Re: New revision of Rife History document

March 17, 2008

Hello ,

I am going to answer both of your emails in this email.

You are correct that there is no mathematical relationship between

the Kennedy equipment, Rife Ray # 4 frequencies and the audio

frequencies. I pointed this out in my paper that there is none. This

fact is still a mystery that may or may not be solved.

The reason I said that the machine malfunctioned is because Dr.

made this statement in his letter.

DR. JOHNSON: " While we have been forced to MODIFY OUR MACHINE SO AS

TO PRODUCE THIS NEW BAND, still it is so much more effective

clinically that we look upon it as a very advantageous discovery. "

Since they had to modify their machine to produce the band then the

instrument did not naturally produce this band of frequencies.

Therefore it had to have malfunctioned in some manner in order to

produce this new band of frequencies. Dr. said it surprised

them when it first happened. Also, since we know that each organism

has its own specific frequency, and each one has to be different,

then the instrument had to have malfunctioned in order to produce all

of the frequencies simultaneously. The #4 instrument's lowest

frequency band covered from 87,000Hz to 172,000 hertz. In order for

the #4 machine to produce a frequency that would break the quartz

glass (which frequency is in the audio range) and also kill all the

other organisms who's resonate frequencies were from 139,200Hz to

1,604,000 Hz would require the instrument to produce many thousands

of frequencies simultaneously. This would require the instrument to

malfunction and produce parasitic oscillations. Just because the

quartz glass broke does not indicate that the audio frequencies it

put out killed any organisms.

I would like to point out that Philip Hoyland did not state that his

frequencies were in the lower bands. He only stated that the

frequencies of the Rife Ray #4 were in the upper bands. We in the

past have assumed that this must have meant that Philip Hoyland's

frequencies were in the lower bands. Our assumptions were incorrect

because he never said his frequencies were in the lower bands.

All of the frequencies that Philip Hoyland read off of Dr. Rife's

1934 instrument were from 139,200Hz to 1,604,000Hz. He read no audio

frequencies. Therefore Dr. Rife and Verne did not

reintroduce audio frequencies because Dr. Rife never used them to

kill or devitalize organisms.

You are correct that the FCC explanation is only speculative. In my

paper it is written in a speculative way. But there has to be some

reason why they did not go back to the Rife Ray #4 instrument. Dr.

Rife clearly stated to Dr. Gonin that he wanted to go back and build

the instrument according the same principles used in the Kennedy

equipment and the Rife Ray #4. Here is Dr. Rife's statement as to

this fact:

RIFE: " I spoke only Friday evening to a Mr. Chamblin, a radio

man now connected with Beam Rays Inc., about the redesign and

building of a device according to the old Rife Ray principles. "

(Letter from Dr. Rife to Gonin dated May 14, 1939)

Since the instrument never went back to the original design there has

to be a reason. I would also like to point out that World War Two was

just beginning and the police, military and aircraft bands were just

above the AM band. What Dr. Rife got away with in the 1920's and

1930's he would not have gotten away with in the 1940s. The readers

will just have to make up their own minds as to why Dr. Rife and

Verne started building audio frequency instruments. The only

thing that is an absolute fact is they did build them and did come up

with audio frequencies to use in them.

The Gruner schematic was obtained from Dr. Gruner. Crane made a

copy from this schematic in 1951 and gave it to Verne . It

states on this schematic that it was Philip Hoyland's conception of

the Rife ray. There are indications on the schematic that the plasma

tube was to be connected to this second Hartley Oscillator. If you

look at the schematic, the negative side of the ray tube is already

hooked up to a Hartley Oscillator. This Hartley Oscillator has no

variable capacitor and its design is identical to Aubrey Scoons

instrument and the AZ-58. The schematic shows that this oscillator

was a fixed oscillator. The positive side of the ray tube also shows

that it is to be connected to a Hartley Oscillator. If you connect it

back to the same fixed Hartley Oscillator you will only have a fixed

frequency oscillator gated with an audio frequency of 1330 hertz. All

you would have is an AZ-58 style instrument that output a single 1330

hertz audio frequency. Of what good would that type of instrument be?

We know that Philip Hoyland's instrument had the ability to change

the frequencies. The front of the Beam Rays instrument shows that it

had a variable dial for changing the frequencies to the various

M.O.Rs. Since it had a variable dial which changed the frequencies

then it logically had to have a variable capacitor. The schematic

shows that this second diagram of a Hartley Oscillator had a variable

capacitor. Therefore the second Hartley Oscillator had a variable

frequency range. If the second oscillator was an audio oscillator as

you have suggested then the tank coil and component parts would have

been huge. Do the Math. Because of these facts it would be a lot

easier to build a tube audio oscillator like they did in Aubrey

Scoon's instrument and the AZ-58. It would have also been a lot

easier to modulate the audio frequencies using the same method used

in the Aubrey Scoon instrument and the AZ-58 than trying to input the

audio frequencies into the positive side of the ray tube.

You asked how we arrived at the values and frequency range of the

second oscillator. This is very simple question to answer. We know

that Philip Hoyland built his Beam Rays instrument in about 5 to 6

months. He said in the Beam Rays Trial that he started it in the

summer of 1936 and completed it before the end of 1936. It is not

logical to believe that he could do in 5 months what it took Dr. Rife

many years to accomplish and that is find new M.O.Rs for all the

various microorganisms. Therefore he had to have used Dr. Rife's

M.O.Rs in his instruments. Any other claims that he may have made

would be nothing but misleading lies. Based on these facts the second

oscillator would have to produce a frequency range of 139,200Hz to

1,604,000Hz. This is how we determined the frequency range and values

of this second Hartley oscillator.

You also asked why we assumed that the second oscillator was attached

to the positive electrode of the phanotron and not the HV rail. The

reason is the tank coil is grounded and if you connect the ray tube

to the High Voltage B+ you would have a direct short of 1000 volts.

That would be the end of the ray tube.

You also assume that the ray tube is a true phanotron tube. The 866

tubes are a true phanotron tubes and the ray tube is not. The ray

tube is an x-ray style tube filled with helium. It was just nick

named phanotron to distinguish it from other ray tube styles. The

tube is equally transmissive in both directions and does not work as

a diode. I do not know where you got your information that it works

in the way you describe because it does not. We have tested it and

the frequency output works equally as well no matter how it is

connected to the instrument.

I also do not know where you came up with the idea that a second

signal applied to the cathode would not produce the same result. The

frequencies output by both oscillators are too close together, being

no further than 2MHz apart, to modulate the fixed 4.68MHz carrier

frequency. We are outputting heterodyned radio frequency waves not

modulated audio frequency waves.

We had no series of pre-existing assumptions, as you claim, when it

came to looking at the Gruner schematic other than it was just an

audio frequency instrument like the AZ-58 and Aubrey Scoon

instrument. It was the fact that the positive side of the ray tube in

the schematic said " To Hartley Oscillator " that made us consider a

new direction. This new direction caused us to first test and see if

connecting the ray tube between the two Hartley Oscillators, as the

schematic shows, would produce Dr. Rife's M.O.Rs. When it did produce

Dr. Rife's M.O.Rs we decided that we needed to build the fixed audio

circuit consisting of the 45 and 76 tube and see what audio frequency

it output and the waveform. We just assumed that it would be a sine

wave but were surprised to find that it produced a damped wave. We

did not need to rebuild the fixed 4.68 RF section that consisted of

the two 866 tubes and the 809 tube because we had already built that

circuit before and knew how it worked.

There is no way to absolutely prove with 100% certainty that this is

the Beam Rays instrument. Only testing will prove it. But at least we

went to work and built the schematic instead of trying to talk it to

death. I suggest that you go to work and build your version of

the schematics and see if it works. The Aubrey Scoon instrument and

AZ-58 have already proven that they do not produce the same results

as the original Beam Rays instrument. Going down the same road makes

no sense. We are going to work with this instrument that produces Dr.

Rife's original frequencies and waveform and see what happens. I am

now building seven more of these instruments and loaning them to

people to use to see what kind of results they will get.

Best wishes

Jeff Garff

>

> Further to my comments on Jeff's interpretation of the Gruner

> circuit, I would like to point out that the plasma tube illustrated

> has non-symmetric electrodes. It is a phanotron with the anode set

at

> 45%. This is the origin of the directional beam. The tube is not

> equally transmissive in both directions, but functions somewhat

like

> a diode. Applying a second signal to the cathode would not produce

> the same result, but, rather, would tend to modulate the fixed

> 4.68MHz emission. Current reversal has implications for the

> efficiency of the tube in emitting acoustic waves. The second

signal

> is the one which is variable in frequency, and which we are

presuming

> to control the difference frequency, hence producing the MOR. BTW

> contrary to what is implied, the output of the second Hartley is

> certainly capable of generating audio if the right value components

> are inserted.

>

> In the interests of clarification, I ask Jeff, or anyone else

> involved with thie project, why did you assume,

>

> 1. the second oscillator did not generate audio? How did you arrive

> at the values and frequency range?

> 2. the second oscillator was attached to the positive electode of

the

> phanotron and not the HV rail?

> 3. The effect sought and produced was simple heterodyning when the

> tube is assymmetrical?

>

> Excuse me for playing the skeptic, and I don't mean to diminish the

> possiblity Jeff et al are correct, but it appears to me his group

> have made a series of assumptions to fit a pre-existing premise. I

am

> only inquiring how and why. I realize alot of work has been done on

> this, so on what technical basis were these decisions made?

>

> Nielsen

>

March 17, 2008

--- Nielsen wrote:

> Further to my comments on Jeff's interpretation of

> the Gruner

> circuit, I would like to point out that the plasma

> tube illustrated

> has non-symmetric electrodes. It is a phanotron with

> the anode set at

> 45%. This is the origin of the directional beam. The

> tube is not

> equally transmissive in both directions, but

> functions somewhat like

> a diode. Applying a second signal to the cathode

> would not produce

> the same result, but, rather, would tend to modulate

> the fixed

> 4.68MHz emission. Current reversal has implications

> for the

> efficiency of the tube in emitting acoustic waves.

Have you actually measured this? I've never seen any

information showing asymmetry or rectification when

driving the plasma tube with RF. I've run phanotron

type tubes on a Bare device in unbalanced mode and I

don't recall seeing any difference on the scope with

switched leads. The electrodes may be physically

asymmetrical and may give a directional effect to the

plasma beam, but with RF, it would do the same thing

regardless of the connections; at least from what I've

seen so far.

> The second signal

> is the one which is variable in frequency, and which

> we are presuming

> to control the difference frequency, hence producing

> the MOR.

The second oscillator is the only part of the whole

schematic that has any frequency adjustable component.

> BTW

> contrary to what is implied, the output of the

> second Hartley is

> certainly capable of generating audio if the right

> value components

> are inserted.

In theory, yes, but in practice, no. I'd like to see

you build a tank circuit that would resonate in the

audio band. The coil would be absolutely massive! It

wouldn't fit into the cabinet. As a quick test, I

took the largest coil (4810TL) at the following link:

http://www.bwantennas.com/coils/aduxlex.htm

It is 6 inches in diameter and 10 inches long, with an

inductance of 740 uH. I chose a capacitance of 2000

pF, and plugged these figures into the resonant

frequency calculator at the following link:

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~jwp/radio/software/lc-calc.html

As you'll see, the resonant frequency comes out to 130

kHz. How big do you think the coil and capacitor

would have to be to resonate in the audio band?

> In the interests of clarification, I ask Jeff, or

> anyone else

> involved with thie project, why did you assume,

>

> 1. the second oscillator did not generate audio? How

> did you arrive

> at the values and frequency range?

The frequency range was simply determined by

subtracting the ~2 MHz range of the original Rife

machine from the 4.68 MHz carrier of the primary

oscillator. The component values fall into place from

there, at least for someone like Jim s. As

pointed out above, there's no practical way this could

be an audio circuit.

> 2. the second oscillator was attached to the

> positive electode of the

> phanotron and not the HV rail?

Yes.

> 3. The effect sought and produced was simple

> heterodyning when the

> tube is assymmetrical?

I remember being told many years ago that the tube is

not asymmetrical from the standpoint of an RF signal.

If you have hard data to show otherwise, I'd like to

see it.

> Excuse me for playing the skeptic, and I don't mean

> to diminish the

> possiblity Jeff et al are correct, but it appears to

> me his group

> have made a series of assumptions to fit a

> pre-existing premise. I am

> only inquiring how and why. I realize alot of work

> has been done on

> this, so on what technical basis were these

> decisions made?

Actually, it was the fact the Jim s is not

contaminated by the (audio) status quo that he was

able to see what others couldn't. As he said to me,

it's the only way that the schematic makes any

functional sense. If it was audio in the second

oscillator, it would be just another variation of the

AZ-58; nothing really new. And what would be the

point of having the audio in the primary oscillator if

the second oscillator was audio? And where is the

band switch that you would need to cover the audio

band?

The value in Jim s' work is that he actually

builds and tries things out, following the leads we

have from the Rife information. Even if an original

Beam Rays machine were to be found and showed this

interpretation to be wrong, it doesn't negate the fact

that we now have a workable machine that can deliver

the original range of Rife frequencies. Jim s

has been in the Rife community for only 2-3 years, and

he has already produced three variations of machines

that can run the original Rife frequencies. What are

the other tech guys doing? No offense, but from what

I've seen, there was very little fundamental progress

being made until Jim came along. Most guys are still

playing around with tube wrappings and cable lengths.

We need more people with technical skills to step up

to the plate. The audio type machines, for all the

good they do clinically, have not rigorously

reproduced the Rife effect. For those who are

searching for the Rife effect, it's time to look

elsewhere and even backtrack a little to machines that

are closer to what Rife was using originally.

Regards,

P.S. I should remind you that this new development is

still being worked out. It still needs to be tested

in the appropriate manner.

March 18, 2008

Thank you Jeff for your response.

>DR. JOHNSON: " While we have been forced to MODIFY OUR MACHINE SO AS

>TO PRODUCE THIS NEW BAND, still it is so much more effective

>clinically that we look upon it as a very advantageous discovery. "

>

>Since they had to modify their machine to produce the band then the

>instrument did not naturally produce this band of frequencies.

>Therefore it had to have malfunctioned in some manner in order to

>produce this new band of frequencies.

" Modification " does not equal " malfunction " in my book. Regardless of

how it was discovered, it appears they were going out of their way to

access this new (audio?) band for its potential therapeutic effects.

So why should we discount that they, or Hoyland, may have

incorporated it into later machines?

>Dr. said it surprised

>them when it first happened. Also, since we know that each organism

>has its own specific frequency, and each one has to be different,

>then the instrument had to have malfunctioned in order to produce all

>of the frequencies simultaneously.

You are assuming the effect was due to pathogen-specific resonance.

As , and I, pointed out in other posts, it may be more broadly

based. There are instances of people being spontaneously cured by

lightning strikes. There is also the well-known Lakhovsky multiple

wave approach. Anyway, why prejudice everything with the

yet-to-be-proven MOR paradigm, when we already have scientifically

documented mechanisms for audio frequency effects?

>Just because the

>quartz glass broke does not indicate that the audio frequencies it

>put out killed any organisms.

Well, the fact that they were _all_ killed indicates to me it was NOT

coordinative resonance at RF. In any event, the energy applied to

each across such a wide spectrum would be so dissipated as to be

virtually ineffective in MOR mode. I think your paper also alludes to this.

>We in the

>past have assumed that this must have meant that Philip Hoyland's

>frequencies were in the lower bands. Our assumptions were incorrect

>because he never said his frequencies were in the lower bands.

That's the problem with assumptions. People too often take them as

fact, get excited and loose objectivity.

>All of the frequencies that Philip Hoyland read off of Dr. Rife's

>1934 instrument were from 139,200Hz to 1,604,000Hz. He read no audio

>frequencies. Therefore Dr. Rife and Verne did not

>reintroduce audio frequencies because Dr. Rife never used them to

>kill or devitalize organisms.

I don't believe we know this either. Rather, it seems to me that Rife

was quite involved in the later audio instruments.

>Dr.

>Rife clearly stated to Dr. Gonin that he wanted to go back and build

>the instrument according the same principles used in the Kennedy

>equipment and the Rife Ray #4. Here is Dr. Rife's statement as to

>this fact: (snip)

>

>Since the instrument never went back to the original design there has

>to be a reason.

Perhaps it was the FCC. Or perhaps it was a technical or commercial decision.

>The positive side of the ray tube also shows that it is to be

>connected to a Hartley Oscillator.

I see that written on the redrawn diagram. Given where and how the

second Hartley is represented on the original, gives me a different

impression. And there is no direct indication it was dedicated to RF.

No component values, etc.

>All you would have is an AZ-58 style instrument that output a single 1330

>hertz audio frequency. Of what good would that type of instrument be?

No good ... unless the second Hartley were to replace the function of

the fixed audio oscillator. Or maybe they found 1330Hz works for

everything. Just joking ;-)

> We know that Philip Hoyland's instrument had the ability to change

>the frequencies. The front of the Beam Rays instrument shows that it

>had a variable dial for changing the frequencies to the various

>M.O.Rs.

Another assumption, I feel. I don't see actual frequencies in Hz

represented on the dial. That would have defeated Hoyland's attempts

to keep them secret.

>If the second oscillator was an audio oscillator as

>you have suggested then the tank coil and component parts would have

>been huge.

So where then is the tank circuit on the second Hartley? The intent

may simply have been to modulate the 4.68MHz.

>It would have also been a lot

>easier to modulate the audio frequencies using the same method used

>in the Aubrey Scoon instrument and the AZ-58 than trying to input the

>audio frequencies into the positive side of the ray tube.

We don't know what waveform they were aiming for. Then again, maybe

" easier " is exactly why they tried the AZ-58 design.

> You asked how we arrived at the values and frequency range of the

>second oscillator. This is very simple question to answer. We know

>that Philip Hoyland built his Beam Rays instrument in about 5 to 6

>months. He said in the Beam Rays Trial that he started it in the

>summer of 1936 and completed it before the end of 1936. It is not

>logical to believe that he could do in 5 months what it took Dr. Rife

>many years to accomplish and that is find new M.O.Rs for all the

>various microorganisms.

Of course not. But what if the Beam Ray's frequency set was

determined from the biological tests Dr. had previously

conducted with his newly discovered " band " ?

>Therefore he had to have used Dr. Rife's

>M.O.Rs in his instruments.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Still not resolved to my mind.

>You also asked why we assumed that the second oscillator was attached

>to the positive electrode of the phanotron and not the HV rail. The

>reason is the tank coil is grounded and if you connect the ray tube

>to the High Voltage B+ you would have a direct short of 1000 volts.

>That would be the end of the ray tube.

There is an intervening winding. It is not a true ground in operation.

>You also assume that the ray tube is a true phanotron tube.

>I also do not know where you came up with the idea that a second

>signal applied to the cathode would not produce the same result.

By " phanotron " I was referring to a plasma tube with a 45% anode

plate, as illustrated in the diagrams. You would not get the same

directional beam applying an unbalanced signal to the cathode. Hence,

while it may appear intechangable on a CRO, the progagated effect is

assymetric due to the geometry of the tube..

>The

>frequencies output by both oscillators are too close together, being

>no further than 2MHz apart, to modulate the fixed 4.68MHz carrier

>frequency.

Once again you are assuming here the second frequency is RF.

>There is no way to absolutely prove with 100% certainty that this is

>the Beam Rays instrument. Only testing will prove it.

I sincerely hope the tests do indicate MOR, and that your team will

share the results with us before too long. My comments here are more

in the spirit of clarification, rather than opposing a logical

premise to guide research. As you point out, the only way to be sure

is to do it, and I take my hat off to those who have taken this on.

Irrespective of the outcome, it could well be a major contribution to

our understanding.

Nielsen

March 18, 2008