Make your own free website on Tripod.com

PANTONE'S "GEET" DEVICE

Is it REVOLUTION or energy DELUSION?


After several unsuccessful attempts by A.E.R.O. to purchase advertised plans for the much-touted "GEET" device, one of our researchers obtained a copy of Pantone's patent. We put together a device based on the information outlined in the patent information for the purpose of evaluation.

A.E.R.O. researchers are convinced of the existence of "free energy" and other advanced technology devices that could benefit the whole of Mankind; therefore, we approach such testing and evaluation of potential devices with great expectation. Sometimes we are elated with our findings, sometimes disappointed, and sometimes confused by the inventor's claims, but the approach is always the same: a positive rather than a "debunking" attitude, and we are continuously and tirelessly searching.

THE TEST

We attached our version of the "GEET" device to a small engine. Using a measured amount of 87-octane gasoline, we started the engine, making necessary adjustments to keep the engine running as long as possible. The first test was performed with a 4" rod ("Pantone reaction rod"). The engine ran fairly well, although somewhat roughly for eighteen minutes, one and sixty-seven one-hundredths seconds (00:18:01:67). There was virtually no detectable unwanted pollution from the exhaust, and the end of the exhaust pipe became warmer as the engine continued to run. During the operation, a slight magnetic disturbance was detected in the vicinity of the "reaction rod". When the engine stopped running, we observed an amount of waxy sediment floating on top of the remaining clear liquid which we attributed to "additives" contained in the gasoline, itself.

Test #2 was performed using the same amount of measured gasoline with an equal amount of water. The test was conducted in the same manner as the first, using the same 4" rod. The engine ran more smoothly and faster than observed in Test #1. The same observations during operation were performed with similar results, but the engine ran for only sixteen minutes, forty-three and eighty-nine one-hundredths seconds (00:16:43:89). Upon examination of the fuel container at test conclusion, we observed the same amount of waxy sediment and clear liquid floating on top of the entire measured amount of the added water. Conclusion: The device ran entirely on the combustible gasoline fumes minus the same "gasoline additives", but other than providing a better atmosphere for engine combustion, we could not conclude from this test that any water was consumed in the combustion process.

At the end of the two tests, we removed the 4" rod for examination. The rod did appear to have become magnetized with a somewhat weak field, but not enough to noticeably attract other metals. No other changes out of the ordinary were observed.

At this point, we substituted a 7 1/2" rod and proceeded to the next phase of testing.

Test # 3 was performed in the same manner as Test #2, using the 7 1/2" rod and the same measure of gasoline and water. The engine ran smoothly as observed in Test #2. The magnetic field in the vicinity of the rod appeared to be stronger, and the exhaust was noticeably cooler. The engine ran for a longer period than previously observed - nineteen minutes, twenty-seven and forty one-hundredths seconds (00:19:27:40). Upon examination of the fuel container, post-test observations revealed the same waxy sediment on clear liquid floating on the entire original measure of water. We could still not conclude from the test that any of the water was consumed during the combustion process.

Upon examination of the rod, the magnetization characteristics appeared stronger, but still not sufficient to attract other metals.

We feel that further testing is merited due to the observed test results, but some modifications to our assembly will be required before proceeding.

Based on this series of testing, we can only conclude, so far, that heated gasoline vapors aided by exhaust pressure from the engine causes the gasoline to burn cleaner and longer than in conventional methods, but we are faced with the problem of what to do with the accumulated sediment. We know that certain rocket engines operate on alcohol and water, so it is possible to break the water down into the separate combustible elements of hydrogen and oxygen under the right conditions. Perhaps we have failed to attain the proper accelerated heat from the engine's exhaust which would permit ideal conditions to exist.

We welcome any comments or suggestions regarding testing or modifications to the device. We also welcome any offers to present a ready-built device for testing. We will make no test claims other than what we honestly observe.

We also invite Paul Pantone to provide us with a complete set of plans, so that we might further validate his claims. He should email Professor Shields at  the following address: prof_shields@hotmail.com  as soon as possible.