Re: Vindication of Dr. Clark and Rife

>- 1. bear, not bare

It is unbearable, but I stand corrected.

>- 2. If what you say about resonance and ringing is true, then this puts any discussion of *specific* frequencies into the huge-waist-of-time department.

>- In the world of electronic components, the three most common things for creating a resonant (or "frequency-dependent") circuit are inductors, capacitors, and quartz crystals.

The cell walls/membranes of bacteria, protozoa, and many microbes have a natural capacitance to them as they are composed of 3 layers.

>- So how can one frequency be "right" for a pathogen if the cell size varies throughout its life?

The size of organelles such as the cell wall remains reasonably constant.

>- IF the "zapper effect" is based on cellular resonance (other people's assertions, not mine), THEN the cellular dimensions change the resonant frequency.

Yes, but again, it appears to be the cell wall and other organelles that appear to be disrupted by zapping.

>- 3. A minor point also way under-discussed: Higher frequency zappers, such as the original design of 30 KHz, produce only 7 or 13 harmonics within the Clark frequency range of 500 KHz. Not thousands of harmonics, or infinite frequencies, just 13 for the original design, and 7 for what she and Geoff were trying to do - and missed.

OK, I found this out several years back: The actual frequency matters. I did an analysis back in 2003 of possible frequencies output by a 30 kHz zapper and how close they would get to the frequency that Dr. Clark reported for her list of organisms. I found that the best tha any frequency in the 30 kHz range could do was to produce a harmonic within a couple of kHz of about 20 organisms.

I then selected the 8 frequencies that covered the greatest number of organisms. This was put into the MX, which was probably the best zapper of its day, but still not near perfect. Then I did the same thing with the 2.5 kHz range and added it. This made the MX better, but still a long way to perfect.

While many microbes are definitely succeptible to frequencies, there is a need for frequencies that are accurate for any specific organism. There is even a specific frequency that can damage the human liver.

>- 4. Wall-warts again? Really?

From a previous post:

____________
>>- Wall power adapters ("wall warts") are inherently energy-limited, just like batteries

OK, safe you say?

Then why did almost everything in my house that was powered by a wall wart get destroyed by a nearby lightning strike. Nothing that was not powered by a wall wart was damaged.

One exceprion: My electric razor that was connected to a wall wart was not damaged but the wall wart was fried.

5 network routers and all of the network ports connected were fried.

7 portable telephones were fried in their bases.

1 expensive video security system powered from a wall wart --- fried.

Inherently energy limited? To what? 1 AMP !!! That can be deadly! 100 ma? Still potentially deadly.
_____________

Your frequent claims about the safety of wall warts almost had me convinced, no more. I am a believer not, if you use a wall wart, you may be putting your life at serious risk.