Voltage vs. Current

I agree that the voltage across or current through a pathogen is very small. The current required to kill a particular pathogen could be calculated from the fundamental amplitude (at the hand-holds), the frequency of interest, and the harmonic number. But it would take several trials at varying levels to determine the minimal time-amplitude curve. My guess is that it would look like half of a hysteresis curve. Below a threshold amplitude, no effect at any duration, then an approximately linear decrease in duration with increasing amplitude, suggesting that there is a minimum total energy required, then another flat portion where the amplitude is so high that it is lethal at almost any duration. Good luck with those trials.

"since induction/impedence is higher per amount of current in an oscillating field"

This confuses me. For a constant inductance, loss will increase as a function of current, but an impedance which increases as the current increases sounds like some weird square-law resistance or a PTC thermistor. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

"you can get away with far lower current on a pulsed signal than straight dc."

Most of what I have read suggests this is true, but for a different reason. The human body, or these organism's, reaction to electron flow is demonstrably a complex impedance, not a simple resistance. If DC did anything at all, the entire Zapper/F-Gen/Rife/Beck universe wouldn't exist. I don't think it's a matter of getting away with anything. It appears pretty clear that the alternating component is the essential part of the voltage characteristic, and Clark is pretty clear about the amplitudes to alternate between.

ak