Re: Rife's super-regeneration technique

[Guest guest]

Hi Char:Many years ago I had similar misconceptions regarding the matter of superregeneration, before others, including Aubrey Scoon, straightened me out. Superregeneration, with its very high degree of amplification, is used to detect and select ultra-weak signals, such as would be encountered in receiving short-wave signals. There would be no need or use for such a method in a frequency generator.The way superregeneration achieves its very high degree of amplification is by increasing the amount of regeneration, hence the term "super". The problem is, that when you increase the regeneration beyond a certain point, the circuit goes into self-oscillation, something that is not wanted in signal detection. So, to counteract this, they add the quenching circuit to "quench" the oscillation. The quenching frequency is at

a super-audible rate of about 25 kHz. All of this is counter-productive if oscillation is what you want.We know definitely that Rife used the Kennedy machines as frequency generators, and that they are regenerative, not superregenerative. It has been experimentally tested and demonstrated that when you turn up the regeneration beyond the maximum level for signal detection, the circuit goes into self-oscillation and produces a beautiful sine wave, exactly as you would want in a frequency generator. If he was using superregeneration, he would have used a different machine. There's no use arguing that he could have modified the Kennedy machines into superregenerative. Besides having no evidence at all for this, it would have been foolish and wasteful for him to do such a thing to such expensive radios, when he could have just used a ready made superregenerative radio.In my opinion, it's far more useful to

proceed by the light of what is known, rather than what isn't known. As far as I can see, there are two possible explanations to the use of the term superregeneration by Rife. Either he was using a superregenerative circuit to detect and measure the output of his frequency device, which would mean that it actually has nothing to do with the device itself, or he was misusing the term in reference to the Kennedy machines and his increasing the level of regeneration beyond normal to produce oscillation. I should also point out that the lab notes say "wavelength of superregeneration of audion tube", not, "wavelength of the superregenerative audion tube". That may or may not be just semantics. In my opinion, the most plausible and realistic explanation is that Rife was simply misusing the term. He was, in a sense, "super" regenerating the Kennedy machines, but not in the way that the term is properly applied.

Besides, "Superregenerative Ray" sounds cooler! ;^)Another final point is that all this talk about superregeneration only applies to the earlier machines. After the construction of the #4 machine, Rife put all that old equipment on the shelf. It became obsolete with the newer machine.Regards,--- cb wrote:

Hello rifers,

For many years there has been discussion in the Rife community about the meaning and role of the "wavelength of super-regeneration of audion tube" shown in Royal Rife's original, earliest set of lab notes (see http://www.rife.org/rifeslab.html). Many have theorized that this wavelength when converted to frequency was used as a carrier wave, or that it was perhaps the "true" MOR - in spite of the fact that the MORs were also shown on the lab notes.Thanks to internet search capabilities not available before the year 2000, we now have easy access to historical information that can help us better understand the process of using super-regeneration. The primary purpose of using super-regeneration, is to amplify the signal of interest. It not only controls the self-oscillation that occurs so often in regenerative circuits, but does so in a unique manner while allowing amplification.The original Armstrong patent on super-regeneration is U.S. 1,424,065, granted July 1922. There is another follow-up patent U.S. 1,539,821, granted June 2, 1925. These are relevant historical source materials.The process, as described in the patent and other historical materials, involves the introduction of an additional oscillation into the audion circuit. It is very plausible that Rife made a note of the wavelength he used for that introduced oscillation, to be able to repeat his experiments...as any scientist would do.In the quotes below, the added italics and highlights are added by me.The first patent states:

Quote:

This invention has for its object the provision of a method of operating an electric regenerative system and of apparatus for obtaining enormous amplification of varying electric currents by means of certain modifications and applications of the wellknown feedback or regenerative principle......This new state of equilibrium will be called the super-regenerative state and it produces amplifications of energy thousands of times greater than those obtained with the simple regenerative circuit....The rate of variation of the amount of feedback or damping, or both, of the regenerative circuit may be either at subaudible, audible, or super-audible frequencies...

There is also an article about Super-Regeneration in the July 1922 issue of QST magazine (authored by K.B. Warner). He writes:

Quote:

With this understanding of the of the regenerative effects in an audion circuit, note what Mr. Armstrong said:..."This new method is based on the discovery that if a periodic variation be introduced in the relation between the negative and positive resistance of a circuit containing inductance and capacity, in such manner that the negative resistance is alternately greater and less than the positive resistance, but that the average value of resistance is positive, then the circuit will not of itself produce oscillations, but during those intervals when the negative resistance is greater than the positive will produce great amplification of an impressed e.m.f."...Mr. Armstrong accordingly sought and found a method whereby the effective resistance of ordinary regenerator may alternatively be increased and decreased at a very rapid rate......Half the time it is creating amplification (and the amplification when negative resistance predominates continues to rise even if the exciting e.m.f. is removed) and the other half of the time it is "killing oscillation"......The rate of variation is an important matter and depends upon the nature of the received signals...

Armstrong's second patent also has numerous references to the "auxiliary frequency".There is also a transcript available of Armstrong's talk given before the the Institute of Radio Engineers in New York City on June 7, 1922. It is one of the chapters in the book "The Legacies of Edwin Armstrong" published in Nov. 1990 by the Radio Club of America. The article includes pictures of waveforms and circuit diagrams. The article is also available online at the google book: Proceedings of the IEEE., Volumes 9-10 by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, beginning at P. 244.http://books.google.com/books?id=akG...ime%22 & f=falseFrom these materials we see that the primary purpose of super-regeneration is to achieve considerable amplification of a signal, which is a step that Rife needed to accomplish. The auxiliary frequency however would not have had anything to do with anti-pathogen effects, or would not be considered a carrier wave; it was introduced for an entirely different purpose.We don't have any real way of knowing from pictures of equipment, how Rife may have added an auxiliary frequency into a circuit. Pictures are a snapshot on one day in time (i.e., equipment arrangements may have and probably did evolve through the years Rife was working), and none of the pictures we do have are dated. Additionally, we cannot see wiring connections between the various pieces of equipment in the pictures. So we have to rely on the information from those lab notes. And every note that has a MOR, also has a super-regenerative wavelength listed. That is even true for the lab notes on viruses, all of which we can date from 1930 and later.It is now apparent that Rife was using super-regeneration as a signal amplification technique in his work.Best wishes,Char Boehm

[Guest guest]

Hello Rife group,

Here are some thoughts in response to what posted about super-regeneration earlier this week. My comments are preceded by **.

Char

___________________

wrote:

Quote:

Many years ago I had similar misconceptions regarding the matter of superregeneration, before others, including Aubrey Scoon, straightened me out. Superregeneration, with its very high degree of amplification, is used to detect and select ultra-weak signals, such as would be encountered in receiving short-wave signals. There would be no need or use for such a method in a frequency generator. ** Why would one assume there might be no use for such a method in an early frequency generator (oscillator)? Rider's 1940 book "The Oscillator At Work" says on p. 19:

Quote:

The feedback action which takes place in oscillators is like the feedback action which takes place in regenerative detectors and even regenerative radio-frequency amplifiers. Of course there might be need for amplification in oscillators! Maybe I don't understand what you mean (??).Also, superregeneration was/is used for more than just amplifying short-wave signals. It was, and continues to be used for other ranges of signals. Armstrong gave live demonstrations at his June 7th 1922 talk before the Institute of Radio Engineers, one of which demonstrated amplification of a continuous wave (with signalling). The July 1922 QST article says:

Quote:

Connected to a regenerative detector with two steps of audio amplification, no signal was audible from where we sat, about 25 feet from the loud-speaker; yet when the super-regenerator was connected in with two tubes, one as an oscillator-amplifier and the other as a detector, with audio frequency variation, the same signals were QSA. It was estimated that the amplified signal energy in the latter case was between 10,000 and 50,000 times as great as in the former. (QSA is ham lingo pertaining to signal strength).Another reason this quote is interesting, is that it shows a super-regenerative circuit can be quickly hooked into a regenerative circuit to amplify the signal. Armstrong did that during his talk.Ham radio operators were eager to try the super-regenerative method when it came out, and a number of them experimented with adapting their circuits, because the superregenerative circuit diagrams were easily available (did you see that in Armstrong's article?). And the circuit diagrams were available in the QST ham radio magazine - and perhaps in other radio magazines as well. wrote:

Quote:

The way superregeneration achieves its very high degree of amplification is by increasing the amount of regeneration, hence the term "super". The problem is, that when you increase the regeneration beyond a certain point, the circuit goes into self-oscillation, something that is not wanted in signal detection. So, to counteract this, they add the quenching circuit to "quench" the oscillation. The quenching frequency is at a super-audible rate of about 25 kHz. All of this is counter-productive if oscillation is what you want. ** There is no standard "quenching frequency". It varies widely, according to where one is working in the frequency spectrum. The 25 kHz figure you cite was originally used for radio/audio work, but the process was/is by no means limited to that figure. You can see more about that, in the references I cited in my original post. There are a number of modern articles that mention use of the process in the upper Mhz and Ghz regions. And see just below, a quote from Armstrong's first patent.Importantly, the oscillation is not fully quenched when using super-regeneration. One periodically quenches the oscillation, which is very different - and the periodic quenching (at the auxiliary frequency) is what allows the huge amplification gain.Here's a passage on this, from the beginning of Armstrong's 1925 patent. He uses the term "damping", instead of "quenching", which may actually be a more appropriate term:

Quote:

....the varying potential of the current to be amplified is impressed on the system and the relation between the amount of regeneration and the degree of damping of the system is periodically varied to produce transient free oscillations... From his first patent:

Quote:

The rate of variation of the amount of feedback or damping, or both, of the regenerative circuit may be either at subaudible, audible, or super-audible frequencies. That last statement indicates various frequencies are used, depending on the circumstances needed by the system and user. It also shows periodic variation - not full quenching of the oscillation. wrote:

Quote:

We know definitely that Rife used the Kennedy machines as frequency generators, and that they are regenerative, not superregenerative. It has been experimentally tested and demonstrated that when you turn up the regeneration beyond the maximum level for signal detection, the circuit goes into self-oscillation and produces a beautiful sine wave, exactly as you would want in a frequency generator. If he was using superregeneration, he would have used a different machine. ** Well, that's wonderful the Kennedy receivers produced a beautiful sine wave for you guys. But it may not have had the amplification Rife wanted. If it did, why did he have three different amps sitting on the Kennedy receivers in the picture at http://www.rife.org/photogallery/beamray.jpg - (and interestingly, none of the Kennedy amps were attached to the Kennedy receivers) - they were the Western Electric 7A, the Remler 700, and the cascade RF amp. So it's pretty obvious amplification was a big portion of what he needed to accomplish.Again, from the aforementioned QST article:

Quote:

As we all know from experience, oscillation represents the theoretical limit of amplification in our present-day receivers. How often, in approaching critical regeneration and hearing the signals build up enormously, have we wished that it might be possible to advance the regeneration just a little, even one degree on the scale, without the bulb flopping into oscillation! The increase in amplification just below the oscillating point is amazing, and if only it could be squeezed a wee bit more how wonderful it would be! That is exactly what Armstrong's new scheme does - it extends the range of regeneration without oscillation... We are all familiar with the howling or squealing sound a tube (above, bulb) can produce when there is too much feedback. The waveform of that noise would certainly not be a pretty sine wave. The tube under these conditions is very unstable. But as the quote above indicates, it is at that exact amplification point in the circuit's response, that superregeneration can kick in and give even more amplification, without the chaotic oscillation of the bulb. If superregeneration totally quenched the signal, there would be no point in doing it. Therefore, one can see the quenching of the signal is not total. As shown in the Armstrong quotes above, it is periodic damping. And when using the term "oscillation", we must distinguish between the original oscillation of the signal, and the uncontrolled oscillation of the bulb (audion tube). wrote:

Quote:

There's no use arguing that he could have modified the Kennedy machines into superregenerative. Besides having no evidence at all for this, it would have been foolish and wasteful for him to do such a thing to such expensive radios, when he could have just used a ready made superregenerative radio. ** On the other hand, do we have any additional evidence Rife did not use superregeneration? You can't prove a negative, but we do have the lab notes. And according to Armstrong's demonstration, it was not such a big deal to change into superregenerative mode - one would not have to buy a new radio. As far as expense is concerned...well, this is an interesting passage from a paper indicating the expense was not an issue, and its initial summary on page 1 is very readable (see www.valontechnology.com/images/REGEN.PDF). Referring to the average radio listener in the 1920s, the author writes:

Quote:

The regenerative receiver must not have been very popular with the average consumer, however, who was more interested in listening to the radio broadcast than fiddling with the technology. The regenerative receiver required that the operator constantly adjust the feedback or “regen” knob in order to bring the detector to the verge of oscillation. Too much feedback and the receiver would howl violently, too little and weak signals would not be received.

The SRR [super-regenerative receiver] solved this problem by automatically increasing the gain of the detector stage until oscillation just started. As soon as the oscillatory condition started the bias conditions would change and the oscillation would cease or “quench”. This process would continuously bring the detector into its most sensitive region at a rate that was higher than the audio frequency range (hence the term super as in supersonic) but lower than the radio frequency range.

The major advantage then, as it is today, of SRR is its low cost. With the exception of single solid state diode detector, the SRR remains the lowest cost receiver topology available today. Moderate volume (10K units) production cost for fabrication and assembly of these receivers can be well under $3.00 (U.S. 1996) . When integrated into a complete keyless entry system the cost of the receiver section could easily be under $2.00. wrote:

Quote:

In my opinion, it's far more useful to proceed by the light of what is known, rather than what isn't known. ** That would depend on what one considers to be KNOWN - the writing on the lab notes are a KNOWN.Even so, it all boils down to what "knowns" are considered to be true or factual. And the last few years, we've seen a lot of "in my opinion", "it seems apparent", etc. kinds of expressions.Also, if one does not explore the edges of the unknown, there is never any progress. On that basis, and considering there is still so much not understood about what Rife truly did; to fully ignore the unknown and not at least attempt to more fully understand it - is a sentiment that would tend to close down all further progress on this matter. I am glad leading edge scientists don't operate with that sentiment. Especially guys like Tesla, Rife, Armstrong, etc. We'd be in the dark ages. wrote:

Quote:

As far as I can see, there are two possible explanations to the use of the term superregeneration by Rife. Either he was using a superregenerative circuit to detect and measure the output of his frequency device, which would mean that it actually has nothing to do with the device itself, ** How would he have used a superregenerative circuit to measure the output of his frequency device? It's not a measuring circuit, it's an amplifying circuit. Are you trying to speculate that Rife used it for anything other than its obvious use? wrote:

Quote:

or he was misusing the term in reference to the Kennedy machines and his increasing the level of regeneration beyond normal to produce oscillation. ** What do you mean by "increasing the level of regeneration beyond normal"?The Armstrong materials give a quite full and clear description of superregeneration - and we all need to understand that material better, before judging what Rife allegedly did not understand. Maybe it is we who up until now, have not understood. wrote:

Quote:

I should also point out that the lab notes say "wavelength of superregeneration of audion tube", not, "wavelength of the superregenerative audion tube". That may or may not be just semantics. ** "Wavelength of the superregenerative audion tube" (your second, speculative phrase) doesn't make sense...which is probably why Rife would not have used that phrase. How would it be possible to determine the wavelength of an audion tube (if such a thing even exists?). Besides, an audion tube is not inherently superregenerative (without use of the auxiliary frequency, that is), as the process is defined by Armstrong. I see no reason to question that Rife didn't know what the term meant. He certainly knew what regeneration meant, because regenerative radios were available beginning even before 1920. And since he was using radio technology in an extensive way - one would think he would try to stay informed of new developments in that rapidly-developing field. Pretty much everyone living in that era, knew the field was quickly developing. wrote:

Quote:

In my opinion, the most plausible and realistic explanation is that Rife was simply misusing the term. He was, in a sense, "super" regenerating the Kennedy machines, but not in the way that the term is properly applied. ** Well, I'm glad you qualify that this is your opinion...it is not mine nor that of some other rifers I have talked with. One primary reason is - we really don't know if his super-regenerative work involved the Kennedy machine(s), some other regenerative receiver(s), or other additional equipment. Remember that the few pictures available, are a snapshot of one small area of the lab, on one particular day, and they are not dated. Some equipment has not been identified. Some equipment may lie outside the frame of the picture. Extensive claims have been made based on these pictures that may not be totally accurate through all the years of interest to us. Rife's equipment and processes evolved through the years, on all fronts.Even the Westinghouse RC unit (produced in the very early 1920s) was a regenerative receiver, and that receiver is in the picture cited above. We just don't know all the exact equipment Rife might have used at any one point in time, or under what circumstances during his rather long and tedious testing processes - involving first single cells (bacteria) or viruses, tissue samples, animals, and then perhaps humans. But in his lab notes he definitely writes down a notation that points to use of superregeneration at some stage in his process, and so this would point to something we can say we DO KNOW.If you want to spend time speculating on what might have been in Rife's head regarding the meaning of the term "superregeneration"...that is certainly your perogative. I will take the term he used at face value, for its meaning as it was used in the 1920s. And I think he was a lot smarter about radio technology than some are giving him credit for (which is also speculation that has been flying around for some years now). For heaven's sake, Rife continually used radio equipment, month after month, year after year - and for at least 13-15 years before Hoyland ever came on the scene! That's a lot of experience he stacked up. wrote:

Quote:

Besides, "Superregenerative Ray" sounds cooler! ;^) ** Well, Rife didn't give a hoot what "sounded cool". He had a lot of other things on his mind.Besides, the "cool movement" started in the late 40s, he was a bit far down the road by then. Char

[Guest guest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharBoehm

wrote:

Why would one assume there might be no use for such a method in an early

frequency generator (oscillator)? Rider's 1940 book "The Oscillator At Work" says on p. 19:

Of course there might be need for amplification in oscillators! Maybe I don't understand what you mean (??).

Here is what Aubrey Scoon said on the matter many years ago:

"Super regen is an amplification technique, it is only used for

amplifying extremely weak signals, it has no practical use as an

oscillator and is specifically designed not to go into oscillation.

There is no conceivable reason how or why Rife's original signal

would have been so weak (we're talking microvolts here or less) that

it required super regen amplification. Plus super-regen is

horrendously sensitive and noisy. If the machine input was super-

regenerative it would have pumped out terrible electrical noise and

in which case we could never be sure if ANY figure listed had any

relation at all to any real MOR."

We have to consider real-world practicality, not just theoretical possibilities.

Quote:

Also, superregeneration was/is used for more than just amplifying short-wave signals. It was, and continues to be used for other ranges of signals.

<snip>

I'm aware of that; I was just giving a common application, which is relevant to this discussion.

Quote:

There is no standard "quenching frequency". It varies widely, according to where one is working in the frequency spectrum. The 25 kHz figure you cite was originally used for radio/audio work, but the process was/is by no means limited to that figure.

<snip>

I didn't say there was, or that it was limited to that frequency. Again, I was just giving a common example which I read in some information that Ralph posted many years ago.

Quote:

Well, that's wonderful the Kennedy receivers produced a beautiful sine wave for you guys. But it may not have had the amplification Rife

wanted. If it did, why did he have three different amps sitting on the

Kennedy receivers in the picture at http://www.rife.org/photogallery/beamray.jpg

- (and interestingly, none of the Kennedy amps were attached to the Kennedy receivers) - they were the Western Electric 7A, the Remler 700,

and the cascade RF amp. So it's pretty obvious amplification was a big portion of what he needed to accomplish.

The 6 tube amplifier is visible in that photo, as well as in the other photos. The Kennedy amp(s) are connected in the other photos, including the one of the set-up of the clinical trial. The reason nothing is attached in the photo you refer to is because it was just a simple photo of all the old obsolete equipment that was no longer in use. In the lab film, you can see the Kennedy machines on the back shelf, obviously no longer in service.

Quote:

On the other hand, do we have any additional evidence Rife did not use superregeneration? You can't prove a negative, but we do have the lab notes.

I don't think it's good form to cherry pick one line from the lab notes to the exclusion of all the other evidence. In the lab report, "Research on Bacillus X", which would obviously have been composed after the lab note and the experiments, it says, "...the application of the oscillative ray at a cycles per second vibration of 11,780,000..." It doesn't say, the superregenerative ray at a wavelength of superregeneration of 17.6 meters. If we consider the revised version that Henry Siner read on the

audio tapes, he reads, "...1,604,000". We have to consider the totality of the picture we have at present, not just the fact that the lab notes say superregeneration.

Quote:

And according to Armstrong's demonstration, it was not such a big deal to change into superregenerative mode - one would not have to buy a

new radio.

<snip>

Yes, but you're missing the material point that even if you converted the Kennedy machines into superregenerative, that wouldn't change their frequency range. You still wouldn't be able to produce the 17.6 meter figure from the lab note with the Kennedy machines. In order to change the frequency range,

you would have to change the bank-wound coils and the capacitors, which

would effectively mean redesigning the whole radio. And then the question is, why? If Rife needed or wanted a machine that could generate frequencies in the 17.6 meter range, he would have used a machine that could already do it, not have a perfectly good radio redesigned to do it.

Quote:

That would depend on what one considers to be KNOWN - the writing on the lab notes are a KNOWN.

There is a lot more known than just the lab notes.

Quote:

Even so, it all boils down to what "knowns" are considered to be true or factual. And the last few years, we've seen a lot of "in my opinion", "it seems apparent", etc. kinds of expressions.

The reason we still have to often use qualifiers is because there is still a lot we don't know. In the context of this discussion, is the "known" superregenerative figures

from the lab notes "true or factual"? The preponderance of additional evidence that is "known" puts that in doubt at the very least.

Quote:

Also, if one does not explore the edges of the unknown, there is never any progress. On that basis, and considering there is still so much not understood about what Rife truly did; to fully ignore the unknown and not at least attempt

to more fully understand it - is a sentiment that would tend to close down all further progress on this matter. I am glad leading edge scientists don't operate with that sentiment. Especially guys like Tesla, Rife, Armstrong, etc. We'd be in the dark ages.

Exploring the unknown is done from a starting or reference point of what is known. You don't explore unknown territory without being "tethered" to a reference point. That way, if you get lost, you know how to back-track and make your way home.

Tesla, Rife, and Armstrong didn't come up with their ideas out of thin

air. Their ideas were founded upon what they and others "knew". You didn't come up with your DNA frequency theory out of thin air. It was based on all the knowledge you have acquired. In other words, like everyone else, you delve into the unknown by the light of what is known.

Quote:

How would he have used a superregenerative circuit to measure the output

of his frequency device? It's not a measuring circuit, it's an amplifying circuit. Are you trying to speculate that Rife used it for anything other than its obvious use?

One of the wavemeters that he used may have used a superregenerative circuit. I don't know that, but it's at least a possibility.

Quote:

What do you mean by "increasing the level of regeneration beyond normal"?

I meant in reference to the Kennedy machines and what would be normal for their use in radio reception. To use them as oscillators, Rife had to turn the regeneration

up beyond "normal".

Quote:

"Wavelength of the superregenerative audion tube" (your second, speculative phrase) doesn't make sense...which is probably why Rife would not have used that phrase. How would it be possible to determine

the wavelength of an audion tube (if such a thing even exists?). Besides, an audion tube is not inherently superregenerative (without use of the auxiliary frequency, that is), as the process is defined by Armstrong. I see no reason to question that Rife didn't know what the term meant. He certainly knew what regeneration meant, because regenerative radios were available beginning even before 1920. And since he was using radio technology in an extensive way - one would think he would try to stay informed of new developments in that rapidly-developing field. Pretty much everyone living in that era, knew the field was quickly developing.

wrote:

Well, I'm glad you qualify that this is your opinion...it is not mine nor that of some other rifers I have talked with. One primary reason is - we really don't know if his super-regenerative work involved the Kennedy machine(s), some other regenerative receiver(s), or other additional equipment. Remember that the few pictures available, are a snapshot of one small area of the lab, on one particular day, and they are not dated. Some equipment has not been identified. Some equipment may lie outside the frame of the picture. Extensive claims have been made based on these pictures that may not be totally accurate through all the years of interest to us. Rife's equipment and processes evolved through the years, on all fronts.

Even the Westinghouse RC unit (produced in the very early 1920s) was a regenerative receiver, and that receiver is in the picture cited above.

We just don't know all the exact equipment Rife might have used at any one point in time, or under what circumstances during his rather long and tedious testing processes - involving first single cells (bacteria) or viruses, tissue samples, animals, and then perhaps humans.

But in his lab notes he definitely writes down a notation that points

to use of superregeneration at some stage in his process, and so this would point to something we can say we DO KNOW.

If you want to spend time speculating on what might have been in Rife's

head regarding the meaning of the term "superregeneration"...that is certainly your perogative. I will take the term he used at face value,

for its meaning as it was used in the 1920s. And I think he was a lot

smarter about radio technology than some are giving him credit for (which is also speculation that has been flying around for some years now). For heaven's sake, Rife continually used radio equipment, month after month, year after year - and for at least 13-15 years before Hoyland ever came on the scene! That's a lot of experience he stacked up.

<snip>

Char, you are well aware that the best course is to consider and conclude upon all

the available evidence, not just one cherry picked portion of the evidence. You are fixating on the one point of superregeneration in the lab notes, and are ignoring all the evidence against it. The Beam Rays machines were not superregenerative. The #4 machine was not superregenerative. Obviously there were only 3 configurations before the #4 machine. Rife said that he did his original work with "loose-couplers", which are not superregenerative. That leaves the Kennedy machines as the only 2 remaining configurations. They were not superregenerative, and as already pointed out, even if you converted them to superregenerative, you still wouldn't be able to achieve the range of wavelengths recorded in the lab notes. So, there are plenty of

points against the superregenerative proposition, but really only the lab notes in support of it.

But all arguments aside, what is the practical point that you're trying to make? Even if we grant that Rife used superregenerative amplification at one time, so what? Rife said that the frequencies or wavelengths could be produced in different ways. His lawyer said that they couldn't patent the machine, because even if you could, the same thing could be done with another frequency generator. The only thing that was their trade secret was the frequencies that were efficacious in

treating diseases. He admitted that he wasn't an "electronist". He had other people work on the machines both before and after Hoyland came

on the scene. If he had such expertise in electronics and didn't like what Hoyland had done, why didn't he just build one himself the way he wanted it? Why didn't he have any schematics for his original designs? Why wasn't he able to reestablish a machine that performed equally to what he had done in the 20s and 30s with machines that others had built for him?

So, I ask again, what is the real-world practical point of this debate? We've been debating superregeneration for over ten years with nothing resulting from it. As you said, superregeneration is an amplification technique. There are other methods of amplification. Are you suggesting that superregeneration is a necessity? That would fly in the

face of the fact that the #4 machine was not superregenerative.

The bottom line is that from a practical perspective, nobody cares how the frequencies are generated or what type of amplification is used, as long as it "does the business". Historically and circumstantially, superregeneration is not a necessity to "do the business". If anyone claims otherwise, build a superregenerative machine, test it out, and report your results. I'll be glad to be corrected with experimental evidence.

Regards,