Re: F-Scan Can it be trusted?

September 10, 2004

Ken Uzzell wrote:

So you are saying the F-Scan doesn't come with a clear discription of how it

works.

It appears there is a velcro tab that attaches to the finger, is this the

sensor?

I supose if resonance detection was easy to do then we'd see a lot of

scanners on the market, which we don't.

I hope Cambrone can conquer this task, we were on a good path with electrode

scanning but thought the F-Scan had already solved this problem, so remote

scanning seemed to offer more potential and ease of use.

But if the F-Scan manufacturers aren't saying how the F-Scan works then that

makes it a little difficult for scientists to use and publish their

discoveries.

So electrode resonance detection hasn't been solved then. My error!

Thanks Dave,

Ken

Ken: I hold no opinion as to the F-scans reliability, however the following web

site does offer some interesting observations if you are interested. I neither

agree or disagree with these observations, so I hope no one takes this link

personal!

Link to Scoons Web site: http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/fscan.htm

Mike http://www.truerife.com

__________________________________________________

September 10, 2004

Thanks Mike,

I read Aubrey's report.

Is Aubrey Scoon a respected figure in the Rife community?

Regards

Ken Uzzell

> But if the F-Scan manufacturers aren't saying how the F-Scan works then

that

> makes it a little difficult for scientists to use and publish their

> discoveries.

>

> So electrode resonance detection hasn't been solved then. My error!

>

> Thanks Dave,

> Ken

> Ken: I hold no opinion as to the F-scans reliability, however the

following web site does offer some interesting observations if you are

interested. I neither agree or disagree with these observations, so I hope

no one takes this link personal!

> Link to Scoons Web site: http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/fscan.htm

>

> Mike http://www.truerife.com

September 11, 2004

Aubrey's description of the early FSCAN device doesn't sound

unreasonable to me - I'm hoping that the FSCAN2 has remedied the

faults in the original design, but I haven't seen any analysis of the

newer model.

As far as resonance detection goes (and I'd think that the

Syncrometer would also exhibit similar symptoms), I think the 50/60Hz

EMR produced by home electrical wiring and appliances may make a

significant impact on detection of other frequencies. A resonance

detection algorithm would presumably need to make an assessment of

the existing 'noise' level at the point of testing and such 'noise'

subtracted from a detected result. I'd be pleased to hear of any

alternatives to this and any shortcomings.

Ken, Mike - your comments are most welcome!

Regards

> So you are saying the F-Scan doesn't come with a clear discription

of how it

> works.

>

> It appears there is a velcro tab that attaches to the finger, is

this the

> sensor?

>

> I supose if resonance detection was easy to do then we'd see a lot

of

> scanners on the market, which we don't.

>

> I hope Cambrone can conquer this task, we were on a good path with

electrode

> scanning but thought the F-Scan had already solved this problem, so

remote

> scanning seemed to offer more potential and ease of use.

>

> But if the F-Scan manufacturers aren't saying how the F-Scan works

then that

> makes it a little difficult for scientists to use and publish their

> discoveries.

>

> So electrode resonance detection hasn't been solved then. My error!

>

> Thanks Dave,

> Ken

> Ken: I hold no opinion as to the F-scans reliability, however the

following web site does offer some interesting observations if you

are interested. I neither agree or disagree with these observations,

so I hope no one takes this link personal!

> Link to Scoons Web site:

http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/fscan.htm

>

> Mike http://www.truerife.com

September 11, 2004

Aubrey Scoon did a good write-up on the F-SCAN and he described some

shortcomings he found on the early version that he tested. The square wave was

not very square. The sine waves did have a hitch in the slope.

And, in the audio range, most people's test results do look similar. Not

identical, but similar. There are peaks near 1360, 2720, 4080 and so on whether

you are testing a person, a banana, or a vial of salt water. I noticed that when

I tested electrolytes with stainless probes, the results were very different in

the various salts. Dilute hydrochloric acid was a series of simple peaks.

Potassium chloride had the same peaks but they were more complex. Magnesium

chloride was even more complex with many peaks in between the usual ones. It has

appeared to me that these regular peaks are related to electrolytes.

In the audio range, body fluids such as blood, urine and saliva all had peaks in

the usual areas, but each had many peaks that did not fit the pattern. And all

were different. Urine had fairly simple peaks, blood much more complex peaks.

Saliva was very complex, probably due to the large number of creatures that live

there! Clearly the unit is not generating the peaks itself.

When I did a series of tests from low audio up to the 300,000 Hz range, I

noticed that the regular peaks got smaller and smaller as the frequency

increased. By 100,000 Hz, they were very small but still barely detectable. But

now there were much taller peaks that did not fit any pattern and were different

in each person.

In the range and above, every person's test is different. No two tests

look alike. So it clearly does not generate its own peaks. And, as the actual

MORs ( " Mortal Oscillatory Rates " or actual resonant killing frequencies) are

mostly in the area of 50,000 and above, the low frequency regular series is

hardly noticed if it is noticed at all.