Re: MWO

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >My wife has a friend who has a Multi Wave Oscillator. She started to

> >let my wife use this. She suggested using it every other day for 15

> >min. So far she has noticed no difference. I have tried it twice

> >when I was with my wife. I did not notice anything either except it

> >sounds loud and looks like something out of Tesla's lab. Does anyone

> >have different experience with this?

>

> Nielsen

======================================================================

et al:

I have two legitimate MWO's & 2 other units using a small MWO box, etc.

My favorite is one built by Zephyr Tech in 1986 - Still works fine &

everyone that has ever spent time between the two antennas have

responded positively - If you don't like yours, you might consider

selling it to me...

The units can make quite abit of noise without actually working - You

might trimeter the antennas to make sure that energy is being

broadcast - A portion of my Tesla coil shorted out & without measuring,

I couldn't tell except the thing quit producing a semi-euphoric effect

on its subjects including myself.

Best of luck,

/New Castle, PA

>

[Guest guest]

Of course Lakhovky's design based on his " own defined needs " is the only one

with a solid track record of success, much like Rife's own machines are the

only ones with well-documented successes. Contemporary manufacturers are all

too quick to abandon the original designs, that is if they ever understood

them in the first place.

Yes, Lakhovsky's emitters were hollow and gas-filled. You can get hollow

tubes, but not gas-filled.

Randy

>

> The purpose of an antenna during emission is electromagnetic field

> formation. This is what eventually interacts with the body. Field

> formation is most efficient when the antenna is designed to resonate

> with a specific and relatively narrow frequency source and efficient

> design can be difficult with a broad frequency source as

> characterized by a spark gap. MWO type radiators can vary in design

> and still present effective fields for experimental

> applications. Gas-filled tubes have the advantage of emitting plasma

> fields, flavored (if you will forgive the term) with the specific gas'

> spectra.

>

> Lakhovsky had one design based on his own defined needs and radiative

> output requirements which were both a near-field and

> high-energy. Keep in mind that his emitters were supposedly hollow

> and gas-filled (I think). Most designs today take a lower-energy

> output constraint approach, allowing use by a broader spectrum of

> experimenters and possibly within differing RF environments and

> limitations.

>

> There is merit in the low and slow approach if you can only manage a

> smaller, non-clinical class emitter.

>

>

> At 02:41 PM 3/12/2009, you wrote:

> >The frequencies are generated by a spark gap??? Aren't the frequencies

> >generated by the electricity moving through the antennas??? If all you

> need

> >is a spark gap then any coil, alone, is a MWO. Then why did Lakhovsky

> bother

> >with his antennas??

>

> THIS COMMUNICATION IS PRIVATE PROPERTY

>

>

[Guest guest]

What has been your experience with the SEAD 6000? I am testing a Vibe machine

this

Tuesday. Do you know what the differences/similiarities are between the Vibe

and the SEAD 6000? For those interested, you can read about the results of

some clinicial studies on the Vibe here:

http://connectedforcancer.com/2008/02/08/cancer-free-vibe-machine-dhea-budwig-pr\

otocol/

> >>

> >>> I am interested in purchasing a MWO. Any suggestions as to which one

> >>> seems to be the most effective?

> >>> I was thinking about getting a SEAD 6000.

> >>>

> >>> Thanks

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >

> >

> >