RE: Re: Original Rife Frequency Instrument REPLICA

[Guest guest]

Hi cushmangroup,

A friend of mine contacted him and the guy claims that the

circuit is modified somewhat. He may be doing the modification

himself, if this is even true, and then claiming it was modified

by Crane. if he says it's an original Crane unit this would

be somewhat of a scam.

Bil

PC 1000

M-Pulse 5000 magnetic pulse generator

http://magpulser.com

Mammoth Lakes, CA

mailto:magpulser@...

c> This is the same add that has been run in the past few months. Same

c> seller, same HTML. same pictures so if the reproduction he is selling

c> is the one in the picture then he is reselling the same machine again

c> and again and again. Also notice that the buyer's are not disclosed

c> and the rating of the seller is not disclosed. Not only that, the

c> last time he sold the exact same unit a few months back, it also sold

c> at the same price. Does anyone see something going on here.

c> The reproduction unit is nothing more than a respray painted audio

c> oscillator from the late 50's to early 60's. I used a nearly

c> identical unit in school in the early 1970's.

c> So who is promoting what here. You can duplicate the same unit by

c> purchasing an old HP audio oscillator and putting some hand held

c> electrodes on it.

c> Hmmmm

c>

[Guest guest]

Boris,

As a number of people here are researching what Royal Rife was originally

doing, analyzing original, or in this case a close replica of a device

Royal Rife must have been involved with, does have historical and scientific

value.

In order to understand what Rife was doing, you need to know more than just

frequencies. How about waveform, power levels, and other technical issues

which can be learned from such a device.

Some time ago, Aubrey Scoon was able to get hold of a different original

1939 Rife Ray Machine and he was able to obtain valuable information from

reverse engineering it.

http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/index.htm

I found the negative reaction from some of the members of this group to the

eBay replica interesting. I was not aware of the previous auctions from this

seller (apart from the sale of the original unit), yet even if I was, I do

not personally see the problem with his marketing a replica as long as it is

clearly marked as such.

Not disclosing the buyers details is just being prudent, considering the

suppression of these very devices by the FDA in the past.

The explanation the seller sent me, which I released in an earlier post, looks

fine to me. So he is making some money creating replicas of an original Rife

device, I fail to see the problem in that as long as they are what he claims

them to be. Why is making and selling this replica less honourable than

making and selling any of the numerous other so-called " Rife " devices often

for much more money.

It would only be a scam if the device he sells is not what he claims it to be,

i.e. not a close working replica of a real Rife device previously in his

possession or being sold at a price way beyond its value. As it was sold on

eBay, it is the bidders who determine the final price, is that not a fair

way of determining what something is worth. Nobody is forced to bid for it.

Whatever, the device has been sold for $1,562 and whoever bought it will have

his or her reasons and considered it worth that price.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

Now if anyone is building a working exact replica of the Rife Universal

Microscope and wishes to sell it on eBay, let me know...

Regards

Moderator

Re: Original Rife Frequency Instrument REPLICA

Why would you want to make a replica of some crappy old tube system?

All you want is the FREQUENCIES!!!

>

> I agree Ken.

>

> In looking at the site, I would not be surprised if the seller has

created both units. The cost to reproduce an exact replica of an original

device from this era would be in the thousands of dollars just in time spent

locating parts, duplicating the panels, cases and guages. Reproduction of an

original device would be far more daunting and costly than building

something from scratch.

>

> Don't be surprised if after this unit goes in auction that another

knock-off soon appears, then another and another...

>

> Mike

>

[sNIP]

[Guest guest]

I purchased one of these machines and I cant find where it is altered from the

original machine. It seems like it is just an off the shelf generator from the

50s, so I dont find this to be a replica from the original. The only way to

find out is to see the inside of the original unit and compare. I talked to the

gentleman and he does'nt seem to know that much about electronics.

How many of these units does he have. The last sale was his 4th one.

Live and learn

wrote: Boris,

As a number of people here are researching what Royal Rife was originally

doing, analyzing original, or in this case a close replica of a device

Royal Rife must have been involved with, does have historical and scientific

value.

In order to understand what Rife was doing, you need to know more than just

frequencies. How about waveform, power levels, and other technical issues

which can be learned from such a device.

Some time ago, Aubrey Scoon was able to get hold of a different original

1939 Rife Ray Machine and he was able to obtain valuable information from

reverse engineering it.

http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/index.htm

I found the negative reaction from some of the members of this group to the

eBay replica interesting. I was not aware of the previous auctions from this

seller (apart from the sale of the original unit), yet even if I was, I do

not personally see the problem with his marketing a replica as long as it is

clearly marked as such.

Not disclosing the buyers details is just being prudent, considering the

suppression of these very devices by the FDA in the past.

The explanation the seller sent me, which I released in an earlier post, looks

fine to me. So he is making some money creating replicas of an original Rife

device, I fail to see the problem in that as long as they are what he claims

them to be. Why is making and selling this replica less honourable than

making and selling any of the numerous other so-called " Rife " devices often

for much more money.

It would only be a scam if the device he sells is not what he claims it to be,

i.e. not a close working replica of a real Rife device previously in his

possession or being sold at a price way beyond its value. As it was sold on

eBay, it is the bidders who determine the final price, is that not a fair

way of determining what something is worth. Nobody is forced to bid for it.

Whatever, the device has been sold for $1,562 and whoever bought it will have

his or her reasons and considered it worth that price.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

Now if anyone is building a working exact replica of the Rife Universal

Microscope and wishes to sell it on eBay, let me know...

Regards

Moderator

Re: Original Rife Frequency Instrument REPLICA

Why would you want to make a replica of some crappy old tube system?

All you want is the FREQUENCIES!!!

>

> I agree Ken.

>

> In looking at the site, I would not be surprised if the seller has

created both units. The cost to reproduce an exact replica of an original

device from this era would be in the thousands of dollars just in time spent

locating parts, duplicating the panels, cases and guages. Reproduction of an

original device would be far more daunting and costly than building

something from scratch.

>

> Don't be surprised if after this unit goes in auction that another

knock-off soon appears, then another and another...

>

> Mike

>

[sNIP]

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Any news of the up coming " Rifers " microscope so we can see blood cells

clearly ?

Will you be selling them on eBay ?

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Frex - CHIamp

RE: Re: Original Rife Frequency Instrument REPLICA

> Boris,

> As a number of people here are researching what Royal Rife was originally

> doing, analyzing original, or in this case a close replica of a device

> Royal Rife must have been involved with, does have historical and

> scientific

> value.

>

> In order to understand what Rife was doing, you need to know more than

> just

> frequencies. How about waveform, power levels, and other technical issues

> which can be learned from such a device.

>

> Some time ago, Aubrey Scoon was able to get hold of a different original

> 1939 Rife Ray Machine and he was able to obtain valuable information from

> reverse engineering it.

> http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/index.htm

>

> I found the negative reaction from some of the members of this group to

> the

> eBay replica interesting. I was not aware of the previous auctions from

> this

> seller (apart from the sale of the original unit), yet even if I was, I do

> not personally see the problem with his marketing a replica as long as it

> is

> clearly marked as such.

>

> Not disclosing the buyers details is just being prudent, considering the

> suppression of these very devices by the FDA in the past.

>

> The explanation the seller sent me, which I released in an earlier post,

> looks

> fine to me. So he is making some money creating replicas of an original

> Rife

> device, I fail to see the problem in that as long as they are what he

> claims

> them to be. Why is making and selling this replica less honourable than

> making and selling any of the numerous other so-called " Rife " devices

> often

> for much more money.

>

> It would only be a scam if the device he sells is not what he claims it to

> be,

> i.e. not a close working replica of a real Rife device previously in his

> possession or being sold at a price way beyond its value. As it was sold

> on

> eBay, it is the bidders who determine the final price, is that not a fair

> way of determining what something is worth. Nobody is forced to bid for

> it.

>

> Whatever, the device has been sold for $1,562 and whoever bought it will

> have

> his or her reasons and considered it worth that price.

>

> Just my opinion for what its worth.

>

> Now if anyone is building a working exact replica of the Rife Universal

> Microscope and wishes to sell it on eBay, let me know...

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

>

[Guest guest]

I, like you, have " found the negative reaction from some of the members of this

group to the eBay replica interesting. " I have some of Crane's pictures from the

1960 of this instrument and have compared them. I believe that this man has an

original unit. As for the inside components of the instrument who knows. All of

Crane's pad instruments that I have seen were just off the shelf function

generators with new face plate put on them. On rife.org is a photo of the first

pad instrument that he and Marsh built. And it was a Heathkit function

generator.

Even though I am a manufacture of a pad instrument I have to accept the fact

that Rife was skeptical of pad instruments. In fact, Bertrand Comperet, Rife &

Cranes attorney could not get Rife to come into court and testify in Cranes

behalf because he said Crane was not " working on his principles " . Comperet said

this is why they did not introduce Rife's deposition as evidence. Possibly had

they had more years to test the pad instrument maybe Rife would have come to

understand how well this type of instrument could work on many conditions. But

we will never know for sure.

you mentioned in your post that, quote: " Aubrey Scoon was able to get hold

of a different original1939 Beam Ray Machine and was able to obtain valuable

information from reverse engineering it " . At the time Aubrey was claiming that

this instrument was a 1939 instrument Ringas strongly expressed that he

felt that Aubrey's claim did not have enough proof and many people gave him a

bad time about his skepticism. When I went to see Bedini last year to do

some testing on paramecium we were talking and I just happened to mention the

instrument Aubrey purchased and claimed was a 1939 Beam Ray Instrument. He told

me it was not a Beam Ray instrument. I asked him how he knew it was not a Beam

Ray Instrument. He said they were looking at purchasing the instrument and had

fully investigated the instrument and found that it was built by Vern

in the 1940's. After this investigation they decided not to purchase it.

Bedini and his group which included Dr. Strecker, who is a well know

pathologist, worked with Crane for a year and a half starting in 1986. Bedini

said that Dr. Strecker grew all kinds of pathogenic organism and tested Cranes

pad instrument on them with no success. They then wanted to test Crane's AZ-58

ray tube instrument. Bedini said they had to really twist Crane's arm to get him

to let them test it. Finally they tested it and it would not kill any

microorganisms either. Bedini said that Crane finally admitted that the AZ-58

instrument didn't work the same as Rife's original instruments but he said it

worked on some people and that was good enough. Bedini said he felt that Crane

knew how Rife's original instrument worked but that he wouldn't tell them.

Bedini said Crane had all of Dr. Rife's remaining paperwork and had he given

them permission they could have found out the truth. In the documents on

rife.org we read that Dr. Stafford back in the late 1950's tested the AZ-58 at

Good Samaritan Hospital on Staph and Streph was not able to kill any organisms

either. I have said all of this because it lays the ground work to show that

what Bedini said about Aubrey's machine not being a true Beam Ray instrument is

true.

Since working with Bedini I have spent many hours studying the documents and

checking out Aubrey's instrument. I built and AZ-58 back in 2001 and fully

tested it. I have conversed with Aubrey many times through emails about this

instrument. I also then built Aubrey's instrument and this is what I found out.

The photo's of the wave forms on Aubrey's are of an instrument that is

malfunctioning. Aubrey told me that when he finally put the right tubes in it

that most of the harmonics disappeared. If you go to his site you will read a

little statement that he made, quote: " UPDATE: the carrier waveform is smoother

with the 809, but still contains some strong harmonics " .

After having built both the AZ-58 and Aubrey's instrument and reading them on an

oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer, there does not appear to be any significant

differences in the carrier frequency. They are both sine wave carriers with

harmonics that go to about 100 MHz. Jim Berger who also built both instruments

also check them and could not see any real significant differences. In fact the

AZ-58 is a better design and we would expect this since it was built later in

the 1950's. One thing Aubrey didn't have at the time he was checking out his

instrument was photos of a true Beam Ray instrument. Since that time we were

able to get a photo of Dr. B. Couche's Beam Ray instrument from Vivian who

was Marshes nurse. Marsh left her his instruments and all of his

paperwork and documents. In those documents was the photo of one of Couche's

Beam Ray instrument. He owned three of them. This photo shows that the

instrument that was on the front page of the May, 6 1938 San Diego Evening

Tribune Newspaper is a Beam Ray instrument. Now we have two photo's of what they

looked like. A copy of this paper is on rife.org. Now that we are able to verify

what a Beam Ray instrument looked like it is very easy to see the difference of

these instruments and Aubrey's Vern instrument. They look nothing

alike. Also from the documents we are told the Beam Ray instrument had a fixed

carrier and the photos show us that the Beam Ray instrument had two oscillators

on the front of it. The AZ-58 and Aubrey's instrument only have one oscillator

on the front of it, not two.

The 60 hertz gating feature that Aubrey mentioned on his site, I quote:

" However, in addition, the AC cathode connection causes a further modulation at

60Hz. In effect the modulated wave is chopped into chunks or burst that are one

period of a 60 Hz cycle apart. And the envelope of the wave is effectively the

first quarter cycle of a 60Hz cosine wave. In some respects this is like a very

crude approximation to a damped wave. I believe that the latter is not a design

flaw but rather a feature " . We had a difficult time getting Aubrey Scoons

instrument we built to do this and when we did I was difficult to get it to work

properly. Jim Berger sent me a paper from an old electronics book which defined

this as a " motor boating effect " and that it only happened in a circuit that was

malfunctioning. So we do not believe that it was a design feature but a design

flaw and was later removed by Vern in the 1950's when he update this

type of instrument to the AZ-58.

The bottom line here I believe is how well did the instruments work. Henry

Siner, Rife's lab assistant went to England to demonstrate the Beam Ray

instrument and microscope reported that the Beam Ray instrument would kill the

organisms under microscope observation. No one has ever been able to get the

AZ-58 or the Aubrey Scoon Vern instrument to do this. Aubrey told me

that he had done some testing and was not able to kill anything either. He did

tell me that he had left the instrument running with a culture and when he came

back it was dead but that he could not duplicate this again. Having worked now

with two doctors and a bacteriologist I know how easy it is for organisms to die

from the heat of the lamp of the microscope. These men have been testing these

ray tube instruments on microorganisms for the past several months without any

success. They are now ready to move on to higher frequencies and want to use a

faraday cage.

I want you to know that I am not trying to be critical of what Aubrey has done.

I believe that the information that he obtained from the Vern 's 1940's

instrument is very valuable. But what we want is a real Beam Ray instrument and

to know that we really have one and not just hope we do. Many people like Jim

Berger and I have built this instrument believing it to be a real Beam Ray

instrument and then not getting the result we expected. A real Beam Ray

instrument will kill microorganisms under microscope observation and also would

cure cancer. Dr. Couche could consistently cure cancer a feat our modern

instruments have not been able to do yet. Many people have had good results but

what I am talking about is consistent results of at least nine out of ten people

being cured. Rife said on the Rife CD's that the clinic lasted about 70 days and

they were able in that amount of time to cure 14 out of 16 people. Rife said on

CD's the patients had tuberculosis and cancer but the majority of the patients

had cancer. The other two continued their treatments over about the next 60 days

and were also pronounced clinically cured. I don't expect a 100% cure rate like

they had but nine out of ten would be nice.

Best wishes

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Had to put in my two-cents here:

We use valve (vacuum tube) equipment in all of our work as it has proven and

significantly improved performance over digital equipment. For our purposes and

in our research we have eliminated the use of digital signal equipment and have

gone to valve (vacuum tube) equipment and analogue signal generation only.

Many people have many opinions. Opinions are like noses, we all have them but

some work better than others. In our case the " nose " is left behind in the wake

of sound scientific research, single and double-blind testing, and carefull

controlled record-keeping.

Fact: Analogue equipment outperforms digital by a significant margin insofar

as the application of acceptable power, use of acceptable bandwidth, and the

need for a clean sinusoidal waveform are concerned.

Best to all in research, but let' not write off the Vacuum Tube just because

we have IC's and Tansistors in our lives. They have a place ... it just isn't

here.

Yours,

Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D.

Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D., New Lhasa Research Facility, In search of the truth

through relentless research and infinite patience.

---------------------------------

Groups are talking. We & acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo!

Groups.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ian

Interesting..does your equipment use a carrier or just audio?

Ian MacLeod wrote:

>Hello,

>

> Had to put in my two-cents here:

>

> We use valve (vacuum tube) equipment in all of our work as it has proven and

significantly improved performance over digital equipment. For our purposes and

in our research we have eliminated the use of digital signal equipment and have

gone to valve (vacuum tube) equipment and analogue signal generation only.

>

> Many people have many opinions. Opinions are like noses, we all have them

but some work better than others. In our case the " nose " is left behind in the

wake of sound scientific research, single and double-blind testing, and carefull

controlled record-keeping.

>

> Fact: Analogue equipment outperforms digital by a significant margin insofar

as the application of acceptable power, use of acceptable bandwidth, and the

need for a clean sinusoidal waveform are concerned.

>

> Best to all in research, but let' not write off the Vacuum Tube just because

we have IC's and Tansistors in our lives. They have a place ... it just isn't

here.

>

> Yours,

>

> Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D.

>

>

>

>Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D., New Lhasa Research Facility, In search of the truth

through relentless research and infinite patience.

>

>---------------------------------

>Groups are talking. We & acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to

Yahoo! Groups.

>

>

[Guest guest]

We have used only audio for the past two ... almost three years.

Ian MacLeod

Alvin Rose wrote: Hi

Ian

Interesting..does your equipment use a carrier or just audio?

Ian MacLeod wrote:

>Hello,

>

> Had to put in my two-cents here:

>

> We use valve (vacuum tube) equipment in all of our work as it has proven and

significantly improved performance over digital equipment. For our purposes and

in our research we have eliminated the use of digital signal equipment and have

gone to valve (vacuum tube) equipment and analogue signal generation only.

>

> Many people have many opinions. Opinions are like noses, we all have them

but some work better than others. In our case the " nose " is left behind in the

wake of sound scientific research, single and double-blind testing, and carefull

controlled record-keeping.

>

> Fact: Analogue equipment outperforms digital by a significant margin

insofar as the application of acceptable power, use of acceptable bandwidth, and

the need for a clean sinusoidal waveform are concerned.

>

> Best to all in research, but let' not write off the Vacuum Tube just because

we have IC's and Tansistors in our lives. They have a place ... it just isn't

here.

>

> Yours,

>

> Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D.

>

>

>

>Dr. Ian MacLeod, Ph.D., New Lhasa Research Facility, In search of the truth

through relentless research and infinite patience.

>

>---------------------------------

>Groups are talking. We & acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to

Yahoo! Groups.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jeff

It was very good to read that.And to remember crucial

Rife facts and stick to them.

Congratulations you seems very close in rebuilding the

real Beam Ray.

How then will you get the Rife virus and °see° it?

Alan

--- Jeff Garff wrote:

>

>

> I, like you, have " found the negative reaction from

> some of the members of this group to the eBay

> replica interesting. " I have some of Crane's

> pictures from the 1960 of this instrument and have

> compared them. I believe that this man has an

> original unit. As for the inside components of the

> instrument who knows. All of Crane's pad instruments

> that I have seen were just off the shelf function

> generators with new face plate put on them. On

> rife.org is a photo of the first pad instrument that

> he and Marsh built. And it was a Heathkit function

> generator.

>

>

=== message truncated ===

[Guest guest]

Jeff

Probably we will have to find new freq. i\e MORs.

Of course I tought using that time consuming

trials/errors process but I remain very sceptic about

his efficacity.

In my opinion if one media shows no growth it doesnt

means it is the right MOR.The previous freq.

applications may have stopped temporarily the virus

expansion and these same viruses in vivo can adapt and

regain a new virulence.Many others causes can apply.

As far As I remember MORs were defined as a freq.

which when apllied to an organism blows it up and

consequently kill it.Thats the only way to have the

certainty the freq. is reliable.

Alan

--- astroboy84088 wrote:

>

> Alan,

>

> Those of us who have built the M.O.P.A design

> AZ-58 and Aubrey's

> 1940's Vern Thomson instrument know how unstable

> they are. The

> carrier frequency can fluctuate + or – as much as

> 40,000 hertz.

> Rife's earlier instruments were M.O.P.A designs also

> and I am sure

> they had the same problem. This creates a real

> problem for us today.

> Rife's high frequencies for cancer (1,604,000,

> 11,780,000, and

> 17,033,000) are only ball park frequencies. The

> higher the frequency

> range in these old instruments the greater the error

> in the frequency.

> So we have to ask ourselves what is the real M.O.R.

> frequency for the

> BX.

>

>

>

> Testing on organisms will be the only way to find

> out what the correct

> frequencies are. When these doctors start testing

> the high frequencies,

> later this year or early next spring, they are going

> to start with e

> coli, staph and streph. These organisms can be seen

> with a standard

> microscope. E coli is motile so it will be easy to

> see if a frequency

> has killed it. Staph and streph are non-motile so

> the only way to test

> them is to culture them. This is very easy to do.

> Rife had to do the

> same thing. On the Rife CD's he said that with many

> organisms they

> could see no change in them at all when looking at

> them under the

> microscope. Rife said the only way they could tell

> if they devitalized

> them is by culturing them. Many viruses can be

> cultured today because

> since Rife's day several good virus culturing media

> have been

> discovered. Also we have Kendalls media which also

> can be made. If a

> virus grows in the test tube media it will go

> cloudy. Viruses can be

> treated with frequencies over a range of 50 to

> 100,000 hertz and then

> cultured to see if they grow. As soon as the media

> shows no growth you

> will then know which frequency range has the M.O.R.

> This way, even

> without a microscope like Rife's, the M.O.R. of an

> organism can be

> found. This is the method Rife would have had to use

> to find the M.O.R.

> of any non-motile organism whether it be a virus or

> a bacteria.

>

>

>

> You can contact me off list about Bedini.

>

>

>

> Jeff Garff

>

> jgarff@...

>

>

>

>

>

> >Thanks Jeff

> >It was very good to read that .And to remember

> crucial

> >Rife facts and stick to them.

> >Congratulations you seems very close in rebuilding

> the

> >real Beam Ray.

> >How then will you get the Rife virus and °see° it?

> >Alan

>

>

>

> >Hi jeff

> >I also duplicated the Aubrey Beam ray and it

> appeared

> >to be of very bad design, unstable and

> inconsistent.

> >I came to the same conclusion as you and your

> friends

> >i\e working in a faraday environment with modulated

> >power,freq. carrier and sine waves.

> >Since you agree to get to the same Results Rife got

> is

> >to do exactly like him how then will you see his

> >°viruses° and how will you culture them?

> >You have an °advantage° in knowing Bedini.I have

> heard

> >many times of him. And I would be very glad to talk

> >with him. Could you help me in getting in touch

> with

> >him?

> >Your post was a real reawakening refresher.

> >Alan

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

__________________________________________________