GEET technology 80% fuel economy on petrol or diesel engines.

[Smile]

I didn't see that page, thanks for posting.

Again, I hope (for environmental and for cost reasons) that these (or any other similar ideas) work and will be quickly woven into the fabric of society.

I doubt that, you see when something is patent pending you can't manufacture it without purchasing the patent yourself or you must agree to pay some amount to whoever is patent holder.

I doubt someone would be able to buy this patent from oil companies in the first place and then the price they ask would be so hi you would not be profitable to sell the thing.

So because you must illegally do it yourself, that is why we do not see any of re-made cars etc.

Considering how many people still buy the printer and do not see that new printer with ink is cheaper than replacing cartridges.

 

[stratman]

Smile:

Sorry in advance for what I am going to write as I have enjoyed your posts in the past. That said...

A patent does not confer veracity of all claims.

GEET is old news and does not do what Pantone claims. If GEET worked as claimed there would be independent and verifiable vetting. This has not happened with scientifically accepted testing labs. If it worked as claimed then it would be in use today. The "invention" is not a secret. No one is keeping this from the world. There is no conspiracy. GEET is snake oil.

GEET does not produce as stated and is economically nonviable to use because the cost versus savings are insignificant.

Windfarms and solar power are both currently economically nonviable for the masses and they may both be esthetically nonviable too (Even the Kennedy's don't want windfarms in their backyard). I think each has its use on a small scale but the technology available today does not overcome costs versus energy production benefits on large citywide scale let alone on small scale for many.

Since there are no economies of scale in play, the ways to introduce alternative energy platforms currently available is via small scale self-starters, like people who invest thousands of their own money for solar with a very long term approach to breaking even on their investment, or, via artificial mandates from government which will place onerous financial burdens of much of the populace.

Other ways to introduce alternative energy platforms is having something that actually works and is economically sound, or, when all the traditional forms of energy become cost prohibative due to dwindling supply.

We aren't there yet, but I'm going to do all I can to move us towards alternative energy by using all the fossil fuel I can. If we get this much snow again then I'm buying a Hummer. I'll even help Global Warming become a reality by releasing as much CO2 into the atmosphere from barbequing farting cows since I'm tired of snow and cold.

Keep working on the technology as it will be ready for prime time. Until then, use coal, build nuclear reactors, build refineries, get rid of the dozens of blends of gasoline, drill ANWR and other locations, don't piss off the Canadians with stupid NAFTA political potshots, and encourage public conservation.

To bring this subject back on track with the forum, keep refilling ink cartridges since this cuts down on energy usage in manufacturing and leads to less waste.

 

[Grandad35]

Smile,

As Stratman said, "I'm sorry for what I'm going to write".

Did you listen to the "doubletalk" in the Professor Irwin Corey video that I linked to? When I listened to Pantone's videos, that's the first thing that leapt into my mind. Pantone's "science" has a lot of such doubletalk, as well as a number of glaring errors that wouldn't be made by anyone who had a knowledge of the subject.
1. He said that the surface area of a pipe is "Pi R squared" - that is the area of the hole in the pipe, not the surface area of the pipe. The proper formula is "2 Pi R L". This is basic high school stuff, and should make anyone listening to him suspicious.
2. I forget the details (and I couldn't stand listening to him again to get them exactly right), but he claimed that crude oil could run his engine for at least 10 times longer than gasoline. On page 90 This link gives the energy content of a number of crude oils in the range of 18-22,000 BTU per pound. This link gives the energy content (heat of combustion) of gasoline as 43 Mj/kg (= 18,500 BTU/lb) and a maximum engine efficiency of 50%. This link gives a value of 19,850 (140,000/7.05) for #2 diesel fuel and 17,800 for biodiesel. Note that the inherent heat of combustion is about the same for all of these fuels. How did he get so much more energy out of crude oil? It's not going to happen.
3. Have you ever seen a plasma at these temperatures? The "self ignition" temperature for gasoline is in the 250-500 deg C range - well within the plasma temperature range. As soon as a gasoline plasma met with air, it would immediately start to burn. How does he plan on mixing such a plasma with air and then pulling it into the engine without having it catch fire before it reaches the combustion chamber? Never mind that the claims for how he generates a plasma are beyond strange.
4. There are a few basic rules of science that have never been violated in the history of man. One of these is the first rule of thermodynamics: "Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another". This law rules out any perpetual motion machine, as this requires that we create energy from nothing. Pantones claims violate this law - it's not going to happen.
5. His claims are very similar to the "200 mpg car". This story has been around since before I was born (I remember hearing about a "50 mpg carburetor" in the 1950's). Specifically, read the section on "Charles Nelson Pogue" - aren't those claims similar to Pantone's? Was Pogue a charlatan? Isn't Pantone in the same class?
6. Just a few months ago, I saw a "documentary" that told of a device that generated 50 horsepower from a 9 volt battery. The inventor complained that the patent office wouldn't give him a patent just because they don't allow patents on "perpetual motion machines".

There have always been charlatans among us, and there always will be. Some of them may actually believe what they preach, but conviction doesnt make their ideas correct (otherwise gamblers would all be rich). When a device violates the basic laws of science, suspect that someone isnt telling the truth.

Just because something is posted on the Internet doesn't make it true.

 

[Smile]

Just because something is posted on the Internet doesn't make it true.

True, I did not investigate this matter so deep as you did perhaps this is a lie. Anyway in this link they speak about a simmilar device http://youtube.com/watch?v=I3kueRyzvlY& … re=related that is not related to pantone, if they patented some technology from pantone it's not entirely a lie.