Patent Awarded to MagneGas for Systems to Make Molecules more Dense, Company Claims Energy, Transportation and Propulsion Applications

Thanks to Andreas Moraitis for pointing out this press release from MagneGas Corporation about a new patent that has been granted to the corporation by the US Patent and Trademark Office for

Below is the press release; here is the link to the patent which is titled “Method and apparatus for the industrial production of new hydrogen-rich fuels”

US Patent and Trademark Office Issues MagneGas Corporation Ground Breaking Patent

July 26, 2017
The First Patent Granted Surrounding the Theory of the “MagneCule” has application in Fuel Cells, Space Propulsion and Transportation

TAMPA, Florida, July 26, 2017 /PRNewswire/ —

MagneGas Corporation (“MagneGas” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: “MNGA”), a leading clean technology company in the renewable resources and environmental solutions industries, announced today that following an extended patent application and review process the US Patent and Trademark Office has issued a patent on the theory behind the “MagneCule”. This theory relates to the effect that the patented MagneGas™ systems have under certain conditions and feedstocks and the use of energy in a manner that changes the shape of affected molecules thereby changing their bonding mechanisms from a valence bond to a bond based on the magnetic attraction of nuclei. This in turn allows for a high density of molecules which are packed closer together to provide a greater energy footprint than those same molecules, particularly hydrogen molecules, than when using traditional valence bonds.

Numerous higher density hydrogen applications:

Fuel cells: Current fuel cells have significant range limitation based on the density of conventional hydrogen. The unique hydrogen produced under the MagneCule patent should be able to pack more energy into the same fuel cell. With certain feedstocks the production of our unique hydrogen would allow an increase in the range capability of current fuel cell technology with little or no development in the fuel cells themselves.

Rocket Propulsion: The significant increase in orbital and other rocket launches have limitations based on the space, density and compressibility of hydrogen and oxygen which limit cargo and add significant cost. The ability to pack more hydrogen energy into similar sized rocket modules could extend payloads and reduce the costs of the burgeoning national and private rocket industries.

Transport Industries: Fuel additives in the gasoline and diesel markets have become commonplace in order to improve combustion characteristics and reduce carbonization of combustion chambers. Hydrogen and oxygen treated in the MagneGas process has exhibited qualities that facilitate its addition to fluids which remain in suspension. This would improve combustion efficiency for these key fuels which are under pressure to keep pace with increasingly strict global emission standards.

“Following a lengthy process we are proud to announce that MagneGas Corporation has been granted a patent on the MagneCule theory,” commented Ermanno Santilli, CEO of MagneGas. “The theory and process of the MagneCule has been studied for years at MagneGas Corporation and we believe there are numerous applications in the energy, transportation and space industries associated with increasing the energy density of fuels or as an additive to currently used fuels. We believe that as these industries are under pressure to innovate, our newly released patented technology places us in an ideal position to provide value added innovation to numerous applications.”

“Given the magnitude of the opportunity and far reaching applications of this patent MagneGas Corporation will explore low cost proof of concept developments and licensing opportunities which in some case leverage our existing connections in the targeted industries of fuel cell, rocket propulsion and transportation.” commented Scott Mahoney, CFO of MagneGas. “We believe that an approach which is not particularly capital intensive would allow us to penetrate one or all of these industries and leverage our other existing patents in a far faster timeframe and at a lower cost with large, established corporate partners.”

About MagneGas Corporation

MagneGas® Corporation (MNGA) owns a patented process that converts various renewables and liquid wastes into MagneGas fuels. These fuels can be used as an alternative to natural gas or for metal cutting. The Company’s testing has shown that its metal cutting fuel “MagneGas2®” is faster, cleaner and more productive than other alternatives on the market. It is also cost effective and safe to use with little changeover costs. The Company currently sells MagneGas2® into the metal working market as a replacement to acetylene.

The Company also sells equipment for the sterilization of bio-contaminated liquid waste for various industrial and agricultural markets. In addition, the Company is developing a variety of ancillary uses for MagneGas® fuels utilizing its high flame temperature for co-combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and other advanced applications. For more information on MagneGas®, please visit the Company’s website at

The Company distributes MagneGas2® through Independent Distributors in the U.S and through its wholly owned distributor, ESSI (Equipment Sales and Services, Inc). ESSI has four locations in Florida and distributes MagneGas2®, industrial gases and welding supplies. For more information on ESSI, please visit the company’s website at

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Some additional information:

    About the company (MNGA): Apparently, they are currently in difficult waters. Although they are already selling products, they did not yet manage it to become profitable. Performed recently a 1 : 10 reverse stock split. Dilution was (so far) moderate, but the stock price continues to decline. Although this could be a huge opportunity, potential investors should be aware of the possibility that invested money can get lost.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Different name for the same thing – the heavy than air stuff you get out some water splitting processes.

    I mentioned Santilli in our recorded discussions in India last week, he is another person that ‘re-discovered’ the work of Ohsawa (carbon arc in water producing Silicon amongst other stuff)

    • nietsnie

      It certainly is reminiscent of “Brown’s Gas” – something I’ve never understood. Somehow combining hydrogen and oxygen into water – and yet purportedly not oxyhydrogen. I’ve seen video of welding demonstrations that claim temperatures and control that are hard to accept. Wrong forum to dismiss it out of hand however I suppose.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Watch from here-you will begin to understand

        Actually, watch the whole thing.

        When I get time, I’ll bring this all together.

        • nietsnie

          Very entertaining video, if longish. For others who are only interested in what Brown’s Gas is – FF to 1:29:00. I didn’t learn much I didn’t know about Brown’s Gas here – although I did learn about a lot of other things which have been related together by the presenter, Moray King, who does a good job.

          However, Mr. King tends to ascribe phenomena that he has no current explanation for to vacuum energy – in a way that is reminiscent of the way that some UFO researchers ascribe phenomena they can’t immediately explain to aliens. It pops up over and over. And when an inventor has disappeared without verifying his claims – he tends toward the potential of ‘suppression’ rather than the potential of fraud. Amazing breakthrough after amazing breakthrough squashed by the powers that be before they can be replicated.

          Still – try out this video of a company with a Brown’s Gas welder in which they weld a metal rod to a glass bottle:

          If you are a welder, that is a feat you may have difficulty accepting. They suggest that the Brown’s Gas flame adjusts it’s temperature to the materials being welded – something else that may be difficult to comprehend. Molecular hydrogen and oxygen certainly doesn’t do that. Pretty smart gas, this Brown’s Gas!

          Yet, after welding metal to glass – then watch them melt tungsten with it. Notice that the needle tip of the welder (which is not tungsten…) doesn’t melt or even glow. And there is no separate line to an oxy tank. The fuel is purportedly entirely being made by splitting water into H and O on the spot, as needed, (with possibly some additional steam, or… something) but still co-mingling – and yet the flame doesn’t travel up the tube causing an explosion. There’s a lot of weird things going on there for me.

          But, I watched my first video of Brown’s Gas welding about 20 years ago and was amazed. If all of this is easily repeatable – why hasn’t Brown’s Gas vanquished oxyacetylene welding? Two decades and it’s still relegated to the shadow. Suppression? Aliens?

          • Bob Greenyer

            You are getting closer…

            Browns gas (that which contains the ‘heavy’ stuff) adjusts its liquefying capability to the conductivity of the material it encounters.

          • nietshie

            Not sure what you mean by ‘liquefying’ in this case, Bob – nor ‘conductivity’. Do you mean electrical conductivity? If you’re saying that tiny instances of ball lightning are being created on contact between the BG, the pop bottle, and the paper clip in ‘my’ video (causing vacuum energy to be drawn in to increase the temp) and the amount of energy drawn in is dependent upon the electrical conductivity of the surface it encounters, how does the BG decide which side (bottle or clip) will determine the temp at the point of their juncture? Also, notice that a little later in the video, they heat the bottle alone: and it cracks – seemingly indicating that the bottle heated more when the paper clip was absent (although the paper clip is far more electrically conductive). And how is it that the potential for cavitation, or whatever, has been stored within the BG? What is the mechanism? I still don’t get it and I’m not convinced that there’s anything to get (although welding a paper clip to a pop bottle is also beyond my comprehension – and yet there it is). But, if I’m being thick – I’d certainly appreciate being schooled.

            Did you notice the homage to our Axil in your video? He sure gets around. I sort of felt proud just by association.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Here is all the answer I have time for today

            Explaining the ‘magical’ properties of HHO, Browns Gas, MagnaGas & Resonant Hydrogen Plasma & More


          • nietsnie

            Thank you for your considered reply. I know that you are busy pursuing other things, as I am. So thanks for taking time out.

            I can understand how changes in electrical resistance would be helpful here, but I’m a little confused by the mention of heavy electrons (that implies Kondo liquid, Kondo lattice, et. al.) which, as far as I know, has only been demonstrated at very *low* temperatures. Whereas – this phenomena is happening within a flame. Is there new (non-circular) evidence, of which I am unaware, of a Kondo lattice at higher temps? Not trying to say you’re ‘wrong’, just trying to get a feel for the level of support for your explanation. Thanks.

            By the way, the video of Hutchinson’s magnified wood/aluminum interface is remarkable. Reminiscent of a paper clip welded to a glass bottle, yet more so, isn’t it?

          • Bob Greenyer

            You have a raft of people all observing the same effects. Please listen to my recording with Dr. Egeley here:


            And yes, Hutchinson’s pioneering work in 1979 onwards apparently led to 700 experiments across the world over 16 years and a new understanding of matter – and one that does not get discussed.

            My blog was meant to encourage others to look at evidence and really think about what they are seeing and encourage discourse. Shoulders, Hutchinson, Ralkar, me356, almost certainly Tesla and those clearing up after the event that we cannot talk about


            Have all independently witnessed metals glowing that are not hot, and since emission is an electron based phenomena, that is really all you need to start with. Look at the image linked above, there is a large plate that is apparently ‘hot’ then there is a piece of re-bar, in free air, glowing, what is that all about??

            Think about what Suhas said, in his coating system which is bathed in water, with little power he was able to seemingly melt iron, but the water did not boil away.

          • nietsnie

            Thanks again for your thoughts.

            Yes, there is clearly something remarkable and out of the ordinary going on here that seems to defy Einsteinian physics. And you might be right in your theory about it being a superconductivity effect at greater than room temperature. The (sort of…) recent work by Thompson, Lee, and Fisk leaves open the potential for the discovery of substances exhibiting so-called room temperature superconductivity – although some the details they outlined don’t match (the doping). And your theory certainly does sort of fit the circumstances of the vacuum left by the problem. It explains how two substances with vastly different melting points can be welded for instance.

            But, it’s not proof. I think it’s better to conclude that we still don’t currently understand why these effects happen until we have proof. Otherwise, it’s like concluding – “It must be aliens – because what else could it possibly be?”. And I think that kind of reasoning is limiting because it closes one off to the potential of other, currently unknown and unimagined, solutions. And the unknown and unimagined is where the most powerful and important answers will come from.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am not saying that superconductivity is happening at above room temperature par se.

            At Asti (a presentation I will publish when I can bring the audio together) I introduced to the LENR community, research done over decades (not mine) that showed

            1. single atoms separated from any other atom might be at near absolute zero even in an environment that is well over 1000ºC
            2. these atoms ‘super conduct’ therefore, as they are below their critical temperature

            and I had an Easter egg in the presentation slides there was no time to report.

            Since this process appears to be able to reduce matter to single atoms, it follows that the matter could get into this state.

            People cleaning up after the event which we cannot talk about, were apparently standing with their steel toe cap boots in molten Iron for up to two hours before their boots came apart – don’t you think that is a little odd, why didn’t their feet cook, after all, conventional molten iron would be above 1,538 °C and then there is the hydraulics used to lift the ‘molten’ metal in the image I previously posted, that fails at over 90ºC.

            Suhas really did see iron ‘melting’ in a water bath – so it was below 100ºC.

            People don’t understand that in 1 week, after 4.5 years of research with leaders in the field I independently realised that John Hutchinson and Kenneth Shoulders explained LENR and that event. Then 3 days later, I discovered the work of Judy wood. 3 days after that I gave my IIT Mumbai presentation and the following morning I met someone that tells me the reason he got into LENR was that he observed some of the most striking anomalies at the event we cannot talk about – and in the back of my mind, I knew that me356 had seen the same thing.

            It is logically impossible for it not to be what nature does always given the right circumstances. 20 mins after Suhas left me at the airport, I then recorded my impassioned intro. I was annoyed about what had happened, however, I knew that there was a next to impossible task ahead to educate others.

            At Asti I had people briefing against me and even people coming up to me and for over half an our telling me I needed to back off. Yet others telling me I had to forget the other stuff. But I can’t it is the same thing, the same technology and everyone that needs abundant energy knows of it.

            I set out to clear the name of Martin Fleischmann, and the person that destroyed his career, is the exact same person trying to destroy Dr. Judy Woods – what are the odds?

          • nietsnie

            By definition, super-conduction requires many multiples of atoms. It is not something that happens to atoms. I know that you are aware of that. Not sure what you’re getting at there.

            Yes, I agree that those are all very odd and remarkable things.

            A=B does not prove that C=B even if A and C are both odd and remarkable.

            Do we know that it is made of perspex/acrylic and not glass (or something else…)? But, yes, on the face of it – it’s still odd and remarkable.

            I don’t know about a relationship between Fleischmann and Woods, am unaware of someone trying to destroy Woods, and so can’t comment on the odds (or even how this figures into this discussion…).

            I am not telling you to back off or forget stuff. But you are an especially important and influential person in this community. When you state things as being *true* many people presume that it must be just because it came out of you – and you know this. As a result, you have a kind of responsibility. I think that it’s important that when you publicly *conclude* something – when you say that something *is* – that you can prove it: that it’s not just your most fascinating and compelling theory.

            I suppose it’s not exactly fair that you be held to a higher standard than other contributors (some of whom demonstrably contend almost anything with impunity) but it’s still important due to your outsized importance and influence. Conversely, when you can prove a theory, much more attention will be paid to it right away. Even if you state that something is just your pet theory – it will still garner much more attention – just because it’s yours. So, there’s that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The Homosymbion channel is where I can put forward ideas and pose questions in my own capacity that I think are important. I don’t care if I am wrong, I very much care if I am right. This is a highly complex and multidisciplinary field and since something like 80% of peer reviewed science published in reputable publications turn out 100% or partially wrong, I am not so off the wall in my own channel. That channel is where I can free wheel. Note, I don’t have a theory or patent to defend, I am only seeking the truth.

            Please wait until I can publish my ASTI presentation, it explains the superconducting references. If you have not seen it, you need to see my Copenhagen presentation as it is a pre-requisite.

            NOTE: these charge clusters can push and pull, and can be switched between modes with light (RF/MW) to fuse you get them pulling, like muons do, if you get them pushing, material falls apart.


            The footplate is acrylic IMPO, it has drill holes in which are typical – a simple Q&A of the video poster would answer the doubt, however, it is something that people typically do, show it not burning some stuff – he is showing that for a reason. It is the least thermally and electrically conductive of the 4 materials shown in the video – it tells you a lot.

            Fleischmann and Pons was not hounded out of America for the milliwatts in their cells, they were hounded out because of their 1CC experiment. That experiment petrified the researchers, it had vaporised concrete including the aggregate

          • nietsnie

            Agree regarding Homosymbion and free wheeling. Although I’ll say it’s still easier to trust what someone tells you when they separate what they believe or hope from what they know (can prove…). Still – how you present yourself on your own site is your own affair, as you say.

            OK – I look forward to your ASTI presentation. Please let me know when and where to look for it. Where is your Copenhagen presentation? Is this it, the video above?

            (in video: “The truth is out there.” good one)

            I agree that acrylic is the most likely, but I just wanted to point it out as an example of you stating something as truth that you did not actually know.

            Upon further thought I think maybe I understand what you were trying to get at re: isolated (ergo cold) atom in an area that is otherwise populated (and hot). The isolated atom does not exhibit super-conduction, which would require the presence of other similarly cold atoms, but I think it might well be said to have heavy electrons. Was that it?

            It’s hard for me to let your opinion, stated as fact, about the reason P&F were run out of town, slide by without pointing it out.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You’ll understand, and it isn’t my words, but it makes perfect sense.

            At the moment I am editing an article for Infinite Energy.

          • nietsnie

            Oh – wish you success with that.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Well, 1 cm^3 Pd could store not that much deuterium (around 0.6 g, I think). That would be enough to produce a few tens of Wh when recombined and/or burned. But do we know how much heavy water P&F actually used during their experiment? 1 liter D2O contains 124 g deuterium. The same molar amount of light hydrogen (I do not have the data for deuterium at hand, but it should be very similar) would release 8.81 MJ when burned. 1 kg TNT corresponds to 4.184 MJ. That is (provided that my numbers are correct), 1 L of electrolytically split D2O would contain about as much chemical energy as 2 kg TNT. That should suffice to destroy a concrete floor. Certainly, one would have to know much more about the circumstances of P&F’s experiment before any conclusions could be drawn.

          • Bob Greenyer

            What technology leaves the particles hanging in mid-air.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I was referring to P&F. Regarding the other stuff: Please provide evidence. Otherwise, you are doing a disservice to yourself and to this blog.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is a reasonable, but not complete account of what P&F observed.

            The Fleischmann Pons Singularity


          • Andreas Moraitis

            A much simpler explanation: The glass broke, and (non-explosive) catalytic combustion of the accumulated gas mixture started, first melting the Pd and then destroying the lab bench and the floor. (That might give an interesting experiment – under strict safety measures, of course.)

          • Bob Greenyer

            Doesn’t explain it. Just work out how much energy it would take to vaporize the concrete.

            I know this is going to be hard to accept, it will take time, Suhas really did see ‘molten’ iron in a WATER bath, me356 really did see something glowing ‘red hot’ without being ANY hotter and ball lightening really does go clean through ceramics (look out for photos of this in the next Infinite Energy) – and turn metal to jelly (listen to my discussion with Dr. George Egeley) this is physics that is natural and it is being deployed in theatres of war. The Russians really do call their monthly meetings and annual conferences “Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Ball Lightening” and this is NOT an accident.

            I’d rather move on from the debate surrounding its possibility to how it can be used to benefit man, not persecute us. As we prepare experiments, I will try and explain where I can. I don’t care if I am wrong, only if I am right – I am pointing to the evidence and asking “what is really going on here”

            I have learnt recently that there is a massive dis-info campaign out there, having being warned off of talking about this, then obliquely threatened – it is the people that were trying to ‘help’ that have now gone silent that tell me more than those that have difficulty grasping the enormity of the implications.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „Doesn’t explain it. Just work out how much energy it would take to vaporize the concrete.”

            Perhaps not as much as you might think. I do not have the time to make the calculations now, but maybe you remember that I did them with regard to the so-called “Bang” event in one of the “GlowStick” experiments. BTW: I have been pointing to ball-lightning years ago. However, an idea is just an idea, it has to be proven. That does not mean that ideas or guesses are unimportant. But presenting unproven assertions in a way as if they were true is not a feature of good science.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Excess heat will only be accepted when people have it in their possession, for all others, no data would suffice and they would still deny it.

            “Bang” as we said and calculated at the time, was likely just H2 pressure. Subsequently, we re-discovered via experiments, that alumina tensile strength and its ability to be an insulator collapse as you go above 1000ºC. There were many reasons to dismiss that event – what it did was demonstrate amply and viscerally that safety is very important.

            It is not my Idea or guess that so many people have seen metals glowing or not solid at well below their melting point – but, many would not believe it even if they were standing in it.

            I didn’t name the Russian meetings, they did. Charge Clusters have been observed by many and ‘photographed’ by the National Institute of Science and Technology – you can have an opinion on if they are involved in LENR, but that they exist and are ubiquitous is not in question to those that have looked.

            George Ohsawa reactions have been replicated by Bockris, Santilli, Quantum Rabbit, Shoulders, Egeley, Lakatos – so many it would be boring to list them…. but the key products, Silicon, Iron, Ca etc are there in ball lightening


            And historical record says they explode with a sulphurous smell – well sulphur is a Ohsawa reaction product also (fusion of two 16O)

            What ‘assertion’ are you saying is unproven. You have to hold in mind that I have no University Dean to upset, no NDA to break, no job to loose, I am a volunteer and as such, I am completely free to follow the evidence without fear or prejudice.

            I will make hypothesis, and since electrons, cooper pairs, Muons, Tauons etc are, according to Shoulders all just charge clusters, and they all have a charge of -1 and they all interact with Gravity, the weak force (holds matter together) and electromagnetism – it does not take a genius to figure out what is going on – even if there wasn’t a HUGE body of evidence from truly independent sources.

          • Omega Z

            I love soup beans, but I hate that brown gas. 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            haha – nice

          • Andreas Moraitis

            “If all of this is easily repeatable – why hasn’t Brown’s Gas vanquished oxyacetylene welding?”

            I guess that one point is safety. Since Brown’s gas is a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, it would be very dangerous to store and transport it in bottles. You have to produce it on site. In contrast to that, MagneGas is stable and does not ignite easily. It appears to be even safer than acetylene, as the following test suggests:


          • nietsnie

            I would think that being able to produce it on the spot with a battery and water, rather than buying in canisters, could be considered an advantage. Also, BG doesn’t seem to have the same properties as conventional co-mingled H2 O2. It’s possible that it would exhibit the same reaction to a pressurized container of it being punctured with a bullet. It’s not clear to me how stable BG is over time though. It may well be that a canister of BG more than five minutes old reverts to being H2, O2, and water.

            I just read the press release. Magnagas doesn’t seem to be Brown’s Gas after all.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Note that the properties of a product do not depend on the question if the underlying theory is correct. Testing the theory to the necessary extent would require a lot more research than a single person or a small company could conduct. The gas has been independently tested and shown to be functional, and customers are apparently satisfied. I agree that there have been management problems. After all, they replaced their CFO several months ago. Possibly the next quarterly report will decide about the future of this company.

    • rusolf

      As I have already written: “Even if their MagneGas had the claimed properties, it is probably produced in a very ordinary way.”
      And that is a very important point here because the company claims that they can produce MangeGas from waste based on the theories developed by R. Santilli. It is very, very obvious that those theories are nonsense, as everything else that came out of Santilli’s mouth since the 1980s (feel free to check his books as I did before screaming “You are not god, how do you know he’s wrong?”). They probably have to produce the MangaGas in a normal (and costly) process.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Production costs are certainly a crucial factor. MNGA’s reactors are operating with an electric arc, and since electricity is not cheap I have already asked myself how they would cope with this problem.

        I do not agree with your opinion about Ruggero Santilli’s science in general. It may be true that he is a somewhat eccentric person, but I recommend separating this aspect from the scientific part. To me, his magnecule theory does not look absurd. Even if it might be wrong, it is at least an interesting attempt and has (IMHO) therefore its merit. If you are aware of any solid criticism on a scientific basis, please let me know.