Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

[Guest guest]

--- " Dr. Whiting " wrote:

> Has anyone had any experience in testing Rife

> frequencies on bacterial cultures? It occurred to

> me that various bacteria can be grown on various

> culture material (e.g., blood or chocolate agar).

> Once cultured, the various bacteria can be

> identified by their appearance and Rife frequencies

> can be tested against disc-impregnated antibiotics

> in separate petri dishes for susceptibility.

> Standard laboratory procedures would be necessary to

> accomplish this bacterial culturing procedure since

> it requires access to culturing material, incubation

> equipment and filter paper antibiotic discs.

> Plasma-type and pad-type Rife equipment could be

> tested against the antibiotic sensitivity to the

> various bacteria. This seems to me to be a possible

> way of evaluating Rife frequencies ability to kill

> various bacteria. Your thoughts?

>

> Dr. Bob

You're absolutely right Bob. Standard laboratory

procedures are what is needed to test frequencies. All

that's really needed is someone with the training and

resources to do it.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Dr. Bob,

With todays instruments it is going to be a lot simpler to take

advantage of the " Bioelectric Effect " between pulsed EM fields and

antibiotics. No one has run tests yet to show some sort of frequency

response window to this effect. I suspect such a window exists and

will vary based upon the organism, the concentration of the

antibiotic,the field strength, and application time. The bioelectric

effect is when one combines antibiotics with pulsed EM fields, the

concentration of antibiotics necessary to kill the test culture is

significantly diminished.

Jim Bare

>Has anyone had any experience in testing Rife frequencies on

>bacterial cultures? It occurred to me that various bacteria can be

>grown on various culture material (e.g., blood or chocolate agar).

>Once cultured, the various bacteria can be identified by their

>appearance and Rife frequencies can be tested against

>disc-impregnated antibiotics in separate petri dishes for

>susceptibility. Standard laboratory procedures would be necessary to

>accomplish this bacterial culturing procedure since it requires

>access to culturing material, incubation equipment and filter paper

>antibiotic discs. Plasma-type and pad-type Rife equipment could be

>tested against the antibiotic sensitivity to the various bacteria.

>This seems to me to be a possible way of evaluating Rife frequencies

>ability to kill various bacteria. Your thoughts?

>

>Dr. Bob

>

>---------------------------------

>You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of

>Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi: Dave. The fastest way to do this is with bacterial dip slides,

but they are around 3 bucks a test. This way you do not have to

worry about sterile agar, or trying to count colonies under a

microscope. But the bacteria you are working with needs to

be catalyse positive for the indicator on the dip slide to work.

I also often wonder if some of the Rife effect under the microscope

or in dishes,or even skin conditions was not from pulsed UV if the

raytube was close to the sample. This was quite possible since Rife

used quartz for the raytube,slides and dishes. Pulsed UV can have a

stronger effect than steady state UV.

In one of the letters I think from Milbank

they were worried that they just may be getting a

surface killing effect, at least at one point in time.

Beamray/Old Mike

> > Has anyone had any experience in testing Rife frequencies on

bacterial cultures? It occurred to me that various bacteria can be

grown on various culture material (e.g., blood or chocolate agar).

Once cultured, the various bacteria can be identified by their

appearance and Rife frequencies can be tested against disc-

impregnated antibiotics in separate petri dishes for susceptibility.

Standard laboratory procedures would be necessary to accomplish this

bacterial culturing procedure since it requires access to culturing

material, incubation equipment and filter paper antibiotic discs.

Plasma-type and pad-type Rife equipment could be tested against the

antibiotic sensitivity to the various bacteria. This seems to me to

be a possible way of evaluating Rife frequencies ability to kill

various bacteria. Your thoughts?

> >

> > Dr. Bob

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dave: I do not believe that raytubes made from normal glass

will pass UV, but the quartz that Rife used would.

If you get to experiment again, you might want to try using two

frequencies one variable, and if you have the equipment two different

RF frequencies with one variable. Difference/beat/Tartini tones

frequencies may work differently than a single frequency.

Beamray/Old Mike

>

> Mike, that's why I was using e.coli, which are very motile and

visible.

> Make a culture with luria broth, innoculate it from a slant tube,

> incubate till a colony is visible (cloudy), place a drop on a slide

with

> cover plate (gads, I don't know where my slides or covers are..),

pop

> under the microscope and image the bacteria at a minimum of 400x

(600x

> better), turn on the plasma lamp, select what frequencies are to be

> used, and watch and see.

>

> One researcher said somewhere between 20khz and 30 Khz just killed

them

> dead (So keep the raw culture far away!) Not planning to use any

> indicator or stain. I don't use quartz, generally, so UV wuldn't be

an

> issue, BUT, it's a good point, so perhaps the Plasma Lamp should be

> blocked by paper to cut the UV. Easy to try both ways.. Thanks,

>

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Stan Truman found that two Plamsa Lamp machines running a bit out of

phase was VERY effective; I don't know how the effectiveness was

determined, but I don't believe he was doing bacterial tests.

-Dave

> Dave: I do not believe that raytubes made from normal glass

> will pass UV, but the quartz that Rife used would.

> If you get to experiment again, you might want to try using two

> frequencies one variable, and if you have the equipment two different

> RF frequencies with one variable. Difference/beat/Tartini tones

> frequencies may work differently than a single frequency.

> Beamray/Old Mike

>

>

> >

> > Mike,

> that's why I was using e.coli, which are very motile and

> visible.

[Guest guest]

I've seen enhanced " healing " effects using two novelty plasma lamps, one

either side of the body like Bruce Stenulson has used in his EM+ set-up.

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/index.htm

A friend was in Thailand and got some type of infection/irritation in his

throat, many therapies and herbal remedies he tried didn't helped him. His

GP after doing a blood test wanted to send him to a Psychologist, as his

blood test was clear. He's a young, active and very normal and healthy guy.

He told me he just " knew " he caught something when he visited Asia and this

coughing and " thickness feeling " in his throat just wouldn't clear.

He used a single novelty plasma lamp (40kHz carrier gated by the audio

signal, 15 watts), and experienced about 70% relief of symptoms for a week,

then it came back. (This was from one 30 minute parasite frequency program,

thanks to and the CAFL)

http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/CAFL.

htm

A month later he used two separate plasma ball controllers, one either side

of his body. Both set to around 40kHz, but there would have easily been a

+/- 3kHz difference between the carriers. The gating audio was from the same

source. Same frequency program used, just more power (30 watts) and with

slightly different carriers. He commented that the physiologic feelings

(very strong tingles in his throat, source of irritation) was much more than

his last experience, plus he said he could feel very good sensations though

his whole trunk region, and these sensations varied at different

frequencies. His problem was resolved by the end of the 30 minute program,

that was about 1 year ago, and he is very fine today, it did not return.

The carrier and audio gating complies to Bares minimum carrier

envelope of 5% or greater.

http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/

Just thought I would share this after reading the last couple message from

Dave about Stan Truman's experiences.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Re: Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

Stan Truman found that two Plamsa Lamp machines running a bit out of

phase was VERY effective; I don't know how the effectiveness was

determined, but I don't believe he was doing bacterial tests.

-Dave

> Dave: I do not believe that raytubes made from normal glass

> will pass UV, but the quartz that Rife used would.

> If you get to experiment again, you might want to try using two

> frequencies one variable, and if you have the equipment two different

> RF frequencies with one variable. Difference/beat/Tartini tones

> frequencies may work differently than a single frequency.

> Beamray/Old Mike

>

>

> >

> > Mike,

> that's why I was using e.coli, which are very motile and

> visible.

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

> So ... if someone were to do the long-awaited

> standardized tests,

> what equipment specs, signal makeup, and bacteria

> strain would have

> the best chance of producing a result? To my mind,

> it needs to be

> frequency specifc to be vaild. That means other

> frequencies of

> similar intensity are also demonstrated not to work.

> Anyone can zap a

> petri dish with DC.

In my opinion, there are three configurations that

could fit the bill. First, the frequency range would

be 100 kHz to 2 MHz. Also, the output should be

pulsed at a fixed audio frequency. Now, the three

configurations are: 1. A tuned circuit to generate the

frequencies directly, 2. An untuned class A amplifier

to output the frequencies directly, and 3. The new

heterodyning machine that has been reconstructed that

presumably models after the Beam Ray instrument.

As I've said before, I think that an ideal test sample

is a non-pathogenic strain of E. Coli bacteria. It's

safe to use by anyone, and its motility will show a

definite effect if its MOR is achieved. After the

basic Rife effect is demonstrated, then someone who is

trained and licensed to work with pathogenic bacteria

can proceed with whatever organisms they feel are a

priority.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

One gets a similar feeling while holding hand close to TV screen (CRT)

Is probably static electricity pull. Hairs on hands become erectile.

Novelty Plasma Globe is basically a Static charge device.

The whole surface inside globe is coated with a conductive coating,

& forms a large capacitance electrode.

Phanatron tubes do not have such large electrode capacitances &

& hence have much higher frequency response.

I am sure this is also not convincing, like when I said

Current & Electrons flow in opposite directions,

While common sense logic says current is flow of electrons,

& how can it flow in opposite directions.

=================================================

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> I've seen enhanced " healing " effects using two novelty plasma lamps, one

> either side of the body like Bruce Stenulson has used in his EM+ set-up.

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/index.htm

>

> A friend was in Thailand and got some type of infection/irritation in his

> throat, many therapies and herbal remedies he tried didn't helped him. His

> GP after doing a blood test wanted to send him to a Psychologist, as his

> blood test was clear. He's a young, active and very normal and healthy guy.

> He told me he just " knew " he caught something when he visited Asia and this

> coughing and " thickness feeling " in his throat just wouldn't clear.

>

> He used a single novelty plasma lamp (40kHz carrier gated by the audio

> signal, 15 watts), and experienced about 70% relief of symptoms for a week,

> then it came back. (This was from one 30 minute parasite frequency program,

> thanks to and the CAFL)

>

> http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/CAFL.

> htm

>

> A month later he used two separate plasma ball controllers, one either side

> of his body. Both set to around 40kHz, but there would have easily been a

> +/- 3kHz difference between the carriers. The gating audio was from the same

> source. Same frequency program used, just more power (30 watts) and with

> slightly different carriers. He commented that the physiologic feelings

> (very strong tingles in his throat, source of irritation) was much more than

> his last experience, plus he said he could feel very good sensations though

> his whole trunk region, and these sensations varied at different

> frequencies. His problem was resolved by the end of the 30 minute program,

> that was about 1 year ago, and he is very fine today, it did not return.

>

> The carrier and audio gating complies to Bares minimum carrier

> envelope of 5% or greater.

>

> http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/

>

> Just thought I would share this after reading the last couple message from

> Dave about Stan Truman's experiences.

>

> Sincerely,

> Ken Uzzell

>

[Guest guest]

>In my opinion, there are three configurations that

>could fit the bill. First, the frequency range would

>be 100 kHz to 2 MHz.

My reading is that two frequencies need to be actively involved. This

is in accord with an immersion field effect, and the second

heterodyning light source utilized in Rife's microscope. For example,

you target the cell with a " resonant " frequency while applying a

sharp spike to weaken it. The latter might be an explanation for the

diathermy machine and second set of wires to the plasma tube in the

Rife lab photos. I recall he was surprised at how low in frequency

the actual MOR's were compared to their predictive calculations,

presumably based upon wavelength. That much is obvious.

An analogous effect can be produced by gating the MOR. The " ringing "

of its damped waveform, as indicated in a film of Rife's waveform,

also functions as a fixed, fast rise-time carrier. Its frequency is

determined by the self-resonance of the matching circuit that drives

the tube. In the Tijuana desposition, Rife mentions custom winding

his own coils. IOW there was more involved than off-the-shelf

equipment. No capacitor is required if the coil has sufficient

internal capacitance.

I believe it is overly optimistic to attempt to " explode " pathogens

within the body using one frequency, let alone a far lower harmonic

of the resonant wavelength. Many competent researchers have failed,

even in vitro. Given the non-linear properties of biological systems,

a combined effect is more likely. I have had far more success with

these kind of approaches, at least in terms of symptomology.

On a related note, plasma driven at a fixed frequency generates a

substantial amount of stochastic noise, which affects resonant

properties. Here is a related paper:

http://www.icpig2005.nl/cd/D:/pdf/14-091.pdf. This can also

accentuate a biological response.

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/short/17/2/313

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

We went through that same current flow vs electron flow when I went through AF

electroncs school. To simplify, we just forgot the current flow since it was

easier to understand electron flow, since we were just concerned with the

electrons flowing through the good ol' vacuum tubes.

Of course, when we went into the Buck microwave theory, everything went

out the window. Curent flowing on the SURFACE of a conductor, get real.

No transister then, just rumors about electrons flowing through " holes " , how

could THAT work?

I LOVED electronics! Vance

Re: Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

One gets a similar feeling while holding hand close to TV screen (CRT)

Is probably static electricity pull. Hairs on hands become erectile.

Novelty Plasma Globe is basically a Static charge device.

The whole surface inside globe is coated with a conductive coating,

& forms a large capacitance electrode.

Phanatron tubes do not have such large electrode capacitances &

& hence have much higher frequency response.

I am sure this is also not convincing, like when I said

Current & Electrons flow in opposite directions,

While common sense logic says current is flow of electrons,

& how can it flow in opposite directions.

=================================================

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> I've seen enhanced " healing " effects using two novelty plasma lamps, one

> either side of the body like Bruce Stenulson has used in his EM+ set-up.

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/index.htm

>

> A friend was in Thailand and got some type of infection/irritation in his

> throat, many therapies and herbal remedies he tried didn't helped him. His

> GP after doing a blood test wanted to send him to a Psychologist, as his

> blood test was clear. He's a young, active and very normal and healthy guy.

> He told me he just " knew " he caught something when he visited Asia and this

> coughing and " thickness feeling " in his throat just wouldn't clear.

>

> He used a single novelty plasma lamp (40kHz carrier gated by the audio

> signal, 15 watts), and experienced about 70% relief of symptoms for a week,

> then it came back. (This was from one 30 minute parasite frequency program,

> thanks to and the CAFL)

>

> http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/CAFL.

> htm

>

> A month later he used two separate plasma ball controllers, one either side

> of his body. Both set to around 40kHz, but there would have easily been a

> +/- 3kHz difference between the carriers. The gating audio was from the same

> source. Same frequency program used, just more power (30 watts) and with

> slightly different carriers. He commented that the physiologic feelings

> (very strong tingles in his throat, source of irritation) was much more than

> his last experience, plus he said he could feel very good sensations though

> his whole trunk region, and these sensations varied at different

> frequencies. His problem was resolved by the end of the 30 minute program,

> that was about 1 year ago, and he is very fine today, it did not return.

>

> The carrier and audio gating complies to Bares minimum carrier

> envelope of 5% or greater.

>

> http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/

>

> Just thought I would share this after reading the last couple message from

> Dave about Stan Truman's experiences.

>

> Sincerely,

> Ken Uzzell

>

[Guest guest]

There are perhaps a few relevant entries regarding signal parameters

in Rife's lab reports http://www.rife.org/rifeslab.html.

Syphilis and Thyphoid both show the same MOR of 900,000Hz, even

though Rife repeatedly stated no two organisms responded the same.

However ... the _wavelengths_ given ARE different, as are the plate

voltages. Curiously, the latter for Thyphoid is 135V, obviously

insufficient to ignite the plasma tube. Tetanus is only 140V.

Therefore, an additional signal, at greater voltage, had to be applied.

This makes a total of THREE. Why? The grid would have been fed with a

second oscillator (audio?), of necessity lower in frequency and

voltage than the one expressed as wavelength. I take this to be the

MOR. This means the ionizing voltage must have come from another

source, presumably a third oscillator. Perhaps the diathermy machine.

This has sometimes been inferred by others due to the second pair of

wires seen entering the plasma tube.

Why did Rife retain the term " wavelength " for one of the frequencies?

Possibly because he associated it with the physical wavelength, or

resonant frequency, of the pathogen. It would be interesting to see

if the physical size of the pathogens listed correlates

proportionately with his nominated wavelengths. At first glance, BX

is indeed the shortest.

Additionally, the plate voltage for each pathogen was also

_different_. IOW Rife appears to have been adjusting it in each

instance. This relates directly to electron density which affects the

intermodulation of signals applied to the tube. To what purpose, I

can only guess.

All up, this implies a far more involved approach than we are

presently investigating. Admittedly, I am taking Rife's reports at

face value; but see no reason not to.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

> My reading is that two frequencies need to be

> actively involved.

The evidence indicates that the two frequencies

involved are the MOR, and the fixed audio pulsing

frequency. I mentioned that in my post.

> This

> is in accord with an immersion field effect, and the

> second

> heterodyning light source utilized in Rife's

> microscope.

This idea of heterodyning two frequencies of light in

the microscope is oft repeated without any supporting

evidence, or knowledge of where the idea originates.

I've never seen anything in the original Rife

documentation that supports the idea of heterodyning

light. The idea originates with Mark Gallert's 1966

book, " New Light on Therapeutic Energies " . That's not

how Rife described it. Rife's description of the

" light staining " method used in his microscopes

indicates that the idea is based upon spectroscopy.

He identified the particular absorption or emission

wavelength, and then used that wavelength to

illuminate the virus.

> For example,

> you target the cell with a " resonant " frequency

> while applying a

> sharp spike to weaken it. The latter might be an

> explanation for the

> diathermy machine and second set of wires to the

> plasma tube in the

> Rife lab photos.

This subject has been covered before. It may be one

explanation, but we don't see the spark diathermy

machine in the photo with the four wires.

> I recall he was surprised at how

> low in frequency

> the actual MOR's were compared to their predictive

> calculations,

> presumably based upon wavelength. That much is

> obvious.

Where did you read this? Rife said he found his

frequencies by " hunt and try " method, not any

calculations.

> An analogous effect can be produced by gating the

> MOR. The " ringing "

> of its damped waveform, as indicated in a film of

> Rife's waveform,

> also functions as a fixed, fast rise-time carrier.

> Its frequency is

> determined by the self-resonance of the matching

> circuit that drives

> the tube.

The gating frequency that produced the damped wave in

the lab film was an audio frequency, so it wouldn't

function as a carrier. We know that it was an audio

frequency because the sweep rate of oscilloscopes of

that era were limited to the audio spectrum.

> In the Tijuana desposition, Rife mentions

> custom winding

> his own coils. IOW there was more involved than

> off-the-shelf

> equipment. No capacitor is required if the coil has

> sufficient

> internal capacitance.

I think you're reading a little too much into this.

My understanding is that Rife wound some of his coils

in his very earliest research, before he moved on to

the Kennedy equipment.

> I believe it is overly optimistic to attempt to

> " explode " pathogens

> within the body using one frequency, let alone a far

> lower harmonic

> of the resonant wavelength.

Yes, but if guys like Jim s and Jeff Garff had

this attitude, we wouldn't have our present knowledge

and understanding. A purely intellectual analysis is

not enough; different configurations need to be

actually tried out to see the real-world results. As

an example, the audio circuit in the Gruner/Beam Ray

machine did not give any indication that it was

anything other than a simple audio circuit. Only

after Jim s actually built and tested it was the

spike wave revealed.

> Many competent

> researchers have failed,

> even in vitro. <snip>

Who are they? Who has tested the original Rife

frequency range with configurations similar to what he

used? Until very recently, we didn't even have a

particularly clear understanding of the configurations

that Rife used. We still don't have all the answers

in that regard. That's why we still need to try

things out until we get something that " does the

business " as Rife said. We need to follow the clues

that we have and test them out, not resign with the

attitude that it's " overly optimistic " , based on

purely intellectual analysis.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Why are you returning to and taking at face value

information that has been demonstrated to be

inaccurate? We know that the frequencies in the lab

notes are incorrect because his equipment was

incapable of generating frequencies as high as some of

those listed. The later frequency list that was made

from the older machine to transfer to the newer #4

machine also confirms this. The reason that one of

the figures is in " wavelength " is because the

wavemeter that he used to make the measurement was

calibrated in meters. It's that simple. The use of a

wavemeter also explains the higher harmonics that he

picked up from the plasma tube.

Regards,

--- Nielsen wrote:

> There are perhaps a few relevant entries regarding

> signal parameters

> in Rife's lab reports

> http://www.rife.org/rifeslab.html.

>

> Syphilis and Thyphoid both show the same MOR of

> 900,000Hz, even

> though Rife repeatedly stated no two organisms

> responded the same.

> However ... the _wavelengths_ given ARE different,

> as are the plate

> voltages. Curiously, the latter for Thyphoid is

> 135V, obviously

> insufficient to ignite the plasma tube. Tetanus is

> only 140V.

> Therefore, an additional signal, at greater voltage,

> had to be applied.

>

> This makes a total of THREE. Why? The grid would

> have been fed with a

> second oscillator (audio?), of necessity lower in

> frequency and

> voltage than the one expressed as wavelength. I take

> this to be the

> MOR. This means the ionizing voltage must have come

> from another

> source, presumably a third oscillator. Perhaps the

> diathermy machine.

> This has sometimes been inferred by others due to

> the second pair of

> wires seen entering the plasma tube.

>

> Why did Rife retain the term " wavelength " for one of

> the frequencies?

> Possibly because he associated it with the physical

> wavelength, or

> resonant frequency, of the pathogen. It would be

> interesting to see

> if the physical size of the pathogens listed

> correlates

> proportionately with his nominated wavelengths. At

> first glance, BX

> is indeed the shortest.

>

> Additionally, the plate voltage for each pathogen

> was also

> _different_. IOW Rife appears to have been adjusting

> it in each

> instance. This relates directly to electron density

> which affects the

> intermodulation of signals applied to the tube. To

> what purpose, I

> can only guess.

>

> All up, this implies a far more involved approach

> than we are

> presently investigating. Admittedly, I am taking

> Rife's reports at

> face value; but see no reason not to.

[Guest guest]

These discussions are quite interesting and what this list is all

about.

At any rate it is my contention that if Rife did use Superregen

that the frequencies are the quench rates.

Superregen is just regeneration set into oscillation and quenched,

at an audio or superaudio rate, the waveform is exponential growth,

with side band mixtures. When in an earlier post from

, by Aubrey he says that if the WSR is the quench rate and that

cannot be, that is correct, but the WSR is the WSR and not the quench

rate.

The WSR is some mixture of the main, quench, and coil coupling

frequencies,which perhaps is usless info.

Another possiblility is the frequencies are the difference

frequency between two RF oscillators.

How do I resolve this with the #4 instrument which seems to use

only one frequency at a time. Not enough information unless there is

much we do not know, such as a fixed or variable carrier/Gruner

circuit.

Again I ask, worked for Rife, the frequencies came

into being around 1940, if Rife only used a single RF frequency in the

#4 then how did he come up with all of the frequencies so

fast if they were not used in his other devices. The answer of course

is that they were used in the other devices. We also know that the

instruments were not as effective as the #4 or Hoyland

instruments,therefore some other means of generattion of the

frequencies is necessary, which leads us back in a circle to where

I started this post.

Beamray/Old Mike

>

> Perhaps I should simply clarify my observations with regard to

Rife's

> early equipment.

>

> Some have claimed only the two Kennedy generators were used, thus

> limiting frequencies to two. According to 's recent replies,

the

> secret of Rife's success is now due to a fixed audio and variable

RF

> component. IOW one effective CR frequency per pathogen. Presumably,

> this interpretation is motivated by Jeff et al's yet unproven work

> based upon the Beam Ray. Aside from the fact Jeff's proposed

> mechanism actually requires three frequencies, I see a few

> discrepencies historically.

>

> Yes, a spike can arise within a plasma due to audio gating. The

> result is similar to a shock wave, and will propagate beyond the

> tube. However, a squarewave is normally indicated for this. The

> Kennedy's, if unmodified, produced only sinewaves. Furthermore, the

> shock wave would be highly bioactive. So why has no such

signifcance

> been accorded to the audio gating frequency, either in Rife's day

or

> the present? Why was it not used as the CR, or an harmonic thereof,

> instead of being fixed?

>

> Rife's lab reports disclose an " audiotron " plate voltage of 135 and

> 140V for two pathogens. Presumably, this applies to the RF power

> amplifier. However, it is too low to ignite the plasma tube. This

> implies a power source of higher voltage was connected in parallel,

> and that it was possibly the origin of any spike or damped wave,

not

> fixed audio gating. This may have been a diathermy machine, or the

> like. The plate voltage relates to the frequency given as a

> wavelength, so it appears as if the cps frequency was applied to

the grid.

>

> Rife refers to the wavelength as the " super-regeneration "

frequency.

> If this is correct, it suggests the plate of the audiotron was

> powered by a HV RF signal, not a DC B+ voltage. If so, where did

this

> signal come from, and why was it not applied via the generators, as

a

> modulated signal, to the grid? It seems to me a different effect

was

> intended, perhaps oscillatory, whether or not it involved super

regeneration.

>

> IMO the relationship between Hoyland's frequencies and those in

> Rife's lab notes, expressed in cps and wavelength, is still

> unresolved. Jeff's paper suggests they are related due to harmonics

> generated within the plasma tube. My point is that Rife measured

them

> and knew they were being emitted. It is to these that he attributed

> the effects of the machine, not the frequencies generated by the

> Kennedy's. As points out, he also realized these were too low

> to be the fundamental resonant frequencies of the pathogens

tageted.

> Hence, Hoyland's frequencies may be of no value unless the rest of

> Rife's original setup is duplicated excactly.

>

> I welcome any comment or corrections to the above.

>

> Nielsen

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

The waveform is bi-polar.

Kind Regards,

Kerry G Tume

M.Ac.F. M.I.L.A. A.C.O.N.T.

www.tumelaser.com

Clini-Lase, Laser 3000 Therapeutic Lasers

PH: (61) 08 8327 0845

Mobile: 0431674910

Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

>As a point of interest, when scientists stimulated neurons with

>either a minor physical " ping " , or a minor electrical shock, or a

>lethal knockout, the neurons fired off electrically, and the signal

>was identical to the large spike one in Ralphs photos.

>

> From a surface electrode or handheld point of view, I have always

> utilised this waveform in Electro systems eg TENS, Micro-current etc.

The spike seems to be an electrotherapy mainstay dating back to the

early 1900's. The fast rise time makes it highly inductive. May I ask

if this is a _bipolar_ spike you are using, Kerry? If not, are you

aware of the effects upon tissue of a polarized waveform? Lily

designed a special waveform to address this. Without a discharge (or

relaxation) cycle, the electric charge simply builds up internally,

at which point any frequency stimulated effect diminishes. It also

promotes ion imbalance.

Nielsen

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date: 7/04/2008

6:38 PM

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

I personally believe an electrode system with the RF carrier is valid. The

GB4000 is proof of this.

Kind Regards,

Kerry G Tume

M.Ac.F. M.I.L.A. A.C.O.N.T.

www.tumelaser.com

Clini-Lase, Laser 3000 Therapeutic Lasers

PH: (61) 08 8327 0845

Mobile: 0431674910

Re: Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

HI all,

As a point of interest, when scientists stimulated neurons with either a

minor physical " ping " , or a minor electrical shock, or a lethal knockout,

the neurons fired off electrically, and the signal was identical to the

large spike one in Ralphs photos.

From a surface electrode or handheld point of view, I have always utilised

this waveform in Electro systems eg TENS, Micro-current etc.

The large spike seems to make a huge difference to therapy results.

Kerry

Kind Regards,

Kerry G Tume

M.Ac.F. M.I.L.A. A.C.O.N.T.

www.tumelaser.com

Clini-Lase, Laser 3000 Therapeutic Lasers

PH: (61) 08 8327 0845

Mobile: 0431674910

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1364 - Release Date: 7/04/2008

6:38 PM

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff,

Sounds like you're doing some very exciting work there.

We'll, I have a great little USB DDS FG that I can get my FreX software to

operate with ease. The biggest component on the circuit board are the two

crystals it uses. All it needs is a circuit to amplify the signal and gate

it with an audio signal. Then I'll have a cheap way to get FreX to go

anywhere I want it to go, and what a bonus if I can generate the same signal

as Dr Rife used. For me, this is my starting point.

If we can knock pathogen dead with the right Dr Rife signal, then it should

be all down hill from there, in displaying this to the world and getting

100% repeatable experiements. This then does change the way things are done

on a global level.

Thanks so much for sharing the information you have discovered about Dr

Rife. As said, this is one of the biggest break throughs in the

reseach of Dr Rife's work. It's up to us to perfect it and take it to the

world.

If we can generate and display 100% remissions in all diseases, and do it

all around the world, then the medical authorities (well, the healers in the

medical authorities) will have to look at this and become excited too.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

* FreX - REBS - PLC - ERS - GNLD

Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

Hello Ken,

Over this last week we have built a new AZ-58 that has a variable

tuning capacitor. This gives this new style of AZ-58 Ray tube

instrument a frequency range of 1.2MHz to 1.95MHz. This will keep us

out of the HAMs frequency range. The power output is less than the

Beam Rays instrument but this should keep use within a quarter mile

frequency range. This should not bother the AM radio stations because

the FCC allows neighborhood broadcasting of Radio and TV within a

quarter mile. The FCC would probably never approve of it but we may

be able to stay under the radar for those who want to use it anyway.

You also would probably not want to use it in an apartment building

or condominiums because it might mess up the neighbors TV or Radio.

If you have a basement this would be the best place to run it.

This new design will also allow us to use the fundamental frequency

of 1.604MHz which will have more power in it, instead of having to

heterodyne to get it. Even at this lower power output the 1.604MHz

will have twice the power output in it than the Beam Rays design.

This should be a big plus.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

, you are just saying the same thing over and over again, but in

an increasingly offensive tone. I am not interested in pursuing a

discussion where the rules of engagement are not applied equally to

all participants.

In any event, this has degenerated into little else than a campaign

against my morality and " competence " . I suppose that is the only way

you can " win " your argument, and sweep any awkward realities under

the carpet. Now that you've got Pappy on side, I am probably done for.

I have made my points, and stand by them. Anyone still listening can

make their own judgement about all this, and the current state of

Rife therapy and the way in which it is promoted.

Nielsen

>As my Pappy always says, " a little perception goes a

>long way " . You make it obvious that perception is not

>one of your strong suits. You say that the British

>group came to the same conclusion that you did, that

>the second Hartley oscillator was just a demo sketch.

>This demonstrates your incompetence regarding at least

>this subject. If I was an engineer with 35 years

>experience, I would be utterly embarrassed and ashamed

>for making such a blunder. The first question that

>Jim s asked when he first saw the Gruner

>schematic was, " how did they tune it? " Without the

>second Hartley oscillator, which is the only part of

>the schematic that has any frequency tuning

>components, viz., the tuning capacitor, all you have

>left is a fixed frequency RF oscillator with a fixed

>frequency audio modulation. Needless to say, that

>wouldn't do much good. The photos of the Beam Ray

>machine clearly show the dial for a tuning capacitor.

>The main oscillator in the Gruner schematic doesn't

>have a tuning capacitor. The logical conclusion

>therefore, is that the second Hartley oscillator is

>not just a demo sketch, but is a necessary part of the

>whole schematic to make a functional machine.

>

>Another old adage is that, " the proof of the pudding

>is in the eating " . The assumptions and conclusions

>are being presented as if proven fact because of the

>proven fact of the machines that have been built based

>upon these assumptions and conclusions. As Jeff

>pointed out in a previous post, there are many points

>that we definitely know and accept as proven fact,

>such as the frequency range of the Rife frequencies,

>the frequency range of the Kennedy machines, and the

>photographic evidence. Another most important fact is

>that there are real-world limits to what the

>technology was capable of back then. As I said, the

>proven fact of the real-world machines that have been

>built based on the logical and practical assumptions

>and conclusions that were made, is the reason that

>the assumptions and conclusions are being presented as

>proven fact. If Jeff had revised and released his

>paper before the working machines had been built, then

>there would have been no justification for presenting

>the assumptions and conclusions as fact. But you keep

>overlooking the proven fact that the assumptions and

>conclusions that were made lead to working machines

>that fill the bill for operational parameters of what

>we know of Rife's machines. I suppose that about now

>you'll remind us that these machines have yet to

>demonstrate the Rife effect. This is true, but this

>work is still very new and needs time to get this

>testing done, however, it in no way negates the fact

>that we now have operational machines that can deliver

>Rife's original frequencies, in a manner similar to

>the way that he delivered them.

>

>As far as you not being interested in proving anything

>regarding your credentials, I think it's becoming

>increasingly obvious that you have nothing that you

>can prove. Your arguments demonstrate that at least

>regarding this old style Rife technology, you're

>incompetent. I suggest that you stick to allegedly

>building advanced pad machines.

>

>Regards,

>

>

>

>--- Nielsen wrote:

>

> >

> > >, when do assumptions and all the knowledge

> > that is known at a

> > >particular time become conclusions!

> >

> >

> > Prompted by the debate, I revisited Jeff's paper.

> > Below are a few

> > examples of the kind of questionable statements I

> > have been referring to.

> >

> > The Gruner section starts off with, " We will now

> > discuss the _key_ to

> > understanding Philip Hoyland's design. " Emphasis

> > mine. " Jim s

> > noticed that the British group had overlooked a

> > second Hartley RF

> > oscillator that was in the lower left corner of the

> > Gruner

> > schematic. " They didn't " overlook " it. They came to

> > the same

> > conclusion as I did. It was a demo sketch.

> >

> > Then we find a series of assumptions, relating

> > primarily to Hoyland's

> > methodology, all presented as if proven fact. " By

> > using the ingenious

> > method of connecting the ray tube between the two

> > Hartley

> > Oscillators, one fixed, one variable, Philip Hoyland

> > ... " . " The

> > positive side of the ray tube is supposed to be

> > hooked to the second vari-

> > able Hartley Oscillator " ... etc. Need I go on?

> >

> > And, to sum it all up, the author claims, " We

> > finally know from the

> > rebuilding of this Beam Rays instrument the waveform

> > Dr. Rife used,

> > how he created it, and the method that should be

> > used for doing MOR research " .

> >

> > It's all there for anyone who wants to read it.

> > Personally, I feel

> > this is conjecture posing as fact. It is bound to

> > mislead some

> > readers who are unfamilliar with the historical

> > informality Rife research.

> >

> > As far as my credentials go, I am not interested in

> > proving anything.

> >

> > Nielsen

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh yes; I'm the villain and you're the innocent

victim.

You shouldn't light a fire and then be surprised when

somebody takes you to task for it. The reality is

that you've been all talk and no action. Under the

guise of " objective science " , you tear down, but you

don't build up anything better. When questioned point

blank about your qualifications and what constructive

contribution you've made to the Rife community, you

predictably evade, saying you're not interested in

proving anything. As unpleasant as this matter has

been, somebody has to stand up and expose people like

you.

Regards,

--- Nielsen wrote:

> , you are just saying the same thing over and

> over again, but in

> an increasingly offensive tone. I am not interested

> in pursuing a

> discussion where the rules of engagement are not

> applied equally to

> all participants.

>

> In any event, this has degenerated into little else

> than a campaign

> against my morality and " competence " . I suppose that

> is the only way

> you can " win " your argument, and sweep any awkward

> realities under

> the carpet. Now that you've got Pappy on side, I am

> probably done for.

>

> I have made my points, and stand by them. Anyone

> still listening can

> make their own judgement about all this, and the

> current state of

> Rife therapy and the way in which it is promoted.

>

> Nielsen

[Guest guest]

>Oh yes; I'm the villain and you're the innocent

>victim.

>

>You shouldn't light a fire and then be surprised when

>somebody takes you to task for it. The reality is

>that you've been all talk and no action. Under the

>guise of " objective science " , you tear down, but you

>don't build up anything better. When questioned point

>blank about your qualifications and what constructive

>contribution you've made to the Rife community, you

>predictably evade, saying you're not interested in

>proving anything. As unpleasant as this matter has

>been, somebody has to stand up and expose people like

>you.

I prefer to play the ball and not the person. I have already

demonstrated some of the wording in Jeff's paper could have been more

objective. That much, it seems, has been agreed with by both of you.

I never said it was intentional on his part. I have no problem with

the Beam Ray research itself, you, Jeff, or anyone else on this list.

If this has been " unpleasant " , and gone on too long, it is only

because some people appear overly protective of Rife therapy or their

own reputation. This does not encourage frank discussion and any

possible benefits that might arise from it.

Here is the link to the paper in question. It's a large PDF file.

http://www.rife.de/files/rifeinstrumenthistory.pdf

Scroll down to page 36 and read the Gruner section. Anyone with a

science background would most likely raise the same issues I did.

Deductive reasoning should not be presented as known fact. Why would

you want to? It only makes things unamenable to change, or

alternative explanations. I don't think this is the standard upon

which we should stake the future of frequency therapy. Maybe a few

people now see the point.

This thread started as a discussion of the type of signals Rife used.

It was only taken personally by others when I questioned some of the

assumptions made in the past, and, apparently, by implication, the

premises for the Beam Ray rebuild.

Anyone who wants to know what Rife therapy is really about, should

not unsubscribe from this list. Just form your own conclusions. And

don't disagree with anyone who assumes they know more than you do.

There is no telling where it might lead.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

Thankyou for this, .

Here is the link to the paper in question. It's a large PDF file.

http://www.rife.de/files/rifeinstrumenthistory.pdf

I have added it to my health file. I was looking on the search engine, but I

think this is better than what I saw there. I was looking to see just when the

CRT was developed, thinking, as we were we taught in school, that it was Dupont

who made the first successful one.

So much incorrect information is taught in schools, like the real inventors of

FM radio and television... Vance

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

>Deductive reasoning should not be presented as known fact. Why would

>you want to? It only makes things unamenable to change, or

>alternative explanations. I don't think this is the standard upon

>which we should stake the future of frequency therapy. Maybe a few

>people now see the point.

When it comes to deductive reasoning what we are really discussing is

whether our assumption on the second oscillator of the Beam Rays

schematic is correct. If it is, what was written in my paper is not

deductive reasoning, but it is fact, because the information came

from the rebuilding of the instrument from the schematic. In all the

discussions you have maintained that we have not read the schematic

correctly. You are entitled to your opinion just as we are entitled

to ours. The people who read the paper are the ones that will have to

make the decision whether we have made the correct assumption

according to the preponderance of the evidence we have presented. I

say we because it was a joint effort and I cannot take the credit for

all this information. Let us just bury the hatchet and move on to

other topics. I believe that most on this list would agree. I know

that I would prefer to move on.

Best wishes

Jeff Garff