Theory of Microelectrical germ inactivation

[Guest guest]

Thanks Bob, V wisely adds a selection to his godzilla devices, using 3

min, 1.5 mins and 2 sec polarity.

I have been using 2 sec switching, trying to avoid burns, but I will

try 1.5 mns to see if I get even more improvement.

[Guest guest]

great, that'll probably help. I use 30 second switching in my home

built unit. cheers...

bob

> Thanks Bob, V wisely adds a selection to his godzilla devices,

using 3

> min, 1.5 mins and 2 sec polarity.

> I have been using 2 sec switching, trying to avoid burns, but I

will

> try 1.5 mns to see if I get even more improvement.

[Guest guest]

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:32:12 -0000

> From: bobluhrs@...

> Subject: > Theory of Microelectrical germ inactivation

> I have an " electroplating " hypothesis to help explain two things:

Hmm, thanks forthat run down....I've never been clear or even wondered *how*

the current would disable pathogens....so thanks! I tend to focus on the

resonant aspect of s device.

Khepri

[Guest guest]

Thanks bG,

I like your hypothesis--I appreciate you delving into this and sharing with

" us seekers " .

Sincerely,

56 yr FL Pharmacist

Theory of Microelectrical germ

inactivation

I have an " electroplating " hypothesis to help explain two things:

1. What is the mechanism by which a virus is disabled using DC

current?

2. Why is DC in particular so effective?

In the past, I've been trying to explain basic electricity as if the

body were a piece of wire. A metal. Metals have lattice structure,

and their electrons can cleanly jump around, leaving the metal

unchanged chemically, while providing a stream of electrons going

into one end of the wire and emerging out the other end. It's clean

with metals.

But in fluids, apparently, the story is not the same. The body is

water plus salts and minerals which will conduct a current, but not

in the same way that a current is carried by metal.

Instead of electrons jumping through a lattice of metal atoms, in

the fluids of the body, blood, etc, the electrons attach themselves

or detach themselves from various atoms in the fluid. These altered

atoms are called ions, and they are either missing one or more

electrons, or have one or more electrons too many. And that makes

them tend to gravitate towards their opposites, seeking to balance

the numbers of electrons.

When a virus is present, the ions may attach themselves to parts of

the virus around the outer edges, the so-called " antigens "

or " receptors " of the germ. In doing so, they may alter the ability

of the virus to then use their receptors to attach to healthy cells,

and thus to infect them the way they normally can.

The result can be an " electroplated " virus, instead of being plated

with some precious metal, like silverware, the virus is plated with

ion " gunk " , rendering it harmless.

The Kaali experiments showed the effect of using DC current on virus

is cumulative over time. The longer you " plate " them, the deader or

less infective, they became.

This effect seems to be highly reproducible, see our files section,

and also to work best when the current applied is DC current, or

very slowly alternating current. If AC is used, and it is

alternated too fast, the effect seems to diminish, and longer

application times are needed to produce the same effect.

This could be due to simply there being not enough time with the

current running in one direction to allow much " plating " to occur.

And, then the current reverses, leaving some ions that were heading

towards the virus to stop moving and to reverse their direction.

All this back and forth is probably not as effective as a steady,

uninterrupted flow of ions flooding around the microbes.

That, for now, is a fuller and possibly more correct rationale

or " working hypothesis " for what we are doing. There could also be

internal changes in RNA or enzymes inside the microbes that are

produced if ions are formed inside the germ, as well. One way or

the other, ions we know WILL be present in the fluids and probably

in the virus itself during electrification. And ions can act to

change the chemical properties of things.

This pushes the story further than simple bombardment by electrons

of viruses. Or the idea of using great force to open their pores,

or of using vibrations to shatter them apart. I see problems with

all those ideas in terms of the energy required. But ionization

uses a lot less, and if it strategically interrupts a small area on

the microbe, enough to interfere with its delicate proceses of

reproduction, that could explain why such small DC currents yet

clear up large and hitherto hopeless, conditions.

bG