The bubbler is not simple. The mixture changes over time so I have to add petrol to keep the engine running. (to start the GEET process what was not started yet) I wonder how to create emulsions of heavier fuels. The aim is creating long running systems. I start to realize that a new type of carburetor is needed to control the fuel/mixture input.
I used a 5 gallon pail (bucket) as my bubbler with about 1/4 to 1/2 filled with gasoline (petrol) diesel water mix. The vacuum sucked in the sides of the plastic bucket (and eventually destroyed the bucket with breaks along the folded sides), but once adjusted to run in a near loop vacuum mode, then it would slow idle on that mixture for about 5 hours until I finally turned it off. Not anywhere in the rpm range to produce rated electricity though.
Closed or near closed loop analysis to fit with everything else we have observed and discovered here is going to tell us a lot. Great job! I look forward to hearing more and building accordingly and replicating.
Henk, back about 20 years ago when I still did such things I made a "better water bong" that had a horizontal knee at the bottom of a copper pipe inlet and I had small holes drilled along the horizontal pipe to create many small bubbles for better smoke/liquid contact and a smoother puff.......lol I was thinking something similar is probably the best way to go with the bubbler and do as Dan suggested and have a fine thin tube with small nozzle drip in petrol from a separate fuel tank drawn in by the vacuum into the bubbler chamber. The larger number of smaller bubbles should allow for more vaporization and less turbulence in the bubbler, adding baffles or scouring pads further up and using a tall chamber are also other good ideas to help improve the bubbler IMHO.
That is nice, I had the same idea, the aquarium idea. I will show the result, need some testing. I will use a larger plastic can for this. For the petrol drip I have a different idea, I will show when I have tested it.
Hi Hank. For $5 on kindle, this book, in French is worth it for the the pictures and diagrams. BTW thank you for all your work and explorations to date. I look forward to adding to all that you have already found and shown us in your shop.
With the GEET many advantages could be achieved, and I suggest some caution and planning is exercised. It will be fabulous to use oil spills, as fuels, gaining both inexpensive energy and removing the refuse, but I think is is wise to partition the tasks ahead.
First, the issue of getting the GEET to run like the proverbial clock. In getting it to run well, start when you want it to, regulate the power output, etc, I suggest that ordinary fuels of one kind are used (plus water), such as regular petrol, diesel or kerosene. If it can be made to run well from from one set of fuel, and produces more energy than is added, then we have an over unity device. If it is considerably more efficient than the normal ICE (power output over 35% of energy in fuel used perhaps), then this is also a very significant also.
Then, turn to the issue of the fuel burned. From sampling the gases that are produced at various points in the GEET, we will probably find out what the machine thrives on, and can get pointer to how the fuel should be composed. Many techniques for making the fuel ‘digestible’ have already surfaced, first of the all the Bubbler - ingenious device, but probably needs adaptation depending on the diet. Other suggestions are detergents. We should probably add pumps, high pressure, water mist, ultrasound and heating of the fuel to the fuel preparations.
But above all, don’t try to do all at once, because that testing space is way way too large.
Hmm, I added your registered email as a guest editor to the document - but I see it does not allow you to write a post, just view it. I must add you as a contributor.
exactly. GEET makes the iron hot, so de-magnetizes the rod. But what is new to me that the rod becomes a soft bar magnet just enough to move the compass needle. This means that the magnetic flux of the earth is strong enough to create a bar magnet. It is even so strong it can change it into a permanent bar magnet in a 24 hour period. Your picture gives already some hints, need someone to explain this more in detail.
Only to illustrate there’s a significant vertical component to the earths magnetic field, depending on your location. Is this a control rod you’re talking about or the rod taken out of the GEET reactor?
Just prior to your intro of GEET I was relatively convinced we'd be able to achieve relic neutrino resonance in a periodically spaced concentric array of toroids. This is per Dubovik's and Kovacs' work. So when this topic came up, the ball lightning object at the convex downstream end of the innermost restrictor rod and it's subsequent Earth-oriented magnetic field I thought this was as straight forward as charge sep occuring very close to the vortex filaments which themselves have curvature conentric to the rod. Even if they're not fully connected around the rod you still achieve a TDM albeit weighted closer to the surface. This would be like a directional antenna which feeds relic neutrino flux and causes a resonance within that flux. This is what I based my investigation on. I used Magnetscape on iphone to measure realtime change in B field for a constant flow, both heated and non-heated outer case. Neg results after 10 mins of compressed air at relevant Re. See https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-309134gHjWYQ8LvgWw0xa1DVPDDDcu9)
CFD of the inner restrictor rod at Re1500. Nb the dimensions in the patent, assuming it's for a single engine 500cc @ 2000RPM the flow in the narrowest part of the restricted flow is M0.3 and Re11000. I wasn't able to resolve much at a cursory glance, however I did notice the really nice toroid filament at the BL location. Noted as well that the it wouldn't be at a constant flow, more like pulsed flow at 17Hz.
I'm starting to speculate that it's more important to have that coaxial reverse flow. To steel man this though, the turbulence-only model would check out for Schauberger's designs. The relic rate of self-interaction is most likely the real electrogravitic cause, in my books.
I looked at a novel CFD method where it treats vortex filaments really efficiently, in practice this only applies to superfluids and condensates... it models really high Re well though so there may be something there, still tinkering away at it. So far it looks like it sheds filaments that travel down the length of the rod like smoke rings would.
I'll do a plain rod without the little exciters up front but pretty sure it won't be anything groundbreaking. If anyone want's to, the code is linked in the above folder, you just need an STL file, a GPU, Visual Studio and 1hr to run through fluidX3D github. https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D/
Wow, just looked at the date on this post - what a year it’s been. I wanted to provide an update on my thinking surrounding GEET and similar processes. After looking extensively at the microscopic Eddies that form there’s no way they have enough power to cause charge separation and have inherent toroid moments. The TDM is manifest in the centre of bulk rotation of shear moments - that’s really all there is to it.
The SEM/EDS analysis of TSG shows 30um regular spacing of magnetic cores of BL and the C accretion disk. These are about 10um across with the magnetic cores being around 2-3 um.
I can see how the Re number plays an importand role here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number Can you help with the calculation of the ideal gap between rod and tube. The inner tube has a diameter of 15mm. What should be the diameter of the rod be for a 100 cc 4 stoke engine?
Hi Henk sorry for the delayed response. I plotted the flow-rate lines for inner tube radius, in metres and tolerance between restrictor and the inner tube [m]. Initially it was counter intuitive to me that you'd be wanting a larger gap as the total cross section increased, (I thought you'd want the highest velocity) but the Reynolds number is really a description of the 'shape' of the flow, not it's vortex filament power or it's ability to centrifuge out heavier charged particles.
Anyway, to answer your q - for Re 8000, you'd want anywhere between 3 to 5 mm gap and run the 100cc engine at 4 to 5,5k RPM. Noting though your flow will be much slower, around 6x slower, than if you had a 0.025" gap as recommended.
It is counter intuitive indeed. Just this morning I was testing with a wider rod, with a smaller gap. This time the rod was pulled up by the vacuum, then it will not work. I will try a thinner rod.
But now I see another ' problem' and that is the positioning of the rod, the vacuum will not pull the rod into position, so I will create a support that puts the rod in the middle of the inner pipe.
This is great. Remember in the Zoom where we discussed the need to smooth the pulse nature of the gas flow to optimize GEET mode? The Gadgetman Groove (GG henceforth) provides the correct conditions to use the peaks of the pulses to induce vorticity and achieve similar GEET action, but only for the portion of each cylinder stroke where the conditions are right, i,e, when the gas intake velocity is sufficient to induce vorticity and initiate GEET action. So in every stroke you will get some cracking of the hydrocarbons and then some of the EVO production and transmutation.
Right off the bat I am thinking we get a GG built for a test engine and play with that in conjunction with a GEET reactor. We also may want to think about plumbing the reactor in a way that makes adding another GG valve somewhere, in the loop and use the pulsed nature of the gas flow to stabilize GEET action across loads rather trying to smooth or eliminate the pulses. Just a quick take but I feel like this could be key to a bolt on solution for rolling stock and home gensets.
While I am throwing out ideas, I think the reports of cool running and especially the bubbler getting cold or even freezing are key and need to be accounted for in our theory so that we can design and optimize with that in mind.
I am struck by how many stories start with old motorheads like me just wanting to optimize burn towards stoichometricity and bumping into this type behavior. And it certainly explains a lot of emissions and fuel formulation requirements that seem to mask it.
- The exhaust is suggested to be slightly restricted as it passes through the reactor. Is designing the scale of the reactor off the exhaust opening at the engine the best way to get your measurements?
- What are the pros and cons of a vertical and horizontal reactor?
- What have you found is the ideal way to support the rod vertically so it doesn't fall out of the reactor?
- How would you replace the bubbler with a gas feedstock so that the natural aspiration of the engine and reactor is not effected and so the exhaust can be fed back in as a closed loop.
Visit GEETInternational.com and GEETClub.com to make a donation to support GEET Research and Development, Sign-up for Online GEET Courses, See new GEET products as they become available, and much more!
In anticipation of the event, you might enjoy looking at Dan’s You Tube channel under Geet Life. Also many of the points in your comments are covered in theBook of Geet. Try Bob’s link to Scribd. Very exciting.
I am definitely interested the closed loop operation and reports of the motors running cold. There seem to be different GEET modes of operation; start up, vapor/cracked hydrocarbons, maybe an HHO mode, and something involving BL/nuclear collapse as evidenced by O2 and He production, thunderclap...
Now you know my questions relating to ball lightning and the atmosferic pressure in ball lightning. Sry, there should be questionmark after “superconductive”
Well - given the temperatures and pressures that FeO2 forms at, and that appears to be what is made in the Crenelated Fe + O spheres, it may be possible this is formed too.
Did this take place already? My phone is too full and I can’t install zoom. Plus I caught a flu since yesterday and barely managed to stop it from going worse. Hope you record and upload it later.
Thanks Bob, I am taking CDS and managed to get much better now but feel tired. Have been watching the livestream, is looking promising due to the pressure drop.
The bubbler is not simple. The mixture changes over time so I have to add petrol to keep the engine running. (to start the GEET process what was not started yet) I wonder how to create emulsions of heavier fuels. The aim is creating long running systems. I start to realize that a new type of carburetor is needed to control the fuel/mixture input.
Hey Henk, whats your progress with the Geet now? Is this the best way to talk with you?
Hi Thumper,
I created a new chat for GEET here
https://substack.com/chat/184573/post/755a50ea-671d-42b8-a9b0-5fa83907f451
with the cover article here
https://remoteview.substack.com/p/geet-discussion/comments
Hi Thumper - I will create a chat area, then you can discuss and share images - I have said this to Henk yesterday.
I used a 5 gallon pail (bucket) as my bubbler with about 1/4 to 1/2 filled with gasoline (petrol) diesel water mix. The vacuum sucked in the sides of the plastic bucket (and eventually destroyed the bucket with breaks along the folded sides), but once adjusted to run in a near loop vacuum mode, then it would slow idle on that mixture for about 5 hours until I finally turned it off. Not anywhere in the rpm range to produce rated electricity though.
Closed or near closed loop analysis to fit with everything else we have observed and discovered here is going to tell us a lot. Great job! I look forward to hearing more and building accordingly and replicating.
Henk, back about 20 years ago when I still did such things I made a "better water bong" that had a horizontal knee at the bottom of a copper pipe inlet and I had small holes drilled along the horizontal pipe to create many small bubbles for better smoke/liquid contact and a smoother puff.......lol I was thinking something similar is probably the best way to go with the bubbler and do as Dan suggested and have a fine thin tube with small nozzle drip in petrol from a separate fuel tank drawn in by the vacuum into the bubbler chamber. The larger number of smaller bubbles should allow for more vaporization and less turbulence in the bubbler, adding baffles or scouring pads further up and using a tall chamber are also other good ideas to help improve the bubbler IMHO.
That is nice, I had the same idea, the aquarium idea. I will show the result, need some testing. I will use a larger plastic can for this. For the petrol drip I have a different idea, I will show when I have tested it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079Z79D7W/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Hi Hank. For $5 on kindle, this book, in French is worth it for the the pictures and diagrams. BTW thank you for all your work and explorations to date. I look forward to adding to all that you have already found and shown us in your shop.
Look into gas/liquid carbarateurs. Easily bought from alixpress or amazon
My 2 cents:
With the GEET many advantages could be achieved, and I suggest some caution and planning is exercised. It will be fabulous to use oil spills, as fuels, gaining both inexpensive energy and removing the refuse, but I think is is wise to partition the tasks ahead.
First, the issue of getting the GEET to run like the proverbial clock. In getting it to run well, start when you want it to, regulate the power output, etc, I suggest that ordinary fuels of one kind are used (plus water), such as regular petrol, diesel or kerosene. If it can be made to run well from from one set of fuel, and produces more energy than is added, then we have an over unity device. If it is considerably more efficient than the normal ICE (power output over 35% of energy in fuel used perhaps), then this is also a very significant also.
Then, turn to the issue of the fuel burned. From sampling the gases that are produced at various points in the GEET, we will probably find out what the machine thrives on, and can get pointer to how the fuel should be composed. Many techniques for making the fuel ‘digestible’ have already surfaced, first of the all the Bubbler - ingenious device, but probably needs adaptation depending on the diet. Other suggestions are detergents. We should probably add pumps, high pressure, water mist, ultrasound and heating of the fuel to the fuel preparations.
But above all, don’t try to do all at once, because that testing space is way way too large.
Thanks Peter, though I think that is at least 5 cents.
This is the exact thing we needed right now
Pleasure to serve
I updated the target Re to 20k based on Dan's comments, also an explainer page on how to use the plot. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRnlhlLIZXYqdp9gopWO-wIBakDGVfJ9/view?usp=share_link
Thankyou so much Chris
Would you like to write a guest post on this?
I’d be happy to.
Wonderful, I set up a draft header and invited you.
Nothing seen yet - where should I be looking?
Ok - not as easy as I thought.
Perhaps if you set up a Google document and share link via PM and I can transfer.
Hmm, I added your registered email as a guest editor to the document - but I see it does not allow you to write a post, just view it. I must add you as a contributor.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039016832-Can-my-publication-have-multiple-authors-or-contributors-
Let me work on that
exactly. GEET makes the iron hot, so de-magnetizes the rod. But what is new to me that the rod becomes a soft bar magnet just enough to move the compass needle. This means that the magnetic flux of the earth is strong enough to create a bar magnet. It is even so strong it can change it into a permanent bar magnet in a 24 hour period. Your picture gives already some hints, need someone to explain this more in detail.
Only to illustrate there’s a significant vertical component to the earths magnetic field, depending on your location. Is this a control rod you’re talking about or the rod taken out of the GEET reactor?
It was a rod from the reactor. The rod had been hot and was de-magnetized. After 24 hours standing vertically it became a soft bar magnet.
Just prior to your intro of GEET I was relatively convinced we'd be able to achieve relic neutrino resonance in a periodically spaced concentric array of toroids. This is per Dubovik's and Kovacs' work. So when this topic came up, the ball lightning object at the convex downstream end of the innermost restrictor rod and it's subsequent Earth-oriented magnetic field I thought this was as straight forward as charge sep occuring very close to the vortex filaments which themselves have curvature conentric to the rod. Even if they're not fully connected around the rod you still achieve a TDM albeit weighted closer to the surface. This would be like a directional antenna which feeds relic neutrino flux and causes a resonance within that flux. This is what I based my investigation on. I used Magnetscape on iphone to measure realtime change in B field for a constant flow, both heated and non-heated outer case. Neg results after 10 mins of compressed air at relevant Re. See https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-309134gHjWYQ8LvgWw0xa1DVPDDDcu9)
CFD of the inner restrictor rod at Re1500. Nb the dimensions in the patent, assuming it's for a single engine 500cc @ 2000RPM the flow in the narrowest part of the restricted flow is M0.3 and Re11000. I wasn't able to resolve much at a cursory glance, however I did notice the really nice toroid filament at the BL location. Noted as well that the it wouldn't be at a constant flow, more like pulsed flow at 17Hz.
I'm starting to speculate that it's more important to have that coaxial reverse flow. To steel man this though, the turbulence-only model would check out for Schauberger's designs. The relic rate of self-interaction is most likely the real electrogravitic cause, in my books.
Slowmo Pulsed Flow CFD: https://youtu.be/bDYlJJQADXg
My Qs would be:
- What are the flow parameters where it stops working (high/low)
- What materials do you have the most success with for the inner restrictor core - understand Fe and SiO2 work, does Al?
- How important is the heat exchange across to the inner tube?
- Is the bubbler and reflow necessary for it to function?
- It was mentioned a pickup coil could get current, is that a concentric coil or toroidal coil?
Hi Chris,
Very interesting work.
Have you done a CFD simulation on a plain rod / convex & concave ?
I looked at a novel CFD method where it treats vortex filaments really efficiently, in practice this only applies to superfluids and condensates... it models really high Re well though so there may be something there, still tinkering away at it. So far it looks like it sheds filaments that travel down the length of the rod like smoke rings would.
I'll do a plain rod without the little exciters up front but pretty sure it won't be anything groundbreaking. If anyone want's to, the code is linked in the above folder, you just need an STL file, a GPU, Visual Studio and 1hr to run through fluidX3D github. https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D/
Wow, just looked at the date on this post - what a year it’s been. I wanted to provide an update on my thinking surrounding GEET and similar processes. After looking extensively at the microscopic Eddies that form there’s no way they have enough power to cause charge separation and have inherent toroid moments. The TDM is manifest in the centre of bulk rotation of shear moments - that’s really all there is to it.
The SEM/EDS analysis of TSG shows 30um regular spacing of magnetic cores of BL and the C accretion disk. These are about 10um across with the magnetic cores being around 2-3 um.
https://remoteview.substack.com/p/thor-its-ball-lightning-or-is-it
There are many smaller structures.
Scott, very happy to see you providing some computational input, it will most likely be a ways to speed things up!
And a question, shouln't the pulsation occur at 33Hz?
Happy to input! for a 4 stroke you'd be getting the inlet valve open for every second rev, and you could approximate it to be 25% duty cycle.
I can see how the Re number plays an importand role here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number Can you help with the calculation of the ideal gap between rod and tube. The inner tube has a diameter of 15mm. What should be the diameter of the rod be for a 100 cc 4 stoke engine?
Hi Henk sorry for the delayed response. I plotted the flow-rate lines for inner tube radius, in metres and tolerance between restrictor and the inner tube [m]. Initially it was counter intuitive to me that you'd be wanting a larger gap as the total cross section increased, (I thought you'd want the highest velocity) but the Reynolds number is really a description of the 'shape' of the flow, not it's vortex filament power or it's ability to centrifuge out heavier charged particles.
Anyway, to answer your q - for Re 8000, you'd want anywhere between 3 to 5 mm gap and run the 100cc engine at 4 to 5,5k RPM. Noting though your flow will be much slower, around 6x slower, than if you had a 0.025" gap as recommended.
Here's the graph I made to help: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Zw6FR09PVtcjy5wgAzAbDIyFpe4rH1O/view?usp=sharing
It is counter intuitive indeed. Just this morning I was testing with a wider rod, with a smaller gap. This time the rod was pulled up by the vacuum, then it will not work. I will try a thinner rod.
But now I see another ' problem' and that is the positioning of the rod, the vacuum will not pull the rod into position, so I will create a support that puts the rod in the middle of the inner pipe.
I think my Gap left the rod near the bottom.
So Fuel viscosity and Engine size thus Vacuum pull all factor in on Gap size for ideal rod position.
So many ways to fail :(
Simpler with TSG.
Hi people Dan here.
If your running on petrol you need a gap of 1mm. Minimum 0.8mm max 1.1mm.
Rod length 94mm. Back of rod to shoulder of tip.
Tips need to be twice as long as the one in the picture someone posted.
Tip profiles govern how much fuel can pass the rod, not the rod gap.
If running 80% water based fuel + 20% petrol you need a gap of 1.1 to 1.3mm
A reactor with a 1/2" inner pipe will run a 250cc up to 1000cc engine.
To run bigger engines use the next size up reactor.
If your running a Honda gx160 use the smaller reactor
Tnx, ill see you sunday 😉👍🏼
See you Sunday
Similar to GEET:
https://gadgetmangroove.com/
Thanks Felix.
This is great. Remember in the Zoom where we discussed the need to smooth the pulse nature of the gas flow to optimize GEET mode? The Gadgetman Groove (GG henceforth) provides the correct conditions to use the peaks of the pulses to induce vorticity and achieve similar GEET action, but only for the portion of each cylinder stroke where the conditions are right, i,e, when the gas intake velocity is sufficient to induce vorticity and initiate GEET action. So in every stroke you will get some cracking of the hydrocarbons and then some of the EVO production and transmutation.
Right off the bat I am thinking we get a GG built for a test engine and play with that in conjunction with a GEET reactor. We also may want to think about plumbing the reactor in a way that makes adding another GG valve somewhere, in the loop and use the pulsed nature of the gas flow to stabilize GEET action across loads rather trying to smooth or eliminate the pulses. Just a quick take but I feel like this could be key to a bolt on solution for rolling stock and home gensets.
While I am throwing out ideas, I think the reports of cool running and especially the bubbler getting cold or even freezing are key and need to be accounted for in our theory so that we can design and optimize with that in mind.
I am struck by how many stories start with old motorheads like me just wanting to optimize burn towards stoichometricity and bumping into this type behavior. And it certainly explains a lot of emissions and fuel formulation requirements that seem to mask it.
- The exhaust is suggested to be slightly restricted as it passes through the reactor. Is designing the scale of the reactor off the exhaust opening at the engine the best way to get your measurements?
- What are the pros and cons of a vertical and horizontal reactor?
- What have you found is the ideal way to support the rod vertically so it doesn't fall out of the reactor?
- How would you replace the bubbler with a gas feedstock so that the natural aspiration of the engine and reactor is not effected and so the exhaust can be fed back in as a closed loop.
-
Happy to help Dan with the Arduino, can't see how I can DM anyone on this platform?
I have sent an introduction mail
Thanks Bob. I'm in Garden Valley. How about you?
In Europe, but when I come to US I am often about 200 miles from you.
Visit GEETInternational.com and GEETClub.com to make a donation to support GEET Research and Development, Sign-up for Online GEET Courses, See new GEET products as they become available, and much more!
Thanks David for the links. I can see why YT would auto cull them.
Where in California are you?
In anticipation of the event, you might enjoy looking at Dan’s You Tube channel under Geet Life. Also many of the points in your comments are covered in theBook of Geet. Try Bob’s link to Scribd. Very exciting.
Dan says that following a long conversation with David Pantone, he will be discussing things not normally made public. Looking forward to it.
I am definitely interested the closed loop operation and reports of the motors running cold. There seem to be different GEET modes of operation; start up, vapor/cracked hydrocarbons, maybe an HHO mode, and something involving BL/nuclear collapse as evidenced by O2 and He production, thunderclap...
Now you know my questions relating to ball lightning and the atmosferic pressure in ball lightning. Sry, there should be questionmark after “superconductive”
Well - given the temperatures and pressures that FeO2 forms at, and that appears to be what is made in the Crenelated Fe + O spheres, it may be possible this is formed too.
Did this take place already? My phone is too full and I can’t install zoom. Plus I caught a flu since yesterday and barely managed to stop it from going worse. Hope you record and upload it later.
No, It will be tomorrow.
Right now is the live experiment run 3 with me356 Pd D on Nickel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O51hQIR_EZc
Hope you feel better soon.
Bob
Thanks Bob, I am taking CDS and managed to get much better now but feel tired. Have been watching the livestream, is looking promising due to the pressure drop.
Good.
Yes, the pressure is continuing to drop and the temperature is rising to 258ºC now
I have made some comments on what I think may be the process based on learning from Celani (2012-2013) and Matsumoto (early 1990s)
has the surface of the rod and the inner pipe to be treated? What is the influence of soot?