Magnegas Fuel

I guess it's still new...

Because India is smarter than you are.

Roshan, MagneGas actually signed a distributor in India but things have been moving very slowly. MagneGas as a replacement to Acetylene is doing quite well, people in this industry could care less what the theories are behind it as longs as it cuts better and is safer than competitive gases. Here is a good article which shows a fair balanced view: http://www.review.net/section/detail/waste-not/

Hardly a "fair balanced view". It's not much more than a press release. Every word about the technology -- and very little is mentioned -- comes straight from the business owners.

I did find the article interesting in a different way. The company has marketed the technology for 1) Waste disposal; 2) Water sterilization; 3) Acetylene gas alternative for "welding purposes".

From the article:

"The technology works by running an electrical current between two coal coils in the company's patented Plasma Arc Flow system, which the company calls refineries. Waste - which includes everything from used motor oil to farm animal waste - is pumped through the electrical current, creating a hydrogen-rich gas, sterilized water and carbon, depending on the type of waste. The gas, which has become the company's main focus, is called MagneGas."

Basically, they're using a plasma arc to disassociate hydrogen from waste products. (Not even pure H, "hydrogen-rich gas".) oh, wait, they're not processing waste...

"Instead of bending to the Department of Environmental Protection's regulatory standards, Wainwright decided the firm didn't need to process waste to make fuel - and money. He realized that by purchasing anti-freeze new and processing it into MagneGas, the firm could increase its margins."

Wow. That sounds cost efficient.

"Like Santilli's theories refuting Einstein's Theory of Relativity, MagneGas still has its detractors, ..."

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

THE NOVEL MAGNECULAR SPECIES OF HYDROGEN AND ...

He's even invented new words to go along with the HHO "refinery" they're selling.

Yeah, I thought "two coal coils" was a typo, but maybe not.

Lyn, Don't confuse MagneGas with HHO its two totally different things....

You obviously have more than a pa$sing interest here.

What is your connection to all this, and how did you happen onto this discussion since you have never been here before?

Magnecules???? Come on now, why the need to coin new words??

Fess up, what's your stake in this?

Lyn, I worked with MagneGas off and on - which is exactly what a discussion like this needs, someone who actually knows something about the subject matter.

The reactions I see here is expected, the theories are yet to be proven, the creator is a special kind of guy and the website is not the best. So those who skim the surface frequently can be drawn to these sorts of superficial "it's b*ll*cks" meaningless reactions. That said those who have visited their facilities or seen their equipment in operation or even just cut with their gas usually, though not always come away MagneGas converts.

That said it works! The gas cuts when it shouldn't and the chemical / biological tests show 100% sterilization.

It's important to keep things professional and logical and based on facts, I have been totally honest about what my experiences have been.

Again I'd be happy to answer whatever professional questions you throw my way.....

This stuff may be a fine replacement for cutting gas. Let's keep the hype (Magnecule indeed) to a minimum and present some documented comparative data that demonstrates the superiority of the product.

While looking for info on metal cutting with hydrogen, I came across something very interesting. Here are some excerpts from press releases dated 2002:

"A new hydrogen-based fuel was recently created as a by-product from plasma arc technology that destroys hazardous liquid wastes, such as used glycols and oils."
http://www.weldingandgasestoday.org/index.php/2002/09/cutting-fuel-chemistry/

"The BigSpark(TM) converter system will convert the used antifreeze and motor oil collected by HOWCO into a clean burning, hydrogen-based fuel that will be sold in the cutting gas industry under the name NextGas(TM) fuel."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Jan_28/ai_82252695/

"The BigSpark(TM) converter makes it commercially feasible to apply high-energy plasma technology to on-site destruction of potentially harmful wastes like used antifreeze and motor oil."
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/oil-gas-industry-oil-processing-products/5866143-1.html

Those press releases were for EarthFirst NextGas, Inc., Tampa, FL.

I didn't find anything that appears to link EarthFirst with Magnegas, but the description of the process sure does seem interchangeable.

As for Magnegas, Inc., it looks like they are scrambling to stay alive...

Stock Report:
Dec 23, 2011, 3:48 p.m.
Market closed $0.20
Previous close $ 0.20
Change 0.00 0.00%
Volume 44,647
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/MNGA

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-q-magnegas-corp-2011-11-10

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/business/companies/magnegas-corporation/index.html

Pantaz, Thanks for those links to BigSpark I wasn't aware of them and I thought I had scoured the ends of the internet for MagneGas!

Regarding financial performance I think you are asking again in your own special way how MagneGas are doing and what the prospects are? I am happy to answer your question:

Regarding MagneGas stock it's up 100%ish yoy and they just received $3 million in private funding as recently as November. In the past they were not as focused on sales but on development and I think we can agree that their market message was mixed at best. Since the start of 2011 they have focused on recurring revenues in order to grow and show to the markets they are profitable.

I believe things are going in the right direction and with the shipments of units to Michigan once they get on-line and as long as the bottle stock is there those units alone can cover monthly costs.

Again, being superficial in your "analysis" doesn't look good, asking is better than making broad statements which are later shown to be incorrect but that is just my personal opinion.

Thanks for those links and I am happy to keep this discussion going, do you have any other questions about MagneGas?

"Regarding financial performance I think you are asking again in your own special way how MagneGas are doing and what the prospects are?"

I wasn't asking. I simply posted the latest report of their stock's performance -- opened at $0.20, closed at $0.20 (twenty cents).

"Regarding MagneGas stock it's up 100%ish"

Uh, what report are YOU reading?? MarketWatch paints a very different picture.

"Again, being superficial in your "analysis" doesn't look good, asking is better than making broad statements which are later shown to be incorrect but that is just my personal opinion."

You may call it superficial, but I've posted more verifiable facts than any other person in this thread. If you can demonstrate that anything I've written is false, I will gladly post a retraction.

GA, but the voting system seems to be saturated just now. (This is a fairly frequent CR4 glitch, for which no explanation has ever been given that I know of.)

Pantaz,

Ok, now that you better understand the metal cutting business model please retract this:

"purchasing anti-freeze new and processing it into MagneGas, the firm could increase its margins."

Wow. That sounds cost efficient."

Thanks and Merry Christmas

I appreciate your loyalty to the product. I'm not sure that the process/feed stock/equipment/and market are well enough defined at this point.

I think that the metal cutting market may be a good start, if you can prove that you have a superior product at a competitive price. Or, a competitive product at a superior price.

I no longer doubt that the generation of this gas is a hoax. I still doubt that it will ever become a mainstream source of flammable gas.

Good luck.

Let me get this straight, you want me to retract my OPINION??

Read this again: If you can demonstrate that anything I've written is false, I will gladly post a retraction.

My OPINION stands -- Purchasing commercially produced anti-freeze as a feed-stock is not cost efficient.

If you can provide verifiable data that it is cost efficient, THEN I will reconsider my opinion.

Pantaz, I think you feel there are massive quantities of liquid required but read my posts again, this is TOTAL mode so SMALL quantities of liquid produces LARGE quantities of gas. Additionally Ethyl Glycol provides a totally stable and consistent feedstock for gas distributors who probably are no experts in handling or blending waste liquids.

And regarding costs…. the MagneGas 300kW unit consumes approximately ONLY 8 gallons of Ethyl Glycol every hour, operating at 300kW during that same time the unit will gasifies the Ethyl Glycol producing about 17 to 18 bottles of MagneGas for the metal cutting industry.

According to my notes that means every hour roughly $70 in Ethyl Glycol to make approximately $600 in bottle sales or a raw material cost of 12% of gross sales.

The biggest potential savings you are not seeing in your summary analysis is the Blue Ocean opportunity here, producers are sidestepping much of the logistics costs of centralized production, stocking and distribution. In simpler terms, local distributors can for the first time in history make an oxy fuel for their own local markets making massive savings apart from just direct production costs but on logistics costs as well.

Feel free to dig into the costs of Ethyl Glycol and the price of Acetylene in the market to verify for yourself, otherwise if you are in the Tampa area you should pay a visit to MagneGas. It is a revolutionary process and product you will come back a huge supporter and probably an investor as well!

What is the amortized cost of the "refinery" and the total cost of energy to produce a given quantity of gas?

No BS, just the numbers.

"producing about 17 to 18 bottles"

Define "bottle". Common industrial gas cylinders range from about 200 liters to about 3000 liters (physical volume, not product contents). Maximum service pressure can be in excess of 2000 psi (highly dependent on the type of gas).

"According to my notes ..."

"My notes" does not equal "verifiable data".

"... producers are sidestepping much of the logistics costs of centralized production, stocking and distribution. ..."

That's certainly possible, and I would expect that your marketing people have actual numbers that they can provide to potential customers.

"Feel free to dig into the costs of Ethyl Glycol and the price of Acetylene in the market to verify for yourself"

You're the one making the claims; feel free to produce evidence to back 'em up.

Pantaz,

Sorry, bait and switch doesn't work with me lets stay on topic please.

We are talking about Ethyl Glycol and I summarized for you that the cost of the primary raw material accounts for approximately 12% of gross sales. And this in an industry dealing in COMMODITIES! Anybody who is reasonable would have to step back and think "hummmm maybe it is cost effective to use ethyl glycol" - as they prove every day at MagneGas.

At this time I am expecting you provide a conditioned statement along the lines of "if the information you provided is correct I would accept that it is probably cost effective to use ethyl glycol" - I am making this as easy as possible for you here....

I am one of the few people in the world exposed to this technology in depth, unless you are mature enough to admit that maybe MAYBE your superficial and sweeping statement about not being cost effective is incorrect then our discussion is over.

What does it cost to run the machine?????? Feed stock may be 12% of whatever, but what is the cost to produce the gas????????

If I were to buy one, what would my energy bill be???????

I think you know what I'm looking for.

Hello there Lyn,

The electricity costs are 300kW per hour, so at $0.10 per kWh that would be $30 per hour. The other costs are what you'd expect for a unit which operates semi-autonomously, overheads et cetera.

In this application the main cost is the feedstock which in Tampa they use Ethyl Glycol and that amounts to approximately 12% of sales.

That's funny. Are you in politics, or management? I ask because you're very adept at deflecting questions, and responding with meaningless twaddle.

You should look up the definition of "bait and switch", because you're use of the phrase does not apply here.

"At this time I am expecting you provide a conditioned statement along the lines of "if the information you provided is correct I would accept that it is probably cost effective to use ethyl glycol""

When facts are in question, "if" is a mighty big word. I've already stated, twice^{[1, 2]}, that upon presentation of verifiable data refuting anything I've written, I will gladly post a retraction.

Once again, VERIFIABLE DATA.

"... unless you are mature enough to admit that maybe MAYBE your superficial and sweeping statement..."

I can see that you rely on weasel words, but I don't. One can use "IF" and "MAYBE" to make anything sound (almost) plausible. The "superficial and sweeping statement" has yet to be proven inaccurate. When someone offers an opinion, responding with nothing more than, "that's wrong", is pointless debate. Show me the facts.

It doesn't even have to be you, GlobalReach. Anyone that can provide factual references is encouraged to do so.

Pantaz: "While looking for info on metal cutting with hydrogen, I came across something very interesting. Here are some excerpts from press releases dated 2002:

"A new hydrogen-based fuel was recently created as a by-product from plasma arc technology that destroys hazardous liquid wastes, such as used glycols and oils."
http://www.weldingandgasestoday.org/index.php/2002/09/cutting-fuel-chemistry/

"The BigSpark(TM) converter system will convert the used antifreeze and motor oil collected by HOWCO into a clean burning, hydrogen-based fuel that will be sold in the cutting gas industry under the name NextGas(TM) fuel."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Jan_28/ai_82252695/

"The BigSpark(TM) converter makes it commercially feasible to apply high-energy plasma technology to on-site destruction of potentially harmful wastes like used antifreeze and motor oil."
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/oil-gas-industry-oil-processing-products/5866143-1.html

Those press releases were for EarthFirst NextGas, Inc., Tampa, FL.

I didn't find anything that appears to link EarthFirst with Magnegas, but the description of the process sure does seem interchangeable."

Earth First and Ruggiero Santilli go back a ways.

from

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/Hillsborough/Snubbed_by_mainstream.shtml

"Snubbed by Mainstream, Scrappy Scientist Sues," Carrie Weimar, the Tampa Bay Times, Tampa FL, May 9th 2007

"...In 1998, Santilli was hired as a consultant by a Tampa company called EarthFirst. They parted ways in 2001, according to court documents. Shortly after, Santilli sent a copy of a letter to several of the company's prospective clients threatening to sue EarthFirst for allegedly violating his patent for Magnegas.

Several clients refused to do business with EarthFirst after receiving the letter, court papers showed. EarthFirst sued Santilli, saying he violated a noncompete clause he signed. They also accused him of libel.

A Hillsborough judge granted EarthFirst a temporary injunction against Santilli. After nearly five years, the case continues.

Mark Ragusa, a Tampa lawyer who represented the defendants in Santilli's first federal lawsuit described him as tenacious.

"He's a scrapper, " he said. "He certainly files a lot of pleadings....""

Which indicates to me that

(a) it was up in the air WHO had legal title to the gas production process at the time that article went to press (certainly it didn't seem to be a prima facie case in Santilli's favor at the time, for the DEFENDANTS to have been granted an injunction);

(b) there definitely IS a connection between MagneGas and EarthFirst;

Perhaps GlobalReach would enlighten us as to exactly HOW EarthFirst and MagneGas are related, and who owns the rights to the process both companies were claiming at the time.

"Lyn, Don't confuse MagneGas with HHO its two totally different things...."

Of course it isn't

Earlier you referred to the process making Syngas (CO+H) and to calcium carbide as a "dangerous fuel". It's this sort of time wasting "white noise" that gets technical people incensed.

I appreciate your are on the finance side of skills and not engineering - or obviously chemistry, or understanding what substance is made from what raw material.

Nor have you questioned the 'back-lash' factor in the advertising and/or the product claimed performance/production economics. It's all being sold to the deal signers on hype. Unlike being stuck with a Cavalier, production people will just switch back as soon as your products economics/performance falls short.

But; on the investment side; it's not a particularly low energy extraction process, so tied to the price of power and its prime (and only production economically viable) 'raw material' is directly tied to the price of oil.

Give that investment some thought

"Lyn, Don't confuse MagneGas with HHO its two totally different things...."

Of course it isn't

Earlier you referred to the process making Syngas (CO+H) and to calcium carbide as a "dangerous fuel". It's this sort of time wasting "white noise" that gets technical people incensed."

The problem with MagneGas is that it's 33-35% carbon monoxide, but they list it in their MSDS sheet as "Hydrogen gas" (they list the actual assay results lower down in the sheet, but in Section I, MagneGas is called "Hydrogen gas").

The MagneGas Corporation also, in its sales literature, lists home heating and cooking as potential uses for MagneGas despite the fact that a blown-out pilot light or spark ignitor failure would expose a home user of this gas to lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide (440 parts per million - much less than 33 percent - is considered to be the level at which death can occur from inhalation of carbon monoxide).

The MSDS sheet on MagneGas also states under "Acute Health Effects" that "there are no long-term effects from inhalation of MagneGas," - true as far as it goes, the effects from prolonged inhalation of a gas that's 33 percent carbon monoxide would be lethal in the SHORT TERM.

So not only is MagneGas a dangerous fuel, but its MSDS (safety data) sheet is misleadingly worded, contains significant errors, and could (combined with MagneGas sales literature promoting the gas for, among other uses, home heating and cooking) easily kill users who are not fully aware of just how toxic carbon monoxide IS, and that the amount of CO gas in MagneGas could easily exceed both the maximum safe levels of exposure and the LD50 if MagneGas were released in an enclosed space either unburned or incompletely burned.

MagneGas is being mis-sold. As an industrial process gas or a metal-cutting gas for outdoor use by trained welders, it's acceptably safe; saying it's good for home heating and cooking is irresponsible and immoral. Ought to be illegal, too.

I'm not quite sure of the point of your post in reply to me, but Syngas is CO+H and Magnegas is HHO

This must be the 4th or 10th thread on these gases inhabited by drongos who can't see the difference in the letters, or stay clear on who is selling which.

"Jean Lafitte",

Please open:

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

Now please look at the very first section:

"POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS

INHALATION: Prolonged inhalation of pre-combustion vapors may result in loss of function, brain damage, and even death. There is a high concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the gas in its pre-combustion stage."

This MSDS has been reviewed and accepted by some rather large safety conscious companies, like a little one making cars in Michigan.... And it complies with some of the most strict health and safety codes in the world.

Can you please send a link to the MSDS you were looking at which doesn't provide the CO warning?

<quote>

Replying to Comment by GlobalReach: (Use Copy & Paste or drag text to quote the original text.)

"Jean Lafitte",

Please open:

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

Now please look at the very first section:

"POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS

INHALATION: Prolonged inhalation of pre-combustion vapors may result in loss of function, brain damage, and even death. There is a high concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the gas in its pre-combustion stage."

This MSDS has been reviewed and accepted by some rather large safety conscious companies, like a little one making cars in Michigan.... And it complies with some of the most strict health and safety codes in the world.

Can you please send a link to the MSDS you were looking at which doesn't provide the CO warning?</quote>

The point is that before and after your CO warning, in the MSDS you just cited, there are errors in that MSDS.

The first one:

"CHEMICAL NAME: Hydrogen

CHEMICAL FAMILY: Permanent Gas

CHEMICAL FORMULA: H2"

Someone who just read that part of your MSDS would have no idea he was dealing with 33% carbon monoxide gas.

The second error:

"ACUTE HEALTH HAZARDS: There are no known long term health effects for this product."

Well, an ACUTE health hazard isn't long term. It's SHORT-TERM - like the very real hazard of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning from breathing excessive levels of MagneGas.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "a little (company) making cars in Michigan" reviewed and passed this MSDS. Two of those little companies are so well-run they had to be bailed out by the Federal Government, and one of them still owes the taxpayers billions that will never be recovered unless GM stock rises from its current trading level of below $30 a share to $43.67 a share. The Obama administration sold off just about half of the Treasury's shareholdings at a major loss despite this, so we can't accuse Obama of being the sharpest pencil in the box in how he handled management of GM assets in the government's hands.

So which "little company making cars in Michigan" signed off on that MSDS, again? Inquiring minds want to know, especially if it's Government Motors.

I would like to see where OSHA would find that MSDS in compliance given the misstatement of short term health hazards. It seems to me to be defective in at least the two major respects I mentioned. There's also the citing of anecdotal but highly counter-intuitive claims by MagneGas that combustion of MagneGas makes more oxygen than it consumes. No independent confirmation of that claim is offered.

Ok, So you are acknowledging that there is a clear CO warning but that those two section should also show the CO content and or warning.

That is a good observation and thanks for that.

Where in the MSDS it says that when burned it "makes more oxygen than it consumes"?

GlobalReach:

"Ok, So you are acknowledging that there is a clear CO warning but that those two section should also show the CO content and or warning.

That is a good observation and thanks for that.

Where in the MSDS it says that when burned it "makes more oxygen than it consumes"?"

In the third page, near the top:

"SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: MagneGas™ is lighter than air and will disperse rapidly in an open environment, but may pool at the roof peak in unventilated areas. Burned MagneGas™ has a high percentage of Oxygen. "

Jean,

Thanks for that but that phrase you are quoting from the MSDS is only pointing out that tests have shown that the exhaust from MagneGas has a higher percentage of oxygen than other gases tested.

So where did you see that it "Makes more oxygen than it burns"

Jean,

So do you agree that there is a clear warning about the CO content about the gas in the MSDS but that you would like it also mentioned in another section?

Also do you agree that you read the MSDS incorrectly regarding the oxygen in the exhaust?

Lets get these loose ends tied off please.

Jean,

Here is a little steel company that is also quite happy with the MagneGas MSDS and product:

http://www.magnegas.eu/magnegas-announces-major-customer-onesteel-ltd

"Part of OneSteel's Corporate Vision is to be an environmentally responsible Company and this was what initially led us to find MagneGas," commented Steve Ryan, General Manager of OneSteel Ltd.'s U.S. operations. "Not only is MagneGas™ cost competitive, it is a greener alternative than what we are currently using for metal working and it has exceeded our expectations in terms of its metal cutting performance.. Our commitment to the environment made the decision to switch to MagneGas the right choice for us."

Jean,

For the second time can you please send me a link to the MSDS you were looking at which didn't clearly have the CO warning in the very first section?

It's really important that if there is an MSDS which is incorrect it's taken out of circulation!

Replying to Comment by GlobalReach:

"Jean,

For the second time can you please send me a link to the MSDS you were looking at which didn't clearly have the CO warning in the very first section?

It's really important that if there is an MSDS which is incorrect it's taken out of circulation!"

GlobalReach:

I stated clearly in my first reply to you (#109) that I based my comments on the MSDS page at the link YOU provided

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

Now I'm going to reproduce my reply to you below, since you apparently did not read post #109 when I posted it. Other readers, please excuse the repetition, but GlobalReach seems to be saying I never answered his question, and that is not true.

<quote>

Replying to Comment by GlobalReach: (Use Copy & Paste or drag text to quote the original text.)

"Jean Lafitte",

Please open:

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

(NOTE to GlobalReach - THIS IS THE MSDS LINK ON WHICH THE FOLLOWING REMARKS ARE BASED. IT IS THE SAME LINK CITED IN POST #109)

Now please look at the very first section:

"POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS

INHALATION: Prolonged inhalation of pre-combustion vapors may result in loss of function, brain damage, and even death. There is a high concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the gas in its pre-combustion stage."

This MSDS has been reviewed and accepted by some rather large safety conscious companies, like a little one making cars in Michigan.... And it complies with some of the most strict health and safety codes in the world.

Can you please send a link to the MSDS you were looking at which doesn't provide the CO warning?</quote>

MY REPLY:

The point is that before and after your CO warning, in the MSDS you just cited,

(NOTE: this is the link YOU supplied,

there are errors in that MSDS.

The first one:

"CHEMICAL NAME: Hydrogen

CHEMICAL FAMILY: Permanent Gas

CHEMICAL FORMULA: H2"

Someone who just read that part of your MSDS would have no idea he was dealing with 33% carbon monoxide gas.

The second error:

"ACUTE HEALTH HAZARDS: There are no known long term health effects for this product."

Well, an ACUTE health hazard isn't long term. It's SHORT-TERM - like the very real hazard of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning from breathing MagneGas.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "a little (company) making cars in Michigan" reviewed and passed this MSDS. Two of those little companies are so well-run they had to be bailed out by the Federal Government, and one of them still owes the taxpayers billions that will never be recovered unless GM stock rises from its current trading level of below $30 a share to $43.67 a share. The Obama administration sold off just about half of the Treasury's shareholdings at a major loss despite this, so we can't accuse Obama of being the sharpest pencil in the box in how he handled management of GM assets in the government's hands.

So which "little company making cars in Michigan" signed off on that MSDS, again? Inquiring minds want to know, especially if it's Government Motors.

I would like to see where OSHA would find that MSDS in compliance given the misstatement of short term health hazards. It seems to me to be defective in at least the two major respects I mentioned. There's also the citing of anecdotal but highly counter-intuitive claims by MagneGas that combustion of MagneGas makes more oxygen than it consumes. No independent confirmation of that claim is offered."

That's my original reply to you. The link you asked for is (again, so you can't imply I didn't give it to you):

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

One more time, so we're sure you have the link:

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

And your firm definitely needs to take that MSDS out of circulation - off of its Web site and out of its "Right to Know" documents - because it (perhaps worst of all) fails UTTERLY to address the Acute Health Hazard presented by the 33% Carbon Monoxide in the mixture - Carbon Monoxide being a deadly metabolic poison at those concentrations.

It wouldn't take much of a leak of unburned MagneGas to give users or bystanders more than the 0.12% carbon monoxide declared by the United States National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to be immediately dangerous to life and health. Again, MagneGas, according to your own documents, is about 33% carbon monoxide. The NIOSH declares that 0.12% carbon monoxide is immediately dangerous to life and health, so MagneGas, released unburned into an enclosed space, has about 300 times the amount of carbon monoxide the US government occupational health and safety agency has declared an IMMEDIATE DANGER to life and health.

As far as your implication in another post that Pantaz and I are the same person... no. I don't know Pantaz, Pantaz doesn't know me. I won't speculate on who YOU really might be.

34.5

Now it's all confused, I thought that on the other thread it was shown that MagneGas has a composition and behaves like Syngas.

Now you are saying it is HHO, why?

My reference to "dangerous fuel" is to Acetylene, its a necessary evil in the industry since nothing else has been found to effectively replace it. Listen to MagneGas and see the flame test reports there is a possibility that the industry HAS found an effective replacement. I may not be a technical guy but I know a little bit about the metal cutting industry now...

Regarding Backlash, I agree with your comment, I am not coming here to sell MagneGas. Just look at the chronology of this thread on an otherwise good and professional website: There is a string of one liners supposedly to "slam" the technology, there are gutteral "bollocks" insults and then "snarky" posts from people that don't do their basic maths and lack the humility to admit fault.

But looking deeper you will see this is all about the inventor and his theories NOT about technology which works, has customers and is growing every day.

The risk is that someone reading this thread on an otherwise professional site will actually think that someone knows a little about the topic and not give MagneGas a chance.

So I can sit this out while otherwise professional people stoop to new lows or I post what I know for the benefit for professional people on this site who are interested in learning about new things.

I gave you the link/s

If you can't keep the gasses straight or grasp 101 chemistry, I suggest you retire from posting until you can.

And WHY would any responsible professional give a scam a chance?

It's your lot that "stoop to new lows". The periodic table is not "plasticine" ^{_{(colloid clay + oil)}}

34.5

I honestly don't understand how a gas with the composition of Syngas can also be HHO, sorry, I am not saying you are wrong just that I don't see it.

Please try and separate the theories from the business, admittedly it is difficult but be rational.

The gas production units and gas are not a scam as the growing base of customers will attest to.

Oh for crying out loud syngas is CO+H and Your one is HHO. How could the properties be the same? Well they are both lower energy than CH4 but not proportionally lower in energy to make than C2H2

Read the table, look at the bond energy.

How many O's bond to each to produce water and/or CO2?

Yours, 1. Syngas 2. Acetylene 5

34.5

Relax.

I think you are mistaken.

Where did you see this information?

I think the first time was on the blackboard in early high school.

"mistaken" Hey, I thought you'd be pleased. That's a great opportunity there to re-quote the bit about Magnegas needing less oxygen for combustion.

Speaking of which, how do you deal with the hydrogen leaking through the bottles?

Are you just relying on the wide ignition range if a bottle has been in store for a while or being used in a low volume or intermittent way? Or is this the big plus of 'older bottles' cutting better? (Not starting better, just once you get going, better)

BTW what prohibitions do you have in place for say underground work where the H leakage might build up?

34.5

I am adjusting my position on this, you ARE mistaken.

Again the danger here is that people reading this thread might actually think some of these posts are factual so lets make sure and get this mistake corrected please.

You are mixing completely the paper and theory on HHO with another theory which may relate to MagneGas, the theories are linked but the composition of each is not.

Please read what you are looking at again calmly and post a correction, here and on the other thread where you said the same thing.

You're right about the danger, but maybe not about which posts are factual and relevant, versus those that aren't.

The financial structure of Magnegas is intriguing. The founder's wife seems to be making the most money. The silent Scott Wainwright seems to be making the least. This looks like a nepotism monster inhabited by sharks and dupes, who would do best to eat each other alive. Best wishes for success in that endeavor!

It would be perfect if Silvio Berlusconi is backing this POS.

Dear Anonymous,

Mr. Anonymous, no need to hide, what you are looking at is public information, don't be afraid.

When you have MNGA stock performance of a 500% increase over 3 years there are quite a few people seeing their investments come to fruition and thats the way it should be. If someone takes a risk on a new technology they believe in well as its success grows you share in the spoils.

So I would say employees, directors and shareholders are sharing the spoils now, nothing wrong with that....

If Silvio was running the show even you might get an invite to some "Bunga-Bunga" parties!

As usual, that was completely unresponsive. Always lots of hype, never any useful (nor even correct) technical information. However, you seem very enthusiastic; why not try to see if you can wring more money out of this gig?

Why?

And look here you are now, saying magnegas has a CO health risk warning?

So Have You Switched Back to Magnegas is Syngas (CO+H) not HHO?

You'd best take that up with your advertising people and Wiki and have them delete everything about HHO (and the nut-case scammer 'fringe scientist' at the center of this).

I think the lesson here for you is; No matter how many 'stooges' you put up to post questions on CR4, it isn't going to change physics, or chemistry, or fool people who actually know something about welding and cutting and energy and economics of production.

Now you may have had some success confounding folk with your 'flip flop' tactics of 'is then isn't' then jumping out and plugging in a new 'stooge' when the truth got too 'inconvenient' in your repetitive campaign to find some sucker professional engineer's free endorsement; but far smarter con-men than you have failed to fool this dog.

Good name BTW - "Global Retch" - matches the auto-reaction I feel when subjected to incessant whiny "nice guy" blither.

Why Admin didn't stick your gambit in "commercial space" is beyond me - but then again, there is the GS reputation to consider.

34.5

Calm down and stay professional.

MagneGas has always had a CO warning as far as I can remember, if someone claims otherwise they are just not reading the MSDS.

Regarding your other point:

MagneGas is NOT HHO - MagneGas is a variation on Syngas

Take a step back and look at it again. You site wikipedia, read it again and read the MSDS.

You are just mixing up the two theories!

Nup, it doesn't seem to have changed

He's still got a hadron for magnicules - Ho ho ho, a new form of water

Like you going anonymous coward - piss weak

You are totally missing the point here your frustration is showing and is clouding your logic, as a result you are wrong.

A. You are the only person ever ever EVER that I have seen who calls MagneGas HHO, I am staring at a GCMS from a European lab that shows 55% H2 and 36% CO, how can that be HHO? Assuming the GCMS analysis is correct - calmly and professionally answer my question?

B. You are making some pretty strong accusations here and I can assure you I have never flip flopped on anything to my knowledge so:

1. I challenge you to post where I have flip flopped on the composition of MagneGas

2. I challenge you to post where I have flip flopped on MagneGas containing CO

If you find something I am happy to apologise and clear up the confusion, if you can't find anything please stop posting things which are absolutely and totally not supported by what is discussed in these threads.

IMO - You are damaging yourself and diminishing the professionalism of this website with these unsupported rants, so go fetch old dog or put a muzzle on it!

as said if you don't like the wiki link take it up with them

if indeed you are looking at 55% H2 and 36% CO you are looking at syngas, dime a dozen, get it out of the ground, fossil resource, zero 'green' zip to do with waste recycling.

& now you have the extra problem of Mr HHO pre-owning the naming rights to your brand

and the chemistry problem of the 'no extra oxygen' claim

and still the bleed through steel issue

Aside from that .... and that ... and that - and the toxicity - and the second lowest energy in the market - you're 'home free'

Yep, I'll take 2

They can say whatever they want on Wiki that has nothing to do with our discussion.

So thanks for answering my question, MagneGas appears to be similar to Syngas, A is resolved.

I'll get to your oxygen comment later....

Now lets move onto B.

"You are making some pretty strong accusations here and I can assure you I have never flip flopped on anything to my knowledge so:

1. I challenge you to post where I have flip flopped on the composition of MagneGas

2. I challenge you to post where I have flip flopped on MagneGas containing CO

If you find something I am happy to apologise and clear up the confusion, if you can't find anything please stop posting things which are absolutely and totally not supported by what is discussed in these threads.

IMO - You are damaging yourself and diminishing the professionalism of this website with these unsupported rants, so go fetch old dog or put a muzzle on it!"

"MagneGas appears to be similar to Syngas"

Yep, would seem you mental giants have re-branded syngas and picked a name distinguished from HHO by a capital G.

yar "later" is good

Like I care about the opinion of a serial product blogger and/or the hired stooges you use to sneak these threads into the system, like you have nothing to do with it but pop up to tell us all about it's warm fuzzy goodness.

I have people on CR4 that at least manage 5 y.o. tantrums at me and even one ranter who likes to post men in tight shorts, I'd put ahead of you in the "respect" stakes.

Ok,

I'm trying hard to stay on topic here:

So you agree that MagneGas is probably just a trade name for a type of Syngas and is not HHO?

Don't you google get $30 per product mention ever know when to quit?

So you are saying yes?

34.5

As I have stated a few times there is a danger that someone reading this thread might think that your statements are representative of this technology as opposed to just being a misguided rant. A professional website such as this burdens users to present the best available objective and impartial information so clearing this up is important.

Lets put aside your bold and unsubstantiated accusations for a moment and focus on correcting your previous statement about the composition of Magnegas.

And before you turn red and start banging away on the keys: don't take it out on me!

I tried several times to point out your error very nicely at first and you just got more and more angry at me I'm not really sure why.

So to clear this up - you now understand that MagneGas' composition makes it a type of Syngas, a simple yes or no will clear this up and then "we can move on".

So to clear this up - you now understand that MagneGas' composition makes it a type of Syngas, a simple yes or no will clear this up and then "we can move on".

Negative. Syngas is composed primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and very often some carbon dioxide. MagneGas is composed of hypothetical magnecules.

You refer to 34 and-a-half as making a misguided rant. You may believe it to be a rant, that is up to you. His position is not misguided.

Doorman,

Welcome to this thread, I hope you are here to objectively add value to this otherwise mixed discussion.

34.5 already confirmed that MagneGas is a Syngas and not HHO as he previously stated ("Yep, would seem you mental giants have re-branded syngas"). For the benefit of people reading this thread I was hoping he could man-up and repeat that without all of the chaff surrounding it. Someone visiting this thread who doesn't know 34.5 character might think he knows what he is talking about so it's important to get this very basic correction on record.

One of the very principles of this website is for people with different points of view to professionally counter their position and come hopefully to a conclusion for the better of others. So when I refer to a rant it's not the content that is a rant it's the unprofessional comments and unsupported accusations which qualify it as a rant.

Regarding your position that is fine but I don't believe the MagneCule theory and it would take a battery of independent tests to prove it to me.

MagneGas' composition is H2 and CO, the MSDS says so and my independent GCMS says so and some other unpublished more recent tests confirm it as well.

To the guy with the torch all that theory doesn't matter as long as it cuts faster and is safer to use than acetylene which I believe it is.

p.s. Great Avatar!

Pantaz,

Trust me this is not a press release, it talks about the theories and how they are not generally accepted and how there are detractors - how you can be construe it as a press release is beyond me.

I have seen these units operating in the US, Italy and China so I know what I am talking about here unlike (I would bet) everybody "participating" in this discussion.

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,

"Trust me this is not a press release, it talks about the theories and how they are not generally accepted and how there are detractors - how you can be construe it as a press release is beyond me."

I did not call it a press release. I said, "It's not much more than a press release."

"I have seen these units operating in the US, Italy and China so I know what I am talking about here unlike (I would bet) everybody "participating" in this discussion."

In what capacity were/are you involved?

"Regarding antifreeze I think you are asking in your own special way a question as to why they are using antifreeze?"

Actually, I had a mental picture of trucks loading up cases of Prestone and delivering it to Magnegas. Not what I would call the epitome of efficiency.

Considering that the feedstock for acetylene gas, calcium carbide, is not trivial to make, and that storage of acetylene involves acetone-filled cylinders (because if you just compress acetylene gas WITHOUT dissolving it in acetone, it detonates violently), the cost comparison between acetylene from calcium carbide and magnegas from ethylene glycol is actually not ludicrous at all. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other.

As regards MagneGas' brass-lunged assertions that their product is a "green gas," however - ethylene glycol is a petroleum byproduct, so its use as the MagneGas feedstock renders this NOT a "green gas" at all. The ethylene comes from natural gas; the glycols are, likewise condensed from natural gas or cracked from petroleum.

So, so very far from being a "green gas," MagneGas depends on petroleum and natural gas for its existence, and will until it can demonstrate production runs actually coming from waste feedstock.

It's like saying "Oh, no, we don't eat bread... we eat TOAST."

And I have to say that until we actually SEE some waste being made into the same MagneGas currently being hydrolzyed (or whatever) from new ethylene glycol, the "green"-ness of MagneGas exists only in press releases.

As far as what they can legally tell investors, this excerpt from a disclaimer following several articles on MagneGas in the New York Times Business section says it all:

"FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The information contained herein includes forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events, including our ability to raise capital, or to our future financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements since they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could, and likely will, materially affect actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. Any forward-looking statement reflects our current views with respect to future events and is subject to these and other risks, uncertainties and assumptions relating to our operations, results of operations, growth strategy and liquidity. We assume no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future...

...The Company is currently using new antifreeze, vegetable oil and ethylene glycol to produce fuel until proper permits to process used liquid waste have been obtained."

So down at the bottom of the article, in the fine print at the end of the "Forward Looking Statements" disclaimer required by the SEC for anything said by a company seeking capital to prospective investors, we learn that they're not promising they'll EVER make MagneGas from anything but vegetable oil or ethylene glycol (which is what most new antifreeze IS).

I suppose that you could prop up a claim that new vegetable oil is a "green" feedstock if you squint and ignore all the diesel fuel the farmers have to burn to plant, grow, harvest and ship the soybeans used to MAKE the vegetable oil.

As far as I'm concerned, the only waste conversion we're seeing at present with MagneGas is the transformation of an allegorical bovine byproduct by a nonpatentable machine called the "Internet" into unsupported claims which are propping up a rise in the price of MagneGas stock.

I have to correct my statement in one regard; acetylene's made by the partial combustion of methane nowadays, not by hydration of calcium carbide (since the petrochemical economy came to the forefront in the 1950s).

Otherwise, my statements stand. As it is now made, "MagneGas" isn't any "greener" than acetylene. Most of it's made from virgin ethylene glycol, which is itself a petrochemical, so that oil and natural gas are still being used ultimately to make either gas. Until MagneGas Corporation stops implying otherwise in their promotional material... they're not being entirely truthful with would-be customers or would-be investors.

Jean you are posting so much I am having trouble keeping up as I work.

Please understand that compared to Acetylene MagneGas is a Green Gas which CAN come from renewables.

Organizations are looking for a replacement to Acetylene due to several reasons such as it's inherent instability and hazardous emissions, in these respects MagneGas is a Green Gas.

MagneGas developed from Ethylene Glycol vs Acetylene is like comparing Methane to Petrol:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/honda-civic-natural-gas-wins-2012-green-car-year/

The article explains it well that while it is not Renewable (MagneGas from Sewage would be Green AND Renewable) having a car run on Methane is better than Petrol. Using MagneGas is Greener than Acetylene.

Again, MagneGas is a Green Gas compared to Acetylene and if the Florida factory could bring liquid wastes on-site it would be Green and Renewable, nobody is hiding this fact as you can see from their news releases.

GlobalReach: "Jean you are posting so much I am having trouble keeping up as I work.

Please understand that compared to Acetylene MagneGas is a Green Gas which CAN come from renewables.

Organizations are looking for a replacement to Acetylene due to several reasons such as it's inherent instability and hazardous emissions, in these respects MagneGas is a Green Gas.

MagneGas developed from Ethylene Glycol vs Acetylene is like comparing Methane to Petrol:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/honda-civic-natural-gas-wins-2012-green-car-year/

The article explains it well that while it is not Renewable (MagneGas from Sewage would be Green AND Renewable) having a car run on Methane is better than Petrol. Using MagneGas is Greener than Acetylene.

Again, MagneGas is a Green Gas compared to Acetylene and if the Florida factory could bring liquid wastes on-site it would be Green and Renewable, nobody is hiding this fact as you can see from their news releases."

And if pigs could fly they'd be large pigeons.

The fact is - and let's focus on the verb "is," not the subjunctive "would be" - that MagneGas as sold today is the by-product of a process using virgin ethylene glycol. That's not "recycling," because the ethylene glycol is coming straight from a petrochemical plant; it's made from natural gas and petroleum. It's just a very inefficient use of nonrenewable oil and natural gas to make a cutting gas. So selling it as a "green gas" is misleading, just as if I were to destructively distill gasoline and claim the gas I got from THAT was somehow "green."

And running a car on MagneGas is no more "green" than running it on methane would be if the methane were exclusively derived from petroleum or natural gas. In each case, the fuel is petroleum or natural gas after it's been run through a petrochemical plant. It's a common misconception that hydrogen is somehow "green" even if it comes from a petrochemical plant, as most hydrogen does.

It's really funny hearing from YOU that I'm posting so much you can't keep up with me. Your posts are the predominant contribution to the traffic in this site. I think the problem is that you're defending the only slightly defensible here, and it's not fun for you.

"The fact is - and let's focus on the verb "is," not the subjunctive "would be" - that MagneGas as sold today is the by-product of a process using virgin ethylene glycol. That's not "recycling," because the ethylene glycol is coming straight from a petrochemical plant; it's made from natural gas and petroleum. It's just a very inefficient use of nonrenewable oil and natural gas to make a cutting gas. So selling it as a "green gas" is misleading, just as if I were to destructively distill gasoline and claim the gas I got from THAT was somehow "green.""

Excellent summary.

After spending some time reading the other CR4 thread, and one at skepticforum.com, I've concluded that I've wasted entirely too much time on this subject.

At least the ridiculous sideline on the financial/stocks situation got me studying penny stocks a bit more. Risky stuff. It's primarily "trading", and not "investing" in the classical sense of buying stock, holding on to it and receiving dividends. Profit only comes from getting rid of the stock!

Trading penny stocks relies on the fact that small monetary fluctuations result in large statistical changes. E.g., buying at ten cents and selling at twenty cents is a 100% return! Of course, since (almost) everybody else (including the CEO) is doing the same thing, you're really gambling on when is the best time to sell.

So, MagneGas Co. may find some success in supplying an alternative metal cutting gas, if the industry accepts it. As far as the technology is concerned, it really looks like much more hype than substance.

Excellent summary.

That should put an end to the mud slinging. The fast profit proponents have a lot to answer for. Maybe next time they'll get away with it, if they would allow a new technology to prove itself in the field and let the customers do the talking and buying.

I wonder if the inventor has insight into what is happening (management side) or if he and his considerable and earnest research are just the bait and he is not aware of dangling on a hook.

Thanks pantaz, very informative links, I'm over it, for now.

Ky.

Ky,

The problem with the subjective and unprofessional comments on this otherwise great website is that people might actually think that these posts reflect on the MagneGas product or company and that the posters have used the product or have spoken to customers who have. This is clearly not the case so me having used the product and experienced their customers will objectively defend it.

So wow I agree with one of your comments as long you throw a wide net with your word "they":

"if they (posters on this thread included) would allow a new technology to prove itself in the field and let the customers do the talking and buying"

Hi GR

I was and am interested mostly in the technical aspects of this technology. It is something that I had to get my head around to assist with developing a theory on what I will be proposing once it becomes a fully rounded paper.

Nothing else is of interest to me. It is valuable to watch the scrutiny which this approach to a 'greener fuel' is perceived and reacted upon. It is a good lesson for any inventor to be reminded that realities are not always made of hardware.

Good luck to us, Ky.

"... if they would allow a new technology to prove itself in the field and let the customers do the talking and buying."

Yeah, that follows along with some unanswered questions on a couple of other forums:

http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?t=53589

http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/shortage-acetylene-195160-3.html

Pantaz,

Remember I am originally from Finance and anybody worth their salt in that field knows insider sales and buys are normal. For example look at all these Apple insider trades? Does that mean the stock is BS, obviously not.:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=aapl

We don't want to get back into the financial side do we now????

Regarding your penny stock comments I'll take you up on your previous offer to show some other green tech companies who have had similar performance, so please post what you've seen so we can compare.

Regarding the Skeptic Forum it has proven to be a more mature conversation than here on CR4. It is a internet forum none-the-less but I would say the majority of posters have been interested in sharing their knowledge in their particular field of expertise. Of course they have been critical but very few "one-liners" to "slam" the topic there and very few totally subjective turds who even when you poo a golden egg in their hand they still insist it's coal because that's what their original position was at the start of the thread....

That leads me to 34.5, I really hope he can man-up to what was clearly a simple mistake made under duress, now compounding that with unsupported accusations is another matter. Actually that was his last post for a very long time, longer than in his most recent history so I hope I didn't upset him too much, I just want the record set straight.

I agree broadly on something you wrote, your last statement is a little harsh but in the right directio, I don't care about the theories what I care about is the business and it is going well, why? The industry is searching for a replacement product and MagneGas is delivering that. Guys on the hot end of the torch would just walk away if it didn't work...

"... I'll take you up on your previous offer to show some other green tech companies who have had similar performance ..."

First, my actual words were, "If you think that silly spreadsheet exercise makes MGNA look successful, I'd be happy to present numbers for some other companies in comparison."

Second, Magnegas, as it is currently produced, is not "green". The company is operating as an industrial gas producer/supplier.

I will gather some info on related companies, but it may be a couple of days before I have time to spare.

Pantaz,

If I was your financial advisor I would suggest that comparing the stock performance of a rapidly growing but still fledgling green tech company to a mature industry filled with competitors will be interesting but futile. That said you seem to post some good research on this thread so I am interested in the result.

If you want to objectively stay focused on what was agreed, stock performance in the MagneGas peer group you should look at its industry peers as recognized by Morningstar:

http://financials.morningstar.com/competitors/industry-peer.action?t=MNGA®ion=USA&culture=en_US

You and Jean are looking at this the wrong way and the majority of the "Green" industry is against your subjective position.

MagneGas is Green because it burns cleaner than other gases on the market, Green doesn't necessarily mean that it comes from a Renewable source.

For example the 2011 Green car of the year is a Natural Gas Honda:

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/honda-natural-gas-civic-is-named-green-car-of-the-year.html

Was it green because it runs on renewables? No - Natural Gas is not renewable, it was voted GREEN car of the year because what comes out of the tailpipe is "GREENER THAN THE COMPETITION".

MagneGas is similarly green, if you have any doubt skip to 1:16 of this video to compare the flame against Acetylene:

http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/media-center/view/223

Pantaz and Jean (I am starting to think you are the same person),

I would still like to see your comment about the 2011 "GREEN" car of the year being a natural gas car (of course not coming from renewables sources),

This is a good humility and objectivity test for you so lets not let this one drop.

With Cars and MagneGas:

GREEN means it burns cleaner, RENEWABLE means it comes from renewable sources

MagneGas from non renewable feedstocks is already GREEN, MagneGas from renewable feedstocks is GREEN AND RENEWABLE.

Geez, you're still going on about this?

Thanks to idiotic marketing practices, labeling anything "green" is largely a matter of semantics. Your particular definitions of "green" and "renewable" do not match my definitions.

Ok Jean,

Lets take a little different example:

There are cities around the world that are running buses not on Diesel but on CNG and branding them loosely as "Green Buses".

Do you agree with this fact?

Replying to Comment by GlobalReach:

"Ok Jean,

Lets take a little different example:

There are cities around the world that are running buses not on Diesel but on CNG and branding them loosely as "Green Buses".

Do you agree with this fact?"

NO CNG-fueled vehicle is "green" - "green" meaning "powered by renewable energy sources." T. Boone Pickens, who owns a big piece of the US natural gas industry, started the canard that CNG/LNG is somehow "green," but that's just as much spin as MagneGas's claim that their product is in any way "green."

The same goes for any hybrid (hydrocarbon/hydrogen fuel/electric) vehicle - they're not "green," either. Diesel powerplants can be built with as good or better fuel efficiency and comparably clean emissions.

Nice try on saving the "green MagneGas" meme, though - and I'm saying this to remind the person who rated your original post "off-topic" that we're still discussing MagneGas. Until MagneGas sold to commercial accounts is made from anything but virgin hydrocarbon feedstocks, it's not a renewable energy source and not green.

I'd also like MagneGas Corporation to withdraw their statement that MagneGas is an appropriate fuel for domestic uses. You can't say that about a gas mixture which is over 30 percent carbon monoxide. ANY release of unburned MagneGas in an enclosed space (like a home or camper or tent) is an URGENT short-term health hazard and potentially lethal. The problem isn't asphyxiation but the property of carbon monoxide that it combines with hemoglobin cumulatively and MORE STRONGLY than does oxygen, causing anyone breathing it to suffer severe metabolic poisoning.

Dear Jean, I am just going to copy paste my answer to your similar posts on Skeptics forum. But to ask directly are you also Loupgarous on Skeptics Forum, right?

What you are saying is that while the MSDS does clearly say:

POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS

INHALATION: Prolonged inhalation of pre-combustion vapors may result in loss of function, brain damage, and even death. There is a high concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the gas in its pre-combustion stage."

You feel that there are other sections of the MSDS which should also state the presence of CO, for example in the Acute Health Hazard Section?

That is fine and what I always say is better safe than sorry, you have added some value to this discussion and for that I thank you.

Regarding the green nature of MagneGas, I suggest you play to your strength in the technical field as all you have to do is skip forward to 1.15 of this video to see the natural flame of MagneGas vs the Sooty flame of Acetylene:

http://www.magnegas.eu/

If MagneGas burns cleaner than Acetylene then it is Green compare to Acetylene if it come from waste liquids then it is ALSO renewable.

The industry is looking for a cleaner, stable and efficient alternative to Acetylene and MagneGas is definitely a very good alternative.

Like I said play to your strengths - unless you are seeing a different flame in this picture than I am - the video proves it is Green when compared to Acetylene.

"...the natural flame of MagneGas vs the Sooty flame of Acetylene"

Soot only occurs with an improper (too rich) fuel/oxygen mix, causing incomplete combustion. If acetylene did not burn cleanly, it could not be used for welding.

JF,

One small correction, Acetylene is still made from Calcium Carbine, hence the recent unfortunate events:

http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?t=52806

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/loui-a04.shtml

Pantaz,

I think we've covered your sweeping statement about Anti-freeze and an intelligent person reading this would realize that you know you are wrong but simply lack the humility to admit it. My recommendation is to keep a more open disposition particularly to new technologies, inquire then listen and then comment, internalize responses, adjust your position based on fair and available information then repost. You need to keep in mind you are not dealng with hammers, nails or doughuts so when you choose to enter into a discussion about a new technology adjust your expectations, stay out of the discussion or have the maturity to adjust your statements when reasonable information is presented as intelligent people do.

I know what you are thinking, verifiable data, well your requirement for verifiable data is a good objective but if you use it as a requirement for acceptable responses you should conversely use that same yardstick for your own statements. A new technology such as this requires a measured approach, making sweeping statements based on one line you've read in a magazine reflects poorly on your intellect and is an afront to the spirit of this website.

The most dangerous risk of all would be if someone reading your posts might for a moment think that you actually know what you are talking about, at least I have not stood by to let that happen.

CR4 Admin - email address removed

From the CR4 Rules: Do not post phone numbers or email addresses. The CR4 Admin will delete all phone numbers and email addresses posted in threads or comments. You can share this information via the CR4 internal messaging system.

"... when reasonable information is presented ..."

Still waiting!

Why do you refuse to offer evidence to support your assertions?

I've led the horse to water on the sweeping antifreeze comment, any reasonable and intelligent person can see you are digging a deeper hole for yourself on that one. For certain customers producing MagneGas from Ethyl glycol which consumes so little liquid in Total mode is a great opportunity for them to produce their own oxy fuel and stop overpaying for bottled gases.

Let's move onto easier sweeping statements but this time let's drip feed it so you don't get overwhelmed.

Stock Market Performance:

Magnegas' stock performance in 2011 was an increase of 87% so if you invested $10,000 on January 1st you investment in MagneGas would now be work $18,700ish.

Pantaz,

Can you confirm that statement, yes or no?

Quote, GlobalReach: "I've led the horse to water on the sweeping antifreeze comment, any reasonable and intelligent person can see you are digging a deeper hole for yourself on that one." /Quote

That's still bugging you?? [For those that haven't read the whole thread, my initial comment on the use of anti-freeze as a feed-stock was: "Wow. That sounds cost efficient."]

Quote, GlobalReach: "For certain customers producing MagneGas from Ethyl glycol which consumes so little liquid in Total mode is a great opportunity for them to produce their own oxy fuel and stop overpaying for bottled gases." /Quote

Bare assertion fallacy.

Quote, GlobalReach: "Let's move onto easier sweeping statements but this time let's drip feed it so you don't get overwhelmed." /Quote

These personal snipes only serve to further diminish your reputation.

Quote, GlobalReach: "Stock Market Performance:
Magnegas' stock performance in 2011 was an increase of 87% so if you invested $10,000 on January 1st you investment in MagneGas would now be work $18,700ish.

Pantaz,
Can you confirm that statement, yes or no?" /Quote

Once again you present nothing more than bare assertion. (I notice you've decreased your initial claim of "100%ish".)

According to NASDAQ, your claim does not reflect the performance of MagneGas Corp (MNGA). http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga/historical
For the period 30-Dec-2010 through 30-Dec-2011, the average daily change in stock price was -0.0023 (negative 2.3 cents). Oh, you said January 1st, so let's recalculate those figures -- That changes it to... -0.0022 (negative 2.2 cents).

There's some interesting information in the latest SEC filings, but that's getting deeper into the financials than I feel is appropriate for this thread.

Enough about stock prices. It has nothing to do with the science and engineering. (For that matter, why is this thread in "BioTech & BioMed"?)

Pantaz, You certainly could give a woodpecker a headache!

YOUR sweeping statement number two or three lead us to the market performance now dont run away from it.

"As for Magnegas, Inc., it looks like they are scrambling to stay alive...

Stock Report:

Dec 23, 2011, 3:48 p.m.

Market closed $0.20

Previous close $ 0.20

Change 0.00 0.00%

Volume 44,647 "

You need to be taught that sometimes when you post this crap someone will call you on it. People who post sweeping statements about things they don't understand reflects poorly on themselves and god forbid someone reading this might for a moment thing you know what you are talking about. It is important that this behaviour is exposed for what it is: nothing but armchair bravado.

Regarding my 100%ish increase statement I am confident enough in myself as a person and have the humility to correct myself. Apologies for the error 87.5% is the correct stock market performance of Magnegas over a 12 month period.

You seem to be superficially performing your analysis again using the link you provided or you simply don't understand what you are reading, please look again.

And confirm 87.5% increase in the market value of Magnegas 12/30 to 12/30.

This is simple and verifiable information exactly what you have been asking for! Don't run away from this one, take a deep breath and please confirm it.

"...87.5% is the correct stock market performance of Magnegas over a 12 month period."

The figures available from NASDAQ, MarketWatch, and NY Times, do not agree with your claim. Either provide a reference for your 87.5% or quit complaining.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/MNGA

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga/historical

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/business/companies/magnegas-corporation/index.html

"This is simple and verifiable information exactly what you have been asking for!"

Then, please, help me find the data -- post a link, or at least name the source.

Ok, After a 30 minute call to Schwab they were not able to explain to me the 87.5% result which was showing in their online report, actually they were not able to explain ANY "1 year" performance result on their website and have an "logged a ticket with their vendor to clarify or correct the 1 year performance measure on their website."

So let do it manually with latest data results:

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga/historical

"Select the Timeframe:" - choose 1 year

Comparing latest close of $0.245 on 1/10/2012 with of $0.1211 on 1/10/2011 you get a YOY result of 102% increase.

Pantaz, please confirm this 100% ish YOY increase.

Thanks,

Yes, twenty four cents is one hundred percent greater than twelve cents. So, if you had the great luck to buy a penny stock near its lowest and sell near its highest, you can make a lot of money. I'll leave the gamblers to speculate on such matters.

Can we move on now? Will you be addressing any of the meaningful questions in this thread?

Pantaz,

Thanks for confirming my previous statement that MagneGas has given a 100%ish return to it's investors YOY, it is important that I understand you are capable of admitting these simple things as fact.

Conditioning your confirmation of the 100%ish increase in stock value reflects poorly on your objectivity but I know you pretty well now and I am sure that is the closest you are capable of in admitting fault, but - don't worry - I'll give you another opportunity to redeem yourself later.

Can you also confirm that over the past 3 years the stock has increased over 500%?

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga/historical

"Select the Timeframe:" - choose 3 years

Comparing latest close of $0.245 on 1/10/2012 with of $0.04 on 1/9/2009 you get a 3 year stock performance result of 512% increase.

Therefore now please confirm a 512% increase is stock market valuation of MagneGas over 3 years.

I'll play your stock pricing game after you answer some of the technical issues we have tried to discuss.

Agreed,

I am eager to have a meaningful discussion about MagneGas as I feel this really excellent website is a perfect forum for people to learn about the benefits and limitations of this and other potentially great new technologies.

But all it takes is one person to ruin it for everybody, making statements based superficial information and then raising the bar substantially in order to "accept" responses goes against the spirit of this and other websites which are for the benefit of intelligent professionals. These people have an earnest interest in learning about new tech normally not available to them in their professional circle.

For example my focus on stock valuation is to respond logically to your statement saying that MagneGas is "scrambling to stay alive". Given that MagneGas' YOY stock performance is 100%ish and their 3 year stock performance is 500%ish is verifiable information as you requested. This healthy increase in stock values by anybody's standards all translates directly and indirectly into more available resources for any corporation to call upon to develop, produce and grow. And this doesn't include the $3m+ received in November from private investors! Yes like any green tech company or heck any small company these days there are ups and downs and nothing comes on a silver platter but offhanded comments about their financial position are probably off the mark given the verifiable information presented.

So lets move on..... but first Pantaz come clean on this statement:

"According to NASDAQ, your claim does not reflect the performance of MagneGas Corp (MNGA). http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga/historical

For the period 30-Dec-2010 through 30-Dec-2011, the average daily change in stock price was -0.0023 (negative 2.3 cents). Oh, you said January 1st, so let's recalculate those figures -- That changes it to... -0.0022 (negative 2.2 cents)."

Come clean and I will avoid extrapolating on the logic of what you wrote above, so what did you do wrong with the your above statement:

1. Did you superficially review the NASDAQ website?

or

2. Did you simply not understand the information you were seeing on the NASDAQ website?

It can be only one of the two, please avoid conditional responses.

Then I swear it will be water under the bridge......

I recalculated the figures and I see that I did have the values reversed. The average daily change (closing price versus opening price) is +0.0022, not negative. My apologies.

Here is the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av0qvKCcH200dEE3dkJfeHRETmJ5d2ZsanVMZE5nRHc

ETA: For the record, the daily high - low averages 0.0172

(Jan 03, 2011 through Jan 03, 2012 = 253 trading days)

Ok, Thanks lets move on!

Maybe to this?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/53835