Re: More modern synchrometer?

"
I agree with you that electronically, the circuit as designed is not likely to function as described. Clark, however, did not know a lot about electronics so maybe there was some errors in the expression of the circuit for that reason. What I am saying is that it may well be possible that the circuit was flawed ( in my opinion, it missed the boat completely ) due to a lack of understanding the electronics involved while the idea may have a valid basis.
...
My point AK is that I think that if a person as knowledgeable as you were to go back and re-read how her circuit was supposed to work, I believe that you could make it work electronically, that is if her theories are correct.
"

I've re-read it many times, and each time it makes less sense. There is no "supposed" about her circuit, and there is no "likely". It works exactly as the designers at Radio Shack intended - and that's all.

The circuit is based on a 200-in-1 Science kit from Radio Shack, intended for *children*. It says "For ages 10 and up" right on the front of the box, so any reasonably smart 4th grader can get the circuit to work, and the math needed to do a circuit analysis fits in the 9th grade. After all, it is just about the most simple audio oscillator circuit of all time. And that's my point.

This isn't a bridge system where the differences or similarities of two samples are indicated by a change in tone. This is a simple (!!!) oscillator with some capacitance and resistance, and Clark added a way to add some stray capacitance and resistance. Yes, the tone changes when you touch it - it has to. It would be more important if it *didn't* change. The tone will change with perspiration, respiration, diet, relative humidity, and quite possibly the phase of the moon, but it c.a.n n.o.t tell the difference between any of those things and cancer. Period. Zero. Amen.

Note that as always I'm not saying anything about her (completely unsubstantiated) "theory". Of course a biological sample can be tested for cancerous cells. But with this circuit? No. Is there device we have today that can detect cancer cells within an live organ within a live body in real time without extracting a sample and without killing the patient? No. Note - MRI and other scanners don't count, because they don't detect cancer. They detect changes in blood flow or cell density or a bunch of other things, but all of them are prone of false positives even with experienced interpretation. The only thing I've seen (and I've been looking for a long time) that comes close to an extracted biopsy sample and a well-equipped lab is a dog. It turns out that a dog can be trained to smell cancer. Gooooood puppy!

ak