Maker Pro
Maker Pro

GEET

C

Curbie

Four legs good, two legs bad.
Employing few people good, employing many people bad.

Small tax base good, large tax base bad.

Orwellian oxy for the moron.
 
N

News

Curbie said:
Employing few people good, employing many people bad.

Small tax base good, large tax base bad.

Orwellian oxy for the moron.

A confused fool.
 
N

News

A confused fool.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be crazy.
<<<<<

Someone who immediately insults and then says it is all lies is a total
idiot. MIT have had results - reproducible - which he ignores, and many
around the world are seeing something happening. Who do I believe? MIT and
those around the world or a fool - who's probably under pay from a large
corporation.

Something is there. What would you need to do to get 20-30% more mpg in an
existing IC engine's design using existing untreated fuels? If GM made a
car that was 30% better in mpg the media would be all over it.
 
S

sno

Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be crazy.
<<<<<

Someone who immediately insults and then says it is all lies is a total
idiot. MIT have had results - reproducible - which he ignores, and many
around the world are seeing something happening. Who do I believe? MIT
and those around the world or a fool - who's probably under pay from a
large corporation.

Something is there. What would you need to do to get 20-30% more mpg in
an existing IC engine's design using existing untreated fuels? If GM
made a car that was 30% better in mpg the media would be all over it.
20 plus percent increase is easy....over inflate your tires and keep
them that way (tires will wear out faster, and rougher ride) but mpg
will increase.....

Other ways....

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_tips.aspx

have fun....sno

--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
 
C

Curbie

Someone who immediately insults and then says it is all lies is a total
Do you even read what you write, a perfect description of your rant.
MIT have had results - reproducible - which he ignores
More gibberish from you - the start of my FIRST post - "Google plasma,
plasmatron (MIT)"
MIT's plasmatron, designed by engineers, is not the same thing as GEET
designed by, and I quote YOU "Pantone didn't understand fully what was
going on", I never ignored MIT's designs, just your gibberish.
, and many around the world are seeing something happening.
Now, you're back to the, advocating a technology to others, that you
don't understand, because you read it the internet.
Who do I believe? MIT and those around the world or a fool - who's probably under pay from a large corporation.
The plasmatron and GEET are NOT the same.
If you (or anyone interested in the truth) Googles "GEET scam" you'll
fine 10's of thousands of links from "those around the world" that say
GEET, as your proselytizing it, is a scam. A fact which you
conveniently left out of your "reporting".

You believe want you want to believe, that's all, which is fine for
you, but proselytizing a dilution, beside being a symptom of
Schizophrenia, is just plain malicious to unknowing readers that are
looking for solutions.
Something is there.
More proselytizing.
What would you need to do to get 20-30% more mpg in an existing IC engine's design using existing untreated fuels?
Some facts and an understanding of the process, but you being
clueless, I understand your dilemma.
If GM made a car that was 30% better in mpg the media would be all over it.
YA THINK, do you really think it's possible that not a single engineer
at GM has ever heard of GEET, or maybe you think large greedy
corporations like bankruptcy, or maybe, how about, just possibly, GEET
isn't all that you've been proselytizing to be.

What a moron.
 
N

News

Do you even read what you write, a perfect description of your rant.

His idiotic ramblings continue...
MIT's plasmatron, designed by engineers, is not the same thing as GEET
designed by, and I quote YOU "Pantone didn't understand fully what was
going on", I never ignored MIT's designs, just your gibberish.

Idiot, I could not give a toss who designs it. Frank Wittle didn't exactly
work for a corporation and invented the jet engine. GEET is getting results
around the world. The key word is "results". Something your tiny mind
refuses to accept. Or it dies accept and you are under pay from a large
corpn'n.

MIT and GEET appear to be doing the same thing by differing approaches -
cracking.

< snip inane idiotic babble >
 
N

News

...

Something is there. What would you need to do to get 20-30% more mpg in an
existing IC engine's design using existing untreated fuels? If GM made a
car that was 30% better in mpg the media would be all over it.

Decrease the weight of the vehicle
<<<

I am on about the engine not the body, or an old Honda or whatever. Get the
best power/weight ratio IC engine and get 30% better mpg. If that happened
the TV would be having programs on it.
 
C

Curbie

Babbling idiots like you make competent researchers hesitant to attach
their names and reputations to risky, speculative projects. You
actually hurt the search for viable alternatives.
Jim,

You have a knack for hitting the nail on the head, I couldn't care
less if this moron wants to roll-up his sleeves up or spent his time
and money chasing his unsubstantiated claims, but proselytizing his
dilutions to others just hurts the search for viable alterative energy
solutions.

If a viable solution is there to be found, it will be found by someone
rolling-up there sleeves to do the work needed and not by someone
proselytizing dilutions.
I am on about the engine not the body, or an old Honda or whatever. Get the
best power/weight ratio IC engine and get 30% better mpg. If that happened
the TV would be having programs on it.

MIT's plasmatron patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=db...urce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The patent was issued in 1995 and you don't see them on any (let alone
all) cars, so why are car makers ignoring the 3-4 times or 20-30% fuel
increase, they're not, why doesn't MIT's patent tout a 3-4 times or
20-30% fuel increase, for the same reason, their not morons.

Curbie
 
N

News

...

I am on about the engine not the body, or an old Honda or whatever. Get
the
best power/weight ratio IC engine and get 30% better mpg. If that happened
the TV would be having programs on it.

Babbling idiots
<<<<

I am the one going on about old Hondas. Shisssssh!
 
Top