Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 2:00 am.
Magnegas is a trademarked, patented, and generally a protected phenomena. The reason why the company spends the majority of their time trying to explain why "plasma arc" technology is unique, is specifically to maintain this legal protection. Yes, based on their claims it is unique, but relative to common ducted electrolysis, the exact same result can be achieved. HHO, by HTA in Florida, is produced by "plasma arc" technology. There is no way to distinguish between HHO and Brown's Gas (supported by University study). Since the resulting gas, HHO by "plasma arc", and Brown's Gas by common ducted electrolysis, are indistinguishable, the method of production must also be extremely similiar if not just two sides of the same coin. The gases behave eactly the same, therefore the gases must be produced by the same method.
Obviously the claim that 'plasma arc" technology is different than common ducted electrolysis is a determining factor in patent protection for the latter. The problem is the confusion that ensues by introducing novel terms, and patented designs that perform exactly the same as common ducted electrolyzers, which is an open source technology.
Not to say that investment in "plasma arc" technology is a bad idea. The only problem is that anyone who invests in patented "plasma arc" technology can be utilizing another free technology that does not require any royalties what so ever. Common ducted electrolysis, because it is technology published in the public domain, can be used by anyone. Why pay royalties when open source technology can be used. This goes back to why they try soo hard to establish the difference between common ducted electrolysis and "plasma arc" systems they are attempting to say that "plasma arc" does something different, but because the end result, the gases produced, are exactly the same as common ducted electrolysis, in the end their efforts to establish distinction are futile attempts to maintain a sense of novelty for means of capitcal gain on a public domain technology.
Unlike common ducted electrolysis, Magnegas is produced by allowing the conductive medium to pass between the "plasma arc". Electrolysis typically is a stagnant process, where the conductive substance is held motionless in a reaction chamber.
Instead of the company focusing on substantiating the novelty of their technology, they should be focusing on the novel applications of the technology. They are the only company using "plasma arc" (common ducted electrolysis), to process sewage and other waste products. This is indeed a novel application, but is getting significantly overshadowed by the companies lack of focus.
There is potential for atomic reorganization if in the presence of an electric field and the molecular components are broken down ionically. Although a claimed "magnecule" is proposed, the stability of this phenomena is in question it is likely that this phenomena, if it exists at all, is unstable to the degree that its existence is negligible relative to duration of time required to utilize the generated Magnegas.
"Plasma arc" technology is indeed novel relative to patent and other legal protection. There generators are unique, and are produced by no other manufacturer bar none. Although it must be considered that the same output gas can likely be generated uning open source technology such as common ducted electrolysis such technology does not require any royalty what so ever.
Yes, "plasma arc" technology has a viable purpose and much potential.
No, using common ducted electrolysis, an open source royalty free technology, can likely produce the exact same gas.