DOCUMENTED
US 5,794,601
The 1998 patent describes a volatilization chamber, exhaust-heated reactor tube, coaxial rod, and counter-current flow. It does not independently verify efficiency.
Read the patent →Independent evidence review
GEET Reactor:
the claim, the patent, the evidence.
Paul Pantone patented an exhaust-heated fuel pretreater and inspired an international builder community. Those facts are documented. Extreme claims about plasma, mostly-water fuel, near-zero emissions, and extraordinary efficiency have not been established by controlled independent testing.
Three evidence tiers
What the record can—and cannot—support
A patent records claims. A builder report records an experience. A controlled study estimates performance under stated conditions. This guide keeps those categories separate.
CONTROLLED BUT LIMITED
2018 generator study
A peer-reviewed small-generator experiment reported mixed results: common gasoline performed worse, one aviation-gasoline condition improved, and the authors called the overall result inconclusive.
Read the paper →UNVERIFIED
Extraordinary claims
Community reports of mostly-water operation, zero emissions, plasma formation, or several-hundred-percent efficiency lack the independent instrumentation and replication needed for acceptance.
See the evidence matrix →Engineering context
Real neighboring science is not proof of GEET.
Exhaust heat recovery
Catalytic fuel reforming can recover exhaust heat, but published systems use selected fuels, catalysts, heat exchangers, controlled temperatures, and measured product gas.
ACS Engineering Au →Water injection
Water injection can affect knock, temperature, efficiency, and emissions. Results depend on engine, load, injection method, and ratio; they do not imply water is a fuel.
2019 review →The person
Paul Pantone's complicated record
Pantone was an inventor and promoter whose patent and demonstrations attracted a loyal following. He also pleaded guilty to two securities-fraud counts and later spent roughly three and a half years in a state forensic hospital after being found incompetent for sentencing. Supporters dispute the fairness of that history; their suppression claims remain allegations, not established explanations for the technology's evidence gap.
Read the sourced biographyThe archive
Preserve first. Evaluate second.
Plans, patent records, thesis material, reporting, community archives, and skeptical analysis are worth preserving even when they conflict. The source library labels each item by what it can actually establish.
Browse the source libraryDo not treat archival plans as a safety certification.
Fuel vapor, hot exhaust, carbon monoxide, rotating machinery, pressure, and emissions-law risks make engine modification unsuitable for casual experimentation.
Continue the review
Start with the strongest question
Mechanism
What may happen inside the reactor?
Separate heat exchange, water injection, cracking, reforming, and plasma claims.
Replication
What did French builders report?
Community scale is historically important, but controlled measurements still matter.
Claims
How strong is the suppression narrative?
Distinguish public records, legal secrecy mechanisms, rumors, and causal evidence.