gnitseretni
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Colombia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
GEET Fuel Processor
The invertor calls the GEET Fuel Processor an "on-board compact plasma fuel refinery that renders just about any liquid into usable
and highly volatile fuel by cultivating electro-magnetic and other energy fields."
Plasma???
I went over the plan they offer (http://www.geetinternational.com/Free_Plans.html), read articles, seen videos, trying to get more details on the "reaction chamber" where the
"magic" happens. But nada! I thought I'd come to SM see if folks here can figure out what's going on in the reaction chamber.
The reason why I'd like to know what the reaction chamber does is because I don't know why it's even necessary. As we all know, liquid gasoline
doesn't burn.. it's the vapor that burns. The GEET has a container filled about 1/4 of the way with gasoline. Air is bubbled through this fuel to
create vapor. It then goes through the reaction chamber. The idea is to introduce gasoline VAPOR into the engine so it burns clean and complete unlike
liquid droplets as is the case in carborated and fuel injected engines. But if it's already vapor after coming out of the bubbler, then what is the
reaction chamber for? What is it's purpose? I've heard one guy say (who's a GEET dealer and trained by the inventor) in one of the many youtube vids
I've seen that the reaction chamber keeps the fuel from condensing back into a liquid. From that, plus the fact that they refer to this thing as a
"fuel refinery", I assume what the reactor does is it "cracks" the fuel into lighter hydrocarbons? That would explain why the vapor doesn't condense
back into a liquid. But how do they crack the fuel? (if that's in fact what they're doing) I don't believe the temp is high enough. Can it be done
with electro-magnetism? Or they call it a "plasma fuel refinery". How does plasma come into play here? I dunno. That's why I came here.
|
|
|
triplepoint
Hazard to Others
Posts: 127
Registered: 11-4-2012
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: in equilibrium
|
|
My first thought was that the secret sauce is snake oil, but I decided I was being too cynical and decided to look further. I went to the website,
which doesn't say much, saw that their video had been dumped by YouTube, then clicked on the direct video link. That brought me to a notice that the
domain had been seized pursuant to court order. At that point I decided I had given it enough benefit of the doubt. Snake oil.
|
|
|
gnitseretni
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 5-1-2007
Location: Colombia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You don't believe you can get more MPGs by running a gas engine on gasoline vapor? What exactly are you skeptic about?
|
|
|
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
Posts: 2734
Registered: 26-1-2011
Location: USA - NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Gas engines ALREADY run on gasoline vapor, that is the point. And fuel injectors already are much more efficient than carburetors were at creating a
gasoline vapor/air mix, so there is little improvement likely to be made. Most of the inefficiency of an internal combustion engine comes from the
inherently poor efficiency of that design, so you can't make then do much better without changing the design of the engine. Simple thermodynamics
show that converting fuel to mechanical energy is difficult compared to converting to thermal heat, which can be done quite efficiently (see 94%
natural gas furnaces for one example, there are many.)
Also, for an internal combustion engine, you need fuel of a particular octane range rating, among many other criteria, to avoid destroying the engine.
So "usable and highly volatile fuel" may or may not have anything to do with meeting that spec. Just like for a diesel engine, you can burn many
fuels fine, including quality biodiesel, but if you try to burn unprocessed lard in it, you will eventually mess up the engine.
|
|
|
DrChang
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 24-2-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
gnitseretni, please realize that the exhaust is recycled in the opposite direction of the incoming intake mix. This creates a combination of
influencing forces that help to modify or "crack" the fuel molecules. The forces as I understand include, heat, magnetic and electrical. We know that
just heat in itself and help breakdown molecules. Add to this the extremely strong magnetic field and the electrical voltage differential, and we have
a heat-electro-magnetic force field working on directional moving molecules. This will affect the molecular bonds that hold the atoms together, and it
is not hard to see how the molecules can disintegrate into small chunks or into their elemental atoms.
|
|
|
Metacelsus
International Hazard
Posts: 2539
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
Actually, this is based on plasma gasification, a legitimate concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
Now, using it on gasoline does seem silly, as it's already a good fuel. And I doubt that "reactor" will produce much plasma.
[Edited on 25-2-2015 by Cheddite Cheese]
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
A destructive EGT for a typical engine is about 1600°F. Show that you can achieve the 4,000 to 25,000°F the arc process generates using engine
exhaust and I'll eat my hat.
Show any magnetic field produced by this apparatus, or even achieve the curie point of the iron rod with your exhaust gas during "burn-in" and I'll
eat your hat too.
Show any electrical potential difference between one end of the conductive reactor and the other and I'll eat a store full of hats.
Show using mass spec. that any catalytic cracking has taken place between the fuel inlet and engine intake, inside a reactor made of a material known
to the petroleum industry as a catalyst poison for the very process you describe, and at far lower temperatures, and I'll eat an entire hat factory,
workers and all.
All this is doing:
1. Using hot exhaust to vaporize fuel, separating it from water and gunk so the engine can be seen "burning" condiments, cat piss, etc, thus proving a
big oil conspiracy.
2. Preheating the incoming charge, and feeding exhaust into the intake (which will reduce both the delta-T of the heat engine as well as the available
air and thus reduce power output accordingly)
It is exactly as gnitseretni describes. IIRC this Pantone guy made a bunch of money selling this crap to people and went to jail for it. Read this and
tell me this is a legitimate technology: http://www.geetfriends.net/science/science.htm
The explanation sounds like someone with a high-school education in science put together a bunch of unrelated things he found on Wikipedia to sell
people crap. Anyone with half a degree in any science can see right through this. Besides, all this guy really did was re-invent the way EGR is used
to help vaporize injected fuel during engine starts on cold days, and then added some electromagnetic nonsense to make it sound 'pscientific'.
Also note that their solution to Pantone going to jail involves calling the mayor of Salt Lake City and telling him that they are "boycotting Utah."
Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, I feel.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This is 'HHO' by another and more sophisticated name.
You can't get ALL of the energy needed to 'plasmificate' back, even using an existing fuel. Never mind cat piss.
This guy is, in a sense, trying to sell a perpetual motion machine.
Snake oil would work though: because it always sells well!
[Edited on 24-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
