fayfreethinkers.com

iRenew Behind-the-Back Balance Test

See the video. See how wearing a bracelet can keep a grown man from making you fall down from a weird position.

So the bracelet must have healing powers!

James Randi has some interesting comments on this one...

Okay guys, through the course of a youtube discussion with another random wackjob I came across another HHO scam. I emailed the company...well....the three companies that are apparently owned by one individual. I will invite him here to defend his product. Hey, he wrote me back, thus he may be willing to "defend" himself.

I know these scams are old news, however, I still seem to come across these jokers selling their magic milage machines that are somehow being pigeonholed by the evil corporate oil monopoly. I figure this is a good place to drop this. I gave this guy a good verbal spanking. I mean they KNOW their product doesn't work. They HAVE TO KNOW! Really? They never obtain EPA sanctioned test results and even when the CLAIM to have done so, you look up the EPA record that THEY provide and it absolutely reports exactly the opposite of what they say it does. Yet people still get scammed. This is a PRIME example of how scientific illiteracy and generally underdeveloped bullshit detectors can have quite an impact on one's wallet and society at large. I would say these scams only come second to homeopathy, and then only because, as of yet, AutoZone does not sell this automotive placebo. First things first, here is the company web sight for anyone that might be interested:

http://alternativegassolutions.com/how-it-works.html

It all started with this being submitted on their "company" web sight:

Comments:: "Injecting a small amount of hydrogen into your engine mixed with your fuel will improve the Octane rating to 140" This is also a patently false statement...and rather absurd to boot! Seriously guys...you are making baby jesus cry.

*******
I sent two of these actually. There websight also claims that only 50% of fuel actually combust in your engine and the unburned fuel is expelled from the exhaust...or something to that effect. At any rate it is an absurd assertion. I assume they are misrepresenting the fact that automobiles are only about 20 some-odd percent efficient where by efficiency we refer to the efficiency at which the energy obtained from the combustion of fuel is converted into mechanical energy by the motor. This quite different from combustion efficiently, or percentage of fuel that actually gets fully converted into CO2 and H20. Though the combustion efficiency of any particular vehicle will never be 100%, it is damn near it. The small percentage of incomplete combustion results mostly in those nice CO and NOx molecules. At any rate, if you want a physics lesson ask. Here is the response this elicited.
*******

You are an uninformed man, and should do your research before you run your mouth. below is a RON octane rating chart from wikipedia showing all of the octane ratings. If you look at the bottom fuel you will see that hydrogen burns over 130 octane equivalent. Hydrogen tech. has been used for over 120 years. Car manufacturers all around the world are starting to bring this tech. into their future vehicles. NASA has been using it for years. I don't no where you recd. your degree at, probably on line, but you must have finished at the bottom of your class. If this technology doesn't work why is it being used successfully by over 300 major trucking firms using my product alone. and almost 10,000 personal vehicles. that does not even include the other 100 or so hydrogen companies offering their products. Do you think these major trucking firms that watch every dollar being spent on their vehicles would continue to use hydrogen on their trucks if they were not seeing a mpg gain? It is closed minded people like you that ruin the future of technology. I'm not even going to respond to your other stupid emails, it wouldn't matter anyway, regardless of what I show you your mind is already made up on your closed minded, one sided opinion. You havn't even tried one of our systems! You complian to website that you want to, I will respond to your complaints with our results and recommendation letters from our happy customers.
Examples of octane ratings
The RON and MON of n-heptane and iso-octane are exactly 0 and 100, by definition. The following table lists octane ratings for various other fuels.[5][6]

Fuel RON MON AKI
hexadecane < -30
n-octane -10
n-heptane (RON and MON 0 by definition) 0 0 0
diesel fuel 15–25
2-methylheptane 23
n-hexane 25 26 26
1-pentene 34
2-methylhexane 44
1-heptene 60
n-pentane 62
requirement for a typical two-stroke outboard engine[7] 69 65 67
Pertamina "Premium" gasoline in Indonesia 88
n-butanol 92 71 83
n-butane 91
"regular" gasoline in Canada and the US 91–92 82–83 87
Pertamina "Pertamax" gasoline in Indonesia 92
Shell "Super" in Indonesia 92
Pertamina "Pertamax Plus" gasoline in Indonesia 95
Shell "Super Extra" in Indonesia 95
"EuroSuper" or "EuroPremium" or "Regular unleaded" in Europe 95 85–86 90–91
"SuperPlus" in Germany, Great Britain and Slovenia, "SP98" in France 98 89–90 93–94
iso-octane (RON and MON 100 by definition) 100 100 100
benzene 101
"BP Ultimate 102"[8] 102 93–94 97–98
t-butanol 103 91 97
ethane 108
propane 110
toluene 111 95 103
E85 gasoline 100-105[9]
xylene 117
isopropanol 118 98 108
ethanol 129 116 122
methanol 133 105 119
methane 135 122 129
hydrogen* > 130 very low[10]

**********
I have invited him to this forum for a discussion. I was not willing to waist my time in a private email "debate" in a fruitless attempt to convince a con artist to come clean. Allas...I await his response. At any rate here was my reply just in case he claims I called him a babykiller or something:
*********

Look, I am not going to waist time arguing with you about your nonsense. Your response, frankly, speaks for itself. You are well aware of your deceit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Thank you for the amusing response. I especially like the part where you attack my credentials. This will CERTAINLY get posted on the free thinker forum here in Fayetteville:) Would you like a link? We can discuss the validity of your product claims there.

Kevin Lyon

UNKOWN SOLDIER
"You are an uninformed man, and should do your research before you run your mouth. below is a RON octane rating chart from wikipedia showing all of the octane ratings."

KEVIN
I am uniformed...news to me. Though I definitely agree that I am not the ideal expert to be addressing, I will have to do.

UNKOWN SOLDIER
"If you look at the bottom fuel you will see that hydrogen burns over 130 octane equivalent'

KEVIN
Yes. Very good! This tells us something about the activation energy of hydrogen and is a useful bit of information. It is true that adding hydrogen to a fuel mixture would effectively increase the octane rating of the fuel. I have always found it ironic that "octane rating" is not simply the ratio of octane or something to that effect. At any rate, you are adding both hydrogen an oxygen to the fuel mix. However this will not effect the octane rating of the fuel as the concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen are approaching homeopathic proportions.

UNKOWN SOLDIER
" Hydrogen tech. has been used for over 120 years"

KEVIN
And yet no major automobile manufactures have seen it fit to bolster their profits by including this magic milage machine in their vehicles. I would by a new vehicle today, despite my graduate student salary, if I could expect 40 to 60% increase in gas mileage.

UNKOWN SOLDIER
"Car manufacturers all around the world are starting to bring this tech. into their future vehicles."

KEVIN
Damn...I guess the automobile market is not as competitive as academia. If I waited 120 years to publish my research I'd be half as old as my advisor!

UNKOWN SOLDIER
"NASA has been using it for years"

KEVIN
No...NASA has used liquid hydrogen for fuel...and hydrogen is a viable option for mobile energy that is being implemented currently in Greenland. But this has nothing to do with the validity of YOUR product and you know it.

UNKNOWN SOLDIER
"I don't no where you recd. your degree at, probably on line, but you must have finished at the bottom of your class."

KEVIN
Well, at the "on line" university from which I received my degree, they take a rather linear approach to education. As such, class rankings are restricted to one dimension and thus there is not really a geometric "bottom" of the class.

UNKNOWN SOLDIER
"If this technology doesn't work why is it being used successfully by over 300 major trucking firms using my product alone. and almost 10,000 personal vehicles. that does not even include the other 100 or so hydrogen companies offering their products. Do you think these major trucking firms that watch every dollar being spent on their vehicles would continue to use hydrogen on their trucks if they were not seeing a mpg gain?"

KEVIN
Absolutely. This is why I posted this here. This is why I am willing to commit this small snippet of my time in an attempt to educate people. By this logic, homeopathic medicine would not be a multi-billion dollar market...but it is. People are gullible and, on the whole, scientifically illiterate. This is partially the fault of the scientific community. We have been too cocky up in our ivory tower for too long. We have not concerned ourselves to a sufficient degree with the public's understand of our respective fields. It is little surprise that people fall for everything from Head-On to magnets that clip on your fuel lines and provide you with 20% increase in mileage by "polarizing" your gasoline. As for me, I wear a magnet on my tallywacker every day...it keeps my nose from itching when people talk about me.

I'll finish later....I have a goal of 4 Qual problems tonight and a bit of a programming enigma to get through. Oh, and I probably should mention that I am referring to this individual as "UNKNOWN SOLDIER" as he/she failed to identify him/herself in the email--found this kinda odd.

Great job and great roast Kevin. I think you have some to learn about how just uninformed and clueless some people, and even large business are.

It may be the case that these guys don't know how wrong they are (I haven't checked it out yet). This is exactly the sort of bullshit we like to go after. Wait until you see the presentation we are going to have about the great number of people killed in Iraq because the government, and at times our government, was buying a fancy dowsing rod shaped thing to use as bomb detectors. And buying them at tens of thousands per each.

We must get you to do a presentation on these guys.

Now, you say:

KEVIN
Yes. Very good! This tells us something about the activation energy of hydrogen and is a useful bit of information. It is true that adding hydrogen to a fuel mixture would effectively increase the octane rating of the fuel. I have always found it ironic that "octane rating" is not simply the ratio of octane or something to that effect. At any rate, you are adding both hydrogen an oxygen to the fuel mix. However this will not effect the octane rating of the fuel as the concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen are approaching homeopathic proportions.

You need to be clearer here because I didn't get and it's doubtful the nimrod you are trying to teach is getting it. It raises the octane briefly until the hydrogen fizzles away? So is it raised or is it nearly non-existent because it is in nearly "homeopathic proportions?" You seem to be saying both. Also, it's doubtful that your recipient knows anything about homeopathy or it's failings so it is likely that this criticism will sail over his head.

Anyway, now I will check these guys out. If they are a major nationwide fraud, and they certainly seem to be, lets go after them, complain to the FTC and all of that. I HATE hydrogen/water fuel mileage scams and they are each and everyone of them scams. We even have some local ones we should take down first.

D.
---------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." --Frank Zappa

These guys are total fools, complete cranks. I am really surprised they responded to you at all. This is the only reason there is the slight possibility that they don't know that they are frauds. This sort of crap is rampant. Here is a letter I sent to KAUF in August of 2008 when they did a report on a garage installing hydrogen assist systems in Farmington, for about $425.

The part you should find especially depressing is that KUAF, a U. of A. radio station, asked for the input from the physics department at the U of A, and got nothing. It took a little piano tuner with a high school degree to sit down and write to them and help them out (after the fact). Perhaps we should talk to KAUF about doing a little skeptical bit on Ozarks at Large on this issue of hydrogen add on systems. About a year ago there was a place in Springdale doing this too. Mostly targeting Hispanics. Maybe we ought to go after local people first.

***
Darrel here with the Fayetteville Freethinkers,

So I was listening to Ozarks at Large Friday and heard the bit about this fellow in Farmington installing hydrogen power assist systems. I thought it was quite good, the FTC's opinion was brought in, also the Arkansas Attorney General, the Popular Mechanics article was referred to and Jacqueline tried to get a comment from someone in the physics department apparently without success. That's too bad. Professor William Harter, sponsor of the campus freethought group Occam's Razors (fairly dormant) and a long time founder of our freethinker group is there at the physics department and I know he would have provided the skeptical rebuttal to these claims if he had the opportunity.

There are so many of these hydrogen, "extract energy from water" claims floating around that we had our resident chemist, Michael Tilley give a presentation on these hydrogen hoaxes at our June meeting.

People trick themselves into thinking these things work because, like the placebo effect, they really want them to work and are looking to find something positive after paying their $414. People, including scientists, are really good at finding what they are looking for. That's why proper tests are blinded and preferably double blinded.

Just off of the top of my head, here are a few reasons we can be quite sure that this fellow's device is doing precisely nothing and almost certainly wasting energy. He is making a little bit of hydrogen gas via electrolysis. This method of hydrogen generation is very inefficient, you lose about 30% of the energy to create the hydrogen. This energy comes from the motor and thus more fuel is used to drive the increased load on the alternator to make this extra electricity. Also, unless you compress hydrogen to increase it's density, it has very little energy in it. Almost nothing. For example, the Hindenburg as you know was an immense Zeppelin filled with a tremendous amount of Hydrogen gas. The gas container was as long as three 747's in length and 135 feet in diameter. This vessel contained over 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen gas. Here's the catch: all of that hydrogen gas contained the energy content (btu) of aproximately a single gallon of
gasoline. That's all, and that's not very much energy for a tremendous volume of hydrogen gas.

So it is safe to say it is *extremely* unlikely that the little bit of hydrogen gas this fellow is making with his baking soda and water in a tube is making little more than a couple of farts worth of energy. And what little bit he is making is still causing an overall net loss of energy because he loses 30% of the energy in the electrolysis process to make the hydrogen. That's gone and you don't get it back when you burn the hydrogen.

Hope this helps. Don't ever hesitate to give me a call if you want a source for a skeptical opinion on something like this. If I can't help I can probably find an expert who can.

regards,

Darrel Henschell
***

These guys are claiming people can get a tax credit for using their system which wastes more fuel? Well there's an extra reason for going after them. Where did you find a comment forum? Or did you just email them.

WTF? From a link at their site:

Incentives
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit
A tax credit is available for the cost of installing alternative fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2005. Qualified alternative fuels are natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, electricity, E85, or diesel fuel blends containing a minimum of 20% biodiesel. The credit amount is up to 30% of the cost, not to exceed $30,000, for equipment placed into service before January 1, 2009. The credit amount is up to 50% not to exceed $50,000, for equipment placed into service on or after January 1, 2009. Fueling station owners who install qualified equipment at multiple sites are allowed to use the credit towards each location. Consumers who purchase residential fueling equipment may receive a tax credit of up to $1,000, which increases to $2,000 for equipment placed into service after December 31, 2008. The maximum credit amount for hydrogen fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2015, is $200,000. The credit expires December 31, 2010, for all other eligible fuel types. Unused credits that qualify as general business tax credits, as defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), may be carried backward one year and carried forward 20 years. For more information, see IRS Form 8911 and/or Form 3800, which are available via the IRS Web site. (Reference Public Law 111-5, Section 1123, and 26 U.S. Code 30C and 38B)

Point of Contact
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Phone: (800) 829-1040
http://www.irs.gov/

LINK

This is probably meant to address vehicles that actually run on hydrogen only (fuel cells) rather than these bullshit add on devices. What sneaky bastards. We need to go after this nonsense.

Darrel wrote: You need to be clearer here because I didn't get and it's doubtful the nimrod you are trying to teach is getting it. It raises the octane briefly until the hydrogen fizzles away? So is it raised or is it nearly non-existent because it is in nearly "homeopathic proportions?" You seem to be saying both. Also, it's doubtful that your recipient knows anything about homeopathy or it's failings so it is likely that this criticism will sail over his head.

Excellent Critique, thank you. First of all, from what I have been told (i.e. don't quote me on it), it is possible to actually run a gasoline vehicle, unmodified, on pure hydrogen gas. However the energy density of hydrogen (the energy per unit/molecule/mole or whatever unit you want to use to quantify it) is WAY less than gasoline. Thus I don't imagine your car will like it much. The point I was trying to make, however, is that these devices do not deliver a substantial quantity of hydrogen. Though it is a false assertion that adding hydrogen to the fuel mix of your car, in any proportion, will increase your miles per gallon, the point is rather moot as these devices do not supply enough hydrogen to have any effect at all on the operation of the motor. If I implied that the hydrogen "fizzles away" I apologize. Any hydrogen produce most likely is burned but will have no effect on the vehicles performance.

Octane ratings, as I understand them (and that may not be so well so take this with a grain of salt) is a measure of the tendency for fuel to ignite upon compression. Obviously this is undesirable in a gasoline engine as the fuel with a low octane rating will, with a greater frequency, ignite prematurely during compression and thus, I assume, cause the engine to run rougher. According to Wiki the propensity for a fuel to undergo this premature ignition is measured against an isomer of octane--thus octane rating.

Now, I may be a physicist in training, however I would like to point out that, at the end of the day, physics is an experimental science. Just because they have failed to explain HOW their device works to my satisfaction doesn't mean that it doesn't work. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I ALWAYS request that these guys provide me with an EPA review of their product. Most of them refuse. A few will cough one up, presumably relying on the fact that many people wouldn't be able to make heads nor tails of it. I think they underestimate their customers in this regard. If they are smart enough to ask for the review, they are smart enough to read it. They may not follow the technical aspects however these review are concluded in VERY simple english with consumers in mind.

Did this clarify any...or did it just muddle the issue?

Kevin

By even bringing up the octane topic they are just preying on the average consumer's misconception about what octane rating is. Since higher performance cars tend to require higher octane gasoline, people often think that high octane fuel has more energy in it and that just by using it they will get more horsepower or fuel mileage, neither of which are really true.

Tim

Darrel wrote:The part you should find especially depressing is that KUAF, a U. of A. radio station, asked for the input from the physics department at the U of A, and got nothing.

I find this very depressing. I understand. We don't just sit around all day up there in the physics department and jerk each other's jollysticks. We are quite busy and don't have time to troll the internet and respond to every crank screwing little old ladies out of the social security checks. However when directly approached by a campus organization requesting an opinion on something like this that very much lies within our area of expertise, I believe we are quiet obligated to acquiesce. That is the POINT of a university, after all. If you need an expert in physics you have it...if you need an expert in law, you have it...if you need an expert in sociology...well...damn....sighhhhhhh. Okay so I guess it is best to remain somewhat skeptical even when consulting experts...

Be that as it may, this is what I was on about in my rebuttal. Scientist MUST come down from the ivory tower. We must become more assessable, approachable, and understandable to the general public.

Darrel wrote:Perhaps we should talk to KAUF about doing a little skeptical bit on Ozarks at Large on this issue of hydrogen add on systems. About a year ago there was a place in Springdale doing this too. Mostly targeting Hispanics. Maybe we ought to go after local people first.

I'm for it. Consumer advocacy is everyones responsibility. I will be sure that at least a graduate student responds in the future.

As for tax credits, are you sure they are not giving the tax credits for the REDUCTION in fuel efficiency? Just by a Hummer:)

Kevin

Oh, and TIM.... totally agree. In general the octane thing is obviously just a rhetorical diversion.

kwlyon wrote: First of all, from what I have been told (i.e. don't quote me on it), it is possible to actually run a gasoline vehicle, unmodified, on pure hydrogen gas.

DAR
Actually, Myth busters did this on one of their shows. They took an old Chevy pickup, unhooked the fuel lines and stuck a hose from a hydrogen tank right down the carburetor. The damn thing kept running! Now it's not clear how much power it really would have had. The clip might be on youtube.

KEV The point I was trying to make, however, is that these devices do not deliver a substantial quantity of hydrogen.

DAR
Absolutely right. That's why we know their assertions are a joke. Now realize too that these guys re making their own tiny amounts of hydrogen on the fly with electricity coming from the vehicle. 8 to 15 amps they say. That's quite a bit of juice! And it's been generated very inefficiently by gasoline to electricity then electricity to hydrogen then the hydrogen goes in the gas (somehow). Is this not a direct violation of the 2nd law? Or is it possible that some magical special reaction happens that allows hydrogen infused gasoline to put out more energy than you could have gotten out of gas + the gas used up to make the hydrogen. This would seem to be their only hope and this would seem to be IMPOSSIBLE.

KEV
Did this clarify any...or did it just muddle the issue?

DAR
Much better but it's not clear to me how these clowns are mixing hydrogen with gasoline or how any of the chemistry works.

TMILLER said:

TMILLER51:
By even bringing up the octane topic they are just preying on the average consumer's misconception about what octane rating is. Since higher performance cars tend to require higher octane gasoline, people often think that high octane fuel has more energy in it and that just by using it they will get more horsepower or fuel mileage, neither of which are really true.

DAR
That's what I thought! I just paid a little more for the good stuff last time and it doesn't have any more go go in it? Shit.

What about the law of... if it costs more it must be better?

D.
-------------
ps. Oh, and last I checked, on average 4,000 people are listening to KAUF at any one time. It's important that they not pass along BS and it's important that U of A physicists are standing by to knock it down when it happens.

Darrel wrote: DAR
Actually, Myth busters did this on one of their shows. They took an old Chevy pickup, unhooked the fuel lines and stuck a hose from a hydrogen tank right down the carburetor. The damn thing kept running! Now it's not clear how much power it really would have had. The clip might be on youtube.

I've seen that. They got a car idling on hydrogen feed directly into the air intake. But there is a rather substantial difference in the amount of power needed to idle a car and actually have it move under its own power. I am skeptical of the latter.

Darrel wrote: Is this not a direct violation of the 2nd law? Or is it possible that some magical special reaction happens that allows hydrogen infused gasoline to put out more energy than you could have gotten out of gas + the gas used up to make the hydrogen. This would seem to be their only hope and this would seem to be IMPOSSIBLE.

Depends on the claim. To be fair, in the case of these guys, no. They don't actually claim that the hydrogen is supplying any power directly but rather that its high speed of combustion is helping the gasoline to combust more completely. One of their most amusing assertions is that only about 50% of the gasoline taken in by your engine is actually burned. Not making this up...it's right off their web sight that I linked to up top. They claim the rest is just expelled unburned! I make fun of engineers all day long because they will make more money than me...but they are not that incompetent! Actually they are insanely resourceful and they have internal combustion engines down to a well honed science. At worse case scenario you might be looking at less than 1% incomplete combustion. Thus one could only hope to increase fuel efficiency via this mechanism by less than that percentage.

Darrel wrote: Much better but it's not clear to me how these clowns are mixing hydrogen with gasoline or how any of the chemistry works.

They just dump the output of their device into the air intake of your vehicle. The chemistry is as you described above...simple horrifically inefficient electrolysis.

Darrel wrote: That's what I thought! I just paid a little more for the good stuff last time and it doesn't have any more go go in it? Shit.
What about the law of... if it costs more it must be better?

I would imagine that, even in a normal vehicle, one would have slightly better fuel efficiency with the "better stuff" but likely barely measurable. Certainly not worth the expense. I assume (and again I don't know what my assumptions are worth) that the use of high octane fuel in performance cars is due to their higher compression ratios and thus premature ignition due the this compression becomes more of an issue both with regards to efficiency and longevity of the engine. Oh, and that law has yet to be violated. The more expensive something is, the better it is...for the other guy:)

Darrel wrote: ps. Oh, and last I checked, on average 4,000 people are listening to KAUF at any one time. It's important that they not pass along BS and it's important that U of A physicists are standing by to knock it down when it happens.

That was a very worthy criticism. This is why PZ is one of my personal heros. We must do better in service to our communities.

Unlike many of its predecessors, this isn't a "free" energy claim, nor does it claim that the combustion of the hydrogen itself is supplying the alleged energy boost/mileage increase. It appears to me essentially to be arguing that the combustion of the hydrogen presents a fundamental change in the way that the gasoline and oxygen molecules collide in the cylinder. Or perhaps I should say: this is the only interpretation of their claims that can be reconciled with basic aspects of chemistry.

A while back, I had a loon on a different forum argue that water fuel was a proven technology. It turns out that she meant that water in fuel was a proven technology. What she was actually referring to was a patent on a device that would inject a precise amount of liquid water into an engine cylinder, with the rationale being that the vaporization of the water distributed the reactant molecules more evenly, providing faster and more complete combustion. Whether this effect was real or patented-in-order-to-look-real might be an interesting exercise in research but is almost surely irrelevant: The patent is decades old -- meaning for antiquated engines -- and I can't imagine any noticeable effect in modern, highly efficient (at least by comparison) engines.

This sham sounds extremely cylinder -- er, similar. The validity of the "technology" relies entirely upon the inefficiency of combustion within the cylinder. While I maintain that internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient overall, that inefficiency does not stem from incomplete combustion, especially in engines that aren't decades old and in desperate need of a tune-up.

Here is a response regarding homeopathy mailed to quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... homeo.html


READER RESPONSES

From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":

I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.



KEVIN
This...is...classic. I have to assume this is a physicist joking around...but whatever....LOf'nL