"Jonathan B. Britten" wrote: > Hi, Richard, > > Soon SOTA will support only the Beck Pulser. They will drop the Clarke > Zapper. > > You have gotten one of the last Clarke Zappers to be sold by SOTA. > They now offer a second device for half price if you buy one. > > They sell both Beck and Clarke devices at present. Your device is a > Clarke Zapper, which is not related to Beck's protocol. It puts out > 12 volts as opposed to 31 volts. Both devices use 9 volt batteries.
Everyone I know uses the Clark Zapper in place of the Beck device when doing the beck protocol, and have had very good success with it. > > > I am glad if the Clarke Zapper works for you. > > I think the Beck Pulser (blood electrification) protocol is more > plausible, but I have no direct experience with either device. I use > a TENS device (Omron) to experiment with blood electrification. > Why do you say it is more plausible? As far as I can tell they work exactly the same way. They both do the same thing: 1. Send a fast rise time pulse of current through the body. 2. This fast rise time pulse causes the dna of pathogens to ring at their resonance, causing them to break apart. (This is like a lightning bolt causing static on a AM radio. The radio picks up across all frequencies since they are in the fourier transform of the pulse). 3. The pulse does not break apart the human dna because there is so much of it, there is insufficient power at the resonant frequency of human dna to affect it. 4. There is an electric field to cause the dna to pull apart once it is broken. This can be in the form of an average electric field in the Clark zapper, or by using a pulse width of milliseconds for the Beck Device. Without the field, the dna repairs itself with no lasting damage. Now the Beck device switches 100 times a second if I remember right and has no offset. The leading edge breaks apart the dna and the the long pulse provides the field to pull the dna apart sufficiently so it cannot recombine. The Clark device pulses 30,000 times a second. If the pulses had an average value of 0, that is if they were bipolar, then the dna would split apart, then recombine, accomplishing nothing. But the pulse is unipolar (and thus has a 4.5 volt average value), which provides the electric field to pull the dna fragments apart. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Clark Zapper Advantages, 30,000 hits a second for more shaking of the dna and more pumping of the resonance. It does not cause the blood cells to open causing the potential for poisoning with toxins in the body Disadvantages Discrete frequencies in the fourier are every 30,000 hertz, which may fall outside of a pathogen's resonance sufficiently to not couple well Beck device Advantages - Discrete frequencies are every 100 cycles, so you are always within 50 htz of a resonance for better coupling. Disadvantages - frequency is so low that there is little likelihood of resonance pumping, that is one pulse does not add to the ringing from the previous pulse. Causes blood electrophoriation (sp? not in my dictionary). So I am wondering, on what basis you you base your statement on that the Beck device is more plausible? Marshall -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
