Re: SARS Update

Hi, dsss27

I appreciate your reply and your zapper experience.
Thanks for forwarding the bioelectric researcher's
experience. It is valuable for us.

I found another article by Crook (contains positive
comments about the syncrometer).
http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/HuldaClark/SynchrometerNotes.htm

Thanks for reading Crook's article about FSCAN.
I agree with your comment that an "approximate" sine wave
simply has more harmonics and may not be that different
spectrally from a pure sine wave.

Crook wasn't using the 1Mohm to "find frequencies". If so
just like you pointed out, he should construct a RLC circuit
(with variable LC values). Crook wants to test the FSCAN's
ability in measuring the frequency response, so he chose a
resistor (whose response should be "flat" ideally), tested
it elsewhere to make sure the response is really "flat",
then use the FSCAN to test/scan that same resistor.
The resistor should have no "peaks" in the kHz range, but FSCAN
find peaks and the peak positions are different when he repeats
the test with the same resistor! This doesn't make much sense.


Also, Crook explains that the sampling frequency of the FSCAN
should be approximately 28kHz, which means it cannot measure
frequency over 14kHz correctly. Crook believed the "peaks"
FSCAN found can be from the master clock and aliasing effect.
(so peaks appear with equal spacing, periodically). So if FSCAN
claims to give scanning result in the 30kHz region, it is wrong.

In any case, I guess that FSCAN Crook tested do have
problem (so you really don't need to buy that model).
On the other hand, since zapping with a square wave will
send power into all frequency range, as long as enough get into
the pathogen's band (wherever it is), there would be some effect.
I wish the Clark zapper will be effective against the SARS
virus, hepetitus, and other similar diseases.

Ann
Tweet