cell-wellbeing app
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

  1. #41
    First Posts Chat with me
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Hi Stanislaw,
    There is so many companies stating there's is the best. So confusing

  2. #42
    TM: Scientific Research Chat with me
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,349
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 174 Times in 154 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanislaw Chmielarz View Post
    Rife didn't use carrier modulation but the mixing of 2 frequencies in his second machine. .
    I also beleive this is true. I dont think anybody today really knows how that system worked, and today nobody makes or sells anything like that. I am trying to convince people to re-invent these.

    Different people insist on different interpretations of the history. Some people insist that the monofrequency approach would be Rife's choice, but there are comments in the archives that clearly contradict that interpretation .

    I wrote in other posts comparing some electronic schemes for gas tubes that may have been tried at different times ...

    A) superimposing a low frequency with an RF frequency (lo-hi superimposition) .... pre-Hoyland and based on triodes, five output valves in parallel based on Navy MOPA circuit, but possibly with modulation stage not used, battery bank power supplies.

    B) superimposing two RF frequencies F1 and F2 to generate a low frequency component F3 (dual RF heterodyning) .... 1934, pentode valves and on-board power supplies

    C1) AM to obtain multiple RF sidebands ... effectively this modulates with a harmonic set of low frequencies (AZ-58 c. 1950's)

    C2) multiple sideband device as above, but with floating earth etc as described by Dan Jensen (Beam Rays 1939). This design had significant frequency drift in the carrier, but personally I do not beleive that is a flaw because the low frequency component was stable despite that drift.

    D) Rife-Bare AM ... modulates with a single square wave (unlikely to have been used by Rife).
    ...........................................

    Comments:

    A) This is only my opinion / guess and other people may strongly disagree .... I suspect this worked well on microscope slide samples to demonstrate dielectrophoretic force (DEP) adhesion effects (clumping or agglutination) better than monofrequency (or at least at lower power thresholds) but Hoyland proved it had poor penetration into deep tissue. I outline a simple two-frequency concept, but in a real gas plasma tube device, the output may also include mixing of harmonics. What happens might also depend on whether the signal superimposition occurs in a pre-amp stage or directly in the plasma tube. I beleive the evidence for 5 parallel final valves suggests a single amp that amplifies one (superimposed) signal. Another alternative design that might pre-date this Rife MOPA might use relatively primitive triodes (hooked up as inverters) in series to progressively amplify. This could incorporate AM, but I am voting that Rife was deliberately interested in superimposition.

    B) Hoyland's first solution to improve the penetration problem (most other people think this is a dumb complicated idea and that Rife never tried this. But I think it is awesome and I would love to work with a design like that. Nobody has ever messaged me to say they like it, or that they agree it was ever tried by Rife)

    C2 An elegant low-cost design that might indirectly deliver a harmonic set of low frequency components via the interference of multiple RF sidebands . BUT does it do a better job that the more expensive design B ???

    C1 AZ-58 copied the Hoyland 1939 design but abandoned the floating earth principle in favor of a more conventional circuit . (This also improved the carrier drift). Some people sell modern versions of this style of multiple RF sideband device, but they insist that the bioactive "MOR" is actually one of the RF sidebands. They also insist that Rife's MORs were all within the RF band, meaning that lower frequencies are useless or irrelevant, and the mod frequency is irrelevant, and that MOR is highly dependent on the actual carrier value. They argued that when the AZ-58 altered the original carrier frequency, the designers had no understanding of how the correct amended mod frequency should be calculated, because they were ignorant of the principle of multiple sidebands . With all due respect, my counter-argument is that not enough consideration was given to sideband interaction by these researchers.

    Most of these modern multiple sideband devices feature an option for modulation sweep to allow all the frequencies within that part of the RF spectrum to be emitted. I made an unpopular interpretation that the historical charts they refer to list RF sidebands that were convenient to detect and record (more accurate than reading the mod frequency). But on the other hand, given the serious carrier drift, it would be important for calibrating sideband to mod frequency to maintain the equipment with no change of the placement of reactive objects near the tube during the work, and maybe even similar humidity conditions). I beleive the low frequency modulation values are bioactive and the actual RF sideband values are irrelevant, similar to the Rife-Bare paradigm. My personal opinion is that to attempt to delivery DEP force as a therapy, the dwell-times within the effective window should be at least a few seconds. If the modulation is in a sweep mode, I would run the sweep change slowly over a limited window in any given session, not rapidly over a wide window as proposed by Bedini.

    D) Rife once used the term "amplitude modulation" and Crane taught that AM was Rife's technology. However this quote may have been referring to the 1939 design. Moreover, signal superimposition schemes even now are described by some people as AM, because you can see a regular envelope in the trace signal. There are theoretical reasons to assume the Rife-Bare devices can deliver a low-frequency MOR (as the mod frequency) because in the simplest analysis there are two RF sidebands that interfere within the target. Some people beleive Rife used a scheme similar to Bare, but using overmodulation instead of square, but bottom line is they may have been misled by Crane.

    .................................................. .......

    It may be that assuming Rife saw clumping effects (possibly this required custom dilutions in glycerol or sugar solutions to get into a useable DEP window, and most modern Rife researchers may have not been aware of that when attempting to treat bacteria), he looked for a technology that gave the most robust effect, e.g. a device that gave the effect even at modest power settings) ... at some point Rife abandoned monofrequency designs and moved on to two-frequencies simultaneously. Since he had a collaboration with Lee deForest, you would think they would have had a crack at AM, perhaps also by using a large version of deForest's gas triode either as output or as a pre-amp. But from the perspective of delivering an optimal DEP signal, you might consider superimposition instead of AM. Assuming the earlier monofrequency research indicated DEP windows below the RF band, it would seem logical that superimposing RF onto the earlier known LF frequencies would be worth a look. (Hi-lo superimposition) ..... I made a guess that the hi-lo scheme would fail in deep tissue and another guess that Hoyland would also predict that, and a further guess that he might offer a novel dual RF heterodyning scheme as a solution. We do NOT see that well described in the archives, but on the other hand there are obvious gaps in the archives. The one clue that supports my interpretation is a schematic by Crane that modifies an AZ-58 sketch by pencilling in a second RF oscillator stage, shown as connected to the second gas tube electrode.

    People might assume the 1939 innovation makes a dual RF design redundant, so why should I prefer dual RF to multiple sidebands ?. One reason is that I know obtaining a fundamental F3 is very different to obtaining a harmonic set. I would say that if I wanted to use extend the research of Kirson et al on cancer cells to improve the existing 200 kHz capacitative plate applicator designs to allow deep non-invasive treatments using RF, I would have various choices to evaluate. My opinion is excluding dual RF would be silly. Moreover there may be some advantages to opposed-wave configurations. Based on Rife's comments criticising harmonic content in the 1939 design, it may be that dual RF might have been Rife's preferred alternative, and the modern obsession with AM is misinterpreted.

  3. #43
    Specialist Chat with me Stanislaw Chmielarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,764
    Thanks
    925
    Thanked 385 Times in 316 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Hi Mico!
    And what should they write? That they are making the machines that do not serve anything? This is advertising often not supported by any results only opinions of users who managed to settle some health problem. There is no guarantee that someone else with a similar problem will help.
    You can read my stories about the construction of electronic devices in the "My R.I.F.E devices" thread. From my experience it results that I do not need a lot of power because for my plasma device in the last version, 12W of power is needed from the mains to be effective. It also follows that it is not necessary to have modulation and a carrier frequency only to know the correct frequency of the pathogen to remove it from the body.
    I have recently changed the frequency delivery method to a magnetic (induction) loop and here the power delivered is about 1W to get the effect. These are the results of many years of analyzing the problem, different constructions and, as a result, developing own prototypes.
    I understand that people who have a health problem expect that someone will tell them specifically what kind of machine they should buy to remove this problem. There is no unambiguous answer to such a question.

    Anyone who wants to sell such devices will use advertising tools to achieve this.
    Who is the inventor? This is a man who does not know that everyone says that something can not be done and he just does it .
    Thinking does not hurt .Stupidity kills .

  4. #44
    TM: Researcher Chat with me
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 88 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Plasma devices are known to achieve better tissue penetration than pad devices, since electrical current will choose the path of least resistance. So while pad devices may be great for surface skin conditions or blood condition, they are less effective than plasma devices to kill organisms deeper in the body.

    Plasma devices with and without carrier waves are known to be effective. But in my case, my pacemaker is not compatible with the carrier wave technology, so my only practical choice to kill a long list of possible organisms is a plasma device that does not use a carrier wave. As Stanislaw suggests a wide variety of devices can be effective, and the choice depends on what the goals of using the Rife device may contain.
    Learning how to conquer illnesses and live longer using Rife technology

  5. Thanks Dr Rod Conrad:

    Stanislaw Chmielarz (11-15-2018)

  6. #45
    TM: Merchant USA Chat with me Jeff Garff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 218 Times in 133 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Hello Mico Snook,

    I am not going to give you a bunch of sales hype. We have been building instruments for almost 19 years. We use cooling fans in all of our instruments because of the power output. The GB-4000 outputs 3.7 watts not just 1/5th of a watt therefore we use a cooling fan. The SR-4 outputs from 15 to 18 watts so we also use cooling fans with it. The MOPA is a plasma tube device which can output a maximum of 190 watts therefore we use cooling fans also. But we do not have overheating issues and if you want to run them 24/7 you certainly can. We do have customers who do this.

    The information you have is old information and we are not limited to 40,000 Hertz with the MOPA. May 1, 2015 over 3 1/2 years ago we updated the MOPA so that it now has the same frequency range of 20,000,000 Hertz that the GB-4000 has. Our brochure has the specifications on it and if you go to www.gbgenerators.com you can download one or just read the specification listed on the site.

    Regards,
    Jeff Garff
    jgarff@cut.net




    Quote Originally Posted by Mico Snook View Post
    Hi Jeff,
    Been reading your replys and also your replys to Mark Lipton which included you having to run fans to keep your machine cool. The pearl M+ states The ProGen 3 is the culmination of 23 years of extensive research by some of the best frequency specialists in the world. It generates frequencies up to 4,000,000Hz with stunning clarity and class-leading accuracy.
    They don't have heat issues as you can run their equipment 24/7. If I read your information correctly your machine goes up to 40,000Hz with heat issues but they go up to 4,000,000Hz with no heat issues. Am I missing something?
    Regards

  7. #46
    Specialist Chat with me Dan Jenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    884
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 161 Times in 128 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Mico Snook

    First PostsChat with meJoin DateNov 2018LocationQueensland, AustraliaPosts9Thanks0Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?
    Ok thanks for the reply. So, is there a machine out there that comes the closest to his original design?


    Sees like a simple question Sorry, there is still no simple answer because the exact simple Rife mechanism has not been agreed upon in the most basic manner which would be in physics terms.

    A historical synopsis is that there are the original Rife devices dating from the 1920's through the early 30's. Then Rife hired Philip Hoyland who designed a 'radio' style Rife device through the later 1930's.

    I personally have constructed a true 1939 Hoyland design and am currently attempting to understand what exactly is happening in Philip Hoyland's thinking. Please watch my future upcoming you-tube video demonstration of an archealogical plasma wave from 1939 IF ONLYI CAN GET SOME TIME TO RECORD IT.

    The PERL device and also the MOPA were both mentioned in this thread. Both of these devices utilizize working parameters that correlate to the original Rife designs. So, Mico, you are going in the right direction. (Which would I purchase, personally?) I would purchase both then I would consider myself 'equiped' ! (and broke also!).

    My interest lately has been in trying to understand how the pulsing/gating aspect has relevance to therapy. Even, if I remember correctly, Anthony Holland added an "added" low frequency gate to his already audio-mod pulsing Bare device and obtained better target coupling. So the Bare and PERL do pulse action.

    Now, if we consider the MOPA I have tried to spec-out gating aspect regarding the MOPA with the on-line info. (because I do not posess one of these) but this aspect is unclear to myself.

    Hey Jeff, could you say a few words about MOPA gating ?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alan quote,
    but they insist that the bioactive "MOR" is actually one of the RF sidebands


    I been working on this, and it is interesting.

    There are two aspects related to bioactive MOR's.

    1.) There is the whole realm of resonant frequency therapy which involve frequency coupling and the entire Rife history and our present devices; then...

    2.) There is this off-shoot side-effect that has manifested un-intentioned since the Oscilloclast device even pre-dating Rife and that is the ability of this energy to agglutenate the cell division process.



    lov, dj
    Last edited by Dan Jenson; 11-17-2018 at 13:54.

  8. #47
    Normal Chat with me
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ, USA
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    in about 2008 I built 3 plasma devices that my wife's sister used to treat her pancreatic cancer. The plasma devices were built according to James E. Bare's book _Resonant Frequency Therapy_ and the parts to build them were from $800 to $1100 depending on if I could find parts at a discount. Her husband thought my devices looked home made and he bought a Resonate Light Pearl M device that now would cost about $6490 to $9790. They are well made but my wife's sister liked the devices I made better. She used the device for 24 months and then decided it wasn't working. Then in one month later her T-cell count went up and she passed away from heart failure. The price of a used copy of James E. Bare's book used has gone way up. I have been using a pad device based on a talking house AM radio transmitter at 1600 cycles with input in square waves. I described how it is made in Rife Forum group pad, Plasma, etc. named something like building a rife device for $300. I had a large tumor in my left lung in June of 2017 and i have been in remission most of the time since. I also go the MD Anderson cancer center and do chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Norman Strand

  9. #48
    Specialist Chat with me Karl Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 127 Times in 101 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mico Snook View Post
    Hi Stanislaw,
    There is so many companies stating there's is the best. So confusing
    Well if the snob factor counts.....

    I am mostly Scottish
    I don't care about money, its just terrible to me that any should get away and the double curse is the "best" factor to go with the frugal conflict.

    Could have bought 3 texas tube setups for what we have spent on Hymbas. (BCX) lifetime, all gear except a couple of the led's still to get. North of 3,500 some.

    Do have a T tube/spectro setup. But I had a gut feeling about BCX Ultra even though the tubes were 100s and so far I have been real happy. Organs, skin cancers, i have not used it for everything but it is a pleasure to use, except for the button code programming.
    I have since learned mexican hospitals like BCX too and it is a dr's piece - but i think most people can't diagnose, can't monitor progress well and benefit from a higher margin of safety and "forgiveness" and should go with GB or better with a powerful bulb and amp to go above 300w.
    I could tell in 4 minutes that my hyperthyroid person was coming back...can people? Where organs are and their cycles in a day? BOOM just get a big basking lamp you know is getting all of you with good penetration and good impact at depth and you don't need to be much smarter than the bulb and its 1/3rd the cost.

    Getting rifemachinebuilder.com next, God willing and jesus tarries, because I think they are a really good all-night light people I get can afford.
    There is not a day that goes by where I remember to thank God enough

    http://www.SonsOrder.com

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. The Rife Forum Newsletter - July 2013!
    By Peter Walker in forum Rife Forum Newsletters
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2013, 23:17
  2. The Rife Forum Newsletter - March 2010!
    By Peter Walker in forum Rife Forum Newsletters
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 14:27
  3. The Rife Forum Newsletter - September 2009!
    By Peter Walker in forum Rife Forum Newsletters
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 03:52
  4. The Rife Forum Newsletter - June 2009!
    By Peter Walker in forum Rife Forum Newsletters
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 20:41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •