Geet
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > General Forums > The Lounge & Introductions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-13-2013, 12:45 AM   #1
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Geet


Just trying to share this article/video about Paul Pantone.
http://www.geetfriends.net/persecution/persecution.htm
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:01 PM   #2
gSTiTcH
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
gSTiTcH's Avatar
 
PTrader: (5/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 838
Default

I can't see how this GEET concept actually works. The science doesn't line up...
__________________
RAOK Club #105

Pay It Forward, Further the Community!

It's CO2. See-Oh-Two. Not C02 (see-zero-two).
gSTiTcH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 05:45 PM   #3
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gSTiTcH View Post
I can't see how this GEET concept actually works. The science doesn't line up...
The key is to break the molecules in different liquids (fuels) and turn them into Plasma.
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 08:27 PM   #4
All your base
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 228
Default

Show me a link to an article explaining the technology in a peer reviewed publication and I'll pay attention...
All your base is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 12:42 AM   #5
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by All your base View Post
Show me a link to an article explaining the technology in a peer reviewed publication and I'll pay attention...
If I have the time and space I would try to make one myself and see if it works.
I'v seen some videos on youtube from people who made the system and used many liquids like water+sugar or 50% water 50% gas and you can see the engine running fine.
This article explains how it works as well as the result of exhaust emissions. http://www.geetfriends.net/netdocs/o...hetout_eng.pdf
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 02:42 PM   #6
Zorfox
Wannabe Guru
 
Zorfox's Avatar
 
PTrader: (5/100%)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,433
Default

You realize that's just a vacuum carburetor right? There's no plasma created at all. The engine runs on the vaporized fuel that's added to whatever else they want to add. I guarantee you it won't work without a combustible being in the "reactor". If you spend five minutes searching the internet you can find plans for anti gravity units, free energy, perpetual motion and just about any other junk that claims to break the laws of physics.
Zorfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 02:58 PM   #7
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorfox View Post
You realize that's just a vacuum carburetor right? There's no plasma created at all. The engine runs on the vaporized fuel that's added to whatever else they want to add. I guarantee you it won't work without a combustible being in the "reactor". If you spend five minutes searching the internet you can find plans for anti gravity units, free energy, perpetual motion and just about any other junk that claims to break the laws of physics.
I don't believe in free energy but I believe there is ways to make more efficient engines. Honda for example in the 80's made cars that can go about 50 MPG, some late module Hybrids barely get that number.
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 03:16 PM   #8
All your base
Planted Member
 
PTrader: (1/100%)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrimpo View Post
I don't believe in free energy but I believe there is ways to make more efficient engines. Honda for example in the 80's made cars that can go about 50 MPG, some late module Hybrids barely get that number.
That's arguably a difference due to additional functionality in modern cars and/or safety and emissions requirements, not because Honda had a secret in the 80's.

I do believe that bubbling intake air through water could have a very small but measurable impact on operation of the engine, but it's because water vapor in the intake cools the air/fuel mixture, not because of some magic plasma due to conflicting magnetic fields or whatever pseudoscience explanation that guy wants to give. This isn't new or secret:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

Simply put you can't wave a magic wand and then suddenly obtain the ability to turn water into something that's combustible, which seems to be the premise of this invention.
All your base is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 04:32 PM   #9
Zorfox
Wannabe Guru
 
Zorfox's Avatar
 
PTrader: (5/100%)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrimpo View Post
I don't believe in free energy but I believe there is ways to make more efficient engines. Honda for example in the 80's made cars that can go about 50 MPG, some late module Hybrids barely get that number.
Glad to hear you don't believe in the free energy hoaxes. Increasing efficiency is simply good engineering.

To claim some pipe fittings and a glass jar can convert a coke can into the equivalent of three and a half gallons of gasoline is simply preposterous (9:05). That's exactly what he claimed.
Zorfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 06:35 PM   #10
gSTiTcH
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
gSTiTcH's Avatar
 
PTrader: (5/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 838
Default

Exactly. The friction of the "fuel" passing through the "reaction chamber" is not enough to generate the kind of electrical or magnetic energy required to transform a liquid or gas into a plasma state.

If it was that simple, I would just attach a permanent magnet to all my fuel lines and quadruple my fuel economy while tripling my performance. I would also have a new use for old tank water.
__________________
RAOK Club #105

Pay It Forward, Further the Community!

It's CO2. See-Oh-Two. Not C02 (see-zero-two).
gSTiTcH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 09:59 PM   #11
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorfox View Post
Glad to hear you don't believe in the free energy hoaxes. Increasing efficiency is simply good engineering.

To claim some pipe fittings and a glass jar can convert a coke can into the equivalent of three and a half gallons of gasoline is simply preposterous (9:05). That's exactly what he claimed.
Neither I believe in other fuel saver hoaxes like inserting turbines in the intake or attaching some device to the cigarette lighter socket.
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 10:06 PM   #12
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by All your base View Post
That's arguably a difference due to additional functionality in modern cars and/or safety and emissions requirements, not because Honda had a secret in the 80's.
If you take 2 cars from the past like Civic CX and Civic VX, they have exact same body weight and other functions, even the cylinder block is the same, one gets about 30 MPG the other 50. the difference is different intake design, different O2 sensor and ECU software. even some sample mods on todays cars body can get you over 60 MPG but the car is going to look ugly down the road.
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 01:41 PM   #13
gSTiTcH
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
gSTiTcH's Avatar
 
PTrader: (5/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrimpo View Post
If you take 2 cars from the past like Civic CX and Civic VX, they have exact same body weight and other functions, even the cylinder block is the same, one gets about 30 MPG the other 50.
Please cite the specific years for your example. I somehow doubt that the two models you're citing with a difference of 20 mpg have the exact same everything, and that Honda made a whole new model just to put out a different intake.
__________________
RAOK Club #105

Pay It Forward, Further the Community!

It's CO2. See-Oh-Two. Not C02 (see-zero-two).
gSTiTcH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:34 PM   #14
shrimpo
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
shrimpo's Avatar
 
PTrader: (52/100%)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gSTiTcH View Post
Please cite the specific years for your example. I somehow doubt that the two models you're citing with a difference of 20 mpg have the exact same everything, and that Honda made a whole new model just to put out a different intake.
I was talking about the 5th generation from 1991 to 1995.
The VX has VTEC-E(economy) engine, different than the famous VTEC engines.
This article from Wiki. not all the numbers are 100% correct unless you drive the car and calculate the MPG.
...
CX: The economical CX was the base model equipped with all-manual features, and power brakes. In the U.S., it came with the 8-valve 70 hp 1.5L D15B8 engine and manual transmission. With 42/48 miles per gallon (mpg) (city/hwy) [revised to 2008 EPA rating: 35/43 mpg city/hwy[3]] or 40/47 mpg (city/hwy) [revised to 2008 EPA rating: 33/42 mpg city/hwy[4]], the CX was the second most fuel-efficient Civic model of the fifth generation, after the VX. CX models in Canada came with the same 16-valve 102 hp 1.5L D15B7 engine as in the DX model, but could also be ordered with automatic transmission which also came with power steering. Some later CDM CX models (colloquially known as the "CX-Plus") could be ordered from the factory with a rear wiper, side mouldings and manual passenger-side mirror.
VX: Fitted with the same manual transmission, the VX was identical to the base model CX except that it gained improved fuel efficiency through a 92 hp 1.5 L VTEC-E engine yielding 48/55 mpg (city/hwy) [revised to 2008 EPA rating: 39/49 mpg city/hwy[5]] or 44/51 mpg (city/hwy) [revised to 2008 EPA rating: 36/46 mpg city/hwy[6]]. In Canada, it was rated by Transport Canada fuel consumption estimate: 4.7L/100 km city and 4.3L/100 km hwy.[7] Other added features were an 8K tachometer with redline at 6K RPM, lightweight 13-inch (330 mm) aluminum alloy wheels, as well as additional front & rear under-body trim additions to improve aerodynamic flow.[citation needed] The VX was also equipped with an aluminum alternator bracket, an aluminum front driver side engine mount, and a lightweight crank pulley. In addition, the instrument cluster featured a shift indicator light that would notify the driver when to shift upwards in order to achieve optimum mileage. To this day, the CX & VX models are lauded as one of the only gasoline-powered cars that rival the fuel economy of today's hybrids and diesels. In the March 2010 issue of Car & Driver for example, it mentions its long-term test car, a 2009 VW TDI Jetta with 6-speed dual-clutch auto transmission, got worse fuel mileage (38 mpg) than their 1992 Honda Civic VX test car (which got 41 mpg) and 2000 Honda Insight hybrid (48 mpg).[8]
shrimpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012