Are you curious about Rife? This will help shed
some light for you on an important subject. The electronics in
Royal Raymond Rife 's era were very different than today...
Confused About The Difference Between 'Analog'
and 'Digital' Frequency Generators? Without the technical mumbo
jumbo - here's the scoop for you...
|
The Analog vs. Digital Frequency Debate
|
|
|
A Primer For those wanting to know the Truth?
The current analog vs. digital scene is wrought
with misconceptions and lies in the form of marketing hype. Such as,
digitally
generated frequencies do not vary to imply that they do not have overtones and
undertones. This would only be true if the frequencies
remained digital. That
is why digital frequencies from
DDS (Direct Digital Synthesis) and
DSP (Digital
Signal Processing) are converted to analog before
they are put out. These
Digital-to-Analog Converters are called a DAC for Short.
You can see in the
diagram below that a frequency comes out of a DDS or a DSP looking like stairs.
The signal then goes through a DAC or
Digital-to-Analog Converter. Then it
goes through a Low-Pass or Bandpass Filter to
finish the analog conversion.
Now the frequency that you have is a very accurate analog frequency with all
the overtones and undertones of that frequency. The analog frequency produced
by a digital chip can be
swept up or down with more accuracy than any old tube
analog instrument.
The most important thing to remember is
the frequency has
to be converted to analog before we use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Digitally produced frequencies converted to analog are
far superior to any signal that comes from an old tube
type frequency generator. Old Tube type generators are
very limited. If we want a frequency of 2128.5 an old
tube generator would not be accurate enough to give you
that frequency to use. It could only give you 2128.
Also
digital converted frequencies allow you to sweep with
far more accuracy than tube type instruments. Even a thousandth
or millionth of a frequency is possible even though this
kind of accuracy is not needed. This is something that
a purely analog instrument could not do as accurately.
Digital equipment can accurately produce minute details.
So when it comes to Analog Vs. Digital frequencies make
sure that the person you talk to knows the facts.
|
|
|
If
you've found this article interesting you'll like
what we did with this Function Generator. Click Here
for more Info.
|
for information on instruments email
or call us at +1-541-434-0318 or 1-866-747-7447 (toll
free in US).
Simply Fill Out This
Form To Learn More About Rife Technology and Related Health
Topics - It's Free:
Why Should I Sign Up? You'll Get Exclusive Reports Not
Available On Our Website and Learn about our member's only
specials. We routinely give out free eBooks on topics related
to Rife. Immediately you'll get this report compiled in
a format that you can read whenever you want without an
internet connection.
Important! Please Read: To eliminate fraud we have implemented
a double opt-in process. You will get an immediate confirmation
email after submitting below. To assure that you receive
the free Rife eBook you must click the "confirmation" link
on this email. After you do this we will send you another
email with the eBook download.
(Would You Also Like To Get Our Printed Catalog?
Click
Here and We'll Send You One!)
External Rife Links (bookmark our site!):
www.rife.org
British Rife Group - Aubrey Scoon - some
great vintage schematics from backengineered Rife units are posted
on this site.
here's one of the schematics - please let us know
if you are building one...
The Rife Information Forum Europe
Brian McInturff's site
Includes the CAFL (Consolidated Annotated Frequency List) used freqeuntly by Rife researchers
The Rife Forum
Research with AZ-58 Rife Machine
1939 Rife Trial Papers
check these out!
Rife Lab Reports
Jimmie Holman's Rife Technology Site
Jimmie is a longtime Rife researcher and electrical engineer
Jimmie Holman's older site
Fred Walter's Rife research site
Historical Rife Documentary
Jason Ringas and Shawn Montgomery of the Rife Research Group of Canada bring you this
impressive 74 min informative documentary.
Kinnaman Foundation (another set) Rife Audio CD set
www.rife.org
for information on the Ultimate B3
email
or call us at +1-541-434-0318 or 1-866-747-7447 (toll free in US).
How did Dr. Rife's instruments work?
Since the first writing of this article more information
has come to light (John Marsh’s papers & tapes)
that made it so we had to correct the major errors that were
in it. We believe that this new documented information will
finally answer these questions: who found the audio frequencies
and what instruments used them? And what frequencies were
Dr. Rife’s true M.O.R.s? When new information is received
that sheds greater light on Dr. Rife and the history of those
who worked with him then it becomes necessary to update this
article.
In this article we will examine the way Dr. Rife’s
instruments worked. We will look at the evidence by quoting
the sources such as Dr. Rife, John Crane, John Marsh, Dr.
Couche, Dr. Lara, Dr. Stafford and Bertrand L. Comperet,
Rife’s attorney in the 1938 Beam Ray Corporation trial,
and later John Crane’s attorney for Life Labs’
trial in 1961. Hopefully anyone who reads this article will
have a better understanding about Dr. Rife and the methods
he used. Our goal is to try to give people information so
that they can make a more informed decision. We have tried
to explain in laymen’s terms so that anyone can understand.
We hope this will be helpful.
What is a ray tube and how does it work?
Dr. Rife used a ray tube with his instruments. A ray tube
was made out of glass, quartz or Pyrex and was filled with
a noble gas or a mixture of noble gases. Dr. Rife used different
mixtures of gases but finally ended up using helium. He
stated:
Rife: “We have experimented with various inert gases
and we found that helium stood up by the bombardment better
than any of the other gases. That’s why we use it.
We don’t care about the color or anything of that
sort. It stood up better over many more hours of bombardment
than the argon and the crypton and those different gases
that we tried.” (John Marsh collection - Gonin and
Siner papers pages 25 & 26. www.rife.org)
The ray tube was connected to the instrument by two wires.
These wires were connected to two round metal bars that
went into the glass tube and had round disks connected to
their ends. One disk was straight and the other one was
on a 45 degree angle. This gave it a directional effect
towards the patient. Dr. Rife stated that the ray tube was
“a directional antenna”. Because the scientific
technology behind ray tubes had already been perfected,
Rife worked with that technology and only had to make some
adjustments for it to work the way he wanted it to. Bertrand
L. Comperet, Rife’s attorney, stated in an interview:
Comperet: “Now, the original instrument had a tube,
like an X-ray tube. That was the way in which Rife developed
it. You see, all the X-ray work necessarily was done with
a beam projected from a tube. So, Rife worked on the same
basis.” (Comperet interview papers - 1970’s)
There are limitations to ray tubes that need to be understood.
It has to do with the laws of physics. Ray tubes when properly
tuned are very efficient. About 95% of the energy that you
put into a ray tube comes out. Dr. Rife’s instruments
put out about 50 to 60 watts to the ray tube. This means
about 50 watts came out of the ray tube. You have to divide
the 50 watts that come out of the ray tube by four (because
of the laws of physics on signal loss) for every foot that
you move away from the ray tube. So at one foot away from
the ray tube you only have 12.5 watts. At two feet you only
have 3.125 watts and at 3 feet you only have about .78 of
a watt. This is important to understand because Rife and
the doctors that used his equipment put the ray tube within
a few inches of the patient’s body. Dr. Couche said
that he would sometimes touch the body of the patient in
the area that needed to be treated. Dr. Robert P. Stafford
said when we asked him, that when he treated cancer patients
he would put the ray tube within a few inches of the body
and treat a 6 inch square area. He would move the ray tube
up and down and back and forth so that the whole 6 inch
area was treated. He said that he did this because of the
way the phanotron ray tube worked. The design of a phanotron
ray tube makes it partially directional and concentrates
its energy or power into a small area. With the power loss
from the ray tube it is easy to understand why Dr. Stafford,
Dr. Couch, Dr. Rife and the other doctors used the ray tube
right next to the body.
We have built an AZ-58 ray tube instrument (a 1950’s
Rife instrument made by Life Labs) from schematics that
are on Stan Truman’s site, www.rife.org, under
AZ-58 research information. This instrument is almost the
same as the original 1930’s Beam Ray instrument built
by Philip Hoyland found on Aubrey Scoon's website (http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/index.htm),
except it doesn’t have any harmonics in the carrier
frequency and it uses square wave audio frequencies. We
tested the AZ-58 for penetration and found that at about
32 inches from the body full penetration of the frequency
emitted from the ray tube was lost. From the tests made,
it takes at least 1.25 watts to penetrate all the way through
the body.
We are not trying to upset or offend any manufacturers of
ray tube instruments but the laws of physics must be understood
no matter how much we may dislike it. With this said, many
ray tube instruments built today recommend that you stay
from 3 to 6 feet away from the ray tube. These instruments
put out about 125 to 250 watts into the ray tube. With 125
watts you only get 31.25 watts to the body at one foot.
If one sits 3 to 6 feet away from the ray tube then, according
to the laws of physics, there may not be enough power to
fully penetrate the body. Since Dr. Rife always tested his
instruments for penetration, and used the ray tube right
next to the body, I believe he understood these limitations.
Some use a long cylinder type ray tube that stands straight
up or lays down sideways. These put out in 360 degrees with
no directional effect and are called omni-directional. This
means that the 125 watts that come out of the ray tube are
spread out in 360 degrees. With the energy spread out in
360 degrees at a distance of 3 to 6 feet away, one can see
that by the laws of physics the power penetrating the body
is minimal. We are not questioning the effectiveness of
ray tubes, just the distance in relation to the power loss.
We are not doubting that there may be physiologic effects
from ray tubes at a great distance (50 to 100 feet) but
the real question is can the frequency fully penetrate the
body and kill an organism at that distance?
What power levels did Dr. Rife use?
Dr. Rife’s #4 instrument and the instrument built
by Beam Ray Corporation of the 1930’s and Life Labs
of the 1950’s put about 50 to 60 watts into the ray
tube. Because some of Dr. Rife’s information about
instrument power levels is confusing, most of us have thought
that Dr. Rife’s instruments put out 400 to 600 watts
to the ray tube but new information show this is not correct.
The problem has been that the people who wrote down this
information were incorrectly giving the power usage of Rife’s
instruments as the output power. Dr. Rife’s instruments
used 400 to 600 watts but they only put out about 50 to
60 watts to the ray tube. When the 1930’s Beam Ray
Corporation instrument power levels were measured, it showed
that they used about 450 watts and output about 50 watts
to the ray tube. When measured, the AZ-58 1950’s instrument
used about the same 450 watts but output about 60 watts
to the ray tube. In the paper “Development of the
Rife Ray and use in devitalizing of pathogenic micro-organisms”
it states: “The frequencies were generated by a tube
oscillator with many stages of amplification, the final
stage being a 50 watt output tube.” Now this output
tube should not be confused with the ray tube. These are
the old tubes used in radios and televisions. The main output
tube in the AZ-58 is an 812A tube that is rated at 85 watts.
You can get more power out of it but you will also shorten
your tube life. The 1930’s Beam Ray instruments used
a similar tube with about the same power output.
The important thing to understand is that Dr. Rife’s
instruments did not put out any more power than about 60
watts to the ray tube. When Dr. Rife, Crane and Marsh were
working on sea water conversion and used frequencies in
that process, they boosted the output power in the instrument.
Concerning that instrument and some 1930’s Beam Ray
instruments that Dr. Yale had increased the power level
on Rife said the following:
Rife: “Now this outfit here - the way we have it
boosted up here now with an extreme lot of power behind
the actual output that is coming out of the thing...I wouldn’t
want to use this - or I wouldn’t want to use this
instrument here the way it is souped up there for this salt
water proposition to treat a patient with.”
GONIN: “No.”
Rife: “You can get beyond the limit.”
GONIN: “Yes, quite.”
Crane: “That’s what Dr. Yale did. You see,
he stepped it up and up and up…”
Rife: “When Vern Thompson used to go down there and
take care of Yale’s machines - when he began stepping
them up and so...where you get up into that extreme power…oh
yes, that is not good. With the power that is in these [50
to 60 watts], there is absolutely no harm because I had
my microscope here - I had my tube [ray tube] right here
in front of it - oh, about 11 or 12 inches away from the
slide in the microscope and here I was with this thing all
around like that and that tube going here and my specimens
and the microscope year after year tuning that thing and
it never harmed me any.” (John Marsh collection -
Gonin papers pages 2 & 3. www.rife.org)
Dr. Yale’s Beam Ray instruments were putting out
a lot more power than Dr. Rife felt was safe. If Yale’s
instruments were made to put out the maximum power that
the main output tube could produce then they probably were
putting out around 100 watts. It may be that Dr. Rife was
just over cautious but we believe his statement should be
considered when one looks at power levels of 100 to 300
watts. These kind of power levels are not necessary if a
phanotron tube is used.
You can read the
rest of this article by clicking here!
If
you've found this article interesting you'll like
what we did with this Function Generator. Click Here
for more Info.
Simply Fill Out This
Form To Learn More About Rife Technology and Related Health
Topics - It's Free:
Why Should I Sign Up? You'll Get Exclusive Reports Not
Available On Our Website and Learn about our member's only
specials. We routinely give out free eBooks on topics related
to Rife. Immediately you'll get this report compiled in
a format that you can read whenever you want without an
internet connection.
Important! Please Read: To eliminate fraud we have implemented
a double opt-in process. You will get an immediate confirmation
email after submitting below. To assure that you receive
the free Rife eBook you must click the "confirmation" link
on this email. After you do this we will send you another
email with the eBook download.
(Would You Also Like To Get Our Printed Catalog?
Click
Here and We'll Send You One!)
for information on instruments email
or call us at +1-541-434-0318 or 1-866-747-7447 (toll
free in US).
© Copyright 1997-2004 www.futuretechtoday.com
- All Rights Reserved
++1-541-434-0318 tele - 1-866-747-7447 toll free in US
Disclaimer: These
statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Products not intended
to prevent, cure, diagnose, or treat any disease. |