GEET | Paul Pantone

[dave_cahoon]

I must admit my first geet was on a 5kwe 11hp genny and it worked first time.
Ive bee trying different sizes and reinstalled the big geet to a 4hp engine and its not working like the first time.

The gasses produced first time were not gasoline anymore, were orderless and extremely intoxicating.

And it could burn up 98% of the liquid gasoline with the bubbler...

If I can get the 4hp working like the 11hp than I could make measurements that Tommey could ignore

Dave

[Cloxxki]

I must admit my first geet was on a 5kwe 11hp genny and it worked first time.
Ive bee trying different sizes and reinstalled the big geet to a 4hp engine and its not working like the first time.

The gasses produced first time were not gasoline anymore, were orderless and extremely intoxicating.

And it could burn up 98% of the liquid gasoline with the bubbler...

If I can get the 4hp working like the 11hp than I could make measurements that Tommey could ignore

Dave

Dave, when you say "worked", do you mean "work like an engine", or "without doubt produce plasma and barely use any gasoline anymore, it being substituted by water"?
No disrespect, just trying to not believe things and jump to conclusions.
Looking forward to learn of your progress!
Thanks, J

[dave_cahoon]

Dave, when you say "worked", do you mean "work like an engine", or "without doubt produce plasma and barely use any gasoline anymore, it being substituted by water"?
No disrespect, just trying to not believe things and jump to conclusions.
Looking forward to learn of your progress!
Thanks, J

It worked, it could process turpentine, mineral spirits, gasoline and water.
just like running a spark engine on wood, it works. After building a working woodgas system and understanding how it worked. The geet is a simple cracker compared to a producer unit for wood or charcoal.

Products were lighter gasses NOT gasoline anymore and not just vapors but gasses. AND the oil stayed clean. when running propane through it the forklift stink disappeared and to keep the unit running I had to back off on the propane valve to about 1/2 what it was set at to get the COLD unit going. I left the unit to cool down to ambient without changing the valves back to what will start and run the unit, and it would not fire up. I reset the main mixture valve back and it returned to life only to warm up and start running to rich again. I had to close the valve again to keep the system running. That's all very repeatable. Way less propane (like half) when it passes through a hot geet or Pantone system with a little bit of air. I had a 500w load on the 1100watt unit. A load helps the system work.

When introducing the propane after the reactor at the airfilter (secondary air inlet) the engine ran all speeds using the same mix setting hot or cold fast or slow. And it stunk like a forklift. Which is not true if it passes through the reactor.

Ill know more when I get the smaller unit running or I reinstall it on the big genny AND I get it running on used motor oil.

If your having trouble look for gasoline that does NOT contain alcohol ! ! !
good luck on that one if your in the USA. Colman white gas???

The alcohol problem is why I want to gasify used lube or vegetable oil.

Get your hands on the original small engine plans just don't use poisonous Teflon tape when assembling your unit.

Oh and Everyone look into the other works of Drexel plasma institute.

Carefully read the first and second from last page of the attached .pdf file.
Then read the whole thing a few times...

Please tell Tommy about woodgas maybe his handlers will have him attack that tech too. But arguing about tech from the very late 1600's isnt as easy as attacking Pantone.

If Tommy keeps just a few people from even trying, he has earned his pay.

Happy New Year Paul Pantone
Dave

http://mechse.illinois.edu/research/...FW/Fridman.pdf

[Cloxxki]

Thanks a lot for your input Dave. Info like that can get those in doubt thanks to Tommey, keep looking into it.

Sorry to ask this now, but if heat is so obviously vital for this reactor, howcome it's not being insulated? Surely there are insulators that can handle the outside temperatures at hand? I would think that with an insultated reactor, the run-in period would be shorter, leading to greater overall efficiency of the unit. And, who knows, even better peak efficiency?
Googling geet insulation reactor gave me nothing.

Thanks,
J

[dave_cahoon]

your correct insolation i think is vital in the cold that im in.
also it seems like a must if the pipe from the engine block to the reacter is long. and i have some thats comming up im finnishing a small <1200 gram bubbler so i can weigh the thing in front of the reactor runs and behind the reactor runs... For another friend not Tommy. who wants to witness the effect. I also plan to use a vacuum pump to draw off gas for a burner or torch..

AND I dont think it was arcing into syn-gas. Syngas give you headach or kill you the gasses I got exposed to were light hydrocarbons like. If I had gotten one or two more breaths I would have been down vomiting, from vertigo. that was the converted gas before the engine due to a change i made in the plans I lost all gas produced during the exhaust stroke out the air filter and it was only vacuuming up what was still there on the intake and running...

So it could have been better.

Was it working by cracking the fuel YES !
was it going all the way to syngas NO.

Room for improvement YES no doubt at all

Dave

[jibbguy]

As far as people being "paid shills", or deliberate disinfo artists; do not underestimate the extreme frustration, and perhaps even anger, of some inventors who have put months and even years into their own devices/technologies only to get mainly silence in reply. We have seen that before at the O-U forum with others.

Maybe this lack of interest was not fair to the inventor, and they deserved more from the community for their work (in 2010, i would love to see some more appreciation and recognition for ALL the folks who have the ingenuity and boldness to do these studies, no matter what level of success or interest they have gotten). But that is just "the way it is"; people either will get interested, excited, enthusiastic about new devices that are presented, or not. it appears "Resonance" is at the heart of this too somehow

But my point is, this could color the inventor's perceptions; and perhaps not allow them to see the wider picture, making them a little too quick and eager to yell "fowl" at others' work (especially others' who DID get a measure of acclaim, or at those who report on and feature other inventor's work while ignoring HIS work).... without looking objectively at all the other possibilities first.

There could be dozens of logical and viable reasons for a Replication to not work as claimed; but if frustration overcomes a true desire to learn, and if the preconceived prediction was "failure" to begin with, the logical alternate reasons may really not be apparent to those who have all ready made up their minds.. They may hold these opinions "honestly" from their point of view... Yet not particularly "objectively" from our point of view

And once public declarations and "challenges" get involved, there is often no way out for the person but to be "right", or lose face.

It is not logical in many cases to expect a person without a true desire for success to see a technology be replicated, to actually do so successfully. This we have also seen before, such in the recent case of the person who started the thread at OU regarding the Ainslie circuit; where it was painfully clear there was a serious negative bias there to begin with (...and the results show how THAT turned out). There are too many ways NOT to succeed, and maybe only one actual way TO succeed.

This i've seen in commercial electronics engineering as well: If an Engineer in the Team disagreed and was in the "minority" with a particular course set out in the planning phase for a new product (...overrulled by the other engineers on the Product Team or by management), they were the WRONG choice to see that particular circuit/aspect fulfilled... Because "somehow" the project was nearly always held up with evidence that this minority person was "right all along". Usually, someone else who "believed" the course was possible & viable, was finally assigned to the task... and then the problems were solved and the project finally moved forward again (...sometimes even partially vindicating the dissenting engineer's concerns, but solved in an easy way that got "got 'er done" without all the histrionics and ego clashes). I guess that's "human nature".

This is not a exact fit in this case, but i think you guys get the meaning. There could be very good and "honest" reasons for the failure of this particular GEET replication (and we may all learn something from them eventually once they are exposed). But it is illogical, and frankly silly, to suggest that over 200 people are "lying" about it because of ONE failure (...many more folks when considering "witnesses" to the replications); and thus if one is wise, then alternative explanations should be carefully considered before making such declarations or challenges public.

[dave_cahoon]

sorry after hearing some of the comments Tommy made.

Can you build something like this and claim to know "carbon monoxide will poison the gasoline ruining it"

I apologize for arguing about stupid and paid to be stupid.

Its beyond ignorance IMHO.

I guess im saying Tommy cant be that stupid or ignorant; so one must look for the real agenda.

sorry if this is gibberish to ya

Dave

[Cloxxki]

Tommey does look really bad in all this, and the odds are against him being 100% right.

Should misdirected/misinformed unseccessful replicators and (thereby automatically suspected) misinformation agents not be addressed exactly the same?
Come back with compelling data to the contrary, offer building advice, offer to visit and mend the replication on the spot, on camera, and record well the unwillingness to comply to suggestions from those who are of different opinion?

Building advice I believe was given to Tommey directly, his audience is however not aware of the contents.

If Tommey were to be a misinformation agent, he sure is inventing some original stuff, while promoting people to make their own, and be independant.
If I were told to discredit GEET or any invention, I would do so much more convincingly.

Which are the boldest claims the GEET camp have made? Like the myths on water-only running. Is this a real claim?

[dave_cahoon]

yes but you know about geet. Listening to Tommy is completely misleading. his form of dis-info works best on those that doubt and are, or maybe just looking at this for the first time. Because of rumor or suggestion. Google it now...

I now feel I'm adding to the obfuscation. "Im not Paul Pantone" and i havent been to his classroom...

Dave

[dave_cahoon]

water only running;

IF and I mean IF, the geet reduces the incoming molecules into atoms, then synthgas. Then what comes out of the burner is nothing more than the atoms that went into the system plus more oxygen. Looped operation is possable re-breaking down CO2 and H20 is what the main claim really is. Looping it will loose pressure by-passing the rings and then it will stop. Like all of the ones that have looped operation. BUT this opens us to running 100 cycles on loop then running x cycles on more water and co2 fuel..

Were going to find out real soon If Ash is correct.

Dave

[everwiser]

Carbon monoxide is actually capable of being a fuel (CO2 is not) so CO mixed with gasoline will not impede the gasoline's heat content and may very well add to it.

[Ted Ewert]

My 2 cents...
I designed an air turbine to work with an internal combustion engine. When built to the correct size and configuration, it works well with a particular engine. However, it won't work worth spit on a different engine. Different engines have vastly different requirements with respect to air/fuel mixtures and amounts. Every engine is carefully designed to work with certain components with certain specifications. If you change any of them, you will most likely decrease the efficiency of the engine.
I'm no expert on the GEET, but I can see that there is inherently going to be major problems trying to integrate this device with different engines. Just as the WFC works great in some cars, and lousy in other cars, there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to radically modifying an engine's fuel intake system.
In order to retrofit any engine with a new device, you have to know exactly what you're doing to be successful. You have to know precisely how the new device works and how it can be integrated into an existing system. That requires an intimate knowledge of the science involved, which is not always the case.
I know this because I've been down this road. I've spent many hours building and testing different versions of the same device just to get it working well on one engine. And while it does work well on that engine, like I said, it won't work at all on a different type of engine.
I'm pretty sure the GEET is similar in that respect. There are a hundred ways to make it not work well, but only one way to make it work right.

Ted

[dave_cahoon]

Ted the patent states that a reactor running a small engine can convert fuel to run a large engine. This point has been proved by the french researchers.
I'm building the system to pump off gas for a torch..

This little unit is to run the well pump when the grid is down here.
It can also make cutting torch gas, so we have been lead to believe, we will be trying that for cutting and braising real soon this winter.

Dave

[Ted Ewert]

Ted the patent states that a reactor running a small engine can convert fuel to run a large engine. This point has been proved by the french researchers.
I'm building the system to pump off gas for a torch..

This little unit is to run the well pump when the grid is down here.
It can also make cutting torch gas, so we have been lead to believe, we will be trying that for cutting and braising real soon this winter.

Dave

I hope it works out well for you (no pun intended).
I don't mean to sound negative or imply that the GEET won't work, only to impart a little cautionary advice when it comes to judging the efficacy of any new device.
I like the science behind the GEET (it reminds me of the Pogue carburetor). Anything to wean us off the big oil teat has my vote.

Happy New Year,

Ted

[paulsonaivy]

Hi Paul

Okay please read carefully, There are dimensions of the water doping process in that document i sent you
under Detail of the assembly P8

I have stated that the Ecorpa and Nano measurements are the best we could come up with, with out destroying them, there are no dimension of the inside i know of, but the document gives a basis on what to go on, they (nano and ecopra) are still not as efficient as the system in the document i posted. That has all you need to build a water doping unit.

Ash

hi
how r u,
i did make the nano kit, but dint get any gain at first, then i added gas to it in a ratio of 80% water and 20%petrol,
it did work then gain almost 30% or more, but would like to make the one with water only, can u help me in getting a unit, i am in india and they have a dealer out here but he is not intreasted in selling one unit, since he him self copies it without their knowledge and sells it.
can u help
rgds paul