GEET thread

[dankie]

http://www.youtube.com/user/servall1#play/all/uploads-all/2/RTmN5EEcJ5Y

People have to start getting serious about achieving something before they are really stuck  , not some alien extra difficult free energy device . Something simple that can be done for cheap and with little knowledge or tool .

[dankie]

Let me remind everybody the numbers .

It saves anywhere from 50% fuel to 100% , either double or quadruple mileage if you have an added bubbler . It reduces carbon emissions by 90%

It produces amps and heat when running , when running well it can potentially run only on steam/hho , it can be an overunity device running on water alone as told by Pantone himself .

The tests we did showed that it worked normally with 80% water and used oil .

It is not an all or nothing thing , people usually achieve success 24 hours later . It costs less than 200$ to make one .

[Cloxxki]

As much as I'm a fan of the concept of GEET, the fuel usuage figures are always vague, which may be limiting it's global acceptance.
When using water in the mixture, how does this add to the work output of plain petrol? And for a 80/20 water/old old mixture, how does it compare to just that amount of oil?
Had 100% on water been achieved, and what does it take? 1500degC temps in the reactor? Reactor tubes insulation?
If someone makes a GEET system to get great mileage from a Ford Focus for instance, I'll get both immediately. People would take notice. The tinkering and mixed results are what's keeping a billions car drivers tanking thei straight up fuel every day.
Make a standard system for freight trucks, see how quickly the transportation business will be over that. Gas is their greatest cost factor, a professional driver blows more fuel than salary.

GEET to me seems to be the ultimate cannot-fail tinkerer's system, but too vague for global implementation, as of yet. I'd love them to get together with a car maker, and do an exclusive co-operation. Like Ford, Renault, whatever. All cars available converted for a $5000 upgrade. Yet, a 1.4litre car will perform like a 2.0litre one, and burn mostly water.

[dankie]

It does always at least 30% fuel economy when you have a bad setup , it depends on the pressure leaks and the tube dimensions and how you "nailed it" . It can be 100% if you nail it perfect , 200% if you recuperate the muck .

The economic disaster is already here , we dont have time for this fake nerd bla bla , I wont start naming people but you know who those people are , they are a bunch a fakes that need a good wake up punch in the stomach .

Money and gas need to be saved now , if you wish to join an active group thats not BS , join ionizationx.com

The GEET needs to be investigated , this is a caling for investigating whats beest .

But all of it works on the first try , the % is what varies yes , but its always good numbers .

[Cloxxki]

It does always at least 30% fuel economy when you have a bad setup , it depends on the pressure leaks and the tube dimensions and how you "nailed it" . It can be 100% if you nail it perfect , 200% if you recuperate the muck .

The economic disaster is already here , we dont have time for this fake nerd bla bla , I wont start naming people but you know who those people are , they are a bunch a fakes that need a good wake up punch in the stomach .

Money and gas need to be saved now , if you wish to join an active group thats not BS , join ionizationx.com

The GEET needs to be investigated , this is a caling for investigating whats beest .

But all of it works on the first try , the % is what varies yes , but its always good numbers .

Thank you for elaboration, and I do agree.
GEET first, and energy from new sources later.
In between, we'll have more efficient engines I believe, which will get in-sane mileage with GEET and HHO like configurations.
It's been bugging me forever that computers develop so much quicker than engines. What did engines improve at all, over 20 years? Win a couple percent of efficienct? Same piston layout, same cranks, and they've known forever it's flawed.
I keep referring to Tommey Reed's new engine systems, as I honestly believe he's on the right track. To double or triple engine enconomy, even before we address the fuel type and inlet/exhaust setup. More torque, less heat, same drop of fuel.
First we implement GEET, and when Tommey's engine hits the market, we'll just take at least half of our fuel consumption once more. It almost discourages building a lightweight or aerodynamic car, but the figures don't seem to lie.
I foresee that the VW L1 (tiny slippery fuel economy miracle announced for 2013) will soon be used by engine tinkerers to achieve further multifolds in mileage. First add 100% for a tuned GEET system offt he shelf, for the amateurs like me. Or, at least double it once more with a smaller but hugely efficient Tommey Reed engine. Use the size reduction for a larger fuel/water tank, and really tanking for gas (or even water) will be something that doesn't happen every season.