>- The zapperplans zapper is anything but pale in compairason to other units.
Well, I tried it and it appeared to be the weakest of the zappers that I have tried.
>- much more advanced technologicly
Not at all, the chip used in it is one of the earliest CMOS chips made ( early 1980's ) and is a digital chip. The chip conserves a lot of battery power but does not have a lot of power to deliver either hence the weak output. I believe that somewhere, Dr. Clark suggested that the digital chip zappers were not as effective.
>- big, buky,
hmmm, well, the size of a cigarette pack is bigger than the ZP.
>- old technology,
Actually not, the chip that we use is newer, is CMOS low power, but has 10 times the drive power of the ZP zapper. Of course, it costs about 6 times as much too.
>- harder to use and much more expensive.
Yes, even George Jetson complained about pushing buttons. Our has 2 because it is dual frequency which allows the customer to choose and decide for themselves. I guess that the decision makes it harder.
No argument with the expense part. Using the latest technology costs more. Having a good protective case costs more. Having real switches cost more. An indicator to keep you from using a weak battery costs more. A multi-colored indicator to let you know that the zapper is working correctly costs more. Even the label on our units cost more than the entire cost of a ZP zapper.
>- all the people being cured using their zapperplans zapper!
I have heard of improvements, but have not heard of any cure as of yet from the ZP zapper. There is a big difference.