Geet controversy v. fact -- sound concept
April 15, 2002
On Saturday I sent out a notice of the Geet technology that improves a car's gas mileage by 2-3
times while also producing cleaner emissions.
After sending that out, a friend brought to my attention that the Geet is not without its
controversy (see message by Joel Skousen below).
I then called my friend Welton Myers back, who had told me about the technology, and asked him about
this. We spoke at length. I wish you could each listen to this brilliant inventor (who is also
pursuing a number of other fascinating alternative energy developments as well).
In essence, he replied that the problem is not with the core concepts, but with various people who
are implementing the technology. He himself, many years ago, converted several cars and has always
seen at least some improvement -- sometimes as high as three times the efficiency. He also shared
with me some of the reasons the device advertised at geet.com
doesn't always work as well as it could.
Even though many working models are in circulation right now, the technology is still in its
development stages, and there are bugs to be worked out; and sometimes the greatest obstacles are
not technology but the egos and premature enthusiasm of the people who are promoting these things.
There are two main schools that promote this technology. Each is a little different from the other.
They of course know of each other and even cooperate sometimes.
Paul Pantone does the Geet, featured at www.geet.com "His
main problem," said Welt, "is that he does not control his drinking problem. He's great
man when he's sober." Paul's team runs a 40-hour training course in Idaho for individuals,
mainly mechanics, who wish to learn how to install the units.
The other main organization promoting this technology, the one that Welt prefers, is Dennis Lee's
United Community Services of America. See
This organization has even more controversy surrounding it, most of which has been cleared, but they
do a better job with the engine conversion kits (not called Geet).
My friend Welt is an authorized dealer for UCSofA, and invites interested individuals to schedule a
training class through him. The week-long course takes place in New Jersey and runs a couple of
times each month. He's mainly interested in getting people who could not just be trained to install
the units, but to actually teach classes locally to train other mechanics in the procedure.
Welt has some additional ideas on how to improve the performance of these conversions, that are not
currently implemented in either school. If you plan on pursuing this with either school, I would
strongly recommend that you get in touch with Welt.
Feel free to call him in New York. Welton Myers 716-328-4253.
You can tell him I sent you.
Sterling D. Allan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Skousen" <email@example.com>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: alt. energy > Geet adaptor for automobiles
> Be careful with promoting this stuff, Sterling. It is mostly bogus. See
> the following URL: http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm
> and in particular, the following accurate analysis, which matches what I
> observed when I checked it out:
> Joel Skousen
> The scoop on Pantone's engine:
> 1. Nothing special about the engine itself. A plain ol' lawnmower engine
> would work fine.
> 2. Principle: Run the engine on fumes rather than injecting liquid gasoline.
> Only the fumes ignite anyway. The evaporation of liquid in a normal engine
> merely helps keep valves from overheating, but is wasteful. So that basic
> premise is solid. The approach does in fact increase mileage.
> 3. Preheating the fuel vapors with exhaust heat helps increase the tendency
> to combust. No problem.
> 4. The jar containing the gasoline where the fumes are drawn off can contain
> mayonnaise or anything else, matters not. Those materials are non-volatile
> and stay in the jar. The only purpose is to spoof people into thinking that
> they are being consumed.
> 5. All the talk about magnetic effects and other wild extraneous claims are
> to mask the simplicity. Such claims must be obscure enough that people not
> understand them, or the promoter would reduce himself to pedestrian levels
> and sacrifice people's presumption that they need him in any way to produce
> the same effect themselves.
> The GEET system works by pre-heating a fuel/crap mixture to the point
> where all the hydrocarbons are vaporized. As long as the mixture has
> enough combustible material in it, it will burn. Not very well, but
> it will burn. Dilute a gallon of gasoline with a gallon of water,
> and you cut the maximum theoretical efficiency of the engine in terms
> of energy per gallon of mix in half.
> The exhaust is so "clean" because it's so diluted with steam and
> other stuff that doesn't affect an NOx, HC, or CO meter. Just try to
> get the "clean-burning" fuel to power the vehicle sufficiently to
> drive, or try to get the fuel that actually allows you to drive to
> burn cleanly. The promotors like to claim that the GEET engine will
> run on water, Coke, and coffee, but they fail to tell you that you
> need some gasoline in there as well.
> Just how much gasoline? Well, that depends whether you want the
> engine to barely stumble over while you stick an EGA probe up the
> tailpipe, or whether you want to get usable power out of the engine.
> If you are pitching to a gullible audience, idle a rough-running
> lawn mower on a 50/50 mix of water and gasoline while you measure
> exhaust HC, then drive a Geo Metro on a 90/10 gas/water mix and tell
> them you can't sell it because of Big Oil but you'll sell them the
> plans, and you'll have the saps drooling and reaching for their
> Properly measured, on a miles per gallon of GASOLINE, the GEET does
> worse on a water mix than on straight gasoline. Anybody who tells
> you othewise without providing detailed experimental results is a
> liar. Anybody who does provide detailed experimental results is still
> a liar, and would present them in an SAE paper if they were accurate.
> A geek engineer would sell his own grandmother to make such an impact
> on society.
> To run an engine on water and/or to significantly improve fuel
> economy over that of a well-tuned modern engine would make somebody
> world famous overnight and rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's
> a reason Paul Pantone makes his money selling plans to this "Earth
> shattering technology" rather than changing the world himself, and
> it has nothing to do with sinister forces trying to protect the
> interests of Big Oil.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sterling D. Allan" <email@example.com>
> To: "Remnant Saints Special Alerts newsletter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "Greater Things Newsletter" <email@example.com>; "Patriot
> Saints Newsletter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Greater Things --
> Christian Newsletter" <email@example.com>; "Sterling's Friends"
> <SDAfriends@yahoogroups.com>; "Sterling's Newsletter"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "American Patriot Friend Network egroup"
> <email@example.com>; "God Bless America egroup"
> <God_Bless_America@yahoogroups.com>; "David's Outcasts"
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:41 AM
> Subject: alt. energy > Geet adaptor for automobiles
> > Here is a must see/do site for converting to more energy efficient and
> > polluting alternatives for your car. A brilliant friend of mine put me
> > this. I've added a link to it from
> > http://www.remnantsaints.com/AlternativeUtilities/
> > You can get 2-3 times efficiency on your automobile fuel consumption, and
> > clean up the environment at the same time.
> > The wife of in this duo team also apparently has some fascinating health
> > information as well.
> > http://www.geet.com
Feedback from JJ Dewey
(see JJWritings.com )
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Dennis Lee
> Here's a post I made concerning Dennis Lee about two years ago.
> I see that the products (including minerals) of Better Technology has come
> up on the list. They are an interesting and controversial company. A
> couple months ago one of our customers invited us to a seminar where a guy
> was to present to us new discoveries in Tesla technology that would lead to
> free energy. They were excited about the company and were investing some
> money which they believed would make the a bundle.
> I have always been interested in Tesla so I invited my friend Wayne to go
> with me and we attended the seminar.
> The founder of the company, Dennis Lee, did most of the talking and showed
> us technology, which if valid could revolutionize the world. He started
> out by showing us a modified engine that would run on water. His guys
> started it and it sputtered for a few moments and the backfired. He then
> complained that it usually worked fine, but that the engine must have been
> sabotaged by one of his enemies.
> Then he showed us other discoveries he made, but what made me a little
> uneasy is that he would pause about every ten minutes and tell us how he
> had given his life to Jesus. Now I have no problem with anyone dedicating
> their life to God, but I have found through experience that when this
> aspect of a persons life seems to be over emphasized in a non religious
> situation that it is often done for effect to promote some hidden agenda.
> He went through some interesting technology but his master plan revolved
> around a system of generating free electricity. He presented a scheme that
> called for some to invest now so the company could have enough money to go
> into production. After things got going the first investors would wind up
> getting free energy for life whereas those who came along later would pay
> considerable money.
> My instinct here was that I would lose my shirt if I invested with this guy
> and Wayne felt the same way. We were both skeptical about the inventions.
> I felt like the guy was on to a few things, but did not have them perfected
> Anyway I hadn't heard anything about this company since until a few days
> ago the people who invited us to the meeting came in our office again.
> They were very angry and disappointed at the company and were suing in an
> attempt to get their money back.
> Now I see that the company is selling a number of avant guard sounding
> products on the web and I'm still suspicious.
I think what we have in Dennis is the same kind of stuff we get with televangelists.
They are showman and know how to entertain, based on sound principles; but the upshot is their
integrity is lacking and their show is taken over by sensation. What began as a sincere effort
becomes a charlatan parade.
Page posted by SDA, Aug. 13, 2002.
Last updated October 27, 2005