...

~~~
kamjam
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, a 2 word comment really is useless, not
matter how great their English might be... rather than a "that's amazing!"
type comment, a simple upvote on the original article would suffice, kind of
like discouraging "Me too!" comments on Stackoverflow, it doesn't add much to
the discussion.

Although having said that, my initial thought was the OP had hit return too
early and not realised...

~~~
josai
I wasn't talking about the grandparent comment, I was defending the submitter!

The GP's two word comment, while correct, is too reddit for my taste (nothing
against reddit - both sites have their place).

------
cowbell
I find the last part amusing:

"The Oxford Electric Bell does not demonstrate perpetual motion. The bell will
eventually stop when the dry piles are depleted of charge"

Yes, and the Earth revolving around the Sun is not perpetual motion, despite
the fact that it has been happening for billions of years and will continue to
happen for billions more. Score one more for the pendants! :D

~~~
shawnz
> Yes, and the Earth revolving around the Sun is not perpetual motion, despite
> the fact that it has been happening for billions of years and will continue
> to happen for billions more.

Well, circular motion does not cause any work to be done, so that's not quite
the same thing. The earth might continue spinning around the sun forever in a
perfect universe, but that still wouldn't violate conservation of energy.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Moving charges radiate energy so there's at least one source of a drain.

