The One Million Dollar HHO Challenge is launched

[xjet]

Media and government are, by your own admission, often capable of sinking to the lowest of levels to suppress information for their own benefit/agenda.  Who says China, Iran, N. Korea or other "axis of evil" nations (pun, not my words) are not developing/using this type of technology?  If it's merely a quest for truth, I'd lay money that every modern government on earth is actively involved in alternate energy research these days.

But what's to research?  There are plenty of people who claim they've done it -- it works.  Surely, if that's true, it's simply a case of *using* it.  Of course if they're only 99% of the way there then that's a whole different story.  99% is *not* over-unity and never will be.

The questions I attempted to submit to your site were:

1.  In what country will the challenge occur?  Preferably North America or proximal.

It was going to be in New Zealand (where I am based) but I've since had quite a bit of media interest and as a result, it may be relocated to the USA and reported on in depth by a major TV network.  I'll post more on this to the challenge website when a final decision has been made.

2.  Would the challenger be open to performing the tests in a closed lab environment instead of in the "real world" open air?  Specifically, vehicles placed on stands, left running, side by side with dynamometers attached.  Guards on site, 24x7, entire duration of tests videotaped for posterity?

There will be two levels of testing: Lab-tests where the conditions can be carefully controlled and duplicated for all challengers and "real world" (which is where we actually drive our vehicles) in which case the cars will be driven over virtually identical distances through identical types of traffic/environments).

3.  Can the vehicle be an older model using a distributor (points, rotor) instead of electronic ignition?

The vehicles will be late-model cars that (invariably) will have electronic engine management systems.  This challenge is to prove that the technology works with cars you can buy off the dealer's showroom *today* - since that's what most of us drive.

4.  Would the challenger be willing to do side-by-side tests with two exact copies of the same vehicle, one fitted with HHO apparatus, one stock?

Several "control" vehicles (of the same make/model/mileage) will be run alongside the challenge vehicles to provide a baseline for comparison.  The other base.line will be the initial mpg figures for each (unmodified) vehicle in the challenge.  These figures will be established before and after the tests.

5.  Would the challenger be willing to place the $1m USD in escrow account for the benefit of the participant(s) upon receipt of the entry fee?  If you're going to challenge, might as well be willing to show the cash.

When the identity of those backing the challenge is disclosed (which it will be), any concerns about the availability of the money will be quickly dispelled.  (Note that Google isn't putting the $30m on offer in its Lunar X-Prize in escrow either because it's assumed that the bonafides of the backer is adequate).

6.  What is your definition of 'engine wear' as applicable to the challenge?  Will both test vehicle engines be allowed an application of silicone or comparable sealant prior to the test.  Will the term 'engine wear' be agreed upon by all parties to the challenge prior to introduction of money by either party?

All engines will be rendered tamper-proof for the duration of the challenge and stripped down (under independent supervision by accredited service-personel at the end of the challenge).  Although the exact definitions are yet to be established, I expect it would be something along the lines of "no perceptible difference in wear" should occur between the control and challenge vehicles and that "no damage likely to significantly reduce  the normal service life of the vehicle" should be present in the challenge vehicle's engine.

As I said, this will all be clearly defined when the final set of rules are published.

Remember, the challenge organizers stand to make a lot more money if there's a successful challenger than if there isn't so this will be as objective as humanly possible and scrutineered by independent referees at every stage.

But who cares? Since as far as "overunity.com" is concerned, it's just a "fraudulent offer".

Obviously there's no point in me posting further information here.  In future all updates and announcements will be on a dedicated site that's currently under development.

[utilitarian]

No, let me retract that.

I *AM* pissed off that this the thread on a valid technology challenge has been dumped in the "investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers" forum  while a discussion on the *real* scam (HHO systems for cars) isn't.

Clearly the admin doesn't want any challenge to the "beliefs" of the faithful and wishes to discredit anyone that actually requests a little proof of the extraordinary claims being made.

And they say that the mainstream are the ones with the closed minds.  The word hypocrisy springs to mind here.

What's funny is that there is a water4gas scam ad front and center when you first hit the site, in all its mason jar and plastic tubing glory.  The packet of baking soda and measuring spoon is a nice touch too.

[xjet]

What's funny is that there is a water4gas scam ad front and center when you first hit the site, in all its mason jar and plastic tubing glory.  The packet of baking soda and measuring spoon is a nice touch too.

Yeah, perhaps a little "disclosure"  is in order from the operators of "OverUnity.com".

Who's really scamming who here?

[icanbeatbob]

@xjet

Don't know who you are, so I will try not to be rude.....but will be direct.

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. 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.

I don't put my money on anything I can't win. But, I do listen to people who have credibility, honesty and integrity. Not saying that you don't because, like I said, I don't know you. 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.

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.

Bottom line for me is this. If I knew for a fact you are on the up and up, like you expect others to show proof, I would think about investing in this myself and have him do it for me.

Brad

[squegee69]

No, let me retract that.

I *AM* pissed off that this the thread on a valid technology challenge has been dumped in the "investment scams, warning about fraudulent offers" forum  while a discussion on the *real* scam (HHO systems for cars) isn't.

Clearly the admin doesn't want any challenge to the "beliefs" of the faithful and wishes to discredit anyone that actually requests a little proof of the extraordinary claims being made.

And they say that the mainstream are the ones with the closed minds.  The word hypocrisy springs to mind here.

The site administrators have explicitly stated their beliefs and purposes here and elsewhere.  Contrarian opinions, while welcome, certainly should not be allowed to detract from their stated goals - encouragement of testers, professionals and hobbyists to defy, challenge and overcome the currently accepted thinking in the mainstream energy production scene.

Your challenge is quite admirable, and may in fact steep some serious insight into the subject of hydrogen on demand for a fuel.  Letting the cards fall where they may, there are many factors outlined by yourself and others that will need much closer scrutiny in order to determine the viability of the claims being made.  Most notable are, as you've acknowledged, untimely engine wear, actual improvement in mileage/economy, and simply stepping up to the plate and delivering on claims.

As to the T's and C's you've addressed in my prior question, thank you for your candor.  I would strongly recommend that your backers put themselves in the limelight now.  If not, they should at least put the cash up.  The question of escrow goes to your own credibility..  You are correct in the Google reference, but Paul Allen had to place cash in escrow up front for the first X-Prize.  I don't believe Burt Rutan would have participated based on a whim, even though he knew he had the technology to take him beyond the grips of Earth's gravity.  I know Google has the money, but before this evening, I did not know who you were.  Frankly, after visiting your website and attempting to post questions, I was left in doubt as to the veracity of your public face.  Quite possibly, others on this site and elsewhere might question your motives when a simple question submission form fails.  At the very least, let me thank you for responding to my questions here.

In closing, let me state that as a "tinkerer" (and under your stated terms as of date) I would not take up your challenge, even if I did have and extra $5,000 to throw into it.   It is neither personal nor meant to stir argument with you.  I simply believe free energy should be free.  If there is a cost to prove it, then any biased observer can misinterpret the results to show failure or questionable outcome.   Could I suggest, instead, that your backers might use the $1m instead to fund additional research by you and your staff:  With that budget, you could travel to the locations of the more "key" players in the HHO claims market and simply review the results for yourself.  Any that might be deemed viable could then go on to lab tests under your control, at your expense.  If proven invalid, you've won your argument.  Regardless of the outcome, though, you (and your backers) profit from the publicity, and I personally believe you'd profit even moreso by aligning yourself with any potential success story.

My $0.02.  The other $0.98 was tax on half a gallon of gasoline.  I do not speak for the moderators of this form, only for myself.