I had applied that line of reasoning myself, and discovered
(regretfully) that it doesn't hold up. People _don't_ always decide to
avail themselves of cost-saving technologies.
Morris,
If I may respectfully expand on the differences between your solar
panels, your claims, and you AND GEET, this fool's GEET claims, and
him.
Anyone can run the solar math to see that your panels are a viable
notion.
Few people seem to understand steam reformation of carbon to produce
hydrogen needed to see why this GEET idea won't produce the 3 to 4
times fuel reduction claimed.
I have not seen any unrepeatable claims for your panels.
GEET 3 to 4 times fuel reduction claims are analogous to the "secret
100mpg carburetor kept from the public by the big car companies" myth,
widely held by fools in the 70's. When my reasoning is applied there,
someone would have to believe GM would rather go bankrupt, than put
that secret on their cars and dominate the market OR small engine
makers would rather go bankrupt than apply GEET and dominate their
markets.
You roll your sleeves-up and spent your own time and money to test
ideas and I've never seen you post an unhelpful or a bullshit post.
This fool is not rolling-up his sleeves or spending his time or money,
he's parroting unrepeatable claims that will have the effect of
wasting other peoples time and money and as far as unhelpful and
bullshit posts go, you did read his posts in this thread,
unsubstantiated claims proven by unsubstantiated claims.
For you and anyone else that's reading this thread that doesn't know
what GEET is and why it won't produce the 3 to 4 times fuel reduction
claimed, here's a very, very, over-simplified overview (I spent more
time studying this than care to admit).
Steam reformation of carbon to produce hydrogen:
There are at least two distinct ways to run this process:
1) C + H2O = CO + H2 (both flammable gasses)
2) C + 2H2O = CO2 + 2H2 (one flammable gas, one not)
The higher the temperature (starting at 675C) the closer the reaction
runs to the first process.
The GEET process basically has a tube within a tube, the outer tube
vents the exhaust around the inner intake tube providing the heat for
the reaction, the engine is started with its normal fuel and run until
reaction temperature is achieved, then switched over to a "bubbler"
fuel tank which has a hydrocarbon fuel floating on water. The intake
air is drawn through the "bubbler" fuel tank where it picks both
hydrocarbons and water for the reaction.
Why GEET won't produce the 3 to 4 times fuel reduction claimed is
pretty simple, ICE's basically and ROUGHLY use 1/3 of it's fuel's heat
energy to produce motion, another 1/3 is lost to fiction as engine
heat, and the last 1/3 is vented through the exhaust and the "bubbler"
water not only provides the steam for the reformation reaction (which
GEET needs), but also cools the reaction temperature (which will kill
the reaction if cooled too much). Basically, the more water you bubble
(in a given time) for flammable gasses, the less heat there is to run
the reaction.
GEET can be used for cleaner emissions or to run heaver hydrocarbon
fuels so it's not a total scam, but you can achieve the same 3 to 4
times fuel reduction claims by restricting you engine's fuel by 3 to 4
times and putting along for a lot less time and money. Looking at
power to fuel consumption these 3 to 4 times fuel reduction claims are
nonsense and promoting false claims is both malicious and moronic.
This moron is not only trying to start his own parade of fools, but is
campaigning for "Grand Marshal", he's got my vote.
Curbie
