The One Million Dollar HHO Challenge is launched

[HeairBear]

Arrhenius (ion chemistry)

    His idea that electrolytes are full of charged atoms was considered crazy. The atomic theory was new at the time, and everyone "knew" that atoms were indivisible (and hence they could not lose or gain any electric charge.) Because of his heretical idea, he only received his university degree by a very narrow margin. More.


Hans Alfven (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)

    Astronomers thought that gravity alone is important in solar systems, in galaxies, etc. Alfven's idea that plasma physics is of equal or greater importance to gravity was derided for decades.


John L. Baird (television camera)

    When the first television system was demonstrated to the Royal Society (British scientists,) they scoffed and ridiculed it.


Robert Bakker (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)

    Everyone knows that dinosaurs are like Gila monsters or big tortoises: large, slow, and intolerant of the cold. And they're all colored olive drab too!


Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)

    Not ridiculed, but their boss W. Shockley nixed their idea, and when they started investigating it, he made them stop. They assembled their point-contact experiment on a wheeled cart and continued, so they could shove it into a closet whenever the Shockley was going to inspect.


Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington)

    Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.


Chladni (meteorites in 1800)

    The scientific community regarded Meteorites in the same way that modern scientists regard UFO abductions and psychic phenomenon: quaint superstitions only believed by peasant folk. All the eyewitness reports were disbelieved. At one point the ridicule became so intense that many museums with meteorites in their geology collections decided to trash those valuable samples. (Sometimes hostile skepticism controls reality, and the strongest evidence is edited to conform to concensus disbeliefs.) Finally in the early 1800's Ernst Chladni actually sat down and inspected the evidence professionally, and found that claimed meteorites were entirely unlike known earth rocks. His study changed some minds. At the same time some large meteor falls were witnessed by scientists, and the majority who insisted that only ignorant peasants ever saw such things were shamed into silence. The tide of disbelief shifted... yet this important event is not taught to science students, and those ignorant of such history repeat such failures over and over, as with the hostile disbelief regarding Ball Lightning.


Crick and Watson (DNA)

    Not ridiculed. But they were instructed to drop their research. They continued it as "bootleg" research.


C.J. Doppler (Doppler effect)

    Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.) Doppler was finally proven right in 1868 when W. Huggins observed red shifts and blue shifts in stellar spectra. Unfortunately this was fifteen years after Doppler had died.


Robert L. Folk (existence and importance of nanobacteria)

    Discovered bacteria with diameters far below 200nM widely present in mineral samples, able to both metabolize metals and to create calcium encrustations. Proposed their large role in creation of "metamorphic" rock and everyday metal corrosion. These ideas were rejected with hostility because the bacterial diameter is too small to include enough genetic material or ribosomes, and they seem immune to common sterilization techniques.


Galvani (bioelectricity)

    "They call me the frogs' dance instructor."


William Harvey (circulation of blood)

    His discovery of blood circulation caused the scientific community of the time to ostracize him.


Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)


Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)

    It was not the church authorities who refused to look through his telescope. It was his fellow scientists! They thought that using a telescope was a waste of time, since even if they did see evidence for Galileo's claims, it could only be because Galileo had bewitched them.


Karl F. Gauss (nonEuclidean geometery)

    Kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.


Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)

    Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.


R. Goddard (rocket-powered space ships)

    Goddard was relatively obscure until late 1944, when those disgusting Jules-Verne fantasies, the rocket-powered space ships, started raining down on London during WWII. (By analogy, imagine the consternation of the scientific community if Iraq responded to Desert Storm with fleets of glowing antigravity disks shooting mind-control rays, or with psychokinesis attacks by ranks of professional psychics, or with troops of trained Yetis!)

    "The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished."
    -Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", NATURE, March 14, 1936

    "This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists." -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926


Goethe (Land color theory)


T. Gold (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)


T. Gold (deep mine microbes)


J. Lister (sterilizing)


T. Maiman (Laser)

    Not ridiculed, but his boss said now to his 'optical maser' idea. He received funding only after threatening to quit and pursue the laser in his garage. Even so, it was a battle, and his funding was pulled twice.


Lynn Margulis (endosymbiotic organelles)

    In 1970 Margulis was not only denied funding but also subjected to intense scorn by reviewers at the NSF. "I was flatly turned down," Margulis said, and the grants officers added "that I should never apply again." Textbooks today quote her discovery as fact; that plant and animal cells are really communities of cooperating bacteria. But they make no mention of the barriers erected by the biological community against these new ideas. Even today Margulis' ideas about cooperation in Evolution are not widely accepted, and are only making slow headway against the assumption that Evolution exclusively involves absolute selfishness and pure competition.


Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

    Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.


B. Marshall (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)

    Stomach ulcers are caused by acid. All physicians knew this. Marshall needed about ?? years to convince the medical establishment to change their beliefs and accept that their confident knowledge was wrong; was nothing but a widespread believe, and that ulcers are actually a bacterial disease.


B. McClintlock (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)

    Won the Nobel in 1984 after enduring 32 years being ridiculed and ignored


J. Newlands (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)


George S. Ohm (Ohm's Law)

    Ohm's initial publication was met with ridicule and dismissal. His work was called "a tissue of naked fantasy." Approx. ten years passed before scientists began to recognize its great importance.


Fernando Nottebohm

    Mammal brains never grow new neurons after birth? We're given a set number of brain cells, and we can only kill them but not make new ones? After twenty years as a ridiculed minority, Nottebohm's work with songbird brains was finally taken seriously, and the biologists of today now recognize that the age-old dogma was wrong: brains DO regenerate neurons after all. The information has not yet reached most of the biological community, nor the general public.


L. Pasteur (germ theory of disease)


>Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)

    Prusiner endured derision from colleagues for his prion theory explaining Mad Cow Disease, but was vidicated by winning the Nobel.


Stanford R. Ovshinsky (amorphous semiconductor devices)

    Physicists "knew" that chips and transistors could only be made from expensive slices of ultra-pure single-crystal semiconductor. Ovshinsky's breakthrough invention of glasslike semiconductors was attacked by physicists and then ignored for more than a decade. (When evidence contradicts consensus belief, inspecting that evidence somehow becomes a waste of time.) Ovshinsky was bankrupt and destitute when finally the Japanese took interest and funded his work. The result: the new science of amorphous semiconductor physics, as well as inexpensive thin-film semiconductor technology (in particular the amorphous solar cell, photocopier components, and writeable CDROMS sold by Sharp Inc.) made millions for Japan rather than for the US.


Ignaz Semmelweis (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )

    Semmelweis brought the medical community the idea that they were killing large numbers of new mothers by working with festering wounds in surgery, then immediately assisting with births without even washing hands. Such a truth was far too shameful for a community of experts to accept, so he was ignored. Semmelweis finally ended up in a mental hospital, and his ideas caught fire after he had died.


N. Tesla (Earth electrical resonance, now called "Schumann" resonance)


N. Tesla (brushless AC motor)

    An AC motor which lacks brushes was thought to be an instance of a Perpetual Motion Machine.


Jacobus Henricus van't Hoff (theory of 3D molecules)

    As a relative newcomer and unknown, he was attacked and ridiculed for proposing that a 3D tetrahedral structure would explain many problems in chemistry. His foes rapidly went silent, and finally his ridiculous cardboard models won the first nobel prize in chemistry (1901.)


Alfred Wegener (continental drift)


Peyton Rous (viruses cause cancer)


Warren S. Warren (flaws in MRI theory)

    Warren and his team at Princeton tracked down a Magnetic Resonance anomaly and found a new facet to MRI theory: spin interactions between distant molecules, including deterministic Chaos effects. Colleagues knew he was wrong, and warned him that his crazy results were endangering his career. Princeton held a "roast", a mean-spirited bogus presentation mocking his work. Warren then began encountering funding cancellations. After approx. seven years, the tide of ridicule turned and Warren was vindicated. His discoveries are even leading to new MRI techniques. See: SCIENCE NEWS, Jan 20 2001, V159 N3, "spin Control" (cover story)


Wright bros (flying machines)

    After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

George Zweig (quark theory)

    Zweig published quark theory at CERN in 1964 (calling them 'aces'), but everyone knows that no particle can have 1/3 electric charge. Rather than receiving recognition, he encountered stiff barriers and was accused of being a charlatan.


Fritz Zwicky (Dark Matter)

    Known in the astro research community as "Crazy Fritz," Zwicky investigated orbit statistics of galactic clusters in 1933 and concluded that the majority of mass had an invisible unknown source. He was ignored, dismissed as an eccentric.

[xjet]

I agree with some of what you say and acknowledge that there is a lot of things said in this forum that sound pretty far fetched. Then you come on board with this big money. That to me sounds like a scam because of lack of information that I have about you.

Well there are plenty who will vouch for me.  I've been active on the Net and in the NZ media for nearly 15 years and my website is the longest-running sci-tech news/commentary site in Australasia and one of the longest-running in the world.  I have established a long track-record of credibility and am frequently used as an "expert commentator" by the local media.

Then I begin to think of why would this guy put up $1M instead of spending a few thousand on a few old cars and try it himself? Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, I don't have all the information.

Well I make no bones about it that I believe these HHO systems are a scam and the science backs me up 100% on that.

So I've managed to find a small group of wealthy people who believe I may be wrong.  I suggested that we mount a challenge that would allow those who claim to be achieving these scientifically impossible gains in fuel efficiency to prove it for all to see.  A big-money challenge seemed like the best way to do it.

If nobody wins the challenge then we break even - the media rights and entry fees pretty much covering the cost of the overheads.

If the challenge is won, then I lose the bet, eat humble pie and the others get to rub my nose in it, as well as being able to commercialize their own products with the endorsement of the challenge as "proof" that it works.

But I will tell you that I have a friend who is a mechanic at a GM dealership who has tried this on an older car. He bought it to travel back and forth to work. He was skeptical but tried it out of curiosity. So, he took down his mileage for a few months, installed the cells and recorded the mileage for two months. One cell did little so he tried 3 cells. He say's he has gone from 20.3 mpg to 26. He has no agenda or reason to lie. I drilled him on some of the issues I heard about, like running lean. His plugs look good, even after 2 months.

Then why hasn't GM jumped on the HHO bandwagon?  After all, with the losses they're currently suffering, being able to improve the fuel-efficiency of their current product range by even 20% would be a massive advantage to them in the market.  All the car companies are hurting real bad right now, so you'd think they'd be all over this fuel-saving technology - if it worked that is.

You don't know me, nor I you. But, I will say that this guy is believable because I know him and he is a very respected mechanic. So my money is on him. It's not the 25% that you are asking, but I have enough faith in him to know it does work to some extreme. Will the car die from this in 6 month? Can't tell you that.

Well the science says that if he's seeing gains like that then it's almost invariably because the engine is now running leaner (and nothing to do with the *tiny* amount of H2 that's being injected).  It could be that his engine was too rich before and all he's done is tune it up like it should have been in the first place.  It could also be that he's unknowingly driving just a little more carefully than he did (most of us are with the price of gas like it is).  It's also possible that he's now running his engine *slightly* over-lean,. in which case engine damage may not occur for quite some time.

The reality is that it could be *all* of these things combined -- which cumulatively could quite reasonably account for the fuel-savings he's getting.  The one thing it *won't* be is the HHO system.

[nightlife]

xjet, I am not sure what your position is here but at this time I find your intent is to discredit those who have either contributed and or are trying to contribute to this forum.

Your idiocy is overwhelming and I for one feel you should be removed from this forum. If you have $1,000,000 and want to give it to someone that can prove at least a 25% energy savings, get the money ready. If not, please stop posting your idiotic attempts to stop people from experimenting with the things they all are.

This forum is an excellent place for free energy seekers to take part in. If you are not here to contribute positive content to this forum, then please leave.

If you really want to see free energy and or even just a 25% + energy savings, then I must refer you to the magnet. Take a look at it, study it, play with it and then stick it up your ass and then tell me how much energy it took for you to dig it out of your ass with your fingers and then stick it back up your ass and tell me how energy it took for you to get it out of your ass using an iron object. I bet you will find that it took more then 25% less energy using the iron object then it did using your fingers. Once you have performed that experiment and find that I am right, please forward my winnings to overunity.com.

I am generally against those who are disrespectful and I will admit my post to you was disrespectful but considering your disrespectful comments you have posted on this forum, I feel my reply is appropriate.

[xjet]

xjet, I am not sure what your position is here but at this time I find your intent is to discredit those who have either contributed and or are trying to contribute to this forum.

Excuse me?  I am not the one who has been calling others an "idiot" and a "fool" as some have called me.  I believe my response has to been to argue the science (or lack thereof) and the psychology of the issues and stick to the facts.

If you find this distasteful then I must agree that this is not the place for me.  I prefer a forum where open and honest debate is encouraged rather than one where those who bring in a dissenting point of view and present it in a reasoned rational way are chastised for doing so.

Your idiocy is overwhelming

I still can't understand why people here feel it necessary to resort to such terms.  Do you feel threatened by someone who uses fact rather than fantasy to present his arguments?

and I for one feel you should be removed from this forum.

Why do you feel so afraid of the facts and my adherence to them?

If you have $1,000,000 and want to give it to someone that can prove at least a 25% energy savings, get the money ready.

So you'll be posting exactly the same demands to Google?  "Show us your $30m or shut up about the Lunar X-Prize" perhaps?

If not, please stop posting your idiotic attempts to stop people from experimenting with the things they all are.

Again with the name-calling?

And please, do cite the post where I have "attempted to stop people from experimenting".  In fact, if you'd read what I'd written I actually *encouraged* people to experiment -- but not to profess that they had made supernatural discoveries without first checking that there weren't explanations for their observations that could be provided by mainstream science.

This forum is an excellent place for free energy seekers to take part in. If you are not here to contribute positive content to this forum, then please leave.

I think I have already contributed an enormous amount of balance to the discussion here.  If you do not think so, you are free not to visit this thread again.

If you really want to see free energy and or even just a 25% + energy savings, then I must refer you to the magnet. Take a look at it, study it, play with it and then stick it up your ass and then tell me how much energy it took for you to dig it out of your ass with your fingers and then stick it back up your ass and tell me how energy it took for you to get it out of your ass using an iron object.

Ah.  I see.

You have spoken volumes.  I had thought for a moment that you were seriously interested in debating issues relating to science in an adult and mature fashion.  Clearly I was wrong.  My mistake, I apologize for my mistake.

I am generally against those who are disrespectful and I will admit my post to you was disrespectful but considering your disrespectful comments you have posted on this forum, I feel my reply is appropriate.

Please read what you have written and tell me who is being disrespectful here.

I have never called anyone an "idiot" or a "fool" or suggested that they fiddle with their backsides.  Clearly the word hypocrisy isn't in your dictionary either.

Can someone please assure me that this person isn't really representative of the kind of intellect one would normally find here?

I honestly thought this was a serious discussion forum where mature people with at least a modicum of intelligence and maturity could conduct reasoned, rational discussions on issues of science.  Am I wrong?

[nightlife]

xjet, I never called you a name, I simply implied your comments show ignorance. If you are ignorant, then the shoe must fit. If not, then please stop commenting with ignorant comments and show us some footage of the experiments you have performed that would discredit those who have claimed to achieve what they claim.

We are here to see if those who have claimed progress, have done so with merit. We are also here to trade ideas that can lead to experiments that could possibly show a energy savings.

Your comments could possible discourage some from becoming involved and that is why I have posted what I have. I in no way want anyone discouraged from trying to experiment with ideas they may have and or stumble across.

Sticking the magnet up your ass comment actually was said to make a point. Stick it up your ass and try to push it out. then stick it back up your ass and sit on a iron substance. You should find that it took less pushing power to get it out then it did to put it in.
That was a way for me to explain how concept is wrong. Maybe if you think about it, you will see what I am saying.

If you do not do the experiments yourself, you will never know and for you to try to discredit those who have, makes you a disrespectful person. So if you have no proof they are wrong, then don?t come here and say they are. If you have physical proof showing they are wrong, then by all means, please show us, otherwise, sit back and let us do what we are doing because if they are wrong, will find out and if not, then we can help spread the word.