MagneGas, Anyone?

Step right up for 3-card Monte...

MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #1  Postby Bart Stewart » Mon May 17, 2010 9:14 pm

This one looks a little like perpetual motion, or free energy, or at least a contraption wherein you get out the same amount of energy you put into it or slightly less. We discussed "Bloom Boxes" once, inconclusively as I recall, so now let's take a look at MagneGas.

I first spotted it in a message board post relating to the BP Oil Spill. They were soliciting funds (red flag?) to "ship a barrel of the spilled oil" to the MagneGas lab for testing to see if their patented process could clean it up. A little research showed a small internet footprint for this Florida outfit, which claims a process for converting waste water (sewage, oil spills, gray water, etc.) into fuel similar to natural gas. -

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/magneg ... _news_stmp

From the article: "About MagneGas Corporation (http://www.magnegas.com) Founded in 2007, Tampa-based MagneGas Corporation  (MNGA 0.10, 0.00, 0.00%) is the producer of MagneGas(TM), a natural gas alternative and metal working fuel made from liquid waste such as sewage, sludge, manure and certain industrial and oil based liquid wastes. The Company's patented Plasma Arc Flow(TM) process gasifies liquid waste, creating a clean burning fuel that is essentially interchangeable with natural gas, but with lower green house gas emissions. MagneGas(TM) can be used for metal cutting, cooking, heating or powering bi fuel automobiles."

Unfortunately, under the Google heading for MagneGas there is a category called "MagneGas Scam." Strangely though, the scam category doesn't contain much of great consequence, just some message board posts decrying the company's
'Plasma Arc Flow" as pseudo-quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo. I link the best one for you here -

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 033AAmt51Y

Another site had a lengthy and vigorous defense of the company -

http://agoracom.com/ir/magnegas/forums/ ... es/1200458

So now (sniffle ... sob) - I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!!!
Bart Stewart
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:27 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #2  Postby Skeptagenarian » Mon May 17, 2010 11:32 pm

From their own site:
NOTE 3: Our technology provides "MagneGas Fuel Refineries" that, as such, cannot be legally or profitably operated unless utmost priority is given to the use and/or sale of MagneGas fuel for automotive, metal cutting, cooking, and other approved uses.


It "cannot be legally or profitably operated"? Huh??

It doesn't give but a basic synopsis on the science, but it seems to me that the cost of production and disposal of waste would outweigh any profit from this weird gas mixture they trademarked. Plus, it's a genset on the back of a flatbed semi. It just looks unsophisticated, as if it should reside in a high-tech trailer park.

I'm skeptical, if nothing else, from the above quoted post from their site.
Skeptagenarian
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:41 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #3  Postby Gord » Wed May 19, 2010 4:15 pm

Bart Stewart wrote:They were soliciting funds (red flag?) to "ship a barrel of the spilled oil" to the MagneGas lab for testing to see if their patented process could clean it up. A little research showed a small internet footprint for this Florida outfit...

Their device is shown on the back of a semi trailer.  And they're based in Florida.  Why would they need to ship a barrel of oil to a mobile unit parked within sneezing distance of the affected coastline? :scratch:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19767
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #4  Postby JO 753 » Wed May 19, 2010 9:37 pm

Read sum uv Santelliz mumbo jumbo. Looks like a scam, but there are lejit companiez making methane frum bio waste.
User avatar
JO 753
rezident owtsidr
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8009
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #5  Postby Globalreach » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:44 am

Dear All,

I am one of the few people who has spent a good amount of time around the MagneGas recyclers and I can assure you that from my non-technical perspective it does what is says on the can....

What I know cuz I've seen it with my own eyes:

1. It transforms Liquid Bio-Wastes into a Bio-Gas - I watched this over and over, no scam here whatsoever
2. The Bio-Gas (they call it MagneGas) burns and cuts metal similar to Acetylene - I have seen this in the US and in Europe
3. What comes out of the machines is either Carbon and Gas or Water, Carbonized Solids and Gas - I have seen this as well.
4. The EPA has tested this gas and it burns like 9 times cleaner than Petrol and 4 times cleaner than Natural gas - I have seen this EPA agency printout of the gas analysis after combustion.

What I believe but have not done myself but people I trust have:
5. MagneGas is 65% hydrogen and this can be separated by PSA or Cryo - This has been done in the US and in Europe, a friend of mine in Italy did this, he is in the Gas industry and I trust him

Forget all the Scientific BS, items 1-4 are true and correct, if item 5 is also correct AND, AND it can be produced economically then we will have a winning process.

IF this can be done economically then the Magnegas Technology may actually usher in the foundation of an entire industry similar to the Bio-Mass industry, using liquids instead of solids.

I'd be happy to answer your questions about what I have written above.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #6  Postby xouper » Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:30 pm

Globalreach wrote:I'd be happy to answer your questions about what I have written above.

1. Is MagneGas (which is essentially diluted hydrogen) cheaper to buy than natural gas (methane)?

2. How many kWh of electricity are used to generate each kilogram of MagneGas?

3. What's the street address of the corporate office in Palm Harbor, FL?
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #7  Postby Globalreach » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:54 am

Dear Xouper:

1. Is MagneGas (which is essentially diluted hydrogen) cheaper to buy than natural gas (methane)?

No, I don't think it ever will be. Speaking the Magnegas team they are targeting acetylene and hydrogen right now. If a bio-liquid industry is created and there are enough economies of scale then maybe yes but personally I doubt we will see that in my lifetime.

2. How many kWh of electricity are used to generate each kilogram of MagneGas?

What I have is in metric:

A "300kw" machine consuming about 250kw per hour transforms about 140 liters of bio-liquid to produce 150 cubic meters of Magnegas (which is about 65% hydrogen). How to convert that into kilo's I don't know.

3. What's the street address of the corporate office in Palm Harbor, FL?

From their website (which is not the best I've ever seen): www.magnegas.com

150 Rainville Rd., Tarpon Springs, FL 34689, U.S.A.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #8  Postby Flash » Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:14 am

Jo 753 wrote;
Read sum uv Santelliz mumbo jumbo. Looks like a scam, but there are lejit companiez making methane frum bio waste.

I make methane from bio-waste all the time. although the silent collection remains an unsolved problem. :mrgreen:
O the press, the press, the freedom of the press.
They’ll never take away the freedom of the press.
We must be free to say whatever’s on our chest—
with a hey-diddle-dee and ho-nanny-no
for whichever side will pay the best.
From The Cradle Will Rock.

Thanks from:
kennyc
User avatar
Flash
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #9  Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:50 am

Flash wrote:Jo 753 wrote;
Read sum uv Santelliz mumbo jumbo. Looks like a scam, but there are lejit companiez making methane frum bio waste.

I make methane from bio-waste all the time. although the silent collection remains an unsolved problem. :mrgreen:

Ignition at the source will obviate containment costs.
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #10  Postby Globalreach » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:39 am

Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #11  Postby spyro727 » Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:55 am

The technology is real I have made several visits more like weekly. They are making sales all over the world and have picked up sales for metal cutting causing them to have to build bigger equipment for the local market. As for the pictures on the Semi that is an older machine already shipped to another country and that is why they couldn't go to the oil with it plus the cost there was no assurance of closing a deal for this. We live in a greedy country and our government ignores the technology, BP would not want something that would eventually put them out of business. If you have any questions you can email me @ tiny415bmf@aol.com
spyro727
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:39 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #12  Postby Globalreach » Thu May 26, 2011 1:14 pm

More good developments from MagneGas:

As the health effects of acetylene and other hydrocarbon based oxy-cutting gases is realised and therefore becomes a legal liability US government agencies are leading the way to identify a replacement and MagneGas is leading the way:

The US Navy is testing MagneGas to replace acetylene which is being eliminated from their operations due to compliance issues associated with unhealthy emissions.

http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/company- ... y-projects
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #13  Postby Globalreach » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:32 am

More good news:

US Navy Studies on MagneGas:

http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/company- ... y-projects

Hydrogen Separated from MagneGas:

http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/company- ... ble-source
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #14  Postby loupgarous » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:28 am

Bart Stewart wrote:This one looks a little like perpetual motion, or free energy, or at least a contraption wherein you get out the same amount of energy you put into it or slightly less. We discussed "Bloom Boxes" once, inconclusively as I recall, so now let's take a look at MagneGas.

I first spotted it in a message board post relating to the BP Oil Spill. They were soliciting funds (red flag?) to "ship a barrel of the spilled oil" to the MagneGas lab for testing to see if their patented process could clean it up. A little research showed a small internet footprint for this Florida outfit, which claims a process for converting waste water (sewage, oil spills, gray water, etc.) into fuel similar to natural gas. -
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/magneg ... _news_stmp


For those of us who didn't grow up on the US Gulf Coast like me, the state of Florida's not that damn big.  The "funds" for a trip in Dr. Santilli's MagneGas-powered Suburban from their shop near Tampa 60 miles to Pensacola Beach to scoop up all the BP oil they wanted for free would have been US$40 for a U-Haul trailer to spare the Suburban's carpet and upholstery, and another US$60 for a tank of fuel (just in case MagneGas won't work on US Highway 90).  We know from company video the truck's already got a trailer hitch, so they wouldn't have even needed money for THAT.  So the total price of that jaunt (let's be harsh and make them bring bag lunches and their own soft drinks) - US$100.

"From the article: "About MagneGas Corporation (http://www.magnegas.com) Founded in 2007, Tampa-based MagneGas Corporation  (MNGA 0.10, 0.00, 0.00%) is the producer of MagneGas(TM), a natural gas alternative and metal working fuel made from liquid waste such as sewage, sludge, manure and certain industrial and oil based liquid wastes. The Company's patented Plasma Arc Flow(TM) process gasifies liquid waste, creating a clean burning fuel that is essentially interchangeable with natural gas, but with lower green house gas emissions. MagneGas(TM) can be used for metal cutting, cooking, heating or powering bi fuel automobiles."

Unfortunately, under the Google heading for MagneGas there is a category called "MagneGas Scam." Strangely though, the scam category doesn't contain much of great consequence, just some message board posts decrying the company's 'Plasma Arc Flow" as pseudo-quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo. I link the best one for you here -

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 033AAmt51Y

Another site had a lengthy and vigorous defense of the company -

http://agoracom.com/ir/magnegas/forums/ ... es/1200458

So now (sniffle ... sob) - I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!!!


Let me see if I can help, Bart.

We can reduce the magnitude of the "what to believe?" project by agreeing to disagree about Dr. Santilli's "novel" mathematics.  Whether the inclusion of an entropy term affects the plausibility of his "magnecules" or not is immaterial.  

First, some of the remarkable claims made for the chemistry of MagneGas:

We can stick to good old-fashioned chemistry and MagneGas's own MSDS file for their metal cutting gas.

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -19-11.pdf

MagneGas, according to the chemical assay in that MSDS file, is 69.5% hydrogen, 28% carbon monoxide, 1.4% methane, .67% nitrogen, 0.22% oxygen, and some other gases

Now, one of Dr. Santilli's claims (repeated in that very same MSDS file - which I troubled to save to my hard drive as a .pdf and will make available to anyone if it "disappears") is that the combustion of MagneGas releases surplus oxygen.  That's right.  Burn this stuff and your air is fresher than when you started.

I didn't believe it, either, because I passed high school chemistry.

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 a back of the envelope inquiry based on experience, into 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 him, he'll spend some of those millions he says he's gotten in a capital offering (http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/ ... l=13441450 - "MagneGas Announces Completion of $3,146,000 Private Placement Transaction," New York Times Business Day Markets, " November 8th, 2011) 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.

Second, has any MagneGas ever been made from waste for use as in metal cutting?  How "green" IS MagneGas, anyway?

I only ask because at the bottom of that article, there's a disclaimer required by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission for anything a company seeking investment capital says where a potential investor is apt to read it (like the "Business Day Markets" section of the New York Times.  It's called "Forward Looking Statements," and the one specific statement about MagneGas in all that boilerplate which says "don't take our word for a single thing we're saying about what our product will do in the future" in Anglo-Latin is:

"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."

That's right.  As of November 8th, 2011, about two and a half months ago, all the MagneGas sold has been made from virgin ethylene glycol and vegetable oil.   We have MagneGas Corporation's word in black and white at the very bottom of the press release, just before they tell you to go to the company's SEC filings for the real story, that they're not telling you whether they'll EVER make MagneGas from liquid waste. Ever.

That pretty much invalidates the "green" part of MagneGas' press releases, because virgin ethylene glycol comes straight from a petrochemical plant.  I should know, I grew up within easy driving distance of 12 of them.  Ethylene's usually made from natural gas and glycols are either condensed from natural gas fractions or cracked and polymerized from petroleum fractions.  

So MagneGas isn't any more "green" than acetylene except that its combustion products may be less toxic (but we don't know for sure, because no independent assay of its combustion products (see above) is at present available).  The manufacture of its primary feedstock is not at all green - no more so than the partial combustion of methane, which is the primary feedstock of acetylene.  

And I don't know or care about the nature of the "magnecule" bonds purported to exist in MagneGas, because only a scientific illiterate would believe that they somehow enable surplus oxygen to be "created" in the exhaust gases of a MagneGas flame.

What to Believe?

Don't believe a man who asks you to forget all you learned in high school chemistry.  
Don't sit in a closed room when his MagneGas burns, expecting the surplus oxygen he talks about to prevent you from being asphyxiated.  
And don't trust his assertions about turning liquid organic wastes into valuable metal cutting gas when he can't find spilled oil on the Florida Gulf Coast a short drive from his shop, and can't get permits to process those organic wastes into his magic gas.  
He's just very lucky he found something that his spark gaps can turn into something else he can sell.
loupgarous
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:38 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #15  Postby loupgarous » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:58 am

More food for thought about what's really IN MagneGas...

from the WikiPedia article "Acetylene"

"Discovery

Acetylene was discovered in 1836 by Edmund Davy who identified it as a "new carburet of hydrogen". It was rediscovered in 1860 by French chemist Marcellin Berthelot, who coined the name "acetylene". Berthelot was able to prepare this gas by passing vapours of organic compounds (methanol, ethanol, etc.) through a red-hot tube and collecting the effluent. He also found acetylene was formed by sparking electricity through mixed cyanogen and hydrogen gases. Berthelot later obtained acetylene directly by passing hydrogen between the poles of a carbon arc."

So the arc generated in Dr. Santilli's MagneGas generator might actually be making SOME acetylene directly from the hydrogen in MagneGas.  That's assuming the assay we see in MagneGas's MSDS document is wrong, of course.  If so, it's a matter of luck that a detonation of the stuff hasn't occurred, since MagneGas is also a compressed gas.

I tend not to believe that he's selling a gaseous cocktail with acetylene in it, myself, precisely because as far as we know, no detonations have occurred.  But we're dealing with a process that has not been documented by standard scientific notation, so by Dr. Santilli's own admission, no one "outside" the company is competent to assess its industrial safety aspects.  Still another troubling issue with MagneGas and the generators thereof.

In all the rest of large-scale Western chemical engineering, the steps in a synthesis are VERY well understood, for reasons of quality control, reproducibility, industrial safety, and even legal aspects - is this process really the property of the proprietor, or being conducted with the owner's consent?  Not with MagneGas.

Is the US Navy's research into using MagneGas as a metal cutting gas an Obama administration "stimulus" project?  We know that the US Navy's been spending stimulus money on at least one, possibly two, room-temperature nuclear fusion projects.  If the researchers can be believed, the "Polywell" fusion reactor actually has a foundation in "physics as we know it," it's simply a novel application of electrostatic inertial confinement fusion, and the originator of the concept was no other than Dr. Robert W. Bussard of KIWI-A nuclear rocket and nuclear interstellar ramscoop fame.  

Rumors are also rampant, however, that the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Command (SPAWAR) bought one or more "Energy Catalyzer" fusion reactors (Fox News - yes, I know - speculated this was a 13-unit array of 1-megawatt reactor modules) from Italian inventor Andrea Rossi for an undisclosed amount.  Rossi has offered the 1-megawatt reactor units for sale at US$1 million a piece, putting the price of the rumored 13-unit array at US$26 million).

So is the Navy's interest in MagneGas another budget-busting stimulus project?
loupgarous
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:38 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #16  Postby Gord » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:06 pm

Whoa, thanks for the info, loupgarous!  I never took chemistry, so I rely on others to tell me when crazy chemistry is crazy. :thumbsup:

(This does't mean I'm taking your word for it, though.  I'm just thanking you for providing more detail where I had none!)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19767
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #17  Postby Major Malfunction » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:17 pm

I've got some dihydrogen monoxide for sale.

Drink it or demolish for fusion reaction.

$100.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #18  Postby Gord » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:30 am

Yer fulla dihydrogen monoxide!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19767
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #19  Postby Globalreach » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:59 pm

Loupgarous,

Welcome to skeptics forum and to CR4, I have a bit of experience with MagneGas and would like to explain a bit what I know to try to fill in some of the blanks:
1. Theories - I have no idea if they are correct or not so no comment here.
2. Ethylene Glycol - MagneGas' Headquarters in Tarpo Springs is not allowed to bring in large quantities of waste liquid so they use primary liquids such as Ethylene Glycol and vegetable oils. The "Green" comes from the fact that liquids such as vegetable oils are renewable something which Methane certainly is not. Additionally when MagneGas is used to cut metal the emissions are very clean, much cleaner and "Greener" than those of Acetylene. I have seen MagneGas made from sewage, sludge, wasted oils, animal fats, animal blood, cheese waste and olive oil waste, all those are considered "Green" renewable sources.
3. The US Navy like many large users of Acetylene are looking to find a less dangerous alternative from the perspective of production, storage and usage. From what I understood the Navy's interest was only with the gas.
4. The oxygen discussion is interesting and is yet unsolved: When MagneGas is burned in a combustion engine it always emits between 10-12% oxygen, I have seen this with my own eyes in the US and Europe and have photos of the readings and print-outs to prove it. The reference to Oxygen excess is at point of combustion.

The inventor is a special kind of guy and the theories are equally special but don't let that distract you from the fact that their products work and are in demand.

Thanks,
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #20  Postby Major Malfunction » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:17 am

loupgarous wrote:First, some of the remarkable claims made for the chemistry of MagneGas:

We can stick to good old-fashioned chemistry and MagneGas's own MSDS file for their metal cutting gas.

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -19-11.pdf

MagneGas, according to the chemical assay in that MSDS file, is 69.5% hydrogen, 28% carbon monoxide, 1.4% methane, .67% nitrogen, 0.22% oxygen, and some other gases

Now, one of Dr. Santilli's claims (repeated in that very same MSDS file - which I troubled to save to my hard drive as a .pdf and will make available to anyone if it "disappears") is that the combustion of MagneGas releases surplus oxygen.  That's right.  Burn this stuff and your air is fresher than when you started.

I didn't believe it, either, because I passed high school chemistry.

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 a back of the envelope inquiry based on experience, into what the reactants are apt to end up as after burning.

Which is wrong. No offense intended, but the percentage measurements would be based on the percentage of molecular gases, not the atoms. The names are sometimes the same, so can be confusing.

So roughly,
69.5 H2 + 28 CO + 1.4 CH4 + .66 N2 + .22 O2

Gord wrote:Whoa, thanks for the info, loupgarous!  I never took chemistry, so I rely on others to tell me when crazy chemistry is crazy. :thumbsup:


OK. Since I took Advanced Industrial Chemistry and haven't had a serious challenge for a while, I'm going to sort this {!#%@} out, once and for all.

Like when I busted down Whisson's Windmill. But that was physics.

It might take me a few days, but stay tuned. For science!

To begin, I'm going to presume the MSDS analysis is accurate and has been tested by an independent chemist with a Gas Chromatograph.

Also, I'd like to know if this gas mixture is supposed to be mixed with pure O2 at the nozzle like an oxy-acetylene two-tank system, or is supposed to just burn at steel-melting temperatures in atmospheric oxygen.

I'll compare the flame temperature, the gas flow, the tank capacity and storage pressure, and the potential chemical energy liberation.

Or, I'll just point you here...

Torches that do not mix fuel with oxygen (combining, instead, atmospheric air) are not considered oxy-fuel torches and can typically be identified by a single tank (Oxy-fuel welding/cutting generally requires two tanks, fuel and oxygen). Most metals cannot be melted with a single-tank torch. As such, single-tank torches are typically used only for soldering and brazing, rather than welding.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Thanks from:
Globalreach, Gord, loupgarous
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #21  Postby Major Malfunction » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:22 pm

Setting up my assumptions, I'm going to be dealing with Ideal Gas Law, since the gas molecules we're discussing are quite low density.

Firstly, I'll compare the full potential oxidation energy of a mole of the competing gases; Acetylene vs MagneGas.

After I have a sleep.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #22  Postby Major Malfunction » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:13 pm

Actually, I don't even need to do that. The science is already in.

According to the tables, burning 1 mole of acetylene liberates 1300 kJ. Burning the same amount of MagneGas would liberate approximately 290 kJ.

That's maximum potential chemical energy. And you have to provide the oxygen. The claim it produces oxygen is absolute rot.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #23  Postby Gord » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:38 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:OK. Since I took Advanced Industrial Chemistry and haven't had a serious challenge for a while, I'm going to sort this {!#%@} out, once and for all.

Thank you!

Of course, I'm still skeptical, but that will hardly change until someone with Massive Convincing Ability comes along and validates things. :nyaah:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19767
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #24  Postby loupgarous » Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:25 pm

Thanks for sorting me out on whether the percentages in MagneGas's assay are molecular or atomic.

However, as you added (ty for the analysis) the enthalpy actually shows that MagneGas combustion is LESS energetic than acetylene combustion.  Its component gases burn less energetically combined with oxygen, so it's reasonable to assume that the mixture burns less energetically than acetylene.

MagneGas Corporation could clear this all up in a hurry.  Hire Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to burn MagneGas and verify GlobalReach and Santilli's claims about how cleanly, hotly and efficiently MagneGas burns, and how well it cuts steel.  Until then, really, all we have is MagneGas Corporation telling us these wonderful things about their product.

That's all we'd need - independent verification of the claims made for MagneGas by an outfit with the reputation of Underwriters Laboratories.  And the reason we need it is that MagneGas Corporation is claiming some pretty incredible things - most notably, that a gas mixture only 0.11 percent of which is oxygen and mostly made of hydrogen and carbon monoxide yields free oxygen on burning.

The scary thing is that MagneGas Corporation made this claim in the MSDS sheet for MagneGas.  Users of MagneGas are being told that this product makes oxygen on burning in the safety documentation on the product.  

I don't know how vigilant NIOSH or the Consumer Product Safety Commission are about these matters, but I'd be worried about ANY counter-intuitive or unsupported claims made on an MSDS sheet.  I just have this image of someone cooking or running a space heater indoors on MagneGas, confident that they'll never have a problem with asphyxiation (or from being poisoned by leaks of the unburned product, which is 33-35% carbon monoxide).

Major Malfunction wrote:
loupgarous wrote:First, some of the remarkable claims made for the chemistry of MagneGas:

We can stick to good old-fashioned chemistry and MagneGas's own MSDS file for their metal cutting gas.

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -19-11.pdf

MagneGas, according to the chemical assay in that MSDS file, is 69.5% hydrogen, 28% carbon monoxide, 1.4% methane, .67% nitrogen, 0.22% oxygen, and some other gases

Now, one of Dr. Santilli's claims (repeated in that very same MSDS file - which I troubled to save to my hard drive as a .pdf and will make available to anyone if it "disappears") is that the combustion of MagneGas releases surplus oxygen.  That's right.  Burn this stuff and your air is fresher than when you started.

I didn't believe it, either, because I passed high school chemistry.

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 a back of the envelope inquiry based on experience, into what the reactants are apt to end up as after burning.

Which is wrong. No offense intended, but the percentage measurements would be based on the percentage of molecular gases, not the atoms. The names are sometimes the same, so can be confusing.

So roughly,
69.5 H2 + 28 CO + 1.4 CH4 + .66 N2 + .22 O2

Gord wrote:Whoa, thanks for the info, loupgarous!  I never took chemistry, so I rely on others to tell me when crazy chemistry is crazy. :thumbsup:


OK. Since I took Advanced Industrial Chemistry and haven't had a serious challenge for a while, I'm going to sort this {!#%@} out, once and for all.

Like when I busted down Whisson's Windmill. But that was physics.

It might take me a few days, but stay tuned. For science!

To begin, I'm going to presume the MSDS analysis is accurate and has been tested by an independent chemist with a Gas Chromatograph.

Also, I'd like to know if this gas mixture is supposed to be mixed with pure O2 at the nozzle like an oxy-acetylene two-tank system, or is supposed to just burn at steel-melting temperatures in atmospheric oxygen.

I'll compare the flame temperature, the gas flow, the tank capacity and storage pressure, and the potential chemical energy liberation.

Or, I'll just point you here...

Torches that do not mix fuel with oxygen (combining, instead, atmospheric air) are not considered oxy-fuel torches and can typically be identified by a single tank (Oxy-fuel welding/cutting generally requires two tanks, fuel and oxygen). Most metals cannot be melted with a single-tank torch. As such, single-tank torches are typically used only for soldering and brazing, rather than welding.
loupgarous
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:38 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #25  Postby Globalreach » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:53 am

"loupgarous" you seem to be posting the same stuff on the CR4 thread on MagneGas as well under the name "Jean Lafitte". Guess your new name on whatever new site will be Pepé Le Pew or something.

Anway in order to speed things up I will copy my same reply to you there about the MSDS:

"Please open:

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -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.
Last edited by Globalreach on Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #26  Postby Globalreach » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:01 am

Major Malfunction,

Thanks for your corrections we need to keep this thread legitimate, without objectivity it all goes down the pan.

I can tell you for sure that MagneGas is oxidized like Acetylene, one bottle of MagneGas and one Bottle of Oxygen.

From what I understand (please correct me if any of the below numbers look incorrect) is that oxygen consumption vs the fuel is as follows:

Oxygen to Acetylene is 2:1
Oxygen to Propane is 6:1
Oxygen to Propylene is 4:1
Oxygen to Magnegas is 1:1

I hope that will help in your calculations.
Last edited by Globalreach on Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #27  Postby Globalreach » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:12 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Actually, I don't even need to do that. The science is already in.

According to the tables, burning 1 mole of acetylene liberates 1300 kJ. Burning the same amount of MagneGas would liberate approximately 290 kJ.

That's maximum potential chemical energy. And you have to provide the oxygen. The claim it produces oxygen is absolute rot.


Major Malfunction,

MagneGas definitely does not "claim to produce oxygen", what they are saying is that in a combustion engine 10-13% oxygen is always in the product which is more than all other fuels I have seen.

Look at this link:

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

Scroll down until your see the table with the printouts above, all the measures look favorable to Methane and even more-so to petrol but look at the O2 line:

In combustion Methane and other fuels release about 1% Oxygen and MagneGas releases 10-13% oxygen

That is the only reference regarding oxygen, that in combustion it has more oxygen in the exhaust than other fuels.

I'd like to get some objective and intelligent feedback on that information.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #28  Postby Major Malfunction » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:16 am

Globalreach wrote:In combustion Methane and other fuels release about 1% Oxygen and MagneGas releases 10-13% oxygen

That is the only reference regarding oxygen, that in combustion it has more oxygen in the exhaust than other fuels.

I'd like to get some objective and intelligent feedback on that information.

That means you're wasting fuel and oxygen. Incomplete combustion.
Globalreach wrote:Oxygen to Acetylene is 2:1
Oxygen to Magnegas is 1:1

Considering the waste of unburned gases, the ratio for Magnegas seems about right. But since you only get as much work done as you would with a 1/4 of a tank of acetylene and half a tank of oxygen, the clear logistical winner is acetylene.

You'd need to carry 8 tanks (4 Mag & 4 oxy), instead of 3 (1 acetyl & 2 oxy).
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #29  Postby Globalreach » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:07 am

Major Malfunction,

Regarding combustion:

I have heard that before but if there was incomplete combustion wouldn't there be much higher levels of pollutants in the exhaust?

It burns so clean even compared to methane, the assumption is that there is almost complete combustion not the opposite....

This is a good discussion and I am very interested in getting to the bottom of the 10% O2 in the exhaust.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #30  Postby Major Malfunction » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:48 pm

Globalreach wrote:Major Malfunction,

Regarding combustion:

I have heard that before but if there was incomplete combustion wouldn't there be much higher levels of pollutants in the exhaust?

It burns so clean even compared to methane, the assumption is that there is almost complete combustion not the opposite....

This is a good discussion and I am very interested in getting to the bottom of the 10% O2 in the exhaust.

If you measure "levels of pollutants" as carbon emissions you won't be surprised that Magnegas appears to produce 1/3 the carbon emissions of methane, since methane contains 3 times more carbon atoms per volume.

A tank of MagneGas (purportedly) contains 28% CO + 1.4% CH4 = ~30 carbon atoms. A tank of methane contains 100% CH4 = 100 carbon atoms. When you add up all the C's in the table, you get about the same ratio.*

But at 889 kJ/mol methane can also deliver about 3 times the kick.

If you look at the "HC" (hydrocarbons) value, which represents unburnt or partially burnt fuel, sure the methane is higher, because methane is a hydrocarbon. And Magnegas only has 1.4% methane, supposedly. And anyway, it's measured in parts per million, so a reading of 169ppm is 0.0169%. Pretty close to bugger all.

Now the NOx. Oxides of nitrogen. Quite nasty little beasties when they escape into the wild in large numbers. There are lots of reasons you want to avoid producing them in your car's engine. But in this instance their presence is actually a good thing. You see, the formation of NOx happens at very high temperatures, like 1600°C. The kind of temperatures you want. To cut steel.

DISCUSSION
Actually, I'm a bit sad MagneGas doesn't have any NOx.

Being a man I love my power tools. Any tool that makes my life four times easier is good by me. And I equate that easiness with the smell of partially burnt 2-stroke hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and ozone. Nice try with the sparks. Almost had me.

Also, I was trained in environmental industrial chemistry. With the specific aim to take the waste stream from any industry and turn it into another useful product, instead of just pumping all that energy away. And improve their processes. So I really dig it when someone tries**.

But you've got to test in excess oxygen. That's why oxygen was coming out the other end. There was nothing left to burn!

CONCLUSION
MagneGas may have potential application for hobbyists and light duty metal workshops. But it can't build ships. Also, their marketing techniques require further investigation.

_____
* This test appears valid, 'tho I'm suspicious why he's obscuring the screen with the printed results. And they used an Italian auto mechanic shop to run the tests instead of a laboratory. I know certified laboratories can charge a fortune and have huge queues, and I also know that gaseous emission testing technology is so commonly available these days that I've got it on my phone. But sometimes, the investment is worth it.

**Turn the O2 dial down a notch, the Woo to zero, the Marketing to 3, and the Science to 11!
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #31  Postby Globalreach » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:11 am

Interesting post thanks for that information.

A couple of items:
MagneGas is about 65%H2 with the balance being CO just to clarify, does that change your calculations at all?

The unit being used to test emissions was acquired by the Distributor in Italy but it is an official vehicle emission unit which they now own.

I was there for this particular test and can promise there was nothing to hide, similar test performed in the USA yield similar results. When visiting MagneGas they perform this test for everybody to see. I believe it is also performed in MagneGas China not sure, but what I am sure of is that it always get similar results between 10%-13% O2.

Getting back to the oxygen in the exhaust:

Regarding your last statement I think MagneGas customers would disagree:

http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/company-news/detail/893/magnegas-retained-for-large-dismantling-project-in-florida
http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/magnegas-vs-acetylene

Serious question regarding your quote: "But at 889 kJ/mol methane can also deliver about 3 times the kick.
"

Does your energy calculation I quoted above reconcile with what you are seeing the gas can do and for the applications it's being used on such as scrap yards?
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #32  Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:25 pm

Forgive me, but you're starting to sound like someone with a vested interest.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #33  Postby Globalreach » Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:47 pm

I am in the Renewable Sector and for about 3 years I've been looking at it and working with it, during my visits with and without customers a few things came up in the process which I'd like to independently understand... such as the oxygen in the exhaust.

Additionally people for a while have said well MagneGas is a Syngas and Syngas cannot cut metal which is obviously does.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #34  Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:48 pm

Globalreach wrote:I am in the Renewable Sector and for about 3 years I've been looking at it and working with it, during my visits with and without customers a few things came up in the process which I'd like to independently understand... such as the oxygen in the exhaust.

Additionally people for a while have said well MagneGas is a Syngas and Syngas cannot cut metal which is obviously does.

Perhaps you've been staring at arc-flames too long.

Of course synthetic gas can cut metal. A "windproof" butane cigarette lighter will happily cut through aluminium foil. The question is scale.

I watched your link... http://ir.stockpr.com/magnegas/magnegas-vs-acetylene

What was that? 1/2" - 5/8" steel?

I noticed four things;

The acetylene flame was blue, which indicates a higher temperature. The acetylene flame was longer, which indicates deeper penetration. The acetylene nozzle was larger and less focused. Which immediately invalidates the test.

You can't compare the cutting power of the two gases using different equipment. The test is rigged.

The fourth thing I noticed is the preface for the video...

When asked to match the effectiveness of market leading Acetylene fuel under identical constraints, MagneGas™ was 100% successful - and was both less expensive and dramatically cleaner. Should the two be put through speed cutting trials, MagneGas™ would also be demonstrably faster.


The first claim is invalid, and the second is untested.

I say bring it on. Let's see a speed-cutting trial with 2" steel plate.

And I'm still to see a definition of "cleaner". Non-combusted excess oxygen from another tank notwithstanding.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Thanks from:
Pepijn van Erp
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #35  Postby Globalreach » Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:04 pm

Just to get something straight right away:

The test was performed by lab personnel of one of the largest German gas manufacturers in the world, after half a day of set-up they chose the best tip they could find for MagneGas (2 piece propane) while the acetylene tip is totally standard for that CNC cutter. I guess your reaction is based on what you've seen in this website but neither this test nor the emission test were faked or anything, so I've been staring at flames too long and you seeing through your own rose tinted glasses - touche´   ;)

During the visit speed test were also performed and using the tips you saw MagneGas cut equivalent to Acetylene, the results were very very close and it was the customer's opinion that a bespoke tip (as each gas needs to have a tip designed for it) there would be no difference.

I don't understand: "And I'm still to see a definition of "cleaner". Non-combusted excess oxygen from another tank notwithstanding."
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #36  Postby loupgarous » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:15 am

Globalreach wrote:"loupgarous" you seem to be posting the same stuff on the CR4 thread on MagneGas as well under the name "Jean Lafitte". Guess your new name on whatever new site will be Pepé Le Pew or something.

Anway (sic) in order to speed things up I will copy my same reply to you there about the MSDS:

"Please open:

http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -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.


That same MSDS, under "Acute Health Hazards," fails to advise users of the very real acute health hazard posed by inhaling MagneGas, which is (by your own admission in that MSDS) 33% carbon monoxide.  The US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) declares that 0.12% carbon monoxide is the threshold quantity at which an immediate hazard to life and health is posed.

Quoting verbatim from the MSDS in your link, just under "Potential Health Effects,"

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

Whoever wrote your MSDS has "Acute Health Hazards" and "long term health effects" confused, because "Acute Health Hazards" are "short term health effects," not "long term health effects."  So much for good safety documentation.


However,  the statement is itself not just illogical, but directly contradicted by the statement before it.  The section immediately preceding "Acute Health Hazards" says "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."

Your MSDS contradicts itself on this point, so that the reader doesn't know what to believe.  And when two things are said by the same document, usually the most harmful conclusion is the one drawn by the reader. So your current MSDS (at http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -19-11.pdf) is potentially a very dangerous document.

The MSDS in your Web Page, http://www.magnegas.com/MagneGas-MSDS-R ... -19-11.pdf should be withdrawn and edited by someone who is familiar with the toxicology of carbon monoxide.  Of course, I'm assuming you're more concerned with the health and safety of MagneGas users than you are with pretending you're not selling a toxic gas.

You've been saying for a month that you want links to this MSDS so you can "withdraw it from circulation," and I've been giving you links to this document for a month - but all you have done so far is personally insult me and others who call you out on the spin and misleading statements in your MSDS and other corporate documentation (as you've done in the quoted passage at the top of this post).  The revision date on this MSDS is "09-19-2011" - so you have left this very same MSDS unedited at least since that date.

MagneGas isn't "green."  It's the product of spark-gap decomposition of ethylene glycol and other petroleum products.  It's also 33% carbon monoxide.  To recapitulate, 0.12% carbon monoxide is the level which the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) poses an immediate threat to human life and safety.  MagneGas has 275 times that level of carbon monoxide in it.  Much, much higher than untreated car exhaust.

You can call me "Pepe Le Pew" or whatever name you choose, and those facts will never change.  You'll still be trying to mislead people that MagneGas is somehow "green" and that it's made from recycled waste, not from ethylene glycol straight from the petrochemical plant (as you have to admit in your company's press releases where the Securities and Exchange Commission is paying attention)..  

The fact that you're stooping to name-calling indicates you've lost your composure.
loupgarous
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:38 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #37  Postby Globalreach » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:45 am

Dear Loupgarous,

Seriously I am not name calling with that little jibe, don't take it personally. So Loupgarous are you also Jean Lafitte on CR4?

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.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #38  Postby loupgarous » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:05 am

If the gas/oxygen ratio was correct, you wouldn't have a sooty flame with acetylene.  All you've demonstrated is that the person operating your rig was using incorrect mixture either on purpose or through inexperience with an oxyacetylene rig.
loupgarous
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:38 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #39  Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:09 am

loupgarous wrote:rig.

I think you nailed it.

All the sooty acetylene flame in the video proves is incomplete combustion. It's like comparing a kerosene lamp to a military jet engine and saying, oh hey, because I can see more smoke from the kero lamp than the jet, the jet is greener. When all it really depends on is your choice of paint.

I don't know why you're seeking validation from us, Globalreach. If ever there was a futile exercise in marketing this would be right up there with fuel-saving fridge magnets. I don't imagine skeptics, as a targeted market, have much use for cutting torches. Our rapier wit and intelligence do all the slicing and dicing we need, thank you very much.

If it's such a fantastic breakthrough product, I'm sure it will be adopted as its properties deserve, or else scorned, as its properties deserve.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Thanks from:
Austin Harper
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post #40  Postby Globalreach » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:00 am

Major Malfunction and LoupGarous,

I have glad you posted those comments because it shows that you have probably never actually picked up a torch and therefore are passing comments on a product you have not used.

As a cutter you are looking at the torch when you add the fuel before you ignite it, therefore arguably when your face is closest to the torch there is this incomplete combustion, then you slowly add in the oxygen to achieve correct combustion and start pre-heat and cutting.

The problem is that at the start-up phase acetylene combustion releases  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which are known mutagens, just when the user is closer to the flame and poses a serious risk to metal cutters.
Globalreach
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 pm

Next

Return to Scams and Con Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

MIB
MIB
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site! MIB