The Thunderstorm Generator: GEET's Commercial Descendant?

In 2023, a device called the “Thunderstorm Generator” emerged into public awareness, promoted by geologist Randall Carlson and invented by Australian Malcolm Bendall. The claims sounded familiar: plasma generation, dramatic emissions reduction, multi-fuel capability, exhaust heat recovery.

Very familiar.

This article examines the technical parallels between the Thunderstorm Generator and Paul Pantone’s GEET Reactor, explores what legitimate science says about their shared mechanisms, and asks an uncomfortable question: Is the Thunderstorm Generator a commercialized descendant of GEET technology?

Side-by-Side: The Technical Parallels

Let’s start with what the devices actually do, stripped of marketing language.

Component	GEET Reactor (Pantone, 1998)	Thunderstorm Generator (Bendall, ~2022)
Bubbler	Water bubbler for fuel vaporization	”Plasmoid Generator” — bubbler with cavitation claims
Reactor Chamber	Concentric tube with floating/spinning rod	Tube with rod + spherical resonator chamber
Heat Source	Exhaust heat transfer to fuel vapor	Exhaust heat transfer + claimed plasmoid process
Air Treatment	None specified	”Pre-ionization Chamber” with UV light
Plasma Claims	”Self-induced electromagnetic fields from vortex"	"Plasmoids from cavitation collapse”
Multi-Fuel	Yes — gasoline, diesel, kerosene, “junk fuels”	Yes — petrol, diesel, gas
Water Usage	Water/fuel blends (80/20 claimed)	Water + fossil fuel combination
Efficiency Claims	2-3x efficiency, 90-99% emissions reduction	30-60% fuel savings, near-zero emissions
Startup Requirement	Must start on conventional fuel until warm	Must start on conventional fuel until warm

The similarities are not subtle. Forum users on Energetic Forum titled their discussion thread: “Malcolm Bendall’s Thunderstorm Generator — GEET Ripoff or possible scam?”

The Core Mechanism: What Both Devices Actually Do

Strip away the competing terminology — “plasma reactor” vs. “plasmoid generator,” “electromagnetic fields” vs. “toroidal structures” — and you find the same core mechanism:

1. Exhaust Heat Recovery

Both devices route hot exhaust gases around the incoming fuel/air mixture. In GEET, vapors travel upward while hot exhaust spirals downward around a middle pipe. In the Thunderstorm Generator, exhaust passes through a pipe surrounding the intake.

This is legitimate engineering. A 2023 paper in ACS Engineering Au found that thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines can be boosted by 13-20% through exhaust heat recuperation using steam reforming or fuel decomposition. Recovering waste heat to pre-process fuel isn’t pseudoscience — it’s engineering.

2. Vortex Dynamics

GEET’s design creates counter-rotating flow sufficient to make a metal rod hover and spin. The Thunderstorm Generator’s “tornado tube” creates what Bendall calls an “imploded sphere torus.”

Also legitimate. Swirl and vortex dynamics are fundamental to modern gas turbine combustor design. NASA, the U.S. Navy, and major aerospace companies use vortex breakdown for flame stabilization. Higher swirl numbers improve fuel/air mixing.

3. Water Injection

Both systems introduce water vapor with the fuel mixture. GEET uses a bubbler; the Thunderstorm Generator’s bubbler is rebranded as a “Plasmoid Generator.”

Peer-reviewed benefits exist. Water injection can reduce NOx by up to 80% and improve efficiency by 5-15% under certain conditions. The evaporative cooling increases air density and allows more aggressive ignition timing.

4. Fuel Pre-heating and Vaporization

Hot exhaust pre-heats and vaporizes the fuel before it enters the engine. Better vaporization means more complete combustion.

Basic thermodynamics. This is why engines run better when warm.

Where It Gets Interesting: Plasma Science Is Real

Here’s what mainstream coverage misses: plasma-assisted combustion is a legitimate, well-funded field of scientific research.

Active Research Programs

Ohio State University — Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics Laboratory studies plasma for ignition and flame-holding
Purdue University — Energy and Propulsion Plasma Laboratory develops nanosecond pulsed discharge technology
U.S. Navy — STTR Program actively seeking plasma-assisted combustion for gas turbine engines
Princeton University — Developed models integrating plasma and combustion solvers

Peer-Reviewed Findings

A 2014 review in Progress in Energy and Combustion Science documented three major enhancement pathways:

Thermal — Homogeneous and inhomogeneous gas heating
Kinetic — Non-equilibrium radical production that changes ignition mechanisms
Transport — Flow perturbations promoting turbulence and mixing

Key finding: Plasma produces reactive species (O, OH, O₃) that can shorten ignition delay times by 2-5 orders of magnitude compared to thermal ignition.

Low-Temperature Plasma Is Possible

Critics dismiss GEET’s plasma claims because “plasma requires 5,000°C.” But non-thermal plasma operates differently:

Cold atmospheric pressure plasma (CAPP) generates plasma below 40°C
Electrons exist at high energies (1-10 eV) while ions and neutrals remain near ambient temperature
Techniques include dielectric barrier discharge, corona discharge, and gliding arc
No vacuum required; reactors operate at atmospheric pressure

The question isn’t whether plasma effects can occur at lower temperatures — they can. The question is whether these specific devices achieve them.

The Differences: Marketing vs. Mechanism

The Thunderstorm Generator adds several elements not present in GEET:

Added Components

Pre-Ionization Chamber — Uses a 25-watt CFL bulb. Critics note this cannot actually ionize air (requires >10 eV; the bulb provides 3-5 eV). Possibly non-functional.
Spherical Resonator Chamber — Nested 316 stainless steel spheres in 4:3:2 ratios. Bendall claims this creates resonant frequencies. No peer-reviewed validation.
Sacred Geometry Framework — The technology is wrapped in references to Walter Russell, Rodin mathematics, and Vajra symbolism. Marketing or mechanism? Unclear.

Conservative Claims

Interestingly, the Thunderstorm Generator makes more conservative efficiency claims than GEET:

Claim	GEET	Thunderstorm Generator
Efficiency improvement	200-300%	30-60%
Water ratio	Up to 80% water	Supplemental water
Overunity claims	Associated with free energy community	”No overunity claims” (official position)

This conservatism may be strategic — claims of 30-50% improvement are plausible enough to be attributed to known mechanisms (heat recovery, water injection), making the technology easier to commercialize.

The Pattern Repeats

Both inventors faced similar trajectories:

Paul Pantone (GEET)

Demonstrated working technology
Offered millions to sell (allegedly refused)
Charged with securities fraud
Declared incompetent, institutionalized 3.5 years
Technology dismissed as “pure, unadulterated nonsense”

Malcolm Bendall (Thunderstorm Generator)

Past oil exploration failures used to discredit
Recorded Joe Rogan Experience episode — never released
Called “religious nut” based on 1977 vision claims
Technology dismissed as “pseudoscience”
Personal attacks dominate coverage; technical critique is secondary

Randall Carlson, who advocates for the Thunderstorm Generator, stated: “All the discrediting of Malcolm Bendall is based on nothing, and started because an oil company wanted to scare off investors.”

Whether or not this is true, the pattern is worth noting: personal attacks substitute for technical engagement.

What the Studies Found

Thunderstorm Generator Testing

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) Analysis:

SEM/EDS analysis found “crenelated Fe + O microspheres” — evidence of high-temperature interactions
Estimated 129+ million interaction sites on reactor interior
Bob Greenyer concluded: “There is plenty of evidence of interactions”

UK Temperature Survey (June 2024):

Exhaust entering device: 241°C
Device temperature: 767°C
Claimed excess heat: ~520°C above exhaust input

Claimed Third-Party Results:

Oxygen increased ~7000%
Toxic gases reduced 80-100%
Conversion in less than four minutes

Caveat: These results are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Independent verification with published methodology remains lacking.

GEET Testing

ENSAIS Study (2001):

20% fuel consumption reduction
85% pollution reduction
Operation with 20% fuel / 80% water demonstrated

Mines de Douai (2007):

40% increase in fuel consumption
25% power reduction
50% reduction in CO/CO₂
Mixed results

Studies of GEET show variable results depending on construction quality and testing conditions.

The Honest Assessment

What’s Probably Happening

Both devices likely achieve real but modest improvements through mundane mechanisms:

Exhaust heat recovery — Improves fuel vaporization (5-20% efficiency gain possible)
Water injection — Reduces NOx, cools intake charge (documented benefits)
Better atomization — Pre-heated fuel burns more completely

These mechanisms can explain 10-30% improvements without invoking plasma or transmutation.

What Remains Unverified

Plasma generation — Possible but not confirmed at these temperatures
Transmutation (CO₂ → O₂) — Would require nuclear reactions; no radiation detected
80%+ water operation — Not demonstrated under controlled conditions
Overunity claims — Violate thermodynamics; require extraordinary evidence

The Uncomfortable Question

Is the Thunderstorm Generator a commercialized repackaging of GEET principles?

Evidence suggesting yes:

Core mechanisms are nearly identical
Both use bubbler → reactor tube → exhaust heat recovery
Both claim plasma generation and emissions reduction
Multiple independent observers have noted the similarities
The Thunderstorm Generator emerged after GEET was open-sourced

Evidence suggesting independent development:

Bendall’s theoretical framework differs (sacred geometry, Rodin math)
Added components not present in GEET
More conservative efficiency claims
Different reactor geometry (spheres vs. simple tube)

Our assessment: The Thunderstorm Generator appears to be an evolution of GEET technology with professional commercialization, updated marketing language, and additional (possibly non-functional) components. The core exhaust-heat-recovery mechanism is the same.

Why This Matters

If exhaust heat recovery and fuel reformation can improve efficiency by 10-20% — as peer-reviewed research suggests — that’s significant. Not revolutionary. Not free energy. But significant.

The tragedy is that legitimate effects get buried under extraordinary claims. When inventors talk about “plasma” and “zero point energy,” critics dismiss everything. When skeptics focus on personal attacks, they avoid engaging with the technology.

Paul Pantone gave his technology freely. Thousands of French farmers modified their tractors using GEET principles and reported real results. The Vitry-sur-Orne municipal fleet documented 20-30% fuel savings.

Whether the Thunderstorm Generator is GEET’s descendant or independent parallel discovery, the underlying question remains: Why aren’t major institutions seriously studying exhaust heat recovery for fuel reformation?

The U.S. Navy is funding plasma-assisted combustion research. Universities have active programs. The science is legitimate.

Perhaps the answer lies not in suppression conspiracies but in simpler economics: the fossil fuel industry has no incentive to make engines more efficient, and the alternative energy industry is focused on replacement rather than improvement.

Or perhaps something else is happening. The pattern of suppression — documented in the Invention Secrecy Act’s 6,543 patents under secrecy orders — suggests that technologies threatening established interests don’t always get fair evaluation.

Paul Pantone believed his technology worked. Malcolm Bendall believes his works. Thousands of builders report improvements. Peer-reviewed science validates the underlying mechanisms.

The question isn’t whether exhaust heat recovery can improve combustion efficiency. It can.