It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Magnesium Injection Cycle Engine

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Apparently the Mitsubishi Corporation and the Tokyo Institute of Technology have been successfully working on a new type of engine, called the Magnesium Injection Cycle engine, or, MAGIC, for short.

Apparently it injects magnesium into the water, which reacts to give off energy and hydrogen, the hydrogen is then also burned to get more energy.

The byproducts from this are water and magnesium oxide. Apparently they are attempting to use solar powered lasers to separate the magnesium from that oxide to use it over and over again.


The new technology produces no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions and the only by-products from this reaction are water and magnesium oxide. The magnesium is separated from the oxide through a solar-powered laser process and is reused over and over again as fuel. This clean energy cycle, which is supported by solar power, has the potential to steer society away from its dependence on fossil fuels, and could bring about a paradigm shift in the way future energy needs are met.


The device is very small 5cm X 13.5 cm


What do you guys think about this new engine, does it look promising? Or... will it be held back?

Some reference links
secure.wikimedia.org...
www.mitsubishi.com...
inventorspot.com...
techon.nikkeibp.co.jp...


EDIT:
Looks like there is some skepticism at PhysicsForums.com about the engine
www.physicsforums.com...



edit on 19-6-2011 by renegadeS because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   




SWEET!

Talked on ATS chat on how to use Sodium solids to create an engine that when mixed with water it creates enough power to push a piston - seems they perfected this concept!

Year 9 chemistry worked well in this case!

Thanks for the heads up mate! S+F



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Sounds a bit suspicious.

I used to fool around with magnesium when I was in my teens and can confirm that it doesn't react with water.

This is proven by the fact that some car companies use magnesium in the manufacture of racing engine parts ... the said parts are generally quenched in water after reaching a certain temp.

Magnesium is also used to make elevator parts, not a good place to have an intolerance of water.

This could be a prank or a misdirection to thwart industrial espionage ... its a tactic commonly employed by European car manufacturers to protect new technologies.

Maybe Mitsubishi is ordering larger than normal amounts of magnesium and need to hide the raw material surge with a cover story.

edit on 19/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
While magnesium does not react with water, it does have some properties that make sense here.

For example, you cannot put out a magnesium fire with water.


When you add water to a magnesium fire, you make it more intense


Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Maybe Mitsubishi is ordering larger than normal amounts of magnesium and need to cover up the raw material surge with a cover story.

Oooh, interesting
edit on 19-6-2011 by renegadeS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 





I used to fool around with magnesium when I was in my teens and can confirm that it doesn't react with water.


I thought the same thing as well, a lot of tools fighter jets and a hostr of other uses of magnesium do indeed come into direct contact with water. However the article stated Magnesium powder. Perhapse changing its physical state lets it break down into a chain reaction.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by renegadeS
 


True, the water acts as an oxidising agent.

To burn magnesium in a internal combustion engine seems like a step backward in tech'. While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores. It would be a poor substitute for fossil fuels (IMHO).

Interesting to ponder though.....I guess that we won't know until they release a prototype.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by renegadeS
 



Magnesium has a very slight reaction with cold water, but burns in steam. A very clean coil of magnesium dropped into cold water eventually gets covered in small bubbles of hydrogen which float it to the surface. Magnesium hydroxide is formed as a very thin layer on the magnesium and this tends to stop the reaction. Magnesium burns in steam with its typical white flame to produce white magnesium oxide and hydrogen.

Link




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Interesting to ponder though.....I guess that we won't know until they release a prototype.

According to them, they do have a prototype:


Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) and the Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) have recently made a significant announcement—the completion of a first prototype CO2-free engine called the Magnesium Injection Cycle (MAGIC) engine.



the Tokyo Tech team believes it will take another three years of further research and experimentation before it is launched for commercial use.


However, we have heard that for many many technologies that have never come to fruition, so... I'll believe it when I see it!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by highfreq
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 





I used to fool around with magnesium when I was in my teens and can confirm that it doesn't react with water.


I thought the same thing as well, a lot of tools fighter jets and a hostr of other uses of magnesium do indeed come into direct contact with water. However the article stated Magnesium powder. Perhapse changing its physical state lets it break down into a chain reaction.


Most of the stuff we did with magnesium was in a powdered form and required an oxidising agent (condis crystals was a popular one). Occasionally we would use swarf from a lathe that had been used to machine magnesium.

Underwater welders use it in their welding .... though it is a chemical reaction that will work without the presence of water.

It'll be interesting to see if something comes of this.....If nothing else, I am curious on how they deal with the high temps involved.

Time will tell



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
We as a race have so many alternative energy options it is getting ridiculous. As a people we are smart and find many ways to get to our ultimate goal but big business and government keeps deflecting and getting in the way. It is no longer about what makes sense, or what is good for the human race, it's about money and power. Auto makers have already suppressed tech that would allow current autos to easily hit 100 mpg but have we seen it hit the main stream market yet? Why not? Someone, somewhere is getting paid huge profits because of the way the system is set up. Sorry, ranting done lol.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by QuietSpeech
 


Citations...

Sources...




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 




To burn magnesium in a internal combustion engine seems like a step backward in tech'. While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores. It would be a poor substitute for fossil fuels (IMHO).



Dis-Info Much? Magnesium is very common in the Earths Crust.

The 8th most common element(In the Crust) in fact. Check it.
Wikipedia- Abundance Of Earths Elements in the Crust





While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores

13 aluminium Al 81,300PPM 82,000PPM
26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
20 calcium Ca 36,300PPM 41,000PPM
11 sodium Na 28,30PPM 23,000PPM
19 potassium K 25,900PPM 21,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM
79 gold Au 0.0011PPM 0.0031PPM

You're statement is a complete Dis-Information check the abundance differences Magnesium is actually quite common and isn't a far from being as common as iron only about half as common.

And look at it compared to gold its like 10000x's of times more common

Its good to see Toyota Researching this this could be the freedom from Fossil Fuels.
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by renegadeS
 


True, the water acts as an oxidising agent.

To burn magnesium in a internal combustion engine seems like a step backward in tech'. While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores. It would be a poor substitute for fossil fuels (IMHO).

Interesting to ponder though.....I guess that we won't know until they release a prototype.


It was stated that the magnesium can be separated from the oxide and re-used over and over again.. that makes it a great replacement, I can't re-use the gasoline I've already burned



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Also interesting to note that the statement about it being made commercially available in three years was from 2006, so they missed the mark by a couple of years..



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
nice find, hopefully they will be able to convert exsisting vehicles to this system.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus


It was stated that the magnesium can be separated from the oxide and re-used over and over again.. that makes it a great replacement, I can't re-use the gasoline I've already burned

 


Which needs energy to complete this process.


Elemental magnesium is a fairly strong, silvery-white, light-weight metal (two thirds the density of aluminium). It tarnishes slightly when exposed to air, although unlike the alkali metals, storage in an oxygen-free environment is unnecessary because magnesium is protected by a thin layer of oxide that is fairly impermeable and hard to remove. Like its lower periodic table group neighbor calcium, magnesium reacts with water at room temperature, though it reacts much more slowly than calcium.

When it is submerged in water, hydrogen bubbles will almost unnoticeably begin to form on the surface of the metal, though if powdered it will react much more rapidly. The reaction will occur faster with higher temperatures (see precautions). Magnesium's ability to react with water can be harnessed to produce energy and run a magnesium-based engine.






I really don't see alkali metals being a new found energy source. For one:


The free element (metal) is not found naturally on Earth, as it is highly reactive (though once produced, is coated in a thin layer of oxide [see passivation], which partly masks this reactivity).


And how do they make it?:


The metal is now mainly obtained by electrolysis of magnesium salts obtained from brine.




I find it strange that the say it's magnesium powder used in the process. Yet they don't identify which form of Mg it is.

But the process they are describing is from elemental (alkali Mg):


Magnesium is a highly flammable metal, but while it is easy to ignite when powdered or shaved into thin strips, it is difficult to ignite in mass or bulk. Once ignited, it is difficult to extinguish, being able to burn in nitrogen (forming magnesium nitride), carbon dioxide (forming magnesium oxide and carbon) and water (forming magnesium oxide and hydrogen).


Used back in the day for pictures:


On burning in air, magnesium produces a brilliant white light which includes strong ultraviolet. Thus magnesium powder (flash powder) was used as a source of illumination in the early days of photography.



Magnesium


Note: All articles are from 2006, stemming from a press release.

Mitsubishi.com

Covered by someone else in 2006

Reposted at inventorspot.com




So the most important thing about this is one thing:


What's the efficiency to make the Mg that's used in the engine. It will be less then the engine produces, so the next question is:


Why bother?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I should add, that if they were to reuse the MgO that they produce by the engine, it probably wouldn't be done by electrolysis. (Although it could be, according to this patent)


The ore is processed this way:


2) thermal reduction of magnesium oxide (MgO) by ferrosilicon derived from carbonate ores.
1

But the reducing agents in that process are reacting with other things in the ore.


So I don't know what process they are planning on using exactly but no matter what they are losing energy.

....Maybe Mitsubishi applied for a government grant for clean energy research back in 2006 and that's why they made the press release. (Speculative of course)


Lots of old rehashed ideas being thrown around these days:

Like this one.








edit on 19-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by miniatus


It was stated that the magnesium can be separated from the oxide and re-used over and over again.. that makes it a great replacement, I can't re-use the gasoline I've already burned

 


Which needs energy to complete this process.




And they addressed that as well by saying they wanted to make use of a solar powered laser for that process..



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 




To burn magnesium in a internal combustion engine seems like a step backward in tech'. While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores. It would be a poor substitute for fossil fuels (IMHO).



Dis-Info Much? Magnesium is very common in the Earths Crust.

The 8th most common element(In the Crust) in fact. Check it.
Wikipedia- Abundance Of Earths Elements in the Crust





While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores

13 aluminium Al 81,300PPM 82,000PPM
26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
20 calcium Ca 36,300PPM 41,000PPM
11 sodium Na 28,30PPM 23,000PPM
19 potassium K 25,900PPM 21,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM
79 gold Au 0.0011PPM 0.0031PPM

You're statement is a complete Dis-Information check the abundance differences Magnesium is actually quite common and isn't a far from being as common as iron only about half as common.

And look at it compared to gold its like 10000x's of times more common

Its good to see Toyota Researching this this could be the freedom from Fossil Fuels.
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


I find it interesting to see you claim that I'm feeding the subject with dis-information yet you have an obvious obliviousness to maths.

1- The annual worldwide production of iron is 1,200,000,000t, for magnesium its 350,000t and for gold its 2,800t.

So from this we can ascertain that there is approx 3500 times more iron than magnesium and 125 times more magnesium than gold. Hence, my statement stands true.

2- It isn't Toyota doing this research, it is Mitsubishi.

Goodbye



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by renegadeS
 


True, the water acts as an oxidising agent.

To burn magnesium in a internal combustion engine seems like a step backward in tech'. While not as rare as gold, magnesium is far from being as common as titanium/iron/bauxite ores. It would be a poor substitute for fossil fuels (IMHO).

Interesting to ponder though.....I guess that we won't know until they release a prototype.


It was stated that the magnesium can be separated from the oxide and re-used over and over again.. that makes it a great replacement, I can't re-use the gasoline I've already burned



So what you saying is that you can burn magnesium over and over again?

I don't where to start to point out how utterly stupid this statement is. Though now looking at your impressive CV that you have used as a post signature, you appear to be someone who is spreading a very small amount of knowledge very thinly and likes to brag about it


What you are proposing violates the law of thermodynamics!


Even if you could, do as described, would need to constantly add energy in to the system and unfortunately, even if you could use the energy added at 100% efficiency, you would still only end up back at "square one". It would be an act of futility.

To add....

If it were possible to harness the solar energy and utilise it in the form of a laser....Wouldn't it be better to simple heat water and drive a steam turbine?
edit on 19/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join