Understanding Harmonics

[Guest guest]

Ripple effect explained

Most of our converge or sweep programs used to run a command of 1 1Hz

up and down from the primary frequency to pick up mutations, but one

of our researchers submitted this information about sweeps or fuzz

commands. This is the e-mail I received from him some time back.

Although these principles apply to F-100 generator programming, the

principles could be applied to other Rife systems.

The other day I was giving my son some help in the bathtub and

thought about how to explain " resonant frequencies " and how they

affect use of the " Rife Machine " that we got from you. This is

important to help understand why the use of the sweeps is having such

an impact on us here. To understand how the Rife machine works there

are a couple of basic concepts that came to mind when giving my son a

bath.

When you make a splash in the tub the wave goes to the edge of the

tub and returns. If left undisturbed it will actually go back and

forth a number of times with diminishing strength each time the

direction is changed. This is wave action rather than water flow.

That wave motion is different than water flow can be seen in that

waves still come in and go out when the tide is ebbing and flowing.

Although the water is receding waves still pound the shore. Now back

to the bathtub.

If you splash the water more than once the successive waves either

strengthen the preceding wave(s) or diminish them. If you time your

splashes just right you can splash to push the first wave along

increasing its strength and the amount of water displaced by the wave

action. Continue doing this and the wave action will strengthen to

the point that the water will splash over the sides of the tub. It is

not that you are splashing that hard, but that the repeated slashes

are timed just right to compound their strength to the previous ones.

Some have suggested that this principle is what causes hurricane

winds to develop. These are " resonant frequencies. "

On the other hand, you can time it just right so that the next wave

cancels out the preceding wave. (This happens to sound systems that

are out of phase, but for a different reason.) Anything in between

does both. So, the closer the frequency to a resonant frequency the

stronger the increase in wave strength. The farther away from the

resonant frequency the less it strengthens the wave. So the

frequencies don't have to be exact to cause the wave to build up. And

most people have used this in attacking " bugs " with frequencies.

From the " bug's " point of view it is suddenly being bombarded by

energy waves that start a wave action in it's body. Wave after wave

comes at it, jostling it. If the wave frequency is " resonant " it

shakes the " bug's " insides violently until either the nucleus

ruptures, the cell membrane ruptures, or the internal functions are

so incapacitated that the " bug " cannot continue to function. If the

frequency isn't exactly a resonant frequency it can do the same

thing, it just takes longer. If the frequency isn't even close to

resonant the succeeding waves diminish the wave action and the " bug "

continues rather unaffected.

That is all fine and good, but the problem comes in the fact that

there are so many frequencies that a " bug " can exist on. For example,

the Epstein-Barr virus has 4200 possible frequencies. If you ran each

frequency for 1 minute it would take 4200 minutes to devitalize the

Epstein-Barr Virus. So the tactic most have used is to pick a few

frequencies within that range and dwell on them for up to 3 minutes.

These have obviously been somewhat effective, but what we have

noticed is that the " bug " makes a comeback a few days later. So the

questions are raised as to whether that is due to re-infection,

normal life cycle changes or if some " bugs " are being spared due to

not hitting their frequencies. And, if the later is so, could we be

developing " frequency resistant bugs? "

We thought that the only hypothesis we could test was the latter,

since we don't have the equipment to study the bugs directly. So we

developed frequency lists that had many more frequencies in them. We

started by hitting 1/100 frequencies on the Epstein-Barr Virus.

Our client who seemed to be getting diminishing results from the old

frequencies noticed a dramatic improvement, but still had a relapse a

few days later. So we set up 10 programs that hit 1/100 of the

frequencies that could be used on a rotating basis to randomize the

frequencies and do less to contribute to the " frequency resistant

bugs. "

During the course of this process we came to see that for each 1 Hz

change in frequency we needed to alter the number we were using

by .03125 because we were using a harmonic frequency of the actual

virus we were targeting. That is when the idea of a sweep came to

mind. Could we set up a program that would hit each of the 4200

frequencies for Epstein-Barr? And, if so, how long would it have to

dwell on each frequency in order to be effective? In thinking about

this it seemed that the " converge " command would probably be less

effective than the " fuzz " command.

Again, think about it from the " bug's " point of view. With the fuzz

command, as the waves begin to bombard the " bug, " it's innards start

to jiggle. As the frequency gets closer and closer to the resonant

frequency of that particular " bug " the wave action gets stronger and

stronger until it " pops " the " bug. " Now if you are using a converge

command the frequency bounces back and forth from too slow to too

fast. This would seem to have the effect of canceling out some of the

wave energy rather than building on it. If that is the case it would

take longer to get the " bug's innards " moving violently enough to do

the job.

This appears to be verified by the results we are getting from the

sweeps we are using over the last 3 years. Setting up a sweep / fuzz

on the Epstein Barr Virus that dwells for just .1 second gave better

results than the converge programs that spent 15-20 seconds on each

frequency. I got the same result from using the respiratory program I

had previously used with a converge program. Even though the time in

between was only a week or so the " Herx reaction " or detox was much

more intensive with the fuzz than no sweep at all.

From time to time we send out programs that have fuzz of

fuzz 1 .03125 (we have recently tightened many of our programs

to .1 .03125)

Divisional Sweep Harmonics

While sufficient power is necessary for a kill, bad targeting cannot

be compensated for by more output. This is like putting a bigger

rubber band on a sling shot, when what really is necessary to up the

percentages is to upgrade the targeting to something that is more

advanced and precise.

Understanding fuzz and harmonics / Principles for accurate targeting.

Many Rife programs fuzz at 1 1 or 1 Hz down then the primary

frequency then 1 Hz Up.

Example: Target frequency is 100. The first frequency with the above

fuzz command would be 99 then 100 then 101. The purpose of this is to

pick up possible mutations and variants outside of the target number.

This results in a sweep around through the primary frequency of 100.

It should be noted that in many cases we are relying on harmonics of

the primary number for targeting. The actual primary number for

example could be 331251 (Epstein-Barr Virus). This number is too high

for many Plasma systems to drive. So if we divide by 32 we can come

up with a useful harmonic frequency within the audio range that we

can drive. (Or you can divide by 2 repeatedly)

If we were to run a 1 Hz fuzz or sweep around this primary frequency

331251, we would run 331250 then 331252 and finish with are target

frequency of 331251.

Note what happens however as we divide these 3 numbers by 32 to get a

useful harmonic within the audio range our system can drive:

331250 = 10351.5625

331251 = 10351.59375 (target frequency)

331252 = 10351.625

It can be seen that all 3 frequencies fall within the same frequency

range of 10351 Hz. The difference between these 3 numbers must be

measured by the smaller numbers after the decimal point to get a true

harmonic fuzz of 1 Hz in the audio range.

The difference is .03125. Or each change of 1 Hz in the upper range

frequencies are a .03125 difference when divided by 32 to give us

harmonics in the audio range.

Therefore a fuzz or sweep of 1 Hz up and down of the primary

frequency within the audio range of our harmonic numbers should have

a command of .03125 to gain a true 1 Hz sweep of the true higher

range frequencies that we divided by 32.

This new command line should get us the greatest true sweep as well

as spread of the primary number:

This is the command line: fuzz 1 .03125 This actually will give you a

convergence of 32 Hz off the primary number to pick up any possible

mutations, even though in the audio range it appears to be only

spreading out 1 Hz, the second number .03125 in the command line is

what gives you the spread of 32 Hz up and down from the primary

frequency, picking up all the true harmonics.

1 Hz divide by 32 = .03215

From this research it can also be seen that if we reverse the math

that a sweep in the audio range of 1 Hz off from the primary number

in the audio range of 10351 will produce harmonics of not 1 Hz but 32

Hz off the true target number of 331251!

Or it would translate like this:

10350=331200

10351=331232 Target Frequency: 331251???

10352=331264

It should be noted that NONE of these frequencies produce a true

harmonic of our target number of 331251! The only way to generate a

true harmonic of 331251 from the audio range is generate frequencies

with differences of less than 1 Hz. In this case the frequency in the

audio range must be 10351.59375 to produce the true harmonic target

frequency of 331251!

Adjusting your programming to these features may be the difference

between success or failure. We have experienced more positive reprots

since implementing these changes 3 years ago.

Mike www.truerife.com