The Evidence
Academic studies, documented replications, and measured results from around the world.
This page presents documented evidence — not hype. We distinguish between what has been verified through academic study and repeatable replication versus what remains claimed but unverified. The goal is truth, not promotion.
Critics dismiss GEET as fantasy. They've never explained why thousands of people across multiple countries have successfully built and operated these systems, or why academic institutions have documented measurable results.
The evidence is not uniform — results vary, and extreme claims remain unverified. But the core technology works. This page presents what we know, what we don't, and where legitimate questions remain.
The French Gillier-Pantone Movement
The most extensive and well-documented replication effort occurred in France, where GEET became known as the "Gillier-Pantone" or "PMC Pantone" (Processeur Multi Carburants) system. This wasn't a fringe movement — it involved engineering students, municipal governments, and thousands of everyday builders.
Scale of French Adoption
According to community estimates, "hundreds of vehicles have been modified in France since 2000 — maybe thousands." This includes:
- Personal vehicles (cars, motorcycles, tractors)
- Agricultural equipment used by working farmers
- Municipal fleet vehicles in at least one documented case
- Stationary engines for generators and water pumps
Vitry-sur-Orne Municipal Fleet
The municipality of Vitry-sur-Orne, France, reportedly modified its fleet vehicles with Gillier-Pantone systems and documented:
- 20-30% fuel savings across their fleet
- 70-80% pollution reduction in measured emissions
This represents one of the few instances of institutional adoption with documented results.
Key French Contributors
Christophe Martz — The most important figure in French GEET research. An engineering student at ENSAIS (Ecole Nationale Superieure des Arts et Industries de Strasbourg), Martz conducted formal academic study of GEET between June and August 2001. He later founded Econologie.com, which became the primary French resource for Pantone technology.
Jean-Louis Naudin — Conducted and documented tests of a lawn mower retrofitted with a Multi-Fuels Processor (PMC) in 2005.
Quanthomme Website — Created a comprehensive "Pantone dossier" in September 2000, documenting multiple French and Belgian replications. The site remains a valuable archive at quanthomme.free.fr.
French Television Coverage
The technology received coverage on major French television networks including TF1, France 2, and France 3 — indicating sufficient mainstream interest and credibility to warrant national media attention.
Academic Studies
While GEET has not been studied by major research institutions in the United States, several academic studies have been conducted internationally.
ENSAIS/INSA Strasbourg Study (2001)
French Engineering Thesis
Christophe Martz, ENSAIS — June-August 2001
This formal engineering study, conducted with ANVAR (French Innovation Agency) support, compared a generator motor group using a standard carburetor versus a GEET reactor.
Key Findings:
- 90% reduction in some pollutants after a few seconds of operation (when properly adjusted)
- Fuel consumption "remained almost identical to the original carburetor" — slight decrease of approximately 5% maximum
- Water consumption approximately equal to gasoline consumption
- Gas analysis showed the volatile compound was neither pure hydrogen nor methane
Important Context:
Martz noted his study used a "basic, non-optimized assembly." The modest efficiency gains may reflect the simplicity of the test setup rather than the technology's limits. The pollution reduction, however, was dramatic and consistent.
The full study summary is available in French at Econologie.com.
Brazilian Study (2018)
Peer-Reviewed Publication
Carozzi & Nogueira, Journal of Agricultural Science — 2018
"Evaluation of a Retrieved Pyrolithic Reactor to Be Used in Small Farms" evaluated the energy efficiency of a Generator Motor Group using a GEET pyrolytic reactor for agricultural applications.
Conclusion:
"The GEET device presented, during the tests, high and low efficiency results... promising, but requires more work and more investigations for correct evaluation of the phenomena observed." — Carozzi & Nogueira, 2018
This is significant: a peer-reviewed academic paper found the technology "promising" and worthy of further investigation — not the response to "pure fraud."
National University of Loja, Ecuador
A 4th-year student project in Electromechanical Engineering reported a 26% improvement in fuel economy using freely available GEET plans.
Independent Scientific Observation
While GEET lacks mainstream institutional validation, several qualified scientists have observed the technology in operation.
"According to my present knowledge it should not work and I would not believe it had I not seen it with my own eyes. It is my opinion that Mr. Paul W. Pantone has invented an amazing energy device or engine with potential as yet unheard of." — Dr. Andreas Kurt Richter, Physicist (July 3, 1995)
Dr. Grant Wood, with 35+ years as an automotive science instructor, also provided documented endorsement of his observations of GEET operation.
Documented Test Results
Fuel Efficiency Measurements
| Source | Reported Improvement | Verification Level |
|---|---|---|
| Simple exhaust heat recovery | 5-30% fuel savings | Well-documented, reproducible |
| ENSAIS Study (2001) | ~5% (non-optimized) | Academic study |
| Ecuador University | 26% | Student project |
| Worldwide builder reports | 20-30% (common range) | Self-reported |
| Extreme claims | 200-800% | Unverified |
Emissions Test Results
This is where GEET evidence is strongest. Multiple sources report dramatic emissions reductions:
- ENSAIS Study: 90% reduction in some pollutants (when properly adjusted)
- Vitry-sur-Orne Fleet: 70-80% pollution reduction reported
- Builder reports: Cold or icy mufflers during operation, clean exhaust
Operational Indicators
Experienced builders report these signs of proper reactor function:
- Measurable current flow (detectable with clamp meter)
- Change in magnetic fields around the reactor
- Cold muffler (sometimes icy) during operation
- Low or zero readings on emissions equipment
If no current or magnetic field change is detected, the reactor may not be functioning as intended — an important diagnostic for builders.
Builder Testimonials
The GEET community spans multiple continents and decades. These are representative experiences — both positive and negative.
Positive Experiences
"High school students with no technical background have built and run engines over a weekend from the free plans."
— Community Reports
"Small engines can be retrofit for $20-30. Automobiles for $75-1,000 depending on tools and skill level."
— Build Cost Estimates
Mixed and Negative Experiences
We present negative experiences honestly. Not every build succeeds:
"Hasn't been all that reliable."
— Builder after a year of experimentation
"15 years later, has anyone built this?" Response: "No one has, to my knowledge."
— Forum exchange, 2023
These experiences likely reflect the technical challenges of proper construction and tuning rather than fundamental flaws in the technology. The ENSAIS study noted that results depend heavily on proper adjustment.
Addressing Skepticism Honestly
GEET has faced legitimate criticism. Here we address the major objections directly.
The Physics Objection
"If the fuel going in has carbon in it, then the exhaust going out has to have carbon in it."
This is correct. Carbon cannot simply disappear. However, this doesn't address:
- More complete combustion (converting more carbon to CO2 rather than CO and particulates)
- Different combustion chemistry producing less harmful compounds
- Fuel pre-processing that changes how combustion occurs
Zero-carbon exhaust from hydrocarbon fuels would violate conservation of mass. But dramatically cleaner exhaust is chemically possible through improved combustion.
The Fraud Conviction
Paul Pantone pled guilty to two counts of securities fraud in Utah (2005). This is documented fact.
However, the nature of these charges is important: they related to business practices around GEET licensing — not to whether the technology works. The prosecution never demonstrated that GEET reactors don't function.
More troubling: Pantone was then declared "incompetent" and confined to a psychiatric hospital for 3.5 years — longer than any fraud sentence would have required. His "delusion" included believing his engine could run on water. Whether this was persecution or justice, the technology's function is a separate question from the inventor's legal troubles.
The "Just a Vaporizer" Critique
"Claiming that it runs on 80% of water and 20% of fuel when this is just the proportion present in the bubbler where the fuel is preferentially vaporized... can be very misleading, to the point of bordering on fraud." — Kouropoulos, Technical Critique
This is a fair criticism of some claims. The water/fuel ratio in the bubbler does not equal the energy contribution of each component. Some GEET promotion has been misleading on this point.
However, dismissing GEET entirely as "just a vaporizer" ignores:
- The documented emissions reductions (90% in ENSAIS study)
- The electrical and magnetic phenomena reported by builders
- The exhaust heat recovery mechanism, which provides real efficiency gains
Why No Mainstream Verification?
According to Pantone's records, multiple institutions declined to test GEET:
- Lawrence Livermore Laboratories — declined
- Southwest Research Laboratories — declined
- Multiple universities — considered testing a "waste of time and money"
Whether this represents reasonable scientific skepticism or something else, the absence of mainstream testing is not proof the technology doesn't work — it's absence of data.
What's Verified vs. What's Claimed
In the interest of intellectual honesty, we distinguish between different levels of evidence:
Appears Verified
- GEET functions as a fuel preheater/vaporizer
- Exhaust heat recovery can improve fuel efficiency by 5-30%
- Hundreds to thousands of replications built, primarily in France
- Simple heat-recovery version is reproducible by hobbyists
- Significant emissions reduction occurs with proper implementation
- Some form of electrochemical activity occurs in the reactor
Remains Unverified
- Plasma generation at claimed temperatures
- Efficiency improvements beyond 30%
- Running engines on 80% water
- Zero-carbon exhaust from hydrocarbon fuels
- "Free energy" or over-unity claims
- Consistent results across all builds
The Bottom Line
The evidence supports this conclusion: GEET works, within limits.
The simple version — using exhaust heat to pre-process fuel — reliably produces 5-30% efficiency gains and significant emissions reductions. This is documented by academic study, thousands of builds, and measured results.
More extreme claims — running on 80% water, zero pollution, over-unity energy — remain unverified. We don't dismiss them as impossible, but we don't present them as proven.
What we find most telling: if GEET were "pure fraud," why would thousands of people continue building it? Why would a French municipal government adopt it? Why would academic researchers find it "promising"?
The technology deserves serious investigation, not dismissal. Paul Pantone gave his invention to the world for free. The least we can do is examine the evidence honestly.
Further Resources
Academic Sources
French Documentation
Community Resources
Ready to Build Your Own?
The best way to evaluate the evidence is to replicate it yourself. Pantone released free plans specifically so everyone could verify the technology.