Re: The F-Scan2 - a critical evaluation

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for your post! You raised a question that I wondered about myself:

Why do some people get results and I don't? And why were you not able to use it with certain individuals while it seems to work fine and repeatable with others?

This goes into a completely different subject - that of dowsing and muscle testing, etc., which I am also familiar with. It could be that the F-Scan2 is sensitive to the believe system of the individual. As silly as that might sound, I have come across these things in my life. But I assumed that the F-Scan2 is not of this tpye of device but measures 'physical' effects. Like taking a voltmeter and measure the voltage of a battery. The EAV devices work partially like a 'voltmeter' but the actual response is from a 'non-physical' source, it might have to do more with quantum physics. The noise in the F-Scan2 can then be used by the non-physical or 'quantum' aspect of the measurement to influence the outcome.

For such noise-driven methods see, e.g.,

http://noosphere.princeton.edu

http://gerp.free.fr/rpeoch-chicks.htm

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-SheldrakeOnPresentiment&Psych...

So if I looked at the F-Scan2 too critical and doubted its performance or better said: 'I didn't subscribe to it', then I might not get any results.

The other comment of yours with regard to the bandwidth is well taken! You are absolutely right, if there is a spectral feature which is broad, then scanning over it with a very small wavelength increment would completely miss it! That is, and that I also completely agree with you, due to the differential nature that device operates upon. The F-Scan2 differentiates between consecutive measurements. It works best if the spectral feature has the SAME bandwidth as the stepwidth of the DIRP scan. But what are the natural spectral widths of various pathogens or conditions? That would require a vast amount of experience and testing to find the best scan steps. But if the measurement is based on the 'manipulation' of the noise, then the bandwidth should not matter. It should always give a good answer.

I think the best approach - if you would build one for yourself - would be to use a good EAV device and connect a signal generator to it and 'ask' the EAV machine if that frequency is present in the body (meaning the corresponding pathogen with that resonant frequency).

I would be interested to see some of your scan data, is that possible?

Thank you for these very good comments!

With best regards,

Stephan