Why Rife Was Right and Hoyland Was Wrong and What to Do About It

7/27/2019 Why Rife Was Right and Hoyland Was Wrong and What to Do About It

1/4

WHY RIFE WAS RIGHT AND HOYLAND WAS WRONG AND WHAT TO

DO ABOUT IT

I recently consulted with a lecturer in Electrical Engineering about the

heterodyne concept. The heterodyning of 13 MHz and a slightly higher

frequency results in what looks like a STANDING WAVE with a sinusoidalenvelope at say 100 kHz, containing the two superimposed carriers. To my

mind this is NOT the same as a simple 100 kHz sine wave. Rather its like an AM

envelope. A test charge would not experience any 100 kHz information other

than fluctuating amplitude of the 2 carriers (unless this signal can somehow be

demodulated). This is the type of scheme that Hoyland used in the 1936-37

Beam Rays design.

It is true that we can heterodyne say two light frequencies to get real photons

in the sum and difference frequencies BUT in the case where we are trying to

design a device that induces mechanical oscillation at 100 kHz, we must have an

ALTERNATING ELECTRIC FIELD at that frequency.

The approach Rife used was different to Hoyland. Where Rife wanted to apply

an MOR of 100 kHz, he superimposed the MOR onto one RF carrier. (in some

cases a mix of two MORs was superimposed onto the RF carrier). Where the

MOR and the carrier are of equal amplitude, the resulting waveform looks like a

wriggly snake. At first the carrier oscillates with no offset. At the peak of the 100

kHz sine wave, the RF is fully positively offset, As the 100 kHz wave goes back

to zero potential, the amount of offset in the carrier decreases back to zero. As

the 100 KHz wave goes to negative potential, the RF offset also goes negative,

etc. I have coined the term offset modulation for Rifes scheme.

The effect on a test electron is that when the RF is fully positively offset, it

experiences attractive pushes toward the anode. The amplitude of the

attractive force oscillates at the RF carrier frequency BUT at full offset, the

forces are UNIDIRECTIONAL. The sum of these forces over a short time can

induce a mechanical force. When the 100 kHz waveform is at zero potential, the

RF has no offset. At that point the test charge will experience RF displacement

current, (i.e. bound electrons will have an oval orbital shape) BUT there is

effectively zero mechanical force on a very large charged macromolecule. When

the RF is fully negatively offset, the mechanical force induced will be in the

opposite direction to the positive offset phase. Thus the Rife offset modulation

scheme generates an oscillating mechanical force at the MOR frequency of 100

kHz. The induced mechanical force will exist where there is net electrical charge

in a macromolecule. If the macromolecule has a fixed anchor in the membrane,

we can model a pendulum.

Rife stated an objection to the Beam Rays design. He said that it was so different

to the original principle as to be a different concept altogether. If my physical

descriptions above are correct, the Hoyland and Rife schemes certainly are very

different !

Hoyland modified the older Rife principle based on an electrical engineering

paradigm, i.e. clever circuits that could manipulate heterodyning. However he

may have failed to appreciate the difference between classical heterodyning and


2/4

offset modulation when applied for the purposes of inducing mechanical

oscillation, as elucidated above.

Above I gave an example of the Hoyland scheme where two nearby RF carriers

were heterodyned, giving what looks like standing waves with a 100 kHz

envelope. The net amount of positive and negative force cancel each other out.While it is true that such a signal can impart energy fluctuating at 100 kHz, it

cannot induce mechanical oscillation of a charged macromolecule. However we

can manipulate this scenario by using alternating fully offset signals as follows:

For half of the 100 kHz cycle, let both the carriers be fully positively offset, and

of equal magnitude. For the next half of the 100 kHz cycle, let both carriers be

negatively offset. The result is not classically sinusoidal, but it will induce 100

kHz mechanical oscillations. To force a classical sine shape envelope for this

system, simply vary the offset value sinusoidally in phase with the heterodyne

product. To get it exactly in phase, use a demodulating circuit and use the 100

kHz output as the shaping wave for offset control, or tweak the controls for

frequency and amplitude and phase of a sine shaping wave until the CRO tracebecomes a stable sine wave. This manipulation allows a Hoyland Beam Rays

device to be converted back to a device that can induce mechanical oscillation. I

dont know if these modifications are actually practical in terms of electronics.

Feedback is welcome.

In June of 2008, an updated article by Jeff Garth described the reverse

engineering of the Hoyland Beam Rays instrument. The instrument allows one

RF carrier to fire the left electrode of a gas plasma tube, and a second variable

RF frequency carrier to fire the right electrode. I am suggesting in this article

that experimenters should consider replicating the original Rife scheme by trying

a variant of the Beam Rays circuit that substitutes one of the RF carriers for

lower frequency bands around 100khz and maybe also in the audio range. This

amended device would generate offset modulated signals. It might also be

worth considering the use of harmonic reinforcement of the MOR by mixing

MOR frequencies that are harmonically related, e.g. superimposing 924 Hz with

its 11th harmonic as demonstrated by Anthony Holland for the R/B device.

The earliest Rife designs used pre-mixed frequencies and then amplified them in

5 valve stages. Advances in electronics allowed Hoyland to use newer types of

primary oscillators, and single valve stages. It was convenient to amplify the

frequencies separately. With todays technology it should be possible to makenew innovations, e.g. the use of solid state oscillators and gating waveforms to

supply signals to final amplifying valves. Valve amps remain the best method

because the appropriate valves allow firing of the plasma tube without

impedance matching circuitry.

Two modes are possible: firing two electrodes separately or firing only one

electrode with a mix of signals. It is unknown which of these Rife used in 1934-

35, but separate firing would have been simpler.

Rife and Hoyland both used a gating scheme. Garths article describes a solid

state modification that allows square wave gating at 14 kHz. In a recent article Iproposed to use this primary gating at 10 kHz with 50 % duty cycle. I also

proposed the addition of an inner layer of gating to obtain a pulse train of five


3/4

pairs of alternating short pulses within five MOR oscillations to achieve semi-

synchronisation in the context of a sweep of frequencies. This allows the

operator to achieve resonant oscillation in the target, even if the applied

frequency is out by 5 or 10 %. I had originally intended this gating to be applied

to the Hoyland heterodyning scheme. In this article I would like to offer the

opinion that this novel pulse train scheme could also be applied to Rifes offsetmodulation scheme. Note that the phase timing of the semisynchronisation

gating would be at the peak negative and positive offset. In this mode it may be

desirable to keep the amplitude of the MOR signal slightly higher than the

carrier, so that all of the RF signal remains above the zero potential for the full

time of each half-pulse. An easier approach might be to just use 1 microsec or 2

microsec of fully offset RF, ie with no 10 kHz sine wave involved. The pulse

switching will do the same job of inducing mechanical resonance.

This scheme is designed for research purposes ie to find an unknown MOR in

cultured bacteria. I also described the use of capacitative coupling as a substitute

for the plasma tube output, and miniature coupling devices (cuvettes withinsulated plates) for microbe exposure.

It might be possible for other experimenters to try variants of gating schemes for

the gas plasma devices. Within the MOR oscillation, you could reduce down

from 100 % cycle, e.g. down to 80 % or even 50 %. The more you reduce, the

more imprecise you can be with your resonant matching. However

semisynchronisation can only work if the number of MOR oscillation cycles in

one train is limited. To limit 100 kH matching requires a slow gating layer with

an ON time of 50 microsec (= 5 oscillations). This can be acheived at 10 kHz

with 50% duty cycle, or 5 kHz with 25 % duty cycle, etc.

There is some controversy about how to calculate the difference heterodyne

frequency. Most people assume the MOR F3 = F1 minus F2. However I was

shown a more complex formula with lots of cos functions in it, suggesting in our

case that F3 = 0.5 (F1 F2). I suspect that means you get two standing nodes per

one MOR oscillation for simple superimposition.

Alan Blood

View Public Profile

Send a private message to Alan Blood

Send email to Alan Blood

Find More Posts by Alan Blood

Add Alan Blood to Your Buddy List

08-21-2008, 15:54 #2

Mike FayerNormal

Re: Why Rife Was Right And Hoyland Was Wrong

Hi Alan: Interesting.

From what I read it seems that the Hoyland Beamray devicesactually worked well. The later Thompson devices using theMOR of 21,275 for Bxdid not work as well if at all. The Crane type device using 2128also does
http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/member.php?u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=buddy&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9393&postcount=2http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9393&postcount=2http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/member.php?u=5077http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/member.php?u=5077http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9387http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9387http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/report.php?p=9387http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/reputation.php?p=9387http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=buddy&u=5714http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9393&postcount=2http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/member.php?u=5077http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/member.php?u=5714


4/4

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: PA, USA

Speciality: Scientist

Device: Plasma ball,RB

Posts: 97

not work for cancer,as stipulated by Dr. Stafford.

I currently believe that what Rife/Hoyland did with the #4instrumentwas simply impulse excite/gate the noted frequecies such as

1604Kc.We have no real evedience that it was gated other than the

Grunercircuit uses gateing. We have no real evedience of a carrierother thanstatements of how the instrument worked, such as thefrequency andits carrier. The carrier could have been RF or high voltage DC,ornone.

Rife said that the Abrams dead beat oscillator worked to killpathogens.

This is simply a low power impulse excited RF at 43MHZ with

slight variation in frequency.I have said this before, but to me Rife developed a high powervariable frequency impulse excited device which emulated theAbrams oscillator/Oscilloclast. The Gruner circuit boils down tothe samedevice,only the MOR is generated by difference, between twoRF frequencies.

If the exact MOR frequency is that important how could bothdevices work, don't know.

Documents

Why Rife Was Right and Hoyland Was Wrong and What to Do About It