What's Your Take On These Guys?

Interesting but I find it disturbing, no explanation of the manufacturing process other than it brakes down the raw material into atoms that are rearranged into the finished product. And the the combusted gas produces oxygen? This is only available to a selected few and investors?

Regards JD. Good to see an inertesting post.

I wonder if it is a variation on the Super Critical Water Oxydizer. (for breaking down biological waste to atomic levels)

Chris

Hi Chris, The chemistry is a bit over my head, but I do remember a well advertised process back I believe about 1975, in New Zealand, that had a catalyzed system to brake down natural waste into combustible material, I believe in liquid form but not sure? IMHO I suppose it raises the the point, is there a more cost effective process to produce a combustible fuel than a biological one?

Regards JD.

After watching bwire's offering of You tube logic, and now this, I can only conclude that we have too much leisure time on our hands.

Color me skeptical.

I think it sounds like they are talking about syngas. This is the first article I have found describing why we don't have plasma incinerators all over the place already.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/plasma-scorch-trash-hurdles.html

Drew

I don't trust anything on YouTube, so here is a link to the actual company website.

http://www.magnegas.com/

Looks dodgy to me as the process is about using electricity to generate a combination of gases (mostly hydrogen) that can be used as a fuel. Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone else (hint- water electrolysis and browns gas).

Given the vast quantities of natural gas available this enterprise doesn't seen very economically viable. Sure there is plasma arc technology available that is doing a similar thing, but the purpose of that is primarily garbage disposal (with power generation as a secondary benefit).

From the scientific background page

http://www.magnegas.com/Scientific-backgr.html

It looks similar to one of many scam pages I have seen before (and I am not to sure about their views on 'clan burning').

Seriously though, there is nothing here I haven't seen before in one form or another, whether or not it is a scam I don't know (at least not without a closer examination), but I will say it looks too good to be true BUT may be worth a closer inspection for specific niche market buyers (potential investors beware without close examination of the companies 'books').

it is simply the binding of hadrons together with magnecular force grids. Duh! ("bonded together by opposing magnetic polarities in toroidal deformations of atomic orbitals")

Why didn't I think of that?

oh, because these are "energies that cannot be even conceived, let a'one treated with the 20th century sciences" [sic]

Now I don't even have to feel bad.

Chris

Hi Chris

That's the sloppiness I mentioned above. Terrible. Some bloody journo stuffing up all the good work. These guys have no time to edit and leave that to the underlings. Poor management.

Even in some technical details there are some inconsistencies. That's why I thought I should bring it up here and have others have a look at it.

In general I am open to the concept and understand most if not all of what they are doing. That's the stuff that makes this funny sound when it goes over your head.. Because I can see what they are getting at and am willing to do that extra step, namely stay as objective as possible for as long as possible. Maybe there are some crumbs for me to pick up. Nothing comes from nothing.

There was this sound again. Carlos say's Hellow

Wish you were here, Ky.

If it's not a scam then the oil companies will do everything in their power, including propaganda claiming it to be a scam, to prevent a product getting on the market that can and will cut into their own profits.

The oil companies have the money and the power to do it and they are above prosecution.

Strip away all the press release stuff and you get a process for electrolytic transformation of new propylene glycol (aka "antifreeze") into a bottled metal-cutting gas that's (according to an assay in MagneGas' MSDS document):

69.5% hydrogen, 28% carbon monoxide, 1.4% methane, .67% nitrogen, 0.22% oxygen, and some other gases

It's a competitor for acetylene because acetylene costs more to make and this stuff supposedly burns hotter and cleaner, with less added oxygen (and doesn't have to be shipped in acetone-filled containers to manage the explosion risk that acetylene has).

I'd LOVE to see Underwriters Laboratories evaluate this claim. That would be blue-chip enough for me.

Jean, That is a very good idea regarding UL....

I just lost one hour of writing by accidentally pressing the return button at the wrong time. I'll have to repeat a bit later on, life is taking a hold on me right now. Some interesting comments though. I'll do it in MS word later and not risk it going 'out' into the big black hole again, or is that 'into' only.

Sorry, Ky.

Ky,

I believe that out is not necessary. I believe that, "not risk it going into the big black hole again," is fine.

I don't believe, "not risk it going in the big black hole again,"is right.

I believe that, "not risk it going 'out' the big black hole again", would not convey the correct meaning either.

Told you I'd be back

Well, the only thing I can say for sure is that they have a bit more explaining to do. That this technology has come to this stage is thanks to some very smart people and in all fields of expertise. It is a bit of a shame that the people, who could understand what is going on in detail, are very limited and the rather sloppy presentation (Journalist?) does not do the technology (as far as I understand it) any favors.

Any one interested in this subject should be able to recognize the potential positives that come with such a system. If what they claim is true then it will find support. If they are crooks they will be found out. Red faces and a few disgruntled share holders, so what? A new casino was just opened in Singapore and it only cost 4 billion. You know how that can happen, don't we?

The financial documents are more of a let down but maybe they plan to just be honest. I am surprised though that with such an amount of R&D behind them, we are talking decades here, they are not up and running already, never mind the millions it will take in the future. If I had the funds I would demand to see more and so will the ones who can afford to send a specialist or two. There are guns for hire, you know.

Maybe it is a paradigm shift we are witnessing. Some aspects or views on Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics have been looking a bit shaken lately. Not the laws, no, but the possibilities how to apply them in the twenty first century. My research is partly concerned with some of the issues involved here and I know from personal experience that formulating a different approach can be very risky and that "The Old Guard" does not like to be doubted.

I will keep my eye on this and hope that all works out fine. There is no stronger fuel than hope, Ky.

I'm with you...

If it releases oxygen in the burning process, then the synthesis was incomplete, and the energy stored is less than optimum. It takes energy to release oxygen, and that energy can't be used to power machines!

It takes energy to release oxygen, and that energy can't be used to power machines!

I have read this a few times now and don't seem to get it. Could you elaborate a bit more, if you find the time.

It takes energy to release oxygen. From what and were to were?

that energy can't be used to power machines! Sorry, which energy?

I hope I'm not having a blond day and getting it all frack to bont again.

See what happens, Ky.

I have NOT analyzed what compounds they are using for fuel stock, nor whatever it is that they are producing as a fuel. I don't buy the hadron thing... From Wikipedia:"All hadrons except protons are unstable and undergo particle decay – however neutrons are stable when found inside the atomic nuclei"

It takes significant energy to ionize an atom (separate the electrons from the nucleus). It takes WAY more energy to break a nucleus into its hadrons (separate the protons and neutrons from each other). The fact that these guys use the word hadron tells me one of two things: 1) If what they are saying is true, then they will need humongous amounts of electrical energy, and as Chris and probably others said, all they are doing is moving the CO₂ production elsewhere. OR 2) They are using words that very few people understand, hoping to lure investors (suckers) who are in awe of the words but have no idea of their meaning. I suspect the latter is more probable.

Now back to the Oxygen. If the process releases Oxygen, that Oxygen had to come from some compound. One possibility would be an alcohol. All alcohols have an -OH radical on one end. In order to release the oxygen, it is necessary first to separate the -OH from the rest of the molecule, then to separate the O from the H. both of those bond-breaking steps require energy. If that energy comes from burning the fuel, it is energy that can't be released as heat, and therefore can't propel a machine.

The fundamental concept of combustion is to combine oxygen with a fuel. This process is exothermic - gives off heat, and it is that heat that causes the expansion of gasses which in turn propel the machine (engine or whatever). If combining oxygen with a fuel is exothermic, then surely separating oxygen from a compound is endothermic - requires heat from somewhere. I'm no expert on this; I could be mistaken, but it would take a fair amount of explaining to convince me otherwise.

Do I make sense?

P.S. Right now we could use some of that energy! It's almost the last day of April, and here in the California foothills there is snow on the ground right now (640m above sea level). I've had a pretty good fire in the stove all day long. Time for a nice warm bed!

Perfect sense;

In "clean coal" they 'forgot' the energy to obtain the oxygen to burn the coal to get the smaller exhaust, to 'sequester' 'economically'.

On best art, energy expended obtaining O₂ to combine perfectly per kg of carbon was 315% of the heat energy resulting.

So, even if the station was 100% efficient in converting heat to power, it's incapable of running itself by a factor of 3.

Even if the O₂ obtaining was 100% efficient - and the fuel perfect, recovery conversion 100% efficient - output is zero - it can't feed it self or run internal functions - never mind sequester the exhaust.

Sort of an understatement that the "energy providing the O₂" is "unavailable to the machine".

Ky do you remember John Howard handing out the first grant of $60 million? I sure do - fastest I ever ran to keyboard in my life.

D.K, it's a fair bet this guy has "forgotten" his power bill.

Kyz

OK, now I understand. Just want to make sure we are not talking about two different things. Thanks for that, Ky.

"It takes energy to release oxygen, and that energy can't be used to power machines!"

Ky, I think the best way to grasp quite a few things in energy is looking at photosynthesis.

This is basically making and breaking CO₂ and water, using solar power.

The solar input is equal to what you get recombining the carbon and oxygen (burning), less the energy for other breaking losses (H's off O's), which are not available in 'recovery', 'cause they're expended elsewhere.

You also need an ignition energy to start the reaction. And energy to raise all fuel mass supplied, to ignition.

These 3 exampled energies are 'unavailable' to a machine.

Kyz

Hi Ky,

Oxygen can be released only from oxides where it is >>tied up<< with some other atom like in CO2 where it is Carbon dioxide, or H2O where it is tied to Hydrogen.

Now, this two compound chemicals could be break up using electricity, separating atoms, so in case of H2O we get Hydrogen and Oxygen each on one electrode.

Same thing is with CO2 or C2O, where You get Electrographite on one electrode and Oxygen on another.

That is way to remove CO2 from air permanently using electricity, which is at moment too expensive, but would not be when my WindSolars would produce 1 MW for 10 Euro or less, specially when mass produced and installed (they would have near zero Land Footprint, therefore no reason for not covering as much area as possible).

Anyhow, this electricity used in my example is energy that has to be spent, and of course what is spent cannot be used other where, right?

I am sorry that I am not able to see this Video, since I installed WIN7 and there is no 64 bit version of Media Player or anything else awailable.........

Therefore I am sorry that I cannot see what it is all about, perhaps new Project TOKAMAK?

If someone know where to look for 64 bit versions I would appreciate information.

Hi Henrik

Just try some of the other links suggested earlier. They are just written material. Seeing the moving pictures is a waste of time and meant for the suckers. With your background you should be able to make sense of it, or like me, still not.

Greetings, Ky.

Well, I skimmed over this as right now I have not much time.

Only common denominator that I can see are atomic covalences that are caused by quarks existing in hadrons.

Using electromagnetic resonance caused by high frequency magnetic field, it may be possible to break connections that hold atoms together inside chemical compounds, causing chemical compounds to disintegrate into free atoms.

Since materials they are converting are mostly hydrocarbons, perhaps resulting mix fast recombine to some simple sorts of hydrocarbons like Methane, Acetylene or other gaseous compounds, and some oxygen remain as surplus after such reactions.

Shown use of torch suggest Acetylene which is used with Oxygen in metal cutting torches.

So, IMHO, thing has some ground to function without spending much energy, but still there has to be energy source as depicted by Wind and Solar electricity sources.

I think there main point may not be energy production but trash elimination and converting into useful products.

So, even if total energy gain would be zero as some theorized, still useful work would be done as waste is removed from environment.

If they succeed to get even little energy surplus, it would be profitable, or at least enough to pay for installation and operating costs.

Actually, if they succeed to remove all kind of trash and waste, they should be paid for service as this would save land used to deposit waste. Perhaps old deponia could be digged and burned as well.

But, process would in the end generate large new quantities of CO2, even if this is kind of recycling trash.

If Methane is product of this process, it can be used to power vehicles, for cooking and heating, but also to synthesise Urates, artificial fertilizers for agriculture.

So trash and waste is recycled into CO2, which plants can reuse in photosynthesis to produce new food and other hydrocarbons like cellulose.

With additional energy expenditure it could be possible to remove Carbon in form of Electrographite and there would be more Oxygen released, and some of this can recombine with Hydrogen into water.

I intend to use cheap electricity produced by my Power Stations to do exactly this, as process is known and in use right now, just product is expensive due to high electricity prices.

In any case this would IMHO be much more useful than capturing CO2 by some chemical and then dumping useless product into old oil wells, as producing this chemical certainly produce more CO2 in first place......

So much for my 2 bits..........

Again, the assay from the MagneGas MSDS page,

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-Rev-03-09-19-11.pdf

says that this gas is:

69.5% hydrogen, 28% carbon monoxide, 1.4% methane, .67% nitrogen, 0.22% oxygen, and some other gases

My last stochiometry calculation was back in college, BUT - let's take a stab at it.

35 H2 + 28 CO + 1.4 CH4 + .33 N2 + .11 O2 -----> no free oxygen, just some water vapor and carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, depending on how much oxygen was ADDED during combustion.

That's what I get, admittedly not a formal stochiometric equation, but back of the envelope, based on experience, what the reactants are apt to end up as after burning.

If Dr. Santilli wants to claim he gets free oxygen as a combustion product, that's his business. He's made other claims that are (prima facie) as out there or more so.

But if he wants me to believe them, he'll spend some of those millions he's gotten in a capital offering on evaluations of that claim by Underwriters Laboratories or another outfit with a large enough reputation that it wouldn't pay them to lie for money,

My guess is substantially methane CH₄ - so "much less CO₂" per Watt out. About the same energy as LPG (high methane %). Can be made in a digester from all sorts of stuff, most of which got a mention. The "making oxygen" has me puzzled, unless they mean it has O₂ (or air) in it, so oxygen is "provided" for combustion "in the fuel". Might also contain some ozone. If so - Fairly "Brave".

There is every chance that powering the process is releasing more CO₂ than the fuels it's replacing. It's a common trick to just shift the CO₂ evolution "off site" to make something "green" - E.g. Gas turbines for generation, syngas making etc.

HHO is not really compressible - so probably not that, as he still has a shed. But might be a small %.

Kyzine.

High Doc

"HHO is not really compressible"

Well, what if I told you that his cousin is a good friend of mine and he loves pressure. The more the merrier. He thrives on it.

So? What now? Is it compressible or not? I mean, really!

See Ya, ebulrm

Oh, No, Not the "is it compressible?" mega question!

Yes it is, but you tend to get a spontaneous bang out of it.

"The minimum energy required to ignite such a mixture with a spark is about 20 microjoules"

"Oxyhydrogen will combust when brought to its autoignition temperature. For a stoichiometric mixture at normal atmospheric pressure, autoignition occurs at about 570 °C (1065 °F)"

Squish it a bit and that lowers.

Squishing adds energy. Squishing fast adds lots - see line 2.

I vaguely recall a pressure at which it decomposes explosively - but don't see it on Wiki - check your American Institute of Physics Handbook

Have your cousin check out this US patent 3262872, note the springs and other relief provisions.

And a lot of "as see on TV"

Good luck to Cus.

Kyz

Thanks! I enjoyed a really good belly laugh on this one. The website almost had me in tears. Suggest you watch them (to see when they close their doors), but save your investment money for something with a lot less poorly worded "snake oil" fiction.

If it is "Snake oil" iz is in selling stage now, as one city here is prepared to buy this technology, with credit from EU. I suggested to mayor of the town to first demand to see iz in use, lest we become guinea pigs, and they should prove to him that their claims of getting molten metals separated, plastic and other things that such installation produce, beside more electricity than applied to start it since they claim process is self sustainable. Price tag is 50 million Euro, but just to get rid of garbage and recycle some materials without need to sort things out and melt them separately would be worth the price, as they perhaps can process the garbage of several nearby cities as well.

So, if it works like they claim, that would be wonderfull, but if this is demonstrable fact, why it is not already sold to all big cities by now? Maybe price tag is the reason, or perhaps others suspect dioksine is generated in not so insignificant quantities...

They also claim to capture electrons directly so no burning of anything is required, nor all usual things required to produce electricity by thermal process. There surely is lot of free electrons in Plasma so on face of it if they suceeded to channel them into wires as DC and direct them to power the process, then perhaps it is possible, and even logical.

New moment is also that it is supposedly been invented by some scientist from Russia who got Nobel prize for it.

Using a plasma arc to break down hazardous waste into less harmful components IS one valid application. A plasma arc can also be used to break down other waste streams into combustible gases. However, unless ELECTRICITY is FREE, the process appears to be very inefficient and costly.

For hazardous waste decomposition and some specialized combustion gases, the high process cost may be justified and acceptable. For any other application, this seems to be a very poor use (waste) of electrical energy.

There doesn't seem to be anything new or novel here except a well crafted marketing strategy to hide a very inefficient conversion of one energy source to another.

True, but important result is elimination of waste that is standardly burried on deponia so it wastes land as well and polutes underground water with heawy metals and poisons released by burried waste degradation.....

If only problem is expensive electricity, then soon this would be no problem as my WndSolar Power Stations would be producing electricity at cost of 10 Euro per MW for start and after mass production lover the cost of manufacturing them, and specially because first users of WindSolars would be exactly factories producing their parts, at least half less...........

But, they claim that more electricity result from process than is spent and that metals in molten state are extracted and separated.

Well, let them prove it in practice, it is all that matters, and if no harmful chemicals are byproduct, then what is there to worry about?

"True, but important result is elimination of waste that is standardly burried on deponia so it wastes land as well and polutes underground water with heawy metals and poisons released by burried waste degradation.....

If only problem is expensive electricity, then soon this would be no problem as my WndSolar Power Stations would be producing electricity at cost of 10 Euro per MW for start and after mass production lover the cost of manufacturing them, and specially because first users of WindSolars would be exactly factories producing their parts, at least half less...........

But, they claim that more electricity result from process than is spent and that metals in molten state are extracted and separated.

Well, let them prove it in practice, it is all that matters, and if no harmful chemicals are byproduct, then what is there to worry about?"

That's a whole lot of "if's."

I'm naturally suspicious of a process that claims to take a wide variety of feedstocks of various compositions and yield the same product regardless of what's put in.

I'm also sort of suspicious of the potential for dioxin formation at that spark gap after a motley mix of organics are fed into it (actually, Henrik, you raised that point in another post, but it's a good point).

Let's have a reputable third party like Underwriters Laboratories operate the MagneGas "refinery" as per spec with all the different feedstocks MagneGas claims to have used to get their product, and perform a chromatographic and/or IR absorption spectral analysis on what comes out every time.

"Garbage in, garbage out" is an old computer science adage. Maybe it doesn't apply to the MagneGas process. Let's find out, shall we?

Henrik, Hi there, I'm reporting a response to a similar question on another thread:

"There are basically two operating modes:

o Total Mode - where the liquid is totally gasified

o Linear Mode - where the liquid passes through the arc and is sterilised

Total mode produces a gas which on the face of it is Syngas (65% hydrogen / 35% CO) but it cut metal similar, some say better than acetylene. If you know the industrial gas industry you quickly realise that being able to produce an oxy fuel in small to medium quantities without using dangerous materials (such as calcium carbide) is nothing short of revolutionary. The market dynamics are playing right into MagneGas' hand: acetylene costs are going up, quality is going down and due to a few unfortunate accidents acetylene plants are being closed or moved off-shore. Other gases are available but they don't cut metal well and use many multiples of oxygen, so with these other gases you pay a little less for the gas, get a worse cut and use much more O2. So before now the industry didn't have a very effective replacement - until MagneGas....

Regarding antifreeze I think you are asking in your own special way a question as to why they are using antifreeze? I'd be happy to answer your question: their facility in Tarpon Springs doesn't have permits to bring in liquid wastes so instead they are using antifreeze to create MagneGas. But still after depreciation there is a large profit to be made at distributor price not retail! This is very important for their business model as most other large users of oxy fuel don't have permits either so they simply bring in virgin liquid feedstock and they can do that without any problem at all.

Regarding Linear mode, it also produces a gas but the primary purpose of this mode is to sterilize liquid wastes such as sludge and sewage. I am not totally familiar with this market space but there is a unit operating at a sewage treatment facility in Italy that I have seen. This customer and there are many more like it in Asia cannot handle the growth in their sewage so they are getting their sludge trucked off at great expense, with the MagneGas unit operating they don't have to pay for this disposal and yet get a gas they can use in Cogen later. Actually I believe they are diluting the sludge a bit then passing it through the MagneGas unit to sterilise and then it can be discharged above ground as fertilizer....

Again I am not an expert here but industry and academia are becoming increasingly aware that sewage is one of the richest and largest waste streams in the world. It is very much untapped and one reason is the difficulty in assuring total elimination of e-coli and other nasty things. MagneGas can quickly and totally sterilise these waste streams.

In summary I hope you better understand the technology, regarding metal cutting it's a slam dunk success their sales are only limited by their bottle stock, regarding sewage treatment it is a slow slow industry but things are moving in the right direction.

That said the founder is controversial and some of his theories are even more so but the product works.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions you all might have. Thanks,"

So in reference to waste elimination it's really waste sterilisation right now.

From the magnegas.com website ...

To initiate his studies under DOE support, Dr. Santilli recognized that there cannot be really new, irreversible physical and chemical theories without a really new mathematics, because all pre-existing mathematics had no time arrow, thus being itself reversible over time. Additionally, Dr. Santilli stressed that there cannot be really new irreversible mathematics without really new numbers. These studies alone required more than a decade of research of purely mathematical character, and resulted in new mathematics today technically known as Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper-mathematics, or generically has hadronic mathematics meaning a new mathematics conceived for the structure of strongly interacting particles such as protons and neutrons called "hadrons", although also applicable to the interior of any physical medium. It should be noted that hadronic mathematics consists of new numbers, new spacetime, new differential calculus, new algebras, new groups, new symmetries, etc. Mathematical maturity was reach in 1996 when a purely mathematics journal (Rendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo) dedicated one entire issue to Santilli new mathematics.

Or, the shorter version: "You won't undersnad our new maths and science stuff so don't even ask, just believe".

Or the shortest version: "Open wide and swallow".

Sorry fellas, this is 100% bullcaca. DZ

Yes, it certainly sound like he invented wheel all over again and it is 4 dimensioned and square, but he can prove it would roll.......

As far as I can see, he should only assume that time goes in one direction only and that some processes cannot be reversed.

When I think of it, some chemical reactions can be reversed but it is not by same process that created them, i.e. oxidation and redox processes.

But even his process is reversible, by same process that created materials which are decomposed, once his product is burned to CO2, therefore it is cyclic in reality.

Anyhow, such discovery would be so revolutionary that all scientists would have to study it and replace old mathematic and the rest with new one........

But the way it is worded, even if true, it sound like You say..........

All,

This is not a technical review but sheds some interesting light on MagneGas in Italy and in the USA:

http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/magnegas/magnegas.html