Understanding harmonics / Programming in the Audio range

[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

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

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.