So will it be Gasoline or Mountain Dew?

Krootie · 08-02-2009, 03:08 PM

So will it be Gasoline or Mountain Dew?

YouTube - Invention Uses Mountain Dew for Fuel

fpage77 · 08-02-2009, 03:11 PM

Here I thought putting sugar in the gas tank was only for a prank to ruin a engine.

John_H · 08-02-2009, 04:33 PM

The first article I found, though it has the acrid smell of conspiracy theories, includes a letter describing the GEET system.

Plausible.

Plasma systems have been used to render toxins harmless. If the center of the system is a plasma generator that does manage to sustain itself within the system, this could be superb.

And then it could be a sham. I'd like to think "plausible" instead.

NCC1701 · 08-02-2009, 07:46 PM

I hadn't heard of it until I saw this post. And, still don't know too much about it. But I did run into a few things which bothered me after barely scratching he surface.

YouTube - GEET Water Fuel Plasma Reactor Chamber Explained Part 2

Some of what this fellow says doesn't make sense. For one, his concept relies heavily on thermal inertia, which he compares to a car continuing to accelerate after the throttle is reduced.

My cars don't do that.

It also seems he's confusing the inertia of mass with thermal inertia, two properties which seem to be related in name only. Inertia of mass is its property of maintaining speed and direction unless acted upon by an external force. Thermal inertia is the ability of a material to conduct and store heat. It describes a material's resistance to changes in temperature.

Thermal inertia is central in this presentation, but I feel he is distorting its meaning. He relies on his concept of thermal inertia to produce plasma from H²O without using more energy than the system will produce. Other things he said gave me that uneasy technobabble sensation too.

I didn't get far enough into it to find the connection between the need for hydrocarbons and the H-H-O plasma. Like I said, barely scratched the surface before I found an objection.

GEET Reactor by Paul Pantone (this is where I found the above video)

A Google search of GEET gets a lot of hits. I won't close the door without learning a little more, but I smell snake oil.

Neonspinnazz · 08-02-2009, 07:58 PM

So, who wants to be the first to run a smart off of Mountain Dew?

fpage77 · 08-02-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neonspinnazz

So, who wants to be the first to run a smart off of Mountain Dew?

I read this at first as who wants to be the first to drive a smart off a mountain.

The dew part kind of faded away.

John_H · 08-02-2009, 08:18 PM

The inventor might currently be in jail for securities fraud which doesn't bode well.

I never though the plasma was the ubiquitous H-HO in the description I read.

Neonspinnazz · 08-02-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpage77

I read this at first as who wants to be the first to drive a smart off a mountain.

The dew part kind of faded away.

There's a first for that too! Now accepting applications...

John_H · 08-02-2009, 08:52 PM

Okay - it wasn't HHO, it was honest plasma spoken of in the video.

"Thermal inertia" doesn't float my boat but what he may have not covered properly is the temperatures of the fuel. He was saying that the fuel gets hotter, then colder, then hotter than the exhaust. That actually is explained by the venturi. By increasing the speed of the gas (vapor, not fuel) through a restriction, the pressure drops as well as the temperature. The lower temperature means there' more heat transfer into the low pressure gas in the venturi. When the gas (or plasma?) slows back down after the restriction, the pressure builds back up and the temperature increases but has the added heat from that hot-to-cold transfer in the tube. It's not "thermal inertia" but standard thermodynamics.

I don't buy the hot versus cold separated by a tube generates electric fields. Lightning apparently requires water, ice, and snow.

The speed of sound could be interesting for supersonic flow transitioning back to subsonic where the transition between speeds is effectively a step function. Ions are just a gas. A disassociated gas with charged ions, but still should hold up to normal thermodynamics.

So. If one can convert the incoming fuel into a flow of plasma, what good does that do us? When the plasma mixes with the air, the reaction should be more violent than with the flamefront because combusting fuel needs energy added to it to disassociate into ions in the first place, energy that has to come from the reaction (or the spark ignition). Sulfer won't be eliminated. I'm wondering what would keep CO and NOx formations from being a normal part of the cycle.

fpage77 · 08-02-2009, 08:59 PM

John_H my brain just liquefied like the Nazi guys in Raiders of the Lost Ark.