Magnetic Induction of Water

    While pondering the direction to take my water research in I happened upon a series of thoughts which I found to be somewhat relevant to the general concept of water as a fuel but which also reach over into areas of basic electromagnetic phenomenon. I sometimes quote basic laws and accepted rules without directly referencing my source. I don't feel as though such referencing is necessary when I am dealing with very basic things.

   As I am sure you know, an electrical current can be induced in a wire coil by causing it to break the magnetic lines of force in the field of either a permanent magnet or an induced magnetic field. There are actually many ways to induce an electrical current in a conducting material. The major requirement is to have a change in the magnetic flux/field linking an electric circuit or motion of a conductor through a magnetic field. Most commonly we use a copper coil which we cause to rotate inside such magnets. An induction can be achieved however by simply having one circuit in close proximity to another circuit which contains a charge and in which we then change this flux/field. This change could involve turning the field on and off or varying it's intensity or even possibly by using AC current which, of course, reverses it's polarity 60 times a second (in 60 cycle electric current).

   Supposedly any conductive material can be made into a generator in one of these ways. Now as I pointed out liquid conductors do have different properties than metal conductors, primarily in how they transmit a charge as I pointed out in the Experiment #1 paper. I can't find any information that would suggest that you COULDN'T use water as a generator if you followed the basic rules of building and operating such a generator. There are many possibilities along those lines which I plan
to deal with separately. In this posting I just wanted to look at generators in general.

   Have you ever considered what might happen in a generator if you were to spin both the permanent magnet and the coil? They would have to go in opposite directions obviously but by doing this it would seem as though you should get twice as much power out of the generator wouldn't it?

Simply stated; V1 (velocity of the coil in RPM) + V2 (velocity of the magnet in RPM) would then equal V3 (total velocity achieved in the generator). Since power output of a generator is dependent on both the number of turns in your coil and the frequency with which you use the coils to cut the magnetic lines of force it would seem to not violate any known laws.

   This might be useful in instances where you wanted a smaller package but the down side is that it would probably take twice as much work energy to turn the generator and so nothing is really gained on that side of the equation. Still, it might be interesting to try.

   In thinking about this in relation to water I decided that it would be interesting to think about weather or not water, used as the coils in a generator, would work. We already know that the Hydrogen Bond in water is weakened by the proximity to an electromagnetic field and we know that water (with an electrolyte) acts as a conductor. The fact that it is a conductor satisfies the main requirement for induction of electric current and the weakening in the presence of an EMF would suggest that, as above, a charge could be inducted by proximity. With these two factors in favor of the idea of water as the coil in a generator would seem to indicate that it would be possible to construct a mechanism which would exploit this and cause an electric current to be generated.

     At any rate, if such a generator did work then the first thing that comes to my mind is that it would be something of a paradox. You see, you are using the water (with electrolyte) as the conducting coil to generate the electricity by cutting the magnetic lines of force on a permanent magnet. By doing this you are also causing the water to separate into it's two basic components. These basic components can be burned together as a source of energy. This combining of the H2 and O2 should release the same amount of energy as was required to separate the water in the first place right? Ok, if that is the case, then what about the electricity that was created and is now racing around our circuit?

     The amount of electricity being generated should depend solely on the number of turns in our windings. Of course the speed of rotation of the magnet also matters. So in this instance we are generating electricity through work being done by the motor which turns the magnet. And we could either run the motor with the gasses produced or with the electricity. Would there be as much of a back EMF in a water coil as a metal one? Would you have to wind the water coils on an iron core?

      Exactly how much energy could be produced in this way in relation to the energy needed to turn the magnets?

   Another thought along these lines was to conceptualize what actually takes place during the generating of electricity and then expand upon that in a natural direction as suggested by the known evidence available and then to devise an analogy which would communicate to others this new concept. This is the purpose of this paper. Next I hope to actually do the experiment in Experiment #1 and see if my predictions are right. I have already done a paper (including diagrams) on how to best build such
a generator but it would be pointless to post it if Experiment #1doesn't work.

   The analogy that I came up with in relation to this is to compare the permanent magnet in a generator to the Earth and the field that surrounds it and "flows" from the North pole to the South pole as water which arises from a spring at the N pole and flows into a lake at the S pole. The coil would be compared to a movable dam or a water wheel which interrupts the flow of the water for a certain period of time and then is removed.

   Something that I realized here was that even though it may seem as though you are working with the same thing on either side of a generator (ie: whether the coil spins or the magnet spins) you are really not, in the case of a permanent magnet at any rate. The magnet is a spring of energy and the energy of an EMF is certainly anything but a solid physical object, just like the water in the analogy is a totally different medium from the dam/wheel which we use to interrupt the flow of the water. The coil of wire is obviously a solid physical object. So then the question must be DOES it really make any difference whether we turn the coil or the magnet?

Well, in continuation, it would seem that it could make a very big difference weather or not you turn the coil or the magnet when viewed as explained in part one. Probably more so with a permanent magnet than with an induced field but maybe in both. The fact that when a coil of conducting material is rotated or caused in some other way to cut the lines of force in an existing field you are using a solid, physical object to interrupt the flow of a non solid object has to make a difference. Granted, an EMF of opposite polarity is created in your conductor but even so you are still using that solid object to cut the lines of force.

   Turning the magnet would be akin to being able to hold your dam or water wheel still and instead moving the Earth.
Obviously this is impossible but with a generator and a magnet representing the Earth it becomes possible.

   Another analogy would be to picture a small row boat in which someone has installed a generator which is turned by paddle wheels at the sides of the boat. If you were on a still lake you would have to row the boat (turn the coil) to make your paddle wheels spin. If you were on a river though you could row the boat upstream in order to turn your paddle wheel but why bother? It would be far simpler to just anchor your boat and let the current of the river turn your paddle wheels for you. Oh well, I guess that is what the whole "free energy" thing is all about isn't it?

   So at any rate this all ties into the concept of the water generator that was referred to in "Experiment #1". Once the fact that this simple experiment works it opens up whole new areas of thought. Imagine a generator in which water filled tubes made up the windings. I'm going to post a diagram of such a generator. In considering the mechanical challenges presented by this device I came up with the idea that it would be far easier to rotate a permanent magnet inside the coils of tubing than vice versa as is usually the case. I also realized that the by-product of the electricity that is generated, which is determined by the number of windings in your coil, will be H2 gas at the cathode and O2 gas at the anode. These gasses will be created in amounts directly proportional to the amount of electric charge being generated in your device. So therefore this device would actually be creating TWO forms of energy from the work energy being put into spinning the magnet.
Here is where it becomes really important to know weather or not the electrolysis/decomposition of water is to be considered a unit of work being done or as a phenomenon which can be equated to resistance in a metal conductor.

   If you treat it as being similar to resistance then you can say that each separator on a line of multiple separators is going to use x amount of energy of the total available in the circuit much as you could say the same thing about a series of light bulbs. If you had a long piece of tungsten wire you could easily figure the total resistance of it as much as you could the resistance through the filament of a single light bulb. So the same goes for electrolysis cells. You can figure how much electricity is being used to get the charge through each cell and then do the total. The main difference though is that with normal, metal conductors it is difficult to put the energy given off as an effect of such resistance to fuel something else. Admittedly we do use these products,primarily light and heat, to do quite a bit of work for us but not usually to fuel a device which produces more energy.

This is the beauty of water as a conductor. It does give off heat and that is a direct product of it's resistance, but heat improves it's conductivity as opposed to metal conductors whose conductivity is reduced by added heat. Also, it's primary byproduct of decomposition is a fuel in and of itself. Any metal conductor which can be caused to decompose as a result of the charge passing through it DOES NOT have this property! Look at copper wire for example. Put too much electricity through that and all you have left over is slag. You can't burn that. That is why it seems that the production of these gasses cannot be viewed as a user of energy in the way that people seem to see it.

   I will get this into a shorter and more coherent theory one of these days and I think I am getting closer all of the time. After I manage that I think that I will try to express it mathematically. Until then though I will just keep on plugging away at it like this. Writing helps me to think and I figured I might as well share it so maybe someone else will get something out of it as well.

   Early on I said that I thought that I had made a major discovery. I took a lot of criticism for it but I still think so. I haven't said I was wrong, instead I've tried to refine my original statements and make them more understandable. I thought that the gasoline/water analogy was a good one but it seems to have escaped most people. This analogy was that if you look at the whole process of drilling for oil, transporting the raw material, refining the raw material and transporting the finished product as work being done then how is it that we end up with more energy at the end of this process than what we put into it? If you narrow that down to the refinery and use electricity (produced by using oil as it's fuel) or even using oil to fire the refinery the how is it that any useful amount of fuel is left? According to the second law of thermodynamics you don't get any more energy out of something than what you put into it. Yet every day refineries put out far more energy in the form of refined fuels than what they put into creating it. Explain how this is so.

   On the other side I said that water can be viewed as the raw material of the fuel Hydrogen and coincidentally enough, it comes packaged with just the perfect amount of it's own oxidizer (Oxygen). Why is it that refining this raw material into a fuel must be viewed by the scientific establishment as an impossibility that violates the second law when a similar fuel [(crude oil) similar in the sense that both crude oil and water are made up of two elements, water H2 and O2 and crude oil H2 and C] is refined every day without a care?!?!

   Arguments of these being two totally separate and different things are ridiculous. Not from the standpoint that they aren't different but from the viewpoint that both are Hydrogen compounds and as such should share some things. Perhaps we just haven't found the correct way to "refine" water yet. After all, if it is an impossibility to refine water into it's components then it should be impossible to refine crude oil too.

   Even beyond this I feel that I was damn close, if not actually successful with my initial ideas. I haven't heard anyone say the word "impossible" yet in a realistic way. I believe that with the multiple cells I described and the boiler I designed to use these fuels you could get pretty darn close to refining enough fuel to fire your boiler and still have electricity left over. After all you have a phenomenally efficient boiler running your turbines and multiple cells decomposing into your fuel. To maintain a circuit though you have to have current exiting your cells. I haven't seen ANYONE take on the whole system yet and say it wouldn't work. Why? Didn't anybody realize it was a system?