Dear Marshall: What Bruce Tainio is claiming would be exciting if true. It would be like finding the holy grail. Imagine being able to look at an instrument and be able to tell whether someone is healthy or near death. Imagine being able to test whether a certain food is more healthy than another. Imagine being able to test to see which Essential Oil is better.
Bruce Tainio is claiming that the human body is radiating a signal that he is able to measure with his frequency counter. He is claiming that a body near death puts out a 25 MHz signal and a healthy body puts out 60 - 90 MHz. These frequencies are well within our known and well developed technology. The CB radio would measure about 27 MHz on the frequency counter. The FM radio tunes from 88 - 108 MHz. The TV channels 2 - 7 are between these frequencies. > I don't follow this. Frequency just means cycles per second, and can refer to > lots of things, electromagnetic radiation, sound, vibration, and of course > resonant and absorption and transmission frequencies. You are correct that frequency can refer to many things, but in this case the frequency range is specified by Bruce as being between 25 and 90 MHz. That is very specific and that would be "electromagnetic radiation" by your above definition. It would refer to a radio transmitter type of source that can be picked up by an antenna and displayed on the frequency counter. It would not be sound ( 20 Hz to 20KHz ). From a certain viewpoint it might be called vibration, but vibration can mean many things and is not a precise description unless you define what you are talking about. Vibration is usually used to describe things that can be felt or heard. Matter vibrates when above absolute zero, but that "frequency" is in the infra red spectrum that is millions of times higher than the 25 to 90 MHz frequency that we are addressing here. Atoms have a "frequency" but that is also million times higher than the heat signature and not easily measured. The new age statement that everything has a frequency is highly misleading. > resonant and absorption and transmission frequencies........ > To measure a resonance > of something is to measure the resonant frequency The term resonance, etc is not applicable here. A tuning fork or a bell will have a resonant frequency, but that cannot be measured until you strike the object and excite the object to vibrate. That is not what Bruce Tainio is claiming. >> so I am confused by your > answer. Has this explanation helped? Jim Meissner www.MeissnerResearch.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall Dudley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: CS>Re: SO>Frequency and the meaning of words. > Jim Meissner wrote: > > > Dear Marshall: > > >> but it is possible they are measuring resonances > > > > No, he is claiming to be measuring frequency. > > I don't follow this. Frequency just means cycles per second, and can refer to > lots of things, electromagnetic radiation, sound, vibration, and of course > resonant and absorption and transamission frequencies. To measure a resonance > of something is to measure the resonant frequency, so I am confused by your > answer. > > Marshall > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >
