Edited by author 12-11-2004 04:14 PM
I have started a new Google Group to automatically post blog items as they appear. Some of you may want to subscribe.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ElectronicMedicine/

Edited by author 12-03-2004 11:11 PM
One further comment on the ABPA photos.

I originally used head and shoulder photos as the face contains the most information and you get maximum power transfer.

As I improved that hardware setup and got increasing power transfer, particularly with my research setup, I found that pathogens immediately started to flee from the photo area when the ABPA was turned on. This meant they moved to the lower body, particularly lower legs and feet. This caused problems.

I now, for a maximum power setup, only use a full body photo from head to toe. Do not leave out the feet.

For something like a sinus condition, you will eliminate it most quickly with a head shot. However, some of the pathogens will move to other parts of the body before they can be killed so a whole body shot should be used to followup.

These critters are not stupid, they have methods of intercommunication, and you have to be smarter than they are! A lot of people are taking random potshots hoping for the right frequency and this method will provide very erratic and sometimes no results, along with a lot of herxheimer reactions.

The ABPA was designed to work with Polaroid 600 photos. Therefore I recommend you use them for most purposes.

For my research which specifically relates to targeting specific pathogens with very specific frequency sets, I have invested a lot of time in finding what kills them more effectively.

At my workshop at the Rife Conference in October, I went over the population based mathematical programs that show what happens to pathogens, or any organism, when they are hit with something that shortens their life cycle. The most important parameter in these equations relates directly to power transfer to the organism.

My comments relate to how to modify the hardware setup with the ABPA to achieve maximum power transfer for a specific frequency to a specific organism. The ABPA was not originally designed to do this, but can be tweaked very effectively.

For this specific purpose my recommendations are:

1. Use the wire that comes with the ABPA to connect to the frequency generator. Run this under the input well. This will increase power transfer by a factor of 5 over running other cables and about 25 over running cables that are not properly terminated.

2. The inventor of the ABPA has sent me test cables that plug directly into the ABPA from the frequency generator (I use F160s and the FSCAN2). The test cables have a dial type device so I can adjust the impedance match between the frequency generator and the ABPA. With the proper setting, I get five times better power transfer than the original ABPA cables. Alan Back, the inventor of th ABPA, is taking this information and building cables that will be available to everyone that will provide this effect. This means that you will get 25 times better power transfer than other properly terminated cables and about 125 times better effect than unterminated cables. I hope this makes it clear how important your hardware setup is.

3. The new cables will make it possible to kill pathogens that could not be eliminated previously and cut the time required at least in half.

4. The information content in the photos is linearly related to the power transfer. A TIF photo taken with a Sony DSC-V1 camera when printed out on a 1200dpi HP color inkjet printer at a size that fits into the photo well will give about 5 times the power transfer of a Poloraid 600 photo for my specific purposes as described above.

5. Multiple photos degrade the effect. I have not tested printing out a large photo, folding it, and putting it in the well. You may or may not get the right effect. I don't do this.

Carefully following these principles will allow people to get the same (often better) effect with the ABPA as they would get directly holding electrodes in most cases.

Dave,
I too have been asking some similair questions. I just purchased an ABPA AM-3. I was told it was calibrated only to be used with Poloroid 600 film. I also saw two tapes that came with it that said the same thing. They did say if you were working with a large subject (i.e. a building or a field), you could put four pictures from four different angles in the well. I am goig to do some experimenting re: using a digital camera because I have one and a nice printer.

Daniel
danlcaldwell@harmonic-circle.com

Hello fellow ABPA explorers,

I have a couple of theoretical questions regarding the photo used in the ABPA well. Here we go:

-- if a 5.1M digital picture is good, is a 6 or even 8 megapixel one better?

-- if one picture is good, would two or more pictures, perhaps different views of the subject, be even better, all stuffed in the well?

---does clothing in the picture obstruct the vital information?...perhaps showing as much skin as possible (sorry, I'm not trying to be silly...this is a real question) might get better results?

---Dr. Sutherland mentioned printing the picture on regular paper--do you print it as large as possible and then fold the picture up? You mentioned a 1200dpi printer...I guess I'm wondering if the idea is to print the picture in a size that will fit in the well or let the entire thing print and fold.

I guess the real thing that must be learned is how to be able to test for yourself what definitively is working well and what not so well: how to answer these question myself in a clear yes or no way based on some 'litmus test'. Maybe it can not be so clean cut. Maybe my questions above are just some ideas to try out, but I would love to hear other peoples opinions on them. The whole idea of the subtle, vital information transmission is new to me and I'm not sure how to approach it. It's very exciting!

Any comments or ideas welcomed,

Dave
(who is enjoying this forum)

Jeff & friends,
Running only one tube on a 7C system which I've run for several years now, (a tripple Bubble E-gas tube) with the tube mounted vertically in the tube support stand, and running with the Power Output Level set in the top output (1220), with the Plasma Optimizationn control set properly for maximum plasma resonance, I have to back off to about ten feet from the tube before my Trifield Meter comes down off being 'pegged' to the maximum display of 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading. Your 6C EM+ should be performing similarly, when using the same settings; the systems are very similar. If not, it may be time to replace components which may be degrading or failing.

These E-field level observations have been made many times while holding the Tri-field meter in my hand; when doing this, the body is surrounded / permeated by the resonant radiant plasma energy field, so in effect, the meter is displaying the E-field electrification level of the body which is holding the meter.

Another way to set up for doing comparitive measurements would be to mount the meter in a non-metallic support stand or fixture, away from both the body and any metallic structures which will either absorb or reflect the plasma tube's signal. Quantitative results observed using the meter in this way could be used to compare outputs between tubes, with only the Tri-field meter's frequency response limitations and inherant error margin tollerances coming into consideration.

A new generation of EM+ system has been in development for many months, with enhanced output power levels available on all aspects of the system- radiant plasma, contact plasma, contact pad output channel, pulsed light output channel, and the enhanced high frequency pulsed magnetic output channel. New pulsed magnetic accessories will also become available, with higher magnetic flux densities at extreme frequencies (from below 1 Hz to beyond 1 MHz without a noticible drop-off in magnetic field strength.) I'll be releasing information on the new system once it's been extensively tested.

Be Well!!

Bruce
http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

QT - Dr.Jeff Sutherland wrote:

>
>
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

Everything I post is based on my own testing. For some uses, a Polaroid photo may be best as the instrument was designed for this. My comments are directed at frequency transmission to eradicate pathogens.

Putting cables in the input well will transmit the signature of the metal to you. This is not good.

Alan Back has made up some cables for me that connect directly to the ABPA with a knob to adjust the impedance. When I determine the exact setting for maximum output he will create a cable to my specificatons that will be sold to anyone who wants one.

Incidently, if you buy an ABPA from Dale Fawcett, he pays for a month of my consulting to make sure you get maximum benefit. Dale's number is (360) 598-6585.

I find this very interesting. Alan Back, inventor of the ABPA, states to use only Poloroid 600 film because of the purity of the silver halide crystals. Also, in my SE-5 directions it states to do the same and that if you suject the photo to certain energies, they will erase the IDF imprint and the photo will no longer be of use. I wanted to know if I can use my Poloroid Spectra photos in these machines. I find this stange because the 600 photos capture the energy (soul-per Am Indians). How can a printer using ink do this?
Thanks,
Daniel

"QT - Dr.Jeff Sutherland" <qtopic+24-RViC8ekMUsf@quicktopic.com> wrote: --QT------------------------------------------------------------- Reply by email or visit
http://www.quicktopic.com/24/H/RViC8ekMUsf/m79
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A good 5 megapixel camera like the Sony DSC-V1 will generate a
high resolution image that can be printed on regular paper an
put in the photo well on the ABPA. It should be taken with a
tripod and printed on a 1200dpi printer. This will increase the
power output of the ABPA about 500% compared to a Polaroid photo
for frequency work.

Make sure you use the cable that came with the ABPA to connect
to a frequency generator and run under the input well. The
correct impedance match of this cable will increase power output
another 500%.

These are multiplicative so you get 25 times the output,
considerably more than the older way of doing this. This has
dramatic implications for transmission times and pathogen kill
rates.
_________________________________________________________________

I just ordered a ABPA. I have been asking very similair questions. I was told to lay my rife cables in the input well. I wonder why it can't be plugged into the ABPA directly, even through some sort of capacitive coupling. Do you own an ABPA? A Rife Machine? What type? What other devices do you own?
Daniel
danlcaldwell@yahoo.com

QT - Dave <qtopic+24-RViC8ekMUsf@quicktopic.com> wrote:
< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 11-21-2004 09:41 PM
A plasma tube in the vicinity of the ABPA definitely has an effect. It is similar but not exactly the same as running a wire from a frequency generator under the device.

The ABPA is picking up the EM field and transmitting it. The field has different characteristics.

The only useful difference I have discovered so far is that one of my plasma devices, a Bioeneray XL3 from Tom Harrelson, is more effective at eliminating persistent viruses like Coxsackie that anything else, i.e. with the ABPA on and the Bioeneray near the ABPA, the remote transmission of the plasma EM field is very effective.

The Bioeneray has different field characteristics than my Stenulson EM6C+ device which I use most often. The EM6C+ has a stronger magnetic field but little electrical field. The Bioeneray XL3 has a very strong electrical field that pegs a Trifield meter 3 feet from the tube. This is the distant that I have the ABPA from the tube.

More questions (my mind keeps churning!).

Is there a different effect from the ABPA when using a simple signal generator input to the ABPA via the ABPA cable
vs
using a signal generator to drive a plasma tube and having the input of the ABPA in the proximity of the plasma tube?

My reasoning is that the signal generator output is a basic EM field while the plasma tube output seems to have more (or at least different) components (longitudinal waves, scalar waves, whatever).

Any experience or thoughts on this?

The ABPA output seems to totally depend on information content of the photo. A color photo will have more information than a black and white of equal resolution. However, I suspect the difference would not be greater than other factors like using a tripod or the right hardware setup. This would have to be tested.

Jeff, thanks for the info. One further question came to mind. Does color work better than black and white?

TIA

Edited by author 11-18-2004 12:32 AM
A good 5 megapixel camera like the Sony DSC-V1 will generate a high resolution image that can be printed on regular paper and put in the photo well on the ABPA. The picture should be taken using a tripod and printed on a 1200dpi printer. This will increase the power output of the ABPA about 1000% compared to a Polaroid photo not taken with a tripod for frequency work.

Make sure you use the cable that came with the ABPA to connect to a frequency generator and run under the input well. The correct impedance match of this cable will increase power output another 500%.

These are multiplicative so you get 50 times the output, considerably more than the older way of doing this. This has dramatic implications for transmission times and pathogen kill rates.

Edited by author 11-15-2004 09:04 PM
Hello Jeff,

A couple of questions about using photos with the ABPA.

1) Does the Polaroid 600 work as well (or nearly as well) as a 5 megapixel digital camera? I hadn't realized how inexpensive the Polaroid is.

2) When using a digital camera do you print off the person's picture on your computer's printer? If so, then it would seem that the quality of the printer is very important.

thanks,
Dave