Re: Confused

July 6, 2002

Johan,

In order for any frequency to have biological effects, it first must be

" absorbed " so to speak by the body. The frequency must also be present for

some prolonged period of time. A short burst of a single audio tone, or some

RF level frequency, isn't going to do much, unless it is extremely intense.

A two second exposure in a microwave oven isn't going to cook a potato!

Audio waves are longitudinal or compressional waves. That is to say, they

carry an actual physical force with them as they travel.

At low intensity levels, music does have psychological effects that can

translate into physical effects. At extremely high intensity levels

especially at frequencies below 30 Hz, music or tones can have substantial

physical effects on the human body. Sonic lithotrypsy is used to destroy

kidney stones for example.

It is true " Rife " frequencies are for the most part in the audio range. But

unless they somehow directly interact with and couple to your body, they

aren't going to do much. One can use electrical contact pads ( electrodes )

to introduce the frequencies, or one can use a transmitted field device to

introduce the frequencies. In a transmitted field device, the transmitted

wave is demodulated . At the point of demodulation an electrical charge will

be produced. Since the electrical charge is pulsed it should be possible to

convert this into an acoustic wave.

Doubtful your TV is going to hurt you unless it falls on you! As for music..

Mozart is probably going to keep putting a smile on peoples faces for the

next few centuries at least. I doubt people will be playing Dr. Dre

recordings a hundred years from now. :>}

Jim Bare

>What is the difference between being exposed to Rife frequencies, radio

>frequencies, TV frequencies, rock music frequencies, Mozart frequencies,

>cell phone frequencies, etc? As far as I remember, I was always told that

>sound frequencies travel through the air, so I am exposed to frequencies,

>hundreds perhaps thousands of them every day.

July 6, 2002

Hello Johan,

Don't worry, nothing personal, it's obvious this situation needs

putting to rest and it's better that people stand up and have the

courage to say so rather than letting it fester unsaid. So from my

point of view I commend you for saying it.

> First, I have to get this off my chest, and please don't take this

> personally. , you're good at back-pedalling. You'll do

well in

> politics - no offense. Aubrey Scoon, I like your reasoning ability

but you

> must be consistent. Some time ago you took Dick Lloyd to task for

making

> " unsubstantiated and unscientific " assumptions about the F-scan,

however,

> you let get away with " I was informed/told by "

statements,

> without any backup. Empirical evidence?

Actually, for the record I didn't let " get away " with anything

as various list moderators and a few others will be able to confirm.

I just decided that it was not appropriate to inflame what was

developing into an argument between list moderators by adding to

public postings on the matter. Unfortunately the issue will not go

away until all the dirty laundry is out in the open and so I would

like to set a few things straight.

Firstly, the reason why I didn't want to make a public issue of this

was because the online Rife community relies on the good work of ALL

of the list moderators. The moderators are often taken for granted

and under-appreciated generally - they have a difficult job trying to

balance fairness with personal opinion, sorting the wheat from the

chaff etc. I have moderator privileges on this group but I don't

exercise them - I just try to help when he's away or busy. But

from that vantage point I see what arrives at the list - I also see

what makes it to the list and what doesn't. is much more easy

going than I am! He allows things to the list that I would

personally bounce - that's just the difference between us - all

people are different and each has his own ideas and opinions. So to

start with, I am happy to confirm that I have never seen any evidence

whatsoever that has ever censored anything sent to the list

with the exception of advertising material, SPAM, and flames. And in

most cases when he HAS done that, he has posted a message telling

what he did and why - which is not something I see other moderators

doing very often on their lists - that's no bad reflection on them,

it's just to say that I think is going out of his way to be

fair as he sees it. Now it really doesn't matter whether you or I

agree with his decisions, the fact remains that this is his list and

he can do what he likes with it.

Anyway, back to ths issue at hand. I didn't want to add to the

public argument because to my mind, the worst possible situation for

the Rife community in general was to have the list moderators

arguing over a silly misunderstanding. All of us implicity rely upon

and trust the list moderators whether we realise it or not - so if

they are going to start squabbling it doesn't bode well for the rest

of us mere mortals! :-)

Therefore - I did take to task - and I also took Dave and Bob

to task as well, but I did so on a special forum for Rife moderators

and people who help maintain the lists, not on the open public

lists. So you can rest assured I was being totally consistent! :-)

Now in order to set this all straight I'll clarify my own position in

all of this and then I'll release some of what I said to the

moderators. Firstly the clarification.

I did not at any time say that PC generated frequencies were bad or

dangerous for anyone. The comments I made in reply to 's

posting at the time were largely disagreeing with him in specific

details or adding technical points which I thought would help people

to understand what was at issue. I did agree with him on a few

specific points:

1. That spurious sounds in Windows could give a user a jolt. Since

people have complained openly on the lists of exactly this I don't

see that there is much to take issue with. The point of rasing it was

that anyone considering a PC solution needs to take this kind of

thing into account and be prepared for it. Unfortunately many people

just DON'T take adequate precautions before jumping into things.

2. That I had not seen any proper medical studies done on the use of

this kind of equipment. Well, I haven't - so what more can I say?

3. That a PC generated frequency program wouldn't come close to the

stability and accuracy of a professional piece of medical equipment.

There's really not much anyone can dispute in that, is there? Most

(truly professional) medical devices rely on heavily shielded, super

accurate frequency sources - where frequencies are important. Things

like Rubidium sources and atomic oscillators are not uncommon. And

by " professional " I understand this to mean the kind of equipment

used in hospitals and major public research laboratories.

4. That it was a good idea to always check the real output with an

oscilloscope and frequency counter. It is a good idea - half the

software on my own machines doesn't do what I want it to do or think

it does and I'm an expert in the field! There's no reason why I

would trust my health to a program without checking it when I don't

trust my data to various programs without checking them! :-)

5. That not all frequencies that could be produced are advantageous

to the body. I mentioned WHY I thought that in outline and today I

posted a very detailed explanation of that same point to both the

other Rife lists if anyone wants more information.

So I didn't agree with anything particularly controversial.

Now in my message to the list moderators I quite emphatically pointed

out that I did not endorse 's generic implication that all PC

generator programs were dangerous. But I did say that I understood

what he was TRYING to say. The reason I understand is because I have

discussed several issues at length with in private. We don't

always agree - but that's life - at least we can tell each other what

we think.

Now the point was trying rather badly to make, relates to the

quality and reliability of so-called Rife devices. There is a lot of

stuff on the open market all blatantly advertised as " Rife " and very

little of it has any relation to Rifes work in any way, shape or

form. Amongst all that stuff are a lot of highly dubious devices.

What wants to do (and I commend him for it) is to make a master

database of all equipment that CLAIMS to be Rife related and to put

objective and informed commentary about all the claims alongside it.

This project is still in the formative stage - has already

asked various people who have real knowledge and experience with some

of this stuff to give him their objective assessments - and I'm

quite sure there are people whom he hasn't asked as yet whom he

intends to ask in the near future as things get going. And for the

sake of complete fairness intends to allow the manufacturers of

this equipment equal " air time " to put their cases as well. The idea

is to endup with a comphensive guide for ordinary inexperienced or

unknowledgeable users about what can be trusted or not. To my mind

this is a very worthy project and long overdue.

For the last few years has gone to a lot of trouble to contact

various medical people, researchers and manufacturers of equipment

which is already approved in Europe in order to get information about

what can be used legally and safely - at least in Europe, if not most

of the world. And this really is a different world to the home user

in for example the US who has to make do with a PC and tangle of self-

built equipment which has to be used in secret because of government

suppression. Rife stuff IS still frowned on in the UK but I could

easily go to Holland or Germany or most other European countries for

treatment under proper medical supervision.

So bearing this in mind - if you spent a lot of time talking to

people who have managed to get approval for devices through intensive

research, proper clinical trials and whom in some cases have proof of

each and every claim made - and who tell you that wiring yourself up

to your PC is not a good idea - would you take their word over that

of Joe Bloggs (who has no medical traning or experience whatsoever)

who uses the speaker of his PC to treat himself and claims that it's

totally safe on the grounds that he hasn't managed to kill himself

yet? does, and I don't blame him.

But having said that, I don't always agree with the professionals and

there might be cases in which Joe Bloggs is right and the so-

called " experts " are wrong. Personally I take each case on its own

merits and rely on my OWN knowledge and judgement. Where I don't

know, I try to find out. And I always recommend this same course of

action to anyone.

So what I'm saying is that I'm not , I don't necessarily agree

with him - but I DO understand where he's coming from and why. And I

also know that he shares the same ideals as other significant people

in the Rife game - such as Jimmy Holman for example, whom I respect

and whom I know goes to great lengths to help people free of charge

and who wants to help ordinary people from being taken by a ride by

quacks and sharks - just like .

So for me it's a shame that people like and Jimmy are at each

other's throats - I know they have more in common than either of them

do!

And that leads me on to what I said to the moderators, which I'll

quote below - I'll answer the rest of your message separately:

===========

Hi Bob, Dave, etc.

I would just like to make a few comments on this PC frequency

generation question because I disagree with all of you! :-)

Firstly a couple of technical points to Dave:

Re: Your post to Rife list

I know what you're saying, but unfortunately that is NOT the whole

truth, the WHOLE truth would require a book in itself. Also, your

post never appeared on the web archive on Rifers so I never saw it

prior to your posting on 's list. Please check the Rifer's web

archive.

I don't have the original IBM PC (8088) circuit diagram any more, but

I do have the AT diagram. The speaker output is NOT or'ed with the

timer output on the AT it's anded, and the speaker gate line does not

come from an 8255, it's generated with disrete TTL buffers on the

data bus. This doesn't make much difference in practical operation

but if we're going for full technical accuracy and the WHOLE truth,

this should be mentioned. Now I'm not nit picking, there is a good

reason for mentioning that different machines have different hardware

as I will explain.

Now, I am perfectly well aware that you can gate the speaker output

under software control to avoid reliance on the 8253 (or 8254 in the

case of the AT) chip. Many years ago, in the mid to late 1980's I

was developing a whole range of simple frequency generation circuits

for various applications and I looked at just about every possible

way of doing it including using the PC speaker circuit. I wrote

various little utilities to do just that (in assembler).

One of the applications was on behalf of a major international

software company that had a specialised market but wanted a cheap

solution to a simple hardware problem that was under PC control.

So I wrote and tested my routine on an AT and an original real IBM PC

and it worked fine. I then took it to the offices of this company,

set it up, and the bloody thing went berserk and wouldn't work at

all. I ended up trying it on about a dozen different machines at

this company - it worked on 2 of them - the other 10 or so it

wouldn't.

It turned out they were all proprietary motherboards by various

manufacturers - what had happened is that several companies, looking

to cut costs on proprietary boards had decided they could

safely " appropriate " some little used I/O lines on the original PC

spec, and the speaker gate was one of them - these boards did NOT

have any gate circuit on the speaker output..

Now you probably have never come across this for one good reason -

you are in the US. I'm not, I'm in Europe. In the mid 80's PC's

over here were horrendously expensive (compared to the US) and nobody

could afford real IBM machines - for example an IBM PC cost around

$7000 whilst a cheap proprietary machine would cost around $2000 -

and the proprietary machines usually ran faster than the IBM. So

there was a glut of these cheap proprietary machines all over Europe

and most people had them. Of course, nowadays just about EVERYTHING

comes from China and for some reason the Chinese boards seem to be

more standard than the early European ones!

So the point I'm trying to make is that there is no guarantee that

the gating method will work on ALL machines - particularly older

European ones - and it is really not safe to make ANY assumptions

about the hardware of so-called " standard " PC's. Now of course this

isn't going to affect any of US - but it could cause problems for

inexperienced and non-technical people - who are the real target

audience in this case. Also please remember that the Rife lists

have an international audience, not just the US - things are very

different for some of us than they are for you, no matter how much

they superficially look the same. And by extension, there are people

in 3rd world countries who have even more differences than either of

us.

Assuming that there are no hardware anomalies, the method you mention

should work. HOWEVER, there are caveats.

Firstly a pure software only routine will not run reliably under

Windows (which was the context of the query) because Windows will try

to multitask and will corrupt the timing loop of the software. So any

such software will need to be booted separately under old real mode

DOS or even made into a custom boot. And if the software relies on

the default hardware timing of the standard PC user clock it will

have even lower resolution than the timer hardware solution.

Secondly, if the software relies on a single bit output it must

suffer from the same increment problem as the timer does - the

question is whether the software increment can be made finer than the

hardware one. If someone is using a very old PC with I/O cycle

limitations then this may become a significant problem. If they have

a fast modern PC then it'll probably be O.K. - but again the general

context of such questions is important, most people are asking about

running such things on old machines.

Also a pure software solution WILL need to be calibrated - you can't

make assumptions based on default clocks and cycles because some

people use overclocked boards, some hardware reports false clock

speeds and finally some specialised processors use multiplexed

cycles. An ordinary user who isn't a PC hardware expert may never

realise that the output frequency could be radically different to

what they think it is.

Whatever solution is used to generate the timings the wave shape of

the final output will depend on numerous other factors such as the

driver slew rate (the PC speaker driver is an old power driver, low

bandwidth) and the cabling used. The cabling itself most probably

will pick up stray RF emissions from the motherboard and other

peripherals as well as mains noise etc. So what you get in practice

is never simple - it may be irrelevant if you're using it to drive

something like an ignition coil machine because the HF won't make it

through the coil - but if you're applying it directly to the skin,

can anybody guarantee that it will be absolutely safe?

Now I have never said that computer generated signals were dangerous

per se (aside to ) - what I HAVE said is that I don't know how

SAFE such signals are if applied directly to the skin (given that

they contain various RF interference harmonics etc) - and that is the

honest truth - I really DON'T know, and I suspect neither does anyone

else. The fact that nobody has stood up and said " I tried it and it

nearly killed me " doesn't mean that it was unconditionally harmless.

For all we know the people who DID try it and whom it was harmful for

could be all dead now and in no condition to warn the rest of us! :-)

So what I have said before, and will say in the future to anyone who

asks, is that I can't recommend such solutions, because I don't know

how safe they are. The fact that I don't RECOMMEND them, does not

imply in any way that I disapprove of them or would try to stop

anyone using them. What I would do is try to warn everyone that with

any line of experimentation - and let's face it, this IS

experimentation - there may be risks and it's incumbent on everyone

to weigh the pros and cons for themselves, and it's not up to any of

us (Rife researchers) to make decisions for them. The best we can do

for anyone is to educate them in facts to the best of our ability,

and within reason given that we can't give every single enquirer a

full technical course.

I would hope that all of us can at least agree that this is a worthy

principle.

Now I can see shades of a division here between you guys on this

issue of cheap user machines and " professional " units. The real

truth lies somewhere in the middle as always. I have always been a

strong advocate of cheap home built solutions - I have published a

design for an original and low cost machine as you all know - and not

only one at that, which is a damn sight more than most people have

done! I have also privately sent schematics and technical

suggestions for low cost devices to many people. And if anyone cares

to check back through the archives you will find public postings from

me to Fred Walter describing the DDS algorithm and how it could be

applied with a handful of passive components to generate dead

accurate frequencies via the PC parallel port. I have never made a

penny from Rife research (it's all but bankrupted me!) and I can't be

accused of having any proprietary interest because I have none.

Having said that, I do honestly believe that the majority of things

that inexperienced people are knocking up in their garages are at

best questionable and in some cases dangerous - and yes, I have seen

a few real examples unfortunately.

On the other side of the coin, many so-called " professional " units

are just as bad if not outright cons. People are selling a $10

handful of components for thousands of dollars with the most

ridiculous rationales. I would dearly love to put a stop to that,

because I find it personally and morally offensive, but the fact is

that I can't, all I can do is, as usual, try to educate people enough

and hope that they make a sensible decision for themselves.

Now once again, I would hope that all of us can agree on this as a

basic principle. To Dave and Bob, you need to remember that is

not an engineer and what is technically obvious to us as engineers

may not be to him. If someone apparently reputable tells that

their device is professionally produced and guaranteed safe and that

all PC driven solutions are dangerous, he is probably not in a

position to disagree.

So what I would say is that we should all be a little more tolerant -

the whole idea of these lists is communication - let''s communicate

instead of arguing! So specifically I would say to Dave and Bob,

instead of arguing with it would be much better to try helping

him with technical support.

And to , I have to say, firstly you need to either stop relying

on anonymous " experts " or disclose who they are and give specific

details of any arguments they want to raise - at least to people that

can be trusted. You know exactly what I think of some of the

anonymous " experts " who have advised you in the past! It gives the

wrong impression when you quote something as being authoritative from

some person who apparently will not stand up and give his real name -

I say " apparently " because it's the perception that counts. I know

that some of the people you're in contact with don't want to post on

the lists - neither do I sometimes, for the same reason - because I

don't want to be associated with some of the rubbish that makes it to

the lists! But that aside if someone makes a claim, regardless of

whether they post it themselves or not, they should be prepared to

back it up at least by putting their name to it.

It's a tricky area as I can understand both sides of the coin. But

at the end of the day true science of any description is subject to

review - anyone claiming to be a scientist who will not stand up and

put his name to his claims openly is NO scientist. Taking the flak

from ignorant people is an occupational hazard in the science game.

But in the rife field where there are all kinds of covert operations,

from government agencies to unscrupulous vendor " hit squads "

anonymity is a luxury we can't really afford if we want to engage the

public trust.

Secondly I think banning discussion of the PC topic on your list was

a bad idea. I understand exactly why you did it, (and after all we

must all remember that it's 's list and he can do with it what

he wants). But the reasons why it was a bad idea are twofold:

Firstly it can (and has been) interpreted as censorship - regardless

of what it is, once again the perception counts.

Secondly - and the major reason in my view - if we limit discussion

of any topic then we will never stand any chance of getting to the

truth. It's far better to discuss something like this and get all

the misconceptions and misinformation out in the open where it can be

dealt with by people who really DO know the answers. If we don't

openly discuss issues like this then the misinformation gets out of

hand and the situation ends up worse.

Finally to Bob and Dave, I know where you're coming from, but I also

know where 's coming from. I think it would have been more

productive to clarify the situation personally offlist before getting

to the point of making it a major issue on open posts. To me it

looks like all of you have opposite ends of the stick and are going

to extremes. Forgive me for saying so, but I hope we're all friends

here and at least can be frank and honest with each other.

From my own point of view I think it's time to stand back, take a

deep breath and count to ten and then try to acknowledge what I would

hope we can all agree on as facts, and that is:

1. All of us want to see the Rife technology developed and improved

upon and publicly recognised.

2. Open squabbles between list moderators damages the credibility of

the whole Rife movement.

3. Having different personal opinions does not make us enemies. It

would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything! :-)

4. None of us is in any position to say that anything in general is

unconditionally harmful, nor can we say that it's unconditionally

safe either.

With regards to the latter, my own policy is to err on the side of

caution.

Finally on an indirectly related front, I have done hundreds of

experiments with Rife equipment of all kinds. I haven't released

most of my results (or even bothered to record them in detail for

most) because I get all kinds of weird anomalous things happening.

At the moment my focus is on getting something reproducible and

objective.

However, I have done a lot of experiments on samples of things like

moulds in Petri dishes. Time and again I've found that specific

frequencies seem to inhibit growth, but equally I've found that being

just a little bit off the inhibiting frequency (a few hertz in most

cases) causes stimulation and enhanced growth of the samples. The

factors that determine the difference between stimulation and growth

are not confined to frequency - duty cycle makes a difference and

frequency jitter can have some strange side effects. Taking all this

into account - despite the fact that I DON'T believe that the Rife

effect is purely due to specific frequencies - I can say that I am

very wary of frequency inaccuracy and instability in any shape or

form and would strongly recommend to ANYONE who wants to

experiment or treat themselves with unverified devices that they

should test the output for accuracy and waveform - and if they can't

test it themselves, take it to someone who can. The argument that a

couple of Hertz out probably doesn't matter is absolutely contrary to

my experience. For the record Jim Bare ran a series of experiments

about a year ago based on one of mine and got similar results, some

frequencies inhibited and some frequencies stimulated growth.

On that basis I think it would be at least prudent to acknowledge in

public postings that there are potentially harmful frequencies and

that we should all be very cautious before recommending anything

which might actually do people harm - regardless of whether it's been

helpful for us personally, because all people are different.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I hope everybody will take it in

the spirit in which it is intended. And I hope we can all get back

to cooperating to achieve the goal we all (hopefully) share.

Best wishes

Aubrey

July 6, 2002

Hello again Johan,

Yes, you are being exposed to frequencies all the time. But the

frequencies alone are not the only factor. Intensity is important

too, time of exposure is important as well.

There is enormous controversy over just this issue - government

agencies are fighting with private lobbies and manufacturers over

whats safe and what's not. They still haven't come to any final

agreement but it's worth noting a few points:

1. In the UK last April a government commission ordered the British

radiological protection board to admit that exposure to power line

frequencies can cause cancer. This is a world first.

2. About 5 years ago the EPA in the US lobbied (unsuccesfully) to

have power line frequencies declared as " a possible human carcinogen "

3. At the present time various mobile phone and telecomms operators

are fighting in courts around the world against lawsuits from people

(many good scientists behind them) who believe there is ample

evidence that various radio frequencies cause cancer and other

diseases.

4. Just about everybody agrees that exposure to RF can harm you at

some level - which makes perfect sense since enough RF can cook you

literally!

Now the area which has NOT been researched is the very low frequency

range - audio frequencies and the like. But consider this - in EVERY

range of emission that has been studied to date, some evidence has

emerged of harmful effects. So on the basis of probability alone

what is the chance that this range is uniquely safe out of all the

rest?

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be perfectly safe - but the simple answer

is we don't know if it's safe or not, or if it MAY be harmful, just

HOW harmful and under what conditions? And it's that " don't know "

that bothers me. Consider this by analogy:

If you go out into a field and see some mushrooms growing and you

have heard that some people have improved their health by eating

specific mushrooms under specific conditions - would you then

randomly pick any mushroom and eat it?

I think for most (sane! :-)) people the answer would be no! Now

contrary to popular belief MOST mushrooms are nowhere near as toxic

as most people think - but some of them will kill you in an instant.

But that still doesn't make it safe. And here is a very interesting

example.

The shaggy ink cap mushroom is perfectly safe to eat (and I'm told)

it's delicious. BUT the shaggy ink cap contains a very unusual

alkaloid that reacts in the presence of alcohol to form a deadly

poison. You are perfectly safe eating as many shaggy ink caps as you

want - BUT if you just happen to finish the meal with a nice glass of

wine - you're dead - period!

Now this raises an interesting point - is there any possibility that

exposing oneself to some apparently curative frequency that is safe

in itself may cause some condition in the body that could be lethal

or at least dangerous in combination with some other event? The

answer is we don't know - so in effect we're back to eating unknown

mushrooms. How many people have been adversely affected by direct

frequencies? We don't know, the people who WERE adversely affected

may never have realised the frequency was in any way responsible.

And the ones who died were not in any position to send a post-mortem

email to the lists to warn the rest of us! :-)

Yes, I'm exaggerating (I hope!) but I think I'm making a valid

point. There is too much that we don't know about this whole field.

Some of us are trying to find out but we won't get the answers

tomorrow - maybe not even this century!

So in the meantime given all the options do we blindly go ahead and

hope that its safe or do we at least take whatever reasonable

precautions we can to ensure our own safety? Me - I'm cautious.

To go back to the analogy - would you trust your next door neighbour

if he/she made a meal with unknown mushrooms and invited you to

dinner? Would you have that much confidence in your next door

neighbour's ability to correctly determine one mushroom from another

(assuming your neighbour is not a mushroom expert that is!). And if

your neighbour is, then ask yourself the same question if it was your

bank manager, the mechanic at the local garage and so on. What kind

of a risk would you be prepared to take?

Now there are many people on the lists, I daresay there are a few

neighbours, bank managers and garage mechanics - if they tell you

that all frequencies are safe do you unconditionally believe them?

It seems that most people do - I rarely see people asking for any

kind of solid evidence or proof of claims made.

Now we shouldn't mistrust people, but at the same time people can

fool themselves, someone can quite honestly believe they're telling

the truth - but once again are you prepared to risk your life that

they are? If you hurt yourself based on what they say, will " sorry I

was mistaken " be good enough at the end of the day?

The other side of the coin is can you trust anyone who tells you that

frequencies are dangerous - and the answer is basically no for the

same reasons as above.

So when it's all said and done - who can you trust? The answer to

that is simple - trust yourself! Do your own research, check things

out, ask questions, don't take silly answers for granted, ask for

proof, be a pain in the ass if you have to be - some people won't

like you for it - but then again what's more important, your life or

whether people think you're a pain? :-)

Finally, Mozart may be great for you at a concert. But f you play

Mozart into your bloodstream via electric pads will that be better

for you? If one aspirin does you good, is taking 100 aspirins 100x

better?

The answers as always are never simple. The frequency alone isn't

the issue - it's how it's applied and in what form and at what

intensity. Mozart on a home hi-fi may be great. Mozart played into

an industrial power amp at 200dB and 1 inch separation is going to

break every bone in your body and turn your internal organs into

jelly! Mozart modulated on a 2.4Ghz 1KW Microwave stream will cook

you. So does that mean Mozart is bad?

I always tell people to use common sense, do your own reasearch,

don't take my word for it or anybody else's, go out, do some reading -

and read both sides of every argument before making judgements. Do

your own experiments if possible. The only real choice any of us

have in this world is whether we take control of our own lives or

just drift along and let others make the decisions for us.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes

Aubrey

> Now to my dilemma. When I sit in front of my TV, am I exposed to

sound

> waves, i.e. frequencies? When I listen to music with my head phones

am I

> exposed to frequencies? My question is, is my physical body, my

energy

> field, my mind not exposed to various and varying frequencies all

the time?

> What is the difference between being exposed to Rife frequencies,

radio

> frequencies, TV frequencies, rock music frequencies, Mozart

frequencies,

> cell phone frequencies, etc? As far as I remember, I was always

told that

> sound frequencies travel through the air, so I am exposed to

frequencies,

> hundreds perhaps thousands of them every day.

> Now if some if not most are bad frequencies, how have I managed to

survive,

> so far, for 56 years? Also I am, fortunately, a very healthy person.

> An answer will be highly appreciated.

> Regards,

July 7, 2002

Great response Jim...

Tom

July 7, 2002

rifetech@... wrote:

>

> Johan,

>

> In order for any frequency to have biological effects, it first must be

> " absorbed " so to speak by the body. <snip>

Yesterday I was sitting a few feet away from the tube (phanotron) and my

associate had it a few inches away from his neck. When I placed the

oscilloscope probe to different objects, such as the wall, chair, my

shirt, etc., there were various slight increases in amplitude, but when

I placed it on either of our bare skin, the amplitude when off the

screen. I would say that this is an indication that there is an

absorption of the output of the device. The same happens when I touch

the probe to the CB antenna that we have hanging on the wall by the

door.

Regards,

July 7, 2002

What were the Volts/Div setting on the Y channel ?

Did you try the same experiment without the phanotron running ?

Oscilloscopes are very sensitive pieces of kit and you can get an off the scale

reading just by sticking a piece of wire in the probe.

My scope goes down to 0.1v/Div. This means that off the screen readings are

possible with voltages as low as 0.8v which is about the voltage of a flat

battery from a tourch..

When you think how much static electricity the human body is carrying, tens of

thousands of volts in some cases, it's no wonder your readings jumped off the

scale.

Without a controlled test, I'm not sure your readings prove anything - sorry !

Joe.