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: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus


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

 


So why wouldn't you just use the solar energy as it is? I'd like to see the efficiency of the process they are using.

I just found this:


Hydrogen Production A leader in this field is Shigeaki Uchida and his team in Japan (Tokyo/Osaka) [4]. Their design uses fresnel lenses and a solar-pumped NdCrYAG laser to drive a magnesium-based cycle, which produces hydrogen gas as its product[5].
1

Which must be what they are referring to.

Here is the abstract of a paper done on it in 2006.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 





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.


Again you fail to see the logic.

Iron is needed more than MAGNESIUM because of its properties. That is why they are mining for IRON not magnesium




So from this we can ascertain that there is approx 3500 times more iron than magnesium and 125 times more magnesium than gold.

That is an absurd and unfounded statement Iron is used for a lot more things that Magnesium is hence why they are using more of it for PRODUCTION. Your logic is backwards

26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM


IRON Is only 2 and half times more common than Magnesium In the Earths Crust(Lithosphere). Simple Math

AGAIN I SAY you are spreading Dis-information
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org...
Maybe you ought to search Iron
Iron is the most widely used of all the metals, accounting for 95% of worldwide metal production

Maybe this Will help you gather my meaning

MORE Production OF IRON Doesn't IMPLY its 3500 Times more COMMON than Magnesium. The Data Shows that Magnesium is quite more Common than you claim it to be.
Stop the Dis-info Spread
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

magnesium does not react with water,


Any firefighter that has fought a magnesium fire will tell you different story.

midsouthrescue.org...
www.blazetech.com...

and they are talking about fine magnesium powder or dust.
www.youtube.com...

Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers are just as bad a water.

these are Class D fires and loads of fun for firefighters.

I have had a number from cars but old VWs are the worst.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 





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.


Again you fail to see the logic.

Iron is needed more than MAGNESIUM because of its properties. That is why they are mining for IRON not magnesium




So from this we can ascertain that there is approx 3500 times more iron than magnesium and 125 times more magnesium than gold.

That is an absurd and unfounded statement Iron is used for a lot more things that Magnesium is hence why they are using more of it for PRODUCTION. Your logic is backwards

26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM


IRON Is only 2 and half times more common than Magnesium In the Earths Crust(Lithosphere). Simple Math

AGAIN I SAY you are spreading Dis-information
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org...
Maybe you ought to search Iron
Iron is the most widely used of all the metals, accounting for 95% of worldwide metal production

Maybe this Will help you gather my meaning

MORE Production OF IRON Doesn't IMPLY its 3500 Times more COMMON than Magnesium. The Data Shows that Magnesium is quite more Common than you claim it to be.
Stop the Dis-info Spread
edit on 19-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



Eww testy, you don't like it when someone points out the flaws in your logic, do you?

I will go back to my original post and quote for your benefit. I will ensure that I type slowly so that you may be able to keep up.

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

Common as in if I were to go into the market today and buy magnesium(pure or raw ore), I would pay far more per kilo than I would for say iron (even tool steel isn't as dear as magnesium).

Magnesium is in high demand as it is. If it were as simple as throwing money at the problem of mining. Then someone would. One has to only ensure that sources (mines) produce less than the global requirement to maintain its current price.

Do you comprehend market value? Or is supply and demand another conspiracy that you refute like the laws of physics?

Regardless of the quantities in the Earth's crust, it is still far more expensive than iron/steel on the open market.

Far more expensive than diesel & petrol as a fuel source. Both monetary and environmental.

I have dedicated my adult life to designing and testing green technologies and I could think of nothing better than finding that miracle energy source that removes mankind's dependence on fossil fuels. But to blindly call conspiracy theory when someone calls a technology into question is just making it harder for people who HAVE gone to uni and worked hard toward attaining the knowledge to make educated responses to questionable technologies.

If you really think this is such a great idea....then can you explain why this hasn't come into fruition in the last 5 years? Can you explain why no-one else seems to have jumped on the "laser powered magnesium recirculating miracle machine" bandwagon that answers all of our energy needs? Surely there must be a green magnesium cult out there screaming out to be heard if this is such a wonderful technology.

Get some real answers instead of taking one miserable sentence out of several of my posts and then picking the hell out of it like the troll that you are.

edit on 20/6/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Just showing you how invalid the statements you made were.


26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM

And you still cannot accept the facts

They are mining less magnesium if the need arises there is surely enough magnesium for them to mine. The reason magnesium is more expensive is because they mine alot less of it. Iron accounts for 95% of the metal Industry

You still are blind to the facts.

Accept the truth Deny ignorance

Again Repeating the Statement

So you Understand

MORE Production OF IRON Doesn't IMPLY its 3500 Times more COMMON than Magnesium. The Data Shows that Magnesium is quite more Common than you claim it to be.


You still don't understand simple concepts Magnesium isn't as common today in production because it isn't used for as much applications/production as other various metals.

If the need arises there is plenty of Magnesium and then they would subsequently mine more Magnesium

It seems to be about 2 and half times less common that Iron but its still QUITE COMMON.

I still am wondering how you can't understand that.

26 iron Fe 50,000PPM 41,000PPM
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM

edit on 20-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse


MORE Production OF IRON Doesn't IMPLY its 3500 Times more COMMON than Magnesium. The Data Shows that Magnesium is quite more Common than you claim it to be.

 


To the credit of the poster, it shows that it is more common in the market place. Which is where one needs to go if one needs to buy a massive amount of magnesium that is somehow supposed to offset fossil fuels.

There is no reason to continue the niggling of the issue. The real issue is how expensive, and how feasible the technology is. And unless the solar pumped laser (Which uses other materials as well-including rare metals) is uber-efficient, than this technology is not worth the press release it was printed on.

Given that it was first covered in 2006, it does seem that way....



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Quantity and abundance in Lithosphere and Crust

6 carbon C 300PPM 480PPM (sum of carbon content of coal, crude oil and natural gas)
12 magnesium Mg 20,900PPM 23,000PPM

Abundance of Elements in the Earths Crust.
edit on 20-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Posting that over and over again does nothing to address actually using this technology, and whether or not it is feasible.

Here is another figure:


The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[6] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[11][12]
1

Please build me a solar array?


See how that works? There are things out there that are potentials or that work in theory. Yet one has more considerations when making an idea a reality.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It indicates there is simply a massive amount of magnesium in the Earths Crust; that is all i wanted to point out.

To all the nay-sayers who believed otherwise lol



I understand the Solar Energy is capable of collecting a massive amount of energy. (Just look at the Large Nuclear Inferno In our sky) although in your reply it seems its directing the point i was speaking of on a different matter.

I realise the technology needs or utilizes solar power but that is not what i was trying to point out!



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join