applxperience

I have to say that you are not well informed in this situation. Partly because you do not know AK or who this person is.

AK is definitely well qualified to make his claims and is very knowledgeable in his field of electronics and its applications. He has been a contributor to this forum for many years and is well respected for his knowledge of electronics and its applications.

I personally have been in electronics since 1975 and AK is far more knowledgeable than I am in this respect.

As a matter of fact, I built my first zapper in 1976. Yes, in 1976. I did not use it as a zapper, however, as the same circuit which was published in the "555 Timer Cookbook" about 1977, I used it as a LED flasher with only a slight change in the component values of 2 components.

So the circuit for the zapper was not created, designed, or developed by Dr. Clark or her son Geoff. It was adapted because of its characteristics.

The same is true for the synchrometer. It is an adaptation of the existing circuit as described by AK to suit another purpose.

If there is anyone out there who believes that they can accurately test and analyze for particular microbes with the synchrometer, thay can come on down and I will let them do a blind study on both living microbes ( in a black box ) and slides of dead microbes ( again, in a black box ).

>- not in her public books

I have the synchrometer Science manual, with all the goodies.

I've gone back to your post a few times, and still don't get some of your points. However, here are some responses.

"
(I bet you disagree even with world-wide proven scientific stuff)
"

Actually, if there is one consistant theme to most of my posts, it is that many of the ideas expressed around here do exactly that - go against world-wide proven scientific stuff - and I call them out on it. Harmonics, resonance, skin effect, AC power adapters, inverse-square law, double-blind testing, the synchrometer's blocking oscillator, blah blah blah. The art of engineering is creating new applications for old ideas, so I'm a big fan of that since it pays for my food. But I'm also the first to point out that using old stuff in a new theory *must* account for the old, proven aspects. The perfect example of doing this the right way is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It appears to contradict at least one of Newton's Laws of Motion, a difficult, if almost stupid thing to do after two industrial revolutions. But when you apply conventional velocities to Einstein's equations, they beautifully become Newton's. That's how you extend knowlege.

"
...please just refer to your research, as Hulda Clark and other honest researchers did.
"

No, she didn't. Simply stating results does not constitute research, or even the results of research. *All* research is conducted, and must be presented, in context; without such context, her "results" reduce to simple opinion. The underlying science, evolution of theories, previous efforts, what worked, what didn't work - these are the things that give research context and understanding. Clark did not publish her experimental protocols, subject pool definition, subject screening criteria, test methods, control group strategies and results, *all* data, statistics, numerical analysis methods, or any of the dozens of other aspects of what constitutes "research" on this planet.

The thing that gives value to "world-wide proven scientific stuff" is an unbelievably detailed understanding of *exactly* how that stuff works, and an evolved, globally accepted research method. Saying something works, or even showing it works, isn't nearly enough, and she knew this. Clark got a PhD studying potassium in crayfish, so she knew all about this. This makes the content of her books even less credible, since you don't bypass a few hundred years of "world-wide proven" scientific method for no reason.

"
Were you like "it's a scam" the day before, and next day were you "it's safe"? just because a patent says it?
"

No. The patent process can be as political as a university PhD program, and the results need even more scrutiny since the granting of a patent doesn't approach the credibility of a peer-reviewed research program.

Back to the synchrometer - As we celebrate thhe 150th anniversary of the Gettysburh Address, it is especially important (in the context of world-wide proven scientific stuff) to note that our scientific understanding of electricity is older. OK, only 2 years older, but still, that's a loooong time ago. And the blocking oscillator is approaching 100 years old. My point is that the why and how of this circuit are very old news. *Any* change in capacitance or resistance or temperature will affect the frequency of operation. That's the proven scientific stuff. The leap from there to proclaiming that the change is due to the presence of cancer cells (without even getting into the stability and sensitivity necessary for that to happen) is not science. It is magical thinking. And selling magical thinking is fraud.

ak

Can't follow the thread arrangement, eh? Sorry, thought a smart guy like you wouldn't be so handicapped.

It was meant for applxperience. Did that help? Yeah, I'm sure playing along with the 'science' name game would give you the chance to bring out all the 'science' debunking cut and pastes, eh?

My observation aren't about Science though. It's an obversation about the meta-level mind control game. Like trying to use Science to prove how many layers of frequencies there are. It only measures as far as the equipment can. And observations/opinions aren't really measurable, are they? Documentable perhaps, but not measurable.

Science is totally fallible--dependent on the methodology used (no guarantees there), the accuracy (none there either), the researcher themselves' integrity (that very definitely has no guarantee, as those folks can easily be influenced by threats of censure/blacklisting etc. or threats of bodily harm to self and loved ones). So no, 'science' is just another level of the scam. Sorry.