How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

One of the most important features of this forum, is the independant assessment of a wide range of Rife devices and manufacturers.

As I have only personally seen and used a few Rife devices, I was left with the problem of how to make a reasonable and fair comparison, that is of use to the entire Rife community. The concept I have decided to implement is as fair as I believe is possible.

There are a number of aspects that can be compared and I wish to make the method used transparent to all - both manufacturers and members of this forum.

I will be using the concept that the BBC uses when gathering news: To be unbiased, you have to tell both sides of the story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The questions, for the manufactures, that I

Please send me a description of your company and Rife products for me to use as a basis for describing your Rife product(s). This should be in the form of a description the readers can recognise as being fair, without having the feeling they are reading some form of advertising. Unjustifiable claims ("We make the world's best...", "Nobody else can do this...", etc.) and criticism of competitors products, etc. is not acceptable and will not be used. Please also supply images of your equipment preferably showing it from all sides. If your equipment has been medically certified, and/or you have run clinical trials, etc. in any way, please provide full details of this, too.

In order for me to have basic information about each organisation, I also ask you to answer the following questions:

• Name of Device, Photo(s) of device, Introduction
• Model No., Description, Type
• Release date, Made by,
• Contact, Tel. (Time to call), Fax, E-Mail, Web site URL, User online forum url (if any)
• Sold in Europe by..., and Price in Euro!
• Sold in America by..., and Price in Dollar!
• Sold in (country) by..., and Price in Euro/Dollar/Whatever
• Special features, Units sold,
• Certification (medical CE, TGA, FDA, etc.)
• Clinical Trials (some organisatiosn have already done these)
• Other trials
• Testomonials (independently verified?)
• Claims made, Verification of claims
• Waveform used, Frequency range, Frequency steps, Voltage range
  Voltage steps, Waveform accuracy, Oscilloscope images of waveform
• PC Programmable?, User Programmable?,
• Diagnostic capability (method used)
• Operating manual available in which languages
• Any further Comments

---

The other side of the story is the response from the users. To determine this, I have looked through the messages posted, in the last 3 years, to the 3 existing Rife lists on the Internet (until recently, all on Yahoogroups). After reading the messages, I then do my best to summarise what I have found on each unit. Additionally, I also take account of messages sent to me privately.

I have chosen a method that allows the members of this forum to be able to openly and democratically state their true opinion, while remaining annoymous! To achieve this, I am making use of the POLLING feature, of this forum, to ask the users the same questions about each unit on the market! A Poll is basically a message containing a question with up to 10 different answers. Each member of the forum can answer each question once as thay feel fit. Once a vote has been made, it cannot be changed and every member only has one vote for each question. I can assure all members that I will never release details of who voted for what (I will not even investigate this, myself).

I ask all the members of this forum to vote conscientiously for those devices you have been able to form an honest opinion about. In order to prevent misuse of this feature, you will need to join the respective usergroup for the device before you can vote in these polls.

I think the above factors will allow for as fair an assesment as is possible and thereby assist people interested in buying Rife equipment to be as well advised as is possible.

I am new to the group, and my mind is reeling from an internet search for the most effective/economical Rife machine.

In this forum's FAQ section is a topic named "How are Rife manufacturers compared?" The author outlined a very impressive idea for compiling a list to compare, yet I can not find it yet on this site? Am I missing it, or is it elsewhere? Can anybody help???

Thank you so much for your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Detelj

I am new to the group, and my mind is reeling from an internet search for the most effective/economical Rife machine.

In this forum's FAQ section is a topic named "How are Rife manufacturers compared?" The author outlined a very impressive idea for compiling a list to compare, yet I can not find it yet on this site? Am I missing it, or is it elsewhere? Can anybody help???

Thank you so much for your time.

---

Hi Doug,
the project to compare a wide range of devices has been on hold for some time due to other projects. However, I do hope to restart that project here on this forum during this year.

Regards

Peter

Hi,

I have been on the YAHOO! Rife Group for a few years now. I am very convinced of the beneficial effects of Rife technology, and have always wanted to buy some of those devices frequently mentioned in the Group. However, I am much confused by the numerous machines available on the market, each claiming to be the best. As such, Peter Walker's initiative to establish a comparison system on this platform is long overdue and much welcome.

I like to express my personal gratitude to Mr. Walker for the invaluable contribution and immense sacrifice he has made for the benefit of mankind in general, and the Rife community in particular.

Keep it up, Peter.

HEAR! HEAR! Thank you Peter! :grin:

I also second the following:

"As such, Peter Walker's initiative to establish a comparison system on this platform is long overdue and much welcome." :hihi:

Thanks Bernard! :wink:
@nnie

A friend has been diagnosed with advanced prostste cancer and is in need of some help. After diong some reading and looking around I find some Rife machines to have handles that you hold and some to use light. What should I be looking for? I see so many alternatives and I don't have that much time to read volumes of study material. If I might glean from the research others have done and save the time I would be appreciative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Sacks

A friend has been diagnosed with advanced prostste cancer and is in need of some help. After diong some reading and looking around I find some Rife machines to have handles that you hold and some to use light. What should I be looking for? I see so many alternatives and I don't have that much time to read volumes of study material. If I might glean from the research others have done and save the time I would be appreciative.

---

SEE: http://truerife.com/TrueRifeQuestions.html

Mike www.truerife.com

Are there places that rent the equipment so the burden of the thousands of dollars might be avoided?

Hello Rick
As you have found out by now, its very easy to invest several thousands of dollars in this equipment if you've got it to spend.
I think if I was in the position of your friend I would spend that money on a airline ticket to Austraila to visit the clinic of Dr. John Holt who has the only proven protocol for defeating most cancers.
More information on Dr. John Holt can be located on this website.
Best Wishes
randall

Hi Randall andothers,
I am so very new to all of this. I am a Physical Therapist, specializing in Electromyography, (nerve and muscle testing) for 31 years. I actually have a friend dying of 2 forms of cancer his namd is also Randall..anyway I have read a great deal on the NET and certainly buy all of how this science has been squashed by the big boys...I have recently purchased some of the CD with Freq's and the bood about Cancer . Need to learn a great deal. Just facinated by the whole deal. I am also curious about what machine to buy if I were to get one....though not personally in the market, I would very much like to feel comfortable in what to suggest to someone..
ALSO does any one have any experience with using the CD programs and computer speakers, or headphones.. ?
I have also wanted to know if the treatment Frequencies are in the 20 to 20 range that is "in theory" audible to the human ear, or are these Freq's and the harmonics in differnet areas not audible.
Great to hear from anyone.
Thanks to all
Stephen Freeman
252-726-1192 USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Tigchelaar

SEE: http://truerife.com/TrueRifeQuestions.html

Mike www.truerife.com

---

Hello Michael Tigchelaar

The answer that you have given on you web site under “Contact Vs Plasma” in regards to pad devices would be good if it was correct. Many scientific tests called “Bio-Electrical Impedance Analysis” have been done on the human body which show that your description and answer is not correct. These tests prove that low frequencies (5,000 hertz) will penetrate the body but only go through the connective tissue. They will not go into the cell. “The Skin Effect” would only apply if the human body was made of copper. The real question is “What is the Cell Effect.” These many impedance tests show that at about 1MHz (1 million cycles per second or hertz) there is no more resistance in the biological tissue of the body. Low frequencies below about 10,000 hertz only travel through the connective tissue of the body. At about 10,000 hertz frequencies begin to penetrate the outside layers of the cell. This scale gradually goes up so that at about 100,000 hertz penetration into the cell is very noticeable. From 100,000 hertz to 1,000,000 hertz (1MHz) penetration into the cell is significant until full penetration is achieved at 1MHz.

Your description of pad devices as being like a kitchen “stove” which “transfer their energy through surfaces and therefore are excellent in treating the blood, but may have some limitations as regards full body penetration” is giving people incorrect information.
These scientific tests also show the body to be about 450 to 500 ohms not “1 million ohms.” This 450 to 500 ohms is an overall figure because the legs are different that the arms and the arms are different than the torso.

These tests prove that the frequencies from a pad instruments are not like putting a “turkey on top of the stoves burner vs a pot of water which conducts energy much easier”. These scientific “Bio-Electrical Impedance Analysis” test prove that low audio frequencies from a pad device penetrate into the body and go throughout all the connective tissue. If higher frequencies are used, such as a carrier frequency of at least 1MHz then full penetration of these audio frequencies is made into the cells and the bone.

It would be better to give people correct information so that they can make a more informed decision. Here is a link to one of these scientific tests that was on the web.

http://www.rifevideos.com/pdf/skin_effect_and_bio-impedance_analysis.pdf


Best wishes
Jeff Garff
www.rifevideos.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Garff

Hello Michael Tigchelaar

The answer that you have given on you web site under “Contact Vs Plasma” in regards to pad devices would be good if it was correct.
<snip>
It would be better to give people correct information so that they can make a more informed decision. <snip>

---

A far more seriously incorrect statement that Michael is making is in calling his web site and machines "True Rife". They are not "true Rife", and calling them such is a misrepresentation of and disservice to Rife's name and legacy. Any clinical therapeutic efficacy his machines may produce is irrelevant to the point being made.

The biggest obstacle to the advancement of "true" Rife research is the Rife community's misrepresentation of what a "true Rife" machine is, and the methodolgy used to establish it as "true Rife". This ultimately filters down into people being confused as to how to proceed, what machine to buy, etc.

Regards,


Jason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Ringas

A far more seriously incorrect statement that Michael is making is in calling his web site and machines "True Rife". They are not "true Rife", and calling them such is a misrepresentation of and disservice to Rife's name and legacy. Any clinical therapeutic efficacy his machines may produce is irrelevant to the point being made.

The biggest obstacle to the advancement of "true" Rife research is the Rife community's misrepresentation of what a "true Rife" machine is, and the methodolgy used to establish it as "true Rife". This ultimately filters down into people being confused as to how to proceed, what machine to buy, etc.

Regards,


Jason

---

Hello Jason,

Your point is well taken. Dr. Rife made this statement on the Rife CDs.

“Well it’s been called a half a dozen different things, a frequency device now, but it was called a Rife ray at one time. I made them stop that because I didn’t want my name on it. Some quack might get a hold of it.”

Because of this statement Rife made we closed all of our web sites that had his name on them and took his name off of our instrument. How could we honor him and then put his name on our machine.

Jeff
www.rifevideos.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Garff

Hello Jason,

Your point is well taken. Dr. Rife made this statement on the Rife CDs.

“Well it’s been called a half a dozen different things, a frequency device now, but it was called a Rife ray at one time. I made them stop that because I didn’t want my name on it. Some quack might get a hold of it.”

Because of this statement Rife made we closed all of our web sites that had his name on them and took his name off of our instrument. How could we honor him and then put his name on our machine.

Jeff
www.rifevideos.com

---

Good point. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with a machine being called "Rife", if it actually was a "true Rife" machine. As I've said so many times before, at present, there's no such thing as a "true Rife" machine. I really wish people would stop abusing Rife's name for their own interests. It is a very sad reality that in many respects, it is we the Rife community that have become the quacks that Rife feared would sully his name and reputation. That may be a harsh statement, but I believe it's a totally true one, and all would do well to reflect upon it.

Regards,


Jason

As regards our published research on body impact energy, we are in full agreement with your research as regards frequency penetration to the cells. We were discussing impact energy not frequency penetration. Even A.M. and F.M. broadcast penetrate our cells. But what is the impact energy? Is it really sufficient enough cause damage?

Having said this, we do not argue with results. If a Pad device is demonstrated to reduce the viral load of HIV through a comparitive study great! We do not have a problem with pad / contact devices. We actually produce a contact device ourselves and have reports of excellent results.

Rife Plasma and Pad devices however operate on entirely different principles of ENERGY transference.

We are in favor of both pad and plasma. Both methods of energy transference have their own advantages and disadvantages. We recommend both.

Mike www.truerife.com

Hi MIke and other
I am a Physical therapist doing Electromyography for 31 years. that is a fancy muscle and nerve test. I use a gel "Sonigel" when placing my electrodes on the ski. I tape them on.."OLd School" the newer ones are self adhesive and pre gelled...anyway I use Sonigel, as even with a slight air space the current I use will not effeciently pass from electrode to and into the skin and eventuyally into the nerve tissue which I am testing. I have read many of the Forum posts and have not seen any mention of a gel. I know that with Ulatrsound..which I have also used...that we need to Sonigel for the same reasons...and then you have the OB-GYN doctors using the gel for ultrasound of pregnang women. ....Hmm in just a though just now....could or would a clinical ultrasound unit used by therapist, and chiropracters, also work as a Rife..."if you could find the freqs.?

Anyway I was just want to ask or inquire about the Gel ussage.
All Be Blessed
Stephen Freeman North Carolina
Sfreeman@ec.rr.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Freeman

<snip>
Anyway I was just want to ask or inquire about the Gel ussage.

---

I've used a pad machine with both self-adhesive and gel type electrodes. They both work fine. They're more for a focused type of application rather than a generalized whole body type of set-up that is commonly used.

Regards,


Jason

Hello Michael Tigchelaar

I appreciate you giving an explanation but I have a few questions before I am willing to accept your explanation.

First I would like to say, this research on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” is not our research. These are independent scientific tests that have been done on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” with regards to frequency penetration into the human body. As you know there are two different types of pad instruments. Some of them use a carrier frequency and some do not. Frequencies output from a non-carrier instrument, in square wave form, produce harmonics up to about 500,000 hertz. We have tested this on a spectrum analyzer. This can account for a significant amount of cell penetration in the body according to these Bio-Impedance tests. The energy that comes from an RF carrier instrument will create a very strong electromagnetic field which can be read with a tri-field meter just the same as a ray tube and these “Bio-Impedance Analysis” tests prove that energy can fully penetrate the cells of the body. I mention this because the many reports on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” discuss RF frequencies up to 1 MHz and the fact that the human body has no resistance to frequencies of this range or higher.

<As regards our published research on body impact energy, we are in full agreement with your research as regards frequency penetration to the cells. We were discussing impact energy not frequency penetration. Even A.M. and F.M. broadcast penetrate our cells. But what is the impact energy? Is it really sufficient enough cause damage?>

Here are a few of my questions. Do you have any scientific papers on this “Body Impact Energy”? I have never heard of it before. How do you measure it coming out of the ray tube? How do you measure it in the body? Also how do you determine that it is penetrating the cells? Is your published research, your research, or is it independent scientific tests that have been done in laboratories on EM plasma devices proving they have superior “Body Impact Energy”?

The reason I ask these questions is, I do not see any scientific information on your site backing up your claim. I am not trying to be negative about EM devices because I have seen too many good results with the people who use them. But if you do have independent scientific tests that substantiate your claim then I would really like to get that information because I believe it would be very helpful. Without this kind of proof, what you say on your web site is nothing but your personal opinion and your claim is still misleading and incorrect. When I first started to talk about “Bio-Impedance Analysis” many people wanted me to send them the scientific proof, which I did.

<Rife Plasma and Pad devices however operate on entirely different principles of ENERGY transference>

I do not have a problem with the fact that RF Pad and Plasma work on different methods of transferring energy. But the real question is does it really make any difference? The reason I bring this up is, if it really does make a big difference then the EMEM type of instruments, like pad instruments, have a couple of problems. The first problem is, Rife used RF frequencies output through a ray tube and this is how he found the M.O.R.s that resonated with the organisms. Rife’s method of energy transfer was RF. His frequencies ranged from 139,200 hertz for Anthrax to 1,604,000 for the BX and BY organisms. The second problem is, EMEM ray tube instruments cannot reach this frequency range because they are specifically built to work on EM energy in the low audio frequency range. The energy from an RF ray tube is different than the energy from an EMEM type of ray tube. An RF pad instrument does not use a ray tube so this could be the main problem with them but they can output the RF frequencies that Rife used. Dr. Robert P. Stafford reported that his tests with the audio frequencies on Staph and Strep cultures had no effect on the organism. Many others have done the same tests with the same results. After all of Dr. Stafford’s testing he came to the conclusion that all the audio frequencies did was to boost the immune system. So which is more important the correct frequency or the ray tube? We all may be on shaky ground.

If the method of energy transfer really matters as I mentioned earlier then how can an EM instrument be called a “Rife plasma device” when it is not built on any of Rife’s original principles. We call our instrument a “Function Generator” not a “Rife Machine”. No pad instrument should ever be called a Rife machine.

Since Rife did not want his name put on any instrument then the only thing you can call your instrument is an “EM Plasma Device” not a “Rife Plasma Device.” Even if in the future Rife’s method of devitalizing organisms is fully figured out it should never have his name put on it because of his request. As I motioned earlier we removed Rife’s name off of our instrument when we listened to the audio tapes and heard Rife say he didn’t want his name put on any instrument.

<If a Pad device is demonstrated to reduce the viral load of HIV through a comparitive study great!>

Has your HIV study been confirmed by independent medical trials. None of the good results that we have seen with people who have used pad instruments on HIV have been verified by studies. So I do not think personal claims are of much value in arguing this point.

Jeff Garff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Tigchelaar

As regards our published research on body impact energy, we are in full agreement with your research as regards frequency penetration to the cells. We were discussing impact energy not frequency penetration. Even A.M. and F.M. broadcast penetrate our cells. But what is the impact energy? Is it really sufficient enough cause damage?

Having said this, we do not argue with results. If a Pad device is demonstrated to reduce the viral load of HIV through a comparitive study great! We do not have a problem with pad / contact devices. We actually produce a contact device ourselves and have reports of excellent results.

Rife Plasma and Pad devices however operate on entirely different principles of ENERGY transference.

We are in favor of both pad and plasma. Both methods of energy transference have their own advantages and disadvantages. We recommend both.

Mike www.truerife.com

---

In reference to the debate on plasma tube versus pad type applications, I've never seen any definite information on the subject. We just don't know at this juncture if the plasma tube adds something "extra", making it a necessity. If anyone makes a claim or implication that their machine is "better", because it uses a plasma tube, they should back it up with some solid evidence. By the same token, if someone claims that the plasma tube is not necessary, then that should be backed up too.

This comes back to the fundamental issues of what is Rife research, Rife technology, and Rife therapy? Despite all that we've learned over the years, there are still many people who blatantly misrepresent the matter. As I've said so many times before, "Rife" is not about any particular hardware, it's about a methodology. It doesn't matter if you use pads, plasma tubes, vacuum tubes, transistors, analog, digital, or whatever else. If you can produce the "Rife effect", and can demonstrate it with the same methodology that Rife used, that's all that matters. In "Rife therapy", you shouldn't really be talking about what disease you're treating, but rather what microorganism you're trying to devitalize. In Rife's hand-written lab notes, they didn't "ray" the experimental animals for cancer, they "rayed" them for the BX organism. The fact that Rife believed the BX organism was the cause of the cancer is beside the point. "Rife therapy" is founded upon rigorous laboratory research and testing, not clinical trials or results. Clinical results may be the ultimate goal, but if your "therapy" is not founded upon, or is somehow divorced from in vitro laboratory research, it's not "Rife therapy" and it's not "Rife research". Anyone claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the matter, and is "muddying the water". They are not only doing a disservice to Rife's name and legacy, but are doing a disservice to the broader field of electrotherapy. This misrepresentation and in some cases outright fraud needs to stop.

Regards,


Jason

P.S. Who disagrees with what I've said here, and why? What I've said here is the crux of what Rife is all about, so I would like to hear what any objections may be and why.

I just found this discussion, and now have a few questions for Mr. Garff:

I notice that the GB-4000 is now being offered with an Emem-type plasma device.

1. Can you run the carrier from the GB-4000 through the Emem?
2. What is the highest frequency from the GB-4000 that can be run through the Emem?
3. Is the Emem-SRX 10Khz (as stated on one page of your website) or 10,000,000 Hz as stated on another page?
4. Can the amp be used with the Emem?

Thank you,

Mike

Hello Mike,

I hope these answers will be helpful.

>I just found this discussion, and now have a few questions for Mr. Garff:
I notice that the GB-4000 is now being offered with an Emem-type plasma device.

This site is one of our distributors site. We do not built the Emem-SRX.

>1. Can you run the carrier from the GB-4000 through the Emem?

No. If you use the carrier frequency it will damage it.

>2. What is the highest frequency from the GB-4000 that can be run through the Emem?

I believe that you can run up to 10,000 hertz through it.

>3. Is the Emem-SRX 10Khz (as stated on one page of your website) or 10,000,000 Hz as stated on another page?

The Emem-SRX can output up to 10,000,000 Hz if you use it as a stand alone instrument. But you need to understand that it only outputs 1/10 of one watt (0.10). This is all the FCC will allow. So the power is very limited. Dr. Rife’s 1934 instrument was 500 times more powerful.

>4. Can the amp be used with the Emem?

No. It will damage it.

Best wishes
Jeff Garff

I have not read on the Rife forum in a couple of weeks, but received nontification about the recent post regarding Equipment. I also just this past week read what is loosly called the Copmparet papers or files..here is the link to 49 pages of very interesting information abot freqs. and power and other intersting things Bertrand L Comparet was Dr Rife's attorney, and has very intersting information in his article.
http://www.rife.org/john%20marsh/rifeinstrumenthistory.pdf

What is interesting and what I am Now asking.. I am beginning to understand carrier freq..as pointed out in the Comparet article. I am curios about several machines I am considering getting, as to how Srtong an output power the machines put out. One is the Plasma Plus, One made by Bruce Stenulson the SYSTEM 8CE EM+ and the 3rd is the
GB-04000. I love the looks and compactness of the GB- 4000 and the price is also nice. The other two units use both plasma tubes with rays a well, as I understand it, you can use contact plates as well. There may be others but nothing has sparked my interest like these 3 machines. The GB has a great way to read freq, the other 2 units seem to have a thrown together way of reading Frq, but I do like other features of the other units.

I have not read enough, or have understood RIFE long enough...only 3 or 4 weeks now... to grasp all that either unit will or will not do. But I do want a strong machine with high output. Using plasma tubes sounds like it "covers more teritory" where as the pads or plates seem less coverage or possibly peneration. I am not particularily worried about being discovered wtih broadcasting waves into the air as did occure in the Comparet article above.
I have been told by one user of the 8CE EM+ machine that is is stong but the foot print is not that large, and fades after about 12 feet, but is very stong inside of that range. I do not know if the 8CE or the Plasma Plus use carrier waves..as I definitely feel this is something very valid that you need. I am a Physical Therapis, wanting to learn more and have volunteer research subjects , but have no plans to use any unit in my practic or with any of my patients.
Any one wanting to comment or clarify my head or my questons would be greatly appreciatd. Also has anyone or many of you heard of the DNA frequencies being used and developed by Charlen Boehm.

Thanks to all involved with this facinating information
Coastalguy

None of Bruce Stenulson's machines use a carrier frequency. He feels it is not needed and promotes electro-sensitivity. Although it may be possible to do it with an external frequency generator. I have thought of using my GB-4000 to drive it, but I need to buy one first.

Of course, it would be totally illegal to run it that way.

Dan Bergman

Dan is correct in that the 8ce EM+ unit does not incorporate a carrier frequency and it is also true that the unit does not need one.
The plasma field generated from the double bubble tubes is similar to a pulsed magnetic field in that the field penetrates 100% without the need for a carrier frequency.
Crane/pad devices, because they output dc electricity do require a carrier frequency to penetrate below skin debth though there is no garrantee that the "juice" will affect deep tissue organs. Though I hope it does.
I will say that the 8 or 9ce EM systems are not for everyone, these systems are for researchers who refuse to trust some manufacture to do their thinking for them! As is promoted by the maker of the Plasma Plus II on their webpage:
"The Plasma Plus II does all the thinking for you."
Thats the same song the medical profession sings. Thats the same song Preachers sing, thats the same song Politicians sing.....everybody knows whats best for you but you.
I realize many people do not have the desire to delve as deeply into frequency research and application as I do and it is indeed a Good thing that the mfg's. do. There are many other units out there that are excellent for normal people.
Though I have incorporated the use of Atler Robin's F-125 frequency generator to supply frequencies to the "8" I could have used Ken Uzalls, Frex 16 software and saved a lot of money.Or I could have used the GB4000 as a frequency generator without breaking any known laws.
The choices facing people getting into this field are daunting and am I glad I'm not one of them.
Best wishes
randall

Regarding the 8CE EM+ and Power:
I've been using this system for over a year now and at all power levels but never experienced anything to compare the last 24 hours.
Last evening I decided to run a frequency set for Clymadia pheunomiae(available from Char Bohem at DNA Pathogen Frequencies)
I set up the "8" to incorporate the use of 2, double bubble tubes and one grounding tube ( for the feet). I intutively chose the 4th power setting (150) from a possible 9.
To my astonishment, this lower power setting I seldom use was very uncomfortable to hold on to.
I surmised that the energy from tubes was being absorbed into my system by "something" like a sponge soaking up water.(hopefully Clymadia) Strictly a guess.
There is no way I could have held onto those tubes at the next power level up, which is where I normall start a run.
I went to bed that evening with my equaliberum "off"
I awoke this morning with the same condition with the added phenomon of being slightly incoherent....like being very mildly drunk.
After a few hours the conditions persisted...I called Bruce.
He suggested a set of frequencies to assist energy stabilization which I ran and after a nap got up feeling 95%.
Moral of the story: in your quest for more power, be carefull how you apply it. I certainly will be.
randall

Digital frequency using headphones do not work. And actually digital frequency from cds can cause a cancer. WHAT works is analog. But not all head phones are good. The best way is to use a subwofer the type with a front speaker at least 12 inch 15 is better. Play the ANALOG frequency (I am talking about low frequency I am not sure about high frequency. I think you can keep dividing it down by 2 to get the lower frequency. Play that. It wont harm other people in the room if your body dont need it, no effect. but best to be out of the room if you dont need the frequency.
I have been studying it for a year (low frequency not Rife high frequency). I have had sucuess on back pain and I had a runny nose a few times and I listened to 22.02 (frequency for vitimin C) and with in seconds my nose stoped running.　　I know that it is not a major disease but it WORKED!!!

>ALSO does any one have any experience with using the CD programs and computer speakers, or headphones.. ?

What is the difference between using a sound card that are used by some Rife Manufacturers as a frequency generator as opposed to the Atelier Robin frequency generators used by TrueRife?
[IMG]aoladp://MA19995139-0002/F-117%20Phaser.jpg[/IMG]
The F-117 uses a true precision frequency generator as opposed to
sound cards which have severe limitations.


The most advance computer controlled frequency
generator is the heart of TrueRife machines

(The duplication of the F-117 Internal frequency generator represents at least a $100,000 investment to engineer. This is why some vendors use "cheap" ineffective audio sound cards within their system. The clue as to if a cheap sound card is being used is the manufacturer will advertise that you can run his system with a MP 3 player)

This question was posed to our Manufacturer. This is the response:

Hi Mike,

The main difference between a sound card and our frequency generators is bandwidth. The other difference, not strictly related to the limitations of a sound card is programmability. I am not aware of a software as flexible as F100 that works with sound cards. As far as bandwidth, It is one difference that has major implications for the different features you use with our generators: square waves, duty cycle control.

To produce a reasonable square wave at 10KHZ for example, you need a generator with a bandwidth of at least 200 KHZ. The higher the bandwidth,the more square the wave will be and the more harmonics it contains. A PC sound card tops at 20KHZ (180 KHZ short) The F117 has a square wave with a rise/fall time of a few nano-seconds. That translates into a bandwidth in the 800 MHZ region for the F-117 frequency generator.

Duty cycle control is another feature that requires high bandwidth and precise wave form control simply not possible with a PC sound card.

Best Regards,

Patrick Robin


These are the Specs of the board used in TrueRife systems:

Specifications:

DDS square wave frequency generation controlled by internal 32 bit processor
MS-Windows F100 3.0 software to control the F110 from a PC USB port.
Program file format fully compatible with F100 2.0 and our previous generators
2 internal channels: A:1.5 MHZ, B:100 KHZ
1 output 5 V TTL.
Channels A,B can be routed to the output in any combination (see note 2)
Any of the 2 internal channels can be used as a carrier for the other channel
Channel A,B frequency resolution: .01 HZ
Reference quartz oscillator stability: 50 ppm
Channels A,B duty cycle programmable.
Can be programmed to automatically load and run a program at powerup in standalone mode without the need for a PC.
Max output current 100 ma

Bandwidth 800 MHZ

Question: Why does TrueRife have so much greater Radiant energy output as compared to other systems?
(Measurements taken at 200 Hz
[IMG]aoladp://MA21152258-0019/Qx2%20Output.JPG[/IMG]
There are possibly two reasons:
[IMG]aoladp://MA21152258-0020/Rife%20Machine.JPG[/IMG]

1. The device is not properly balanced to deliver maximum power to the Plasma Tube or the
Electrodes or has too little power internally. Some devices boasting higher frequency ranges
are using something similar to a high voltage neon sign transformer to generate high voltage to light the
plasma tube (bulb). These transformers have very little EMF output but do light the tube. It
is comparable to standing in front of a neon sign.

[IMG]aoladp://MA21152258-0021/trebing%20bulb.JPG[/IMG]
2. Rife tube has no electrodes: The tube picture above has NO electrodes but attempts to deliver power by winding high voltage wire around the glass. This has a "choking effect" on signal input and output reducing a 300 Watt system to the output of a 65 Watt Light bulb. This setup also induces excessive heat on the internal components often resulting in early failure of the device. Bulb life is also reduced dramatically as the high voltage wire over time burns or arcs through the glass resulting in tube failure. __________________________________________________ ___________________

[IMG]aoladp://MA21152258-0022/TrueRifeLab3.jpg[/IMG][IMG]aoladp://MA21152258-0023/Image123.jpg[/IMG]
TrueRife Technician Preparing Bulbs / We stock all of types of Rife bulbs built to our specifications

TrueRife has worked with the leading bulb manufacturer in the world (Barry Allred).

TrueRife uses specialty bulbs that are manufactured specifically for Rife applications.
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Question: How do Novelty Plasma Balls compare to TrueRife / Allred Bulbs?


Novelty bulb Rife original double bubble TrueRife Double Bubble

Some vendors are promoting toy novelty bulbs sold by Radio Shack or Wal-Mart as a substitute for professionally manufactured Rife bulbs.

It should be noted that these inexpensive novelty bulbs are simply not the same "animal" as custom manufactured TrueRife / Allred Bulbs. Novelty plasma bulbs will produce a plasma photonic emission (light), but do not have "getters" incorporated inside of the tubes to guarantee clean and strong frequency emission. The Novelty plasma bulb output signal is inferior to say the least as it was designed for entertainment, not for Rife applications.

This is an explanation of what is involved in the manufacturing of our bulbs:

Barry Allred's Comments on the GETTERS incorporated into his tubes

In answer to your inquiries about an internal electrode getter, here is what I can offer as to an explanation. The coating most commonly used is barium strontium carbonate, which is reduced to barium strontium oxide during the heating of the tube manufacture. The oxide coating is a good source of free electrons. In laymen's terms, the getter works as a scavenger inside the tube which is heated 100's of degrees to drive out and open the deep layers of the glass.

As the glass is heated, the electrodes turn cherry red, thus breaking down the barium inside the tube, which is trapped within the walls when it cools back down. After the tube is vacuumed, then gassed, and pressured, then the tube is sealed. This can leave a small impurity in the tube, from the hand torch. Having barium inside the tube, enables the tube to age in on a burn in transformer, usually 60 milliamps. After the heat inside the tube dissipates and the tube begins to burn cool, it is ready to be shipped.

A tube that has been properly pumped will have very little heat with better impedance for a cleaner signal. Ceramic collars are used to keep the gases clean and to keep down impurities.

When a tube is properly pumped and aged, a tube will last 30 years. I have been bending and processing for over 30 years, and have tubes in service that are still burning.

Barry Allred
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________

I am a newcomer to the Rife Forum, and will be purchasing a Rife System within the next few months.

The title of this thread is "How are Rife Manufacturers Compared?" Hoping to see an objective, quantitative assessment of factual info, I was surprised, instead, to see:

1. A Paradox: Over the past 5 years, there have been a number of new or upgraded Rife machines, while simultaneously, there has been a surge in genuine interest from all corners of the world in "everything Rife" . . . yet paradoxically, this thread has been dead since 2008.

2. A Wiki Rife Machine Table, But . . . :
Back in 2009/2010, there was a great attempt by the Wiki folks to create a much needed comparative analysis of different Rife Machines where newcomers like me are able to compare different machine features.

And yet here's another paradox! This Wiki table has not been updated in four years (last update was in Feb 2010).
Link:
http://www.rifewiki.org/wiki/R.I.F.E_Machine_Table

This Forum Deserves A Comparative Table of Rife Machines:
I'm sure that there are many other "potential Rifers" who frequent this site and who, like me, would like to obtain factual info on the various features of Rife Machines. I don't mean to sound ungrateful or offensive to anyone who has donated their time/ energy to provide helpful info within this thread; on the contrary, I appreciate the advice.

However, I have observed that there are representatives of some Rife Machine manufacturers who have used this thread as their own marketing tool, instead of listing factual and truthful info about their product. In my opinion, the content within threads of this RifeForum.com is no place for marketing hype or marketing ads.

So How Do We Get There from Here? A Small Committee, Perhaps?
A fair and objective way to build a factual Table of Rife Machine features would be for a few of us to volunteer to build such a table, then double check the facts before posting it (maybe ask a few Rife "luminaries" for their endorsement of factual data???) There's got to be a few simple groundrules; I can start the process by listing the most important groundrule at the top
( . . . this does not allow the fox to get inside the chicken coop!)
1. No representatives or employees of Rife Machine Manufacturers
2. The final product must be understandable by the average member (i.e. factual info that does not contain "technical priesthood" terminology to confuse or impress the non technical person)
3.
4.
( feel free to add whatever groundrules you believe would be appropriate!)

As a retired electronics engineer, I'm willing to volunteer some of my time to accomplish this, if the forum believes it can be worthwhile. Comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome.


P.S. One such criticism, for example, could be that the politics of creating such a table might not be worth it. Alternatively, the majority on this Forum may agree with my boldfaced statement above that this elite RifeForum deserves a factual table of Rife machines.




<img style="width: 16px; height: 16px; border: 0px none;" id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">

Well, this is a refreshing change, Richard. Thanks for posting about it.

Yes, the Rife Machine Table desperately needs updated. I printed out the left half of it shortly after it came out, added some of my own notes, and then gradually added more information about devices as time wore on.

One thing that would really help the table itself, is to make every other horizontal row in color (not white). It's really difficult to accurately follow the material across the whole width of the chart. And maybe a vertical column could be added in the middle of chart that mirrors the left-hand column.

Char

Char:

Thanks for your suggestions (As a side note, I've done quite a bit of reading here on the RifeForum over the past 6 weeks, and every time I see your name on a thread, I have always found very useful and practical information!!!). So needless to say, I was pleased to see your addition on this thread.

Yes, we desperately need an updated Rife Machine Table, and I agree with your suggestions to make it a lot more easily readable. I had glanced at that Wiki table a few weeks ago, and asked myself if non-technical people would be better served by modifying the Wiki table to conform, to a greater degree, with many of the categories that Peter Walker had identified in the beginning of this thread (wow! that was waay back in 2002!). I also resonate (no pun intended!) with much of the process that Peter had identified back then.

But this undertaking, while a challenge, must be done; it could be made easier to do if we can somehow minimize the politics and unsubstantiated info from folks who represent some of the manufacturers. I'm just a newcomer to this Forum, but I'll do what I can to contribute.

To All: Please feel free to provide your thoughts, as well as constructive criticisms with the current Wiki format that I've referenced above.

R
<img id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">

I am planning to take up that project again soon, probably in March. Just a matter of finding the time to do it.

There are a number of articles I am planning to release on the wiki including device related ones.

Peter:

Members of this Forum are grateful for your continued hard work and dedication.

With all that you do, it's a wonder that you find time for stuff like this. Please reach out to us if we can be of help, even in doing some mundane tasks. I'll be happy to help out in whatever way I can.

R
<img id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">

Its nice to see some life on this forum I was about to give up due to the older posts. I have only owned an Ultimate B3 Frequency Generator it is a 2.4 MHZ Sweep Function Generator. It is currently over 10 yrs old, I do not know how it stacks up to all the latest machines on the market. In fact I am lost as to what I could upgrade to that compares. Also is there anything out there that would fight infections etc thats affordable for someone on a tight budget? Thanks for any help.

Q1) Besides Perl from ResonantLight & RobinF125 & other Robin models, can GB4000 and Doug Coil run frequencies with more than 1 decimal point, such as 705.86, 56.56, etc.?

Q2) Also, what are the frequency range limitations of all these machine? What are the highest and lowest frequecy they can run?
(A) Perl;
(B) RobinF125;
(C) GB4000 with or without plasma light;
(D) Doug Coil

Q3) I also heard that if a machine can't run a certain frequency, we can divide or multiple it by 2 until it reaches a frequency number one's machine can run. For example, if a machine can't run freq. 5.5, we can multiple it by 2, then by 2 by 2 to reach freq. 44 so that that particular rife machine which can only run freq. over 40 can run it. Has anyone had any postive and/or negative experience on this? Please share and/or give your 2 cents. Thanks.

Jen

they may run .23 for example but what is the range of accuracy for the frequency generated?

I know this is an old thread but what about the spooky2 with plasma? They state the original rife machine did not use a carrier hence way more power. New to this rife idea. Just trying to get my head art it all.

"Rife" mean not one type of a machine described. As I know he used 3 types where 2 of them he made and the third was Hoyland's construction. So the word "Rife" mean a frequency machine with a plasma transmitter. Rife didn't use carrier modulation but the mixing of 2 frequencies in his second machine. Hoyland used carrier modulation with a modulation coefficient M>100%. Spooky and many other producers have a good marketing staff so You ought to filter an information.

Ok thanks for the reply. So, is there a machine out there that comes the closest to his original design?
Regards

Whose design? Rife or Hoyland? Some people here try to build a replicas but I think that is worthless.
You will find an other machies which have a good results in healing from a parasites but I don't look for a "rife" or "true rife" but on the individual testimonials. Some machines help some but not the other. Sometimes a proper diet and lifestyle change can do more ...

Hi Jeff,
Been reading your replys and also your replys to Mark Lipton which included you having to run fans to keep your machine cool. The pearl M+ states The ProGen 3 is the culmination of 23 years of extensive research by some of the best frequency specialists in the world. It generates frequencies up to 4,000,000Hz with stunning clarity and class-leading accuracy.
They don't have heat issues as you can run their equipment 24/7. If I read your information correctly your machine goes up to 40,000Hz with heat issues but they go up to 4,000,000Hz with no heat issues. Am I missing something?
Regards

Hi Stanislaw,
There is so many companies stating there's is the best. So confusing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw Chmielarz

Rife didn't use carrier modulation but the mixing of 2 frequencies in his second machine. .

---

I also beleive this is true. I dont think anybody today really knows how that system worked, and today nobody makes or sells anything like that. I am trying to convince people to re-invent these.

Different people insist on different interpretations of the history. Some people insist that the monofrequency approach would be Rife's choice, but there are comments in the archives that clearly contradict that interpretation .

I wrote in other posts comparing some electronic schemes for gas tubes that may have been tried at different times ...

A) superimposing a low frequency with an RF frequency (lo-hi superimposition) .... pre-Hoyland and based on triodes, five output valves in parallel based on Navy MOPA circuit, but possibly with modulation stage not used, battery bank power supplies.

B) superimposing two RF frequencies F1 and F2 to generate a low frequency component F3 (dual RF heterodyning) .... 1934, pentode valves and on-board power supplies

C1) AM to obtain multiple RF sidebands ... effectively this modulates with a harmonic set of low frequencies (AZ-58 c. 1950's)

C2) multiple sideband device as above, but with floating earth etc as described by Dan Jensen (Beam Rays 1939). This design had significant frequency drift in the carrier, but personally I do not beleive that is a flaw because the low frequency component was stable despite that drift.

D) Rife-Bare AM ... modulates with a single square wave (unlikely to have been used by Rife).
...........................................

Comments:

A) This is only my opinion / guess and other people may strongly disagree .... I suspect this worked well on microscope slide samples to demonstrate dielectrophoretic force (DEP) adhesion effects (clumping or agglutination) better than monofrequency (or at least at lower power thresholds) but Hoyland proved it had poor penetration into deep tissue. I outline a simple two-frequency concept, but in a real gas plasma tube device, the output may also include mixing of harmonics. What happens might also depend on whether the signal superimposition occurs in a pre-amp stage or directly in the plasma tube. I beleive the evidence for 5 parallel final valves suggests a single amp that amplifies one (superimposed) signal. Another alternative design that might pre-date this Rife MOPA might use relatively primitive triodes (hooked up as inverters) in series to progressively amplify. This could incorporate AM, but I am voting that Rife was deliberately interested in superimposition.

B) Hoyland's first solution to improve the penetration problem (most other people think this is a dumb complicated idea and that Rife never tried this. But I think it is awesome and I would love to work with a design like that. Nobody has ever messaged me to say they like it, or that they agree it was ever tried by Rife)

C2 An elegant low-cost design that might indirectly deliver a harmonic set of low frequency components via the interference of multiple RF sidebands . BUT does it do a better job that the more expensive design B ???

C1 AZ-58 copied the Hoyland 1939 design but abandoned the floating earth principle in favor of a more conventional circuit . (This also improved the carrier drift). Some people sell modern versions of this style of multiple RF sideband device, but they insist that the bioactive "MOR" is actually one of the RF sidebands. They also insist that Rife's MORs were all within the RF band, meaning that lower frequencies are useless or irrelevant, and the mod frequency is irrelevant, and that MOR is highly dependent on the actual carrier value. They argued that when the AZ-58 altered the original carrier frequency, the designers had no understanding of how the correct amended mod frequency should be calculated, because they were ignorant of the principle of multiple sidebands . With all due respect, my counter-argument is that not enough consideration was given to sideband interaction by these researchers.

Most of these modern multiple sideband devices feature an option for modulation sweep to allow all the frequencies within that part of the RF spectrum to be emitted. I made an unpopular interpretation that the historical charts they refer to list RF sidebands that were convenient to detect and record (more accurate than reading the mod frequency). But on the other hand, given the serious carrier drift, it would be important for calibrating sideband to mod frequency to maintain the equipment with no change of the placement of reactive objects near the tube during the work, and maybe even similar humidity conditions). I beleive the low frequency modulation values are bioactive and the actual RF sideband values are irrelevant, similar to the Rife-Bare paradigm. My personal opinion is that to attempt to delivery DEP force as a therapy, the dwell-times within the effective window should be at least a few seconds. If the modulation is in a sweep mode, I would run the sweep change slowly over a limited window in any given session, not rapidly over a wide window as proposed by Bedini.

D) Rife once used the term "amplitude modulation" and Crane taught that AM was Rife's technology. However this quote may have been referring to the 1939 design. Moreover, signal superimposition schemes even now are described by some people as AM, because you can see a regular envelope in the trace signal. There are theoretical reasons to assume the Rife-Bare devices can deliver a low-frequency MOR (as the mod frequency) because in the simplest analysis there are two RF sidebands that interfere within the target. Some people beleive Rife used a scheme similar to Bare, but using overmodulation instead of square, but bottom line is they may have been misled by Crane.

.................................................. .......

It may be that assuming Rife saw clumping effects (possibly this required custom dilutions in glycerol or sugar solutions to get into a useable DEP window, and most modern Rife researchers may have not been aware of that when attempting to treat bacteria), he looked for a technology that gave the most robust effect, e.g. a device that gave the effect even at modest power settings) ... at some point Rife abandoned monofrequency designs and moved on to two-frequencies simultaneously. Since he had a collaboration with Lee deForest, you would think they would have had a crack at AM, perhaps also by using a large version of deForest's gas triode either as output or as a pre-amp. But from the perspective of delivering an optimal DEP signal, you might consider superimposition instead of AM. Assuming the earlier monofrequency research indicated DEP windows below the RF band, it would seem logical that superimposing RF onto the earlier known LF frequencies would be worth a look. (Hi-lo superimposition) ..... I made a guess that the hi-lo scheme would fail in deep tissue and another guess that Hoyland would also predict that, and a further guess that he might offer a novel dual RF heterodyning scheme as a solution. We do NOT see that well described in the archives, but on the other hand there are obvious gaps in the archives. The one clue that supports my interpretation is a schematic by Crane that modifies an AZ-58 sketch by pencilling in a second RF oscillator stage, shown as connected to the second gas tube electrode.

People might assume the 1939 innovation makes a dual RF design redundant, so why should I prefer dual RF to multiple sidebands ?. One reason is that I know obtaining a fundamental F3 is very different to obtaining a harmonic set. I would say that if I wanted to use extend the research of Kirson et al on cancer cells to improve the existing 200 kHz capacitative plate applicator designs to allow deep non-invasive treatments using RF, I would have various choices to evaluate. My opinion is excluding dual RF would be silly. Moreover there may be some advantages to opposed-wave configurations. Based on Rife's comments criticising harmonic content in the 1939 design, it may be that dual RF might have been Rife's preferred alternative, and the modern obsession with AM is misinterpreted.

Hi Mico!
And what should they write? That they are making the machines that do not serve anything? This is advertising often not supported by any results only opinions of users who managed to settle some health problem. There is no guarantee that someone else with a similar problem will help.
You can read my stories about the construction of electronic devices in the "My R.I.F.E devices" thread. From my experience it results that I do not need a lot of power because for my plasma device in the last version, 12W of power is needed from the mains to be effective. It also follows that it is not necessary to have modulation and a carrier frequency only to know the correct frequency of the pathogen to remove it from the body.
I have recently changed the frequency delivery method to a magnetic (induction) loop and here the power delivered is about 1W to get the effect. These are the results of many years of analyzing the problem, different constructions and, as a result, developing own prototypes.
I understand that people who have a health problem expect that someone will tell them specifically what kind of machine they should buy to remove this problem. There is no unambiguous answer to such a question.

Anyone who wants to sell such devices will use advertising tools to achieve this.

Plasma devices are known to achieve better tissue penetration than pad devices, since electrical current will choose the path of least resistance. So while pad devices may be great for surface skin conditions or blood condition, they are less effective than plasma devices to kill organisms deeper in the body.

Plasma devices with and without carrier waves are known to be effective. But in my case, my pacemaker is not compatible with the carrier wave technology, so my only practical choice to kill a long list of possible organisms is a plasma device that does not use a carrier wave. As Stanislaw suggests a wide variety of devices can be effective, and the choice depends on what the goals of using the Rife device may contain.

Hello Mico Snook,

I am not going to give you a bunch of sales hype. We have been building instruments for almost 19 years. We use cooling fans in all of our instruments because of the power output. The GB-4000 outputs 3.7 watts not just 1/5^th of a watt therefore we use a cooling fan. The SR-4 outputs from 15 to 18 watts so we also use cooling fans with it. The MOPA is a plasma tube device which can output a maximum of 190 watts therefore we use cooling fans also. But we do not have overheating issues and if you want to run them 24/7 you certainly can. We do have customers who do this.

The information you have is old information and we are not limited to 40,000 Hertz with the MOPA. May 1, 2015 over 3 1/2 years ago we updated the MOPA so that it now has the same frequency range of 20,000,000 Hertz that the GB-4000 has. Our brochure has the specifications on it and if you go to www.gbgenerators.com you can download one or just read the specification listed on the site.

Regards,
Jeff Garff
jgarff@cut.net

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mico Snook

Hi Jeff,
Been reading your replys and also your replys to Mark Lipton which included you having to run fans to keep your machine cool. The pearl M+ states The ProGen 3 is the culmination of 23 years of extensive research by some of the best frequency specialists in the world. It generates frequencies up to 4,000,000Hz with stunning clarity and class-leading accuracy.
They don't have heat issues as you can run their equipment 24/7. If I read your information correctly your machine goes up to 40,000Hz with heat issues but they go up to 4,000,000Hz with no heat issues. Am I missing something?
Regards

---

Quote:

---

Mico Snook

First PostsChat with meJoin DateNov 2018LocationQueensland, AustraliaPosts9Thanks0Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Re: How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

Ok thanks for the reply. So, is there a machine out there that comes the closest to his original design?

---

Sees like a simple question :) Sorry, there is still no simple answer because the exact simple Rife mechanism has not been agreed upon in the most basic manner which would be in physics terms.

A historical synopsis is that there are the original Rife devices dating from the 1920's through the early 30's. Then Rife hired Philip Hoyland who designed a 'radio' style Rife device through the later 1930's.

I personally have constructed a true 1939 Hoyland design and am currently attempting to understand what exactly is happening in Philip Hoyland's thinking. Please watch my future upcoming you-tube video demonstration of an archealogical plasma wave from 1939 IF ONLYI CAN GET SOME TIME TO RECORD IT.

The PERL device and also the MOPA were both mentioned in this thread. Both of these devices utilizize working parameters that correlate to the original Rife designs. So, Mico, you are going in the right direction. (Which would I purchase, personally?) I would purchase both then I would consider myself 'equiped' ! (and broke also!).

My interest lately has been in trying to understand how the pulsing/gating aspect has relevance to therapy. Even, if I remember correctly, Anthony Holland added an "added" low frequency gate to his already audio-mod pulsing Bare device and obtained better target coupling. So the Bare and PERL do pulse action.

Now, if we consider the MOPA I have tried to spec-out gating aspect regarding the MOPA with the on-line info. (because I do not posess one of these) but this aspect is unclear to myself.

Hey Jeff, could you say a few words about MOPA gating ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan quote,

Quote:

---

but they insist that the bioactive "MOR" is actually one of the RF sidebands

---

I been working on this, and it is interesting.

There are two aspects related to bioactive MOR's.

1.) There is the whole realm of resonant frequency therapy which involve frequency coupling and the entire Rife history and our present devices; then...

2.) There is this off-shoot side-effect that has manifested un-intentioned since the Oscilloclast device even pre-dating Rife and that is the ability of this energy to agglutenate the cell division process.



lov, dj

in about 2008 I built 3 plasma devices that my wife's sister used to treat her pancreatic cancer. The plasma devices were built according to James E. Bare's book _Resonant Frequency Therapy_ and the parts to build them were from $800 to $1100 depending on if I could find parts at a discount. Her husband thought my devices looked home made and he bought a Resonate Light Pearl M device that now would cost about $6490 to $9790. They are well made but my wife's sister liked the devices I made better. She used the device for 24 months and then decided it wasn't working. Then in one month later her T-cell count went up and she passed away from heart failure. The price of a used copy of James E. Bare's book used has gone way up. I have been using a pad device based on a talking house AM radio transmitter at 1600 cycles with input in square waves. I described how it is made in Rife Forum group pad, Plasma, etc. named something like building a rife device for $300. I had a large tumor in my left lung in June of 2017 and i have been in remission most of the time since. I also go the MD Anderson cancer center and do chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Norman Strand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mico Snook

Hi Stanislaw,
There is so many companies stating there's is the best. So confusing

---

Well if the snob factor counts..... :)

I am mostly Scottish
I don't care about money, its just terrible to me that any should get away and the double curse is the "best" factor to go with the frugal conflict.

Could have bought 3 texas tube setups for what we have spent on Hymbas. (BCX) lifetime, all gear except a couple of the led's still to get. North of 3,500 some.

Do have a T tube/spectro setup. But I had a gut feeling about BCX Ultra even though the tubes were 100s and so far I have been real happy. Organs, skin cancers, i have not used it for everything but it is a pleasure to use, except for the button code programming.
I have since learned mexican hospitals like BCX too and it is a dr's piece - but i think most people can't diagnose, can't monitor progress well and benefit from a higher margin of safety and "forgiveness" and should go with GB or better with a powerful bulb and amp to go above 300w.
I could tell in 4 minutes that my hyperthyroid person was coming back...can people? Where organs are and their cycles in a day? BOOM just get a big basking lamp you know is getting all of you with good penetration and good impact at depth and you don't need to be much smarter than the bulb and its 1/3rd the cost.

Getting rifemachinebuilder.com next, God willing and jesus tarries, because I think they are a really good all-night light people I get can afford.

Hello Karl, being a new refugee from NM, I decided to write to you. What might you suggest for a beginning rife device seeker? I'm not ill, am a psychotherapist, and would like to find the appropriate device to keep me in the best health and share it with open-minded friends. I'd appreciate greatly any suggestions.

I have been treating people with a wide range of health conditions for over 20 years with the plasma tube device of Dr James Bare and based on what I have personally witnessed it do in that time i am quite confidant that it is not only better than any other device on the market, but better than the original technology of Rife himself. More than happy to discuss or debate this with anyone.

I like the Frex16/Cheb/Spectrotek power gear at the price? Boom boom without all the frills that don't matter to me. That craftsmen appeal I can relate to as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Simmons

I have been treating people with a wide range of health conditions for over 20 years with the plasma tube device of Dr James Bare and based on what I have personally witnessed it do in that time i am quite confidant that it is not only better than any other device on the market, but better than the original technology of Rife himself. More than happy to discuss or debate this with anyone.

---

Yup! Power and output.
Bare's unit is also very simple to operate. It gains in the "home user" column on that one.

Thanks so much for responding, Jim. Is there a good place to find these James Bare outfits?

I will check this out, Karl. Is there a preferred website or contact for the Frex 16 devices? I was in Santa Fe, but couldn't take seeing the rivers of masked masses any longer. There was considerable shaming of unmasked persons going on there as well by common citizens in the stores and streets. Talk about mass hysteria.
Where are you?

Hello Marguerite
This is his website and you can email him from the contact link on his page http://www.rifetechnologies.com
You can also build one of his devoice if you are technical
If not you can inquire about buying one of his device
If you buy one I would be happy to help you and answer questions on how to use it

http://www.spectrotek.com/frex/

That is the site for those systems, but if you are near Alamogordo, you should get one of the David DelightPro's and test for yourself - i think you will see good effects there. I sent you a message - will send another with the contact in it ( lol - sorry)

That stands for anybody close enough to Alamogordo to stop by. We have spooky2, frex16 with texas tube, BCX Ultra with Tubes & HP LED, BZTronics Audio, one of those cheap little QRMAs, that the software will only work half the time (see a pain in real life! and if we can get it to working, play with it!) an Iontophoresis unit, David DelightPro with CES and a god hat. (our array is not on a hat, we use various configurations)

Since SCAMdemic we have practice in boxes all over until we open another site (or go hide)

Ah...sorry i thought you were here until i looked.

David DelightPro with CES
Spooky2 schizophrenia and other psychiatric sets

Those are the most caught up for mental health and under 800.00 for both total.

I can promise all of you a few things. None of these so called Rife Machines work as they were originally designed to. Also that I am current;y filing lawsuits against every company that has sold their fake device and claimed it to be a Rife Machine.

Also one of the first statements was about using two frequencies and no carrier wave. That is correct. But that’s not how it was subjugated to not use a carrier wave.

I can promise all of you a few things. None of these so called Rife Machines work as they were originally designed to. Also that I am current;y filing lawsuits against every company that has sold their fake device and claimed it to be a Rife Machine.

Also one of the first statements was about using two frequencies and no carrier wave. That is correct. But that’s not how it was subjugated to not use a carrier wave.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your knowledge of the subject by explaining exactly what you meant by the the following misspelled and grammatically incorrect statement

" Also one of the first statements was about using two frequencies and no carrier wave. That is correct. But that’s not how it was subjugated to not use a carrier wave "

Wow Jim, your feelings of insecurities are showing with insults like that. I'm busy working but even if I wasn't you wouldn't be able to keep up with what I'm explaining anyway.

You insulted yourself with that sloppy post I only pointed out the fact that your spelling needs work.
How do you know I can't follow what your explaining when you know nothing about me ?
But lets say your right and I'm just not smart enough to understand what your explaining, so with that in mind can you please explain it for all of the other people on this forum who are much smarter than myself and nearly as smart as you clearly are ?

Hello
No inflation of the head on the forum. What is needed by everybody is RESULTS not believings. And what is needed is evaluation of the devices. Some of us have PHD's and are professional researchers. As I said, for a pathology, what percentage cured, what percentage better, what percentage no effect, what percentage worse. And do not forget sampling problems due to too small numbers.
Best regards

Hi Matthew,

Two frequencies and no carrier wave ? There are some quotes from historical archives to support that approach. Do the star-shaped antennas operate on that principle ? But surely the emission would be different to a plasma tube fed with two similar frequencies ?

Hello
Star shaped coils is a slight evolution of the exchangeable coils of the receivers in the early 20's (Rife times). They are known for their excellent quality and high Q, due to low intrinsic capacitance. They are long to produce and so evolved quickly to the honeycomb coil mechanically windable in commercial receivers.
Best regards