What I meant by "it depends who is measuring it" was it depends who is using it as in, some people it works for differently then others and people might get different ideas. I was not referring to machine testing because that would most certainly show up the same, but the *interpretation* is what I was talking about. I did not mean it as in you would try for bias it, I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

Where can I find these specifications in writing from Dr. Clark? Sometimes people blow what she says out of perportion - as an example, her saying that 30,000 Hz was fine caused a lot of people to say/impply that it was THE one and only good frequency and that ALL zappers ought to function at it, but that wasn't what she was talking about at all.

Yes, I remember now that you have recommended 4 Zappings for a long time.

>>When the preferred characteristics of an energy source are clearly defined, or even not-so-clearly as is the case with zappers, then technical superiority is not subjective. Between Clark's "research" and the concensus opinions and experiences of the zapper community, a set of minimum desireable characteristics for a zapper design is pretty well defined. Amplitude, harmonic content, waveform distortion under load, etc. vary from one design to another, and the differences are clearly observable. Persons other than me have assigned value to these, such as a rich or strong harmonic field (one with many harmonic frequencies or higher amplitudes) being "better" than a thin or weak field (one with fewer frequencies or lower amplitudes). Once the value has been established, measuring and evaluating different designs is straightforward. True, anyone can cook their data, take scope images under different conditions to exaggerate performance, or make unsubstantiated claims. But absent such intentional biases, *technical* superiority is independent of "who".<<

I can see what you mean by "technical" vs. "who", but at the same time, it doesn't dislocate my point. I'm saying the Zapperplans.com Zapper worked (for me, and has worked for plenty of people) just like Dr. Clark said it would, whether or not the technical specs are like some other ones or even if it was in some way different from Dr. Clark's intentional design. (which I'm not saying it is or isn't because you've proved me before that I don't know enough about electronics to argue them.) but it does work, just like Dr. Clark's said it would, and I don't know how "better" is being evaluated. If it's only a technical evaluation, yet it's working in real people, I'd just say there is something else to it.

Also, ParaZapper's personal use of it is hard to take *because* he might have a personal plecebo. (Meaning, him being a competitor might interfere with his plecebo mechinism enough to cause him to think his works better etc) OK, so at the same time I should ask if I could be having some kind of plecebo too, but it's not the same thing because I'm not evaluating it against other Zappers, neither do I have an interest in it in the same way.

>>As much as it pains me, I agree with PZ about zappers based on gate oscillators, such as the original $10 zapper using a 4069 hex inverter chip. The output stages of these devices (early generation CMOS gates) do not have the output current capacity or a low enough output impedance for this application. This is clear when observing the output waveform distortion under load. Particularly, the rounding of the square wave leading corners means the amplitudes of the higher harmonic frequencies are decreased relative to those produced by a circuit which remains "square-er" under load.<<

Whether it bends under a load or not, it works to kill/chase out parasites in my body, in many of my friend's bodies and a lot of people on CureZone. It makes me feel good if I'm getting sick, it get's rid of pink eye, it got me over high blood Sugar and I don't see any other Zappers doing any more then what I've seen this one do - which is what Dr. Clark's Zappers are supposed to do. So, with my little knowledge of circiutry and design, I will take no offence at you siding with PZ, and I will continue to reccommend the Zapperplans.com Zapper because it works for me.


>>They come from one of her later books. She added one resistor to the original zapper design (causing an offset of about +1/4 volt at the output), to "guarantee" that the all-positive output was in fact all-positive. I think this was totally unnecessary, and in fact detrimental to the circuit's overall performance.<<

I'd really like to see a direct quote though, because her reasons for adding it may have been recommendations from the engineer (whether or not she thought it would do any good). Do you know which book it is?

>>1. The chip used in the first design has no negative power supply input, and no internal mechanism to generate a negative output voltage. In fact, the output already is offset about 0.05V to 0.1V above ground under load. Some scope shots show a small undershoot on the trailing edge, extending *slightly* below ground. IMHO, these are classic examples of bad scope grounding technique, not evidence of any kind of "negative" output.

2. The offset resistor increased the low output voltage by about 1/4 volt, but increased the high output voltage by *less* than that. This means that the overall amplitude of the output waveform was in fact *decreased*.

3. While the composit output waveform appears to be comfortably above ground, the negative half-cycles of the first (and third?) harmonic sine waves still extend below ground.<<

I really appreciate the info here, it makes a little sense to me. :)