Industrial and motor Gillier pantone

Why are manufacturers not more interested in doping with Giller-Pantone water?

The good practical results of a water injection using a Gillier Pantone system are undeniable, as proof of the montage at the Town Hall of Vitry. Why is this system not currently being developed more by manufacturers?

Here are some food for thought

  • They are interested, but marketing is not yet planned
  • Reproducibility or stability of results that are difficult to master
  • Poor understanding of the system
  • Intellectual laziness
  • Fear of the establishment
  • System in the public domain, difficult to patent
  • System too simple to interest engineers (doping led to equivalent or better results than the development of high pressure diesel injection, the development of which took more than 10 years and millions of engineering hours).
  • Bad image of the system relayed by Pantone but also by certain "actors" (formation of certain very dubious "organic" groups).
  • NIH (Not Invented Here) see here
  • Industrial or especially mental inertias
  • Improved lifespan that is not profitable for engine manufacturers (who alone have the means to really develop this kind of system)
  • Applicable on old engines not favorable to the purchase of new engines
Read also:  Pantone Mercedes Vito Cdi 220

Add other avenues for reflection: why water injection is boycotted by manufacturers?

5 comments on “Industrials and Gillier Pantone engine”

  1. Hello,
    sorry but most of the assumptions were already far-fetched at the time, and are even more so today, aren't they?
    _ “Are interested but marketing not yet planned”: no source was mentioned in 2008 to detail the possible steps. If the manufacturers are interested, have they taken any measurements or asked for justifications? Not very plausible in 2008 therefore.
    We are in 2020… Manufacturers are fighting over the slightest fuel gain and CO2 emissions. And still no pantone engine. This hypothesis should therefore be ruled out for two reasons.
    _ "Bad reproducibility": probably, but isn't that the definition of "it doesn't work well"? How then to explain that it works for the handyman in his garage and not in the laboratory?
    _ "Poor understanding of the mechanism": probably, but what is explained and well documented should now be understood, right? And if that wasn't understood, any convincing lab test should have long since forced the engine to run.
    _ "Too simple system" or "in the public domain"? You are serious ? Do you really think this is a valid argument for engineers and industrialists? We kept wheels and tires that I know of: it's simple and in the public domain.
    _ Industrial inertia: plausible argument at a given moment. It is indeed difficult to initiate a major development. However, in 2019, this argument no longer holds. The proof: in 10 years, we have gone from 100% thermal to hybrid, then to 100% electric, i.e. 2 major architectural overhauls. We could therefore have launched a pantone engine in 5 years at a manufacturer if it was reliable.
    _ "Improvement in lifespan detrimental to the manufacturer": possible (we have already seen cases of planned or maintained obsolescence) but rather implausible in the sense that the competition is far too high to allow such a collective agreement. Look at the recall campaigns which are being taken down en masse, or KIA which has soared on the march thanks to its 7 year warranty. Maintaining this argument is more of a conspiracy theory.

    What do you think of my arguments and do you plan to update this article accordingly?


  2. Hello,
    Thank you for your answer, even if I admit falling from my chair when reading it:
    "Your comment is an update in itself." Is it serious? Any media or news site that wants to be objective does not let an article deliver unverified information for 10 years, before adding a "finally no" to the comment section on the pretext that a stranger (me if applicable) come and write a comment. Since you seem to agree that the article is not or no longer relevant, shouldn't you delete it and / or release a fix?

    "We should perhaps ask manufacturers and manufacturers why they boycotted water injection."
    Isn't that the very title and subject of your article?
    If you ask this question 10 years after writing it, the article does not answer the question at all and / or should not be kept.

    In short: I do not understand how you can leave articles on the site that are not factual without supplementing them with a report such as "10 years later, where are we?" ". If there is no time for a thorough investigation, a simple withdrawal of the article accompanied by a denial would be a pledge of seriousness. This is how scientific journals and journals operate in addition to having a peer review committee.
    By the way, the study you mention ( dates back to 2001-2004 and has biases (well explained in the article ) which seriously questions the seriousness of the conclusions to be drawn from it.

    1. Damien, you can fall from your chair it won't change a thing:

      a) BMW did not boycott, they understood the interests of water injection (the patent is available in the link).
      The other manufacturers also have water injection patents and / or they do it via the EGR… (1 L of burnt fuel emits 1 kg of vapor)

      b) there will always be blablers of the web… the exercise is easy behind a screen to criticize the studies of others… especially when one does not publish anything oneself. We have seen it for covid for almost 2 years ...

      c) I know what I measured more than 20 years ago: cleaner air coming out of the engine than that of the garage on the fine particles but you can always howl at the bias ...

      Those who destroy these innovations for some obscure reason have killed thousands of people prematurely through air pollution. I have a pretty clear conscience, they have to ask them.


  3. Hello

    First of all thank you for your answers.
    Please know that I respect your research, and that I am sincerely interested in solutions that could reduce CO2 emissions. It is for your 2001 study that I came to this site: it is one of the few to be carried out on a bench, with positive results, and enough details to be discussed. Most of the sites which evoke and detail the Pantone engine also refer to your site and your study.

    Concerning BMW, the system used (M4) has little to do with the Gillier Pantone engine: the M4 uses water to cool and compress the air at the intake (like an air / water exchanger but by mixing the flows). There is no bubbler, no heating or water doping and therefore no need to be cited here to illustrate the Pantone engine.
    Note that patents are neither a guarantee of reliability or interest; they can be installed without intention of use, or even without the solution working.

    Regarding your answers b) and c) if I myself am a blablateur behind my screen, the reports and studies that I cited are far from being the result of isolated, uneducated or embittered bloggers:
    Critical study of the observatory on the media relay of energy issues (ORMEE):
    Another study obtained by the Brittany Chamber of Agriculture after a study on a tractor:
    Without results.

    It is not a question here of "destroying innovations for obscure reason".
    Criticism is constructive and helps to test results and make them more reliable if they really are.
    You say you measured something with a positive result; I think you are sincere but if, for 20 years ...
    _ no or few studies have managed to reproduce your positive results ...
    _ that several others obtained negative results on the contrary.
    _ that a team pointed out in 2008 oddities in your study methods and results
    _ that despite the ultra competitive context and pressing on the automotive industry to reduce consumption and CO2 emissions, no manufacturer has installed Gillier Pantone ...
    The question "are we sure that the invention is reliable?" Seems all the more legitimate.
    To sweep away any criticism in the name of "I know what I did 20 years ago" is to lock yourself up in belief and leave the scientific process behind.

    If an innovation works, and we can save lives with it, great.
    But conversely, defending an invention that does not work is to divert efforts instead of allocating them towards something that does work, it is to delude people who think they are doing well,… etc. We kill instead of saving.

    Everything should be done not to blindly defend against any objection a remedy if it is not one.
    It was to get an idea of ​​the Gillier-Pantone engine that I asked you these questions.
    In a way, you answered it and I thank you once again.


Leave comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *