Your suggestion is understood, there may be some limit where improved accuracy does not matter. There is even the possibility that high accuracy can cause a problem if the listed frequency is not the correct MOR.

What I am saying is that I do not think that in general we have not reached that limit yet. And since I have been designing scientific equipment for many years, way before I ever heard about zappers, I do have some understanding of this.

Let us take one frequency as an example. I will use 3554 Hz as that is a very important frequency for certain users and is actually hard to produce with good accuracy. By comparison, 10,000 Hz and 100,000 Hz are usually relatively easy. 1000 Hz and 100 Hz are even easier.

Back to 3554 Hz. Dr. R.R. Rife specified that any frequency needed to be within 0.05 percent of the true MOR. That means that according to Rife, if the frequency is more than 1.777 Hz off at 3554 Hz then the results will be significantly reduced. It does not mean completely ineffective, just reduced. However, the further off that a frequency is, the effectiveness is increasingly reduced.

In general, most Rife machines meet or are at least close to this criteria. Zappers in general are not. Either a standard Beck zapper or a standard Clark zapper can be off by as much as 20 percent, depending on the specific tolerances of the components used, although most Clark zappers are within +/- 10 percent.

0So a given Clark zapper that claimed to produce 3554 Hz could be anywhere from 3198.6 to 3909.4 H0z if the tolerance / accuracy was +/- 10 percent.

This means that out of every 100 users who bought that particular zapper, 2 or 3 would get outstanding results. These are your glowing testimonials. Another 5 to 10 would get some noticeable results but not great. The remainder would get crappy results for this one particular application.

This in itself shows one reason that zappers in general have a history of question-ability. For that reason, early on, we used higher quality parts, first to achieve 5 percent accuracy, the 1 percent, and now, better than 0.05 percent.

In the new ParaZapper MY-3, tested accuracy of the 3554 Hz frequency is 0.0028 percent. That is more than 10 times the accuracy requirement that Rife specified.

This is fantastic if and only if the 3554 Hz frequency is within 0.05 percent of the true MOR. And this does depend on the accuracy of the equipment used to measure the frequency.

However, if the MOR is exactly 3554 Hz then there likely is nothing out there that would produce any better results than the MY-3.

I will throw in a caveat here. The frequency counter that I am using a LDC-822 which is probably less accurate than the MY-3 is. It is however good enough for this basic calibration verification.

Also, not all frequencies on the MY-3 maintain this level of accuracy. They are however at least 0.05 percent or better at any frequency below 3000 Hz. One of the worst is 1823 Hz which the actual worst case frequency was 1822.3 Hz or an accuracy of 0,03 percent.

Comparatively, at 1552 Hz, the worst case frequency was 1551.9 or 0.006 percent which is almost 10 times Rife's requirement.

Again, as you so eloquently suggest, are these posted frequencies from the list actually correct and accurate? This point I absolutely agree with, but in order to improve the state of the art, we must strive to produce the most accurate frequencies that we can possibly can. This is because the original principle still holds true. Even if the listed frequency is off by some unknown amount producing the right accuracy will ferret out that issue because there will be complaints of ineffectiveness. However, the fault will be with the reported frequencies in the list and not as a result of the zapper being incorrect.

For example, if the frequency 3554 Hz should actually be 3559 Hz, then the accuracy of the MY-3 or of the Spooky-2 would render them both less effective for this particular application but again the fault is with the list, not the device.

However, the most important thing is the customers. What they want and need is the accuracy and reliability of getting a true frequency. Personally, if I bought any unit that was supposed to be generating an accurate frequency of 3554 Hz that I was in need of and I found that it was actually 3443 Hz, I would be very unhappy.

Mu point about why ParaZapper is very popular and is preferred by many over the Spooky-2 is at least two things.

First, many people do not like or appreciate computers and many other who suffer from conditions such as brain fog would have a very hard time setting up the Spooky-2.

Some people like to know that they can get to a solution using a single push button. The MY-3 also has an advantage for certain people who are visually impaired because you can tell what mode you have selected from the tones that are generated.

Second, many people appreciate knowing that if there are issues or questions, you can at least call and talk to someone, during limited hours.

Third, just like Spooky-2 offers several options for signal application, ParaZapper offers a wide range of accessories. For example, there are several alternative accessories for the 4 point contact. One is demonstrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsRkDIr5T84

Forth, in general, it is considered by many to be more convenient and flexible that the Spooky-2.

[quote]
It is apparent that you only see what you want to and that you try to ignore what is obvious.
[/quote]
Once again your spread vague suggestions but you provide no objective proof.


[quote]
This is a perfect example of the above statement.
The very fact is that ParaZapper spends most of his time producing and improving his products.
[/quote]
Except for the constant current functionality, all you have added to your devices are useless trendy functionalities (like trying to mix Hulda Clark concepts and John Crane concepts)
Also you use the name of great minds like Royal Rife to improve the image of your devices when they have nothing to do with Royal Rife technology which is not a really honest behavior. (some people pm me about this, i am not the only one to see your dishonest marketing strategies)


[quote]
He can only do this by staying out of jail by not publishing work that government agencies might use against him.
[/quote]
This excuse is really convenient isn't it ?


[quote]
does not mean that that I do not push the envelope.
[/quote]
Your surely "push the enveloppe" concerning the marketing of your products (even if you have not provided one proof that they manage to kill "parasites" in a human body (or please show us some proofs)


[quote]
A perfect example of that is the new ParaZapper MY-3 http://huldaclarkparazapper.com/cgi-bin/cart.cgi/my_3_instructions.htm That one producer of youtube videos states is in "a class of its own"
[/quote]
As i said, after all these years, no real improvement of this technology, no proofs that the electric signal produced by your devices manage to kill "parasites" in a human body, but a lot of vague suggestions and marketing (smartly done i have to admit) just to convert more ignorant desperate infected people into buyers.