Msd l20b

[TDCTDI]

Ok, you're a fu...ng ignition genius, perhaps if you weren't such a douche you would also be so rich that you wouldn't have to peddle your improvements on someone else's products to a bunch of cheap ass hobbyists. Or maybe it's that you're so frigging rich that you're bored & feel the need to stroke your own ego by arguing with people that clearly aren't interested in your improvements on someone else's product. Why is it that you're not peddling your theories to MSD & the other ignition companies? For the price that you have proposed, why have they not implemented this "ground breaking" technology into their systems?

[sebpv]

the popcorn is really delicious...

[datzenmike]

I said it takes the same amount of energy to go from point A to point B and it doesn't matter how fast or slow it gets there. Force x distance is physics 101.

 

In a purely MPG 'race' to get the best economy, speed is everything. Wind resistance or drag increases the cube of the velocity. If you need 10 hp to push through the air at 30 MPH you need 80 hp to go double that speed. So this is why in the very suspicious 'demonstration' the roof was lowered and the speed restricted to 30 MPH. Here's another, the speed was constant another reason for the higher numbers. Physics 101 it takes energy to accelerate mass. The test track was a flat airfield so no hills to climb. Once again Physics 101 will say somewhere that raising a weight through a vertical distance requires energy. NOTHING about that bogus 'test' was in the real world. In the real world a heavier car gets poorer mileage. A car stopping and starting and climbing hills gets poorer mileage. A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so.

 

 

 

You have already blown all your credibility about knowing anything about combustion science by claiming that a lean mixture has less gas so less heat. RacerX agrees with me multiple times on this issue, which is the indisputable fact that less fuel can cause MORE heat due to improper combustion. He can pop up with his cute little flux capacitor quotes, but the fact is that other long time members here know that you are posting things that are not true. There is even a post by you admitting that overheating can be caused by the carb running lean. :) So, either you know that you are unable to argue against the facts I am presenting and are intentionally posting false rebuttles against my claims or there is something else going on... Leaner mixtures cause overheating, PERIOD.

 

Carb and EFI engines rely on engine waste heat to warm and vaporize the gas sucked or injected into the intake. The gas is a liquid that is atomized into droplets that have to evaporate before they will burn. Engine and intake air heat is lowered by this evaporation cooling. Carb icing is a good example of evaporative cooling of the carb base well below freezing causing the moisture in the air to collect as frost. Engines under load will run much better with 13 or even 12 to one ratios because of the beneficial cooling of the combustion chamber preventing detonation. So if your engine starts running a notch or two higher on the gauge (I'd call that overheating) it can be explained by a blocked carb jet or an improper jet size. Yes, if running less fuel it will also produce less energy for work too. This is not mutually exclusive.

 

 

With HHO, you are intentionally manipulating and distorting what I said and everyone here knows it that has actually read what I posted. You know very well that I have repeatedly said that the HHO is nothing more than an ignitor, which in turn ignites much of the GASOLINE, which normally doesn't ignite. Runs on water? Why the games Mike? You know I didn't say that. Of course HHO doesn't "pull more energy out of a system than is in it." It takes x amount of watt seconds to electrolyze a certain amount of gas and then when that gas is ignited and detonates, the hydrogen flame penetrates the rest of the combustion chamber that the spark doesn't get to and it helps to burn and release more energy from the GASOLINE (NOT more energy from the water or the electricity from the alternator). The gain doesn't magically appear from thin air, it comes from some of the gas that normally doesn't ignite.

 

Your post is completely disengenous because there is no way you could honestly  believe what you're saying. And to contort what I said about HHO by your misleading post making it look like I'm claiming the engine is running on water is beyond ludicrous.

My ultra fast plasma impulse is a beast of a disruptive discharge that yanks on anything in it's presence like tug of war instantly dissociating - it rips the hydrogen right off of moisture or the hydrocarbon fuel on contact meaning it is causing more vapor so to speak to be able to get burned.

 

So the plasma impulse both ignites vapor but also frees up more atomic and molecular hydrogen from moisture and the gasoline creating more combustible fuel.

 

.

When I'm talking about splitting hydrogen from water or hydrogen from gasoline - you have to remember 100% of every gasoline engine is hydrogen powered already.

 

Several times you mention splitting hydrogen from water, so is this not running it on water? Seems like a fuel to me.

 

 

Here you go on about how impossible it is to make enough hydrogen from the electricity available yet your spark can. Just how much hydrogen is available in the cubic centimeter of spark flash around a plug anyway? Not too damned much and while it might POP it sure wouldn't flame the entire combustion chamber. Oh... a combustion chamber that is already running lean with half the gasoline to air ratio.

 

You also keep mentioning increasing efficiency. You can (maybe) release more energy from a fuel but it is still restrained by the built in unchangeable efficiency of the engine. What I'm saying is, if your gas engine is 25% efficient and you produce an extra 1000 BTU's of available energy, 750 of them will be passed into the exhaust and the cooling system as waste heat and you are left with 250 usable for mechanical work. You cannot increase the efficiency of an engine without changing the engine. Gas engines convert heat to mechanical motion. Most of the heat 1/3-ish, is sucked into the cooling system, the rest 1/3-ish out with the exhaust. You can't change engine efficiency by running a different fuel.

 

If your engine is running cooler it's making less heat energy. Probably because it's burning less fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

This clearly shows you are changing your story here in this thread simply in an attempt to debunk me, which you cannot and will not ever do because I'm stating facts. This shows you admit that lean mixtures cause overheating, but are willing to tell the completely opposite story in order to try to force your point, which is false.

 

You are not stating facts. You are stating only what you believe or wish us to believe. That's a fact.

[datzenmike]

 

 

.... but the fact is that other long time members here know that you are posting things that are not true.

 

Not true? You mean like knowingly not true?...  because that would be saying I'm lying. Or in your opinion an incorrect statement? In which case it's just an opinion of my opinion that I believe to be true.

 
Well right back at ya. I don't believe the facts you present as true to be believable. I see a capacitive discharge camera strobe light dressed up as an ignition system.

 

ANY electrical discharge or spark produces a high temperature plasma. From a static spark to lightning. Its all a matter of degree.... how much current flows. Static electricity is high voltage low current but small enough to super heat the air and make a snap sound. An arc welder is low voltage high current. We all know what a lightning bolt is. Every spark plug in every car today produces a plasma. You didn't invent 'plasma'.

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

Things get dicey when you're talking about real world improvements. Unless proven to me, everything is merely speculation.

 

While I don't doubt for an instant that you know what you're talking about, I do have three questions:

 

• Why - why is this pertinent? Does it make our world that much better?
• How - how much of this can be actually proven, on a running, driving car? Theory is one thing, but where the rubber meets the road, it's a place littered with the skeletons of many marketeers.
• Who - who cares? This isn't meant to sound as it's printed, I mean really, who? Who will buy this? Vintage car guys? Maybe. Modern car guys, probably not. Limited market as far as I can see.

[plasma]

Ok, you're a fu...ng ignition genius, perhaps if you weren't such a douche you would also be so rich that you wouldn't have to peddle your improvements on someone else's products to a bunch of cheap ass hobbyists. Or maybe it's that you're so frigging rich that you're bored & feel the need to stroke your own ego by arguing with people that clearly aren't interested in your improvements on someone else's product. Why is it that you're not peddling your theories to MSD & the other ignition companies? For the price that you have proposed, why have they not implemented this "ground breaking" technology into their systems?

 

Read the sequence of the posts again...

 

I already gave it all away for free on my forum then someone lied and claimed they came up with it and they filed a patent. I'm now on that patent, but what am I doing here? Do you know what the definition of peddle is? It is to SELL something and how many times have I said I'm not here to sell anything? Read my posts. I have patent rights, but am giving permission for people to use it for personal non-commercial use without paying me a single flipping dime. I have very little interest in putting anything of this value into a rich company's hands - I'd rather empower the average "cheap ass hobbyist" with something so simple and powerful that on top of a MSD setup, it's $10 worth of diodes.

 

People that aren't interested? I could care less who is or is not interested. I simply made a post about this system and then Datzenmike and a few others started to counter what I was saying with libelous attacks based on not even knowing what it is about. That doesn't show non-interest - they are posts that are eliciting a response. I could also care less if you or Datzenmike ever uses it, but if I post something and someone counters with some bogus answer that shows they really have no idea what they're talking about, I'm going to defend what I said. Amazing you would have an issue with that and perceive it 180 degrees opposite from what it is as evidenced by your response.

 

I posted in simple English - and posted simple facts - it was Datzenmike who spearheaded the libelous accusations about fraud, pseudo science, etc... because it didn't fit into his belief system. What did I do? Simply substantiate my claims with facts, links to peer-reviewed science and so on... and he had a really hard time with that. So you support the attack of someone openly sharing something like this but it is completely ok with you for someone that doesn't know what they're talking about to initiate and continue the assault unjustifiably (Datzenmike)... well, ok. :thumbup:

[plasma]

 

In a purely MPG 'race' to get the best economy, speed is everything. Wind resistance or drag increases the cube of the velocity. If you need 10 hp to push through the air at 30 MPH you need 80 hp to go double that speed. So this is why in the very suspicious 'demonstration' the roof was lowered and the speed restricted to 30 MPH. Here's another, the speed was constant another reason for the higher numbers. Physics 101 it takes energy to accelerate mass. The test track was a flat airfield so no hills to climb. Once again Physics 101 will say somewhere that raising a weight through a vertical distance requires energy. NOTHING about that bogus 'test' was in the real world. In the real world a heavier car gets poorer mileage. A car stopping and starting and climbing hills gets poorer mileage. A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so.

 

 

 

 

Carb and EFI engines rely on engine waste heat to warm and vaporize the gas sucked or injected into the intake. The gas is a liquid that is atomized into droplets that have to evaporate before they will burn. Engine and intake air heat is lowered by this evaporation cooling. Carb icing is a good example of evaporative cooling of the carb base well below freezing causing the moisture in the air to collect as frost. Engines under load will run much better with 13 or even 12 to one ratios because of the beneficial cooling of the combustion chamber preventing detonation. So if your engine starts running a notch or two higher on the gauge (I'd call that overheating) it can be explained by a blocked carb jet or an improper jet size. Yes, if running less fuel it will also produce less energy for work too. This is not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

Several times you mention splitting hydrogen from water, so is this not running it on water? Seems like a fuel to me.

 

 

Here you go on about how impossible it is to make enough hydrogen from the electricity available yet your spark can. Just how much hydrogen is available in the cubic centimeter of spark flash around a plug anyway? Not too damned much and while it might POP it sure wouldn't flame the entire combustion chamber. Oh... a combustion chamber that is already running lean with half the gasoline to air ratio.

 

You also keep mentioning increasing efficiency. You can (maybe) release more energy from a fuel but it is still restrained by the built in unchangeable efficiency of the engine. What I'm saying is, if your gas engine is 25% efficient and you produce an extra 1000 BTU's of available energy, 750 of them will be passed into the exhaust and the cooling system as waste heat and you are left with 250 usable for mechanical work. You cannot increase the efficiency of an engine without changing the engine. Gas engines convert heat to mechanical motion. Most of the heat 1/3-ish, is sucked into the cooling system, the rest 1/3-ish out with the exhaust. You can't change engine efficiency by running a different fuel.

 

If your engine is running cooler it's making less heat energy. Probably because it's burning less fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are not stating facts. You are stating only what you believe or wish us to believe. That's a fact.

A car that doubles its speed takes 8 times as much ENERGY? A Datsun 620 with a L20B can easily get 30-35 mpg on the hwy and many get about 25 in the city - these numbers I'm getting from the posts of members right here in this forum by a simple search. According to you, if a Datsun 620 can get 25 mpg in the city and lets say that is 30mph for example, then it will take 8 times as much gasoline to go 60 mph on the highway since that is double the speed. You have already equated gasoline to energy in your posts so I'm not misquoting you. In other words, it will get 1/8 the gas mileage at double the speed so a Datsun 620 at 60mph would get a little over 3 mpg since it has to use 8 times as much fuel (energy) to go the same distance at double the speed. This is the case if what you claim is true.

 

That is your claim, but here are the facts... If you double the speed, the POWER increases by 8 times. POWER does not equal ENERGY - they are not the same thing. I already broke it down for you in my post showing that the faster a cap discharges, the power increases but the energy is the same.

 

Here is a simple example so you can understand the difference. If you go to a window and knock on it with your knuckles with 1 unit of energy and you do that 10 times, you will have dissipated 10 units of energy and you didn't do anything to the window. But if you take all 10 units of energy in those 10 knocks and dissipate it into 1 knock, you will shatter the window to pieces. You used the SAME amount of energy, but when you shattered the window, you did it at 10 TIMES the POWER - but still the same amount of energy. Energy is the amount of work expended and Power is the RATE at which the energy was expended.

 

Confusing energy and power is a very common mistake and I don't hold that against you, but I did explain it in the post about the speed of the capacitor discharging and how that changes the power - not energy.

 

I understand evaporative cooling very well, but you have been claiming that a leaner mixture will result in lower temperatures because there is less energy and therefore lower temperatures. That is 100% false and not one single academic or expert in the field will agree with you - and the members of this forum disagree with you as I have posted.

 

I have mentioned disassociating hydrogen from oxygen from moisture in the air and disassociating hydrogen from the heptane molecule. Show me one time where I have posted about starting with water and creating a fuel. You can't because your example has nothing to do with anything I've said.

 

I said you cannot make enough hydrogen to FULLY run an engine on electrolyzed water (100% water fuel car by electrolysis) by the alternator and expect it to keep running, which is a 100% water fuel claim and there is not one single post here where I said that is what I'm doing or that it is what I believe. I DID say the electricity can produce enough hydrogen to create an ignitor from the hydrogen, which will in turn allow you to burn more of the normally unburned gasoline that will give you a gain that exceeds the electricity needed to produce the hho ignitor. And, I said the plasma ignition can do the same thing. Your posts do not show what you know, they show what you do not. ANY hydrogen that is dissociated from moisture or the gasoline will detonate and will TRAVEL throughout the combustion chamber igniting more of the fuel. What is relevant is that the plasma ignition WILL free up and ignite hydrogen that will in turn burn more normally unburned fuel, period. At what level? It doesn't matter, because the fact that it does so any any level proves the point, which discounts 100% of every one of your objections.

 

Yes, every engine will have it's own restraints in terms of efficiency as the common internal combustion engine with a rotating crankshaft, rods and pistons is nothing more than a modified steam engine from 200 years ago and is poor technology that very few people have ever improved upon during that time. I don't debate that and I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is crappy technology, but it is what we have so how do we make the best of it? By simply increasing the thermal efficiency of the air/fuel mixture and that DOES allow more mechanical work at the wheels.

 

Your 1000 btu / 750 - example is false because you are simply making up numbers and even for example sake, they're still wrong in principle because the premise of your example is based on normal combustion expectations where most of the energy is thrown out in waste heat, etc... By changing the method of ignition, you DO increase the efficiency of the engine WITHOUT changing the engine. This is an indisputable fact of science and not you nor anyone else on this planet can change this fact. The dyno tests for the plasma ignition show this indisputably. Any gains in HP at any speed using the same engine and same fuel, but with a different ignition shows you point blank that the efficiency of the engine has increased due to the increase in thermal efficiency made possible by the plasma ignition. It's not even debatable.

 

Yes, you can change efficiency by running a different fuel. The efficiency starts with the FUEL - NOT the mechanical work at the wheels. You're putting the horse before the cart.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is so to speak?

 

I already have an escrow.com account and you can get one too for free. We can each deposit $x thousands into it and you can pick any 3 experts that you want that are willing to witness and validate some tests and I'll do the same. If in the end, if there is a 50/50 split in the results as stated by these 6 witnesses, then you get your money back and so do I. If at least 4 of the 6 side with you, then you get to keep my money and visa versa. Documentation beats conversation any day of the week. My ignition will: A - For performance will give more HP for the same fuel meaning the efficiency increased AND B - For economy, will run an engine leaner and cooler also meaning the efficiency increased. In both examples, it will be the same type of fuel and it will all be on the same engine.

 

If I win this challenge, and it is 100% guaranteed that I will, you have to put a link in your signature to this thread as well as a post that publicly states that you have been wrong in your beliefs and analysis of said ignition system with an apology for your libelous remarks against me. Claiming that I'm pitching snake oil, etc... is defamation of character and is unnecessary and is no way to treat new members of a forum that are simply freely sharing their knowledge without asking for anything else in return. It's really a fair and honest test and you don't have anything to lose but your money :)

 

It will give this forum a lot of recognition that it deserves - I have gained a lot of value from many of the threads here and I have a certain connection to Nissan/Datsun that I'm not at liberty to share at this point, but with almost 150,000 of my own forum members and over 97,000 subscribers to my newsletters, etc... I will have more to lose than you will by putting my name to this challenge, IF I lose, but I'm willing to take the chance. ;) If you're not confident enough with your counter-claims, go ahead and pick one single member that you have enough trust in that you feel will put me to shame.

 

I'll be looking forward to this widely publicized challenge that will be a win-win for us both! :thumbup:

 

What say you Mr. Rodgers?

[datzenmike]

 

In a purely MPG 'race' to get the best economy, speed is everything. Wind resistance or drag increases the cube of the velocity. If you need 10 hp to push through the air at 30 MPH you need 80 hp to go double that speed. So this is why in the very suspicious 'demonstration' the roof was lowered and the speed restricted to 30 MPH. Here's another, the speed was constant another reason for the higher numbers. Physics 101 it takes energy to accelerate mass. The test track was a flat airfield so no hills to climb. Once again Physics 101 will say somewhere that raising a weight through a vertical distance requires energy. NOTHING about that bogus 'test' was in the real world. In the real world a heavier car gets poorer mileage. A car stopping and starting and climbing hills gets poorer mileage. A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so.

 

 

 

 

Don't say that I said energy instead of power. I said wind resistance increases 8 times with a doubling of speed. An engine works 8 times harder to double it's speed against this resistance. This 8 times does not necessarily mean it needs 8 times the gas or gets 1/8 the mileage.  

 

I said nothing libelous. Not believing you is not libel. It's just your failure to convince me otherwise. I can't convince you that

An electrical spark is plasma.

That any engine that makes more usable power also makes more heat. You may extract more power from the fuel but over 2/3s is still wasted as heat.

That speed and weight vastly affect MPG.

 

An internet challenge? Ridiculous. If you are in bed with Nissan (again your claim) then I'll wait until they produce a 300 MPG (or is that too high?) car (a real world car) using your ignition system. Maybe a 200 MPG L20B 620? Or will they buy it and suppress it too? I can't wait. No, really at my age I can't. 

 

If you really do have Ratsun members that believe your claims on faith alone (and this is more than possible as 'I want to believe' is a strong motivation) then you are a success.  

[racerx]

plasma, have u thought or already did approach, msd or similar aftermarket ignition systems with your system. I think you should give it a try. I hear you, your passionate about your invention. I really think that this is forum is the wrong fit, i cant speak for all but like me, i dont believe in buying an msd ignition system. Im using pertronix and it works well been running the set up for almost 14 YEARS and no problem. In a nut shell, you are trying too hard in changing our beliefs that are founded on actual experience.

[plasma]

plasma, have u thought or already did approach, msd or similar aftermarket ignition systems with your system. I think you should give it a try. I hear you, your passionate about your invention. I really think that this is forum is the wrong fit, i cant speak for all but like me, i dont believe in buying an msd ignition system. Im using pertronix and it works well been running the set up for almost 14 YEARS and no problem. In a nut shell, you are trying too hard in changing our beliefs that are founded on actual experience.

I'll just respond to your post - Datzenmike has multiple false items in his post, he said energy, not power and he requoted himself with his own reference to energy and not power LOL

"A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so." - Just like I said.

 

Anyway, I'm actually not trying to change anyone's belief's here. When something I say is countered based on misinformation or simple lack of understanding of the subject, then I'm going to address that and will provide references. Everyone can believe what they want - but the facts stand for themselves and anyone can go see the references, which validate that what I have said is all true.

 

If I was going to sell something, I'd simply have some adapters manufactured that fits on top of the plug with an outlet to hook the wire to that comes from the HV diodes and on the top of that adapter is a male spark plug terminal to stick the plug cable on to. And it may come with diodes and wires. With that, anyone can have a plasma ignition that has any msd/cdi type system on an engine.

 

I understand your beliefs are based on your experience. However, if someone doesn't have experience with the plasma ignition, there is nothing of substance to base their opinions on since they have no experience with it. They can only speak to conventional spark ignitions and that is it.

 

Anyway, thanks for the positive message and I'll share results later on.

[datzenmike]

Ok, you're a fu...ng ignition genius, perhaps if you weren't such a douche you would also be so rich that you wouldn't have to peddle your improvements on someone else's products to a bunch of cheap ass hobbyists. Or maybe it's that you're so frigging rich that you're bored & feel the need to stroke your own ego by arguing with people that clearly aren't interested in your improvements on someone else's product. Why is it that you're not peddling your theories to MSD & the other ignition companies? For the price that you have proposed, why have they not implemented this "ground breaking" technology into their systems?

 

Only thing I could find that was even close to libelous here. If not true, maybe talk to your lawyer, they are always glad to take your money. He will tell you that you would have to show that you were defamed and reputation damaged, a difficult proposition. Further he will advise sending a demand letter. In this case a legal bluff but it might get results. You might even get an apology

 

 

 

 

Your 1000 btu / 750 - example is false because you are simply making up numbers and even for example sake, they're still wrong in principle because the premise of your example is based on normal combustion expectations where most of the energy is thrown out in waste heat, etc... By changing the method of ignition, you DO increase the efficiency of the engine WITHOUT changing the engine. This is an indisputable fact of science and not you nor anyone else on this planet can change this fact. The dyno tests for the plasma ignition show this indisputably. Any gains in HP at any speed using the same engine and same fuel, but with a different ignition shows you point blank that the efficiency of the engine has increased due to the increase in thermal efficiency made possible by the plasma ignition. It's not even debatable.

 

Yes, you can change efficiency by running a different fuel. The efficiency starts with the FUEL - NOT the mechanical work at the wheels. You're putting the horse before the cart.

 

 

Maybe we are not agreeing on what an engine's efficiency is. Mine is how well it transforms fuel energy into mechanical energy. Easy enough to calculate the energy in a gallon of fuel and measure the power made at the crankshaft. 30% would be a fairly good engine. The other 70% is basically waste heat to the cooling system and out the exhaust. (includes friction and effort to pump air in and out of the engine and noise). 

 

Now a fuel with more energy in it will make more mechanical power but it also produces more heat to do it and 70% of that heat is still wasted.

 

So if your spark makes 7 hp ( about 5222 watts) more than with the ordinary ignition you can be assured that there is an additional 12,184 watts in waste heat. The engine is not more efficient, you have simply found a way to more efficiently 'burn' wasted fuel and release 17,406 watts of heat transforming 5222 of those watts into mechanical.

 

You can't seriously think that releasing extra heat is not going to be absorbed into the cylinder walls, combustion chamber and piston tops. Measure your test engine and it will be expelling more heat that the one without your ignition.

[datzenmike]

I'll just respond to your post - Datzenmike has multiple false items in his post, he said energy, not power and he requoted himself with his own reference to energy and not power LOL

"A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so." - Just like I said.

 

Word hair splitting. The meaning and intent is clear, a faster car will use more gas. Hell you said:

 

 

 

The weight of the car does not change the physics involved and it is irrelevant whether the Opal was driving at 100mph or 30mph.

 

How wrong are your statements??? Faster cars get worse mileage. Heavier cars get worse mileage. You won't find one person that will agree with you. 

[racerx]

plasma, but to see if your system is much more efficient than what i have then i have to install in my car which means i have to buy an msd box, new wires and spark plugs to the tune of over 300 dollars. im the type now that have to test it before i agree or disagree. not that im calling u a liar but i have to experience myself.

[datzenmike]

I posted in simple English - and posted simple facts - it was Datzenmike who spearheaded the libelous accusations about fraud, pseudo science, etc... because it didn't fit into his belief system. What did I do? Simply substantiate my claims with facts, links to peer-reviewed science and so on... and he had a really hard time with that. So you support the attack of someone openly sharing something like this but it is completely ok with you for someone that doesn't know what they're talking about to initiate and continue the assault unjustifiably (Datzenmike)... well, ok. :thumbup:

Bull fucking shit to that. I said I don't believe your 'facts'. Not my fault you are unconvincing. I did not mention the word or accuse you of any fraud and I never said or called it  'pseudo science'. Talk about libelous!

 

 

I'll make this simple for you.... Take it back .