Re: Sine Wave

[Guest guest]

Hi Dick,

> It is not established or generally agreed upon that Rife mixed

>11,780,000 with any other frequency, and 17,033,662 is not mentioned

>in his notes as far as I know.

In Rife's original lab note for BX he quotes " Cycles per Second -

11,780,000 " and " Wavelength of Super Regeneration of Audion Tube - 17

6/10 meters " .

That " wavelength of super-regeneration " (I'll call it WSR from now

on) is 17.6 metres which when converted into an ACCURATE frequency is

17,033,662 Hz.

So yes, that frequency is clearly mentioned in the lab notes.

As for it being established or agreed whether he mixed the 11.78Mhz

with anything else, Rife clearly says time and again that he used

modulated waveforms - which means that he mixed it with something

else. It requires no agreement, it's a known fact. Of all the things

that he could have mixed it with, what is the probability that he

mixed it with something he never bothered to record, or that he mixed

it with the clearly referenced second frequency which is explicitly

given in the lab notes?

> It does not seem likely to me at least that Rife would have listed

>one frequency and one wavelength if he meant two frequencies that

>were to be mixed.

Actually it's extremely likely! If you want to understand these

things properly you have to look at the technology of the time and

how engineers went about things - that provides the answers.

In the late 1920's (and even today) it was common to calibrate radio

equipment in wavelengths. Nowadays if you ask a radio operator what

band they're broadcasting on, they'll say " the 80M band " etc,

not " the 3.747405 Mhz band " for example.

Also, at that time, frequency counters were expensive, rare and not

very accurate. There were two main ways commonly employed to

measure " frequencies " . One was to use Lecher lines which gives a

direct measure of wavelength. The second (widely used by radio

amateurs) was to use heterodyne tuning (i.e. looking for " beats " ) to

a second calibrated source - often with a super-regenerative

detector. So if you did this, you would get a reading which would be

a " wavelength of super-regeneration " in metres - and if you really

needed the actual frequency (which most radio amateurs didn't,

because they work naturally in wavelengths) you would have to

calculate it from the wavelength.

But there is a rather peculiar discrepancy in that engineers who

would happily MEASURE a frequency as a wavelength in metres, would

usually try to DESIGN an oscillator in true frequency. And again

this is still true today.

So let's put ourselves in 1930 say, and look at a typical setup. We

would design ourselves a master oscillator that we could tune for

general frequencies and we would calibrate it in cycles per second

(Hz). We would then use that as a carrier into a radio circuit. We

would then add the modulation of the signal. If for some reason we

wanted to measure either frequency we would use our regen detector

and would derive a reading in metres.

Now, looking at the Rife lab notes we have two numbers - one in Hz

and one in metres. The one in Hertz is obviously a standard setting

of a master oscillator (a carrier in general terms - although in a

mixing system it's not quite that simple). The one that was actually

measured during the experiment is in metres. So the one in metres is

the MOR - because that was the purpose of the experiment - to MEASURE

the MOR!

And there is further evidence that this is true. Look at ALL the

Rife lab notes. I believe there were at least 74 original ones, but

the biggest collection I've seen is about 24 - I have direct copies

of 18 originals. Each has a " cycles per second " value and also a

separate WSR. Now look at what Rife said. He said that each

organism has a UNIQUE coordinative resonance. And now compare the

different lab notes. You will see that many of them have

identical " cycles per second " values. So if the " cycles per second "

was the true MOR then Rife was wrong or lying - because it

would " prove " that each organism did NOT have a unique coordinative

resonance.

So common sense tells us that the true MOR as perceived by Rife must

have been some value that was unique to each pathogen. And on the

lab notes the value that IS unique to each pathogen is the WSR in

metres (or the mixture of the two), NOT just the " cycles per second "

value.

> The mixture of these frequencies (the BHive frequency) was tried by

>several people years ago and no cancer recoveries were ever

>reported. It turned out to be a dead end according to Jim Bare in a

>communication to me in January of this year.

This is something completely separate to what I said, the " BHive

frequency " is rubbish and I never said or implied anything of the

sort.

When you mix two waves they intermodulate. This results in a

combined wave of odd shape. The shape is not even constant because

it can change depending on the relative phase of the two signals.

One thing you CAN say about the intermodulation is that it will

result in harmonic sidebands - so apart from the two original

frequencies you will get intermodulation sidebands of f1+f2 as well

as f1-f2. Now the BHive theory is that you can somehow ignore all the

original frequency components, all the phase components, the shape of

the wave, AND the difference sideband and somehow assume that

the " true cancer frequency " is only the sum sideband. There is not

the slightest bit of evidence that this is true and it is so

simplistic that it's obviously ridiculous - unless of course it is

actually proven to be true - which it's not.

I said the signals were mixed - I did not say that they were mixed

AND ALSO the fundamentals and difference sidebands were filtered

out. So when these signals were mixed they created a number of

harmonic frequencies, but also, and much more importantly in my

opinion, they changed the shape of the wave - and it turns out that

mixing 11.78Mhz and 17.034Mhz in the right phase relationship results

in a wave packet (at a primary frequency of 17.034 Mhz) that has

similarities to a damped waveform. And we know that many early

electrotherapy devices relied on a damped waveform for bioactive

effect.

There would also have been a range of intermodulation sub harmonics

as I explained in one of my papers, that would have resulted in

millions of additional sub harmonics (including as I explained in my

paper) 1.604 Mhz which is the exact frequency quoted as being the

true cancer MOR for the Rife Ray No 4 machine - AND also the

wavelength of super regeneration for that machine - Henry Siner says

this explicitly on the Rife CD's.

Finally if there's any doubt at all, look at the work of Antoine

Priore. Priore tried using different frequencies in his original

machine. He tried using a number of different " wavelengths "

initially longer ones (lower frequencies) and finally 17 metres (in

the same ballpark as Rife's WSR for BX). Priore reported cancer

reduction at ALL these frequencies but he got his best results

(outright cure) in the 17 metre band. So if there IS only one true

cancer MOR this seems to clearly show that it is NOT 11,780,000

(which is in the 25 metre band) but is rather the 17.6 metre WSR that

Rife quoted in his lab notes.

So what this shows is that ALL these high frequencies have some

effect on cancer. But that does not mean that they are the one true

MOR (if such a thing exists - and I have my doubts that it does).

But of all the candidates, the one with the best reported results in

an actual scientific test is closer to the WSR, NOT the " cycles per

second " .

> In 1999 Weeks produced a circuit to produce 11,780,000 at 5

>watts to drive a linear amp. Few paid attention. That year I

>reported to the rife-list on an experiment where I used 11,780,000

>with a prostate cancer patient with the BX virus.

We've had this conversation before! How did you isolate the " BX

virus " and where is your Rife microscope that allows you to see it?

I'm still waiting for a straight answer.

I'm sorry - you're entitled to your opinion, but you keep presenting

this piece of pure speculation as fact. I don't believe you have

isolated the BX virus. If you have, then please tell us how -

keeping such information to yourself if it is true, is a grave

disservice to the miliions of people dying of cancer who might be

saved if we could isolate BX and confirm how to kill it. If it is

not true then it is pure misinformation that also may cause

irreparable harm to the people who believe it.

> Before and after radionics testing was done. Three independent

>practitioners in three states were used to evaluate the results.

>None knew what was being tested but all were surprised at the large

>drop in virus levels in just a week.

You are presenting " radionics " as fact. I can't say for certain that

it ISN'T, but I don't believe it and neither do most reasonable

people. You are not in any position to say that you " reduced virus

levels " . This is pure misinformation unless you provide some proof

that it IS true, and there is not one piece of even halfway

acceptable reasonable evidence that it is. I'm not some hardline

advocate of the existing medical establishment so I don't believe

that their methods of " proof " are the only valid ones. But I do

believe in reason and common sense, and radionics provides neither.

You have no valid scientific methodology that would even remotely

support the claims you are making. And what is worse the majority of

people that you tell this kind of thing to, are not technically

experienced enough to realise just what they're being sold here. And

finally it damages the credibility of serious Rife research. The

quackwatchers are able to ridicule Rife research and get away with it

by claiming that it's all just radionics. Most reasoning people when

told what radionics really is dismiss it as complete rubbish. So

every claim you make associating Rife with radionics is just another

nail in the coffin for a very promising and SENSIBLE technology.

Rife is NOT radionics. I personally suspect that he would have been

the first to say so and would have been horrified to have his name

associated with this kind of quackery.

And to make this clear, Albert Abrams early devices were actual

bioactive machines. Regardless of whether his THEORY of how they

worked was correct or not, they did work as Rife once confirmed. But

what you are claiming in the name of radionics is NOT related in any

way to such machines.

> I enjoyed the comments, such as " pretty good - how did you do

>that!? They also tell me when things are not working.

Well that's great! If it works it works. And as I pointed out in my

original message, I did not say that 11,780,000 has no value - just

that it was not the ONLY frequency used during Rife's experiments.

And it is premature to say that it is the one true cancer frequency.

We know from experience that 2128 seems to work. As do many other

frequencies. Some may work better than others. But the only way

we'll find out for sure which is best is by scientific research, not

voodoo.

But having just said that - DID it work? Your " measure " of whether

it worked or not was your radionics stuff! The real question is, did

it make an objective, measurable difference to the size of the tumour

for example? And if it did, why rely on reporting " radionics "

results? A direct medical report of tumour inhibition or shrinkage

would be credible and acceptable to everyone. So why report what

most reasonable people would consider a dubious, suspect and

incredible result if you have at least some real objective evidence?

Or it is the case that you DON'T have any such evidence at all? In

which case just how reliable is this kind of report?

You never seem to give me a straight answer when I ask you how you

actually know the things you claim. And if you don't know these

things then isn't it possible that you might actually be doing harm?

I could start claiming that I have made a machine that causes

explosions on the far side of the moon. But of course we'd never see

them because we never see the far side of the moon from earth. If

someone asks me what evidence I have that I actually did so and I say

I know it's true because I visualised it psychically, or because my

pendulum told me it did - they would laugh in my face - and rightly

so! The only way to confirm if it was true would be to send a space

probe to photograph it happening. And if I HAD such photos would I

then revert to saying that my proof consisted solely of pendulum

readings? I think not! I'd have to be a complete idiot to think that

the general public would more readily accept my pendulum results than

actual hard evidence. So my reluctance to present any such evidence

in all probability is proof in itself that I don't HAVE any such

evidence. At that point we apply Occam's razor. Is it more probable

that I HAVE made a machine that causes such explosions on the moon

and that I've psychically confirmed it by visualisation or pendulum,

or is it more probable that I'm suffering from some delusional state?

I think I'm safe in assuming that most people would think the latter.

Now don't get me wrong, that's just an analogy, no slur intended on

you. What I'm saying is that surely you recognise that if you DO

have some reasonable evidence (not necessarily proof - good evidence

will do) of such results, then you're bound to attract less flak by

presenting that evidence rather than some mystical theory? And

surely you also realise that people like me intend you no harm at all

but find your claims too incredible to swallow, and that it would be

in your own interests to be a bit more objective. And finally surely

you must also realise that IF by any chance at all you ARE wrong then

you may possibly be doing harm....

> I have since done a before and after test using 11,430,000 for the

BY. Similar results.

Radionics results? And when did you isolate BY? Enough said. And

where did you get this 11,430,000? I have never seen a Rife lab note

that mentions 11,430,000 for sarcoma. I'm not aware of anyone who

has. If you have this lab note then please release it - there is no

legitimate reason to keep it to yourself. Same applies to anyone

else. If such a lab note exists, I for one would like to see the WSR

as well. If it doesn't exist then this is just more speculation

masquerading as fact.

I have no problem with speculation - but I always make it clear when

I'm speculating and when I'm claiming fact. It's something I'd

recommend to everyone.

> Currently, using 11,780,000 with a sweep of 500 Hz up and down at

100+ watts output into either a phanotron or antenna is producing

much faster results than any other radiant system has reported.

Remarkable changes in just a few days are being seen.

This is good - this is the kind of information we can all use

(provided the " results " are being objectively validated). I fully

recognise and support your efforts in things like this. Why do you

need to keep mentioning claims about BX and BY and radionics - why

not just present the facts like this?

There's nothing stopping you from appending your personal opinions to

the results if you feel you have to, as long as you make it clear

where the research finding ends and the speculation begins. Although

as I said above, I think these radionics ideas do more harm than good

to ALL our credibility as Rifers.

> Suggestion: How about a few others trying to use these

frequencies? Those who do soon find out what works.

I agree fully and second that suggestion.

Best wishes

Aubrey

[Guest guest]

" Loyd, Ph.D. " <drloyd@a...> wrote:

> In 1999 Weeks produced a circuit to produce 11,780,000 at

> 5 watts to drive a linear amp.

The schematics/parts list for the above is available at:

http://www.geocities.com/weeks_parker

> Currently, using 11,780,000 with a sweep of 500 Hz up and down

> at 100+ watts output into either a phanotron or antenna is

> producing much faster results than any other radiant system

> has reported.

When you say " faster results " , you are referring just to cancer?

And how are you sweeping +/- 500 Hz? Weeks 's circuit

doesn't look like it supports sweeping to me.

[Guest guest]

" Loyd, Ph.D. " <drloyd@a...> wrote:

> Mostly cancer although some very interesting things have happeded

> by multiplying frequencies by 32 and running them.

Sounds like you aren't using Weeks 's circuit,

because it produces a fixed frequency.