Clean vs Dirty Square Wave

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

I've received several comments from users of Frex12 (Fred's FreqGen) that

are using their sound card in software driven square wave mode. No wave

shaping hardware attached. The square wave would be rather " dirty " and at

10kHz, would only slightly resemble a square wave.

These people have been reporting very strong herx reactions through hand

held electrodes.

I was just wondering if any trials or tests have been done to compare a

dirty square wave to a clean square wave?

I would imagine, square waves back in Rife and Crane days would have also

been rather dirty.

I'll be in a position to run some trials in a few more weeks, but I don't

want to waste my time if tests concerning dirty verse clean square waves

have already been done.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Ken

http://www.heal-me.com.au/frex

[Guest guest]

Ken Uzzell wrote:

>Greetings,

>

>I've received several comments from users of Frex12 (Fred's FreqGen) that

>are using their sound card in software driven square wave mode. No wave

>shaping hardware attached. The square wave would be rather " dirty " and at

>10kHz, would only slightly resemble a square wave.

>

>

Ken & friends,

I want to start by thanking Ken for all of his hours of work in

creating the FREX12 software, and distributing it for free; thanks is

also due to Fred Walters for offering the FreqGen software for free,

which is now integrated into FREX12.

I took some digital photos of the oscilloscope traces recently at 10,000

Hz; 'dirty' might be a very good description of the mis-shapen

waveform... but there's another even less desirable aspect of these wave

forms that's very appearant on the Oscilloscope that will not be

detected with simple frequency counters. The interval between the rising

edge of successive waveforms varries widely when selecting a 'square

wave' output, so that, instead of a consistent frequency, you really

have a *very* wide spectrum 'noise signal' that's generally averaged

around a center frequency, but possibly too widely scattered to be

helpful... in fact, this might be causing more of an adverse

physiological reaction than a clean frequency signal on a selected

frequency would cause.

I've observed these erratic 'square wave' waveforms first on a newer

ASUS A7N8X-E motherboard system, which integrates the NVIDIA nfource 2

APU to produce it's audio output. I next ran the tests and saw exactly

the same distorted square wave output waveforms on a Creative Labs PCI

Soundblaster Live! MP3 sound card in another of my computers. My

assessment from tests of these two systems is that the FREX12 / Freqgen

square wave output is unsuitable for my purposes, (and likely also

unsuitable for other people's purposes.)

In comparison, the Freqgen / FREX12 sine wave output at 10 KHz is very

stable on both of these computers, both in waveform shape and

stability, and in pulse generation interval. [The frequency accuracy on

the SB Live! MP3 card is also very very close.] ( This sine wave output

is the FREX12 waveform I choose to use for the external input to my

System 6C EM+, which internally processes the input signal, and has

adjustments so that it can use/ process about any signal/ waveform

source of any amplitude. This multi-level signal processing circuitry

has also been used on the 7C, and is integrated into the [as-yet

unreleased] System 8CE EM+ system, as well as being integrated into the

HFA-4MC.

This distorted square wave output waveform characteristic was also seen

to some extent when running the NCH Toner software on computers; it's

likely an unavoidable aspect of how computer sound systems, (which were

designed to produce quality sounds using primarily sine waves, as I

understand it) respond when commanded to try to produce square wave

outputs (especially at 10KHz.). Maybe the square wave output is more

usable at frequencies a couple of octaves lower... It would likely be

far better to use the sine wave output, and process that audio level

waveform through some form of signal processing circuitry or 'wave

shaper' circuitry to get the clean square wave of adequate amplitude

needed for zapping / contact pad or handpiece use.

>These people have been reporting very strong herx reactions through hand

>held electrodes.

>

>I was just wondering if any trials or tests have been done to compare a

>dirty square wave to a clean square wave?

>

>

I do not have time now to write up a full synopsis of my observations

from over the last 8 years, but I'll briefly offer my bottom line

assessment; /*it's prefereble to use specific frequencies of adequate

amplitude for adequate durations to achieve optimum results with minimal

adverse reactions.*/

>I would imagine, square waves back in Rife and Crane days would have also

>been rather dirty.

>

>I'll be in a position to run some trials in a few more weeks, but I don't

>want to waste my time if tests concerning dirty verse clean square waves

>have already been done.

>

>Any information would be greatly appreciated.

>

>Ken

>http://www.heal-me.com.au/frex

>

>

Be Well!!

Bruce

The Alternative Healthj Approaches Forum

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

[Guest guest]

Bruce K. Stenulson wrote:

<snip>

> I've observed these erratic 'square wave' waveforms first on a newer

> ASUS A7N8X-E motherboard system, which integrates the NVIDIA nfource 2

> APU to produce it's audio output. I next ran the tests and saw exactly

> the same distorted square wave output waveforms on a Creative Labs PCI

> Soundblaster Live! MP3 sound card in another of my computers. My

> assessment from tests of these two systems is that the FREX12 / Freqgen

> square wave output is unsuitable for my purposes, (and likely also

> unsuitable for other people's purposes.)

>

<snip>

When I did some tests a while back, I found that the fancy new sound

cards such as the SoundBlaster Live and Audigy did not put out a clean

basic sine wave, but put out a series of sine waves that were phase

shifted. The older and cheaper sound cards such as the AWE 64 Gold and

the PCI 128 put out clean sine waves with no phase shifting. It seems

to me that what is needed for sound card generated frequencies is just a

basic two channel card, not the newer fancy cards. If you want square

waves, use something like Ralph Hartwell's square wave converter:

http://www.emachine.com/rifeindx.htm

Regards,

[Guest guest]

> I've received several comments from users of Frex12 (Fred's

FreqGen) that

> are using their sound card in software driven square wave mode. No

wave

> shaping hardware attached. The square wave would be rather " dirty "

and at

> 10kHz, would only slightly resemble a square wave.

>

> These people have been reporting very strong herx reactions through

hand

> held electrodes.

>

> I was just wondering if any trials or tests have been done to

compare a

> dirty square wave to a clean square wave?

>

> I would imagine, square waves back in Rife and Crane days would

have also

> been rather dirty.

Ken,

My opinion for what it may be worth. Sound cards in computers have a

limited bandwidth. The limits of the audio response of the human ear

is what is generally the design adheres to. In addition, the speaker

system also has limits. The human ear also is not linear. In my

youth, I could hear frequencies of 15,000 Hz. That is no longer the

case and 10,000 Hz is about my upper limit on a good day. Humans can

generally hear 60 Hz easily (hum in a radio for example). Below 30Hz

we generally feel, the sound rather than hear it. In short, tones of

equal intensity of 60, 1000, and 10,000 would sound as if the 1000 Hz

tone was loudest.

In FM and TV broadcasting we use something called pre-emphasis. Here

in the US the FCC has a standard curve that we, and most of the

world, adhere to. The receiver must boost the audio frequencies at

the high end. At the transmitter, we align the transmitted signal to

the standard curve. While interesting, this solves little in your

case.

Another effect is clipping. This effect is caused by overdriving an

amplifier (very high volume levels). If a sine wave is the input

signal, the output tops are clipped off and the signal appears to

look more like a dirty square wave.

On the other hand, audio sound may go far above that which humans can

hear, such as ultrasound devices. Sound is a mechanical vibration of

the air and electrical representations are not the same unless put

into a converter, a speaker or transducer for example. It seems some

ultrasonic is even emitted from plasma tubes, but I have never taken

the time to measure this.

Further transistors or integrated circuits often generate noise,

complicating things further. Tub/valve circuits can produce very

good square waves even in Rife's era. The parts he had to work

with

by 1930 would operate up to about 30MHz, but were frequency unstable

by today's standards due to tank circuit technology. Even the

555

timer circuits you are using are quite unstable, but are superior to

anything from that bygone era.

By far the best common analysis tool is not an oscilloscope, but a

spectrum analyzer. There are 2 basic types, the audio, and the RF

spectrum type. I use the RF type exclusively and they will not tune

below 9kHz, thus are unusable for your work. The spectrum analyzer

will display the frequency and power level of a given signal. These

are quite critical measurements in my opinion. But I feel I'm

getting too far into the technical.

What we in the Rife community need are equipment details, far more

than simple frequencies. For example in your case, what make and

model of sound card. What type of driving electronics (model, such

as Frex12). For people using plasma devices we need to know

manufacturer, gas and gas pressure as well as driving electronics.

For example Bill Cheb produces both a high and low pressure tube and

can fill it with nearly any gas. If handheld electrodes are used, we

need to know the type, placement, driving electronics, etc.

Our experiments need to be reproducible, or if not accurately not

reproducible we must know the exact equipment used in baseline

experiments. The devil is in the details.

In closing, I would like to discuss another set of experiments that

have nothing to do with our research here. The Navy Weapons Lab

performed over a hundred experiments in what is know as cold fusion

and the reports are available on the internet. These were identical

experiments with identical components. Yet some 15% produced fusion

products and 85% did not. The authoring physicist admitted that he

could not explain the results. Other labs disclaimed the Pond's

experiment, but admitted they performed the experiment in an entirely

different manner, thus disproving the Ponds experiment. Does this

ring familiar?

My suggestion: When posting results, we should specify all the

details of our equipment used to obtain the results that we are

posting, even if it is handmade such as most of my equipment.

Perhaps this can be stored in the database section of the website and

postings can reference that. There has to be a better way of

communicating our work, configurations, and ideas. Anyone have any

ideas to do this?

Also wanted to thank you for your numerous posts on your work and

results. Your days must be longer down under, or perhaps you never

sleep.

Al

[Guest guest]

To Group: If you listen to your system on your loudspeakers as it

does a sweep from say 30hz to 12khz you will hear all sorts of weid

tones and beats.. going up and down.. as it sweeps up..... I gave my

computer sound card thingo away because when I wanted say 1000 hz I

got that frequency plus all these others. It even happened when I

used to use QBasic as well.. it was really hopeless on two different

computer setups...... Good luck ... Noel

> <snip>

> > I've observed these erratic 'square wave' waveforms first on a

newer

> > ASUS A7N8X-E motherboard system, which integrates the NVIDIA

nfource 2

> > APU to produce it's audio output. I next ran the tests and saw

exactly

> > the same distorted square wave output waveforms on a Creative

Labs PCI

> > Soundblaster Live! MP3 sound card in another of my computers.

My

> > assessment from tests of these two systems is that the FREX12 /

Freqgen

> > square wave output is unsuitable for my purposes, (and likely

also

> > unsuitable for other people's purposes.)

> >

> <snip>

>

>

> When I did some tests a while back, I found that the fancy new

sound

> cards such as the SoundBlaster Live and Audigy did not put out a

clean

> basic sine wave, but put out a series of sine waves that were

phase

> shifted. The older and cheaper sound cards such as the AWE 64

Gold and

> the PCI 128 put out clean sine waves with no phase shifting. It

seems

> to me that what is needed for sound card generated frequencies is

just a

> basic two channel card, not the newer fancy cards. If you want

square

> waves, use something like Ralph Hartwell's square wave converter:

> http://www.emachine.com/rifeindx.htm

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>